CITY COUNCIL (INVALIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.17 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Ong Eng Guan): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The main purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the invalidation of certain acts and proceedings of the so-called Tang Peng Yeu-Vasagar City Council in the six weeks between 18th April, 1959 and 5th June, 1959. The people know that during this short period of six weeks, many acts and decisions were passed by this rump City Council depleted of any mandate or any authority to carry on. It made important decisions which affected the interests of the nation for a long time, in some cases raising fundamental issues.

A case in point is the question of tariff charges for electricity supplied to cinemas. Mr Speaker, during the ten years when the Member for Farrer Park was in sole charge of the City Council, we the people of Singapore had to pay 20 cents a unit for electricity charges while cinema-owners had to pay only three to four cents a unit for their lighting. That had been going on for nearly ten years until we found it out. The case they put up was to masquerade under the so-called maximum demand tariff that, without these cinemas, the electricity being churned out from the Pasir Panjang Power Station would be thrown into the sea. We know that this was far from true. We raised the cinema rates from three or four cents to 20 cents per Unit. But during the six weeks that the watch-dogs of the nation were not in the Council, the rump City Council of Tang Peng Yeu Vasagar rescinded our decision and decided to conclude an agreement with the cinema-owners providing for a substantial reduction in the rates payable.

Mr Speaker, I have in front of me a so-called agreement signed between the parties. This deed of compromise was made on the 29th day of May, 1959. There are a few significant features in this agreement. One was that although it was purported to be the 29th of May, 1959, and even if the accepted date is truly the 29th day of May, the stamp is on the 1st of June, 1959. The fact is that the 29th of May, 1959, is a date which we call the eve of a beautiful funeral. Because on the 30th, the electorate condemned the Parties whose representatives had signed this agreement.

The second significant feature in this agreement was that in the more than 100 years of Municipal history, as I have been told, never had an agreement been concluded on duplicating paper. All agreements were printed and properly sealed. That was the first time in Municipal history that a very important document had been stencilled on cheap printing paper, and with many typing mistakes.

Mr Speaker, just to give an instance of the typing mistakes. This deed of compromise made between the City Council of the one part, and the companies and persons - 25 in number - of the other part; the "25" was changed in handwriting to "17". Apparently eight of them might have had cold feet, knowing very well that when we came in we would rescind it.

Mr Speaker, on the 19th of April, 1959, the Chairman of my Party made this important announcement. This is contained in the Straits Times of the 19th April, 1959:

'Dr Toh also warned that the C.A.O. and the Minister for Local Government, Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, would be held personally responsible "for any acts committed in this interregnum which is detrimental to the public interest.

The next Government will rescind and reverse any decision or action which is not in the people's interest,".'

Mr Speaker, we gave due warning to all persons concerned who had dealings with this rump City Council that their actions could be re-opened and subject to review. And we have here eight enlightened cinema-owners who understood that this document was a document which was going to be perpetrated against the interests of the country. They thus refused to sign and, as a result, the "25" had been corrected in pencil to "17". There are also the initials of Mr P. C. Marcus as the C.A.O., Mr G. B. Armstrong, as a City Councillor, and one member representing the theatre and cinema-owners who initialled just behind the pencil mark.

Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to rectify, by legislation, this most unsatisfactory situation, by giving powers to the Minister to invalidate any act or proceedings of this rump City Council which is not considered to be in the public interest, and also to render null and void all contracts and agreements entered into on the authority of such acts and proceedings. The people pay 20 cents per unit for electricity. The cinema-owners should not pay only six cents.

Mr Speaker, provision has also been made in the Bill for compensation to be awarded in cases where hardships may arise as a result of the invalidation action taken. I wish to make some explanation on this. There has been a contract on certain sewerage works of the City Council. The lowest tenderer withdrew for no reason whatsoever. In the normal practice in the City Council, they always re-tender. But in this case, the Committee, consisting of the residual of the rump City Council, decided to give it to the second lowest tenderer and it cost a quarter of a million dollars more. After we had been elected in as the new Government, I received certain letters explaining to me why the first tenderer withdrew and the reasons which they considered motivated the giving of the tender to the second lowest tenderer. This action was against all previous precedents. Mr Speaker, we have taken action on this. We have frozen the contract - luckily the contract was not signed yet. We were fast enough to take action and, although the contract was not signed, the second lowest tenderer had done some spade-work and perhaps, in such cases, it might be necessary to pay a little bit of compensation to the contractor, although it was not the fault of the City Council that he had proceeded with the work.

Now, Mr Speaker, there are many more instances of actions taken by this rump City Council which are against the interests of the country and which have to be invalidated. This Bill will provide for such powers.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.28 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development paid me a compliment by saying that I was in sole charge of the City Council for the ten years previous to his advent there. Now, if the Minister means what he says - that is, that I was in sole charge - then he must necessarily imply that I was controlling the City Council and what I said then went in the City Council, in the same way that when he was the Mayor what he said in the City Council went. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that was not my position. I was not in sole charge of the City Council. I was only one of the members of the Board of Commissioners to begin with, and latterly one of the members of the City Council. I had not the powers that the ex-Mayor had when he was there. However, the purpose of this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to discuss not who was in charge of the City Council, but the merits or demerits of the Bill now before us.

Sir, the Hon. Minister for National Development started off his speech by saying this Bill raises fundamental issues. Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, it also raises fundamental issues, but my understanding of the fundamental issues raised is not the same as that of the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not known a Bill seeking to do what this Bill is seeking to do. I have not known any legislation such as this enacted and put on any statute book. This is something unique, and if this Bill goes through this House, as I expect it will, I hope that this will be the last of such Bills in this Assembly.

First of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, the present Government in its policy speech said that the prime task for Singapore is to build up a climate of confidence - confidence of such a nature that people will have faith in this country and come here and invest their money and carry on their business. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, that Bills of this nature must surely destroy that confidence. If one government disagrees with the actions of the previous government, surely in a democratic country, Mr Speaker, the answer is not to legislate to annul such actions of the previous government and this more so especially in matters in respect of which private citizens had acquired rights. If our Government is going to take this sort of action, then it is going to be very difficult for private individuals to carry on their business with any sense of confidence.

Clause 3 of the Bill proposes to cancel off all contracts entered into by the City Council during a certain period. No doubt the Mayor and his group were not in the City Council then, but that did not make the City Council an illegal institution. It was a perfectly legal institution carrying out its duties in a perfectly constitutional manner, possibly not in the way that the Mayor and his group would have done, but still carrying out their duties in a proper and lawful way; and if contracts were entered into as a result of those lawful acts, is it moral Mr Speaker, that the present government should come along and upset what was perfectly right, proper and legal at the time of decision?

Even more disturbing than that, Mr Speaker, is this. Clause 4 of the Bill says:

"...no court shall entertain any claim to compensation damages in respect of any such contract or agreement."

But the Bill goes on to say that the Minister, if he so desires, may award compensation. Why this attempt to oust the court of its rightful sphere of action? If compensation should be paid, why should not the court decide it, and why should the Minister be allowed to decide it? Have we lost faith in our courts that we must go to the Minister every time? It may be that the Minister may decide to cancel a contract. Certain legal rights will arise on work done, on a quantum merit. Is that person to be denied access to the courts? And should he be left to the tender mercies of the Minister in charge?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that this Bill is not the proper Bill to create a climate of confidence; in fact, it is highly improper.

3.35 p.m.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff (Anson): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, and fellow Members-

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member need not address the Members of the House. He addresses the Chair.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff: (In Malay): I am sorry. Mr Speaker, in support of the Bill moved by the Minister for National Development just now, and which has caused concern to the Opposition Members, I can be quite frank to say here, for the information of the Members of the Opposition, that it is in the interest of the people and State of Singapore as a whole. This Bill is not aimed at any individual, as had been practised by the Member for Farrer Park when he was in the City Council previously. If we go deeply into the matter as to how this Bill was brought about resulting in it being moved today, I think it will take a long time. However, I wish to reply to his queries one by one in order to satisfy him.

The Minister for National Development has stated that it is not proper for the former City Council to discriminate against the people of Singapore who pay 16 cents for a unit of electricity, and that there was no reason why businessmen or cinema-owners should pay only 6 cents per unit or even a lower rate than that. I think this is not fair. In my opinion, there must have been some ulterior motive behind that decision.

The Member for Farrer Park stated just now that this Bill will create an unhealthy climate for the Government of Singapore, that it will go to show that its administration is not so perfect, and that it will result in the loss of confidence of cinema-owners in the Government of Singapore. I feel that the loss of confidence will not be as a result of this Bill. The loss of confidence resulted from the attitude of the City Council during the past ten years for its generous charge of six cents per unit of electricity to cinema-owners, or even a lower rate than that.

Certainly if we increase the charge to more than six cents, or 18 cents a Unit, the cinema-owners will be surprised, as they are paying six cents per unit now. Therefore, the loss of confidence was due to the fact that the rate had been increased from six cents to 18 cents per unit to bring it at par with the rate paid by the people of Singapore.

The Member for Farrer Park said that he was not in sole control of the City Council. But he was one of those responsible for the running of the City Council during the past ten years. He played a big part in the City Council and he had powers. As a member of the City Council, I also had certain powers. When we, the P.A.P., won the elections to the City Council and we checked the books, there was nothing to show that the Member for Farrer Park opposed the low rate of six cents per unit of electricity levied on the cinema-owners. This should be a guide to the Member concerned. I am quite sure that he is fully aware that the loss of confidence is not as a result of this Bill.

There are many other examples which can be quoted here. For instance, the Victoria Theatre, and the Murnane Reservoir, but if I do that, I will be running away from the subject of the debate today.

Mr Speaker, among other things mentioned in this Bill are that the decisions of the previous City Council of Messrs. "Vasagar/Tang Peng Yeu" would be considered unconstitutional and would be invalid and rescinded. The reason why I support this Bill is that since members of the P.A.P. left the City Council, the Opposition Members acted like thieves and robbers to satisfy their lust and ambitions which were opposed by the members of the P.A.P. when they were in the City Council. As mentioned by the Minister for National Development, normally an agreement is signed on a standard type of paper according to proper procedure but the agreement signed by the City Council of Mr Vasagar and Messrs. Tang Peng Yeu and company were not so. This is the attitude I was referring to when I talked about thieves and robbers. There are many other acts committed by them which are not in the interest of the State of Singapore. The reason for their perpetuating these acts to satisfy their lust was prompted by the support of the previous Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, who is Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat who-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the previous Minister for Local Government is now a Member of the House and, therefore, he must not be referred to by name.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I tender my apologies.

So this encouragement came from the previous Minister. How did he give that encouragement? There might be many other reasons. The powers which he had delegated to himself was not in accordance with the Local Government Ordinance. With such encouragement, the ex-City Councillors committed many acts, and made decisions at their whims and fancies. That is the reason why this Bill is introduced today - so that the decisions taken since the P.A.P. City Councillors left, and which were not in the interest of the people and of the State, could be made null and void.

Once again, Mr Speaker, I wish to say that this Bill has been formulated in the interest of the people of Singapore, and should be supported by all here.

3.47 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson said that when I was the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, I encouraged all these commitments, these unconstitutional acts in the City Council. This is completely untrue. I wish to emphasise here that when I was a Minister, I carried out my duties constitutionally. The actions which I took were in accordance with the Constitution of Singapore.

As mentioned by the Member for Anson about the electricity agreement signed between the cinema-owners, and the City Council, the present Minister said just now that the agreement was made on the 1st of June, 1959, i.e. after the elections. So it is therefore not true to say that I was responsible for or that I encouraged acts which were in violation of the Constitution of Singapore.

3.49 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise just to clarify a few points. This question of electricity rates has been confusing the minds of the electorate for some time, and I must say that my mind is confused too. I have heard divergent views on these electricity rates. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clear up, once and for all, this doubt in my mind and in the minds of many other people.

The Minister says, I think, why should it be right and proper that cinema-owners should be charged a lower rate than what the public is called upon to pay to the City Council? I too have been paying the City Council rates for electricity. I pay a rate for lighting, which is 20 cents per unit, and I pay rates for power for my ironing, my refrigerator, and for my air-conditioner. If I remember rightly - I do not have the City Council bill with me - for my air-conditioning plant, I pay power at 6 cents per unit. Therefore, if such are the proper rates, where then is the right to charge that cinema-owners are paying lower rates? In fact, by this Bill, the Minister now proposes to re-assess the rates for cinemas and to call upon them to pay more. Sir, it is confusing. As I do not have the City Council bill with me, I do not know whether it is right or wrong. But as far as I know, power rates are at 6 cents per unit, and lighting is at 20 cents. May I repeat again, Sir, if I remember rightly, the rate for air-conditioning plant is the same as for power; therefore, it is 6 cents - I do not know, I stand subject to correction.

But the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park, Sir, is not whether the City Councillors, who remained at their posts after the resignation of the P.A.P Councillors, did right or wrong. That is not the question. The question is: they were legally constituted; they were discharging their duties in a legal way; and since that is so, any act that they did was done legally. If the Government was not satisfied with the manner in which the City Councillors who had remained in office conducted their business, it is a question of dissatisfaction. I do not think it is good public policy for any incoming government to try to upset the decisions of a previous government. That would create a feeling of uncertainty. As the hon. Member for Farrer Park has pointed out, the most important thing in Singapore today is - and this is even admitted by the Government - to create a feeling of confidence in Singapore. And the only way to create such confidence is for the Government to create the confidence of others in itself. But if such matters are allowed to go on without any challenge, where then is that confidence? Moreover, it seems that this is an important matter, and yet it is brought up on a Certificate of Urgency. We do not know what other forms of contracts or what other actions of the ex-City Councilors come within the provisions of this Bill. If we had time, we might be able to know more about it. Apart from the merits or demerits of the actions of those City Councillors who remained in office, I share strongly the same view as expressed by the hon. Member for Farrer Park, that this is an immoral Bill.

3.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I feel that this Bill, introduced by the Minister for National Development, is clear and specific for the reasons stated therein. Mr Speaker, we know that certain acts committed by certain City Councillors after the resignation of the P.A.P. Councillors, were done with the ulterior motive of safeguarding the interests of vested interests. This is made clear by the instances quoted by the Hon. the Minister concerning the agreements which were signed in a haphazard way. I think, Mr Speaker, there may be many other reasons; for instance, they knew that their powers in the City Council would cease, because it was clear, from the manifesto of the P.A.P., that if the P.A.P. was returned to power it would dissolve the City Council. For this reason, they knew that their fate was written on the wall. Therefore, they resorted to unconstitutional acts in the interest of vested interests.

Mr Speaker, the present Government of the people will not hesitate to act to safeguard the interest of the people as a whole. As has been stated by the Member for Farrer Park, it appeared that he did not have power in the City Council, but that was a different matter. He said that this Bill would cause doubts in the minds of those people who think of investing capital in this country, and that this would create a policy of discrimination. I think the question of investment will not be affected. There is no need to fear that in this Bill. No policy of discrimination has been enacted by the Government. The previous Government in power fed their cats with meat, when actually they should have fed them with vegetables and rice. This means that certain sections of the people during the last regime - and this also happened in the City Council - received more benefits than the ordinary people. The Member also denied that the actions taken by the City Councillors who remained after the P.A.P. Councilors had left were illegal. We did not say that the actions were illegal, but we said that their actions were detrimental to the interests of the people, and for that reason we oppose. Mr Speaker, there is no need to carry on this debate at length. It is a waste of time. We know that this Bill, if approved, will give a fair deal to all the people in Singapore.

4.00 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has just now accused the Government of bringing in an unprecedented Bill. He says that, as far as he knows, no such Bill has ever found its way into the legislature of this territory and no such Bill has ever found a place in the legislatures of other territories.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been introduced by Government to deal with a very unprecedented situation in the history of this territory. We all can recall what did take place just a few months ago, when the former Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing stealthily - for the last Government always acted in stealth - emasculated the City Council, and tried, within the short while that they were able to exercise some authority, to set aside all the very good work that was done by the former Mayor and his colleagues against the united opposition of those who have very recently been completely rejected by the people of Singapore. They set aside everything that was good, and now the relics that appear before us have got the audacity to suggest-

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Hon. Minister is referring to hon. Members in this House. If he is, I think calling them "relics", and suggesting that they have the audacity to speak in this Assembly is completely unparliamentary. The Minister will probaby pull himself together, and get on with the merits of the Bill.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I have not unduly alarmed the hon. Members who are seated before me. I must say, Sir, that with your majestic intervention, I have lost the trend of my thoughts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is very improper for Members here present, who were clearly connected with the former Government, to come here today and suggest that this Government is behaving in a most improper manner.

Now, Mr Speaker, we all know that during the election campaign, when the Opposition were in power in the City Council, our Prime Minister gave a clear warning to all those who were then exercising authority in the City Council that, if they proceeded to set aside all decisions made when there was a full and fully representative City Council, and if the tables turned, they would have to be prepared for a situation when the Government that took over from the previous Government would set aside everything that they did in the interregnum. That is what we are proceeding to do today, so that it would be most improper for them now to suggest that they who themselves have behaved improperly before should now say that we are behaving improperly.

We have never interfered with anything that was done by the previous Government bona fide. But where anything is done mala fide, where anything is done improperly, the Opposition can be sure that we will seek to put those matters right.

4.05 p.m.

Mr John Mammen (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, while hearing the hon. Member for Farrer Park, I can just recall the day before the 30th May, when the other Parties said that if the P.A.P. came to power the business community would run away, and the same old slogan is being repeated here.

This Bill seeks to rescind the contracts which were given by the Councillors who remained in the City Council after the Mayor and the P.A.P. Councillors left. The Cinema Owners Association was made to pay increased electricity charges. The 32 Councillors with a majority passed the Bill. Mr Speaker, the people of Singapore are quite aware of the repercussions. A big noise was made by the Opposition, or what we call the Rightwing reactionary partisans in the Council, in collaboration with the capitalists and vested interest people.

The cinema-owners stopped their air conditioning plants, saying that the P.A.P. had increased the charges, and that they were running at a loss. The City Council then told them plainly that if they could produce their accounts for the last five years to the court and prove that they were running at a loss, then the P.A.P. Councillors or the P.A.P. Mayor would be willing to rescind the decision they took in the Council. As you know, Mr Speaker, when once this matter goes to the court, all their propaganda will be exposed to the public. They knew this, and they did not dare do this.

What happened? The Opposition Councillors who had no majority to push through waited for a chance to see when they could help their blue-eyed boys or their Western counterparts. They took their opportunity when the P.A.P. Councillors resigned from the Council.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr John Mammen: No, Sir, it is not necessary.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr John Mammen: Even when the Councillors left, we told them frankly that whatever decisions they were going to rescind, we would see to it that when the P.A.P. came back to power, all contracts and agreements made by them would be null and void. Even at the election meeting, our Party leader plainly told the Opposition Councillors who remained in the City Council that if they did anything to please their counterparts, then they would be taking a risk. And that is the main purpose of introducing this Bill today, Sir.

Even just now, the Member for Cairnhill, I believe - because he has got so many ex-wards - mentioned that he has got an air-conditioner, a refrigerator and some other things. We are not interested whether the Member of the Opposition has got an air-conditioner or a refrigerator, or whether he uses gas or electricity, charcoal or kerosene. We are not interested in this. When we introduce this Bill we are thinking of the people of the country as a whole, and not of any individual. If he thinks he is being charged on his air-conditioner at six cents, I hope he will write to the City Council to increase it to 20 or 30 cents, so that they can make money out of him. If this Bill is passed, and according to the Minister, we are going to increase all the air-conditioner plants, then I think the hon. Member will have to decide whether he might want to have an air-conditioner or not.

There was a system of giving contracts in the City Council. While we were in the City Council, the principle we adopted was that the lowest tenderer would be given the contract, according to specifications. And even there are certain tenders which ought not to be revealed. And Councillors like Tang Peng Yeu and Vasagar made a big noise - the hero or champion of the workers of Singapore! When the P.A.P. were there, they shed crocodile tears and said that what the P.A.P. was doing was not good for the people of Singapore. It would only be helpful to certain P.A.P. chaps.

When the P.A.P. resigned, they knew that even if all the Right-wing reactionary group lined up to go and fight the P.A.P. in the general election, the P.A.P. would come to power, and afterwards they would not be able to sit in the City Council. They knew that their only chance was during the two months' time when they could do whatever they liked in the name of democracy, in the interest of the people, and even in the name of God. And that is what they did. They expected this because the P.A.P. had clearly stated its policy that whatever decisions made by the remaining Councillors would be rescinded by the P.A.P. if they formed the next Government. We will see that all contracts and agreements which they made and which went against the P.A.P.'s decision are rescinded. And this Bill is particularly aimed at those agreements and contracts.

4.12 p.m.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my point of view concerning this Bill is this. We positively support this Bill. There are two important points in this Bill. When the P.A.P. Councillors were not in the City Council, the Opposition Councillors used their time to make irresponsible contracts. Mr Speaker, politically and socially, it may be different. In the present society, according to the P.A.P. point of view, we should do some just and fair work. Some previous Councillors in the City Council had their own political points of view which are different from ours.

The old Government was responsible for the rich people to become richer and for the poor people to become poorer. This kind of society and this phenomenon have been the same for the past years. But our Party wants to reform this society. Therefore, I say we want to rescind the actions and contracts made by the previous Councillors or made with the capitalists. For example, about the electricity charges paid by the cinema owners. The poor people have to pay 20 cents per unit. But for the capitalists, the rich people, who use the electricity to earn money, they get lower charges. Is this reasonable?

Mr Speaker, therefore, I say that a Party which is for the welfare of the poor people should rescind the previous contracts made by the non-P.A.P. Councillors. This is what we P.A.P. should do.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes. Mr Speaker, I wish all hon. Members will stretch their imagination back to the six weeks of the circus in the Tang Peng Yeu-Vasagar Council when it was at its full swing. Imagine there was a roster system of work among these ex-Councillors and each one took turns to sign as Chairman of the City Council! They occupied the former Mayor's room, did full time work and signed as Chairman of the Council, instructing the former Mayor's staff and behaving exactly like the Mayor! Mr Speaker, this is to show that the remnants of this Council in those six weeks were not acting bona fide. They were not acting in good faith. We are not going to rescind those decisions which in the usual course of events go to the Council and the Committees for approval and which have nothing to do with these Councillors. We are going to consider only those decisions taken by the Council which were either made for party politics or in which vested interests were involved. The Member for Cairnhill has mentioned just now in passing (not in discussing the Bill but in raising certain queries) electricity tariffs. For the past many years - during which the Member for Farrer Park, I regret to say, was not in full charge, but he was abetting the decadent old Council - the old Council had been charging the ordinary consumer 20 cents a unit for lighting and 6 cents per unit for power. The cinema magnates obtained between three and four cents per unit both for lighting and for power.

The Member for Cairnhill was, like any other consumer, paying 20 cents a unit for lighting and 6 cents a unit for his air-conditioner and refrigerator. But not so the cinema magnates. They pay between three and five cents, depending on a certain formula per unit both for lighting and for power.

When we went to the polls during the City Council elections, we explained to the people the principle of discriminatory tariff. The old decadent Council, of which the Member for Farrer Park was not in full charge but was only a symbol, had also practised the principle of discriminatory tariff. The poor pay more and the rich pay less. We also believe, Mr Speaker, in the principle of discriminatory tariff. We believe the rich should pay more and the poor should pay less. So as a start we reduced the electricity tariff for those poor people consuming electricity under 20 units per month from 20 cents to 12 cents, and later those over 20 units from 20 cents to 18 cents. This was to help the 150,000 consumers in Singapore. But, Mr Speaker, on the other hand, we do not only rectify the anomalies in the case of the big cinema magnates by making them pay the same as the 150,000 other consumers pay, but we admit the fact that we have made them pay much more than the ordinary consumer who pays 18 cents, some 12 cents for lighting, while they have to pay 20 cents. The ordinary consumer like the Member for Cairnhill pays six cents for his air-conditioner and refrigerator, while they have to pay 20 cents. Mr Speaker, every economist agrees that taxation must be based on the principle of ability to pay, and since the old Council did not negate the principle of discriminatory tariff by exploiting the poor to benefit the rich, we also did not negate the principle of taxing the rich a little bit more in order to benefit the poor. And so in October 1958, we decided to charge the cinema magnates 20 cents a unit both for lighting and for power.

Mr Speaker, we have done some costing. All this is a little irrelevant to the Bill, but since the Member for Cairnhill has brought it up, I think I should reply. We have done some costing and it only costs the cinema magnate an extra five cents in cost for a $3 seat, leaving him $2.95 to pay for the rest of his expenses. We think this is very fair. Now, Mr Speaker, what this Bill purports to deal today is with this particular instance of cinema tariffs; to restore the status quo, to revert back to the position which we think is of benefit to the people. In this particular case, it amounts to this. In the other case which I mentioned just now, it was only to prevent, for instance, the loss of a quarter of a million dollars in public funds perhaps going into somebody's pockets. Now, Mr Speaker, the role of a good, honest and efficient government is to restore all those things which are beneficial to the nation as a whole. And in this particular case, the Chairman of our Party has given due warning. In The Sunday Standard of the 19th of April in block letters, Dr Toh said:

'"We like to remind the Chief Administrative Officer and the Minister for Local Government, Dato Abdul Hamid, that they will be held personally responsible for any act committed in this interregnum which is detrimental to the public interest."

He also warned that the next Government would "rescind and reverse any decision or action which is not in the people's interest".'

Mr Speaker, we have given due warning. In a company when most of the members of the Board of Directors have for some reason or other gone, and have given due warning that anybody who buys goods stolen by the store-keepers could have full restitution in Court, then, Mr Speaker, those persons who buy stolen beer or stolen cigarettes could have their benefits restituted, and the Board of Directors who represent the shareholders (and in this case represent the people) could have every right to seek restitution. This is fully in conformity with justice and the theory of British laws.

Now, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Eng Guan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.