CITY COUNCILLORS INDEMNITY AND VALIDATING BILL

The Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to indemnify Jumabhoy Mohamed Jumabhoy, Mak Pak Shee, Mohamed Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid, Anthony Rebairo Lazarous and Lee Choon Eng from any penal consequences which they have incurred by acting as City Councillors while holding the office of Assistant Minister and Member of the Legislative Assembly or either of them: to remove any disqualification for acting as a City Councillor by reason of their having held those offices or either of them: and to provide that any person shall be deemed not to have been disqualified for acting as a Municipal Commissioner or City Councillor by reason only of the fact that he was a Member of the former Legislative Council of the Colony".

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Butterfield: Now, Sir. Sir, I have to lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor stating that it is necessary for this Bill to be proceeded with throughout all its stages until it has been read the Third time.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for Members?

Mr Butterfield: Yes, Sir.

Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed, Mr Attorney-General.

10.42 a.m.

Mr Butterfield: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, I should like, first of all, to express my regret to the Assembly that it has not been possible to give hon. Members anything more than short notice of the contents of the Bill. I hope, however, Sir, that the arrangements which have been made to give them as much notice as possible have afforded them sufficient time in which to study the proposed legislation.

Sir, this Bill is unusual in the sense that it relates particularly to the position on the City Council of the five Members of this Assembly who are referred to in the Bill by name. It relates to those Members particularly, Sir, because within recent weeks doubts about their qualification to act as City Councillors have arisen. These doubts have been considered and, as a result of the advice which has been given on the question, the Government takes the view that it is most desirable that the position of the hon. Members in question on the City Council should be put beyond doubt at the earliest opportunity. This Bill. Sir, has accordingly been introduced to put the matter beyond doubt so far as the past is concerned.

Sir, the doubts about the position on the City Council of the hon. Members in question arise out of that provision of the Municipal Ordinance which provides that the seat of a City Councillor shall become vacant if he becomes a holder of an office of emolument under the Crown. Hon. Members will, I think, be aware that three of the five Members in question have been appointed to be Assistant Ministers while on the City Council and there seems to be little doubt that when they were so appointed they became holders of offices of emolument under the Crown. So far as the remaining two are concerned, Sir, it is considered that their position on the City Council is doubtful. In this connection, Sir, the provisions of the Singapore Colony Order in Council are relevant because they expressly provide that, for the purposes of that Order - I would emphasise those words "for the purposes of that Order" - a person is not considered to hold office of emolument under the Crown by reason only that he is in receipt of a salary or other emoluments in respect of his tenure, amongst others, of the office of Member of the Legislative Assembly. The resulting implication, of course, is that for other purposes "Member of the Legislative Assembly" may come within the category of persons who hold office of emolument under the Crown.

I must now, I think, refer briefly to the consequences which follow, or which may follow, where a person has acted as a City Councillor whilst disqualified, because it is those consequences which make this Bill in the view of the Government necessary. These consequences, Sir, are two-fold. The first consequence, Sir, is that proceedings may be instituted against such a person in the High Court, and if they are successfully instituted, the Court has power, amongst other things, to order him to pay a penalty of up to $500 a day in respect of each occasion on which he acted whilst disqualified. The second consequence, Sir, is that the proceedings of the City Council in which a disqualified representative has taken part may be open to challenge. Accordingly, Sir, the purpose of this Bill, and I think it is clear from its title, is to remove the possibility of proceedings of the kind which I have just described being taken in the High Court, and also to remove the possibility of the validity of the proceedings of the City Council on which the hon. Members have taken part being challenged.

I think, Sir, that before concluding I should also refer to the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill which it has been thought wise to include. This clause, Sir, completes the matter by covering the position of City Councillors who are Municipal Commissioners and who were also Members of the former Legislative Council.

I hope, Sir, that Members on the opposite side of the House will agree with the view of the Government that, in the circumstances which I have outlined, it is very desirable that the position so far as the past is concerned should be put beyond doubt, and accordingly give their support to this motion.

So far as the future is concerned, the Government's proposals are contained in the Bill which comes next in the Order Paper, and it is, I think, unnecessary for me to say anything more on that aspect of the matter at this stage. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

10.48 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have now got used to Government giving short notice for important motions or Bills. We have already passed that stage, and whether the Bill which is now before the House was given to us two weeks ago or even two days ago or even right now, Sir, it makes no difference. We are now quite used to the Government tactic. When the present Government took over office sometime in 1955, there was talk of a City Council re-election. It was stressed that that institution should be changed and they wanted to change it very quickly. We were foolish enough to rise to that bait, thinking that that would be so, but after a long time we are still waiting for the Government to take action to hold early election to the City Council.

We were also then informed that the life of the City Council would be short, and that therefore there was no necessity of asking Assistant Ministers then to resign from the City Council. We were informed that the life of the City Council would only last for a few months. It is not a few months; it is now two years! We are still waiting for the elections.

In any democratic country I think all laws must operate equally for individuals as well as institutions. We must be fair to everybody. Here is a case where somebody has blundered, somebody has shown grave inefficiency. We may say that they have overlooked this, but this is a very important and serious matter. We make the laws here, and we go against them. I think the Attorney-General's Department is responsible for this, and perhaps the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing too. If an individual should go against the law, I do not think the Court will say, "Well, you have overlooked that, but we will let you off very lightly." I do not think if an individual who made such an error, and came to this Assembly to say that he overlooked it, the Assembly would say, "Well, you will be excused." No, Sir, it must say, "The law must work impartially. You must be punished for your mistake, whether you have made it knowingly or unknowingly." But, of course, we are now talking about a set of people whom we would say are privileged. They sit in this Assembly. They are the members of the ruling Party, and this Assembly is therefore asked to pass legislation in order to protect them! I think anybody who is sick must take his medicine, if he wants to get well. If anybody makes a mistake knowingly or unknowingly, he must pay the penalty. If it is $500 a day, let it be so.

However, there are other aspects to consider. In all probability they have taken part in making a lot of decisions, and if they are punished now, the whole machinery of local government will be jeopardised, all because of Government's mistake, and the people will suffer. But there is one decent thing that the Assistant Ministers could do, and that is to resign straightaway from the City Council and stop making further mistakes.

We have pointed out to Government that a person cannot be expected to do two jobs at the same time and do them well. The Assistant Ministers are being paid handsomely for doing the job of an Assistant Minister in addition to being a City Councillor. So one job must suffer. We have informed them that if they are of the opinion that their work in the City Council is not all-absorbing, then that institution becomes an unimportant one. If they think that, being Assistant Ministers, they need not devote all their time to that office, then they are wasting public money because they are being overpaid for their jobs. In fact, Sir, I consider this to be a very bad blunder on the part of the Government to make such an error.

10.55 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, every now and then, since this Government took office, a sordid scandal comes to light, and of all the scandals, this is the most sordid of them all! It is one brought to light in circumstances of which I think the Member for Serangoon may not be fully aware.

I remember reading in the papers - and I think no one has contradicted the reports yet-that the President of the City Council, Mr Rea, stated that if these men whose acts we are now asked to validate had not wanted to question the propriety of the City Council giving a cinema licence to one Mr Loke Wan Tho, a spirited gentleman whom we will all remember as the television applicant, then he would not have questioned their right to sit in the City Council. But since these unwise men, who have their hands in two pockets - one in the City Council, and the other in the Assembly (I am told it is $200 and $500 respectively) - did question the cinema licence he would question their right to be there. So we have the unholy spectacle of the Attorney-General coming before this Assembly to put the law right for them.

Sir, if there is one humorous note in this Bill, it is this attempt to blur the lines between the Assistant Ministers and the ordinary Members of this Assembly. In his explanatory note, the Attorney-General said it would appear that a person who is an Assistant Minister is the holder of an office of emolument under the Crown. I am sure he has sound legal authority for that. But he goes on to say that a person who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly may also be the holder of such an office. What office? Presumably an office of emolument under the Crown. I would be grateful if we could know his authority for that statement. I have never considered myself as the holder of an office of emolument under the Crown. I have never thought that I am in the same category as the Hon. the Chief Minister and his colleagues, including the permanent civil servants who sit with us. But now we are told that such melodious names as Anthony Rebairo Lazarous and Lee Choon Eng are in the same category as Jumabhoy Mohamed Jumabhoy and Mak Pak Shee!

We do not want to go into the niceties of all this. This Bill will go through, if for nothing else because, as the Member for Serangoon has pointed out, if they had to pay the penalty of $500 a day or thereabouts, they would all become bankrupt and would be disqualified from sitting in this Assembly-- except perhaps the Minister for Commerce and Industry who sports a Humber Hawk! But let them take note of this: the people of Singapore are not so politically illiterate as not to know when a person is holding office and profiting. They are not so stupid as not to be able to distinguish between those who have assumed public office to serve the people, and those who have assumed public office to serve themselves while they serve the people. We will say no more at this stage. The Government can do what it likes.

We are against this Bill on principle. On principle we say it is a scandal that an Assistant Minister of a Government should sit on all kinds of petty tribunals-on City Council committees that are responsible for giving bus routes and hawking licences and all the other machinery of local government which, so I am told, the people of Singapore constantly find frustrating and oppressive.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, if we pass this Bill today I will be led to believe the Chinese idioms that "money can move mountains" and also that "money can engage the devil to work for you". I think the issue behind this Bill is on account of money.

Sir, there has been one such issue in the City Council which has caused a nominated City Councillor to resign and has been the subject of many heated debates. The decision arrived at on that issue has been set aside, reinstated, set aside again and reinstated again. We now have a similar issue facing the supreme law-making body today, the Legislative Assembly.

Sir, I think all people are aware of and share the opinion with me when I endorsed one famous sentence delivered by the Minister for Commerce and Industry at a previous Assembly sitting when he described the present City Council as "a stagnant pool of dirty water". Sir, the introduction of this Bill makes me more convinced that the dirty water is actually more dirty. I wish the Government would show more faith in the intelligence of the people and withdraw this most deplorable Bill.

11.03 a.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker. Sir, personal quarrels over a small theatre in Katong, which in no way concern the welfare of the people of Singapore as a whole, lead to the introduction into this House of the City Councillors Indemnity and Validating Bill. After wasting so much time and making so much noise in the City Council Chamber, the City Councillors concerned have the impertinence to introduce in-

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that "the City Councillors concerned" mean the hon. Members of this Assembly. The word "impertinence" used of them is out of order.

Mr William Tan: Sir, they have the effrontery to introduce into this House this Bill and request our approval of it. Personally I think the valuable time which has been spent debating this Bill can be better utilised for far more important matters relating to the interests of the people of the country.

Sir, I am at a loss to understand why the status of the hon. Members concerned in this House as City Councillors was not raised before. Everyone knows that a person cannot serve two masters. We have a case here where a person can serve three masters - one, as a paid servant of the Crown; second, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly; and, third, as a City Councillor. What a mess?

11.06 a.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, of all the Bills brought before this House, the most difficult to justify is this Bill which seeks to validate the actions which have been taken by Members of the City Council or the Legislative Assembly, and more so when these actions have been going on for such a long time. I am not objecting, Sir, to this course of relieving all these City Councillors and Assistant Ministers of the consequences of their acts in the past. But I do say, Sir, that we in this Assembly should not now be asked to clean up this stagnant pool which has been described as "very dirty" by the Member for Changi, and that we should not be asked to act as a purification plant.

Sir, in view of the remarks already made on this side of the House, I would be grateful if the mover of the next item on the Order Paper would inform me whether the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare would still persist in sitting on the City Council.

11.08 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the Member for Serangoon, who left the House a little while ago, appears to be getting better and better in putting across ideas in a form which is incorrect. I am afraid of incurring your wrath in using the right word for it, Sir, but perhaps it is due to his proximity to the Member for Tanjong Pagar who, incidentally, called him "my colleague" just now. That was a surprise.

The delay in elections to the City Council, Sir, is not the fault of this Government. The Local Government Bill is a very important piece of legislation and requires careful consideration. We do not want to put up a Bill in a haphazard form which might require a lot of amendments and might be found to be unworkable later on. Those Members on the opposite side of the House, Sir, who are Members of the Select Committee on the Local Government Bill, know the difficulties that the Select Committee face in deciding on matters in the Bill.

Sir, the City Councillors Indemnity and Validating Bill which is before this House today is not exclusively for the Members on the Government side. There are two Members of the Opposition involved. Sir, it is not a monopoly of the three Government Members who are involved, including myself! It has not been admitted, Sir, that the five Members of this Assembly who are also City Councillors have indeed committed a penal offence. It is only a doubt that has been raised and this Bill intends to settle the matter beyond doubt, so that the work of the City Council may be carried on.

Sir, as has been stated by the Member for Tiong Bahru and by other Members of the Opposition, this matter first came to light at a meeting of the City Council on the 21st December when a motion before it had to be withdrawn because the position of the Councillor moving that motion was, according to the President of the City Council, in doubt. Therefore, if this Bill is not proceeded with throughout all its stages today, it would mean that that doubt would still remain and the City Council would not be able to carry on its work.

Sir, I do sport a Humber Hawk but it looks a miserable creature beside the Studebaker owned by the Member for Tanjong Pagar! In fact, only this morning I had occasion to mention to him that he owns a capitalist car and he said, "Why not?"!

11.11 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon in his speech made some remarks about the delay in holding elections to the City Council and he said that this was inefficiency and that it was due either to the Attorney-General's Department or my Ministry. If the Member for Serangoon will recollect the Governor's Address delivered at the first sitting of the previous session of this Assembly, it was stated therein that the then Government was going to introduce legislation immediately to have a fully elected Island and City Council. Only after taking office, Sir, did we have the opportunity of going through a ready-made Bill for elections to the City Council prepared by the then Progressive Party and only then did we realise that it was impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Rendel Constitution which were embodied in that Bill. We therefore thought it wiser to appoint a Committee on Local Government and to await its Report. When the Report came out, we eventually decided to adopt the recommendations of the Committee on Local Government. So, soon after that, we drew up legislation and, as you are well aware, Sir, this legislation is now before a Select Committee of the Assembly. Therefore, Sir, I think it is unwise on the part of the Member for Serangoon to accuse either the Attorney-General's Department or my Ministry of any delay in holding elections to the City Council.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: A rash promise!

Inche Abdul Hamid: Quite so, Sir, it was somewhat rash but then one must also remember that in April 1955 we all were very young in politics and I should say the Members on the Opposition Benches were also in the same category.

One other point which was raised by the Member for Serangoon - that it is impossible for a man to serve two masters: in the ease of an Assistant Minister, he has to serve not only his Ministry but also the City Council. Sir, the same situation also arises in the case of the Member for Serangoon. Not only is he an Assemblyman, but he is also a school-teacher, and I wonder who suffer most, the school-boys or this Assembly!

11.14 a.m.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): Sir, the conduct of the President of the City Council has been called in question. I should like to endeavour to explain as well as I can his position in this matter. I understand it was this. Sir, the validity of the seats in the City Council of those Councillors who are either Assistant Ministers or Members of this Assembly had been brought into question. The question had not been resolved. Before the last ordinary meeting of the City Council, notices had been given of, I think it was, two motions which were sponsored by members whose eligibility for membership was in doubt. The President had reasons to believe that if those motions were moved, he would be asked, as President of the City Council, to give a ruling whether the motions were in order because they had been moved by persons who were not entitled to be Members of the City Council. Having obtained such legal advice as he could, he was then in a position of having, in conscience, to reply to that question, that the advice he had was that those Members were not properly Members and therefore the motions were out of order. Now, if he had to do that, it would immediately have brought into doubt the rest of the proceedings of the City Council in which these Councillors were taking part. He knew that the Government and the Minister were achieving a solution of this doubt and that if legislation was required, it would be brought forward, as it has been today. In order, therefore, not to frustrate the business of the City Council, he took, the course of suggesting that these two motions which would raise the doubt should be postponed until a later meeting of the Council when the doubt would not arise.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Mr Speaker. Sir. Surely whether or not these two Members moved the motion, the doubt existed?

Mr Goode: Yes, certainly, Sir, the doubt existed but it was not necessary for a ruling to be made.

11.16 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): As an interested party, Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt that I should not take part in the debate on this Bill, but it is very surprising that the Chief Secretary in this Assembly could protect the action of the President of the City Council in such a manner. I do agree that the President had been in doubt, and if so, all decisions made by me in the Council would not have been valid. Why then did he say that if the motion was withdrawn, the question of my seat in the Council would not have arisen?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Shame! Down with him!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: If I were not allowed to second or move a motion, how could I then be allowed at that meeting to take a decision or take part in all the deliberations? I cannot understand this. It is really not surprising that, as a colonial officer, he is trying to protect another colonial officer. But before a vote is taken, Sir, I would like it to be recorded that I am not taking part in any discussion or voting. What I am doing now is just to reply to the Chief Secretary. I am actually not taking part in the debate on this Bill. I felt it to be my duty to reply to him and not let him just protect another colonial officer. But whatever it is, Sir, I still maintain that I am not drawing any emolument from the Crown. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have probably misunderstood the relevant section in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. That section merely states that an hon. Member cannot take part in discussion on matters of this nature unless he first declares his direct pecuniary interest. Therefore discussion is completely in order if the hon. Member first declares his interest, if there is in fact a direct pecuniary interest, which is doubtful in this particular case.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, whether there is a direct pecuniary interest or not, I will leave it to you to decide and I will abide by your ruling; but even then, if I am allowed to take part in discussions, I will -

Mr Speaker: Order. I merely informed the hon. Member that he is perfectly in order when he speaks.

Mr Butterfield rose -

Mr Speaker: Is this in reply, Mr Attorney-General?

Mr Butterfield: In reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to deal with one or two points which were made by various Members of this Assembly.

First of all, Sir, I should like to say that I was gratified to hear from the Member for Paya Lebar that he does not object to the principle of the Bill, because, as I think he in effect says, he fully understands that its purpose is to put right the past, to remove the possibility of proceedings being taken against these Members, and also to validate their acts in order that there should be no possibility in the future of any proceedings of the City Council being challenged on the grounds that some persons taking part have been disqualified.

For the rest, Sir, I think there has probably been some tendency to overlook the purpose of this Bill and to discuss other matters which are not immediately relevant, although they may arise, the immediate purpose being, of course, only to put right what has occurred in the past. I would, however, like to add this, Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member for Serangoon. I think on two occasions certainly it was suggested that this legislation was designed to prevent proceedings being taken against persons because they had committed some sort of crime. I would like to make it clear now that there is no question of that at all. The provisions of section 8A of the Municipal Ordinance merely provide, in circumstances where it is thought that a person sat as a City Councillor whilst he was disqualified, for proceedings in the High Court for a declaration, that his office is vacant, and empowers the High Court to require him to pay a forfeiture on account of his conduct. So there is no question now of saying, by this Bill, that what was a crime shall not be regarded as a crime.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar stressed, I think, one particular point. He said that in the explanatory note the lines between the position of an Assistant Minister and a Member of the Legislative Assembly have become blurred. I think he is probably right when he says that so far as the explanatory note is concerned, but I think I did make it clear when I was moving the Second Reading - and I think at that stage the hon. Member was not present - that there was a distinction so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, that whereas the position of an Assistant Minister appears to be clear, that of Members of the Assembly appears to be doubtful, and I gave the reasons when I was moving the Second Reading. I am sorry if the hon. Member was not here at the time. I did try to explain the matter and I think it would be tiresome to the House if they were to listen to me doing it again.

I do not propose to follow at all the remarks made by the Member for Queenstown, but I think the Chief Secretary did cover the ground on those points and I accordingly beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.