Committee

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

11.45 a.m.

Clause 3-

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, before I move the amendment standing in my name I would like to seek your guidance regarding the Standing Orders of the Assembly on the recommittal of a Bill. I refer to Standing Order 54 (1), which reads:

"If any Member desires to delete or amend any provision contained in a Bill as reported from a Committee of the whole Assembly or to introduce any new provision therein he may at any time before a Member rises to move the third reading of the Bill, move that the Bill be recommitted...".

Sir, the point I have in mind here is that this particular amendment - the first amendment standing in my name - is really consequential to the introduction of new clauses in respect of District Council finances and other allied matters, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we could take those three new clauses more or less together rather than take a debate on what is really a consequential amendment. In other words, if the Government will accept the new clauses which will be debated after the other amendments, then this proviso to the definition of appropriate local authority funds could be deleted by recommitting clause 3 at that stage.

The Chairman: Can the hon. Member indicate which new clauses he refers to?

Mr John Ede: Yes, Sir. The clause actually affected is the clause concerned with District Council finances and funds; if it is approved by the Government then this proviso under clause 3 will of course not be necessary. It does seem to me that the questions of the District Council employees, posts and funds could more conveniently be taken together if I do not move this amendment at this stage; this proviso could be cleared up later after this debate.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member then suggest that the new clauses "Appointment of District Council Employees" and "List of Posts" appearing on page 104 of the Order Paper are related to the new clause "District Council Fund", and may be conveniently debated together? Is that what the hon. Member says?

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, what I mean is that they are to some extent interrelated. Those three new clauses are all on District Council matters and what we consider to be omissions by Government. If we are to take this very minor proviso to clause 3 now, it does mean in effect that we will have to debate the question whether or not to have the clause on the District Council funds.

The Chairman: The procedure is quite clear. The hon. Member may proceed with his amendment, that is the deletion of the proviso appearing at the top of page 70 of the Report, and in debating that amendment hon. Members will be at liberty to debate the merits or demerits of the introduction of the new clause entitled "District Council Fund", notice of which has been given in page 104 of the Order Paper. As to the other two new clauses I would prefer not to make a decision until the debate proceeds.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I fear that I have not made myself quite clear. What I wanted to enquire from the Chair and to seek your guidance on was whether if I do not move this amendment, the deletion of this proviso, on page 70 at all at this stage, and we debate the three new clauses in due course at the end of the amendments on the main clause 3, and come to District Council funds last, if the Government approves of this particular clause, then the proviso in question before us now will have to be deleted; and my suggestion, Sir, is that under Standing Order 54 (1) we could recommit the Bill on clause 3 in order at that stage to delete the proviso. I hope I have made myself clear.

The Chairman: I take it then that the hon. Member is not at the moment ready to go on with the debate on the new clause. If that is so then of course the procedure suggested by the hon. Member is quite correct. He need not move the amendment standing in his name at this stage. He may apply under the relevant Standing Order and, as pointed out, if his new clause is accepted, he may ask for a further recommittal of the Bill before the Third Reading.

Mr John Ede: Thank you very much, Sir.

The Chairman: I take it that the hon. Member is not moving amendment (a) to clause 3, which is-

In page 70, to leave out lines 1 to 3.

Mr John Ede: I am not, Sir. Amendment (b), I beg to move,

In page 71, after line 23, to insert:-

'"member of a local authority" means a City Councillor or a District Councillor, or the Chairman of a District Council or the Deputy Chairman of a District Council, as the case may be;'.

Sir, my point in moving this amendment - indeed I moved it in Select Committee - was to clear up what I felt was an inconsistency in this Bill. Sir, you will find that in the first few clauses of the Bill continual references to City Councillors and District Councillors. I might mention clauses 8 and 9, where the word "Councillor" figures right through those clauses. Now it is only when we get to clause 20 after passing through the section dealing with District Councils where we find the term District Council is used, that we read in sub-clause (1), "No person elected or nominated to be a member of a local authority shall act in such office..."; so that here instead of using the term "Councillor" we change to the term "member of a local authority".

If we go further to clause 25 (3), we will find the two terms mixed up. In line 6 at the beginning of sub-clause (3):

"The date on which the seat of a member of a local authority shall, unless in this Ordinance it is otherwise provided, be deemed to be vacated shall be-...".

And then we come to line 17 of sub-clause (3) (C):

"in the case of a councillor ceasing to possess a qualification or becoming disqualified,...".

Now I think there is no doubt that here a "member of a local authority" and a "councillor" is one and the same thing and yet we are using two different terms for one and the same person.

I made this point in Select Committee and you will read in column 9 of the Official Report (No. 1) that the Hon. the Attorney-General said at that time:

"...we do recognise there are inconsistencies and I did say we are grateful to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the Committee to them. If we can leave the matter there, I will give that undertaking and the final result will, I think, be that the inconsistencies which are bothering the hon. Member will be removed."

In those circumstances I begged leave to withdraw the amendment. But nothing in fact has been done and we still have this anomaly of the term "councillor" in one part of the Bill and "member of a local authority" in another, an anomaly in fact even in one single clause which I have already quoted. Therefore it seems to me that this amendment is necessary, that "member of a local authority" means a City Councillor or a District Councillor because that will avoid making amendments right through the Bill because of the interchange of these two terms.

The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart): Mr Chairman, the hon. Member for Tanglin mentioned about the Hon. the Attorney-General undertaking to see that any inconsistencies would be rectified, and he quoted column 9 of the Official Report (No. 1) dated 16th May, 1957. I would also like to quote from column 9 the words which you said, Sir:

"Can I explain further? Perhaps if after the Hon. the Attorney-General has considered the whole point he considers that a definition of this nature is not necessary, it is still open to the Member for Tanglin to move his amendment at the Report stage...".

Sir, after consideration we feel that this amendment is not necessary. There is no need to amend as suggested by the Member for Tanglin. There are certain general clauses which are applicable to all local authorities, Sir, and in such general clauses the description which is mostly used is "member of a local authority", as in clauses 21, 22, 23 (1), (2), (3), and (5), 24, 25 (1), (3), 27, 28 and 45, and there is no need to define a member of a local authority, Sir, because local authority is already defined as being a City Council or a District Council as the case may be. So a member of a local authority means a member of a City Council or a District Council as the case may be, which is the same as saying a member of a local authority means a City Councillor or a District Councillor as the case may be.

There are, however, certain specific clauses which refer either to the City Council or to a District Council, in which Councillor is specifically used as referring to such persons specifically. And in the definition of the Member for Tanglin, he includes Chairman of a District Council and the Deputy Chairman. I would like to point out, Sir, clause 17, where the Chairman is already deemed to be a Councillor. There is no need to mention him again in the definition of "member of a local authority", and again, Sir, with regard to the Deputy Chairman, I think the Member for Tanglin has perhaps overlooked the fact that the Deputy Chairman is not a Councillor.

For those reasons, Sir, we feel that the amendment is not necessary.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, perhaps the Hon. the Chief Secretary will explain the reason why in clause 25 (3), line 6, there is mention of "a member of a local authority" and in the same clause, sub-clause (3) (c) a little way down the page, there is a change to the term "councillor". Perhaps there is some specific meaning which has escaped this House?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is referring to clause 25 (3) at page 86.

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): Mr Chairman, in that one case I would agree with the hon. Member that the word "member" would be better. That is, so far as I can find, the only case where a change appears to be desirable.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, then I would like to know whether the Government will accept my amendment or whether it will continue the inconsistency.

Amendment negatived.

12.00 noon.

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

In page 72, line 24, after "messuages" to insert ", houses".

This is a minor amendment which is intended to help clean up the Bill as I had hoped the previous amendment would do, and I see no inconsistency in moving this amendment just to make things a little clearer than they are at present. "Premises" includes houses, buildings, lands, tenements - the word "houses" by being inserted there underlines what is a common term in various parts of the Bill, in particular with reference to annual value, and therefore it seems convenient to have these four terms together under the definition of "premises". If you would turn, Sir, to page 69, line 33, on the same clause, you will find that the words "house, building, land or tenement" used - "the annual value of such house, building, land or tenement". If you turn to clause 111 on page 121 regarding valuation, you will read:

"A local authority shall cause to be prepared a list, which shall be known as 'the Valuation List', of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements...".

Now I agree, Sir, that you can say that in the definition of "building" on page 70 there is included the term "house", but "building" there is used more in the sense of a structure than in that of a dwelling house, and you have a definition of "house" on page 71 which includes a dwelling-house, warehouse, office, counting-house, shop, school, and any other building in which persons are employed, that is to say a place of habitation rather than a structure. I therefore think it is convenient - I agree it is not absolutely essential but it is convenient - to have under the term "premises" the word "houses" included. I would point out that in the Select Committee stage an amendment was accepted by which the term "tenement" was included and that is in exactly the same position. You will find tenements included under the term "dwelling-house" and you will find dwelling-house included under the term "house", and you will find house included under the term "building". But my point is this: for cleaning up the Bill and making it as clear as possible from the point of view of annual values and ratings, it is convenient to have the word "houses" included in the definition of "premises".

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Sir, we accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5-

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

In page 74, line 18, after "him", to insert ", provided that the provisions of this section shall also apply in respect of the alterations in the limits of the City described in the First Schedule to this Ordinance from those existing under the Municipal Ordinance".

This amendment to the clause is to some extent parallel to that which we debated under the Local Government Elections Bill earlier this morning, but much larger issues are involved in this clause than in respect of the other Bill. The principle that notification should be gazetted not only for future minor alterations but the present major alterations is an important matter when you are making such vast changes in the limits of the City and the Districts as are proposed in the First Schedule to this Bill. You do not have to go into the merits or demerits of particular cases but you have a large part of Katong, Siglap and Geylang Serai-Ulu Bedok going out into the district areas. A large part of this area is thoroughly urbanised. You have on the other hand a largely rural area - Pasir Panjang and Ulu Pandan - being brought into the City Council area from the rural areas. You have a third anomaly which cuts across the other two, of a change in the Braddell Road area, where an entirely rural area which has been in the City Council area for many years is being divided into two, one part going out into the Districts and the other remaining in the City.

So you have three different types of anomalies striking against the normal principle of extension of City Council boundaries. When a rural area becomes urbanised it is normal to bring it within the area of the City Council; whereas the Government, for some reason best known to itself, wants to go in the opposite direction.

Now whether or not these changes are acceptable is a matter in which the people should have a say, and in which they have not had sufficient say. It is true, of course, that the Schedules were to be found at the back of this very complicated Bill when it was first gazetted some time ago, but it was only of course available in the English language (and I shall shortly point out that it is somewhat stretching the English language trying to follow a surveyor's idea of where a boundary lies). But there was no notification whatever in the other three main languages - Chinese, Malay and Tamil - although for the first time those are to be spoken languages in the City Council and the District Councils

As I said earlier on the other Bill, I raised this point on 16th May and the Government has had plenty of time. It has had two months in which to make the necessary gazetting or to inform people as to what these new boundaries are in four languages and with the assistance of a map. And I may say that the description of the boundaries is extremely complicated to follow and there has been no map published with the Bill, only with the White Paper; so that the public has not had sufficient access to the facts regarding the Government's intentions. As I say, I raised the point in the Select Committee meeting on 16th May and I would also refer you to the present Municipal Ordinance, section 362, where the same or similar provision is made:

"No alteration shall be made in the limits of the Municipality under section 5 or in the water limits under section 59 or in any area mentioned in section 399, 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 and one vernacular paper, if any...".

This more or less follows the main part of this clause 5. My point is this: I question whether in fact notification should not have been given under section 362 of the present Municipal Ordinance. Legally perhaps the lawyers will argue that that would not have been possible but even if the letter of the law could not have been observed, the spirit of the law is there, and because the future Local Government Ordinance is to succeed the present Municipal Ordinance it would be only right in principle that the Government should have published and notified by Gazette and in the newspapers of four languages what it intended to do, for the convenience of the people so that they could make their objections if they desired.

I would just like to refer you to the First Schedule at the back of the Bill, page 246, and to suggest to you that as this is all that has been placed before the public, it is inadequate and the Government has not carried it out, as it should have carried it out, adequately. The first Schedule starts:

"All that part of the Island of Singapore bounded approximately as follows: -

Commencing at a point where the production southwards of the western boundary of Clementi Road across West Coast Road meets the southern coast of the Island of Singapore approximately 50 yards south-west of the junction of Pasir Panjang, West Coast and Clementi Roads, the boundary runs generally northwards along the aforesaid production of the western boundary of Clementi Road and its continuation along the western boundary of Clementi Road to a point approximately 220 yards north of 7� mile stone, Clementi Road where it meets the south-eastern boundary of Clementi Road Housing Estate; thence along the aforesaid southeastern boundary of Clementi Road Housing Estate on a bearing of approximately 247� for a distance of 1,310 feet to the eastern boundary of West Coast Road; thence along the eastern boundary of West Coast Road by successive lines of bearings and distances approximately as under: - Bearing Distance 340� 38' 00" 177 feet 342� 18' 00" 487 feet and so on. Now, I suggest to you, Sir, that that may be the route the surveyor takes, but it is easier for people to understand if you say that the boundary follows Clementi Road until its junction with Ulu Pandan Road and then proceeds up Ulu Pandan Road until its junction with Holland Road and then proceeds down Holland Road until it has reached its junction with Bukit Timah Road, which is roughly but not exactly what this boundary in point of fact is.

But within what I dare say is a terminological exactitude we find that the boundary does not in fact go down Clementi Road which any logical boundary you think would do, but it makes a sudden jump round a housing estate built by the Singapore Improvement Trust and where I think the Malay Regiment is housed. Now why it should suddenly make a jump and take in a little housing estate as it proceeds down the road is best known to the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. But the point I am making is this, that the Government has not, whatever the Government may like to say by publishing this rigmarole at the back of the Bill several months ago, made it clear to the public what its intentions are. And as I say, with these vast changes in the City Council limits, which affect Katong, Ulu Pandan, Pasir Panjang, Braddell Road, and Siglap and so on, it should notify under clause 5 in respect of these first changes as it proposes should be done in the future.

12.15 p.m.

As I said before on the other Bill, we should start as we mean to go on. That would be a proper democratic way of doing things. And if the Government again claims that we do not have the time, then I have only to point out that it had just as much time, and even more time, to publish and gazette these changes than it has for the other Bill.

The Chairman: It is a convenient time to suspend?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended until half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.