Committee

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.44 a.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2-

The Chairman: Under paragraph (a) , the Minister is asking for the deletion of the words "Governor after consultation with the Council of Ministers" and the substitution therefor of the words "by the Minister with the prior approval of the Governor in Council". If he will look at the original section 4, he will find that subsection (2) reads:

"The Board shall be composed of a Chairman to be appointed by the Governor after consultation with the Council of Ministers...".

The Minister is seeking to delete merely the words "Governor after consultation with the Council of Ministers" and to insert words including "by the" whereby we will have two sets of the words "by the".

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Yes.

10.45 a.m.

The Chairman: Would the Minister like to move an amendment to leave out the words "by the" in line 14 of the Bill?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Yes. I move,

At page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "by the".

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: I understood the Member for Tanglin wished to move an amendment. Is that amendment to a clause on page 1?

Mr John Ede: On page 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

At page 2, lines 22 and 23, to leave out all the words after the word "re-appointment'.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member put that down in writing?

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: Yes, the amendment is in order.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, all I wish to say is that subsections (8) and (9) seem to cover quite adequately what is required. I have already made the point that I do think it is dangerous to include these provisos of revocation of appointments at any time. There is adequate coverage, as the Member for Cairnhill has pointed out, under subsection (8) .

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not think that the point which the Member for Tanglin makes carries very great weight unless he seeks to apply it overall to all existing legislation or statutory boards. I am not familiar with the terms of all the relevant Ordinances but in the Telephone Board Ordinance, you will find a similar provision which he should also seek to remove if he wishes to press this point.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Minister for Communications said just now. In the Seamen's Registry Board Bill, which is coming up very shortly - today or tomorrow - to this House, clause 3 (6) reads:

"The Chairman and members of the Board shall hold office for a period of two years, unless earlier removed by the Minister, but shall be eligible for re-appointment."

Now, it is a common practice in most legislation that you have this discretionary power given to the Minister and there are reasons - reasons which are broader than what was stated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education: not only a member may not attend meetings and thereby fail to discharge his duties, but there are other reasons, it may be found that a person who is appointed is not a suitable person for that body or that there may be reasons for which the Minister thinks that he should be removed: there may be allegations against him which the Minister may think are right that he is favouring one side or showing partiality or something like that. I think that this discretionary power should be given to the Minister. I do not think any Minister in his senses would ever take advantage of such a clause to manoeuvre persons who are his friends or are favourable towards him into such bodies and it has certainly not been the case with this Government in the past.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I am astonished at the poverty of the reasons - I would prefer to say "excuses" if I may be permitted - given to support this effort to give dictatorial powers to the executive. First, we are told that it is in other Ordinances, although I have pointed out that in the parent Ordinance produced by colonial officials passed in 1954 there is no such dictatorial power to dismiss given. It is suggested that it is in a Bill before the House - the Seamen's Registry Board Bill. That does not give it validity, Sir. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Minister for Education gave a reason which sounded very good - that some members do not attend meetings - and consequently the Minister should have a right to dismiss them because they do not do their work, completely forgetting that in clause 2 (8) of his own Bill, he says:

"Any member absenting himself from four consecutive meetings of the Board without having obtained leave of absence from the Chairman shall be considered as having resigned from the Board."

Consequently, there is absolutely no validity in that reason given by the Minister and it is unfortunate that the Minister in charge of the Bill, who is supposed to know its provisions and to understand what it is sought to do, should be so inadequate in his presentation and put before the House a reason that does not exist on the face of the Bill which he himself moves.

Sir, the Minister for Commerce and Industry says, "The executive powers of the Government are never abused." All power corrupts, Sir, and the more absolute the power, the more absolute the corruption. I intend tomorrow to bring to the attention of this House the abuse of the powers of banishment for which the executive has been responsible. I intend, God willing, at the next sitting of this Assembly to draw the attention of this House to the abuse of the discretion given under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - abuse by the Ministry of the Chief Secretary.

Sir, Government being formed of human beings who are weak will always abuse latitude unnecessarily given. There has not been given one single reason why these provisos give an absolute power to the Minister to dismiss persons whom he himself appoints, and why he should have these powers except as suggested by the Member for Tanglin that if a member does not toe the line, then out he goes. I for one, Sir, entirely support the amendment of the Member for Tanglin and strenuously object to these dictatorial powers - if I may use the word so popular in this House, the "undemocratic" powers.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague.

I believe that when a person is appointed to an office, he should be there to voice his opinion irrespective of what the man who appoints should think about him. The Minister has put forward the idea that the appointee is a human being and therefore is subject to human frailties but I suggest that the Minister is also as human. All Ministers are human beings and are as human and if one human being can commit one error, I suggest, Sir, that all human beings including the Minister who makes the appointments can also have such human faults.

I would like, Sir, to point out that Assemblymen elected by the people to this Assembly are here to stay for their term of office and they may not be removed even if the voters feel that they are not performing their jobs. It is up to the Assemblymen to resign and contest a by-election but that is within their power. Here, Sir, is an appointment to a less important job. All the same, it is important and I think the man appointed should be given facilities to express his decided opinion and not the opinion of the people who appointed him. When I look at this Bill and the Education Bill, I come across this power again given to the Minister. This power is unnecessary. This power is undemocratic and this power should be removed for the better running of all institutions. Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill gave us a burning, heartfelt, emotional speech on this intolerable injustice, this dictatorial abuse of power which he foresaw will inevitably follow from this proviso which has, of course, been in many Ordinances for a very long time.

Mr Marshall: What Ordinance?

Mr Francis Thomas: I mentioned the Telephone Board Ordinance, Mr Chairman. The hon. Member will no doubt find the other ones by a simple search. I would point out to him that he has not so far drawn attention to any case in which existing powers have been abused. It has not occurred in the past and it is a presumption that it may not occur in the future.

I would just point out also that his earlier speech and the very competent speech of the Member for Tanglin do indicate that abuse of powers will not be easy, because we have these burning and heartfelt emotions which rise up to make clear to the public whatever the individual Member feels is wrong; and if this power which is desirable in itself were to be abused, the remedy is simple. The Member can, of course, draw attention to it and seek to have the matter dealt with by the Assembly.

11.00 a.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think my Friend the Hon. Minister for Transport errs when he says that it is an easy matter to draw the attention of this House to an abuse of power. Now, Sir, in my own mind, I am satisfied that there has been an abuse of power in rejecting the milk plant which is required for feeding our large adolescent and infant population. But I cannot compel the Minister to disclose the facts - the Minister who was Assistant Minister for Commerce at the time that the milk plant was accepted and who now turns round and says that it was accepted in haste and that it was a thoroughly bad act. Did the Assistant Minister himself at that time suggest any such thing?

Sir, I think this is an abuse of power, but how do you prove it? How do you bring to the attention of the House private acts of abuse of power on the part of a Minister in the privacy of his own office if the Minister says, "I will sack you, Mr X, from the Polytechnic"? He may sack him because he does not like the fact that he wears a red necktie or does not wear any necktie at all, or because he is a friend of David Marshall. He sacks him. How do we question him? He says, "I did it within my discretion. I am not prepared to answer the whys and the wherefores." He can stand - and quite rightly stand - on the legalities. But why does he need these powers, Sir? It is in the Singapore Telephone Board Bill! Sir, the fact that one evil exists does not mean that we must perpetuate it. It seems to me that now it has been pointed out to the Government that what they are seeking for the Minister for Education are in fact dictatorial powers, they should, with dignity, withdraw and bow to the pressure of this House, in the same way as the Chief Minister has bowed to our demand for an investigation into corruption.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Member for Cairnhill waxes eloquent over the milk plant and says that the rejection of the offer is an abuse of power on the part of the Minister. Sir, the remedy is simple; he can bring a motion to this House demanding that Government put up a White Paper; and if he succeeds in getting his motion through, he shall have a White Paper. This is the working of the democratic system which I am sure he does not object to; or would he like to have a Communist system here and he could have his views imposed on the representatives of the people (there would probably be none)? But, Sir, he did become irrelevant in the debate when he referred to the milk plant and if I have your permission. Sir, I would like to answer him; he mentioned that I was the Assistant Minister at that time.

The Chairman: Order. When the Member for Cairnhill mentioned the milk plant, I take it he was mentioning it in passing. I cannot have a debate on the milk plant at this stage. The Minister, of course, can also mention the milk plant in passing.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, would it not be considered an abuse of power to accept something and commit the public revenue to the tune of a great amount of money-

Mr Marshall: Prove it!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: -without going into the pros and cons of the matter and getting technical advice? The hon. Member forgets that not only was he the Minister for Commerce at that time - he was also the Chief Minister. And he also forgets that his was a different sort of personality, that there was a different sort of system in his Government compared with what it is now, and that he also was accustomed to taking decisions hastily. In fact, this decision was so taken and I would not have liked to bring it up if he had not insisted that I issue a White Paper.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I must confess when I raised this question that I did not expect to have such a doughty champion on my side as my hon. Friend the Member for Cairnhill. My own anxiety in this matter does derive largely from the Explanatory Note number 2 (b) which reads:

"Amendments to section 4 provide-

(b) for appointing bodies to have the power to revoke the appointments of members of the Board who have not satisfactorily represented their interests."

That means, as I understand it, that, as far as paragraph (e) is concerned, if the Chairman of the Board does not satisfactorily represent the interests of the Minister, he may have his appointment revoked.

Mr Marshall: I think, Sir, my Friend the Member for Tanglin should be conscious that the Explanatory Note in no way limits the wording of the clause, that the wording is an absolute, unfettered and unchallengeable discretion.

The Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield): I do not want, Sir, to prolong the debate on this particular point, but there is a point which I think may usefully be made. In dealing with the proposed proviso which is unacceptable to the Member for Tanglin, I would say this, that I am sure all Members of this House will recognise the possibility of a person being appointed to the Board who may, for reasons it is impossible to specify precisely in the Bill, turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable. The words proposed in this proviso are to give the Minister powers to get rid of him (putting it bluntly) and I think Members must assume that the Minister will use powers of that kind with a full sense of responsibility. I would suggest to the Member for Tanglin that, as I have said, since there is a possibility that the person may turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable, it may very well be in the public interest that he should be removed from the Board. At the same time, it is quite impossible to anticipate, and to specify, in a Bill the precise reasons or the set of circumstances which may arise which will justify such a course. I would ask him to consider very carefully that aspect of the problem, and I am sure he will see - I hope he will see - the force of the point I am trying to put.

Mr Marshall: The Attorney-General is too modest, Sir. He has provided in the Education Bill for the removal of school-teachers, in a large and very detailed section - when he goes bankrupt, when he is imprisoned, when he is this and when he is that - which can be copied bodily into this Bill if he so desires. But if he wants absolute discretion, Sir, why have any law at all? Why not say, "This Assembly hereby surrenders its rights, powers and privileges to the Minister for Education in respect of all educational matters"? I mean to say that if we like to have a little Mussolini, Sir, let us be clean about it and create a Mussolini, but do not let us go through these procedures and say, "Ah, but this is a little privilege, and it is going to be exercised with responsibility." Surely, Ministers always exercise all their powers with responsibility? No doubt the Attorney-General has never heard of any executive abuse of power, but I say, Sir, that this House knows full well that it does exist currently.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, the terms "Mussolini", "human beings" and "abuse of power" are very popular besides the word "undemocratic". Human beings - yes, we are all human beings, but some human beings may be stable one day and unstable the very next minute; some human beings may be sane today and become insane the next moment. And talking of dictatorship. I think we have had dictatorship some 18 months ago. But this proviso, as I pointed out-

Mr Marshall: I object, Sir, and I ask that that remark be withdrawn from a person who worked under the alleged dictatorship without a bleat. Either he explains it, or apologises and withdraws it. Shame!

The Chairman: Order. All I heard the Hon. the Minister for Education say was that there was a dictatorship 18 months ago, but he did not enlarge on it and I am not officially aware that there has ever been a dictator - it might have been a figure of speech and unless the Minister uses an offensive remark with reference to a particular Member of the Assembly, I cannot act.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I have not imputed any improper motive to any Member at all in this Assembly, and therefore I do not apologise for the statement. I have pointed out, as I have done in my reply just now, that such a proviso is necessary if we want a Polytechnic.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I have heard with great interest the remarks by the Hon. the Attorney-General. I do not think that that will apply in this case at all. After all, the person who is going to be put in the office will be appointed by the Minister after very careful selection; and if after all this careful selection, he turns out to be one who is unsuitable, are we then to give the power to the Minister to remove him? Basing on these lines of argument, which I made before, Sir, suppose we have some Ministers elected into this Assembly and are later found to be unsuitable, we cannot remove them in this instance; we will not be able to remove them until the next elections. This position should also apply to people who are appointed to all boards; I think unsuitability at one moment and suitability at another, applies to all people handling all affairs. I do not think, Sir, that the argument is valid.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Marshall: Division, Sir.

11.15 a.m.

The House divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 15; Abstentions, 2; Absent, 6. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Braga, A. J. Goh Tong Liang. Butterfield, C. H. Jumabhoy, R. Chew Swee Kee. Lazarous, A. R. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Choon Mong. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Koon Teck. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik bin Sutherland, G. A. P. Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Abstentions Oon Khye Kiang. Lee Choon Eng. Stewart, S. T. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Absent Wong Foo Nam. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Chin Siong. Tan, William.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): On a point of order, Sir, may I enquire whether it is proper for Members of the Assembly to be absent from voting when a division is called, particularly when a whole Party is absent?

The Chairman: It is not a point of order.

Mr Marshall: I have an amendment, Mr Chairman, Sir, to move in respect of clause 2 (f) .

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: The amendment is in order. Will the hon. Member please proceed?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not think that this Assembly should be silent at the startling fact disclosed by the voting just now - that the Hon. Mr Sutherland supported the efforts of Members of this House to resist the grant of dictatorial powers to the Executive.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think it is proper for any hon. Member to comment on how any other hon. Member voted. Please proceed with your amendment, Mr Marshall.

Mr Marshall: Is it proper, Sir, to comment on the absence of a whole Party at one time allegedly dedicated to democracy and today so lukewarm that it prefers to be absent?

The Chairman: Order. It is always proper for any hon. Member to comment on the attitude of any particular Party represented in this House, but nothing more. Please move your amendment, Mr Marshall.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, I move an amendment to delete the words "Provided that the person or body appointing such member may at any time revoke such appointment."

I draw attention, Sir, to the very wide interests represented in voting in the affirmative on the previous motion, and I ask the Government to reconsider its attitude in the light of these views; those minority views have validity. I repeat, Sir, that the views which the Government have here today in respect of what they might consider a minor matter, but which is a matter of important principle, should be given grave consideration, and I ask that they do not use the Whip, and permit these deletions to go through. I say that the power to dismiss given by these clauses in fact gives such complete authority to the Minister that it makes stooges of his nominees. I therefore move,

In page 2, lines 32, 33 and 34, to leave out the words "Provided that the person or body appointing such member may at any time revoke such appointment".

Amendment negatived.

Mr Marshall: I have an amendment, Sir, to move in respect of clause 2 (i) .

Amendment handed in.

Clause 2, Mr Chairman, provides that the Chairman may, at his discretion, grant leave of absence to any member of the Board. That is a minor matter in this case, but again, it gives quite unnecessary discretion. The Chairman is a human being and if he is opposed to a member of the Board, (as he often will be), he will quite naturally, in the course of human nature, take excessive dislike, or could take dislike, to a member of the Board; and by refusing leave at a time when a member acutely needs it, he could force him into the position of not attending four meetings and thereby being automatically removed. I say, Sir, this discretion is utterly unnecessary. Why in his discretion? I would suggest that the power be left to the Board to grant leave to any member of the Board, and I move, Sir,

In page 2, line 43, to leave out the words "Chairman may at his discretion" and insert "Board may".

The clause will then read:

"The Board may grant leave of absence to any member of the Board."

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the amendment is very reasonable. In the course of my public work in many institutions and bodies, it is always the Committees or the boards which decide and not the Chairmen. The Chairman decides on procedural points and I think it is better to leave this discretion to the Board and not to the Chairman alone.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak on this minor point, but the actual point I want to make is that I am unhappy to witness in this debate such unfriendly, undemocratic and even uncomplimentary remarks. Many Members in this Committee have in their speeches mentioned little Mussolinis and human beings-

The Chairman: Order. I must say that the hon. Member is completely irrelevant. We are now dealing with an amendment to leave out the words "Chairman may at his discretion". The attitude adopted by Members is not really the concern of the hon. Member.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, I thank you for your guidance. What I mean to say is that we should not have the habit of bringing in a personal grudge or Party feeling into a debate on such an important issue. I must confess that the whole time I have been unhappy about debating these minor things and hearing so many unfriendly and unpleasant things. I hope the Member for Cairnhill, with all respect due from the people of Singapore, who also remember-

The Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that we cannot have a lecture on behaviour in this Assembly when we are dealing with an amendment on a Bill.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: So, Sir, in order to prove that I want a frank and truly sincere working committee, I think I will support this amendment.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I think the amendment is reasonable, Sir, and I am prepared to accept it.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: My only comment, Sir, is that there are other legislative measures in which similar powers are given to the Minister and even to the Governor; and perhaps the honourable champion of democracy would like to run through them in time to come and bring up his proposals before this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Marshall: Sir, I have a consequential amendment to move following on this in respect of clause 2 (i) , new subsection (8) .

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, the House will appreciate that, in view of the acceptance of the previous amendment, the new subsection (8) is no longer appropriate since it says:

"Any member absenting himself from four consecutive meetings of the Board without having obtained leave of absence from the Chairman.".

It should either be "from the Board" or the words "from the Chairman" should be deleted, and just say ", without having obtained leave of absence". Perhaps if you will permit me, Sir, I would like to move, instead,

In page 3, line 4, to leave out the word "Chairman" and there to insert "Board".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.