Recommittal

11.45 a.m.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the Bill be recommitted in respect of clause 144.

Sir, this clause 144 is one which we were dealing with indirectly yesterday when we were considering our amendment to clause 143 on the question of the width of private streets. I have had the benefit of having this considered by the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General to whom I am very grateful. I think we have come to a compromise on this matter which, while it is not entirely suitable to us, does go a very long way to meeting the point we have in mind on this question of ensuring that owners or occupiers of premises bordering on streets that are less than 36 ft. wide would, through this amendment we now propose, have a chance of having streets declared as public streets.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I second it.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as mentioned by the Member for Tanglin, there has been a discussion on this particular amendment which he moved to clause 143. As a result of that amendment, agreement has been reached that we recommit clause 144. The Government does not oppose the recommittal of this clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee:

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 144-

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

In page 143, line 31, after "may", to insert "whether at the request of the owners of premises fronting, adjoining or abutting on such street or otherwise".

Amendment handed in.

The Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I do not think that there is anything I wish to add to what I have already said on this point. It is simply that now under clause 144 whereas I pointed out yesterday that only the local authority could take the initiative in getting a private street declared a public street, it now becomes possible with this amendment that owners of premises fronting, adjoining or abutting on such street can take the initiative to the extent of requesting the local authority that such street be declared a public street. As I said, I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for looking into this matter seeing how it could be drafted and to the Hon. the Chief Minister for meeting what I think is rather an important point.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Government accepts the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Sir, I move,

"That the Bill, as amended on recommittal, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Inche Abdul Hamid: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): I second it.

Question proposed.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to make a long speech on the Third Reading of the Bill. It must be made clear that the Liberal-Socialist Party has voiced its disagreement and will continue to do so on certain important clauses.

We are not satisfied with the dictatorial manner in which the new city limits are being introduced nor with the limits themselves. We are in disagreement regarding the number of councillors on the City and District Councils and the inclusion of nominated members. The powers over rating in the new areas given to the Ministers are, we feel, wrong when differential rating is already a power in the hands of the local authority, while the transitional provisions in clause 323 relating in particular to Katong's administration is a mockery of democracy. We disagree with the loan policy in clause 81 and we consider the failure to include clauses regarding District Council funds, officers and posts an indication that the Government's new policy for the rural areas falls short of its promises.

But, Sir, however long and tedious this four days' debate on the Bill in Committee stage may have seemed, their importance as a part of our democratic Assembly procedure has been proved and perhaps has been shown in no previous Bill. As early as the first day, the Minister for Communications and Works, in an outburst of impatience unworthy of him, accused the Liberal-Socialists of filibustering and suggested that the issues had been debated in Select Committee and why should we waste any further time. The Government's well-known desire to steamroller things through this House has never been more overtly demonstrated and it has made us on this side all the more determined to carry out our duty of Opposition. In point of fact, never have the functions of the Opposition been better shown than in this Bill. Government has been pushed into accepting amendments to about 15 clauses: two started by the People's Action Party and not completed by them (that Party has shown an almost total lack of interest in the Bill itself) and the rest by the Liberal-Socialists, and that is a complete justification of our procedure under Standing Orders.

One other matter I must touch on because it goes to the very basic principles on which this Local Government Bill is founded. Nothing has horrified the Liberal-Socialist Party more than the unashamed confession - indeed, it was not a confession but a proud pronouncement - of the Minister for Commerce and Industry backed by the Minister for Communications and Works, who ought to know better, that the Mayor, if he were a Labour Front Mayor, would not hold his office impartially: you fight the election apparently on a Party ticket and if you become the Mayor, you follow the Party programme and the Party line. In other words, according to the Labour Front, a Mayor elected by them will sit in the chair and give his rulings on the Bill, on Standing Orders and on by-laws not impartially but in accordance with Party direction. Bias and prejudice of this kind would make a mockery of democratic institutions and would bring all the work put into this great Bill to nought in a matter of months.

So that if ever any amendment of the Liberal-Socialist was justified, our amendment not to allow the Mayor a vote has been shown to be so. Well as we know the Minister for Commerce and Industry, we did not expect such cynical contempt for impartiality in persons of high office as he has expressed, an impartiality which the Liberal-Socialists regard as axiomatic. The failure to accept our amendment on this point in the light of the debate it produced would be alone enough to make us view parts of this Bill with disfavour. Fortunately, a Labour Front Mayor will now not eventualise because the people of this country will not vote for a Party with such a policy and such an outlook.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: How do you know?

Mr John Ede: Sir, in dismissing this unpleasant taste from one's mouth, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Local Government for steering this difficult Bill through all its long stages to a conclusion even if we on this side cannot agree with a good deal of it. Indeed, it is clear that he does not agree with much of it himself and that it is purely a Labour Front Bill because he has rarely risen to speak in defence of it and only the Labour Front Members have defended it.

An hon. Member: Nonsense.

Mr John Ede: Lastly, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the patience with which you have assisted Members of the Opposition first in Select Committee and in this House over difficult matters of procedure, in which your known impartiality has been invaluable.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can well understand the stand taken by the Liberal-Socialists in this matter. The Member for Tanglin says that, insofar as the amendments which he proposed and which were lost, the Liberal-Socialists will still maintain the same stand. I can understand that feeling. In fact, it is the only stand that the Liberal-Socialists can take but I would like to suggest to him that we too on this side of the House have views of our own. If our views do not coincide with theirs, it is ridiculous to suggest that we are dictatorial whereas if they keep on dictating to us and we do not accept their dictatorial attitude, they say that they are right and that we are dictatorial. They suggest that we steamroller everything. Surely it is not so, Sir. The debate during the past four days has shown that the Government is very anxious that this Bill should be passed as quickly as possible so that elections can take place in December as far as the City Council is concerned.

The Member for Tanglin also said that the Government was pushed into accepting, I think he said, 15 amendments. We were not pushed, Sir. We are prepared to accept any amendments that have merit and it just happened that these 15 amendments which we accepted had merit.

Sir, I would like also to associate myself with the remarks of the Member for Tanglin for the very capable manner in which you have handled the debate for the last four days and the great patience you have shown us when so much noise has been made; so much so that the last amendment in regard to the inclusion of "noise" has been withdrawn.

Mr Speaker: The Speaker does not speak, of course. He just says, "Thank you."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.