LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, I have the Governor's consent under Standing Order No. 33 (1) (a) to proceed with this Bill.

Sir, the main purpose of this Bill is to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Municipal Ordinance and to provide for the local government of Singapore to be administered by the City Council and by District Councils which will replace the Rural Board, in accordance with the Government's White Paper on the Report of the McNeice Committee on Local Government. Sir, hon. Members will recall that the McNeice Report was presented to this Assembly on 8th February, 1956, as Sessional Paper Cmd. No. 10 of 1956. I feel sure that hon. Members will agree that much work had been put into it to provide an exhaustive examination of a complex problem and that it has been a very valuable contribution to the future reorganisation of the local government system in Singapore.

At the Assembly sitting on 4th April, 1956, my hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary stated that the Government accepted the basic principles of the Report and that a White Paper would be tabled before the June sitting of the Assembly. This White Paper, which is a statement of Government's policy with regard to the McNeice Committee's recommendations, was presented to this Assembly on 2nd June, 1956, as Sessional Paper Cmd. No. 30 of 1956. In accepting the basic principles of the McNeice Report, the Government is convinced that a more democratic framework should be set up in which greater opportunities will be afforded to a larger number of the community to take part in Local government administration, which would never have been possible under the concept of a City and Island Council, as proposed by the Rendel Constitutional Commission, to be the only local government authority with jurisdiction over the whole island of Singapore. It endorses the view, Sir, of the McNeice Committee "that the democratic opportunities offered by the existence of five elected local authorities significantly outweigh the advantages of centralisation." As can be seen in Chapter II of the Report, the McNeice Committee has adduced very strong arguments why the basic pattern of future local government should be the City Council and four District Councils. This basic pattern brings the public in different parts of the island into closer and more intimate touch with local government bodies, whereas a single local authority on an all-island-wide basis could become an impersonal body to people living in areas on the island far away from the centre of activity. As the McNeice Committee pointed out:

"There are few similarities, so far as. government is concerned, between the interests of the farmer in Lim Chu Kang and the shopkeeper in Telok Ayer or between the fisherman of Ayer Gemuruh and the clerk in Queenstown."

This new basic pattern also extends to the citizen a greater opportunity to be of service to his fellow-men. I would also like to quote the following words of the Committee:

"We are, moreover, in greater doubt than the Commission (the Rendel Commission) about the political advisability of constituting an Island-wide authority in addition to central government and investing it with wide powers, and financial resources which might well, at some future time, weigh more heavily than those of Government itself."

Sir, Government has no doubt whatever that it is politically inadvisable to have such an island-wide authority on this island.

Sir, as stated in the White Paper, Government has accepted the majority of the recommendations of the McNeice Report, in some cases with modifications and reservations. There are, however, a number of recommendations which have not been accepted, and in place of these, alternative proposals are made. From a perusal of the White Paper, hon. Members will have known which of these recommendations have been accepted by Government, with or without modifications, and which have not been accepted.

The present Bill is largely an adaptation of the existing Municipal Ordinance in accordance with the statement of Government policy contained in the White Paper. The opportunity has also been taken to make certain changes which will remove difficulties encountered in administering the law and improve certain procedures found to have been defective. Care has been taken to make only those changes of the law which are not considered likely to prove controversial.

The Explanatory Note attached to the Bill is given at some length and draws attention to the more important of the changes referred to in the preceding paragraph as well as to the major changes required by the White Paper.

I should like, however, at this stage, to draw the attention of hon. Members to some of the more important features of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill extend only to Singapore Island and to the smaller islands to the north of Singapore, as Government agrees with the views of the McNeice Committee that the responsibility for the administration of the Southern Islands should remain with the Central Government. The administration of these Southern Islands will accordingly be taken over by Government, which feels, however, that consideration should be given to any future demand arising from some or all of the Southern Islands to be amalgamated into one or other of the District Council areas.

With regard to the provisions made in the Bill for the constitution of the new local authorities, I am confident that Members will agree that the new proposals for the City Council are a far-reaching advance on the present constitution of that body, and that the constitution as proposed for the District Councils for an initial period will be best in the circumstances.

In contrast to the present City Council, Sir, which consists of an official as President, 18 elected Members and 9 nominated Councillors, the City Council will have a totally elected membership of 32 Councillors one of whom they will elect annually to the office of Mayor with the right of re-election. The intention is that one Councillor will represent one constituency, making 32 constituencies in all, and not, as at present, six electoral wards returning 18 elected Members.

The District Council will have an official Chairman, 12 elected Councillors and, for an initial period of 4 years, 3 nominated Councillors as well. It is considered that, as the District Councils will be new bodies in the rural areas, where the constitution of local government authority was limited in the past, and as the work and responsibility of these councils will be considerable, it would be appropriate for a strictly limited period to include some persons with experience in the management of local government affairs to the membership of these councils. The reasons, Sir, for the appointment of an official as Chairman during this initial period are, to quote the words again of the McNeice Committee, as follows:

"We have said that membership of a local authority is a job to be learned and this is doubly so in relation to the position of Chairman. The experience required to conduct meetings of councils and to direct the day-to-day business of a local authority is not easily acquired and we think it would be unfair and unwise to require an elected or nominated member of a rural district council to bear this responsibility in the initial period."

Sir, hon. Members will note that, in accordance with the White Paper, the present Bill has been drafted to allow the City Council to continue supplying the public utility services of water, gas and electricity on an island-wide basis for the present. The matter of the transfer of these services to a statutory corporation does not, therefore, arise at this stage.

The present Bill preserves the status quo of the local authorities with regard to planning powers and control of buildings. Until the Singapore Improvement Trust ceases to exist and a new authority set up to replace it, it will continue to be the planning authority for the island of Singapore. It has not been possible to establish a new authority and prepare legislation for this authority and for comprehensive town planning legislation at the same time as the present local government legislation. In due course, Sir, legislation will be prepared to transfer planning powers to local authorities. In the meantime, building control will continue to be exercised under building by-laws by the local authorities in their respective areas.

Likewise, although in the White Paper it was stated that the Government agreed in principle to the Committee's recommendation that an improvement rate should be levied over the whole island and paid into a fund administered by Government, in the present Bill authority is given to the City Council to continue to collect this rate in the city area only under section 22 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, as long as the Singapore Improvement Trust continues to exist and the conditions which led the Committee to make its recommendation have not yet arisen.

Again, Sir, it was stated in the White Paper that Government agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the City Council should continue to administer the registration, licensing and mechanical inspections of vehicles on behalf of all local authorities, but has not finally decided whether the Registrar of Vehicles Department should remain a City Council department or be transferred to Government. In the present Bill, however, these responsibilities still remain with the Registrar of Vehicles as an officer of the City Council.

With regard to the payment of rates by the Imperial Departments and by this Government, which the Committee recommended and the Government agreed to in principle, the present Bill, as drafted, continues to exempt them from payment of rates, since this question of payment of rates by the Imperial Departments must first be taken up and agreed with the United Kingdom Government, and the question of rating the Singapore Government's property will require more time in order to examine the full implications of this proposal. Amending legislation, Sir, can be introduced later when the matter has been settled.

As explained in the Explanatory Note, provisions are made for District Councils to be run during the interim period after their constitution on lines similar to those of the present Board, particularly with regard to finance, staffing, vesting of properties, acquisition and disposal of land and other immovable property. It is clear that for some years to come District Councils will not be self-supporting and will require substantial assistance from the Government in the way of capital expenditure, annual grants and provision of staff. It would be best, therefore, to start each council off on Rural Board lines, namely, that the budgets will be subject to a measure of government control and incorporated in the Colony estimates. The staff will be Government servants and all land vested in or acquired by the councils will be vested in or acquired by the Crown on their behalf. When these councils have been set on their feet and have become financially viable, amending legislation will be introduced to enable them to function independently like the City Council. I feel sure that this House will agree with these interim provisions.

Transitional provisions have also been included (see clause 324 of the Bill) which will allow any powers of the existing law to continue to be exercised despite the repeal of the Municipal Ordinance, and for the City Council or the Rural Board to continue to function in respect of any defined area whenever it is required by administrative exigencies. In particular, there is enabling provision for the Rural Board to continue to perform its present functions in the Rural Board area in the event of delay in the establishment of the District Councils and, if required, to administer those parts of the present city area which are to be merged into the new District Council areas.

There is also a transitional provision for the districts of Bukit Panjang and Jurong to be merged into one district for a prescribed period for the purpose of this Ordinance. This is in keeping, Sir, with the recommendation of the McNeice Committee that these two districts should, in the first instance, be amalgamated and administered by a single council and that the municipal centre should be at Bukit Panjang. These two districts are too small in population to enable them to operate separately at the present time. Jurong especially, because of its small population, will have a weak financial position at the start, but there can be no doubt, Sir, that the population of these districts will grow rapidly in the future so that they can in time be administered by separate District Councils.

The Bill also makes significant changes in the qualifications and disqualifications relating to candidates for election as Councillors. I would invite the attention of hon. Members to the notes given at some length in the Explanatory Note dealing with clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill.

The opportunity has been taken to improve the arrangements of certain parts of the present Municipal Ordinance and to omit a number of provisions which it is considered can be better dealt with by means of by-laws. At the same time, the various existing provisions relating to the making of by-laws have been replaced by clause 322 of the present Bill and the Sixth Schedule which may be varied by the Minister from time to time. Every by-law or alteration, amendment or addition thereto, cancellation of or substitution therefore will have to be published in the Gazette and shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by the Minister and notice of such confirmation has been published in the Gazette.

The boundaries of the new City and District Councils are described in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill. It has been thought desirable to provide for this detailed description in view of the substantial alteration in the present limits of the city that will result from the reorganisation of local government envisaged in the Bill, so that both hon. Members and the public will be fully aware of the changes to be made. Sir, hon. Members will recall that the McNeice Committee's boundary proposals were shown on the map attached to the Report. The Committee recommended that the city boundary should be extended to the West and withdrawn in the East, it also recommended that an Electoral Boundaries' Delimitation Committee be appointed to define exact boundaries for the local government districts and electoral divisions, and that electoral boundaries for the Legislative Assembly should be adjusted so that a common set of boundaries could serve all electoral purposes. The latter Committee was duly appointed, and in the White Paper Government stated that it accepted the recommendations which this Committee made for the boundaries of the local government areas. These boundaries were set out in a map attached to the White Paper. The White Paper map also showed where these boundaries differed from those proposed by the McNeice Committee. It was pointed out, Sir, that the boundaries as proposed by the McNeice Committee did not conform to existing Legislative Assembly electoral divisional boundaries. The Electoral Boundaries' Delimitation Committee's boundary proposals have kept as close as they possibly could to the boundary proposals of the McNeice Committee, while at the same time following the boundaries of the present Legislative Assembly electoral districts as closely as possible. Sir, Chapter IV of the McNeice Report contains the views of that Committee with regard to its boundary proposals. It will be seen that it has taken the Master Plan proposals into consideration in its deliberations. It is true that this plan has not yet been approved by Government, but it can be safely said that the general principles governing the Plan, which is the product of some years of expert study, aided by the valuable work of a number of competent study groups and working parties, have won general acceptance since its publication.

Sir, I would also like to say that, by giving a detailed description of the new local government areas in the First and Second Schedules of this Bill, both Members of the Assembly and the public will be fully aware of the changes to be made. I would like to point out that until the exact boundaries of the city and districts are first defined and approved under the Local Government Ordinance, no action can be taken under the Local Government Elections Ordinance to specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions and to subdivide the divisions into polling districts for purposes of elections. Provision has been made for subsequent alterations of local government boundaries to be subject to the procedure set out in section 362 of the Municipal Ordinance.

Sir, while I have made a somewhat lengthy speech which was unavoidable owing to the very nature of the Bill, I have tried, for the most part, to indicate to the House the principles and merits of the Bill. I have, at the same time, tried to avoid referring to matters of detail as far as possible. Matters of detail should, of course, be dealt with in the ordinary way in Committee and it is the Government's intention that after the Second Reading of this Bill, which is of such a comprehensive nature and of such importance to the people of Singapore, that it be committed to a Select Committee. I am confident, Sir, that the principles of the Bill will commend themselves to hon. Members and that they will give this Bill its Second Reading. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was disappointed when the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing enumerated the differences between the Report of the McNeice Committee which sat on it and the Bill itself, disappointed because, in listing what he termed the "minor differences", he had skated over certain important departures from those recommendations. The most astonishing departure, which he has only referred to en passant by asking us to refer to the Explanatory Note, is clause 21 - Qualifications of candidates.

Sir, we have nothing against the machinery which this Bill will set up in so far as they are in accordance with the advice of experts to replace the machinery under the Municipal Ordinance. But we take strong exception to the not disinterested "tailoring" of qualifications. Under clause 21 (b) a person is eligible to be a candidate "if he is able to speak, and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in any proceedings as a member of the local authority". Let us see the explanatory note on clause 21, which says:

"...sets out the qualifications for councillors of a local authority. The most important difference from the provisions of section 6 of the Municipal Ordinance is in paragraph (b) of this clause by which the present requirement that councillors must be able to speak, read and write the English language is omitted. Paragraph (c) provides that candidates for election to the City Council shall be resident in the City and that candidates for election to District Council shall reside in the division in which they stand for election."

In effect, this means that you can speak Hebrew, you can speak Urdu, you can speak any language in the world, provided it is "with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable you to take an active part in any proceedings as a member of the local authority".

When multi-lingualism was first mooted as a departure from the sole and exclusive use of English in the constituted organs of government, those who opposed the use of vernacular languages in Government councils used the argument that there would be utter and absolute confusion. Finally everybody agreed that only certain limited and specific languages with the widest use in this colony would be allowed. Those were the recommendations of the McNeice Committee. We all know that when people are confined to speaking only English, Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil, the chances are, as far as Mandarin is concerned, the younger generation will predominate as they are the persons educated and proficient in this important language.

How does one then cover up one's intentions? How does one overcome what is right in principle but is inexpedient because it militates against party interests? One does not want to confine it to the Mandarin-speaking, because one's supporters are 83-year old men who speak the dialects and not Mandarin! At the same time, if one starts enumerating all the Chinese dialects, it might attract unnecessary attention. Therefore, one blankets the whole by remaining silent on the languages or dialects that can be spoken. One puts it in this curious clause which is glossed over, en passant.

One could perhaps try to justify clause 21 (c) that - although this was not recommended by the McNeice Committee and is not the accepted practice in civilised countries - a candidate can only be a candidate if he resides in the area. If you get people like the young intellectuals of the P.A.P. all grouped together living in suburban areas, then let them stand for election in those suburban areas where they will be defeated. Now if young master Lee has to stand for Cairnhill where he lives, that would fix him.

This giving way to expediency and abandoning of principles is the most disheartening development of the last six months. I shall have more to say on those matters in this session of the Assembly.

On this Bill itself I would like to draw attention to certain other points. For instance, in its recommendations the McNeice Committee agreed that for the first four years the Chairmen of these District Councils should be appointed by the Governor and that subsequently they should be popularly elected. But there is nothing in clause 17, as there is in clause 16, to say that it should be only for the first term. The McNeice Committee agreed that there should be three nominated members in each council for the first four years, and that limitation is set out in clause 16 (1) :

"Provided that for the first four years from the date of the first ordinary elections held under the provisions of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1956, there shall in addition be three nominated councillors."

Clear and specific - three nominated councillors for four years and no more. This limitation for only one four-year period for the Chairman of the District Council has been quietly dropped and no reference was made to it when the Minister explained where this Bill departed from the recommendations of a Committee on which the Government had the deciding voice.

Again, in clause 4, the mechanics of varying boundaries:

"The Minister may by notification in the Gazette, alter or vary the limits of the City."

Then in a later clause, clause 14:

"The Minister may by notification in the Gazette, alter or vary the limits of any District."

Sir, if we want to avoid any gerrymandering, any alteration of boundary lines to suit whoever is the Minister and his Party, then let us have a Boundaries Commission -

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Is the hon. Member imputing improper motives to the Government and to the Minister?

Mr Speaker: The Member for Tanjong Pagar seems to be skating very near the point. I am watching it very closely.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the contrary, I think I was extremely careful not to impute -

Mr Goode rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Mr Goode: Does the hon. Member challenge the ruling of the Chair by talking on the contrary?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member was making an explanation.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is a little pathetic seeing this attempt to harass and hamstring your opponent rather than meet the substance of his attack -

The Chief Minister: I will meet you anywhere, any time.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, this sounds very much like a classroom brawl where the little students say. "Let us go outside and have it out!" I do not like to lower the dignity of this House by provoking Members on the other side into revealing their natural instincts! But I would like to point out that, although I am not imputing any dishonourable, base, vile or selfish motives to the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, I am stating, as a proposition, that in any part of the world, and more especially in this part of the world, people who assume the duties of government are somewhat tempted to use the powers with which they are temporarily vested to weight things permanently in their favour. If we want to avoid gerrymandering, the drawing of boundary lines to include kampongs where one's supporters are and to exclude kampongs where one's opponent's supporters are, then let us have a proper Boundaries' Commission. Let the mechanics of it be by the Minister notifying it in the Gazette, but let us have proper machinery to ensure that the working of parliamentary democracy, this wholesale importation of Western ideas of political organisation, is not perverted by feudalistic Eastern ideas of personal survival.

Lastly, I would like to say this on the question of disqualification. Clause 22 says, amongst other things, that a man is disqualified if he has in any part of the British Commonwealth (it does not matter if he commits a crime in Indonesia and gets six years jail for gun smuggling or some such trivial crime, but he must not break any rule in any part of the British Commonwealth) "been sentenced to death or to imprisonment by whatever name called, for a term exceeding six months and has not suffered the punishment to which he was sentenced or such other punishment as may by a competent authority have been substituted therefore or received a free pardon". This clause is common form. But I think in this part of the world we ought to say specifically that political offences like sedition, particularly these days with a Government becoming very legalistic about offences like sedition and section 3 of the Trade Disputes Ordinance, should not be a disqualification. After all, the man to whom the Chief Minister of Singapore sent a telegram of congratulation, came out from prison to become the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, my hon. Friend and Colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing spoke this morning on the principles and the merits that went into the making of this piece of legislation. I shall therefore now content myself with going briefly into the details of this Bill so that the salient points can be brought forth in this House. The final details will, of course, have to be considered in Select Committee later on.

The Bill, Sir, is divided into 13 parts and the opportunity has been taken to rearrange certain parts of the existing law, which is the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition).

The Explanatory Note outlines the principal changes part by part, and in the case of Part II, which contains the major alterations to the existing law, an explanation is given clause by clause.

I do not think, Sir, I need add anything to what has been said in the Explanatory Note in regard to Part I of this Bill.

Part II is explained clause by clause as it deals with the new constitution and organisation of the local authorities. Hon. Members will read it, I am sure, with particular interest. In addition to what has been said in the Explanatory Note, hon. Members will note that the present tenure of office of City Councillors, namely, 3 years, with one-third retirement annually, has been changed to a four-year period with half retirement every two years. The Bill also provides that appointments to certain senior City Council posts shall only be made with the concurrence of the Minister and that the holders of these posts shall not be removed without the Minister's consent. I would, however, refer hon. Members to the views of the McNeice Committee on this matter at page 44 of the Report. This Bill now makes provision to preserve the validity of acts done in his capacity as a councillor by a person subsequently found to be disqualified. Provision is also made for the payment to councillors of such remuneration, allowances or expenses as the Governor in Council may direct. Another provision prohibits councillors from being employed by the local authority whilst holding office and for twelve months afterwards.

I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to see that provision is made for the appointment by the City Council of a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor, and this will be the first occasion, when the new Council comes into being, that Singapore will have a Mayor.

Under Part III it will be noted that, in accordance with the White Paper, the minutes of the proceedings of meetings of the local authority shall be recorded in English, although it is not obligatory on the part of the councillors to speak only in English.

Clause 45 of the Bill now makes it obligatory for a local authority to appoint a Finance Committee, and clause 49 gives a local authority powers to delegate the exercise of many of its functions to committees or to employees. At present, Sir, the lack of these powers in certain cases is hampering the quick carrying out of the work of the City Council, and the present system is that every decision of the committee in the City Council has to go to a full board meeting and consequently there is delay in carrying out certain urgent work.

Under Part IV, as stated in the Explanatory Note, provision is made for any public street, or any part thereof, to be exempted from the general vesting in the local authority by order of the Minister. This is an enabling provision in accordance with the White Paper statement of policy with regard to the division of responsibility, in respect of the main road and drainage systems in the island, between the Central Government and the local authority. The Minister referred to here, hon. Members will note, is the Minister for Communications and Works.

I have no additional comments to make on Part V.

The Explanatory Note states quite clearly and at some length what the changes in Part VI dealing with finance are. I may mention, however, that two new purposes for which a local authority fund can be expended are: firstly, provision of community centres, children's social centres, creches and youth clubs, and of hostels other than those established by written law. I am sure the Member for Serangoon will welcome that provision. Secondly, payments in connection with visits by members of, or its employees on behalf of, the local authority including travelling and other expenses in any part of the world. Clause 71 lays down how the Municipal Fund accounts are to be kept. I wish to stress again that financial provision regarding District Councils is only for an interim period and amending legislation will be introduced to enable them to budget like the City Council when they become fully financially viable.

With regard to rates and taxes under Part VII, my hon. Friend and Colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has already made some remarks in his speech. I would, however, point out that the present Bill reproduces the existing law which provides for exemption from rates of all S.I.T. premises except premises used for profit, and also now provides for exemption for all premises, vested in a local authority. By clause 111 referred to in the Explanatory Note, it will be possible for the Minister to order, within a certain period, after due consideration, parts of the Rural Board area now incorporated into the city area, for instance, to be rated at less than the rate prevailing in the city, and for any part of the former city area included in the District Council area to be rated at more than the rate ceiling for the District Council. With regard to taxes, in accordance with the White Paper which states that all veterinary services should be transferred to Government, dog licensing has been omitted from the provisions of this Bill.

Further to what has already been said in the Explanatory Note regarding Part VIII which relates to streets, sewers and buildings, I might mention one or two other matters. In clause 144, in connection with the submission of a plan for a new street, a local authority is now empowered to give written directions to the person submitting such a plan, for example, on the materials and construction of a new street and the provision of foot-paths in a new street. With regard to sewers, in accordance with the White Paper, provision is made for the City Council to remain in control of, public sewerage on an island-wide basis, with appropriate charges being levied on the other local authorities for services provided. There is provision for the Minister to direct the amount of contribution in case of disagreement or dispute between the various local authorities and the City Council. In accordance also with the White Paper, provision is made for the division of responsibility for drainage in the island between the Central Government and the local authorities. Regarding buildings, most of the existing provisions are reproduced, with a few additional ones, as, for instance, under clause 171 (12) concerning the payment of a sum not exceeding ten times the prescribed fees in respect of submission of plans in certain circumstances; and clause 173 (2) with regard to action to be taken in respect of unauthorised erection of buildings on land vested in the local authority.

Regarding Part IX I have already mentioned that the City Council is given power to continue supplying water, gas and electricity on an island-wide basis. One important additional provision of note here is that under clause 203 the City Council can now sell and not merely let for hire, water, gas and electrical apparatus and appliances, including air-conditioning plants. Sir, concern has been expressed to me by importers and distributors of air-conditioning plants and other electrical appliances in respect of these powers. I would suggest that the right course for them to take is to make representations to the Select Committee when the Bill goes to the Select Committee.

A number of clauses under Part X, which relates to public health, have been altered to make them more effective. Provision is made for more effective control of markets, including private markets. The control and supervision of burial and burning grounds throughout the island are now made a local government responsibility, whereas previously in the rural areas such control was in the hands of the Central Government. Among those dangerous and offensive trades which will be subject to licensing are sawmills and those producing injurious or offensive dust or fumes.

In accordance with the White Paper, Part XI provides for the City Council to continue to operate the Fire Brigade on an island-wide basis, subject to expenditure being met proportionately by all local authorities. Here again, the decision of the Minister shall be final in the event of disagreement between the local authorities.

In Part XII, which relates to vehicles, although the Registrar of Vehicles is still responsible for registration, licensing and inspection of vehicles, the licensing of drivers of public service vehicles will no longer be carried out by his Department, since this function is being transferred to the police in keeping with the policy stated in the White Paper.

Part XIII deals with the supplementary provisions and, as stated in the Explanatory Note, is largely a reproduction of Part XVI of the Municipal Ordinance, with slight alterations in some clauses and with a few new provisions, as, for example, clause 319 which provides that certain inaccuracies in documents shall not make proceedings invalid for want of form, and clause 320 which relates to the proving of local authority records in legal proceedings.

Sir, I have briefly outlined the details contained in the Bill, and I hope that when the Bill goes to Select Committee all those who have views to express will come forward before the Select Committee.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, under Standing Order 7 (4) , move the suspension of this sitting?

Mr Speaker: The Chief Minister has anticipated what I myself was going to do. I will now suspend the sitting and take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.06 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to learn from the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that this important Bill is to be sent to a Select Committee. That there is need for it brooks no argument but as it is a Bill which affects the private citizen more intimately than perhaps any other Bill on the Statute Book, it is clearly important to have representations from the public given a careful hearing by Members of this Assembly.

I do not propose to speak this afternoon on the whole Bill. It contains 325 clauses and an exhaustive examination of it would be almost impossible and lengthy. But I would content myself with consideration of certain points to be found in Parts I to III comprising the first 55 clauses. These Parts are concerned with what I might call the constitutional side of local government and not the side affecting the ratepayer directly and yet even in these three Parts, there are points of principle which require very careful examination before we accept the Government's proposals.

We are forging a new instrument for local government which we wish to see effective for many years to come and while political Parties doubtless will hold sway in the new councils to be set up, the shaping of that instrument seems to me to be a matter above Party. With these preliminary observations, I will proceed to consider certain of the clauses in the first three Parts of the Bill.

Firstly, in clause 3, Interpretation, I will mention in passing that the terms "Chairman" " Chief Administrative Officer" and "Mayor" are not included and I think their importance to local government is such that their status and functions should be defined at this stage.

Secondly, as regards clause 5, while it is true that this clause cannot become operative until this Bill becomes law, nevertheless, I consider that the attention of the public should be drawn to the proposed changes in the limits of the city boundary by the method of advertisement intended by this clause. There are one or two proposed alterations in the city limits which are clearly controversial, namely, the exclusion of most of the suburban area of Katong and the inclusion of the rural area of Ulu Panjang. It is strange, to say the least, that only a few months after bringing Katong so much closer to the centre of the city by the opening of the great new highway and bridge, there should be contemplated its exclusion from the city area to which it has belonged for so long.

I am aware that if the residents in the proposed area of the new Katong District Council have read clause 110 (3) of this Bill, they will perhaps not object to banishment from the city, as this subsection puts the ceiling of 20 per cent on the rate of assessment leviable by District Councils as opposed to 30 per cent in the city. But I wonder what the ratepayers in, for example, Haig Road who will continue to pay 30 per cent are going to say to their ex-fellow rate-payers in, for example, Joo Chiat Road who will in future pay 20 per cent, bearing in mind that both sets of rate-payers enjoy the same municipal services of made-up roads, street lighting, sewerage, electricity, water and gas, and bearing further in mind that Haig Road is purely residential and Joo Chiat Road has considerable business interests, and that the latter has a bus service. If I were living in Haig Road, I should have some questions to ask.

Sir, there is an obvious anomaly here and in view of the fact that clause 111 allows for differential rating, it seems to me that we should give very careful consideration to establishing the principle of fixing a ceiling for the rates leviable in both the city area and the district areas at the same figure, differential rates being levied according to the number of municipal and other services enjoyed. This would seem to be more in keeping with the Government's general policy on taxation and, Sir, there seems to be no good reason why the principle of the "haves" paying more than the "have-nots" should not apply to the municipal level as well as the national level. I hope that the Minister will study this matter with the greatest care.

The next important matter of principle comes in clause 6 (2) in which it is laid down that there should be 32 Members of the City Council, all elected. Now, this is purely a Government proposal because the Committee on Local Government made no representations on the numbers of elected Members, either to the City Council or to the District Councils. Is this number sufficient? First, bearing in mind that as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must remain apart from contention and controversy and will, I think, have to remain out of most Committees in view of their positions, the effective working strength of the Council will be 30, or only 3 more than the present number excluding the City President. It is an undoubted fact that the present number of 27 is insufficient to run the City Council really competently and an increase in only 3 is patently not enough. Because of the paucity of numbers, each Standing Committee at present consists of only five or six Councillors which, to my mind, is insufficient and there have been many instances of the requisite quorum of three only being obtained with some difficulty.

These Standing Committees cover a very wide range of responsibilities and subjects. A Councillor who has, as his two Committees, for example, health and public utilities, has to acquaint himself with the problems of health prevention, anti-malarial and veterinary projects, hawkers, stand-pipes, markets, infant welfare as well as gas, electricity and water. Now I doubt whether any Councillor however competent and conscientious can master all these problems during his term of four years, and I mean no disrespect to hon. Members in this House who are City Councillors.

What then is the system in the United Kingdom? lt is simply this: of having larger Councils, larger Standing Committees, a sub-division of work of the Standing Committees through SubCommittees and greater delegated powers. The City of Worcester, where my father was a Councillor and an Alderman for over twenty years and a Mayor for three of them, has a population of only 60.000 and a Council of over fifty Members.

If the City of Singapore were to have a Council of 64 Members, not 32, what would be the advantage? It would then be possible to have Standing Committees of 12 to 15 Members as they do in the United Kingdom to which you could delegate far greater powers than is desirable in the case of the present Committees of five or six. These Standing Committees could elect SubCommittees large enough to maintain some kind of balance between the Parties and which could concentrate on a smaller number of subjects. In the United Kingdom, a Municipal Health Committee has a Sub-Committee for infant welfare, another for veterinary matters, another for markets, and so on. A Councillor therefore becomes fully acquainted with one or two aspects of municipal work on which his opinion can become authoritative instead of attempting to become a Jack of all trades under the present Singapore system.

A Public Utilities Committee of fifteen Members, for example, would be large enough to have the requisite leaven of responsibility and sufficient authoritative knowledge to be delegated wide powers of executive action without reference to the full Council. This would result in quicker decisions which after all the public is entitled to expect from the municipal service which affects their day-to-day lives and that leads me to another point in favour of a larger Council. It is the same argument at the municipal level that has been used in respect of the doubling of membership of this Assembly, namely, that there is too much work for too few people if the country is to be efficiently run. Not only does this apply to Municipal Councillors but it affects every one of us in this Chamber.

Sir, I think that all hon. Members will agree that a large percentage of the calls upon our time from our constituents - it may be 75 per cent or even as much as 90 per cent - is connected with local government problems. Their problems are those nearest to their daily lives - in their buildings, electricity or water connections, standpipes, roads, drains, assessment, and so on. By and large, the public are not deeply concerned about legislative matters except at infrequent intervals. Now we Members of the Legislature are called upon to deal with these problems which belong more properly to the sphere of the local government Councillors and it seems to me that these problems can only be fully tackled if the wards are smaller so that a City or District Councillor can really know the people whom he represents. And if this argument has force, is it wise to raise the effective number of City Councillors from 27 to only 30 - I exclude the Mayor and Deputy Mayor - when you are increasing the muncipal electorates by tens or maybe hundreds of thousands?

Sir, I believe that this whole problem - and it is a problem with obvious difficulties in having much larger Councils - must be considered with the greatest care and that is why I feel it necessary to give it an airing today before the Bill goes to Select Committee.

Before I leave the question of the composition of the City Council, I must refer to one other point which has not received the attention either of the Committee on Local Government or the Government itself. I refer to the question of Aldermen. Now, I am well aware that the idea of having Aldermen has been derided in many quarters in Singapore but I hope that the House will have the patience to let me put the case for them as objectively as I can, because I think that the arguments in favour of the Aldermen system are at least strong enough to warrant their having further consideration at this stage. Now, Sir, I am quite aware that the chief argument against having Aldermen is that it is or can be a pernicious device by which a majority Party in the Council can increase its own majority. I accept that argument as an exceedingly strong one and the crux of the whole question. But, in theory at least, the system of Aldermen has much to recommend it. The idea is to have a group of experienced elder statesmen, if I may so call them, who can provide continuity in policy and perhaps a special stability of opinion by virtue of their being non-Party men. Because they are subject to less pressures through not being elected, they can use more objective judgment.

I think, Sir, it will be agreed that there should be much less government by political Parties at the municipal level than at the national level because most municipal matters are not party matters at all. It is unfortunate though inevitable that the Party system should have crept into municipal affairs in the United Kingdom and in Singapore but, that being the case, a group of non-Party Aldermen who can keep the balance when party politics get out of hand over some quite trivial matter has considerable point. I think that the nominated Members on the City Council have in recent years shown this virtue of objective independence on numerous occasions and that elected Councillors have been grateful to them for it.

The question however is: whether it is within the wit of someone in this Assembly or outside it to devise a means whereby City Councillors can elect Aldermen to the Council by a method which eliminates party bias. That may be a tall order but I submit to this House that it is worth more than a passing consideration.

The next point that arises for consideration comes in clause 11 where we have a new proposal, namely, of the Minister controlling the appointment of the City Council's senior officer. I hope that the Minister in his reply will explain the reasons for this and not reserve it for the Select Committee, particularly as there seems to be no similar provision in respect of the District Councils. Does this mean that there are to be no District Council employees, no District Council health officers, assessors, engineers, and so on? If not, how are the District Councils to carry out their work effectively and not degenerate into advisory bodies?

In clause 16, there is laid down twelve elected Councillors for each District Council and here we come up against the same problem which I have already posed in respect of the City Council. The District Council must have for its Committees a bare minimum - finance, public works, health, assessment, staff - and twelve Members are surely inadequate for this purpose. From clause 41 (3) of the Bill, it seems evident that the Government has been aware of this difficulty by fixing eight as the quorum for Council meetings. A normal quorum is about one-third of the total members on a Council or a Committee. The Government has had to fix it at about two-thirds as anything less would, of course, put decisions of District Councils in the hands of too few. Logic alone therefore suggests that 24 would be a better number for District Council. lt is further borne out by clause 34 (4) of the Bill where the quorum for the City Council is fixed at 11 out of 32.

I now come, Sir, to clause 45 (2) which is a new subsection not to be found in the Municipal Ordinance. In referring to this, Sir, I hope that it will not be considered that I am straying into points of detail for it seems that a matter of principle may be involved. To make my point clear, I must draw the attention of the House to the entire clause. Clause 45 (1) reads:

"A local authority may appoint from among their own number such and so many committees either of a general or special nature and consisting of such number of councillors as it thinks fit for any purposes which in the opinion of the local authority would be better regulated and managed by means of such committees." Subclause (2) reads:

"A local authority shall appoint a Finance Committee consisting of such councillors as it thinks fit for regulating and controlling the finance of the authority and shall fix the term of office of the members of the Committee."

It will be noticed that the unspecified committees in subclause (1) will regulate and manage, but the Finance Committee will regulate and control. This would seem to suggest that Finance Committees are to be statutory Committees not accountable to the Councils themselves. I cannot believe, Sir, that this is what the Government intends and I would ask the Minister to explain what this new subclause means.

I come to my last point with reference to clause 50. This clause enables the Chief Administrative Officer of the City Council in times of emergency to use extraordinary executive powers without reference even to the Mayor. The Chief Administrative Officer under clause 11 (1) is nevertheless appointed by the City Council. I think therefore an important question of principle is involved here.

Sir, I have raised a number of points in respect of the first 55 clauses which I consider need examination in Select Committee. There will be many others in the remaining 270 clauses. I have put them as objectively as I can because, as I have said before, I do not consider this Bill to be one in which party politics should be involved but a problem of how to make our local government work efficiently, smoothly and economically in the best interests of the ratepayer.

One further question needs to be answered by the Minister and I hope he will answer it. What is the extra cost to the country going to be of setting up District Councils with their offices, staffs and equipment compared with the running of an island-wide Council which was the previous proposal? I think that the taxpayers and the ratepayers ought to know that.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the introduction of this Bill into this Assembly. I feel that this Bill is in keeping with the constitutional progress of Singapore. I find, Sir, that this Bill has preserved the status of Singapore as a City which got its Charter six years ago. I also see, Sir, that in this Bill, there is provision for the setting up of rural District Councils which give a wider measure of democratic self-government in rural districts. Being a member of the Rural District in Seletar, Sir, I endorse the views of the people in my constituency that this is indeed a very welcome move and they wholeheartedly support it.

I have a few comments to make on the various provisions of this Bill. The first one is that the Public Services Commission is to be consulted when appointments are made in the City Council. For a long time, Sir, the staff of the City Council have felt that this should be done and I am sure that they will welcome this new move.

The qualifications for City Councillors have been dealt with by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). Sir, this particular clause was a subject of considerable discussion in our Party and I can assure this House that, when we endorsed it, we had no ulterior motive behind this clause. We felt that if Members are elected from each Division and who are resident there, the people will be able to draw representatives from their own place - representatives whom they like, representatives whom they love. I thought that probably this would be a very good argument for more representation from rural districts.

The language qualification for councillors was also dealt with by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I think, Sir, that Government was very wise in not specifying the language required because I feel that at this early stage of rural district elections, there might be people who know various languages and who will be equally qualified to become District Councillors, and I think, Sir, this is another example whereby we could draw out people who are able to tackle the job of councillors for these posts.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Including Eskimos!

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Nair: Sir, the point about the number of City Councillors, in accordance with this Bill, was raised by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). In the city area at present, Sir, there are one million residents and for this number, I feel that 32 would be very adequate. If, according to the suggestion of the hon. Member, we are increasing the number, the Council will be larger than the Legislative Assembly itself. If there is any need for further decentralisation, I do suggest that we have some suburban councils added on to our existing City and Rural District Councils. I believe in more decentralisation rather than centralising the whole City Council machinery.

The hon. Member further suggested that the membership of committees in the City Council would also be benefited by an enlarged number of City Councillors. I think, Sir, in effect, the membership of the City Council is adequate. I do believe that a committee of 15 Members would not be able to do much work. The smaller the committee, the more efficient the work would be. If there is any slackening in the work of the councillors, it is not entirely due to the decreased number. I was a Member of the City Council for three years and I know that, to be a City Councillor and to do the work that is expected, only two or three hours a day would be required to go through all the work.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Shame!

Mr Nair: I do not think for a moment that the enlarged committees would help in any way.

It is not a shame to me, Sir.I said three hours a day on paper work. You may have a lot to do in the way of touring your area, getting complaints and trying to sort them out.

Sir, the question of Aldermen was also raised. There are advantages and disadvantages in the Aldermen system and it appears to me that even in the United Kingdom, where the Aldermen system exists, the existing trend is towards the abolition of Aldermen. There, too, democracy has been preached and the various Parties in the United Kingdom feel that the system of Aldermen in some areas should cease.

Sir, the question of boundaries for the City Council and the District Councils was also raised and my personal view is that these boundaries can be adjusted from time to time. It is no fault giving the Minister the power for the adjustment because we feel that, when the Minister decides to have a new boundary, he will automatically consult the people concerned and fix the boundary to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: All the Members on his side!

Mr Nair: I do believe, Sir, that this is not a question which the Minister will tackle on a political basis because he, in his capacity as Minister, ought to know the views of the people and anything that he does, we can all imagine, will be in the best interests of the people.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Hooray!

Mr Nair: Sir, before I conclude, I think that it is very appropriate at this juncture to pay a tribute to the Members of the City Council and the Rural Board for the work that they have done for our people. Before the elections to the City Council, there were a number of councillors who sacrificed their time, on various occasions, for the benefit of the people and I think that it is during this time that the Assembly, as a whole, should pay a tribute to all.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, many of the points raised by Members on the opposite side of the House will, of course, receive due consideration by the Select Committee but I feel that there are two points raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) which require a reply from this side of the House.

The first point I would like to speak on is what he said in regard to the residential qualification in clause 21(c) . From what he said, Sir, I think he would have us believe that this particular clause is aimed at his Party. Surely it is not a confession of the P.A.P. that they do not have suitable candidates throughout the whole of Singapore!

Again, Sir, in clause 22 (c) , he touched on the qualifications of a candidate and as usual, Sir, he distorts clause 22 (c) by trying to have us believe that anybody who is imprisoned for crimes against the Trade Disputes Act will not be entitled to become a candidate. May I, Sir, ask him to read that particular sub-clause again? It clearly states that any person who has been sentenced for any crime committed against society, so long as he has served his sentence, is free to stand as a candidate irrespective of the extent and nature of the crime for which he has paid.

Inche Abdul Hamid rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) on the question of language, I can assure this Assembly that it is still the intention of this Government to follow the policy which is laid down in the White Paper, that is to say, in the City Council, Malay, Tamil, English and Mandarin will be spoken and in the District Councils, any Chinese dialect, Malay, Tamil and English will be spoken.

With regard to the subsequent alterations to boundaries, I would like to point out that clauses 5 and 15 of the Bill follow the existing provisions inviting persons affected by such alterations to make their objections known in writing to the Minister.

With regard to the period for official Chairmen of the District Councils, here again, Sir, the Government has no intention of departing from its White Paper policy statement that these Chairmen will be appointed during an initial period of four years only.

There are one or two points raised by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede), in particular, clause 111 with regard to assessment. I can assure the Member for Tanglin that, when this matter comes up before the Select Committee, Go- vernment will do all it possibly can to meet the objections that may be placed before the Select Committee.

With regard to clause 6, this is, I think, the first time that I, as Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, have heard the statement that the present membership of the City Council is not enough for the Council to carry out its policy or its work. I am somewhat baffled that an organisation like the City Council, who have had its constitution for these so many years, have not placed before the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing the suggestion that the number of its membership is inadequate. However, Sir, here again, it is a question of policy and I am sure that when the Select Committee sits, Government will bear in mind the objections that have been raised.

The Member for Tanglin also did ask about the extra cost that may be involved in constituting all these four District Councils. I would refer the Member to page 207 of the Bill, the last paragraph of which reads:

"The changes in constitution envisaged in the Bill will not, broadly speaking, affect overall revenue and expenditure, but provision will be necessary for certain additional staff, new buildings for Rural District Councils, and the acquisition of land, which is estimated at a probable cost of $700,000 subject to some margin of error."

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.