Committee

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 152-

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

In page 151, line 41, to leave out "299" and insert "302".

This is to correct an incorrect cross reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 152, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 154-

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

In page 152, line 17: after "notice", to insert:

", provided that the requirements of this subsection shall also apply in respect of Crown Land other than forest and nature reserves".

Sir, clause 154 (1) states as follows:-

"Where the local authority is satisfied that any grass, hedge, tree or other vegetation whether growing or not is in an inflammable state or likely to be dangerous to life or property or to cause an obstruction or in any way physically or visually to impede traffic, the local authority may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of the land on which the same is growing or lying to remove the same within a time specified in the notice."

Sir, we consider that it is desirable that this should be applied also to Crown land which is in the same inflammable state or likely to be dangerous to life or property. There are examples of pieces of Crown land in what I might call "built-up" areas where you find property in this kind of state and it seems to us that when the ordinary owner or occupier is required to clear his own land that this should also apply to Government land as well. In fact, the Government should set a good example in a matter of this kind but often that is not the case and only this afternoon on coming to this Assembly I noticed a particularly notorious piece of Crown land close to a school which remains and has remained for a long time in an inflammable state, so that a fire could be caused and it could affect the school. So, Sir, we think that it is desirable and indeed useful that the responsibility should be put on the local authority to bring to the notice of Government that there are pieces of Crown land in an unfit state. I raised this matter in Select Committee and, during the debate on this matter at that time, the Attorney-General promised that this would be a matter into which the Government would look further and he gave an undertaking that the matter would be considered and for this reason I withdrew my amendment at that time. Subsequently, the Minister was kind enough to write to me to point out that the amendment could not be accepted because this could hardly be made to apply to forest reserves. Also, we have been only too glad to include the words "other than forest and nature reserves" in this amendment, so that we feel quite certain that the Government will now accept the amendment as it stands.

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): Mr Chairman, Sir, as was promised in Select Committee, this question has been considered and it has been decided that this amendment, even with the insertion of the words relating to forest and nature reserves, cannot be accepted. It would be wrong for the Crown to be bound in this way by the insertion of these words and indeed it would derogate from the powers of this Assembly. If there are cases, where it seems the Crown has been perhaps slow in putting right land which requires attention, such as the example the hon. Member mentioned just now, I am quite sure that if particulars are given to the Minister for Local Government he will look into the matter and see what can be done about it. It is, I am informed, usually a matter where no great difficulty arises and that the Crown does abide by the provisions of clauses of this nature even though it is, as I say, constitutionally improper to provide expressly in such a clause that the Crown should be bound thereby. For those reasons, the Government does not accept the amendment.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, if a fire were to break out on a piece of Crown land on which there was a large amount of lallang and other vegetation which had not been kept clean and if there was to be a loss of life as a result of that fire and when notification could quite easily have been made by the local authority who have inspectors going round to inspect the property of ordinary private citizens, would the Attorney-General not consider that this position could very well be obviated by accepting this amendment - I think, without any derogation to the Crown?

Mr Shanks: No, Sir. I do not consider that the acceptance of this amendment would affect the position in that way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think we must first agree that it is essential that any grass, hedge, tree, etc, that is inflammable should be removed, and anything that is going to obstruct traffic should be put straight. It is clear the Government thinks this is very important. I agree that it is very important. If it is so, then it should apply to all cases. In the case of Crown land which is under the control of the Crown, the Crown is the owner of that piece of land. The owner of Crown land must set an example to the other private owners. They must set a good example. If we put in a law whereby we say, "This will apply only to the ordinary people and the Crown will be exempted," I suppose we are going back to a time when you have a lot of privileges attached to the Crown. This is a democratic country. We want the people to know that what we ask them to do, we are prepared to do it ourselves. If we ourselves are not prepared to undertake such things, then we must not ask people to undertake them. There can only be one set of laws for all people in this country, if this is going to be called a democratic country. In my experience, I have always found that private owners are all very careful about their land because they are afraid that sanitary and other inspectors might issue them with a summons to bring them to court and fine them. Furthermore, I was informed that in the case of an owner who persists in not clearing the lallang, and so on, Government may take action to clear them and charge the cost of it to that owner. Now, in the case of Crown land, I think it should be the same. The Crown should, in all cases, cut down lallang, and all that. I know that there is a piece of property along Upper Serangoon Road full of lallang. Complaints came to me and I wrote in to the authorities concerned pointing out the existence of lallang. I think that no action has been taken for a long time. The Crown cannot be prosecuted. Nobody is going to prosecute himself and that state of affairs will remain until such time when a fire really breaks out and sweeps away many houses. The Government will then sit up and say, "It is regrettable." But I think that prevention is always better than cure. Now that piece of land concerns one of the local authorities and if the local authorities do not have this proviso for people to point out their own faults, then, in the case of Government, they will just take no notice whatsoever. I think we should try to remove our faults, if there are any, before we start trying to remove the faults of other people. Let the Government set a good example. If the Government cannot undertake that job itself, then it should not expect the citizens of Singapore to do the same.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): If it is the Government policy that the Government is exempted from this clause, may I ask whose responsibility will it be should there be a fire arising out of inflammable vegetation on Government or on Crown land adjoining private property, resulting in loss of life and property?

Mr Shanks: Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not want it to be thought that I have implied that Government is exempted from this clause. What I want the House to understand is that it is not necessary and indeed it would be improper to put into this clause words purporting to bind the Crown. Government is aware of the need for it itself to set a good example in these matters. Government does not seek any exemption from this clause in the sense that it wishes to avoid responsibility for cutting lallang and grass on Crown land. Government does, and will continue to, cut grass and lallang on Crown land where it considers there is any danger of fire and it will do it not at the expense of the local authority in whose area that land lies but at its own expense. There is no question of any exemption at all nor is there any need, at any rate in law, to put into a Bill of this nature an expression intended to indicate to the Government that it should set a good example. What I said is that it would be constitutionally wrong to make this, legally unnecessary, amendment.

Amendment negatived.

2.45 p.m.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I move,

In page 152, line 32, after "and" to insert "if such person is the owner the provisions of section 302 of this Ordinance shall apply to such expenses, and in any other case, the provisions of subsection (2) of section 299 of this Ordinance shall apply thereto."

This is to rectify an omission, Sir. The words inserted are identical with those in the last few lines of sub-clause (2) in respect of expenses.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 154, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 159-

Question proposed, "That clause 159 stand part of the Bill."

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I wish to vote against this clause and consider that this clause should be left out of the Bill.

The position, Sir, is that this clause is not being operated today and clause 159 (1) reads as follows:

"The owner and occupier of any premises abutting upon any private street to which they have access or the right of access from such premises shall cause such portion of the street as fronts, adjoins or abuts on his premises and up to the centre thereof, including the footways, to be properly swept and cleansed and watered so far as is reasonably practicable and the dust, dirt, ashes, rubbish and filth of every sort found thereon to be collected and removed."

As I say, Sir, this clause is not being operated today and owners on private streets are not being penalised for not cleaning their frontages right to the middle of the road. Indeed, to insist on this would be to start endless quarrels among neighbours and people would be pushing rubbish from one side of the street to the other. That is obviously an undesirable situation.

Sir, the City Council representatives from both Parties, when they made their representations to Government, asked that Government should change this particular clause. They stated:

"This clause is a reproduction of section 130 of the Municipal Ordinance and as has been pointed out on previous occasions, the clause in its existing form is unworkable and should be entirely recast so as to enable the local authority to charge a special rate or levy on private street frontagers for street cleansing."

Sir, this matter has been brought up for the attention of Government, and I myself, by moving a similar amendment in Select Committee, brought it to the Government's attention again but Government has not faced up to this problem and has not introduced amendments to this clause which is regarded as unworkable. Therefore, as Government proposes to do nothing about it, it is best to omit the clause altogether rather than bring the law into contempt by non-enforcement.

Mr S. T. Stewart: Mr Chairman, it would seem nevertheless that under sub-clause (4) of this clause, a simple scheme should be worked out administratively to clean private streets and charge the owners a fee. Sir, it does not appear to be so much a question of legislation requiring an amendment as finding a practical way of enforcing the existing provisions. It may be that the clause, as it stands, is a bit difficult but that does not mean that it should not remain in the Bill. If this clause is not to stand part of the Bill, then the result will probably be that these private street owners cannot be compelled to keep them so. Although it is true that the local authority has so far not been taking action against these owners to compel them to keep the streets clean, I would suggest, Sir, under sub-clause (4), that some simple scheme could be worked out administratively. It will be a question of trying to find a simple scheme to work this clause. For this reason, Sir, we would like to see this clause kept in the Bill.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, my hon. Friend has, of course, drawn our attention to sub-clause (4). I would invite him to read it just a little more closely. It says:

"The local authority may contract with any owner or occupier as aforesaid for sweeping and cleaning such street and for collecting and removing the dust...".

Therefore, it is not obligatory and the position arises - this is the practical point - that if any owner or occupier does not desire to enter into a contract with the local authority, or say three or four out of a street in which there are ten owners or occupiers say they will not enter into a contract with the local authority, the local authority is not going to half-clean a street and it is not going to clean a street where there are people who are not going to enter into a contract. That is the problem, and it is one which has been pointed out to Govvernment and Government has not faced up to it. So long as the position is that the local authority may contract but there is no obligation on either side, then the position remains unsatisfactory as it is today. We on this side, of course, quite agree that to have no clause at all regarding the cleaning of private streets would be undesirable but it is our duty as Members of the Opposition to point out that, in its present form, this clause is unworkable and requires amendment.

Mr S. T. Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, I doubt whether there would be any owner of a house in a private street not accepting the offer of a local authority to keep that street clean on payment of a small fee. I am sure that private owners, rather than do things themselves, would jump at the opportunity of the local authority offering to contract to keep the streets clean. I am glad that the Member for Tanglin realises that this clause had better remain in this Bill rather than to have no clause at all. As I say, Sir, it still gives an opportunity to the local authority to find a scheme - it may be that it has not been able to find a proper scheme and I know that the local authority has been trying to form schemes - and they should carry on to find some scheme. I think a scheme can be worked out in some of the smaller private streets. It is not for want of trying, and I feel, Sir, that this clause should remain in the Bill rather than have no clause at all. It rightly puts the onus on the owners or occupiers because private streets are not maintained by the local authority but it does allow the local authority to contract with them to sweep and clean the streets.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, would my hon. Friend accept my assurance that there are cases, and numbers of cases, where owners or occupiers refuse to enter into a contract with the local authority under sub-clause (4)? Because that is a fact, we feel that this clause requires amendment and we feel it unfortunate that Government has declined to consider how it should be amended.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am one of those occupier/owners of a house that abuts a private road and I would welcome any contract with the City Council for the cleaning of at least half portion of that road abutting my house. Perhaps if the Member for Tanglin will look at sub-clause (3), he will see that it reads as follows:

"Any person to whom such notice is given who fails to comply with it shall, on conviction, be liable without further notice to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars for each day...".

That is a very serious fine.

"...during which such non-compliance continues, and the local authority may itself cause the work to be done and the owner shall pay to the local authority the cost and expense thereof."

Going on to sub-clause (5), Sir, it reads:

"The amount due by the contracting persons to the local authority may be recovered as though it were a tax leviable under this Ordinance."

So, if the local authority has the power not only to fine but also to carry out the work and charge the owner for it, the owner will be very much inclined on reasonable terms to accept any contract with the local authority. I for one will do so.

The Chairman: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that my copy says the fine does not exceed twenty dollars as against twenty-five dollars.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: It is twenty dollars, Sir.

Mr John Ede: Sir, the only point I want to make is that the Liberal-Socialists and the Labour Front representatives of the City Council did make representations to the Select Committee that this clause was unworkable and I do not think that they were making a frivolous representation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

3.00 p.m.

Clause 168-

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

In page 161, line 8, to leave out "cinematograph" and insert "cinema,".

Sir, I think this is an amendment which was overlooked at the Committee stage. It appears in the original gazetted Bill as well as in this Bill on page 161:

"Where any public-house, eating-house, refreshment room, theatre, cinematograph exhibition or place of public entertainment has no urinal or water-closet belonging...". If you refer to the present Municipal Ordinance on page 97, section 142 (1), you will find that there is a comma between "cinematograph" and "exhibition". I think the reason why we have gone wrong is that "cinematograph exhibition" is a known term, whereas "cinematograph" in the sense that we use it today to mean "cinema" is what is in fact intended. So in inserting the comma, I suggest that we should also add the word "cinema" instead of the old-fashioned "cinematograph".

Inche Abdul Hamid: We accept the amendment, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 168, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 169-

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

In page 161, line 25, to leave out "may" and insert "shall".

I shall crave your permission, Sir, to bring in the second amendment on this clause as a matter for debate as they are inter-related, that is to say:

In page 161, line 26, after "Ordinance", to insert "subject to compliance with subsection (2) or (3) of this section or with any other written law for the time being in force".

Sir, clause 169 (1) reads:

"Every person intending to erect any building shall submit to the local authority such plans and specifications, if any, of the proposed building prepared in accordance with the building by-laws made under this Ordinance. When such plans and specifications are in accordance with such by-laws, they may be approved by the local authority for the purposes of this Part of this Ordinance."

Now, Sir, we consider it a very important principle that once building plans are in compliance with by-laws and with other laws, it should not be discretionary on the local authority to approve them but obligatory. The reference to subsections (2) and (3) of this clause and other laws, as given in my second amendment "or with any other written law for the time being in force", is of course where specialised types of buildings are concerned. As was pointed out in the Select Committee debate, petrol stations must comply with legislation concerning the storage of dangerous petroleum and obviously therefore building plans must comply with the law in connection with that as well as ordinary building by-laws.

Now, what we feel is this: it is of great importance that we should make things as easy as possible for the applicant who wishes to build, that he should in fact be encouraged to build and that as few obstacles as possible should be put in his way. The new sub-clause (18) has really the same force as the amendment. The sub-clause reads:

"If the local authority does not within two calendar months after the date of the submission of any plans under subsection (1) of this section or of the date of the resubmission of such plans amended in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section, as the case may be, approve such plans, such plans shall be deemed to be approved unless the local authority shall have previously disapproved the same:

Interference or delay by the local authority, once all laws and by-laws have been complied with, should not be permitted and instances of interference for political or personal reasons could occur if this clause is left as it stands with the word "may": that although building plans are in compliance with by-laws and other laws, it is not obligatory on the local authority to pass. We think that this is an important point, Sir, and we hope that the Government will approve this amendment.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, in view of the second amendment, we are happy to accept the first amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 26, after "Ordinance", to insert "subject to compliance with sub-section (2) or (3) of this section or with any other written law for the time being in force". -[Mr Ede].

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I move,

In page 162, line 41, to leave out "Police" and insert "Magistrate's".

Police Court is incorrect, Sir. The function should be performed by a Magistrate's Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 169, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 214-

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I move,

In page 195, line 42, to leave out from "(10)" to the end of line 2 in page 197, and insert the following sub-clauses:-

"Any articles, together with their containers and any accompanying appliances and utensils, exposed for sale in any street or place, otherwise than in a shop, which appear for the time being to be abandoned may be taken into custody by any police officer or employee of the local authority authorized as aforesaid and removed to and detained at a police station or local authority depot at the risk of the person to whom they belong, to be forfeited and disposed of in such manner as a Magistrate's Court deems fit:

Provided that any perishable articles likely to decay so taken into custody and removed may be disposed of forthwith:

Provided also that if any abandoned articles so taken into custody and detained, other than perishable articles already disposed of, are within forty-eight hours after such taking into custody claimed by the person to whom they belong, such articles shall be returned to such person, but without prejudice to the liability of any such person to be charged for an offence under sub-section (3) of this section.

(11) A report shall be made to the Magistrate's Court of all articles so taken into custody which have not been returned to their owners.

(12) The Magistrate's Court shall on receiving a report of any abandoned articles order such articles to be forfeited and to be disposed of in such manner as the Court deems fit:

Provided that if the Court directs the sale of such articles the proceeds shall be paid to the appropriate local authority fund.".

Mr Chairman, Sir, the amendment which Government proposes is intended to restrict the powers of the Police to take into custody only articles for sale which have been abandoned by hawkers. The Member for Tanjong Pagar suggested, when moving the recommittal of this clause, that it would be desirable for receipts to be issued for articles seized by the Police in order to prevent abuse or allegations of abuse by the Police of their powers of seizure and the disposal of articles seized. Government in this amendment has gone beyond the suggestion which would be difficult to implement in practice. It would, for example, be difficult to give receipts with full details such as 7½ katies of meat or 5¼ katies of fish or 7,560 beads or buttons. In view of the provisions of sub-clause (4), Government has now decided that only when articles are abandoned, may they be taken into custody. Even then, when the owners are prepared to disclose their identity, they may claim these articles other than perishables already disposed of.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 214, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 216-

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

In page 197, line 40, after "Minister", to insert "after consultation with each local authority".

Mr Chairman, this clause relates to slaughter-houses and the licensing thereof. Clause 215 in point of fact is the clause which allows the local authority to license slaughter-houses and also to provide places for slaughter-houses. It is a matter entirely within the purlieu of the local authority. Clause 216 (1) states:

"If at any time it appears to the Minister that there is a sufficient number of fit and proper places to be used as slaughter-houses provided by any of the local authorities, the Minister may by order direct that from and after a day to be named in such order no animals intended to be used as human food shall be slaughtered at any place other than one of the slaughter-houses so provided as aforesaid...".

This matter was discussed and debated in the Select Committee and I pointed out that, as the local authority was in charge of slaughter-houses, it was only proper that the Minister should act in consultation with the local authority in respect of clause 216. I would remind my hon. friend the Minister for Local Government that in column 267 of the Minutes of Evidence, it is clearly recorded that Government indicated that they would make the amendment. That will be found, Sir, in your own words after a Government comment and yet despite that, this amendment has not been moved by the Government.

There is just one other point. We did discuss at that time that the wording of this amendment should be "after consultation with each local authority". I did overlook this when tabling my amendment as "the local authority". I have, Sir, altered it to "after consultation with each local authority".

Inche Abdul Hamid: We accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 216, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 245-

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I am not moving my amendment.

[In page 212, line 12, after "premises", to insert "including Crown Land other than forest and nature reserves".]

Clause 245 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 255-

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

In page 220, line 39, to leave out from "(1)" to the end of line 6 in page 221, and insert the following sub-clauses:-

"No person other than the owner or occupier of an agricultural holding shall, without the previous permission of the local authority open, dig or otherwise construct or permit or allow to be opened, dug or otherwise constructed any well, tank or reservoir the water in which is likely to be used for drinking or domestic purposes. Any well within the curtilage of any dwelling-house shall be deemed to be likely to be used for drinking or for domestic purposes.

(2) If the owner or occupier of an agricultural holding opens, digs or otherwise constructs or permits or allows to be opened, dug, constructed or otherwise constructed any well, tank or reservoir, he shall report the opening, digging or construction of the well, tank or reservoir, as the case may be, within one month thereof to the local authority.

(3) Any person who commits a breach of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars.".

Sir, by this amendment, the present sub-clauses (1) and (2) are in the new sub-clause (1). The new sub-clause (2) is a new provision to enable the owner or occupier of an agricultural holding to open or dig wells without previously having obtained written permission of the local authority but he is nevertheless required afterwards to report having done so within a month.

Sir, on the reconstruction of this clause, as suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Government considers that the provisions of the printed sub-clause (1) are too restrictive upon the farmers for whom pipe water supplies are not available. However, the safeguards of sub-clause (4) are retained and if for any reason such wells are a danger to health or dangerous in other ways, they are liable to be closed.

With regard to the new sub-clause (3), this follows the present sub-clause (3) except that it now has cross-references to new sub-clauses (1) and (2).

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Local Government whether people living on land which is not an agricultural holding with no pipe water can obtain their water supply if there are no wells. I know of many cases where the land is not being made use of for planting. There is no pipe water reaching out to such places and if the people there are not allowed to dig wells for drinking purposes, where can they obtain their water from?

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, the answer is that such person should make application to the local authority for permission to dig a well.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 255, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 256-

Mr Shanks: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 221, line 29, to leave out from "thereunder" to "do" in line 31.

This clause is required for dealing with matters which are not otherwise provided for. In the sub-clauses which are referred to in the words which it is now proposed shall be left out, the appropriate provision has already been made and so these words are inappropriate and serve no useful purpose. I move therefore that these words be left out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 256, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 284-

Question proposed, "That clause 284 stand part of the Bill."

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, this is one of the illustrations where the ideas of Government on local government are as the shifting sands. Clause 285 of the present Municipal Ordinance to which this clause refers reads:

"The Registrar of Vehicles may grant a licence to act-

(a) as a driver or conductor of a hackney carriage...

(b) as the rider of a trisha...".

The Bill as placed before us originally left out the granting of licences to drivers so that it became in clause 285 of the original Bill:

"No person shall act as a conductor of a public service vehicle or as a trisha rider...".

And in Select Committee, the Government moved an amendment to leave out "the conductor" so that it now reads:

"No person shall act as a trisha rider save under and in accordance with a licence issued by the Registrar of Vehicles.".

So that, bit by bit, this clause has been whittled down and more licensing has been given over to the Police but the local authority now and then may still license trisha riders whilst the Police are to license drivers and conductors. This does not seem to be an improvement on the situation. It does not seem to us to be logical: the Police should take over all duties or none at all. A trisha is after all a public service vehicle as you will find if you refer to the definitions on pages 72 and 73:

' "public service vehicle" means a vehicle used or kept for use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward...' and

' "trisha" means a three-wheeled pedal cycle constructed or adapted for the carriage of persons of goods.'. So that it seems to us that there is no point in cutting out conductors, cutting out drivers, unless you go the whole way and hand over the licensing of trisha riders to the Police as well. So let us have a clear-cut division between the two: the registration and licensing of vehicles being in the hands of the Registrar of Vehicles, that is to say, the local authority, and the registration of drivers of all kinds being in the hands of the Police.

Mr Francis Thomas: This is a very minor matter, Mr Chairman, and the Government is quite willing to accept this amendment. I should just say for the record that the only question about it is whether the Police will in fact be able to handle this additional work at short notice. The original idea was to leave it alone until later on and to give it to them when we were sure that they were ready.

The hon. Member is very hard to satisfy. If we do not do what he wants, he says that we are dictatorial and steam-rolling. If we do what he wants, he says that we are as the shifting sands. Whatever we do, we are wrong.

In this case, we have tried to meet him and say, "Well, we will include the amendment now, which could have been made no doubt at a more convenient time in the future." I should just add for the record that though we are giving these powers to the Police now, I am not yet certain that in fact the Police will be able to exercise them immediately. They may have to wait for some time under the transitional provisions of clause 323.

Question put, and disagreed to.

Clause 285-

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Chairman, I move,

In page 231, line 22, after "this", to insert "Ordinance".

This word has been omitted in error.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 285, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 287-

Question proposed, "That clause 287 stand part of the Bill,"

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, while we are grateful to the Government for agreeing that clause 284 should not form part of the Bill, albeit somewhat grudgingly, we feel that, logically, this should now also apply to clause 287. Quite clearly this clause, in which the trisha rider is unfit to act as a rider, should now fall within the purlieu of the Police to deal with him and it should not be the Registrar of Vehicles who should have anything to do with deciding on the unfitness of a rider to ride.

Mr Francis Thomas: The Government accepts this amendment which is consequential.

Question put, and disagreed to.

3.30 p.m.

Clause 293-

Question proposed, "That clause 293 stand part of the Bill."

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, our purpose in moving that this clause does not stand part of the Bill is to draw attention to anomalies which arose before and now arise more, now that these clauses 284 and 287 do not stand part of the Bill. The clause reads:

"Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, the Registrar of Vehicles may, in any case where an offence has been committed against this Ordinance or any by-law made thereunder or where particulars of a conviction and any sentence passed thereon have been sent to the City Council by a Court in accordance with the provisions of section 83 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, cancel or suspend for such period as he thinks fit any licence issued by him under the provisions of this Ordinance."

Now it is quite clear, Sir, that this clause does not stand four square with such a clause as clause 286. Clause 286 prescribes the rates of hire or fares, and it also prescribes that if a driver attempts to charge a higher rate than he should, then he is to be penalised. The penalty comes under clause 293 - "Cancellation and suspension of licences". The Registrar of Vehicles, as I have read out, "may cancel or suspend for such period as he thinks fit any licence issued by him". As a result of the changes in clause 284 in particular, the only licences now to be issued by the Registrar of Vehicles are the licences registering vehicles and not drivers. Therefore, the Registrar of Vehicles can only cancel the vehicle's licence. If a taxi-driver comes up before the Registrar of Vehicles for having committed an offence under clause 286, all that the Registrar of Vehicles can do is to cancel or suspend the taxi licence and not his driving licence, and that, of course, would not necessarily fall on the taxi-driver but on the owner of the taxi. Here is a clear case of the need for amendments to this clause, and we are voting against it. As it stands, this clause is not satisfactory.

Mr Francis Thomas: I rather think, Mr Chairman, that the hon. Member has not quite got the point of this clause. If he will look at sub-clause (4) of clause 286 to which he referred, he will see that to attempt to take more than the prescribed fares is an offence; and that, of course, is covered by clause 316 which also lays down that where no particular penalty is specified, an offender shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not more than $200.

If the hon. Member will look further at clause 286 (3), he will see that where there is a dispute, the Registrar of Vehicles, in fact, arbitrates and says, "This is the way I see it, and my decision is final." He can, if he thinks fit, issue a certificate which shall be admissible in evidence. If I understand that rightly, the Registrar's certificate then goes to the Court in which the offender is tried and will be admissible in evidence to secure a conviction of the offending taxi-driver and get him fined not more than $200. I cannot quite see why the hon. Member wishes to have an addition to the power to take away his licence, since he is already subject to a fine. Perhaps he might like to clarify it further.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I do not think my friend the Minister for Communications and Works has quite got it right. There is in this clause 293 provision for the cancellation and suspension of licences, and it is common practice that the Registrar of Vehicles to date has cancelled or suspended licences for such offences as are cited in clause 286, so that not necessarily is a fine imposed on the offender but, as it states in this clause:

"The Registrar of Vehicles may, in any case where an offence has been committed against this Ordinance or any by-law made thereunder or where particulars of a conviction and any sentence passed thereon have been sent to the City Council by a Court in accordance with the provisions of section 83 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, cancel or suspend for such period as he thinks fit any licence issued by him...".

Sir, I think the point is there, that this power has been used, and used quite valuably, to keep up the high standard of driving and other forms of conduct of taxi-drivers, and cancellation or suspension of the driver's licence has been a matter for the Registrar of Vehicles. Now, of course, it should quite properly be the duty of the police to cancel or suspend, but I do not think that this clause is quite four square with what both we on this side and the Minister would like to see.

Mr Francis Thomas: I think I can clear this up a little further, Mr Chairman. The broad principle which everyone accepts is that the Registrar of Vehicles deals with the vehicle side of the business - whether the tyres are properly blown up, and the strength of the chassis and things like that. The persons who operate the vehicles are dealt with by the police. We have now finally included trishas in the police duties as well. So far so good. It follows, of course, that where a vehicle is being dealt with, then the Registrar who issues the licence should have the power to suspend the licence, if that is the appropriate thing to do. Similarly, when the police are dealing with a person, they issue the licence, and it obviously goes to the police to take away his licence if he shows himself unfit to have it. The police functions are being put through the legal sausage machine - you might call that the layman's way of putting it - and they will come out in due course in the Road Traffic Ordinance. I hope we will meet the points of significance.

In this particular case, I do not think there is any difficulty. Clause 293 provides for the Registrar to take away licences which he has issued, and it refers specifically of course to clauses 279, 280, 281, 282 - the various clauses which the Registrar operates to issue licences to public service vehicles. That is the power which he necessarily must have and which this clause seeks to maintain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 323-

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

In page 245, to leave out lines 31 to 40, and lines 1 to 12 in page 246.

This sub-clause (2) of clause 323 entitled "Transitional provisions" reads as follows:-

"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance or the repeal of the Municipal Ordinance the Minister may, in his discretion, by order published in the Gazette and subject to such directions as the Minister may from time to time give to the City Council, authorise, empower and direct the City Council or any of its employees to continue to have, exercise and perform such functions, duties, powers (including the powers to levy rates and to charge fees), discretions and authorities or any of them had exercised or performed by the City Council or any of its employees under the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance and may likewise authorise, empower and direct the City Council or any of its employees to refrain from exercising such functions, duties, powers, discretions and authorities or any of them or such functions, duties, powers, discretions and authorities or any of them as are by this Ordinance conferred or imposed on the City Council or any of its employees, and the Minister may by such or any subsequent order define the area to which any such order relates and such area may include any area which was not immediately prior to the date of the coming into operation of section 3 of this Ordinance a part of the City."

Sir, this clause 323 has inevitably reared its ugly head at various stages during the debate in Committee because it concerns other clauses so directly. Briefly, it is because when the area of Katong goes out to the District Council, the local administration in the District Council will not be ready to carry out those services to which the people of Katong have been entitled and which they have enjoyed for many decades. It is a question of direction and ordering by the Minister that the City Council shall carry out all the duties and functions in this area, and the administration of the area at the local government level, so long as the Minister pleases. We have pointed out at various times during this debate that the intentions of the Government on this question have been somewhat muddled.

For instance, in the Select Committee the Minister made it quite clear that he would need to carry out this business for four years. Then he corrected himself and made it three years. Now the official version from the Chief Secretary this morning was that it would be for only about 6 to 8 months. But whatever the period, it is, in our view, entirely farcical. You try to expel Katong from the city, and then recognise that you cannot do it and have to provide for the city services to continue as before. At the same time, you make provision that the elected representatives of Katong should sit on the District Council but have no say whatever regarding the administration of the area that they represent; because, how can they possibly help in the administration of their own area, the area for which they are responsible, if they are sitting in the District Council without local authority? It does mean that Katong is for a period - whether it be for six months or three years, it is not material - being turned into a kind of no-man's-land with no proper representation at all. We consider that this is not a fine start for local government districts which we thought was the intention behind this Bill and the introduction of District Councils.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, the transitional provisions as provided for in clause 323 are a vital part of this Bill, and this clause is a vital clause and the Government must oppose any attempt to amend it. The transitional provisions are necessary, and without them we cannot carry out the present intention to have a new City Council and District Councils in December 1957 and March 1958 respectively.

Sir, we have already argued at length the reasons why the boundaries of the local government areas and the electoral divisions should not be subjected to further advertisements calling for further representations from the public, and consideration of those representations.

Sir, when the present Bill was drafted, it was foreseen that transitional provisions would be required as it may not be possible to achieve the main purpose of the Bill, that is, to create at the same time for the local government administration of Singapore, a new City Council and District Councils which would replace the Rural Board, if the establishment of these new local authorities had to be expedited. A number of major factors were involved: for example, the length of time it would take for the Bill to be passed, and how soon administrative arrangements could be set up, involving, as it did, terms and conditions of service arising out of the transfer of staff and so forth between the City Council and the Government. Sir, one factor hinges upon the other.

Sir, this Bill was given its First Reading on the 29th of August, 1956, and we are today, the 29th of July, 1957, still considering this Bill in the Committee stage of the whole Assembly. Sir, it is true that in the Explanatory Note it was stated:

"Transitional provisions have been included to enable the Rural Board to continue to perform its present functions in the Rural Board area and, pending the constitution of the District Councils, to administer those parts of the present City area which are to be merged into the new District Council areas."

Once this Bill becomes law, Sir, every effort will be made by the Government towards that end. The probability is that these transitional provisions may not be required at all in the case of the western boundaries of the new city area which will be made up of the rural areas which will be brought into the city. I am told that these transitional provisions may not be required and that it is possible for the new City Council to administer that area when it is created. And if we are not able to achieve the same thing in regard to Katong, it will not be for want of trying.

The Member for Tanglin mentioned that the Minister said in the Select Committee that this transitional period may take four years. I do not think that is correct, Sir. I think what the Minister said was that, for an interim period of four years, these District Councils will be run on the lines of the Rural Board as long as they are dependent, to a large extent, on Government funds. He also said that these transitional provisions, in so far as Katong is to be administered by the City Council pending the creation of District Councils, may be from six to eight months.

Sir, in the circumstances, since we may not be able to let the Rural Board look after the Katong area during the transitional period before District Council elections and before the establishment of District Councils, we have to fall back on the expedient also provided for in the transitional provisions of letting the City Council carry on temporarily local government administration in the areas of Katong which are to be included in the District Council areas.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin has, I think, been inclined to be unduly gloomy in his appreciation of the situation. It is not that we fear any confusion or any administrative chaos - this was the term which I think he used in the Select Committee. Far from it. These transitional provisions are necessary because the Government has not been able to bring about the desired take-over of these particular areas in time, and because we are now going to expedite the creation of the City Council and the District Councils; and that, I think, is what the public of Singapore wants.

Sir, it is so easy once the Bill is passed to delay the City Council elections and the establishment of a new City Council, and similarly of the District Councils, by saying that the mechanics of the administrative change-over require a lot of time and reorganisation. This change-over does require time and reorganisation, Sir, but by making use of these transitional expedients, we can achieve our objective of having a new City Council in December.

Sir, what we are trying to do involves big changes and is a challenge to us in these exciting times. If we want these changes in local government to take place at a faster pace, these transitional provisions are the best in the circumstances, in that they will cause hardly any dislocation in the provision of local government services and enable the change-over in the administration to be undertaken smoothly. Sir, in what way will the residents of Katong suffer by introducing these transitional provisions, whether it is in or out of the city area? As I pointed out this morning, Sir, essential services like water, electricity, gas, sewerage, fire services, ambulance and accident services, are all island-wide services provided by the City Council. Other services like scavenging, conservancy, construction and maintenance of roads and drains, licensing of trades and so forth, can be taken over later on by the District Councils, without any lowering of standards, when the staffing and administrative arrangements are completed. I think I pointed out this morning that these District Councils will be given the necessary staff. In fact, arrangements are now being made to proceed with finding what staff should be allocated to each District Council. In the meantime, Sir, what is wrong with the City Council continuing to provide these services if, by this means, we can have a new City Council in December?

The Member for Tanglin said it looks funny that elected members of the District Council should be sitting on the Council as representatives of an area which is being administered by the City Council. I would like to point out that there will be no simultaneous elections to the District Councils and the City Council. For this transitional period there will be no elected District Council representatives. Naturally, Sir, the Minister will see to it that the City Council does not suffer financial loss over the carrying out of directions made in his order under these transitional provisions.

Sir, I feel that in introducing these big and bold changes, goodwill, co-operation and understanding are required, and I suggest that the new City Council, whatever its composition, will in the transitional period, in the interests of local government in Singapore, carry on the administration of Katong as directed by the Minister. Then again, Sir, there is always access to the Minister to whom representations can be made during this transitional period. This indeed is what is happening even now. The Minister, I know, receives a lot of representations from members of the public regarding matters concerning local government and these representations are brought to the notice and attention of the local authorities concerned. Even Legislative Assemblymen also make representations on behalf of their constituents to the Minister in the matter of local government, and these representations are similarly brought to the notice and attention of local authorities.

Sir, I suggest that the stress being laid on this lack of representation in the short transitional period - it might even be less than six months if you count the transitional period from the time the City Council and the District Councils are established - is disproportionate to the importance of the objective aimed at and the use of the transitional provisions during this relatively short interim period.

Sir, I think the Minister for Communications and Works, in passing, briefly mentioned another reason why these transitional provisions cannot be deleted. They are required not only because of the changes in areas on which we have been arguing for so many days, but also because the take-over of certain functions by the Government from the City Council, and vice versa, cannot be ready before the end of the year. Take for instance, as the Minister for Communications and Works pointed out, licensing by the Police of drivers and conductors of public service vehicles and trisha riders. The Minister may order the City Council to carry on until the appropriate amending legislation to the Road Traffic Ordinance and new rules prescribing the procedure of licensing are made. There are also other similar functions for which these transitional provisions are required. Sir, I see there is nothing inconsistent with these transitional provisions which we are putting into the Bill and I see nothing inconsistent in that for a few months of the transitional period Katong will be administered by the City Council. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Mr Francis Thomas: There is one small point I would like to raise in connection with this, Mr Chairman. The transitional period seems to be particularly necessary because we ourselves in Singapore are passing through a transitional period - not merely a transition between the Rural Board and the District Councils, or an old City Council and a new City Council, but a transition from colonial status to self-government and from then onwards to union with our brothers in the Federation of Malaya. Now this is an admirable course on which we have embarked and on which we are getting along very rapidly, but it does necessarily involve a great many changes. The machine which operated under colonial Government has had to be adapted to new situations and changes, and that is operating in two ways. In one of them we have had Malayanisation - which is still going on - and which has removed a number of competent, trained officers whose services were valuable. It has consequently reduced for the time being -

4.00 p.m.

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 progress in the Local Government Bill and ask leave to sit again tomorrow morning.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.