CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.51 a.m.

The Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Mr Tan Theng Chiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Members are aware that the tenure of office of City Councillors, who were due to retire in July 1956, was extended to 1st December, 1956. It is again necessary to provide for the extension of the tenure of office of City Councillors beyond 1st December, 1956. This Bill seeks to extend the life of the City Council until December 1957, but if elections can be held earlier under the new Local Government Elections Bill when it is enacted, this temporary Bill will be repealed.

This Bill, as it stands, follows much the same pattern as the previous legislation extending the tenure of office of City Councillors. Hon. Members, however, have been given prior notice of the amendments which I propose to move in the Committee stage the effect of which is to omit the provision for extending the tenure of office of appointed Councillors.

Clause 2 (d) is also an additional provision and seeks to dispense with the necessity for holding elections to fill casual vacancies without prejudice to the requirement to hold elections should the number of unfilled vacancies exceed one-third of the total number of elected Councillors. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.53 a.m.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, the continued amendment to this Bill is becoming something of a farce. The City Council elections should have taken place in December 1954. These were postponed. The City and Island Council elections should have been held in about June 1955. The present Government scrapped the local government scheme recommended by the Rendel Constitution, and they are taking more than two years to put a new scheme into operation.

As no City Council elections have been held since December 1953 - or three years ago - it means that the last third of elected City Councillors will have completed their term of office of three years under this Ordinance at the end of this month, and that henceforth they will join the other two-thirds in an extended life. This therefore means that the City Council becomes a wholly nominated body from December this year, and I am therefore unable to understand the amendment which the Assistant Minister is putting forward as an afterthought to differentiate between those members of the City Council nominated by the Governor in Council and those members of the City Council who, in effect, have been nominated by this Assembly, by extending the life of the latter and not of the former. In view of the fact that there are some members of the City Council who were elected in the dim distant era of December 1951, whereas others have been nominated by the Governor in Council within the life of the present Government, there seems no justification for this differentiation. If the City Council's life is to be less than a year, what is the point of bringing in new inexperienced Councillors to work for a few months under an expiring constitution? Sir, while I agree that the life of the City Council must be prolonged in the circumstances facing us, I do disapprove of the amendment to terminate the life of those members nominated by the Council of Ministers as appearing to be unnecessary and pointless.

11.55 a.m.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Sir, I am glad to note the moderate tone of approach of the Member for Tanglin to this matter and I think the bona tides of this Government must be recognised when we remember that, because of necessity, we seek to extend the life of elected Members of the Council who were elected at a time when the Progressive Party - a fire-eating dragon - was in the ascendant; that we are, in fact, extending the life of Progressive Party Members who, it is our genuine belief, are no longer representative of the people of Singapore. The Labour Front has approached this problem with considerable thought and an anxious desire for justice for the people. We would have preferred so much more to have a clean slate, a completely clean slate, and an opportunity for the people of Singapore to have representatives who, in the circumstances of today and with the experience which they have of the conduct and the misconduct that has taken place in the City Council, they would have perhaps not chosen the same representatives and would choose others more worthy of the honour of speaking on behalf of their fellow citizens. But this we cannot do and therefore the question is what can we do?

We must have a City Council. It is essential for the life of this territory and we thought it fair that those who have actually been endorsed by the public, even though they are in a majority - the Progressive Party representatives - because the public have endorsed them, they should continue, though they have sought to make of the City Council a battleground for shady political maneuverings. But, Sir, though the technical aspect put forward by the Member for Tanglin is accurate and their continuation in office is, in fact, a nomination by this Assembly, this Assembly is not nominating them as individuals; it is not giving the seal of approval to those persons who are elected Members now in the City Council. It is saying no more than this - we are in a quandary how to continue the City Council since we cannot hold elections; therefore, since those gentlemen have been approved by members of the public in the past and since they want to continue in office without resignation, by all means continue for yet one more year, and then, pray God we will have a clean slate of it all.

But no such considerations, Sir, can apply to those who have been nominated under pressure of political influence in a totally different political atmosphere and who have, in the main, shown themselves unworthy of the position which they hold in the unpleasant, blatant manoeuverings, utterly cynical of the welfare of the people of Singapore.

I know, Sir, that the Labour Front will be charged with nepotism. We of the Labour Front, Sir, for more than 18 months have kept our hands clean. No Party that I know that has been in power in any country has kept its hands as clean as we have. Not only have we been honest in the appointments we have made; not only have we never tried to give jobs to members of the Labour Front, but our record is clean as well as our policy is clean.

I know, Sir, that in the debate that will follow, those who represent Progressive Party interests, not the people's interests, will say, "Ah, yes, the Labour Front now is in office and is going to steamroller the position and will seek to appoint its own members in order to gain control of the City Council." Sir, we know our sincerity of purpose and we know that we will be laying ourselves open to this unscrupulous charge by refusing the extension of life of the nominated Members. But the people are crying out against the machinations of the City Council Members of today. There must be some fresh blood, some honest people who will not try and take advantage of their position in the City Council for horrible political selfish motives. It is not with pleasure, Sir, and it is due to no Machiavellian desire to dominate the City Council that the Labour Front has taken the decision in association with its colleagues of the Alliance to say, "No, an end to these nominated Members. Let us have some who will be truly representative, responsible people representing interests -"

Mr John Ede: On a point of clarification, Sir. May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is expressing the views of the Government?

Mr Marshall: I am expressing the views of the Labour Front. If I may continue, Sir? I say it is in no spirit of seeking to steamroller a measure for party political motives but with a genuine desire to help the people of Singapore that we are approaching this problem, and we say to this House: the people of Singapore have had a bellyful of the present nominated and some of the elected Members of the City Council. They will not tolerate even a further year's extension. There has been enough damage done. I say to this House that it is entirely in the spirit of service for the people that the Labour Front now lays itself open for the first time to a charge of nepotism. We have taken criticism before and with our sincerity of purpose and knowledge of our own integrity we will take criticism again. We know it might well be flung, but we know our honesty of purpose and are prepared to carry it through. I say, Sir, it is essential for the welfare of this country and the administration of its municipal services that there should be an end, an immediate end, to the present nominated Members.

Mr John Ede rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr John Ede: Point of explanation, Sir. Arising out of what the hon. Member has just said, he made the statement that I was charging the Labour Front with nepotism. I made no such statement in my speech.

12.04 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House. The matter has been amply clarified by my friend the Member for Cairnhill. I only just wish to say this, Sir - that we too on our side are not happy at this extension of the life of the present City Council, but it is a necessary evil arising out of the constitutional changes that have been set in force as a result of the Rendel Constitution.

The Member for Tanglin raised one point, and that was why it was necessary to get inexperienced Councillors in place of the present experienced nominated Councillors. Sir, it is not possible to hold elections and replace those Councillors who were elected, but we can surely bring in new blood which is very necessary in this City Council, which is now like a stagnant pool of dirty water, and try to freshen it up a bit through appointing new nominated members; and that, I think, Sir, is why the life of only the elected Members is going to be lengthened.

12.05 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, frankly, as a City Councillor myself, I had no intention of speaking on this subject, but the question of elected or nominated Councillors has cropped up and I feel that I should explain my stand. As a City Councillor who has served for five years, I certainly feel unhappy at this extension. It is time that the City Council should have a change because the members on the Council have served their term of not only five years but up to six years even without fresh elections being held. This being a democratic country, I feel that fresh elections should come immediately, but the fact is this: the machinery of government election is such that we are compelled to serve a year longer if this House adopts this Bill. But if this House or the public call upon me to serve as a City Councillor for one more year, I feel it is my duty to do so. I am not reluctant to serve anybody.

12.07 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak at length on this subject, but after hearing what the Member for Cairnhill said, I felt that I cannot help but stand up and reply to what he said. It gives me a real sense of unhappiness, Sir, to see a responsible Member standing up in this Assembly and speaking against a very responsible institution like the City Council. I am not defending anybody, but I have this to say, Sir. The City Councillors are not here to give the Member for Cairnhill a direct reply, and it would, I think, be better if the hon. Member would deem it fit to publish his remarks in the Press under his own name so that they can answer him direct and not for him to hide in this Assembly -

Mr Marshall: I do not hide in this Assembly, Sir. I object to the Member's remark, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Marshall: Yes, Sir. The suggestion is that I am hiding in this Assembly. That is an attempt to limit my right to freedom of speech. If I err here, Sir, this Assembly can always correct me by a committee of enquiry or otherwise.

Mr Speaker: It is, of course, a difficult point of order. Hon. Members, when they speak about members of another place, should be very careful of what they say because they are, in fact, protected by privilege. In this particular case, I think the hon. Member merely indicated that there is a privilege which does protect Members of this House.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Thank you, Sir. I certainly think there is a privilege protecting this House. Previous to this, Sir, whenever an accusation is thrown by Members of the Opposition, they are asked to give facts and figures. They are asked to substantiate their cases. I would very much like such accusations to be substantiated, and substantiated in the newspapers and not just in this House, Sir.

We have heard that Members on the Government Benches are honest, very worthy, and they have shown their clean hands. I do not doubt for a moment that they are clean and good and worthy, but I think the more important thing is that we must not judge ourselves. The judgment must be left to the people. In the same way, Sir, the City Councillors have done what they think is in the best interests of the people of Singapore. It is not for Members of the Assembly to judge their conduct. It is up to the people of Singapore to pass judgment on them, and I say that if this House is really keen that the people of Singapore should pass judgment on the City Councillors, then let there be fresh elections, and fresh elections at the earliest possible moment. I am for it. If the Government will scrap this Bill and have elections next month, I will support their move. The only thing is that they cannot, and they cannot do it, not because anybody is preventing them from doing it, but because they have delayed matters themselves. Do not tell this House that you are unhappy to allow this state of affairs to go on. You want fresh elections. You want a clean slate. You have Councillors who are not worthy of being in the City Council and who are still sticking there now. The powers are in the Government's hands. It is up to them to do it. The Government have not done it. The fault lies with the Government.

Indeed, Sir, when another hon. Member stated that the City Council is just like a stagnant pool of dirty water, I sometimes feel that I must agree with him, because it includes the hon. Member himself.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: No, it does not.

Mr Marshall: Wake up, wake up!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am certain, Sir, that it does because the period referred to covers the tenure of office -

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: No.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I will say this - fresh elections are; due. In fact, they are overdue. We want the people to cast their verdict. We want City Councillors who really represent the people, and I will support any Bill which will make the holding of elections as early as possible.

12.13 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed very unhappy about the whole affair. I have reluctantly to support this Bill. I am, however, happy that the Member for Serangoon and the Member for Cairnhill and many other hon. Members agree that it is high time for us to have a glimpse into this "dirty water". Sir, I agree with the sentiments of the Member for Serangoon that it is only the people of Singapore who should pass judgment on the efficiency and integrity of the City Council. As far as I am concerned, judging by the complaints that I have received from the general public, it is, I think, high time for us to clean up the City Council.

Let us take a look at one City Council problem - the hawkers' problem. What have our City Fathers done to settle this problem? My memory is rather weak, Sir, but I think I can remember one City Councillor proposing that hawkers should have to pay income tax! There is also another Councillor who said, long ago, that hawkers are capitalists! These two examples alone, I believe, will illustrate how many of those sitting on the City Council really understand the problems of the people of Singapore.

Although I support the abolition of these nominated City Councillors, I wonder whether it is Government's intention to nominate new members - "new blood" is the expression used - who may turn out to be "yes" men-one hon. Member referred to this move as "political manoeuvering". I wish the Government will bear in mind, when they nominate new Councillors, not to have any more "yes" men but true civic leaders.

12.15 p.m.

Mr Tan Theng Chiang rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Assistant Minister, in reply?

Mr Tan Theng Chiang: Yes, Sir. As hon. Members are aware, there have been no City Council elections since December 1953, and the life of the present City Council has been extended since that year by similar Bills as the present one. The Local Government Bill, 1956, and the Local Government Elections Bill, 1956, Sir, are now in the Select Committee stage. It is considered that elected Councillors could continue to hold office as it is preferable that new City Council elections should be held under the provisions of the new Local Government Elections Ordinance. In any case, the previous City Council Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill dispensed with the necessity of revising the electoral register, and so they are out of date.

With regard, however, to the appointed Councillors, some of whom have been holding office as far back as 1951 and all of whom are due to retire on 1st December, 1956, the reason why the present Bill seeks to end their tenure of office while elected members continue for another year, is to enable fresh nominations to be submitted for consideration. Members will appreciate that there is a distinction between elected and appointed Councillors, and this measure will relieve appointed members of their responsibilities after many years of valuable service and also allow some fresh blood to be introduced into the Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.