Committee

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.07 a.m.

Clause 1-

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat): Mr Chairman, I beg to move,

In page 13, line 5, to leave out "1956" and insert "1957".

This is a correction.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: The consequential amendment - wherever the term "Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1956" occurs, to leave out "1956" and insert "1957" - will be made as a matter of course.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2-

Amendment made: In page 14, line 10, to leave out "1956" and insert "1957". -[Inche Abdul Hamid].

Inche Abdul Hamid: Sir, I move,

In page 14, line 17, to leave out "Proclamation" and insert "Notification".

This is to bring it in line with the wording in clause 8.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 8-

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, I beg to move an amendment,

In page 17, line 14, after "Ordinance", to insert- ":

Provided that no alteration shall be made in the boundaries of the electoral divisions of any local government area unless and until the proposed alteration has been notified in four successive Gazettes and contemporaneously advertised once every week for four consecutive weeks in one English, one Chinese, one Malay and one Tamil newspaper circulating in the Colony with an invitation to all persons affected, by such alteration and who object thereto to make their objections known in writing to the Minister in order that the same may be duly considered by him:

And provided also that the provisions of this section shall apply in respect of the alterations in the electoral divisions of the City from those existing under the Municipal Elections Ordinance, 1948: Ord. 26 And provided also that the provisions of 1948. of this section shall apply in respect of the new electoral divisions of the District Councils.".

Mr Chairman, there are three parts to the amendment which I have just read out. The original clause as it stands states quite clearly that as far as the boundaries of electoral divisions in local government areas are concerned the Minister has complete and unfettered authority to fix them as he thinks fit, and subsequently to alter them as he thinks fit. The clause as it stands at the moment reads:

"The Minister may, from time to time, by notification published in the Gazette specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions of any local government area for purposes of elections under this Ordinance."

Now the first part of our amendment is exactly parallel to the proviso to clauses 5 and 15 of the Local Government Bill in respect of the limits of the City and District Council boundaries. It requires that when any alterations are made in future to the electoral division boundaries, notification must be made in the Gazette for four consecutive weeks and in newspapers in the four main languages. In countering our arguments on this point last week, the Hon. the Chief Secretary was not in his most thoughtful frame of mind. He said - and I hope I do not misrepresent him in his absence - that this matter was not raised in the Select Committee as being one of importance and why therefore should it be raised now? The answer is simple. We had formed the impression that as an All-Party Committee was to be set up to work out Legislative Assembly electoral boundaries, the same principle would be applied by the Government in respect of local government boundaries. As we are now faced with a virtual fait accompli by the strict application of this clause 8, it is only right and proper that at this stage we should move an amendment to draw attention to, and if possible prevent, a fait accompli.

Secondly, the whole point of recommitting clauses or whole Bills to a Committee of this Assembly is that there should be second thoughts on important legislation. The Hon. the Minister is still bringing in fresh amendments to the Local Government Bill, matters which have been overlooked or left out. Is he to be criticised for introducing amendments at the eleventh hour? Or is he to be commended for noticing them in time? We have had second thoughts on this particular clause, as we are entitled to have them, and we find these amendments to be most vital.

The Hon. the Chief Secretary went on to say that electoral division boundaries were not important to the man-in-the-street and that so long as he got a vote he did not mind where he voted. I am surprised at my Hon. Friend taking such a light-hearted attitude in this matter which strikes at the root of all democratic principles. Political Parties and Independent Members and individual responsible citizens and the Press are there to see that electoral division boundaries are delineated on a completely impartial basis, and they represent the man-in-the-street who may not always himself be articulate. In the United Kingdom an independent commission was set up four or five years ago to delineate new constituencies required by shifting populations and the growth of new towns for the last general elections in that country. This was done so that neither Conservatives nor Labour nor Liberal could say that the boundaries had been rigged. When the Hon. the Chief Secretary tried to make light of the whole problem we on this side have been forced to the conclusion that the Government has a guilty conscience in this matter. The louder they cry, "We never even thought of fixing the boundaries to suit our political convenience!", the less convincing their protestations are. That may be unfortunate but it is inevitable.

As I said last week, if the Government does not accept the principle that the delineation of electoral divisions should be subject to public scrutiny and objections if necessary, then it lays itself open to the charge of political manipulation even if it is innocent, and that goes for any other government of the future.

Let me go back to the first proviso in which lies the principle that alterations in future must be gazetted and advertised in four languages. The Government, if it is wise, will accept this principle with no difficulty whatever because it affects the future.

The second and third provisos follow from the first. If the principle is accepted then it follows that it must be applied in respect of the alterations which are now being made, which are most extensive because this great new local government machinery is coming into operation for the first time. A huge new electorate of largely non-English-speaking people is now to be made interested in playing its part in local government administration through its elected representatives. The present six wards of the City Council are to be changed to at least 32. The District Council areas are to have between them eventually at least 48 divisions or wards. Are these great democratic changes to be thrust on the people in an undemocratic way, or are the people to be invited to comment on these changes through their Chinese, Tamil, Malay or English newspapers?

We must begin, as we mean to go on, following proper principles. Government must not only be democratic but to be seen to be democratic. Now the Government, if it accepts the principle in the first proviso, need have no difficulty whatever in accepting the third proviso in respect of the District Councils because, as the Minister has told us, these elections cannot be held until March 1958 and therefore there is plenty of time to publish the boundaries and call for objections.

The only doubt arising is the second proviso and whether gazetting and advertising the proposed boundaries of the City Council for objections will have caused the holding of elections to be delayed beyond December this year. There are, Sir, several answers to this. Firstly, the Government must never ward off or ignore criticism, or threaten postponement of elections as a reason for not accepting amendments. If the amendments are sound, but may cause delay, then delay must be accepted by all parties or a way found round that delay. Secondly, the Hon. the Chief Secretary himself said that minor changes could still be made. If that is so, the public have a right to express their views as to these changes. Thirdly, changes in boundaries do not affect the compiling of the list of voters, which is the biggest task. The electorate itself is the primary compilation; fitting them within the boundaries is secondary. Fourthly, if the Government feels that gazetting and advertising in the newspapers for four consecutive weeks would severely upset its programme of a December election, we on this side would be quite prepared to accept an amendment to this particular proviso to the effect that the boundaries be gazetted, say, twice and advertised four times within two weeks, with a further week for objections to be sent in.

What kind of a time-table would this mean? Gazetting on Saturday, 3rd August to the 10th August, and the last day for objections say 17th August. This will not only give time to the All-Party Committee to study the boundaries but give Independents and individuals the chance to express their views. We have no doubt that if the Government wants to do this it can do it and still hold December elections.

Mr Chairman, if we want to have clean elections we must start off in a clean way, with no suggestions or implications of Government having manipulated the divisions to suit its own interests. If the Government refuses to accept this amendment suspicions will be aroused inevitably, and corruption - which we all profess to want to see removed - will not be removed.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I have an amendment to make to the amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move two amendments. The first is,

At the beginning of the first proviso, to leave out "Provided that no" and insert "(2) And no".

The second amendment is,

At the end of the first proviso, after "him" to leave out all words to the end and insert "provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in respect of the first ordinary elections of Councillors to the City Council or to any District Council held under the provisions of this Ordinance.".

Mr Chairman, the first amendment is consequential to the second amendment and I shall therefore take them both together and explain the second amendment. Government agrees in principle with the first proviso given in the amendment by the hon. Member for Tanglin. There are similar provisions in clauses 5 and 15 of the Local Government Bill. It is not agreed, however, that the present procedure envisaged should apply in respect of the first ordinary elections under this Ordinance. That is why I am moving this amendment. At this stage if boundaries are to be altered, all the work which has been done in the preparation of registers for electoral divisions showing the polling districts will have been wasted and the registers will have to be scrapped. As it is, Sir, more than half of the registers have been printed by the Printing Office. Elections would have to be postponed several months.

At the last sitting of the Assembly the Hon. the Chief Secretary explained that the boundaries for City electoral divisions had been drawn up by officials without any direction. In spite of what the hon. Member for Tanglin has just said, Sir, I repeat once again that that is so. I should like to draw the attention of this House to the statement made by the hon. Member for Serangoon wherein not only did he cast an aspersion on the Government in power, but also on our civil service. Thank God, Sir, we have a first-class civil service which is above board, a civil service which cannot be influenced by the machinations of any political Party, even by the Party in power.

This morning, Sir, for the information of Members of this Assembly I circulated the Report of the Committee which delineated the boundaries of the City Council. A perusal of that Report, Sir, will apprise Members of the basis upon which the electoral divisions were delineated.

For the above reasons, Sir, I have to repeat once again that any alteration in the present boundaries as drawn up by the official Committee will involve delay in the holding of elections. Sir, I beg to move.

The Chairman: The original amendment is,

In page 17, line 14, after "Ordinance", to insert the three provisos as appear in the Order Paper;

since when an amendment to the original amendment has been moved,

firstly, to leave out the words "Provided that no" at the beginning of the first proviso and there to insert "(2) No", converting the first proviso into a subclause of the clause;

the second amendment to the amendment is after "him" at the end of the first proviso to leave out all the words to the end and insert "Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in respect of the first ordinary elections of Councillors to the City Council or to any District Council held under the provisions of this Ordinance.".

The first Question is, "That the words 'Provided that no' proposed to be left out, be left out." In the debate, hon. Members will be permitted to touch on the second amendment to the amendment.

10.30 a.m.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, we welcome on this side the fact that the principle that alterations in electoral division boundaries should be gazetted and objections invited from the people of Singapore. But once you have accepted that principle you must apply it from the start. Take the second part of the amendment to the amendment - I see no reason whatever in the first place why this principle should not be accepted in respect of the District Councils. I mentioned that a few moments ago. You have much more time in the case of the District Councils. Therefore having accepted the principle in the first instance, accept it without hesitation in respect of the District Councils.

We then come to the problem - we admit it is a problem - of the City Council electoral division boundaries and the need to hold the elections as soon as possible. In this regard it must be remembered, as the Hon. the Minister has just said, that the Report of the Committee which has worked out the delineation of these boundaries has only been placed in the hands of Members this morning and I presume supplied to the Press this morning. Why could this not have been done before? Why could not some machinery, say the All-Party Committee, have been put into operation to consider these boundaries at least two or three weeks ago? It would have been quite possible to do this. Then possibly there would have been no need to move this part of the amendment, as I call it the second proviso. We would have accepted the fact that the public and the All-Party Committee were being given a chance to consider these new boundaries.

But no, we are faced with this Report today, on the very day in which we have to debate this important question. It could have been given to us earlier. I do not know why it was not. Will the Hon. the Minister therefore not accept our suggestion that if he cannot agree to four weeks of gazetting and advertising in the newspapers in respect of changes in the City Council boundaries, he will agree to reducing the length of time of gazetting in order that this important principle is accepted, which in fact Government has accepted through accepting my first proviso?

The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart): Mr Chairman, Sir, in support of my friend and colleague, the Minister for Local Government, I have to say that the Statistics and Printing Departments are well on with preparing the electoral rolls for the City Council elections based on the City Council boundaries specified in the Local Government Bill and on the electoral divisions drawn up by the official Committee. Any change in the boundaries must of course delay the final certification of the electoral registers, and if the changes are major ones the effect will be more serious. For example, Sir, if Katong is restored to the City it will materially affect the total number of voters in the City Council area as it contains a large number of voters - I remember, Sir, roughly well over 25,000 voters.

The electoral divisions have been based on the assumption that there will be a total of 505,000 names on the rolls altogether and the 32 divisions have been designed to divide this number as equally as possible. If the total number is increased it will probably be that all 32 divisions will have to be revised. If divisions adjoining the boundary of the City Council are altered there will almost certainly be repercussions throughout. Even a minor change of two electoral divisions - let us say Cairnhill and its Western neighbour, River Valley - must cause some delay, and the length of the delay will depend on the number of alterations to be made.

If the first proviso given in the amendment of the Member for Tanglin is made applicable to the City and District Council electoral divisions, as suggested in the second and third provisos of the amendment, it will initially mean a delay of at least four to five weeks. If you read the first amendment, Sir, there will be an initial delay of four weeks and if the Minister is to consider the representations made it may mean another delay of one week or perhaps even more.

Next, if any major change takes place, it will involve a further delay of three or four months, for the following reasons: (1) We have to rearrange the cards into new divisions and this will require, according to those who have to carry out this work, about 10 weeks; (2) to reproduce, collate and bind the registers will require another ten weeks; (3) assuming that a large part of these two territories overlap, at least 15 to 17 weeks will be required. If Katong is put back into the City and the rural area included in the Western part of the City area is taken out again, the recasting of the boundaries of all District Council areas will have to be undertaken.

My hon. colleague said in this Assembly - I think it was at the April or May sitting, Sir - that it was intended to hold District Council elections in March 1958 if City Council elections are held in December 1957. One of the reasons, Sir, is that there cannot be simultaneous preparation of every phase in the drawing up of new District and City Council registers because the sorting machines and so forth can only be concentrated on one set of registers at a time. Therefore, Sir, if City Council elections have to be postponed to April/May 1958 then District Council elections will have to be postponed to June/July, or even August, 1958. I do not know whether we want that. I do not think we want that, Sir. I think the people of Singapore want to see the new City and District Councils in being as quickly as possible.

We cannot afford any delay if elections are to be held in December. Since the electoral rolls should be published by the latter half of August in order to hold elections in December, the tentative time-table to which Government is working, based on the periods allowed for in the Bill, is as follows: (1) listing, printing, collating, binding and publication of draft registers to be completed by 20th August, 1957; (2) allowing for claims and objections to be completed from 21st August to 18th September, 1957; adjudication of claims and objections to be completed by 19th October; listing, printing, collating and insertion of amendments for claims and objections in the draft registers and certification of final registers by 31st October. Thus a writ of elections can be issued any time from 1st November, 1957 onwards and if it is found possible to publish draft registers before 20th August so much the better, Sir.

Sir, for the reasons which I have given, I oppose the second and third provisos of the hon. Member's amendment. We want to try and hold to this time-table. We want to have these City Council elections in December and the District Council elections in March. I repeat again, Sir: the public of Singapore want these new Councils. For those reasons, Sir, I support the amendment moved by my hon. colleague.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Chairman, Sir, the last speaker has only one point to offer and that is, "We do not want to delay City Council elections." But let me ask this House, Sir, how long has Government delayed them? Has it not delayed them for at least one year? Did we not hear in this Assembly last year that it was going to postpone the City Council elections? I remember when the new Government took office it said it wanted to hold elections at a very early date but there have since been two postponements. I think I am right; there have two postponements of these elections.

What has the Government been doing during these two years? I would like very much to know. Has it been working on the matter? Has it been trying hard to make early elections possible? It is always good to say that people want early elections. We want them early too, but it is a very different thing not to put it into practice. There was plenty of time on the hands of Government in the last two years and more, yet today we are confronted with the reason, "We do not want delays." Government could have made them earlier but it has not attempted to make it earlier. [Interruption].

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Another little point that the Government put up is, "We have had everything printed. Delay will cost money; it will delay a great deal more." I have already said that these delays could have been averted if it had started earlier.

There is another one more point to consider. It would be better to have an election which is said by all to be fair, to be democratic, than to have one thrust down your throat just because Government says, "We cannot delay." Now that is like tempting you by saying, "If you want it this way you must have it my way. If you want to have elections in December then you must carry out elections on the lines we propose. If you do not carry out on the lines we propose then there will be no elections, and if there is going to be delay the blame will be on you." That is absolutely unfair. That is absolutely undemocratic. That amounts to coercion, Sir.

And now how much will it cost the people of Singapore to change a little bit of this printing? Cost and labour should not be taken into consideration. The more important consideration is whether it is democratic, whether it is viewed by all to be fair. Since the Government, Sir, has accepted the first proviso, I see no reason why the third proviso should not have been accepted. People living in the City are important. They can have objections. They must be notified of changes. But I personally feel that people living in the rural areas are also as important, and that if one measure is given to the City people then it should also be given to people in the Districts. This will not be done if the amendment of the Minister is accepted to strike off the second and third provisos, the reason for opposing the second proviso being that if you are going to have alterations now to your City Council divisions you will not be able to have elections in December. Let me quote, Sir, from a note which I received this morning about the electoral divisions in the City proposed by the Government Committee. I happen also to have a copy of the Constituency Delineation Commission of the Federation of Malaya, and I shall also quote one or two extracts from that.

10.45 a.m.

In the Report of the Committee to delimit the Electoral Divisions of the City and District Councils, I would like to read from Annex B, paragraph 1 (a). Under the heading, "Densely populated Divisions with unusually high voter strength", the reason is given as:

"The ratio of voter strengths to population is high in all these areas and is due in some cases to the fact that many suburban and rural dwellers have registered their addresses in these divisions..."

It seems then, Sir, that the system is very faulty and the Committee which deliberated on this and used the existing facilities would be led to wrong conclusions.

On page 3 of the statement shown under the heading, "23. Telok Ayer (TA)", sub-heading "TA.1", the "Population as at the Numbering stage April, 1957" is given as 3,260; and the "Electors as at April, 1957" is given as 4,062. Sir, when a check is made on the number of people living in a certain area, you find that there are 3,260 people; your electoral roll, however, shows that there are 4,062 people in that area. There must then have been ghosts in the area! Let us call them ghost voters! They do not live there; they live elsewhere, but invariably they turn up for voting. Now this is a terribly bad system, Sir, of compiling our electoral rolls. You put it to any man and if he can say that it is logical to have 4,000 odd voters when there are only 3,000 odd people living there, then something must be wrong. I would like to draw your attention further, Sir, to the fact that the 3,000 odd people are men, women and children combined, whereas the 4,000 odd voters are all over 21.

The Chief Minister rose-

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

The Chief Minister: A point of information, Sir. Would the hon. Member be good enough to tell us what particular page he is quoting from?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I was quoting from the statement showing number of seats, population and number of electors within the City area.

The Chairman: It is at page 5 of Annex "A".

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Under "23...TA.l".

The Chairman: I think hon. Members will find it on page 5.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: It seems to me, Sir, that if a thing like this happens and is going to exist in our electoral rolls, it cannot be considered to be democratic. How can we say it is if I happened to be living in one district and am one of the 3,260 people yet when it comes to voting I may be swamped by people who are not living in that area? The person who is elected may not be elected by the people living there but may be elected by people living in other districts. This system of compiling the electoral roll will tend to make people change their addresses just for the purpose of elections. If I happened to be controlling a labour union. Sir-

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to explain how his complaint about the compilation of electoral rolls has any relevance to electoral divisions?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Certainly, Sir. In fact under clause 8 the Minister may by notification published in the Gazette make up all these rolls, and Government has already intimated that it is going to do that in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee set up by the Government for the purpose of compiling the rolls. Furthermore, Sir, this is the first election and Government says that it is not going to accept any objection; therefore I am speaking against Govermnent's decision of not accepting or not hearing objections.

The Chairman: Clause 8 refers to electoral divisions and I think the hon. Member's complaint is against the roll of electors. I should like to find out what connection there is.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am grateful for your pointing out this, Sir, but I would say the divisions will have no meaning unless the people listed are living inside there and the divisions are made in such a way that there will be that many people in that division. It has that bearing, Sir. Will you allow me to continue?

The Chairman: Please continue until I get a little more puzzled!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I hope you will not, Sir. On this point, Sir, if we give power to the Minister under this clause without it being amended then all these things will come about, all the ghost voters will come in every time. Furthermore, Sir, if no objection is to be allowed in this first election, then we will be going against the principle agreed to by all and also adopted by the Federation of Malaya, that,

"in view of the very great distances involved in some of the more sparsely settled portions of the country, it would not be regarded as unreasonable if in some instances a rural constituency were to contain as little as half of the inhabitants in the more popular urban constituencies returning single members."

Again on this point, Sir, you will find if you look at the recommendations which the Government is going to gazette and push through to the people, the population of areas in more rural districts like Tanglin-

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) rose-

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: No, Sir.

The Chairman: It is wrong to remain standing when the hon. Member has the floor.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am referring, Sir, to the top of page 3 of Annex "A". The number of electors would be 18,695 for Tanglin which is a big sprawling area, whereas we have a small compact area like Kreta Ayer with 16,954. Here, Sir, you have one large population in a big rural area returning one member, and there you have a smaller population in a compact area. If you look further, Sir, you will find that some of these areas have as low as 11,000 electors. There again, Sir, I find that the Committee has not been carrying out its work on the principles agreed. At our last sitting we heard the Chief Secretary say that the divisions were drawn up on the line of similarity of interests and that main roads or waterways were used as the division lines. But in Whampoa you find the area goes over Upper Serangoon Road, which is a main street; there is again deviation from the accepted principles.

If Government will not accept the amendment proposed by my colleague, Sir, I think it will be trying to push through something which is unfair, all because we want to hold elections in December. This is not going to help the people of Singapore realise that democracy is at work. I certainly feel that a little time to look into the whole matter so that everybody will be satisfied, will go a long way to make the people of Singapore realise that we are now an elected Government and not a colonial one which is going to ram everything down their throat whether they like it or not.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, we all agree with the Hon. the Chief Secretary that we want elections in December, but we do not agree with the price that we are paying today. We do not want to be faced with a fait accompli, with a statement that you cannot change anything now, cannot make any amendments in this Assembly, because half of the lists have been printed and the delineation has been completed. This shows that Government has had all this information in its hands very, very many months ago and either it wilfully chose to hide it from us in order to rush things through the Assembly today, or it has been thoughtless or has not spent any time in thinking of this side of the House or of the people of Singapore as a whole whether we should be given a say in the drawing up of this new division of districts.

11.00 a.m.

It seems to me, Sir, that instead of sitting down and doing their work, Ministers and Assistant Ministers have been flying all over the world. They appointed a Committee of officials and told them, "You go on. We shall accept what you find, and we shall push it down the throat of the Assembly and the people of Singapore." That is what we object to today and I, being one of the most mild men, one of the mildest men in this House, was really roused this morning to find that the Government is now trying to hide the mistakes and the blundering throughout its years of office by pushing this Bill through and giving the excuse that anything you do now - making even the slightest amendment - is going to put back elections for two or three months. We cannot accept such acts and statements without a challenge, and we shall tell the people of Singapore that we shall never accept such a ramming down our throats as our leader has described.

What better evidence of this is there than the throwing by the Government into our face this morning of this document, the Report of the Committee Appointed to Delimit Electoral Divisions of the City and District Councils? I would like to know how long Government had this document in its hands and why should it be given to us now when we have no time to study, when we have to hold a debate and still read this Report? Is it fair to us that this document should be given to us now? If it had been given to us a month ago, it would have saved a lot of accusations and we might have accepted quite a number of things which are proposed. As it is, Sir, I support the hon. Member for Tanglin and I must vote against these amendments to the amendment.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Government has thought fit to give a very convenient excuse that any change now in the divisions will cause a delay in the City Council elections. The life of the present City Council has been extended on two or three occasions; what harm will it do to have a further delay of one or two months if it is in the interests of the people of Singapore? Every year the Government puts it to the Assembly that we must extend the life of the City Council because we are not yet prepared to hold elections. Then all of a sudden, as the Member for Paya Lebar has said, this Report is pushed on to us to accept, without giving us a chance of even glancing at it, not to say of study. Are we rubber stamps that we must accept whatever the Government pushes on to us? If we are to be rubber stamps why bring all of us here? There is no purpose; the Government itself can run the country. There will be no use having elected representatives in this House.

Whose fault is it then that this Report has been pushed on to us today? Whose fault is it that there will be delay? Rather than say that all Parties should accept the responsibility I should say the Government should accept the responsibility for all this delay. If this Report had been prepared and circulated to us much earlier, we could have had a chance of studying it. But we come today to this House and, as the Member for Paya Lebar said, while we are going through the debate it is pushed down our throat. Should there be any change, the Chief Secretary said, there will have to be alterations to all the divisions; and printing of the registers has already begun. Why should they be put into print before the Government come and tell us what it has done? Why should it unnecessarily give orders and instructions to have them printed? Was Government certain that this Report would be accepted or must be accepted? It should have let us have this Report earlier for discussion, for debate, so that we would know where we stand.

Even in the Report as it is tabled today I find little can be made out of it. What is there in figures only? Where are the boundaries? In submitting this Report, could not the Government give the boundaries of each division so that we could go further into the matter? Only figures and more figures are quoted. What can figures show us? Nothing; they bring us nowhere. I think the Government should be more careful in submitting such figures and not push them on us.

I will certainly support the amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin and oppose the amendment to the amendment.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, even a mild man is no longer mild! Yet when I looked through the Report it was the same mild man who was a member of the Select Committee and never thought of the matter.

Sir, the allegations about this Report, that we are ramming it down the throats of the public of Singapore, can only be made by people who refuse to understand. The proper, the true situation or position as it faces us today is this. At the sitting of the Assembly last week it was suggested that there had been manipulations on the part of the Government in so far as the delineation of the City Council electoral divisions are concerned. We pointed out at that sitting that this delineation was carried out by an official Committee, and to prove that it was so we tendered a Report to each Member of the Assembly so that they could have something in their hands to prove at a later stage that what the Government proposed to do were recommended in the Report. This Committee was appoined in June, only last month, because at that time the Select Committee was still considering the Local Government Bill. Therefore any suggestion that we are ramming this down the throat of any Member of the Opposition or the public is most unfair. We put this Report in the possession of hon. Members so that they can have evidence at a later stage. When the Minister announces in the Gazette that the City Council area shall be divided into such and such electoral divisions, it can then be seen by all Members of the Opposition and the public that what the Minister proposes to do is as stated in this Report.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Including ghost voters!

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Ghosts from the other side of the House!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, the hon. Member for Tanglin started off in an apologetic manner trying to justify having second thoughts. Sir, we on this side of the House are very sympathetic. We understand hon. Members having second thoughts, especially hon. Members belonging to the Liberal-Socialist Party, who are well known for having no thoughts at all, and who cannot make up their minds.

Sir, if, as the hon. Member requests, reference is made to an all-Party Committee, how will that give the people of Singapore a chance to raise objections to the electoral divisions? How will that give a chance to the people of Singapore to express their views? The all-Party Committee - three or four members - will sit down and demarcate the boundaries; but this will still not give the people of Singapore a chance to express their views or to make objections to the proposed boundaries, as proposed by the hon. Member in his amendment.

The hon. Member did say that if there has to be delay, then it must be accepted by all Parties. Yet. Sir, reading through the Press a few days ago. I came across this article with big headlines on the front page of the Free Press of 18th June:

"TOP COUNCILLORS THREATEN THEY WILL ALL RESIGN

'We can't take it,' they say.

Senior members of the Singapore City Council are threatening to resign their seats if the Government does not fulfil its promise to hold elections in December.

Some of the Councillors said this morning they were 'fed up' with Government's repeated postponements of elections.

The last elections to the Council were in December 1953.

A number of senior members have been Councillors for the past six years without a new mandate. One of them, Mr Chan Kum Chee, claims they shoulder the major part of the Council's work."

And it goes on to say that Mr Chan Kum Chee says that he and his colleagues shoulder the major part of the Council's work and that there is a threat by Councillors to resign if Government does not have these elections in December 1957. Sir, probably the members of the Liberal-Socialist Party could not make up their minds amongst themselves as to what it should be. Here is a leading Liberal-Socialist member of the Singapore City Council threatening that he and his colleagues will resign if they do not have an election in December, and here are members of the same Party in this Assembly who cannot make up their minds, who want to postpone elections.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: We wanted it last year.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, it is a well-known fact that the Liberal-Socialist Party cannot make up its mind. That is known all over Singapore.

My Friend the Hon. the Chief Secretary has given a time-table to show how closely the periods are fitted in so that elections can be held in December this year. The hon. Member for Tanglin has suggested another time-table, but then he is not responsible for making the arrangements for these elections; he can suggest any time-table he likes but whether it is workable or not is a factor which my Friend the Hon. the Chief Secretary has got to consider and if he says it is not workable then I think the House should accept his word because it is he who has to make the arrangements.

Sir, at the last sitting of this Assembly, when my Friend the Hon. Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing moved the adoption of the Report of the Select Committee on this Bill, the hon. Member for Serangoon had the - would "audacity" be a parliamentary word, Sir?

The Chairman: The Hon. Minister must first use the word.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The hon. Member had the audacity to suggest that the Government was involved in machinations, on "fixing" of boundaries to suit its own purpose. He even went so far as to accuse the civil servants (incidentally one of the Members of the delimitation Committee is not a civil servant) that they had worked to a directive of the Government and had been biased, and so on and so forth. Sir, that is why today the Minister has handed over to hon. Members this Report of the Committee appointed to delimit the electoral divisions, to prove that these accusations against the Government are without foundation. And if anybody reads this Report he will find in certain paragraphs the basis on which this Committee has made its recommendations. I will just read a few lines:

"In reaching its recommendation for these boundaries, as shown on the attached map, it has employed the following basic considerations:-

(a) The desirability of striking a proper balance between the population and the voter strength in each division...

(b) Feature boundaries such as roads and rivers, instead of arbitrary boundaries, have been adopted in all cases...[with certain few exceptions].

(c) Account has been taken throughout of community interests and affinities, for example, at Queenstown, Bukit Merah, Tiong Bahru, etc...".

Now these were the principles on which the Committee delineated the boundaries and based its Report and recommendations. There is no indication in the Report that the Committee had a directive to fix the boundaries according to what would suit the Labour Front Coalition Government. The Members of the Committee, Sir, who signed the Report are the Chief Statistician, Mr E. J. Phillips; the Planning Adviser, Singapore Improvement Trust, Mr D. H. Komlosy; the Survey Department representative, Mr M. George; and the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, Mr P. H. Meadows.

Of course, Sir, the hon. Member sitting next to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has probably tried a little to borrow his powers of oratory and was trying to simulate his example, but there is a saying in India, Sir, that the fox tries to imitate the lion but does not succeed. For unfortunately the hon. Member for Serangoon was not convincing enough; he cannot talk convincingly enough like the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar can sometimes.

11.15 a.m.

Sir, the hon. Member for Serangoon asked how long had the Government delayed this Bill? The fact is that it was referred to the Select Committee in September 1956. That Committee kept the Bill for nine months and made its Report in June 1957. Now if the Select Committee took nine months to consider this Bill, which is a very complicated piece of legislation, how much longer would it take for the Attorney-General to draft this complicated piece of legislation, especially as it is not all a matter of drafting by his own self but of having to consult the City Council and various other Departments which are involved under this Bill, for it should be noticed that this Bill does involve many Departments. The City Council is of course the primary body involved; on planning powers and so on the S.I.T. is involved; and the police are involved on the hawker and traffic angles. All of them had to be consulted and all the information-

The Chairman: The Hon. Minister is probably confusing the two Bills. One is the Local Government Bill, the Report on which was presented on 19th June 1957; we are dealing with the Local Government Elections Bill the Report of which was presented on 18th January, 1957.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sorry, Sir. My point was this, that one is related to the other and unless we have the Local Government Bill we cannot have this Local Government Elections Bill passed in this House. Hon. Members will remember that in fact this Bill was got ready by the Select Committee early but because the other and major Bill, the Local Government Bill, was held up in Select Committee this Bill could not be got to the House. Since both Bills are related, it is important that a complicated piece of legislation like that proposed in the other Bill, the Local Government Bill, should be given full consideration before it comes to us and should not be rushed.

Now, Sir, we are doing all we can to hold the elections in December, bearing in mind the sword which is hanging over our heads of the Liberal-Socialist City Councillors, who threaten to resign if we postpone the elections from December. Perhaps, Sir, the suggestion that elections can be postponed beyond December made by the Member for Tanglin may have a thought behind it - that if these elections are postponed the Liberal-Socialists can hold sway longer in the City Council. I do not know whether that thought is behind the suggestion. I am not in the habit, Sir, of making accusations without justification, as the hon. Member for Serangoon is. I am just suggesting that the wish may be father to the thought - to his proposal to delay the elections. It is possible. I do not say that that is so.

Sir, the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, who normally is a meek and mild man, who does not hurl accusations like the hon. Member for Serangoon does, today came out in full force against the Government. He said, Sir, that it would have saved a lot of accusations if the Government had published this Report a couple of months back. He does not realise that Government is rushing this thing through as fast as possible, that the Minister is spending sleepless nights studying the Bill and that all the officials are working overtime to get this thing through so that we can have elections quicker. He does not realise that we have not held up this Report for two months and that it was given to hon. Members to counter the accusations hurled by the Member for Serangoon, who tried to imitate the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar but evidently could not imitate his oratorical powers. The hon. Member for Serangoon at the last sitting tried to accuse the Government of machinations and so on, of "fixing" boundaries. That is why this Report has been given out to show to the hon. Member and the public at large that these accusations are false and without foundation.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, the Minister for Commerce and Industry made the suggestion - he said it was not an accusation - that possibly the reason for all this debate today is that the Liberal-Socialists want to remain in office in the City Council. We do not want to delay the City Council elections provided principles are observed, and what we most emphatically want to do is to have genera1 elections earlier to put the present Government out of office.

The Minister also considers that I was being apologetic in having second thoughts and that the Liberal-Socialists cannot make up their minds. I find his argument amusing. The Government itself has had second thoughts by accepting the first part of our amendment and the principle that goes with it. The Liberal-Socialists have made up the Government's mind for it. I welcome the Government's second thoughts which endorse our own second thoughts.

However, to get back to facts. The Hon. the Chief Secretary a little time ago confessed that the printers were now well on with making up the registers. That being so, it is quite obvious that the delineation of the electoral boundaries was completed some considerable time ago. Why therefore was this Report not made public earlier so that representations could be made? The fact that the registers have been made up - I think the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing said they were half-completed - means that the delineation itself was completed a long time ago, otherwise the registers could not have been half printed which means presumably that 16 of the divisions are already complete and printed. Sir, I spoke on this same principle in the Select Committee on the Local Government Bill when clause 5 was considered, on 16th May. The amendment which I tabled which included a similar proviso to that we are discussing now, was in the hands of the Government a fortnight earlier. Therefore the Government knew perfectly well what was the argument on this matter regarding the publication of boundaries for public objection. Sir, to say that the Government has not had time is an argument which we cannot support.

It seems to us, Sir, that the Government is determined to push these new boundaries through without any consideration for any objections which may be made. It has nevertheless accepted the principle and then gone on to flout that very principle. It accepts the principle for future elections but will not accept it for the coming elections. In other words, it accepts the principle but writes it down on a post-dated cheque, which only shows its bankruptcy of democratic ideas and democratic principles.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, if I understand the hon. Member for Tanglin right, he said that he had given notice of this amendment about a fortnight ago and as this Report would have been in the hands of the Minister by then he could have gazetted the delineations. Is that what the hon. Member said?

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, no; what I said was that I filed an amendment to clauses 5 and 15 of the Local Government Bill at least a fortnight before the clauses were actually debated in the Select Committee on 16th May. I said that that amendment was similar to the one we have listed.

The Chief Minister: It is exactly because there have been amendments to clauses 5 and 15 of the Local Government Bill that the first proviso of the amendment before this Committee is accepted by Government.

Sir, some doubt has been cast on the statement of the Hon. the Chief Secretary, that because the Statistics Department has now about half the electoral rolls in the machines almost completed the hon. Member is led to believe that the Government must have decided on this delineation months and months ago. Sir, the sorting out of the voters into their various electoral divisions is done by machine - all set, nice and proper, from the information gathered. That information is then conveyed to the Committee. All the facts are there. Once the Committee had decided to recommend which particular mukim should go to which particular electoral division, it takes one lot and feeds it to the machines.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I just want to add that the machines are not Labour Front machines!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, Sir, there are two aspects to this problem which we have been debating today. The first is the question of the procedure which the Government has thought fit to adopt. The second is the question of the merits of the charge made by the Liberal-Socialist Party against the Government that it has been fixing the boundary lines to the advantage of the Labour Front Coalition Parties.

On the first charge, that the procedure has not been, to say the least, proper, no one can deny that the position of the Minister responsible is indefensible. He had ample opportunity to inform all the other political Parties of what was going on. He could not only have cleared his Ministry and the Committee, but everyone else of any allegation of bias. For some reason or other he has not done that and therefore he has to bear the responsibility for this unnecessarily long debate on this very short point.

But on the merits of the boundary lines I would like to ask the Liberal-Socialist Party to remember this: for the first time 500,000 people or more are going to vote, many of them for the first time in their lives, and no Party, however clairvoyant, can predict which way the voters are going to vote. The Progressive Party was responsible for the Rendel Constitution and they worked out the boundary lines. They lost because over 200,000 voters went to the polls for the first time and threw them out. So even assuming that the Labour Front has been rigging these boundary lines, there is no guarantee - in fact I am more than certain that there is no guarantee - that over 500,000 voters who are going to vote for the first time in their lives may not vote in a manner expected either by the Labour Front, or the Coalition Parties or indeed the Liberal-Socialists.

An hon. Member: Or the P.A.P.!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Be that as it may. Therefore, I say the problem before us is this. If we are sticklers for procedure and are prepared to postpone elections for one or two months to go through this procedure, then by all means let us go through with it. All it means is that the Minister can hear objections after proper notifications have been made, then he rejects the objections and we go through with it. We just go through the drill. But if we do not want delay and we are satisfied, as indeed my Party is, that there cannot be, it is impossible, to rig things because nobody knows which way the voting is going to go, then we just leave it be and go on with it in December.

11.30 a.m.

Question put, "That the words 'Provided that no' proposed to be left out, be left out."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 11; Absent, 4. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Ede, John. Braga, A. J. Goh Chew Chua. Chew Swee Kee. Goh Tong Liang. Stewart, S. T. Jumabhoy, R. Hart, T. M. Lee Choon Eng. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Soh Ghee Soon. Mak Pak Shee. Tan, William. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Absent Shanks, E. P. Lazarous, A. R. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Ching Siong. Thomas, Francis. Seah Peng Chuan. Wong Foo Nam. Sutherland, G. A. P.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the figure and word '(2) No' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Sir, I beg to move the second part of the amendment to the amendment,

After "him" at the end of the first proviso to leave out all the words to the end and insert "Provided that the provisions of this sub section shall not apply in respect of the first ordinary elections of Councillors to the City Council or to any District Council held under the provisions of this Ordinance.".

Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

The Chairman: The consequential amendment will be made - the insertion of the figure "(1)" after the figure "8", in page 17, line 11.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11-

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I beg to move,

In page 18, line 41, to leave out "(6)" and insert "(3)". This is to correct a wrong reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22-

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I beg to move,

In page 26, after line 18, to insert a new sub-clause (3) as follows:- " Ord. of (3) On a casual vacancy occurring in the 1957. office of a Councillor an election shall subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 26 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, be held within two months of the date of the casual vacancy upon a date to be fixed by the Governor.".

This is necessary, Sir, to rectify an omission to provide for casual elections. Under the present Municipal Elections Ordinance a casual election shall be held within one month of a casual vacancy occurring. One month, we believe, is too restrictive and does not allow of sufficient time for the issue of a writ to nomination day and from nomination day to polling day.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27-

Amendment made: In page 27, line 33, to leave out "1956" and insert "1957".- [Inche Abdul Hamid].

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34-

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I beg to move,

In page 31, line 20, after "taken", to insert ", such date being not less than sixteen days after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette".

The reason for this is that in the case of an ordinary election or elections to fill casual vacancies, the purpose of this amendment is to prescribe a minimum period between nomination day and polling day for electioneering.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.