LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Debate in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 5-

Question proposed,

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".- [Mr John Ede].

2.32 p.m.

The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart): Mr Chairman, Sir, the merits and demerits of the boundaries of the First Schedule have been discussed at length in Select Committee and was touched upon by the Minister in his speech in this Assembly last week. I think we can discuss the question of boundaries more in detail when we come to the First Schedule, Sir. The argument here is that the boundaries in the First Schedule should be subjected to the procedure laid down in clause 5. It has already been pointed out, Sir, that the McNeice Report and the Government White Paper showing boundaries were published some time ago and that an opportunity to submit representations to the Select Committee was given. What I said this morning. Sir, about the effect on the City Council and District Councils elections on changing boundaries now also holds good in discussing this clause. If this amendment is accepted, then the City Council elections cannot be held in December. There is already considerable dissatisfaction because of the delay in holding the City Council elections.

Here we have a new Bill repealing the existing Municipal Ordinance and reorganizing local government in Singapore. New local authorities are being created with jurisdiction over new areas and this Bill incorporating the new areas is before the representatives of the people in this Assembly for approval. I would like to quote, Sir, the words of the then Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield) at column 20, Report No. 1:

"As the hon. Member can see from the provisos to both clauses 5 and 15, the Government accepts the principle that changes in the limits of the City and of the districts should be advertised, and that the procedure described in these clauses should be followed. But this particular change in boundaries made by this Bill is, in our view, on a different footing altogether - the changes in the existing boundaries are incorporated in a Bill presented to the Legislative Assembly and will be dealt with by the Assembly. For that reason, and also for the reason that we must take some definite step towards holding City Council elections in the reasonably near future, we cannot accept the amendment which the hon. Member has moved to clause 5."

Then, Sir, I would like to quote the words of the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) at column 17, Report No. 1:

"Yes, Sir, but there is one rather important point which perhaps I can make, and that is this: that I would wish, of course, to move a similar amendment under clause 15 on district council limits, which is similar to clause 5, bearing in mind that the Government has now introduced an amendment to its own First Schedule before this Select Committee, an amendment which has not been given any airing whatever for the benefit of the public. The Government may say, "Well, we have published this Bill which includes the First Schedule and let out what these new areas will be. The public have had a chance to air their views and to appear before this Select Committee to say what they feel.' But that will not be the case in respect of the amendments which are proposed by the Government on page 30 onwards of the Revised List of Amendments circulated on 15th April, 1957. These amendments propose changes to be made in the district areas which are unknown to anyone outside this Committee so far as I am aware."

Sir, the Member for Tanglin said that there is an amendment to the First Schedule in Select Committee which was not given an airing whatever for the benefit of the public. In fact, Sir, there are two amendments but what are these amendments? They are mere rectification of errors in the description of the boundaries and nothing more. No boundary has been altered. They are just errors in description and we are rectifying the errors.

He mentioned the amendments to the Second Schedule made by Government in Select Committee for similar reasons. Except for two amendments, the other amendments are also corrections in the description with no actual change in the boundaries. Of the two amendments, one is actually a minor one which I am sure nobody will quarrel about and the reasons are given in column 353 of Report No. 13:

"The reasons for the first amendment as suggested by the Chief Statistician is that, as will be seen from the Plan B, the present proposed local government boundary cuts along the land now occupied by the Royal Malayan Navy. It follows the electoral division boundary between Sembawang and Bukit Panjang..."-

Mr John Ede: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Stewart resumed his seat.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I just wanted to know whether we were taking clause 15 or clause 5. The amendments to which the hon. Member was referring, I think, come within the Second Schedule under clause 15.

Mr Stewart: Sir, I was only making these remarks in connection with the remarks of the hon. Member at column 17 of Report No. 1, but I will refer to them later in clause 15.

Sir, I think the hon. Member in referring to the First Schedule said that the manner in which it was described was very difficult for people to understand. Sir, there is nothing wrong with the manner in which the First Schedule had been drawn up. In fact, it is a recognised method of description and it is only describing the boundaries; these boundaries are shown in the maps attached to Report No. 13. Even the Schedules in the Local Government Bill, when they were introduced in this Assembly, Sir, merely described the boundaries which appeared in the McNeice Report and the White Paper on Local Government.

Sir, in view of the facts, I submit that there is no need to advertise these boundaries in the newspapers as would be required if this amendment is accepted and for those reasons, Sir, which I have given, I oppose the amendment.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, as in the case of clause 8 of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, so in this clause, a principle is involved. The principle is that, when changes are made in the limits of the city area or the district area, the Minister shall gazette and advertise in newspapers so that objections may be lodged. As I pointed out this morning, that is a principle which has a precedent in the present Municipal Ordinance in section 362 and although it may be a legal fact that you cannot apply that in this particular case, as I said, it is the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law that counts. The Government at the time had the precedent to gazette and advertise in the manner which has been done for many years under the present Municipa1 Ordinance but apparently they had not the intention. Indeed I would say that they have been extremely casual with the future electorate in the City Council area in this matter.

I would refer you, Sir, to the original clause 5 on page 8 of the Bill which reads:

"No alteration shall be made in the limits of the City under subsection (1) of section 4 of this Ordinance 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 newspaper circulating in the City..."

It was only when I moved an amendment in the Select Committee, pointing out that with the introduction of four languages for prospective candidates to the City Council advertising in one vernacular newspaper was insufficient, that an amendment was accepted by the Government that it should be one Chinese, one Malay and one Indian and not merely one vernacular newspaper, presumably selected at random.

2.45 p.m.

So we can see that sufficient thought has not been given to this matter by the Government although they have had sufficient time and certainly sufficient warning to carry out the purpose and the spirit of the amendment which we propose today.

Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, on the point of the purpose and the spirit, I may mention that these amendments were made in Select Committee and they are still in Select Committee. I think - I am new to this Assembly - if I am correct, we cannot disclose anything which is still in Select Committee to the public.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, that was not my point. My point was that the Government had before them section 362 of the Municipal Ordinance which they could have followed in the spirit.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Chairman, I hate to suggest that some of the Members of the Opposition are embarking on a filibuster in connection with this Bill. Really I feel we cannot go on-I suppose we can but it is undesirable that we should-discussing a lot of points that have already been made this morning. The point is really very simple: whether the boundaries proposed are all right. No serious argument has been produced to show that they are not all right. There has been no questioning of the boundaries as such. As someone said, "On principle, let us have as much delay as possible." The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) appeared to welcome the chance of having some delay and he was vigorously supported by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng). The delay was no harm at all in his opinion.

Now, it is obvious that if you are going to reopen the question of boundaries for objections either there will be objections in which case there will be delay, or else there will be no objections in which case the exercise is meaningless. There is no reason to suppose that there would be objections, since substantially everyone has known for a very long time what the proposed changes were: whether they follow Clementi Road on a surveyor's description is a very minor point. The general scheme of what was going to happen has been known for a very long time indeed and I really feel that we ought to get on with our business, Mr Chairman, and not involve ourselves either in delay during this debate or in delay further on by accepting this amendment.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, it seems to me that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works wants to gag the Opposition. He stated that there has been no objection to the boundaries and that we thought that the boundaries are all right. Sir, that is a complete misconception. They are not all right. I made the point this morning that it would be preferable not to go into the pros and cons and the merits and demerits of Katong going into the District Council or staying in the city area and that was echoed by my friend the Hon. the Chief Secretary only a few minutes ago. We do object to the boundaries as they stand at the moment, and I am quite prepared to launch into the case for the boundaries being left as they are at this very moment if my hon. Friend wishes, but our intention was that we should discuss this particular point on the amendments to the First and Second Schedules.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, there is just one principle involved: must we or must we not let the electorate know whether they are going to be in the city area or outside the city area? I think on this point there can be no argument. Clause 5 of this Bill states clearly that it is the Government's view that they must be notified by four successive Gazettes and contemporaneously advertised once every week for four consecutive weeks in English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil in the newspapers. This principle has been agreed by all. The Government has put it forward. We agree with that principle but the point is this: if this principle is introduced, is it going to be observed only when it suits the Government or if a principle is involved and agreed upon, then it must be agreed upon and put into practice every time? I think to exclude it for the first time, Sir, does not convey that spirit. In accordance with the amendment here, there is nothing wrong about it. The principle just calls upon the Government to carry out that principle which it is preaching not only for coming changes but also for present changes. I think the people have a right to know and have a right to put their views before the Government. The principle is there: everybody accepts it. Why it is not put into practice is in the words of the Government, "Do not cause delay." But whose fault is it when it comes to a matter of delay? Is it because the people delayed in conveying their views to the Government? Has the Government given them the chance to voice their opposition to this? The Government has not up to this point. The Government has not put them into Gazettes or published them. There are two different phases in accordance with this view: one is to put this Bill to this House and make it law and the other is the Delineation Committee.

Now, we have come to this stage, Sir. The Government today is trying to tell us, "Now, we have passed this Bill. You shall accept our recommendation." Could not these recommendations have been put forward by the Delineation Committee at an earlier date? Could not this committee have been appointed at an earlier date and then the proposed boundaries made known to the people so that they could be gazetted before it is too late? We are not in any way agreed on postponing the elections. The postponement of the elections is mainly due to the inefficiency of the Government and if the Government had thought about it during the time when it expressed vociferously about holding City Council elections in 1955 and in 1956, it should have had a thought about these new boundaries, appointed a committee earlier and let the people know earlier through the newspapers.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, I am really fed up listening to the inefficiency of the Government -

Mr John Ede: So are we.

Mr Nair: - and the people not being informed of the changes.

Sir, may I invite the attention of hon. Members to the Report of the Committee on Local Government? Full opportunity was given to all members of the public to put their views to this Committee in regard to matters affecting local government and I can see from this Report at Appendix C that quite a number of people had submitted representations. Moreover this Committee had representives from various political Parties.

Again. Sir, when this Bill was referred to a Select Committee, as you are aware, we made it specifically clear that any individual or body could make representation to the Government. We can see these facts on paper and they cannot be denied by any hon. Member. If any hon. Member were to suggest that these are all matters hidden from the people, I can only say that that is "double talk".

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member must know that "double talk" is unparliamentary.

Mr Nair: Sir, I was trying to explain how-

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member please withdraw that expression?

Mr Nair: As you please, Sir. I was only trying to emphasise that these matters were really in the hands of the people for quite a long time and I think, Sir, to say that the people did not know anything about these matters is insulting the intelligence of the people of Singapore. They were very well aware and if they had any idea of making representations to the Committee they would have done so. In the absence of any representations, Sir, we believe that the people are completely behind the Government in their views. Furthermore, according to the amendment suggested by the hon. Member, at least for the first ordinary elections to the City and District Councils, if the Minister were to ask representations from individuals in writing, probably a discussion of this kind would not be taking place. In other words, the Members of this Assembly would not have had an opportunity of debating the merits and demerits of the aspects involved in the local government affairs. I feel that we have given the opportunity for all hon. Members to discuss the merits and demerits of not only the various boundaries of electoral divisions but also the Schedules as suggested in this Bill.

I would like to quote, Sir, a statement made by the then Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield) from the Official Report of the Select Committee on Local Government Bill No. 1 at column 20:

"The Government maintains its stand for the very good reason that these changes are being brought before the representatives of the people in the Legislative Assembly - a far better method than advertising in the newspapers (which would, of course, be followed where changes in the City limits are made at a later stage)."

Sir, the Attorney-General said this on behalf of the Government. I feel, Sir, that, although we agree in principle that changes in boundaries of local government should be published for public representations, we must make a start and a start cannot be made by asking the people to say about the boundaries and other matters connected therewith for the first elections. The Government boldly and with determination, after due consideration, fixed the boundaries to expedite the elections.

Sir, there has been talk in this Assembly that we have been trying to do things in our own way, not caring for the views of the Opposition. I think, Sir, we must admit that we cannot always accept cock-eyed views which can be regarded seriously by Government.

The Chairman: I think I heard the hon. Member say "cock-eyed". If that is correct, I will ask the hon. Member to withdraw that word.

Mr Nair: I withdraw it. We can only appreciate and take into consideration the views of the people which are desirable in the interest of the people as a whole. I believe, Sir, that the Government's stand is very clear. I do feel that it is democratic and, if we are to agree with the hon. Member, I feel that democracy will be moving very slowly whereas, with the Government's stand now, democracy will be running a bit faster.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I think the remarks of the Member for Seletar have gone slightly askew - if that is a parliamentary word. He stated just now that we implied that no representations had been made to the Select Committee regarding changes in boundaries. I would refer him quite briefly to pages 358 and 359 of the Minutes of Evidence where he will find that City Council representatives who appeared before the Select Committee and included Members of the Labour Front in the City Council objected to the new boundaries. I should like to know why the Labour Front Coalition Government repudiates its own City Council representatives.

Mr Nair: Sir, I would like to clarify that point. I said: no individual member of the public. The City Council as a body had made representations and, of course, as the hon. Member knows, we have considered them but what I meant was that no member of the public made either written or verbal representations to the Select Committee.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Probably because their views will be put aside and not considered by the Government!

Mr Nair: Sir, as a matter of fact, we had members of the City Council as Members of the Select Committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

3.00 p.m.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 21; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Jumabhoy, R. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lee Choon Eng. Braga, A. J. Lim Choon Mong. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Koon Teck. Goh Chew Chua. Soh Ghee Soon. Hart. T. M. Tan, William. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Abstention Lim, R. C. H. Nil. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Absent. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Lazarous, A. R. Nair, M. P. D. Lim Ching Siong. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Stewart, S. T. Sutherland. G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6-

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

In page 74, line 25: to leave out "thirty-two" and insert "forty-eight".

Sir, by this amendment, we desire to increase the number of the City Councillors from 32 to 48. The number at present proposed by the Government is 32. If one leaves out the mayor, from the point of view that he is the first gentleman of the City who should be above the general run of committee work and is as it were on a pinnacle of his own, that will leave 31 active members dealing with the day-to-day affairs. With the mayor at its head, you have only 31 as opposed to the present 27 members of the City Council. This increase of four is, of course, quite insufficient when compared with the enormously enlarged electorate with which we are now faced. It is so long ago since the City Council elections were held and I do not know whether any of us remember just how many there were on the City Council electorate three years ago but it was a very insignificant number compared with the 500,000 with which we are faced in the coming elections. From the Report of the Committee which has been thrust before us only this morning, we find on page 1 that the average voter strength of a division or ward is 15,761 and on page 2 of Annex "A" you have the breakdown of the 505,276 expected electors and the numbers apportioned; against that, is 32 wards. You will find that in Telok Ayer for example, you have no less than 21,078 electors and below it you have 12,124 electors in Pasir Panjang. But the average, as I have already stated, in this Report is 15,761. Now, that in itself as an average is higher than the average of the present - I think it is about - 16 divisions of the Assembly constituencies roughly within the city area, the other nine being in the districts and, as in the future we are of course going to double the representatives in this Assembly, that figure will be even more reduced subject of course to the increase through our new citizenship laws which are to come into effect shortly. Whichever way you look at it, it is quite clear of course that the wards - if I may so call them to separate them from the divisions in the Assembly - are going to have many more electors than the divisions. That is a wrong principle altogether. That position of course is quite inevitable because the qualifications for electors for the local government elections are much lower and quite different from those that we are going to have for the electorate for the Assembly elections.

Clause 5 of the Local Government Elections Bill reads as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of section 6 of this Ordinance, any person who-

(a) was not less than twenty-one years of age...and

(b) has been ordinarily resident in the Island for a period of not less than five years; or

(c) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the British Nationality Act, 1948, or was born in any of the States or territories now included in the Federation of Malaya or the Colony of Sarawak or the Colony of North Borneo or the State of Brunei who was ordinarily resident in Singapore on the first day of April in any year,

shall be entitled to have his name entered and retained in the register of electors...".

3.15 p.m.

So that as a result of approving clause 5 and the considerably lower qualifications required for the local government electorate, we find ourselves with 500,000 people to deal with. Now, in the United Kingdom, the normal number of electors in a ward is never larger than 10,000. In fact, it is very often considerably less, and 48 members of the City Council would therefore work out very roughly to the 500,000 electorate at 10,000 per ward which would be a very much more satisfactory number in every kind of way because it must be remembered, Sir, that the elected representatives must be as close to the people as possible and that most of the needs of the man in the street are local government needs, not the needs of the Legislature. What the man in the street is interested in is more water, better drainage, a solution to his problems regarding unauthorised buildings, building plans, hawkers, electricity, and so on, and these, as Members of the House very well know, are matters which our own constituents bring to us more frequently than any other problems and they are not really the problems which elected representatives of the Assembly should have to deal with - I have no doubt we deal with them willingly - but they are the problems that should go to the elected City Councillor who can deal with them more effectively for the very reason that it is for him to make local government operate. Therefore, it seems to us essential that we should increase the number of City Councillors to 48 which would make a far better proportion to the electorate than the present proposal. In fact, when the Minister last week said that there was danger or over-representation at the local government level, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. The very reverse is in fact true. There is danger of under-representation because of the huge electorate of half a million people.

There seems to have been the idea in the Minister's mind - I suppose in the mind of the Government - that there should not be more councillors in local government than there are Members of the Assembly. "Oh, there are only going to be 51 Members of this House and therefore we cannot possibly have as many as 48 in the City Council and members of the District Councils as well. Better keep it down to 32." Now, that I think is an erroneous approach to the whole problem. In the United Kingdom, there are roughly 630 Members of Parliament while there are of course thousands of City Councillors and County Councillors at local government level. The argument does not hold water. But that is one side and an important side of our reasons for moving an amendment to the number 32.

The other is connected with the needed improvement of the committee system of local government by having more members of the City Council. It has to be remembered that local government is carried on very much by standing committees and not by the monthly meetings of the entire City Council. The basis of local government is just that. At the moment with 27 members of the City Council and an increase only to 31, you are going to have your standing committees far too small to carry out the work as efficiently as it could be carried out. For example, the present Health Committee of the City Council, with its six councillors and I think a quorum of three, has an enormous number of subjects to deal with - departments, if I may call them so: hawkers, markets, infant welfare clinics, city cleansing, veterinary departments, anti-malarial measures, standpipes, infectious diseases, etc. A whole host of problems is dealt with by six people and because they are dealt with only by six people, the City Council are unable to delegate powers or feel that they should not delegate powers to make decisions to such a small committee which probably does not sufficiently represent the various four Parties in the City Council. Perhaps I would do well to quote from the representations made by the City Council representatives themselves to the Select Committee on this point which would be found on page 361 of the Minutes of Evidence, at column 34, towards the bottom:

"It [the Council] feels that the least number that could carry out efficiently the work of the Council, bearing in mind that the City Council works on a Committee system, is 48. The reason why the Council feels that it should be 48 is that we have now in the City Council nine Standing Committees. At the moment, we have on each Standing Committee six members with a quorum of three. In any expanding city, such as Singapore (where the City Council is closely associated with the daily wants and needs of the people) the City Council, if it wants to discharge its duties efficiently and promptly, will have to take decisions quickly and the only way in which decisions can be taken quickly is for the Council to delegate completely some of its authority to the Standing Committees. At the moment, the Council is very jealous of its overall powers and is most unwilling to delegate any of these powers to Standing Committees. I can appreciate that position, Sir, because the quorum of the Standing Committees is so painfully small - it is three. How can one reasonably expect to delegate authority to such a Committee? Now if we have a Committee of at least 10 or 12 or 13 persons, I think there is a greater likelihood of the Council being willing to delegate its authority to this Committee. It is with that end in view, hoping to get efficiency and quick service, that we advocate a City Council of 48."-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information.

The Chairman: If the Member will give way.

Mr John Ede resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Could not the Member for Tanglin attribute sufficient diligence on the part of Members of this House to have read that Select Committee Report?

The Chairman: I do not think that that is a very fair remark. I think the hon. Member was drawing attention to a paragraph and if he did not read that paragraph, the purport of his speech would be lost. Please continue.

Mr John Ede: Thank you, Sir.

"If we have a Council of 48, there will be more delegation of authority to these Committees and the work of the Council, as such, will be reduced to a very large extent. Most of the work will be completed in the Committee room, and decisions taken by the Committees will be acted upon the following day, whereas the present policy is this: that even though, say, the Health Committee may meet on the first possible day in the month, its decisions cannot be acted upon until, maybe, 30 days later. Having to wait for decisions to be confirmed by the full Council often means a waste of time and money."

That is the point.

"That is the only reason why we think an enlarged Council would lead to great efficiency. It is with that end in view that we suggested 48."

Now, the Minister - I think it was in his speech last week - said that he was quite satisfied that the City Council was running efficiently with the present number of members. Now, that is a question that he asked at this stage in the Select Committee and the answer is in column 38, page 363 of the Minutes of Evidence. It is quite brief, even if the Member for Tanjong Pagar has already read it:

"I will not say that the Council is not run efficiently, but I would say the Council would run much more efficiently if the Council would delegate more of its authority to the Committees. We can get the work done much more quickly and, I think, as time goes by, it will become more and more imperative that decisions should be acted on more and more promptly."

Surely, that is the feeling very often among members of the public that decisions of the City Council are held up for a very much longer time than they need be. What appear to the City Council as trivial matters are nevertheless important matters affecting their daily lives and if we can speed up our administration at the local government level, we shall be doing the people a good turn.

Those then, Sir, are the main reasons and the two very strong reasons why we feel that the representation on the City Council at 32 is not enough. Firstly, as I said, the electorate has been increased by an enormous amount to half a million people and, secondly, the work of the City Council can be improved by the quicker disposal of minor points in administration.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Chairman, with great timidity in this jungle of local government administration, I would like to draw attention to one or two remarks of the Member for Tanglin.

He referred to the City Council dealing with day-to-day affairs and said that the increase - of four by his account - or five actually, which would make it 32, was inadequate and that standing committees were too small for their onerous duties. I have in my hands the minutes of the proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the City Council on Friday, 31st May. Here is one of the earth-shaking decisions which had to be taken by the Health Committee to which he especially referred and which then was brought to the whole City Council:

"Approved unanimously, subject to compliance with all Municipal requirements, an application from the licensee of a Milk Bar and Confectionery on the ground floor of No. 91 East Coast Road, for permission to sell hot drinks in addition to the articles he now sells and that the licence he endorsed accordingly."

This most difficult decision first occupied the time of the Health Committee and then had to come before the whole City Council, if I understand their procedure aright.

Other vital decisions were:

The Vehicles and Traffic Committee agreed unanimously that "No Right Turn" sign be erected instead of a "No Entry" sign.

Elsewhere, we have:

Mr Lim Guan Kong, licensee of Stall No. 1 Hot and Cold Drinks, Esplanade, was given leave to go to China for five months and his nominee was allowed to operate instead of him.

In another case,

An Assistant Assessor had 6 days excess leave deducted from his future vacation leave entitlement.

These are the sort of decisions and problems with which these overworked City Councillors burden themselves. If these things really have to be taken by the City Council at that level of detail, I should have thought the fewer Councillors, the better and then they will get decisions through quickly.

Perhaps I can now quote from the Hill Report on the reform of local government in this matter. Dr Hill said in paragraph 375, on page 95:

"A total of eighteen elected members is not quite enough although large councils should be avoided in the interests of efficiency. There are twenty-seven members of the City Council at present,...and a total of twenty-seven is quite large enough."

He went on to say at paragraph 377:

"The tendency in Singapore is to refer too many questions to special committees and to spend too much time in committee procedure. It should be remembered that committee meetings take up a tremendous amount of time of important and highly paid officials and that the bulk of the time spent in committee could be avoided if the details of administration are left to the officers and the committees, concentrated on policy."

He goes on further at paragraph 379:

"If the highest standards of efficiency in administration with the consequential economy in public money are to be attained, the members of the council must play their part by first of all 'letting the managers manage', secondly, by self-challenging every urge for information with the question 'Is it really necessary?', and finally, to refuse to refer questions to sub-committees as a temporary evasion of the task of arriving at an immediate decision. In nine cases out of ten the ultimate decision of the committee, after a sub-committee has spent a lot of time on the subject will be the same as that which would have been given when the case was first raised."

Finally, at paragraph 398:

"Without attempting to be critical I am sure no one except an outsider could see just how much time is being spent on doing work which is not worth doing but which has become routine, how many operations could be streamlined, and the number of outmoded systems which no one has the courage to drop. I have not looked for these things particularly but many have almost jumped up to meet me during my investigations."

Mr Chairman, I feel myself that those quotations from the actual minutes of' the proceedings of the City Council coupled with the very pertinent remarks of a very able expert, Dr Hill, effectively dispose of the argument that the City Council ought to be larger in order to conduct its business more efficiently.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, the Member for Tanglin gave two reasons why he thought the number should be increased from 32 to 48 and the first one is a startling one in that because of the lowering of the qualifications the electorate has increased and therefore, more elected representatives have become necessary. I take it that it is the practice of his Party councillors whenever somebody approaches them for help to find out first whether they are on the electoral register. If the argument had been that the population of Singapore had increased and the work had increased and therefore we need more councillors, there might have been some substance in it.

As for the second argument that it will expedite the work by delegation of authority to standing committees, may I point out that the Member for Tanglin who was a leading member of the Progressive Party recommended in the Rendel Report only 25 elected seats for the whole island and now we are going to have no less than 32 in the City Council, 12 times three District Councils (36) , making a total of 68. So what is all this complaint about? One has a sneaking feeling that probably the Liberal-Socialist Party fancies that its chances would improve by fielding more candidates. Fielding a candidate is always an expensive process for parties not so well endowed with wealthy patrons and therefore if one increases the seats there are to contest, mathematically one increases the number of chances of success in the elections but on the merits of the case whether we should have 32 or 48, we say let us start with 32 and let us see whether it works. We are quite confident that it will work. There is no reason why it should not work. There is no merit at all in this claim for 48.

3.30 p.m.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, there are one or two points which I would like to answer. First, with regard to what the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said that you do not need a large number of members of the City Council to carry out the work of that City Council, nevertheless, it has been found from the experience in the United Kingdom from which we take our Local Government Bill in our local government practice that a large number of councillors is a satisfactory way of associating people with local government and, in my own home town with a population of 60,000, there is a City Council of no less than 50 persons, so that when we advocate 48 for a City Council of about one million and an electorate of half a million - one million is perhaps slightly over the estimate, it may be a little less; it is not very much less than that - then it seems to me that we are not very much out of line in putting forward 48 for this now huge city.

With regard to the remarks of the Minister for Communications and Works, he quoted one or two minor decisions of the Health Committee such as the permission to sell hot drinks which having been made on the first or second day of the month then had to be confirmed by the ordinary meeting of the City Council at the end of the month and he suggested that that was unnecessary. I quite agree with him and that is the point of delegating more powers but of course not all decisions of the Health Committee are as simple and obvious as asking for permission to sell hot drinks. There are very many more important decisions that the Health Committee has to make each month and, at the moment, these have to be referred to the whole Council for ratification because such a small number of the City Council altogether are involved in coming to decisions. You have a quorum of only three persons. Is it desirous that you should delegate to the Health Committee very many more powers than you do now so long as you have a small standing committee to deal with these questions? That is the point. The quorum of three is not sufficient to represent the City Council make-up of parties and independent members, whether they are Liberal-Socialists or Labour Front-U.M.N.O.-M.C.A. or P.A.P. If you want to get a cross-section of the City Council represented on your standing committee, with an increase in your quorum, then you can delegate powers because you will have decisions being made by a proper representation of the people but the City Council feels now - and very rightly feels - that important decisions cannot be left to a small number of people to tackle and therefore their recommendations that are made at the beginning of the month have to be ratified by the full meeting of the City Council at the end of the month; therefore, resulting in a delay of two or three weeks. As I say, if you had a larger committee sitting on these problems - the important problems, not the problems of selling hot drinks but the important policy problems - then those problems could be dealt with straightaway and put into practice the very next day and not be held up for a considerable time.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I think that the instances quoted by the Minister for Communications and Works rather strengthens the case for an increased number to 48 instead of 32. They bring out very clearly that due to the lack in the number of elected members in the City Council, we had very small quorums. Therefore, the Council itself was not prepared to leave decisions in the hands of the quorum. Sir, you have members of Committees, as we have had experience in this House, absenting themselves about twelve out of thirteen times. You must have a big quorum then if hon. Members even of this House do not assume the responsibility to attend Select Committee when they have been chosen, causing some of these Select Committee meetings to be postponed.

Of course, the Member for Tanjong Pagar is always in the habit of attributing improper motives: in this case, not to hon. Members of this House but to a Party simply because we have changed our stand from 25 to 48, but circumstances change.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of clarification, Sir. The original proposal by the Progressive Party to which the Liberal-Socialists are the heirs and successors was 25 for the whole island.

An hon. Member: Twenty-four.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Twenty-four. Worse still!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Still the point is that times do change and working conditions do change and we do find that the idea of democracy in going out to the people results in much more work. I think we are justified in asking for more members now. If every member appointed to committees would attend meetings, then I think that there would be less justification but as things stand at the present moment, we are fully justified in asking for more members.

Mr Francis Thomas: I just want to clear up one point. I am afraid hon. Members have misunderstood what I was saying. I am not suggesting that the Health Committee should have the sole and unrestricted power to decide whether Mr X sells hot drinks or not but they should not concern themselves with that sort of work at all. They should leave it to their much more qualified officials to judge whether he is a proper person; and the same with the whole mass of other detailed work which they undertake at present and which, to my mind, should be left to their officers and not to be taken by the Councillors themselves at all. In every way, it appears to be undesirable that they should take this sort of detailed case and argue the merits or demerits of one man against another in the way they do at present.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: There is a trifling matter worthy of making some observation on this lack of quorum for standing committees. I was just counting the number of heads in this House who are also members of the City Council. I am counting not less than five: two on the Government Benches and three in the Opposition including one Liberal-Socialist. So, I think a contributory factor is that all these heavily overworked politicians are finding themselves incapable of discharging their dual duties. So on the point raised by the Member for Tanglin and by the Member for Paya Lebar, I am quite sure you could set a good example by asking our new Member for Cairnhill (Mr Soh Ghee Soon) to concentrate on either one or the other of his duties, and the work will get on.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, we have not yet had any coherent reasons from the Government why they do not agree with the increase to 48. I would like to point out that the proposal of 48 was put by representatives of the City Council before the Select Committee on which sat Members of the Labour Front. Why is it that the Labour Front does not give support to proposals of members of its own Party?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, in reply to the Member for Tanglin, I have here a verbatim report of a City Council meeting held in those "glorious" days when the Rendel Constitution was being tailored to suit the needs of a certain political party. You perhaps may remember, Sir, the "glorious" meeting when we discussed about the aldermen principle. In that meeting, Sir, the President's remarks were:

"The next point, as I see it, is the question, of having agreed that there should be 24 electoral divisions, it is agreed that there should be 32 members of the Council."

Then the President says later on after some debate:

"Yes, 24 seats. Well, shall I take a count on that? Those in favour of 32 seats, please indicate? Those in favour of 24? So that is 32 seats are favoured by 21 members and 24 seats are favoured by two members."

The voting was in this fashion and that is that most of the Councillors agreed that there should be 24 divisions and there should be 24 seats but there should also be eight aldermen elected - and the Progressive Party councillors were the majority in that City Council who favoured 24 divisions for a whole city and island-wide Council!

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, second thoughts apparently are not acceptable to the Minister for Commerce and Industry, not even if they come from members of his own Party. I would like to point out once more that on the 21st of January, 1957, the leader of the Labour Front in the City Council came before the Select Committee and advocated that there should be 48 members of the City Council and they have still to have a proper answer front the Government as to why they do not agree with their own City Council leader and also why they wish to keep the number down to 32.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I am afraid it is for the same reason why the Member for Tanglin, the Liberal-Socialist Member in Select Committee, turned down the proposal of the City Councillors to sell refrigerators and electrical appliances.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I do not understand that argument and I still do not hear arguments against what my colleague has said. I would very much like Government to give reasons.

Mr Nair: Sir, I would like to tell the hon. Member the reasons why we feel that 48 members are not necessary.

Firstly, in the proposed Ordinance, Katong is divorced from the city. Secondly, it is envisaged that the public utilities services will be undertaken by one authority and not by the City Council as at present. Thirdly, from the evidence we have heard from the City Councillors themselves, we felt that they are running the city affairs most efficiently with 18 elected plus 9 nominated members. We felt that while replacing the 9 nominated members, we are increasing the total number of City Councillors to 32 and that the City Council would be able to run efficiently with 32 members in the new Council.

Question put, "That the word "thirty-two" proposed to be left out, be left out."

3.45 p.m.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 20; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Jumabhoy, R. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lee Choon Eng. Braga, A. J. Lim Choon Mong. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Koon Teck. Goh Chew Chua. Soh Ghee Soon. Hart. T. M. Tan, William. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Abstention Lim, R. C. H. Nil. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Absent. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Lazarous, A. R. Nair, M. P. D. Lim Ching Siong. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Stewart, S. T. Sutherland. G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15-

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

In page 80, line 27, 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 and Districts described in the First and Second Schedules to this Ordinance respectively from those existing under the Municipal Ordinance and from those described in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957.

Mr Chairman, this is the same point on which we had considerable discussion already today: principles are principles and they apply to the District Council limits as much as to the City Council limits. The arguments, in the main, are of course the same as we already had previously this morning and this afternoon and I do not propose to go over them all again.

An hon. Member: Thank you.

Mr John Ede: But in this particular case, there is all the more need for this amendment because changes in boundaries have been made since this Bill was gazetted. Amendments were moved in Select Committee by the Government which they referred to as minor trivial amendments of no consequence. One of them, it is true, is a small matter to which I need not refer but the second amendment of the Government in a boundary is one I should have thought was of some significance. It is the moving of a whole village from one District into another: Nee Soon Village from the Bukit Panjang District into the Serangoon District. Now, I do not wish to argue the merits or otherwise, whether Nee Soon Village should be in one District or another District, but the principle remains that in Select Committee, the Government moved this amendment that a village should be changed from one District to another which I should have thought would have been of considerable importance to the inhabitants of that village themselves.

Now, as will be known to Members of this House, under the Powers and Privileges Ordinance, anything that is decided in Select Committee may not be discussed or mentioned outside that committee to any person whatever, even other Members of this House, and it is therefore not possible to obtain the views of people on amendments that are moved in Select Committee. Now, the Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was only reported to the Assembly a fortnight ago. It was only available presumably to members of the public in this large voluminous form a fortnight ago and so again in this case we feel that it is all the more necessary that the changes proposed which are completely new to the people, particularly to the people of Nee Soon, should be gazetted and advertised in the ordinary way as is proposed for future alterations.

Our view is that it is not a small matter to move one village from one District to another. There must have been very good reasons initially why Nee Soon Village was put in the Bukit Panjang District and there may be very good reasons why it has since been moved but the voices of the people of Nee Soon should be heard if they wish to make themselves heard and that opportunity should be given in the normal way. It is not sufficient, in our view, that these changes should be notified purely through the publication of a huge Bill as it is not likely that many residents in Nee Soon Village would be able to read a voluminous report of this kind. It should, of course, be published in the Chinese newspapers and in the Malay and Tamil newspapers so that the people there can understand what is going on.

Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, like the Member for Tanglin, I do not wish to repeat the arguments and viewpoints which this House has already heard in connection with the Member for Tanglin's amendment to clause 5, resulting in it being thrown out.

He mentioned in connection with this amendment, similar to clause 15, two amendments to the Second Schedule. I am glad to see that he agrees that one of the amendments is a minor one which nobody would quarrel about. He speaks at greater length on the second amendment. It is true that it is not a very minor amendment. On the other hand, it is not a very major amendment but the point is that this proposed change was unknown to anyone except the Select Committee. I would like to point out that this second amendment is the direct result of the representation of the Rural Board which represents the people of the rural areas in Singapore. They made representations that this amendment should be made and the Government accepted that amendment and so we had the Second Schedule amended to follow the representations made by the people of the Rural Board.

For those reasons, Sir, I do not wish to repeat what has been said when we discussed clause 5, and I oppose the amendment of the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, Government always say that they do not like second thoughts and I suppose these second thoughts coming from them would be acceptable when they transfer a village from one District to another. This is very unconvincing. Government seems also to want to put for our consumption that it is very democratic and sympathetic and that it would listen to the views of the people. Here, you have the Rural Board coming to make representations to them and saying, "We want Nee Soon Village in this other District and not in the other," and they have agreed. Yes, in this instance, Sir, they seem to agree and they seem to make the best of it by beating drums and crowing about it but what about the City Council? The City Council is another body - an elected body, in this instance. They have made representations to the Government. Has the Government said, "We are sympathetic towards it. We will consider your views put forward to us?" No, Sir. In the other case, the Government said, "Your views must be chucked aside. Your views are not good enough." In one instance, it is a Board appointed by the Government. In the other instance, it is a Council with many members elected by the people. If you weigh the views of the people and you think that democracy must work, this is an instance, Sir, where it will come under the wings of dictatorship; you may have your views heard but if you have this type of democratic principles applied, it will never work.

I am tired of all the views put forward by the Government about delays. The Government has one single idea in its mind and that is to steamroller everything in accordance with its wishes. The principle that the people should have a voice in their affairs is clearly stated in the two clauses 5 and 15. In the case of clause 5, the excuse is, "Please do not delay." Of course, the delay had always been the fault of Government. In this instance, Sir, we are not going to hold the District Council elections in December. I hope that the Government will not change its mind again. I do not think that the electoral rolls are already made up. I do not think that the boundaries are also made up. I hope certainly that Government is not going to appoint another committee and then put forth everything cut and dried before us and say, "Accept or you will not have your elections." If what I have been thinking is correct, there is time for Government to allow the people to have a voice as to whether they want to be in one District or in another. Four successive Gazettes and publication in the papers will only take another four weeks. All in all, it should not take more than two months to consider all that. The difference in time between the City Council election and the rural District Council election will be round about 4 or 5 months. You have ample time to do that. Let us see that Government get on with the work so that these people can at least perceive that Government is going to adhere to the principle it has declared.

I urge this Government not to crow when every time the Opposition puts up an amendment and is defeated, it says, "Look, your amendment has been defeated." Let the Government remember that we are here to voice the opinion of the people. Whether we are defeated or not, it does not matter. We have our duty to perform to our constituents. Let the Government remember, Sir, that they are not in absolute majority. Let the Government know that they have three official votes and four nominated votes. Let them not crow, Sir, that every time they win-

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

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

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that some progress has been made in Committee on this Bill and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.