SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS BILL

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I can open my remarks by saying how welcome it is to see you in that seat!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you!

Mr Francis Thomas: Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I do not think I shall have to take up a great deal of the time of the House with this Bill. It is simple and non-contentious, and thoroughly amiable in character. It derives from the fact that we have on the streets of Singapore some 50,000 or 60,000 deadly weapons which people take around with them and from time to time kill each other with. These are the motorcars, and whilst it is perhaps fair enough that one adult should kill another with his motorcar, it is right that children should be protected if they can.

The object of this Bill is to ensure that, where you have numbers of children moving at fixed times across the road, there should be adequate control to ensure that they are protected. As a motorist myself, I think that motorists also will derive some protection, and they will no longer have miniature Belles of St. Trinian's trotting across the road in front of their wheels and scaring their hearts into their mouths!

A third advantage to be derived from the Bill is that it will set free some of our hard-working Police Force from tedious and onerous duties which are not really part of their job, and which will enable them to devote themselves more effectively to policing this city.

I do not think I need say more about this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, except that I will certainly welcome any suggestions or improvements or amendments, which can be brought to it in the Committee stage.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not rise to criticise the Bill. This legislation is long overdue.

I notice, however, in the Objects and Reasons attached to this Bill the following sentence:

"An estimate of the probable cost of the scheme would be subject to a wide margin of error but, on the basis of present plans, it is expected to be of the order of $55,000 per year."

This is very interesting as far as it goes, but is it not an innovation to introduce this type of information in the Objects and Reasons? It certainly is not an object, nor is it a reason. I suspect it is an interloper! [Interruption.]

The Chief Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this House has a happy faculty of denoting support by keeping silent! I notice that nobody wishes to speak, and I feel that this occasion should not pass without an expression of appreciation for a Bill that has been suggested to have been long overdue, and one, which would be very helpful, I feel, to the schools.

As regards the minor criticism indicated by the hon. Mr Sutherland, it was put in because Government was of the view that perhaps hon. Members would wish to know how much this service would cost, and however worth while it may be, they may want to balance it against the cost to the people. I quite agree that from the purist's point of view, it is neither an object nor a reason, but it is information which we thought might be helpful to hon. Members in deciding whether they would wish to support the Bill.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill is a good one and the Government Benches must be congratulated for bringing this along, but I would like to have one point of information. Under this Bill, school children are now authorised to do traffic duty. That would be the duty of regular paid men employed by the Government.

I feel that people who are in the service of the Government should receive compensation if any misfortune should occur to them while performing their duty. I do not say that it is likely that school children would be mowed down by cars, but there is always this possibi- lity when doing traffic duty. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether the Minister for Communications has provided compensation for such an eventuality.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it would perhaps be quite right if I gave the hon. Mr Sutherland what the details of this $55,000 are approximately. If anybody wants to know them, he can get them any time he wants to. It is a matter of top-boots and coats and things like that.

On the point of compensation: if a patrol is knocked down by a car, compensation is not included in the Bill most certainly, but as the person would normally be a Government employee, presumably there will be adequate arrangements to meet this eventuality. This can be looked into. It does not affect the principle of the Bill.

It is not envisaged that traffic patrols should be school children, though it would, of course, be possible. The wording is "person". In fact, it is more likely that fairly elderly people who are not up to heavy work and could still earn a useful little addition to their income in their spare time, and probably people who are living anywhere near the schools, who could have an opportunity for this employment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.