PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT COMMISSION

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission should be appointed to examine the Public Passenger Transport system of Singapore and to advise on its development.

The intention of this Government is to nationalise passenger transport, and I think there is general agreement in this House that that should be done. Indeed, more than agreement, there is impatience in some quarters that that should be done as a matter of urgency. Now, I am moving for a Commission to study the matter before we go too fast into it, and I am aware that I shall be accused of going too slow and that we ought to go faster and instantly sign a notice to the Traction Company, saying that we are going to take them over. Perhaps, to indicate my respect for Chinese culture, amongst other things, I might here quote Confucius, "Do not try to do things in a hurry. Do not be intent on small gains. What is done quickly is not done thoroughly. When small gains are regarded, great things remain unaccomplished."

Now, since there has been expressed elsewhere a sense of urgency and hurry in this matter, I feel that I ought to justify the time which will necessarily be taken up by having a Transport Commission to examine this matter, and I think the first thing that hours of gloom fulfilled". In the days I had better deal with is the meaning of the word "nationalisation", or rather the meaning to which this Government would wish to attach to that word. There are numerous meanings which you can attach to "nationalisation", not all of them ones which I would wish to support. It is quite clear from the way some people talk that they do not appreciate the difficulties involved in nationalisation. They envisage nothing more than a simple transaction by which the State purchases an article and then says, "I have now nationalised it." If that was what you are doing with a motor-car, it would, of course, be no more than a simple transaction. If the State wants to buy a motor-car, they buy it and it is then national property.

When you are nationalising industry, it is a very different matter. You are not dealing merely with rolling-stock or buildings or stores. You are dealing, much more importantly, with human beings. It is not the mere matter of a transfer of control of the industry from private capitalist bureaucracy to public state bureaucracy. Now, this is where you do want to be careful if you are a capitalist, because capitalists very often tend to talk pure Communism. It is, in fact, the Communist view that that simple transfer of ownership is all that is necessary at the first stage. They do regard it simply as a straight development from private capitalism to State capitalism - I shall come to that in due course - but I do want to make it clear that there is a real difference between nationalisation, as we envisage it, and nationalisation, as capitalist-minded people often envisage it.

A friend of mine was saying to me recently, about two days ago, that he could see only a hair's breadth of difference between social democracy and Communism. Now, if he had said there was only a hair's breadth of difference between capitalism and Communism, I should have been very much inclined to agree with him, because both capitalism and Communism seek to have a small powerful group, or gang, which dominates the economy and controls the State. That is the traditional background of both of them. They are sisters under the skin. Social democracy is a matter of distributing freedom and responsibility throughout the social system as far as you can, and does envisage not the maximum control by the smallest group of the elite that you can get together, but the maximum distribution that you can achieve and the continually developing distribution of freedom and responsibility, so that you can, in the end, arrive at your fully free, fully harmonious society. The Social Democrat must reject the Marxist idea of a vast lumpen proletariat and small cadres of the elite who organise it into appropriate demonstrations of support and, if necessary, bludgeon the lumpen proletariat into the policies that they want carried out. So that in this matter of taking over the Traction Company - and I am sure that there are people who, in spite of what I am saying, will want to go in for a State capitalist type of transfer - I think we ought to examine the experience of other countries in regard to State capitalism. And we had better go back, I think, to 1929 where Russia's First Five-Year Plan says that the workers' present-day needs are repudiated in the name of a monumental historical purpose.

It is in Russia that the techniques of State capitalism have been developed and it is, of course, in China today, where the Chinese People's Government is seeking to follow in that line. In the 1949 Common Programme of the People's Government, you will find Article 31 which says that "the economy based on co-operation of State capital and private capital is of a State capitalist nature. Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of State capitalism." And, of course Li Wei-han, a veteran Communist leader in China, said the same thing again in 1953 - "State capitalism is the first step in the socialist transformation of private industry and private commerce."

The Communist view is that when you have completed the process of State capitalism, and taken over the whole economy under the direct control of the State bureaucracy, you then achieve the lower phase of Communism and you will pass on automatically, they hope, into the higher phase of Communism, You can put it more simply, if you like, by saying that their view is that you make the State machine all-powerful and, by doing so, you destroy it. This is not a view that I can accept at all. It is armchair theorising which bears no relation to the findings of modern research. The whole error and evil of capitalist thinking - whether it is private capitalist or State capitalist - is that it values the machine too high and the human being too low. It is too excited about technology and about the possible advances in the use of technology, and it ignores the rights and the needs of the human beings who are involved in technological change.

As a result of this sociological ignorance, when you make a transfer from private ownership - as with the Singapore Traction Company - to State ownership, if you make it in this simple State capitalist type of transfer, you are liable to run into very serious difficulties in your labour relations. The State, as it becomes the owner, inherits all the antagonisms which have been built up under private capitalism. The class relations of private capitalism have produced certain attitudes in the workers - attitudes of suspicion, attitudes of enmity, attitudes of fear - and when, by a stroke of the pen and signing of a cheque, you take over this private capitalist enterprise into public ownership, you are liable to carry with your purchase all those ill-feelings which can be so disastrous.

Now, the Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair), in our debate on the Governor's Address, suggested that the essential test of socialism was whether we were prepared to hurry blindly into State capitalism for this matter of transport. I hope I am interpreting him correctly - he will have an opportunity of interpreting his own words later on if he wants to - but he stressed that the true test was whether we got on immediately with taking over of the Singapore Traction Company, and if we did not do so, he proposed to put up a motion that we should do so.

Now, the true test of socialism is not whether you are prepared to jump into a thing without looking at it thoroughly. There are two tests. I think, which meet the Member for Seletar's point. The first test of socialism is that you have a determination to secure a planned economy; and the second test is a determination that the plan should meet the needs of the people and should distribute freedom and responsibility as widely as possible.

Well, I presume that there will still be speeches in favour of State capitalism, and I think I had better continue to outline some of its defects by practical examples. I have already told this House that, under the Russian theory of State capitalism, the present-day needs of the workers were, and to a considerable extent are, repudiated in the name of a monumental historical purpose. In theory, the workers accept and endorse this repudiation of their present-day needs. In fact, of course, very severe coercion is needed to compel the workers to accept the low standard of living and poverty in which they are compelled to live, and I will give you a few examples of some of the decrees which, from time to time, have been used. In 1929, there was a Russian State decree imposing a minimum of three years' imprisonment and the maximum of death by shooting for people who damaged transport installations. I am sure that some of the more excitable authoritarians of Singapore would have welcomed the existence of such a decree for dealing with the people who damaged the Hock Lee buses. In fact, there were people who were anxious to have the bullet take the place of persuasion, and I can only say to the authoritarian-minded person that a good Social Democrat does not wish to fly into the powers of coercion. Those powers must exist. You may always come across the man who is quite unamenable to anything except a sock on the jaw, and, if so, you have to give him a sock on the jaw. But they are not normally necessary and they should be kept in the background as far as they possibly can; and we look forward, of course, to a society some day in which those powers will not be used and will not be necessary.

Mr John Ede: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order.

Mr John Ede: I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, to ask whether this schoolmaster's lecture is relevant to this motion -

The Chief Minister: Objection!

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Ede, you must first withdraw the expression 'schoolmaster'.

Mr John Ede: I withdraw.

Mr Speaker: I confess that I am wondering whether what the Minister was saying is, in fact, relevant to the motion. Perhaps he could carry on for a bit, then I will stop him if he is not relevant.

Mr Francis Thomas: I expected that somebody would rise to object to this exposition. I expected he would appear from the capitalist party! [Interruption.] I expected that the capitalist party would fall into this trap! If I may look a little further ahead, I have provided for myself to say that I expected that there were Members present in the House who were not familiar with this sort of approach to industrial relations and who were not accustomed even to listen to expositions of theory. But I have sought to justify my exposition of theory by indicating the nature of the take-over which ought to take place in your nationalising an industry and by seeking to indicate the defects of the automatic take-over of State capitalism, as compared to the co-operative type of take-over of the Social Democrat; and, subject to your stopping me, Mr Speaker, I will continue with my exposition of these facts, until you indicate that I have exhausted your capacity for objections.

A 1940 decree - I am only quoting these instances to indicate that when you take over industry under State capitalist methods, you do automatically inherit a great deal of labour difficulties, and I think that that is obviously a point which must be considered if you are taking over an industry - a 1940 decree in Russia: two to four months' imprisonment for going out for a smoke, or for going to the lavatory without the foreman's permission; corrective labour and 25 per cent cut in pay for coming twenty minutes late to work. Now, that sort of thing does indicate a tremendously bad state of labour relations if you have to have penalties of that nature in order to control your workers and keep them at their jobs. Well, it is a horrible state of labour relations and they ought not to exist.

On the collective farms Mr Mgeladze reported in the Georgian Soviet Republic that nearly 25 per cent of the workers were not completing their proper number of labour days. And in the Chinese People's Republic, the Peking People's Daily lists some of the means of conflict employed against the State capitalist system by workers who do not dare have recourse to open sabotage. There again, of course, the workers are compelled to obey by corrective labour.

However, I will now pass on to the practical problem before us. The problem is to get a take-over of industry in which you will not have a head-on collision between the workers and the employer who, in this case, will be the Government. When you had the recent Hock Lee trade dispute, it was possible for Members of the Government to intervene and mediate. It would not be so easy for them to do so if the Government was, in fact, the employer. This is not a matter of small importance but a matter of very great importance indeed, one which should exercise the minds of the House. The problem of these industrial relations will occur anywhere. It has occurred in the nationalised industries in the United Kingdom, and is occurring today in the Singapore Harbour Board. The achievement of good industrial relations is basic and vital but it is not easy. Incentive schemes, revisions of pay, working conditions, joint consultation, do not in themselves provide good industrial relations, nor, of course, do the capitalist and State capitalist techniques of coercion, repression, corrective labour, im- prisonment and shooting; it goes much deeper than that. So I hope I have made it clear that I reject State capitalism as the objective in taking over of the Traction Company, and I hope, without prejudging what the experts will advise, that we may look towards what Dr. Ramanohar Lohia, the Indian Socialist, has called 'immediacy'. I am happy to see that the -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir, is the motion -

"That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission should be appointed to examine the Public Passenger Transport system of Singapore and to advise on its development"

• or is it a motion on a lecture on socialism, capitalism, State management, industrial relations, Communist Russia, or the People's Republic of China? Which is it?

Mr Speaker: The point has been raised, Mr Lee.

Mr Francis Thomas: The point has been raised, but unfortunately the Member for Tanjong Pagar was out of the room! The point I am making, if I may go back to the satisfaction of the hon. Member, is that I am afraid that there may be Members here who will wish to jump into what they will call 'nationalisation' without sufficient thought and without proper planning, and I am trying to argue that that would be a most dangerous thing to do and that a Commission is necessary to advise us before we go too fast into the matter of taking over transport.

However, I will pass on, if I may, to a point which was made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in the debate on the Governor's Address, when he was dealing with this question of nationalised industry; and I may say that, far apart as their political views are, the Member for Tanglin made a point of rising to say that he fully agreed and endorsed the matter which the Member for Tanjong Pagar had put forward. The Member for Tanjong Pagar directed our attention primarily to the profits which might be made - the potential profits which might be made-out of the transport system if it was taken over by Government. He pointed out that nationalised transport everywhere else in the world - so he said - made profits and we could make big profits here too. I was rather surprised at this because it seemed to me to show much less than his usual clear thinking and careful study of the matter under consideration. I should like to say most definitely that the aim is not to establish a monopoly to exploit the workers and to exploit the public. This is by no means our intention, and I hope that you will take note of it and, if you have ever at any time thought that it was, that you will duly repent. The aim is to end exploitation and to produce an efficient service to the public, and I very clearly said so when I was replying to the Address. If we can end exploitation and produce an efficient service, then the public and the whole economy will benefit, and that is the benefit which you seek from nationalisation. It is perfectly true, probably, and I expect Members will agree, that there is no reason, as far as I can see at present, why publicly-owned transport in Singapore should not be, in fact, a sound, economic proposition. It should be able to pay for itself. It should be able to accumulate capital for its own development and expansion and extension and improvement, and it may even be possible for a Transport Authority without exploitation to make a contribution to general revenue. But the revenue derived by Government from it is not the first consideration; it is very far from being so.

Now I want to give my most emphatic assurance again that there is no intention to exploit the Government's dominance of the transport situation and there is no intention of repudiating the present-day needs of the workers for a monumental historical purpose. So much for the Government attitude.

I would point out that it is not enough for the Government to have the correct attitude. The correct attitude must permeate the whole nationalised industry, and that is the point why you need a Commission, because these matters of labour relations are very, very badly understood in Singapore. There would not be half the strife that there is if there were good labour relations on a proper scientific basis. A lot of ignorant people and excitable people involve themselves on the managerial side and on the workers' side, and muddle the situation up in a quite unnecessary way. I am not saying that everything is well with the workers or with management; the industries are not necessarily perfectly run. But I do say that the methods of joint consultation, methods of industrial democracy, which ought to exist, are by no means fully developed and until they have been developed, you will not get satisfactory labour relations; and I therefore hope that we shall be able to get from this Commission some guidance and leadership on the matter of how the labour relations problem should be envisaged in dealing with the nationalisation of passenger transport. It involves matters of training, selection, promotion, joint consultation, all kinds of organisational matters which are highly technical and which I will not weary this House by attempting to expound. If anybody asks me to, I will be very happy to say something about them.

Now there is in the United Kingdom the London Passenger Transport Board. It is one of the largest industries in that country and employs some hundred thousand persons. It has been under national ownership for nearly a generation, and it has an excellent record both for technical efficiency in providing transport services, and for efficiency and happiness and harmony in its labour relations. We are hoping to get, as our expert, somebody who has a thorough knowledge of the working of the London Passenger Transport Board, and of other transport organisations, who will be able to bring to our problems here the expert knowledge derived from long experience elsewhere. I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement about that shortly.

Now I will pass on to a matter I will deal with much more briefly, because it is almost purely a technical matter. I have in my office a very nice map showing the present transport system of Singapore Island - the passenger transport system on the roads. I thought of bringing it into this Chamber and displaying it, but I thought it would only cause alarm and confusion. If any Member would like to see it sometime, either call at my office or I will bring it across to this House. All you can say about it is that it is not easy to understand how it arose or why it should exist. In fact, there has been a long outcry against the present system of passenger transport in this country by the public and by the workers, and there is a massive problem before us to bring order out of this state of confusion. This is a technical matter in which we must not seek to prejudge the advice which the Commission will give; it is a matter which should be considered by an impartial expert and not be bedevilled by the various interests that do operate in Singapore.

I would like to say this, however, about the transport services - that in the rural areas, there does seem to me a very real need for an expansion of transport services, and I am sure that many Members in this House will agree with me. If you extend the map that I have - it does not cover the whole island - it shows the core of the problem, but, of course, as you extend outwards, you get a thin line leading off to Johore and a thin line leading off to Changi, and so on, and then great masses of the country have, in fact, no transport services at all. They have not even got roads. All they have got are tracks, and pretty bad tracks at that, and I hope that this Commission will be able to take account of that problem, and that we shall be able to do something for the rural areas as part of the general problem of getting the public transport system of this country both into a rationalised state and into a nationalised state.

Finally, I must, I suppose, deal briefly with the financial aspects of the takeover. I shall move with the greatest caution in the jungle of case law which is applicable to such matters and which confronts you, because, as soon as you pick up one word of the thing, you find that it has a long string of interpretations behind it which goes back to sometime in the previous century or, possibly, to Magna Carta. I think I had better perhaps read to hon. Members Section 29, because the newspapers do not seem to have read it, and possibly hon. Members are not familiar with precisely what this matter of the take-over of the Singapore Traction Company is. This is Section 29 of the Singapore Traction Ordinance:

"The Commissioners may within six months after the fifth day of June, 1955 or within six months after the expiration of any subsequent period of seven years or within three months after the making of any Order by the Governor in Council under either of the two immediately preceding sections by notice in writing to the Company require the Company to sell and thereupon the Company shall sell to the Commissioners (that is the City Council now) the whole Undertaking, land, buildings, generating stations, substations, car sheds, works, materials, stores, rolling-stock and plant of the Company as a going concern. The total price failing agreement shall be fixed by arbitration, and in arriving at such total price the Arbitrator shall have regard to the fair market value of the Undertaking, as a going concern, but without any allowance being made for compulsory purchase."

Hon. and learned Members of the House may wish to put their minds to work on what interpretation could be put on that Section when you are trying to fix a price for the take-over of the Singapore Traction Company, or when you are taking over. Or, if you cannot take it over by an agreed price, what interpretation an arbitrator would put if he was trying to decide what the price should be? The phrases "the whole Undertaking" and "as a going concern" are not as simple phrases as they may appear, and I am sure that the lawyers will find plenty of employment in deciding what they mean.

I think I might also, in regard to the financial aspects, quote from a Press cutting from the Stock Exchange Gazette. This has the rather rural heading of "Magpie's Gossip". It is not at all rural in its contents.

"Rather more than a year ago, I was able to pass on the news that the Singapore City Council had decided to adopt the Report of a Committee which recommended the purchase of the Singapore Traction Company undertaking. On the basis of this Report, the shares looked a most attractive proposition at the prevailing price of around 26 shillings, and the quotation, in fact, soon improved to well over 30 shillings. Legitimate anticipations engendered by the favourable attitude of the Council in the matter of nationalisation of the transport company were, however, knocked on the head."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Progressives were in then!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Francis Thomas: Perhaps I shall, Sir, read the end of this article:

"At their present price of 23 shillings and 3 pence the shares provide a generous gross yield of over eleven per cent. I have previously estimated the real value of the assets as equivalent to at least 40 shillings, and one may reasonably assume that the figure has been enhanced during the past twelve months. The take-over prospect must now be viewed with circumspection."

"Magpie's Gossip" will no doubt be receiving cuttings of reports of this debate.

"I am not at all sure that this aspect of the position should be completely set aside. The will to transfer the Singapore transport services to the basis of a public utility is obviously there, and usually where there is a will, there is a way. Furthermore, it may well be that last month's Singapore elections, which have established the Labour Front as the strongest Party, will have an important bearing on future developments. At all events, the Labour Party is strongly in favour of nationalisation of utilities, including transport."

So much for "Magpie's Gossip". I do not know anything about it at all myself. I do not deal on the London Stock Exchange. I do not know who "Magpie" is, and I do not necessarily endorse what he says. That is what the Stock Exchange Gazette has to say about the profitability of ownership of shares in the Singapore Traction Company.

There is one other point that I think I might let hon. Members know about, if I can find it in my jumble of papers. It is about the Singapore Traction Company Accounts for 1954. I will pass over most of them and turn to the fixed assets which are recorded at the head of the column: "Fixed Assets - Traction Ordinance and Goodwill, �228,144". I leave it to hon. Members to form their own opinions about that. I merely lay it before you as one aspect of the problem which exists, but that is the Singapore Traction Company's estimate of the value of its Ordinance and its goodwill. I make no further comment.

I have indicated, at rather great length perhaps, that there is a need for expert advice and consideration before we hurry too fast into this matter of nationalisation. We do not call in a doctor and then decide what we are going to tell him to prescribe for us. I hope that Members will make many comments and have many ideas to contribute to this matter of public ownership of the transport system. The object of this motion is to provide Members with an opportunity for a debate, and you have the opportunity. I hope you will take the fullest advantage of it. Speaking for myself, I shall most certainly welcome all contributions that Members have in the way of ideas, or suggestions, or expert knowledge, and I hope that they will be forthcoming in large quantity.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): I thank the Minister for Communications and Works for his very lengthy lecture on social democracy, capitalism and what not, but I must confess that I have learnt very little from it, particularly when he tried to convince me that democratic socialism is much further apart from Communism than capitalism, and that the difference between Communism and capitalism is by a hair's breadth.

Now, Sir, there is urgency in this matter, and that has been definitely stated in His Excellency's Address when he says, "The unsatisfactory state of public transport calls for early action, and to this end the Government contemplates the setting up of a Transport Authority which will include in its functions the allocation of routes and the fixing of fares." It is well-known that Government, consisting of the Labour Front and its associate coalition Parties, has committed itself to nationalise the tran- sport system. So why wait and cause all the uncertainty of this unsatisfactory state of public transport that is going on? We all know that no public company can run efficiently if it has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it, a cloud of acquisition in a very, very short time. This cloud has been hanging over the Singapore Traction Company for many years, as a result of which I am quite certain as much money as possible has been paid out in dividends or in other ways instead of being ploughed back into the Company. That is one of the reasons why I think the buses here are now by no means a great credit to our City. We do not see the latest types of buses which are being run in London by the Road Transport Board.

What we want Government to do is to acquire the Singapore Traction Company, and you can take all the time you like to straighten out how to take over from the Company, and to go to arbitration for the price they ask for. I admit I have not been able to study the Ordinance particularly well, and I would have liked an opportunity to study Section 29 and speak after the Adjournment; but, to my mind, all these things can be worked out. There is no such thing as no strikes in a Government-owned transport system. When the Labour Government in Great Britain was in power, there were strikes also, and strikes will have to be faced by the present Government if it takes over the Singapore Traction Company. It has got to be worked out, either now or later on, and why should you have all this uncertainty of the public having to suffer a bad transport system which we have in Singapore?

Instead of Government proceeding to acquire this Company, it has now just asked for permission to examine the transport system and advise on its development. It appears to me that this is an attempt to build a "red-tape" for the Hon. the Chief Minister to practise, using the pair of scissors given to him by his electors. The urgency in this case is that if we do not exercise the right under Section 29 to purchase the Singapore Traction Company, we may have to wait for seven years before the opportunity arises again, and then you will still have the same prolongation of the uncertainty of acquisition.

The Progressive Party, on the other hand, knows its mind and has filed a motion in the City Council asking it to exercise its rights under the Ordinance. That is our complaint today: that the Labour Government, instead of governing the country, is spending its time trying to form committees and commissions. Apart from the Powers and Privileges Bill, there are only three matters of substance in today's agenda - in two, Government is asking for committees to be formed, and in the third for a commission. We want Government to govern us and carry out its duties. Do not be afraid to do things. Acquire first, and then iron everything out later.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very unhappy when I have to agree with any of the remarks made by some Members on my side of the House because they often agree for very different reasons but I am pleased to say today that the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) has given a reason which I think is fairly sound and fairly reasonable. The Labour Front should make up its mind what it is going to do about the Singapore Traction Company. It came out with clear and concise statements on its election platform. If it was thought necessary that we should do research on social democracy, industrial relations, the United States or the Socialist Republic of Russia, all the rest of it, that should have been in the election platform. The long and short of it is this - let us have a Commission because we really do not know what to do about it. Let us therefore take the ipse dixit of someone whom we are going to import from the London Passenger Transport Board and "I will tell you who it is on some other appropriate occasion when I am in an awful situation and then I will bring this rabbit out of the top hat and say, 'I have got the people.' If I have not got the answers I have the people who have the answers."

I thought that the Minister for Works was a confirmed Socialist. After what I understand was a lengthy recitation on many other topics besides transport, of which happily I was only able to hear the tail end, I am quite confused now as to where he intends going. Is he going to take the S.T.C. buses and settle "Magpie's" doubts or is he not? Is he deterred from taking over the S.T.C. because he cannot understand Section 29? What is the difficulty? Is it the price fixing? If it is, well the price fixing can always be settled as a separate matter. That has nothing to do with the principle whether or not the Singapore Traction Company should cease to be a private monopoly, and become either a State monopoly or a State corporation. The latter is a completely different problem and when Members on this side of the House also say that it should be so, then I think the Labour Front should have confidence in going boldly forward, quite certain that there will be no sniping at its flanks. What I am really astounded at is that the Member for Paya Lebar had really given us, quite unintentionally I am sure, the evils of capitalism. When a company is faced with a situation which it knew must come sooner or later when it first started, when it must face dissolution or nationalisation, it deliberately sends out capital from the country, and runs buses which in his opinion (and I am glad to hear that he has good taste in buses) are a disgrace. Therefore this disgraceful capitalist should be allowed to leave decently. He should have all his doubts resolved now. Let us take them over and let us pay them the compensation for it.

I am quite sure that "Magpie", whoever he is, cannot be altogether unaware when he made his estimate of the worth of buying shares in a company which is going to be taken over, cannot be altogether unaware that the then Colonial Government cum its Progressive Party aides were favourably disposed to the susceptibilities of employers who have to look for further employment in some other part of the world. I do not understand the change in his estimation at the tail end of "Magpie". I should have thought that one of the reasons why the Member for Paya Lebar is anxious that we should resolve the doubts of those who own the Singapore Traction Company is that it is quite likely that if the matter persists long enough the situation may well reach that point where, after an intensive course of lectures on socialism, capitalism, Communism and the differences between them all, that Transport Company will find that its balance sheet is no longer the test of the worth of the Company. The stocks and shares in the Stock Exchange may take very rapid turns long before the take-over. I think we should not be unduly constrained by the thought that if we miss this opportunity we shall not have it again for seven years. Laws are made to be unmade and to be remade. The Hon. the Attorney General has passed one this morning with the greatest of ease. I think we should not have the slightest difficulty in amending Section 29. Let it never be forgotten that this House cannot bind itself. No government can. Certainly I do not believe that any government should bind itself on the question of public passenger transport.

There are in fact two very different problems, one - public passenger transport as depicted in this beautiful map with red lines and blue lines growing thinner and thinner as they depart away from the City. Two, the problem of the Singapore Traction Company. One is a long-term problem. The other is an immediate one. In my opinion a Commission is completely irrelevant in so far as it is to help the Government make up its mind on the Singapore Traction Company. No one on this side of the House would deny the Government the assistance of a Commission to investigate and to explore the question of public ownership and public transport. Where the Singapore Traction Company is concerned, that is a different matter. We, on this side of the House, hope there will be a clear and categorical statement of policy.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate seems to have degenerated into a question of whether we are to purchase a certain commercial concern, which is very much concerned with being bought out at the moment because, as far as I can discover, its shares stand at a low price and because by the valuation which it places based on the interpretation of the section in question, the shareholders will get about four times the money which they can now get in the open market. I think it can be easily realised why there is this anxiety that we should buy the Singapore Traction Company shares. We have the City Council, Sir, coming into it now. They are going to buy the Singapore Traction Company with peanuts, I suppose. I do not quite know how they expect to get the money. Only this Assembly can give them the money, and this Government is not going to give the City Council the money to purchase the Singapore Traction Company. Let that be clear. The Singapore Traction Company is not going to be taken over at this juncture. We regret we are not distributing Hari Raya bonuses to the shareholders in London or in Singapore.

We are accused of not running the Government, but of merely appointing commissions. We do not need commissions to help us make up our minds. We need commissions in order to assist us to put into operation the ideas which we have in mind. We do not know all the answers, and we are not ashamed to confess it. We have our policies and they are clear, but we do need assistance in putting them in force. I see no necessity for taking over the Traction Company now. We will take it over in due course, but we will take it over as part of a whole, not piecemeal, to please any individual shareholder.

Mr Francis Thomas rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Thomas, in reply?

Mr Francis Thomas: I do not feel that I need say very much, Mr Speaker, Sir, on what the Member for Paya Lebar said about the Sword of Damocles, and not the sword of democracy, hanging over the Singapore Traction Company. He said it could not run satisfactorily. Of course, the Committee that sat on the Traction Company sat for three years holding the Sword of Damocles over their heads. The Traction Company does not itself hold the view on which the Member for Paya Lebar feels so tenderly.

"I am unable to say what the policy of the Government may be in regard to public passenger transport. The policy we have adopted throughout is to plan ahead without reference to any possible take-over." That is the Chairman's firm asseveration. He is not worried about the take-over. They are planning ahead on the understanding that the take over may or may not come about. They quite recognise that they do not know what the policy might be; they do not mind about it apparently in the least, and they are quite happy to make 12 per cent dividend. If it is a matter of whether they are ploughing their capital back you can argue about that if you want to. They are ordering 40 Guy Arab single deck bus chassis with Gardner engines, and pre-selector gear-boxes; and a further 18 if they want them. So they are putting a certain amount more into action and, of course, that all increases the price of the take-over if you do take-over.

I cannot agree with the argument that we should acquire first and iron everything out afterwards. I have spent a long time in trying to explain why it was a bad thing to do. I am afraid the Member for Paya Lebar admitted that he had learnt very little from what I had said, and I will repeat the old crack about "I can give you arguments but I cannot give you brains to understand them." There is no urgency to make up our minds right now as, though the City Council is rushing into a motion, we have right up to the 5th December to do so. If you want to take it up under Section 29 of the Ordinance, there is no particular hurry to take it up by tomorrow or the next day. There is no reason why you should not have the Commission to give you advice in three months' time and you will still have plenty of time to write a letter if you want to and arrange for the take-over. It is not such a difficult matter as all that to write a letter to the Traction Company if you want to; and I cannot think there is anything else much to reply to.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar seems, on the whole, to agree with me. He seemed to start by disagreeing and to finish up by agreeing, I thought; but I did not quite follow his argument, except that he wanted to indicate that we had not made up our minds, and I hope that he now realises that we have.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission should be appointed to examine the Public Passenger Transport system of Singapore and to advise on its development.

Sitting suspended at 12.34 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.