Committee

Clause 15-Ord. of Amendment proposed - [25th July, 1957] - 1957. 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 John Ede].

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

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): The Government agreed with alacrity apparently to make the change proposed by the Rural Board in putting Nee Soon Village into the district of Serangoon instead of Bukit Panjang, and the Rural Board is a wholly nominated body, not one of whom therefore is an elected representative of Nee Soon Village, and the Government refused changes advocated by elected City Councillors and elected Members of this House. Nevertheless, this shows that the Government can make changes if it wants to, but only apparently if it wants to, without being prepared to listen to public representations. The point, Sir, whether the changes are minor or major is, nevertheless, not the main point. The main point is the question of principle. The Government has time in which to accept this principle, and therefore this amendment, if it has the inclination, because elections will only be held in March 1958.

The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart): Mr Chairman, Sir, in connection with the Member for Tanglin's remarks about the Rural Board, the Rural Board has seven members nominated by the rural district committees and these seven members are quite outspoken in their views, as the Member for Serangoon himself will know, having himself been a member of the Rural District Committee, Serangoon. If I may reminisce for a moment, Sir, when I was Chairman of the Rural Board, I always had a little bit of trepidation going to the Rural District Committee, Serangoon, knowing the outspokenness of all the members, and I think their views were always heard.

I think it is incorrect to say that the Government did not consider the views of the City Council. It did, but it could not accept the arguments put forward. There has been no prejudice in favour of the Rural Board, Sir, because you will see from the Report of the Select Committee proceedings that the Government also did not accept the arguments of the Rural Board in regard to Pasir Panjang.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I think the question is simply this - whether or not the Government is prepared to accept the principle now that fresh changes have been made in Select Committee of advertising them in four languages and gazetting them.

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Chairman, Sir, the changes were made when the Bill was committed to a Select Committee. The First and Second Schedules had been made known before the Bill was presented to the Assembly for First Reading in August 1956. Since then it had been open to the public to make representations in regard to this particular clause 15, so that the Select Committee could consider whether or not the First and Second Schedules should be amended.

The Select Committee has taken a very long time to consider the Bill and has made a recommendation that, in regard to the Second Schedule, there should be some alterations as a result of representations made by the Rural Board. But surely it should not be suggested that, as a result, it should again be open to the public to make further objections, and if further objections are received and reconsidered, and still further alterations made, then, using the same line of argument, we should, every time we amend something as a result of representations made by the public, again make it open to objections by the public.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Chairman, Sir, I just want to draw the attention of this House to the fact that when representation is made to a Select Committee, it will be made on any clause in the Bill - any clause in the Bill, Sir, it is not any particular clause. Whereas when the Government propose to have their ideas embodied in clause 15, it is for a particular purpose, and that is about boundaries. The two issues therefore should not be confused. One is representation on the whole Bill. The other is representation on a particular clause which concerns changes of districts and boundaries. The Chief Minister has, in order to score just one point, found it good enough to lump the two together. This I think is most unsatisfactory.

Yesterday, Sir, I was talking about the Government's views on amendments being thrown out. I will be very mild today, and will pass them over. However, I would like the Government to note that every Member in this Assembly represents the voice of his constituency. The Labour Front has seven elected Members today. It has come down from ten to seven. The Liberal-Socialists have gone up from six to seven elected Members, and whatever it is - seven members on one side, seven on the other - the views are as important on one side as on the other. I will just leave it at that, Sir.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16-

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

In page 80, line 30, to leave out "twelve" and insert "eighteen".

This clause 16 deals with the constitution of District Councils and the number of elected councillors to be provided. It is our view that an elected body of 12 district councillors is insufficient and that there should be 18. Our reasons are based largely on the arguments we have already submitted with regard to the City Council, and it is not our desire to pursue the same arguments again today, except in so far as they are strictly relevant.

But we do consider very seriously, Sir, that 12 is an insufficient number to do the work of a District Council on the basis of standing committees, which is the foundation of the running of local government. It seems to us that there should be at least six standing committees to make a District Council operate efficiently - Establishment, Health, Building, Finance and General Purposes, Public Works, and Assessment. There are nine standing committees in the City Council. We do not think that it is necessary to have quite so many in the District Councils, but the minimum should be six. If you assume that each member should sit on two committees - it is the normal practice in the City Council and it might well be followed in the District Councils - you will find that you will only have five members on each committee with a quorum of three at the most. And 18 members would give you a slightly larger committee of six, with presumably the District Council chairmen as permanent chairmen, at least to begin with, of all these committees, making a more reasonable total of seven. The Government was considerably surprised in the Select Committee when I advocated these what I considered to be perfectly normal, reasonable points, but the hon. Member for Seletar stated at col. 68 of the Report:

". . .we have not considered whether or not a District Council should have all these committees or whether it would be desirable to delegate authority to certain heads of departments, and so on."

Well, I hope that by this time the Government has given the matter more consideration. It seemed to be a startling thought to the hon. Member that there should be standing committees to operate the work of the District Councils, although you will find, Mr Chairman, on page 9 of the White Paper issued by the Government these fulsome words:

"In accepting the basic principles of the Report of the Committee on Local Government, the Government is convinced that a more democratic framework is being set up in which greater opportunities will be afforded to a larger number of the community to take part in local government administration...".

Now, if you express this warm-hearted view and then later on in Select Committee said that you were not certain whether all the work should not be delegated to heads of departments who would be responsible to Government, and apparently not to the District Councils, then you are knocking your own principles on the head.

10.15 a.m.

Another point is, of course, that a greater number on these District Councils - 18 instead of 12 - will give more experience to more people in the shortest possible time, and that is after all precisely what has been expressed on page 9 of the White Paper - "greater opportunities will be afforded to a larger number of the community to take part in local government administration".

Then, Sir, I would refer to - it is not so important but nevertheless it is relevant - the fact that the quorum for the District Councils has been fixed at eight, which is over 50 per cent of the total number envisaged by the Government; whereas in the City Council the quorum is 11, or roughly 33 per cent. Now, of course, the normal quorum for any council or committee is in the neighbourhood of one-third and not one-half, but you have to fix the quorum at eight, otherwise the number at District Council meetings could be extremely small, which does, I think, argue that a slightly larger number would be opportune.

The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Sir, although the hon. Member has misunderstood me in the Select Committee, I did correct him by saying that I did not mean that District Councils should not appoint any committees. I would like to read from col. 69 of the same Report where I said:

"I would like to correct the hon. Member's misunderstanding regarding committees. I did not say that the District Councils should not appoint committees but what I said was that we have not fixed the exact number."

Sir, at this stage, I do not think it is possible for anybody to say how many committees the District Councils should have. As I understand it, Sir, a working party is in the course of considering the various aspects of the District Councils, and I was not in a position to agree with the hon. Member then as to how many committees the District Councils would have.

Mr S. T. Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, the present Rural Board has a membership of 18 nominated members, including the chairman. The proposed membership for each District Council, including the Chairman, is 16. If the Rural Board, which is looking after an area which is to be divided up into three District Council areas initially and four eventually, has a membership of 18, then I think 16 members for each District Council is quite sufficient. As the Member for Tanjong Pagar said yesterday on this question of membership in connection with the City Council - "Let us start at 32 and see how it works," - the same should also apply to the District Councils. As to what standing committees there should be and the quorum required at committee meetings, it is not for the Government to say. It will be left to the District Councils eventually. For those reasons, Sir, I think that 16 members, including the chairman, is a sufficient number for the membership of the District Council, and I oppose the amendment of the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, the proposal to amend the number from 12 to 18 is also hinged upon the next amendment, that is, to do away with nominated councillors, and if the Government thinks that nominated councillors are still very important here, then the number need not be changed. We will be arguing on the merits or demerits of the nominated councillors when we come to the next amendment. But bearing in mind that if it is agreed that the days of nominated members are over, if the people have now shown that they are tired of having nominated members, then we should act in accordance with the wishes of the people and do away with nominated members. And if we do away with nominated members, then that number as contained in clause 16 (1) should be increased.

On the question of the work of the Rural Board, I would like to point out to the House here that the Rural Board is assisted by many rural district committees. Part of the work is being done by the rural district committees. They submit their recommendations to the Rural Board and if the Rural Board thinks that their recommendations are suitable and in conformity with the policy, the recommendations are accepted. If they are not, then they are rejected, because these committees are purely advisory. It is advisory to such an extent that sometimes members of district committees were not happy and became quite frustrated, and tempers might fly on occasions when important personalities went along and visited them.

Now the Rural Board, as I say, is assisted by many committees, but when you divide the Rural Board and make it into three rural District Council areas, and if the Rural Board is to have one Health Committee, then that Health Committee must be repeated in three places. If it is going to have a Public Utilities Committee, that committee will have to be repeated in every one of these three. There will be no lessening of committees.

Perhaps it may be argued that the Rural Board attends to the needs of the whole of Singapore outside the City Council, and therefore it must have a great deal more work. But I would like to ask the Government side what is the purpose of having District Councils. The purpose of a District Council is to attend to the needs of the people more closely and more efficiently, and if we are going to attend to them more efficiently and more closely, making the councillors understand the needs of the people, then we will say that the work should not decrease even if you divide the Rural Board into three District Council areas; but, on the other hand, it should increase, because an increase in work shows that these District Councils are really working hard for the people and work is done more intimately. I feel that the number should be increased to 18.

The Chairman: It did not appear to me, from the hon. mover's remarks, that his amendment which we are discussing now is connected with the next amendment, which is to leave out the proviso providing for three nominated councillors for the first four years. I understood from the Member for Serangoon, who spoke just now, that there was some connection between the two amendments. Perhaps the hon. mover would like to clarify?

Mr John Ede: Yes, Mr Chairman, with pleasure. There is obviously some connection between the two. We advocate the increase of membership of the District Councils from 12 elected councillors to 18, and subsequently to do away with the proposal for three nominated councillors. The fact that we wish to reduce the number from 15 to 12, I think makes it evident from our feelings that there are not enough members on the District Councils, and we must, under clause 16 (1), propose an increase. There is, in other words, some connection between the two amendments.

The Chairman: If that is so, I suggest that it would be convenient to the Committee if, in the debate on the first amendment, the debate should also range over the next amendment. If the mover of the first amendment wishes to continue on those lines, he may do so.

Mr John Ede: Yes, Mr Chairman, if you would like us to take into consideration the next amendment to the proviso, I shall of course be very glad to do so.

Our point regarding this proviso,

"Provided that for the first four years from the date of the first ordinary elections...there shall in addition be three nominated councillors",

is that we feel that it is essential to do away with the principle of nominated members. But the Government apparently wishes to hang on to the idea of nominated members, presumably because through them they have hung on to power. Yesterday, on the amendment to clause 8 of the Local Government Elections Bill, there was a division which showed 11 elected votes on each side. The Government has a majority of six, thanks to three nominated Members and three ex-officio Members. It is quite obvious, therefore, that they are interested in seeing that there are nominated members on the District Councils.

There are various devices whereby the Government are able to maintain themselves where they are. Even when the Hon. the Chief Secretary goes on leave, the Government can resort to the device of keeping up their numbers by the Deputy Chief Secretary being able to step into his place. It is, of course, purely a matter of coincidence that the Deputy Chief Secretary is an authority on local government and an ex-chairman of the Rural Board, but that fact is undoubtedly of value and use to the Government.

One presumes that with this proviso one of the last acts of the present Government will be to elect nominated men to the District Councils who will last for four years, and I think I am right in saying that there is no proviso - that is an interesting point - giving the Minister powers to revoke their nomination. Now we have had some debate on this particular question - I think it was the Seamen's Registry Board Ordinance on which we raised this point, that revocation was an essential matter to be left in the hands of the Minister. The Minister for Commerce and Industry shakes his head. Perhaps my memory is at fault - it was a different Bill?

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): May I correct the hon. Member, Sir? It was the Education Bill.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, undoubtedly it is already in the Education Bill, but I was referring to the debate in this House on a particular Bill. It was moved by my hon. Friend opposite - I may be wrong about the title of the Bill in which we moved an amendment on this very point. Now it is not clear to me why, in the case of nominated members on District Councils, the Minister's powers of revocation should be omitted. It seems to me that what is convenient at one time for the Government is not necessarily convenient at another

There is a further point. One would have thought that one of the justifications for shifting Katong into a District Council - whether one agrees with it or not - and we do not - might have been because one could argue that, by putting a part of the City Council into the District Council, you were providing opportunities for men already experienced in local government to sit on the District Councils and that very fact would enable you to do away with nominated members. We are strongly opposed to this principle of nominated members being included in the District Councils, and that is one of the reasons why we advocate in the amendment before us that there should be 18 elected councillors instead of 12.

10.30 a.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, it is rather curious to find one of the closest allies and leading members of the Party which tailored the Rendel Constitution and which recommended four nominated seats on this present Assembly, now criticising the principle of nominated members. Evidently, Sir, at that time they thought they would be returned to power and they could use the four nominated members to their advantage. The tables have been turned on them. But let me assure them that at no time have the Government used or persuaded any of the two nominated members on the opposite side to vote with them. What they do is on their own conscience and according to their own liking. But evidently, Sir, the logic of the Members of the Liberal-Socialist Party is one that they themselves only can understand.

The Government thought it necessary that in the initial stage of these new District Councils, there should be nominated members to give of their experience, because, as you will notice in the Bill, anyone can now stand for election in the District Council. There are no language qualifications to bar people who have had no experience. In the past, those people who have had experience of local government and other similar bodies have been mostly English-speaking. Now there is no such bar. And therefore you will get a great number of people - and we want to encourage a great number of people who are non-English-speaking, to come out and take their share of local government. But in order to give them the advantage of having the experience of those who have gone through the mill in the past, it is necessary that there should be a few nominated members in the initial stage. It is not proposed to have these nominated members forever and ever. It is only for the initial stage.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: You may extend it.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I had not intended to speak on the warning given by my friend the Member for Serangoon in the debate on the amendment which came up before this amendment - that the Labour Front have seven elected Members now and the Liberal-Socialists have seven, and therefore we should take care. I would have let it pass, but the hon. Member for Tanglin has grazed past that point. He has not come to it directly but he has grazed past it, and I think it is appropriate that they should be told that they are wrong. Sir, when the electorate elected us to sit in this Assembly, they elected ten Labour Fronters and only four Progressive Party men and two Democratic Party men. Since then, if elected Members manoeuvre to their own advantage, that is their own wish. The electorate have had no chance to pass judgment on them. Therefore you cannot say that the electorate have lost confidence because three Members on this side have crossed the floor to the Opposition side. You might say, of course, that in Cairnhill the electorate have shown that they have more confidence in the Liberal-Socialist Party. I will make no bones about that. Perhaps it is due to a splitting of Labour votes.

The Chairman: Is all this relevant?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: It is, Sir, because the Member for Serangoon did raise the point and the Member for Tanglin did emphasise again on this point, and I think it should not go unchallenged. It would be misleading the public.

The Chairman: Order. It is, of course, perfectly in order for the hon. Member, in passing, to refute any allegations made; but I must remind hon. Members again that the personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. If an hon. Member moves from one side of the House to the other, that is personal conduct and cannot be referred to.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sorry, Sir. I did not intend to refer to their personal conduct. I was just mentioning it in passing in answer to the point made by the Member for Serangoon earlier this morning. Of course, the people of Singapore have also seen the merging of two political parties who were sent to this House in the proportion of four to twenty-five -

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member is going a bit too far. It is more than in passing.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, the last speaker has several times said in his speech that other people have no logic at all and that they themselves can only understand what they are talking about. I must say that he has just now given us a perfect exhibition of talking about things which nobody can understand. Sir, I do not want to waste as much time as he has done in accusing this Party or that Party, but one thing is certain, Sir. We have seen and we have learnt a lesson, that the government should not be run when the elected Members on each side of the House are nearly in proportionate numbers. The fate of the Government should not hang on nominated Members.

The Chairman: Order. I thought I made it quite clear that that subject is not relevant to the debate. It should not be mentioned again.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: That was a reply in passing, Sir, to the hon. Member.

Sir, I think one of the chief reasons for breaking up local government into City and District Councils and the appointment of elected councillors, was that the District Councils and the City Council should be the training ground for Members of this House the membership of which, in the near future, is going to be increased to 51. If that is one of the chief principles why this Bill is now before the House, then I cannot see any reason for the Government to object to the increase of 12 district councillors to 18 district councillors, particularly when we are saying - and I think in their own hearts they must agree with us - that there is no more room for nominated councillors on any council.

The main objection of the Hon. the Chief Secretary and his Assistant Minister to this is that it is not proved yet how many district councillors are required, because the number of committees has not yet been decided upon. Surely that argument is rather in our favour because if you are not certain yet how many committees you want and how to work them, is it not better to have more than less and not wreck the beginnings of the City and District Councils? So far, Sir, I cannot see any argument at all against our proposal to have 18 instead of 12 elected members.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): As a nominated Member, I find it difficult to agree to the amendment to delete the proviso for the appointment of three nominated members in the District Council. I have so far found, Sir, that my nominated colleagues and I are the four most important persons in this Assembly - four persons who cannot be charged for malpractices in any election! But there is this difference - now the nominated Members will be appointed, I presume, by the Council of Ministers, our own people; our own elected Members are the majority in the Council of Ministers. There is that difference.

Now, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to answer the Member for Serangoon. He said that there are district committees helping the Rural Board. Has he any reason to suppose that when the District councils were formed, there would be no district committees helping the District Councils? Perhaps he has an answer to that. Perhaps he would be going all out, Sir, to dissolve all district committees when the District Councils were formed.

It does seem, Sir, that the Liberal-Socialists, in their attempt to increase the number of Members both in the City Council and in the District Councils, have displayed their financial strength - that superior element over all the other political Parties. They might be able to put up more candidates because they have more finances, but we feel that is quite irrelevant, and we believe that 32 members for the City Council and 12 for the District Council are sufficient.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Sir, this Bill is very important since we are changing the whole Ordinance by taking away some powers and giving some powers, and yet it is being rushed through in this Assembly; for it was only yesterday that we received the report which, after it had been in our hands for only a few minutes, was debated.

Sir, this is an important debate, and I cannot understand why some Members should bring political Parties into it. Possibly they are afraid of one strong political Party, but it will not help them to side-track the issue. Sir, here is the question: whether we want to have nominated Members or not. Now this very Assembly, which is supposed to be democratic, has been made a farce with the help of the nominated Members and ex-officio Members, because the elected Members' majority voice is just silenced by those votes. The nominated Members are quite intelligent people; they are my friends, but this nominated membership in democracy is out of date.

There were some remarks made about the Rendel Constitution yesterday and also today, as to who framed it and so on. Sir, I am the most senior Member in the post-war Legislature. I was on the B.M.A. Council, the Advisory Council, and the Legislative Council from 1948. I have two good friends here, the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Hon. the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs or something.

Sir, my experience is that as political progress is made, political changes must come about. Some people attack the Progressive Party for the Rendel Constitution and the nominated seats.

10.45 a.m.

Now, Sir, those who have followed the political trends in the post-war period in this city will have realised that from a purely nominated Legislature, you came to one that had an elected majority with a few nominated Members. Time passed and other countries surrounding us progressed. Then the Rendel Commission sat and I might tell you, Sir, that I was not a member of the Progressive Party. I crossed swords with them in the Legislature many a time on different subjects. Now the Rendel Commission saw at that time that there was a need for a few nominated Members; but as time went on, from a totally nominated Legislature we began to have more and more elected Members and, in the new constitution we are going to have a fully elected Assembly. Now instead of acknowledging the services of those people who progress and who have been the means of bringing us into this Chamber, some Members are making political capital out of it. I think they are very short-sighted or maybe they are trying to side-track us. Now in this present political set-up nominated Members are out of place altogether as the voices of the elected Members are silenced.

Today, Sir, I read in the Straits Times that an amendment moved yesterday was passed by 17 votes to 11. Whose were those 17 votes? Eleven elected Government votes against 11 in the Opposition. Six were not elected Members. Rightly the Government fell on that issue. Now here is a political Party, Sir, to which somebody made a reference regarding elected Members. Members on the Government side bring this up time and again, and I am rather sorry that I should also bring it up now regarding elected Members.

The Chairman: Order. I think I have made it quite clear that the subject is now irrelevant to this debate, and I think the hon. Member should not touch on it any further.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I am still on the nominated membership and how these nominated Members frustrate us - the elected Members - and how the Government have continued with the help of the nominated Members. That is what I am touching upon, Sir.

The Chairman: In passing?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Well, I will agree to say that I am touching on it in passing. It does not matter, but it is so. The fact stands that these nominated Members are out-dated and there should not be anywhere in the world at present nominated membership. If those who feel like wanting to be in this Assembly, let them stand for election.

Now, Sir, I was a little bit annoyed when a Member on the Government side said, "Oh, I am rather sick of the debate." But he forgot that he is paid for his time sitting in this Assembly. He should have patience. At least such people should show patience because, after all, some elected Members on this side are voicing the opinions of the electorate. Sir, I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Francis Thomas (Nominated): I am sure, Mr Chairman, that we all recognise that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and this House owes a great debt to the only Member of the Opposition who has effectively opposed - he is the hon. Member for Tanglin - supported occasionally by the Members for Serangoon and Paya Lebar, and last by yet another of his seven Members who has risen to speak on a point on which he has so often spoken before, usually as irrelevantly as he did today.

I do not wish to cast scorn on the hon. Member for Tanglin's arguments: but they do seem to me to amount to not much more than this - that the more representatives you have on a council, the more democratic you are; if you can have 18 elected members instead of 12, that is better; and I do not doubt that 180 would be better still, and 1,800 better still, and 18,000 better still. So you go on getting more and more democratic by simply adding to the numbers without any regard to the work these members may have to do. I think that is a fair summary of the points he was making. He does not know what work they are going to do. He has his own ideas but I do not suppose he will be either nominated or elected to a District Council, and therefore surely he will concede that elected members of the District Councils can form their own ideas of the sort of work they want to do and how they want to do it.

That brings me to my second point, Mr Chairman, Sir. His other main democratic principle is that the City Council provides a perfect and ideal example of pure, undefiled and efficient democracy. Well, I quoted some points to which no one effectively replied yesterday to illustrate that if the City Council functions efficiently, it is perhaps in spite of its committee system rather than because of it. The committees sit afternoon after afternoon and deal with enormous bundles of files containing a mass of irrelevant detail about holidays in China for fruit sellers and hot drink licences for confectioners' shops and that kind of thing. These are matters which take up an enormous amount of their time. They can never get down to formulating a precise policy. When they do have to formulate a policy, they bog down. How long did they take over the delimitation of taxis? Two years, or some such very long period indeed, before they could finally frame a policy and get it carried out. They also came to complete confusion with the Katong cinema. None of them understand their own procedure and nobody knows what they are trying to do, or who is giving orders to whom; but the general effect on the public is undesirable.

I am only mentioning these points in passing, Mr Chairman, because I do feel that we should not set up the City Council as a model for the things that the District Councils will have to do. They will operate on a different scale, doing in many ways a different type of job. They will not be administering very large public utilities, nor will they have a budget of the size that the City Council have. They should be given some freedom to work things out themselves from their own experience and not be too precisely directed beforehand by the ambitions of any particular political Party.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have not been able to understand the Hon. the nominated Member, Mr Thomas, the Minister for Communications and Works. Yesterday he read the Hill Report which is useful, but since then things have progressed. Does he want to say that there should be only one member or five members to run the whole city? What is his objection to having an increase from 12 to 18 on the District Council? Will he not give consideration to the electorate - that they should be adequately represented? He said if it were to be increased, why not increase it to 50 or 100 or 500 members? Well, why not have only five then? Or three? Has he given any arguments for it? Sir, these members should be adequately represented and the District Councils should be formed in such a way that all these people could perform their tasks without too much burden on one shoulder, that it should be distributed. He has not given us any idea of that, Sir.

Mr Francis Thomas: The point I was really making was that the general tendency of the Liberal-Socialists' thinking seems to be to add to the numbers wherever possible, to have more and more representatives, and I carried that, of course, to absurd limits by suggesting that they might aim at 1,800 or 18,000 because that is absurd - too absurd even for the Liberal-Socialists to put forward that number. But you have to arrive at some figure, and they say that 18 is better than 12. We think that 12 is better than 18 - it is no more than that- Our judgment is that 12 is an adequate number to perform the sort of work they have to do. The Liberal-Socialists have worked out that they want to have six standing committees, and no doubt sub-committees and ad hoc committees and so on, on the full City Council model, and they think 18 members will be needed to make that work. Well, we do not necessarily think that the members in the District Councils will want to do what the City Council does, and we think that 12 - plus, of course, three nominated members - is better. I will not touch on further irrelevancies. I could, of course, expound on the democratic principle if I were allowed to.

The substantial difference is very small by the time you arrive at the final total. It is simple arithmetic: 12 plus 3 - 12 plus 6 - this is a small difference really.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I seek only a little clarification. The nominated Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim, mentioned the Liberal-Socialists in this debate, Sir, that because they have money they can put up more representatives. The other nominated Member, the Hon. Mr Thomas, put up the same argument. Their idea is this: the Liberal-Socialists want more people. Why? Adequate representation should be given according to the strength of the voters in particular areas in order that work must be carried on properly. Sir, more than 95 per cent of the members of the Liberal-Socialist Party are workers, and they are poorer than the two Members sitting opposite.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I feel really amused today to hear our learned Members, Mr Francis Thomas and Mr R. C. H. Lim, speak on the merits of nominated Members and in the jargon I cannot find any substance in their speeches. But the last sentence of the Minister for Communications and Works about his ability to expound the theory of the goodness of nominated members will certainly be very welcome. I would really love to hear his arguments on why there should be nominated members, and then ask him to argue with himself why the Labour Front, of which he is a leading light, is now trying to do away with nominated members. I remember last year when the Rendel Constitution was operating, there was an outcry from the other side that there should be no nominated Members, that it was unconstitutional, that we should do away with all officials and all nominated Members, and that the number should be increased. Today in this Chamber we have the same thing reversed. The Government will appoint an official to the District Council in the person of the chairman. The Government will appoint three nominated members.

11.00 a.m.

The Government said, "We will be happy to keep the number down." but at one time it said, "We want to increase the number of the Legislature from 25 to 51." Then they said, "No, we will keep that number where it is." An absolute contradiction. I would like the Government to explain why there should be such contradictions. Words spoken last year are not applicable today. Why is that so? Where are the changes of circumstances?

Now, Sir, let me go on with what one of the Members on the Government side said, that they are going to appoint nominated members to the District Councils in the initial stages, in order to lend experience to elected people. I would like to ask the Government why they were setting up rural district committees in Singapore. In a small way, was that not a way to teach the people how to run their own affairs? Have they not been able, from those committees, to learn a little and take part fully in their committee work? I ask the Government again: Are there no people from such rural district committees being represented in the Rural Board, and if they have been representing the various districts in the Rural Board, are not such people well experienced? I ask again, Sir, about councillors who are in the City Council now living in areas demarcated as rural districts. Will not these people also have the experience, and if there has been enough training for them, where is there the necessity to put in other people with experience?

Let me take another case, Sir, where the Government contradict themselves. In the City Council they say that there shall be 32 elected members. There shall be no nominated members, no aldermen. "We do not want them. They are lepers. We must have it democratically set up. Experience does not matter. We do not want their experience. We have enough people here." Then in another breath the Government say: "You can rig up your boundaries. You can do whatever you like with the electorate." But nobody could be sure that the same people or people from the same Party would be elected. It would be the same with the District Councils. You might have people who are standing there, as in the case of City Councillors. In the next City Council, there is a chance that not one of the present Members may be elected. There may be a chance that all the 32 members will be new to City Council affairs, and then where will there be experience? Will you need aldermen to guide you? We say no. We say people should elect the representatives democratically. In the case of the City Council, we want to do away with nominated members.

In the case of the District Councils, the same case can happen. There may be existing rural district committee members who may be elected. There may be people who are on the Rural Board who may be elected. There may be people who have served in the City Council residing in rural areas who may be elected. But they may or may not be elected, just as in the case of the present City Councillors.

But here we stick to one principle - there must be no nominated members either in the City Council or in the District Councils. But if you want to have nominated members, then let us have them in both the City and District Councils. If you do not want them, let us not have them in both. The Government practised this "No nominated members" from the level of the Legislature to the City Council. I would urge the Government to practise it one step further down - to the District Councils. I would like the Government to answer me on this point, and if they give no reason at all, I shall not be satisfied. I shall go away with a feeling that the Government will always be applying what they think will suit them best, and every time, the tune is changed to suit their own purpose.

In putting forward this incidentally, I would also like to touch on an answer given by the nominated Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim. He has not learnt his homework on rural district committees. He said that if you appoint more people, then you do away with rural district committees. I do not know whether that is Government's policy.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: I did not say this, Sir. I said I challenged the Member for Serangoon to give reasons why district committees that exist today would not exist when the District Councils were formed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: That is nothing more than a challenge. The City Council may or may not have its committees. Rural district committees may or may not be there, but I think if the city is progressing, in all probability District Councils will be more or less miniature City Councils and of course if the hon. Member knows about rural district committees and their advisory functions, we will be very glad to learn from him.

It is most amusing to hear from the Minister for Communications and Works about my Party wanting to elect more and more people to the Councils and he quoted astronomical figures - figures that would appear to everybody to be absurd. I feel that he is not clear in his mind as to what he wants to tell us, when we proposed an increase from 12 to 18 only. In fact, if you call in the nominated members, it should be just from 16 to 18, and yet he puts up an argument on numbers that run into many thousands. I cannot understand that. His argument is against his own idea of increasing the Legislature from 50 to 51. It would be interesting to hear him arguing against himself. All in all, I have not heard any argument put forward from the Government side against this amendment. I would very much like them to use their brains and scratch out some reasons for us.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think we agree in principle that nominated members are out of date, but in the interests of all those people who live in the various districts where District Councils are to be formed, we feel that nominated members for the first four years are required to help them.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: What about the City Council?

Mr R. C. H. Lim: There is a difference between the City Council and the District Councils. The employees in the City Council have been working there for many years. They know and can help and guide the new City Councillors who might be appointed for the first time; but we are having new staff for the various District Councils and therefore it is desirable that there should be some nominated members for the first four years only.

In passing, Sir, I should like to say this: although the Liberal-Socialists claim to have 95 per cent workers, the Labour Front have 100 per cent workers.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, I just rise to reply to the insinuations in regard to the question of nominated members for the first four years in the District Councils. The Liberal-Socialist Members would have the people of Singapore believe that this is a sinister move on the part of the Government to put in three of their good men in the District Councils. Evil is he who evil thinks.

Sir, this particular clause in the Bill was inserted as a result of the unanimous recommendation of the McNeice Committee on Local Government. On that Committee every political Party was represented, including the Liberal-Socialists, and it was the unanimous view of the McNeice Committee, and this view is expressed in paragraphs 158 and 159*. I do not propose to prolong the debate by reading these two paragraphs, but if the hon. Member will just take the trouble to read them, he will find that the question of nominated members for the new District Councils is one which is not being imposed by the Government but one that was unanimously recommended by the McNeice Committee.

• Following are paragraphs 158 and 159-

158. The limited local government constitution in the rural areas in the past has led us to approach the constitution of rural district councils with some caution. The weight of responsibility we are proposing to place upon these councils is considerable and experience in the management of weighty affairs is not immediately evident in these areas. Our proposals have therefore provided measures for the guidance of these councils in their early years, but for a strictly limited period. Beyond that period it will be necessary for the district councils to make their own way, with the advice of Government and the model of the City Council before them and, should it turn out that way, to learn by their mistakes. Our recommendations imply a confidence in the ability of the rural peoples to elect capable representatives which we do not consider is misplaced.

159. We recommend that the elected membership of local councils other than the City Council should be supplemented by the addition of members nominated by Government and that the number of nominated members should form as near as possible to, but not exceed one-fifth of, the total number of members after the addition of nominated members. Taken in conjunction with our proposals for terms of office, we recommend that as near as possible to, but not more than half of, the nominated members should retire after a period of two years and the remainder after a period of four years. Thereafter, the rural councils should consist of only elected members.

The Member for Serangoon asks why is it that, in the case of the Legislative Assembly, we want to abolish all nominated members, and in the case of the City Council too, it is proposed that all nominated seats shall be abolished. Surely he must understand, Sir, that as time goes on we learn more and more. The City Council started with nine nominated seats in 1948 - nine years, quite long, in fact, much too long. What is recommended for the District Councils is just a term of four years - the first term - to guide and help elected councillors do the work which is going to be difficult, because it is something new to them. In regard to the Legislative Council, we started with nominated Members in 1948 and it is also time that the nominated seats be abolished.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I have taken the trouble to read paragraphs 158 and 159 of the Report of the Committee on Local Government, and I would refer the Chief Minister to the penultimate sentence of paragraph 159 which reads:

"Taken in conjunction with our proposals for terms of office, we recommend that as near as possible to, but not more than half of, the nominated members should retire after a period of two years and the remainder after a period of four years."

Under clause 19 of the Bill before us, we read:

"The nominated councillors shall be appointed by the Governor and shall hold office for a term of four years retiring on the first Saturday in December in the fourth year after nomination."

There is no provision for retirement after two years. In other words, the Government is going backwards, while we propose to go forwards.

11.15 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, we are living in a world that is moving forward every day. We are not living in a world that can remain static for one moment. What is good for today may not be good for tomorrow. Nominated members who were good before, may not be good today. People are today clamouring for elections and elected representatives.

I would like to comment on what the Chief Minister has said - that we must learn and make use of these things - the things which we thought would have been good. Banana notes were good in 1943. They were still good in 1944. But the day immediately after the Japanese surrendered, they were just worthless.

It is the same case with nominated members. They were good in colonial days. They were good when nominated members were able to serve their masters. But now the people have moved towards self-determination, they are as worthless as the banana notes of the Japanese regime.

I would also like to ask the Chief Minister, since he has accepted that part of the advice and recommendations of the McNeice Committee on nominated members for the new District Councils, what about accepting other sections of that Report? Has he accepted all of them? Has he accepted aldermen? No, Sir. When a recommendation is accepted, it is put down as the Government being amendable to suggestions. What are the reasons given for not accepting the rest? Well, I should say the most appropriate reason is that it does not fall in with their ideas and therefore is not acceptable.

The hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim spoke about rural district councils. He said that they will be run by people with less experience. Let him not say that, Sir, because the Rural Board has been engaged in that kind of work for a long time, and those who are going to do that work will be hand-picked for that purpose. However, if he has his doubts that raw hands will be put into such jobs, I would suggest that he ask his Minister for the reason why he has not made sufficient provision to see to it that the machinery of district councils would be run properly.

Amendment negatived.

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

In page 80, to leave out lines 33 to 36.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 19; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Goh Tong Liang. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Jumabhoy, R. Braga, A. J. Lee Choon Eng. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Choon Mong. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Koon Teck. Hart, T. M. Soh Ghee Soon. Jumabhoy, J. M. Tan, William. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim, R. C. H. Abstentions. Lim Yew Hock. Nil. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Absent. Nair, M. P. D. Lazarous, A. R. Ong Piah Teng. Lee Kuan Yew. Shanks, E. P. Lim Ching Siong. Stewart, S. T. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Sutherland, G. A. P. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20-

The Chairman: An amendment standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin,

In page 82, line 18, to leave out "A" and insert "B".

I take it that I am correct when I say that that has relation to the amendment to be proposed in the Third Schedule?

Mr John Ede: Yes, Mr Chairman, I did wish to seek your guidance on this - it is, in fact, a consequential amendment - whether we should take this now or later.

The Chairman: It is quite obvious that this amendment is dependent on whether or not the amendment which is proposed to the Third Schedule will be accepted. It is a type of consequential amendment which may be made as a matter of course, and if the amendment proposed to the Third Schedule - in other words, the addition of a new Form A - is accepted, then this amendment and other cognate amendments will be made as a matter of course.

Clause 20 ordered to to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21-

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

In page 82, line 37, to leave out from "(b)" to "; and" in line 9 in page 83 and insert:-

"if he is able to speak any Chinese dialect or Malay or Tamil or English and, unless incapacitated by blindness or any other physical cause, to read and write any one of those dialects or languages".

I think it will be clear from this amendment that we on this side do accept the amendment that the Government proposes to make regarding the reading and writing of any one of those dialects or languages. So the issue does boil down to the question which we consider most strongly - that any Chinese dialect should be spoken by a candidate for election in the City Council as well as in the District Councils. I think we are, by this amendment, now in agreement with the Government on the other parts of the amendment which the Minister will move. This, then, is the question for consideration: that the City Council should include any Chinese dialect in its languages for candidates for election and not just Mandarin.

Our feeling is that the City Council should not be compared with the Legislative Assembly on this point, because it seems that the Government feel that there should be a parallel between the languages spoken in this House in future and the City Council. We take the view that there should be a parallel on the local government plane - that the languages spoken in the City Council should be the same as are spoken in the District Councils. The point is, of course, that we are debating and considering local government, and the comparison should be between the City Council and the District Councils. There is no difference in the qualification of the electorate as between the City and the District Councils; therefore we should adopt the parallelism of having no difference in languages between the two types of councils.

11.30 a.m.

We are not at all clear why there should be this difference. If I may quote from col. 75 of the Official Report (No. 3) of the Select Committee - the Attorney-General (Mr Butterfield) at that time said:

"We do, on the other hand, take the view that so far as the District Councils are concerned, it would be too restrictive to provide that, where the Chinese language is concerned, it should be Mandarin. There are numbers of districts where the persons voting in the local government elections and those who are likely to represent them are persons who commonly speak one of the several dialects of Chinese. The Government takes the view that these people should not be debarred by too restrictive a language qualification and considers that, having regard to the differences in the districts, it would be wise and right in this legislation to provide that the language qualification for the districts should include any Chinese dialect and should not be restricted to Mandarin."

Now this argument which was applied to the District Councils applies equally to the City Council in every syllable, because by their very act in bringing rural areas - Pasir Panjang and Ulu Pandan - into the City Council area, the Government make this argument a valid one. You have this rural area, as you have other rural areas, already inside the City Council where there are people who do not speak Mandarin but who commonly speak in one of the several dialects of Chinese. Why should they be debarred by too restrictive a language restriction? Let us have equality at the local government level.

You will find, if you turn to col. 79 of the Report, that the Minister was in entire agreement with me at the top of this col. 79:

"I quite agree with the Member for Tanglin that if we were to stick to Mandarin, it would mean that only the younger generation would be able to take part in the City Council elections and not the older generation."

And why should the older generation be debarred from being candidates for election to the City Council? It is from the older and wiser heads that one looks for representation in the City Council, and it is the older and wiser heads who normally have more time to spare for local government matters. In many parts of the world it is common to see persons who have retired from their businesses, or at least have the younger generation able to play a greater part in their businesses, finding time to take part in local government and lending their wisdom and experience over the years to local government administration. I think that is a very important point, and I am glad that the Minister agrees that if we were to stick to Mandarin in the City Council, it would mean that only the younger generation would be able to take part.

The Minister went on to say in the same paragraph:

"But, on the other hand, Sir, I must say this: that in the City Council area you will find that there is no dearth of candidates who, though they may be unable to speak in Mandarin, may be able to speak in English."

Now the fact that there is no dearth of candidates has nothing to do with the point. The point is that if you speak any Chinese dialect other than Mandarin, you should not be disqualified from being a candidate. And the Minister went on to say:

"In the case of the District Council areas, the reason why the Government has suggested that any Chinese dialect could be used in the Council is because we feel that in the District Council areas we would very much like the ordinary farmer and the small shopkeeper to take part in the District Council elections."

And why - we would like to know - would the Government not like the ordinary farmer and the small shopkeeper, of whom there are thousands in the City Council area, to take part in City Council elections? As I said, by the very move of the Government to bring essentially rural areas inside the City Council, there are ordinary farmers being apparently denied their right to sit in the City Council simply because they cannot speak Mandarin. Sir, we are opposed to their bar in the City Council area.

The Chairman: It has been proposed, as an amendment, in page 82, line 37, to leave out from "(b)" to "; and" in line 9 in page 83 - that is, the whole of paragraphs (b) and (c) other than "and" - and there to insert: -

"if he is able to speak any Chinese dialect or Malay or Tamil or English and, unless incapacitated by blindness or any other physical cause, to read and write any one of those dialects or languages".

Hon. Members will have noticed that the amendment seeks, as I have said, to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and to insert a new paragraph (b).

The Minister has given notice of amendments to paragraphs (b) and (c), where he seeks to leave out only part of those words. I must draw the attention of hon. Members to Standing Order 28 (4) (d) which reads:

"If the Speaker or Chairman, before putting a question to leave out certain words, is informed that a Member wishes to move an amendment to leave out part only of these words and if he is of opinion that the proposed amendment of which he is so informed is substantially a new amendment, he shall, if possible, put the question to leave out only so much of the original amendment as is unaffected by the second amendment; but if that question is agreed to, the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out."

I am of the opinion that that paragraph comes into play and I shall therefore propose, and later put, the Question with reference to the Member for Tanglin's amendment-

In page 82, line 37 to line 41, to leave out the words from "(b) " to "with" - that is to say, the words:

"If in the case of the City Council he is able to speak Mandarin or Malay or Tamil or English, and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write one or other of those languages".

I shall put the Question that those words only be left out. If that Question is agreed to, then under the Standing Order the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out - that is to say, all the words in paragraphs (b) and (c).

If, on the other hand, the Question is not agreed to, then the whole of the amendment proposed by the Member for Tanglin will fall and the Minister may then proceed with his amendments. I trust I have made myself clear.

The Question then, after that exordium, is "That the words from '(b)' in line 37, page 82, to the word 'with' in line 41 on the same page proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Mr Chairman, Sir, it seems a bit odd that, of all the Members on the Opposition, it takes the Member for Tanglin to tell us what we should do in the matter of the Chinese language. If it is Mr Sutherland, at least we can understand. He resided in China for a number of years and he speaks the language quite fluently. Nevertheless, I think the Member for Tanglin must have very good intentions at heart and wishes to see every Chinese, whether he comes from Mongolia-

Mr John Ede: Point of clarification and explanation, Sir. Mr Chairman, it does happen, when speaking of the people who live in the area of Ulu Pandan, that I am speaking on behalf of the constituents whom I represent.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I am not saying that the Member for Tanglin was not speaking on behalf of his constituency. As I said, he may have the best intentions at heart and wishes to see every Chinese - whether he comes from Mongolia, Sinkiang or Tibet - able to stand for election in the City Council. But I wonder if he is aware of the complications of the Chinese language. There are 18 provinces in China, that is, if we exclude three in Manchuria, and every one of these provinces has many dialects. Take, for instance, the Province of Kwangtung from where my forefathers came. It has Khehs, Teochews, Hylams and Cantonese. Take the Cantonese dialect alone. There are so many dialects spoken by the Cantonese. Although I have been to Kwangtung many times - prewar as well as postwar - and other parts of China, I found great difficulty in understanding some of the people who came from entirely different districts when they spoke Cantonese. Just imagine the difficulty in trying to get interpreters for those representatives who speak in all these dialects! I think the task is almost impossible. We have had some examples of interpretation in the Select Committee meetings of the last few weeks. From what I heard, many interpretations were far from correct. You can see from that, that if an interpreter is expected to interpret from languages which he has seldom heard of, there would be a great difference in the interpretation.

The Member for Tanglin says that if we limit the language to Mandarin, it is only the younger generation who will be able to do so. I think that is not entirely true. Quite a number of people who are over 40 - I do not know whether the Member for Tanglin calls them young or old - and even 50 speak Mandarin very well. When I say that, I do not mean those in the teaching profession. I mean the merchants, and a lot of workers too. So in this respect, I do not see any difficulty in getting candidates for the City Council elections, bearing in mind that in the City Council area alone, out of a population of one and a quarter million, we have 950,000 and if we cannot get 32 members out of the 950,000 who do not speak English, Malay, Tamil or Mandarin, then I do not know what to say.

The Member for Tanglin will say that this argument will also hold good for the District Councils. Yes, to a certain extent we agree, but then you must bear in mind this - that we will have three District Councils of 12 members each - 36 in all - and then we have a population which is slightly over a quarter of a million.

11.45 a.m.

It is also the intention, if possible, to get those people who are farmers and those who seldom come to the city to stand for elections to the District Councils. These are the people who, I believe, would do a lot of good for the District Councils.

Another point is this: In the rural districts, certain areas are mainly inhabited by certain sections of the people, such as Khehs, Hylams, Hokkiens or Teochews. If these people are not allowed to stand for election, then I believe it will be a great loss to the District Councils. Of course, if you could get a language which is suitable for all, it would be ideal; but at this stage of development, I think we shall allow people in the rural districts who are standing for elections to speak other dialects in addition to Mandarin.

Another point to be borne in mind is that the affairs of the District Councils are definitely much more simple than those of the City Council. The elected councillors possibly stay very near to one another, and if one cannot understand the dialect, his friend who sits next to him in the District Council might be able to interpret for him. If that argument is advanced by the Member for Tanglin for the City Council, then he may even advance it for the Assembly. I see that the Member for Tanglin is shaking his head. Sir, I do not think there is any difference between these two places. Sir, I oppose this amendment.

The Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Mr Tan Theng Chiang): Mr Chairman, Sir, in a country like Singapore, I think it is most important that the business of the City Council should be carried out as expeditiously as possible; and for administrative and technical reasons, I think a limit on multilingualism should be imposed if the activities of the Council are to be carried out in an efficient manner. It is for these reasons that I consider that only one Chinese dialect, which is spoken or understood by a great number of the Chinese population, should be allowed in addition to one Indian language, Malay and English. If pressure is brought to permit the use of all Chinese dialects, which are very many indeed, then I think we cannot properly deny Indians the use of their own languages, such as Hindustani, Urdu, Bengali, Malayalam and several other Indian languages. In cosmopolitan Singapore, Sir, it is important that we should avoid taking any steps which may be regarded as discriminatory by any section of the community.

The position in the rural areas is entirely different. The idea of forming rural district councils is to bring home to the rural folks the benefits of an efficient administration. This could only be made possible if the actual residents of the rural areas are given an opportunity to take part in the effective administration of their respective areas. It is difficult to predict also what the position with regard to multilingualism will be in a few years' time. In providing for the use of any Chinese dialects in the rural district councils, we are venturing upon an experiment which may so turn out that the councillors themselves in time to come may ask for a restriction on the number of dialects and languages used if they find this is hampering their work. Sir, in the circumstances, I oppose the amendment.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, the Member for Pasir Panjang gave me a little lecture across the floor on the difficulties of dialects - there are so many of them - and a slight incursion into Chinese history, but it all boils down to this: why should there be a difference in electoral qualification on one side or the other of Clementi Road, if I may take one example to which I referred? I can only hope that his own constituents, who are largely concerned because they are going to be split into two, will be satisfied with his own explanation.

But one of my points is simply this: that the very fact that the Government have decided to extend the city limits to include an essentially rural area, and a largely rural area, within the City Council boundaries does mean that they should follow up their own argument logically and make the languages in both the City Council and the District Councils the same. Whether one should go further and include large numbers of Indian languages other than Tamil is another argument altogether. Of course, the argument against that is that there are not so many persons concerned. There is, of course, a large number of persons inside the City Council area who do not speak Mandarin and who will therefore be barred from standing as candidates. That is the main point, Sir.

Mr Francis Thomas: The hon. Member asks why farmers on one side of the road have different electoral qualifications from the other side. Well, the answer is that you have to draw a line somewhere, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. You can well ask why the farmer on one side of Johore Strait has Tunku Abdul Rahman as the Chief Minister, and the other side has Mr Lim Yew Hock as the Chief Minister. Things go on like that. You cannot make sure that everybody is exactly equal in every respect.

If I could just take up one point - I do not know whether the hon. Member considered this: If you are going to have all the Chinese dialects spoken in the City Council, presumably they are spoken in Committee as well; and with the number of Committees that exist there with all their functions, you will need an enormous staff of interpreters and translators to deal with the work. When you have one man who speaks Hokkien, you may have to have two or three interpreters for him; and the same in every other dialect; and all these have to be provided beforehand and trained and put into operation before the City Council elections. It will be a poor way of doing things if you have them trained after the City Council elections, and the City Councillors assemble and find themselves unable to communicate because they are all talking in different dialects with no common language.

To enlarge the task to take in the provision of as many as ten different sets of headphones and different interpreters, all sitting in different boxes and trying to make sure that they can all translate the Budget or a licence to sell hot drinks, or whatever point the City Council takes up at the moment, seems to me to be an impossible one. It would be feasible probably for the District Councils to function in a friendly way on relatively minor matters without too much scrupulous worry about an exact translation of what they are saying. But the City Council is a body on whose vital services, I would remind the hon. Member, the whole island is dependent. These must be maintained efficiently; and operated efficiently; and expanded continuously. To impose on that body the delays and burdens which might be involved in the apparatus of translations which the hon. Member envisages seems to me to be most unwise.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, let us ask ourselves one question: Why were we in favour of extending the language permitted to be used in the Assembly from one to four? In other words, why did we pass a resolution agreeing to multilingualism? Now, we did that on quite a number of grounds, but one important ground was that we wanted equality. The second was that we wanted better men to come into the Assembly. We also wanted the people to elect their own representatives who should be their true and natural leaders. If we were agreed on these grounds when we agreed to multilingualism, then we must see that this should be practised in the lower councils. I know that many Members before their election to this House went into the field canvassing, talking to the people and finding out who are the people who really mattered. And if we ask ourselves - each one of us who went into the field - who those people are, we will come to one conclusion. They are the people who speak less of Mandarin and more of some dialects. It is true in the City Council area, and it is true in the rural areas.

I know, too, that many of the candidates asked these people to help them in their elections, because they are the influential people; in other words, they are the natural leaders of the people. If Members on the opposite side could quote numerous examples of these leaders who, they say, are leaders and are able to speak Mandarin, I am agreeable to four languages in the City Council, with Mandarin as the Chinese language. But I am convinced that the people who really have an influence on their fellows are not the Mandarin-speaking type. The Mandarin-speaking type are the ones who have just graduated from schools.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: If we talk about school teachers, I do not think they have the greatest of influence. Now if the Government side is not convinced of this, let us take a few examples. Let us come to the boards of management for Chinese schools. They control the schools. Why are the people on the board of directors, the board of governors, the board of management? Are they Mandarin-speaking people, or do they speak the local dialects? I would like the Government side to let me have an idea as to which type is the more prevalent. I can point out many schools with boards of governors who are not able to speak Mandarin.

12 noon.

Now let us take another instance. Let us take the clans and associations. Again here we find we have some of the people who are natural leaders being elected democratically. Ask them again: Do they speak Mandarin? What percentage of such people speak Mandarin? You will find again that among such people there are very few that can speak Mandarin. Here we have a great number of people democratically elected according to their constitution, and whom the people say are their leaders. Yet we insist on having Mandarin in the City Council in order to deny these people the opportunity of serving Singapore in a larger capacity. The argument that the Government is putting forward is that it will involve a great deal of difficulties. There will be the difficulty of interpretation. What if they all speak in all sorts of languages and dialects? They will not be able to get business done. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to how business is being conducted in many of these associations and clans. If a person speaks one dialect it does not mean that he knows that one dialect alone. Invariably he knows two or three, even four. He may know four dialects and yet not know Mandarin. And so if one dialect is to be used, he will be able to understand it. He will be able to speak it even.

I also ask the Government to find out, Sir, how people conduct business and meetings in their various set-ups. You will find that although none of them speaks Mandarin, yet business is done expeditiously.

I find that if we really desire to go forward with equality as our watchword and try to get the best men for all the councils, then we must permit dialects to be used in the City Council.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Chairman, I had not intended to speak when the Member for Tanglin moved his amendment. I can well understand that, not being a Chinese, he does not understand the Chinese dialects well. Or he does not know the number of Chinese dialects. But when the Member for Serangoon comes and gives us a discourse on the number of people who know how to speak Mandarin and challenges the Government to say whether management committee managers know Mandarin or not, I feel that I must tell him that most of the managers of management committees in Chinese schools know how to speak Mandarin. I have come across many of them at my meetings, and in my discussions with them they do speak Mandarin. I left a Chinese school more than 20 years ago but I speak Mandarin and the language of the Chinese people now is Mandarin and not any other Chinese dialect. I think the Member for Serangoon is casting an insult on the Chinese people when he says that they do not speak Mandarin.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, on a point of clarification, Sir. Does the Member for Serangoon still belong to the Liberal-Socialist Party? I heard a very fervent plea for multilingualism run riot, and I remember those were the very arguments which his Party, the then Progressive Party, zealously refuted in those days when other Parties were pressing for multilingualism. I want to make sure where we stand today.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Electioneering!

Mr Francis Thomas: Just to clarify the mind of the Member for Serangoon, Sir. I think he must have misunderstood what I was saying. I do not dispute that many people do speak many dialects and languages, but if you are going to have a City Council where anybody can speak any dialect, you have to set up all the machinery which may be required for the one individual who may speak the one dialect which nobody else could speak or understand. It is no use saying that most of the people will be able to understand each other in any dialect. You have to provide for every possible circumstance within what the law permits, and that is going to be an extremely complex task. The arguments which he made are completely irrelevant because you have to provide for every particular case, though the case may not actually arise.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Chairman, Sir, while we are debating languages or dialects, I wonder how many of the hon. Members have read the report of a discussion with Mr Pilley of the Linguists Club-

The Chairman: Order. That report has not been published. It is still in the hands of the Select Committee and no reference to it can be made.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am sorry, Sir. I wonder whether the Member for Pasir Panjang realised actually what he said when he pointed out that if in the City Council, where we are going to have 32 members, we could not get those 32 members who would confine themselves only to the four languages here, then he would not know how we could run the city. But does he realise that the District Councils are smaller in size - they have only 12 members each. In the District Councils you are going to throw open the question of the Chinese language to the different Chinese dialects, whereas in the City Council you are confining it only to Mandarin. I agree with him that to get interpreters to interpret all these different languages or dialects would be very difficult and the interpretation would be far from correct; but I strongly feel that there should be uniformity of languages as between the two councils.

The District Councils come under this Bill, which is the Local Government Bill, as much as the City Council does. Why should we differentiate between the District Councils, where we can throw open the Chinese language to the different Chinese dialects, and the City Council where we have only Mandarin?

Sir, whatever it may be, I hold an open view, because I feel that where the Chinese dialects or the Chinese language is concerned, it is a most complicated affair. Even in the Cantonese dialect, as the Member for Pasir Panjang said, you have many other "sub-dialects", as I call it, just as much as the Teochew dialect. Now I cannot speak a few dialects in Teochew, although I am a Teochew myself. I may not be able to understand a certain section of the Teochew people. So if we are going to have all the dialects of the Chinese language for the District Councils, then how do we get interpreters for them? Why cannot we have uniformity then? Is it the feeling of the Government that in the City Council you will get people who are far better educated and who know Mandarin, and in the rural districts you cannot find people who are as good as those in the City Council? I do not think that is right.

As the Member for Tanglin asked: How do you draw the boundary? On this side of the road you confine the language only to Mandarin, whereas on the opposite side you open it to all the different Chinese dialects. What difference does it make between this side of the road and that side? The Minister for Communications and Works said that there must be a line drawn. I agree or else you get nowhere. But then a Member sitting on one side may know a number of dialects, whereas the Member sitting on the opposite may not. I think we should have uniformity, be it Mandarin alone or be it the different Chinese dialects. The whole clause should be amended to suit either one or the other. There should not be any differentiation between the languages of the District and City Councils.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Mr Chairman, Sir, I agree with the last speaker that we should have uniformity. If we are going to allow any dialect to be used in the District Councils, we should also allow any dialect to be used in the City Council.

But I disagree with the Minister for Education when he says that it is a shame for a Chinese to say that the Chinese cannot understand Mandarin. I am afraid there are quite a number of Chinese who do not speak Mandarin, especially the older Chinese. The younger Chinese who have gone to Chinese schools can, of course, speak Mandarin. But surely we are not going to deprive the older Chinese, who are perhaps public spirited and have made themselves useful in the city and who would like to take part in the administration of the city, of the opportunity to take part in the City Council elections simply because they cannot speak Mandarin? I strongly support the view that we should have uniformity in the District and City Councils.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar has already drawn the attention of his House to the fact that it was the Progressive Party that opposed multilingualism, and it would appear that the Liberal-Socialist Party are now more than anxious for multilingualism. In fact, they are going beyond what has been accepted in the Legislative Assembly. Sir, the fact that we are going to have a multilingual Assembly makes it necessary that we must make the other councils multilingual as well. On that basis, since the Legislative Assembly will have Mandarin as its Chinese language, we feel that in the City Council Mandarin, and Mandarin alone, should also be the only Chinese language.

The City Council and the Legislative Assembly, as far as I can gather, now work on the same basis. At the ordinary meetings they have verbatim reports. Therefore it is necessary for the City Council to have interpreters and also to have the same earphone system as in the Legislative Assembly.

In regard to the District Councils, we envisage that the business conducted will be more of a friendly and co-operative nature than that of a healthy debate as we are having in the Legislative Assembly and in the City Council. We want the farmers and the little shopkeepers in the rural districts to participate, and to have every facility afforded them so that they can contest the elections and be returned to the District Councils. They can help to bring democracy to the districts. Sir, the District Councils will work for the first term on the same basis as the village committees. The councillors sit around and discuss points of interest and use the dialects in which they are most familiar, and they will have one another to help in the translation. As far as village committees are concerned, I think only minutes and decisions are taken, but no verbatim reports. If verbatim reports are necessary, then translators and the earphone system will also be necessary.

Mr John Ede: All I would like to say is that if the district councillors are just going to sit around and have little chats while the Government officers get on with the job, then we ourselves are talking entirely different languages.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I think this is an appropriate time to suspend?

The Chief Minister: Yes, Sir.

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

Mr Speaker: The sitting is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of consideration of Bill in Committee.