Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698136701961.pdf (Malaysia)
Volume II No.
5 Thursday 3rd June, 1965 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DEWAN R A'AYAT (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) OFFICIAL REPORT SECOND SESSION OF THE SECOND PARLIAMENT OF MALAYSIA CONTENTS ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS [Col. 985] THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG'S SPEECH (ADDRESS OF THANKS) [Col. 989] BILLS: The Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill [Col. 1013] The Constitution and Malaysia Act (Amendment) Bill [Col. 1016] The Parliamentary Secretaries (Remuneration) Bill [Col. 1065] The Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Remuneration) (Amend ment) Bill [Col. 1074] The Statistics Bill [Col. 1077] The Offences Relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill [Col. 1078] The Trustee Investment Bill [Col. 1081] The Supplementary Supply (1965) Bill [Col. 1084] EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) [Col. 1036] ADJOURNMENT (Motion) [Col. 1121] ADJOURNMENT SPEECHES: Government Pensioners—Grievances [Col. 1121] DI-CHETAK DI-JABATAN CHETAK KERAJAAN OLEH THOR BENG CHONG, A .
M .

N ., PENCHETAK KERAJAAN KUALA LUMPUR 1966 MALAYSIA DEWAN RA'AYAT (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) Official Report Second Session of the Second Dewan Ra'ayat Thursday, 3rd June, 1965 The House met at Ten o'clock a.m.

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr Speaker, DATO' CHIK MOHAMED YUSUF BIN SHEIKH ABDUL RAHMAN, S.P.M.P., J.P., Dato' Bendahara, Perak.

the Prime Minister, Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports, Y.T.M.

TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN PUTRA AL-HAJ, K.O.M.

(Kuala Kedah).
(Kuala Kedah).

the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence and Minister of National and Rural Development, TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK BIN DATO' HUSSAIN, S.M.N.

(Pekan).

the Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Justice, DATO' DR ISMAIL BIN DATO' HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN, P.M.N.

(Johor Timor).

the Minister of Finance, ENCHE' TAN SIEW SIN, J.P. (Melaka Tengah).

the Minister of Works, Posts and Telecommunications, DATO' V. T. SAMBANTHAN, P.M.N.

(Sungei Siput).
(Sungei Siput).

the Minister of Transport, DATO' HAJI SARDON BIN HAJI JUBIR, P.M.N.

(Pontian Utara).

the Minister of Education, ENCHE' MOHAMED KHIR JOHARI (Kedah Tengah).

the Minister of Health, ENCHE' BAHAMAN BIN SAMSUDIN (Kuala Pilah).

the Minister of Commerce and Industry, DR LIM SWEE AUN, J.P. (Larut Selatan).

the Minister for Welfare Services, TUAN HAJI ABDUL HAMID KHAN BIN HAJI SAKHAWAT A LI KHAN, J.M.N., J.P. (Batang Padang).
the Minister for Local Government and Housing, ENCHE' KHAW KAI-BOH, P J .

K. (Ulu Selangor).

the Minister for Sarawak Affairs, DATO' TEMENGGONG JUGAH ANAK BARIENG, P.M.N., P.D.K.

(Sarawak).

the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, ENCHE' SENU BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (Kubang Pasu Barat).

the Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives, ENCHE' MOHD.

GHAZALI BIN HAJI JAWI (Ulu Perak).

the Minister for Sabah Affairs and Civil Defence, DATU DONALD ALOYSIUS STEPHENS, P.D.K.

(Sabah).
(Sabah).

979 3 JUNE 1965 980 The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Mines, ENCHE' ABDUL-RAHMAN BIN YA'KUB (Sarawak).

the Assistant Minister of Commerce and Industry, TUAN HAJI ABDUL KHALID BIN AWANG OSMAN (Kota Star Utara).

the Assistant Minister of National and Rural Development, ENCHE' SULAIMAN BIN BULON (Bagan Datoh).

the Assistant Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports, ENGKU MUHSEIN BIN ABDUL KADIR, J.M.N., S.M.T., P.J.K.

(Trengganu Tengah).
(Trengganu Tengah).

the Assistant Minister of Education, ENHCE' L EE SIOK Y E W, A.M.N., J.P. (Sepang).

ENCHE' ABDUL GHANI BIN ISHAK, A.M.N.

(Melaka Utara).

ENCHE' ABDUL KARIM BIN ABU, A.M.N.

(Melaka Selatan).

ENCHE' ABDUL RAHIM ISHAK (Singapore).

TUAN HAJI ABDUL RASHID BIN HAJI JAIS (Sabah).

ENCHE' ABDUL RAUF BIN A. RAHMAN, K.M.N., P J .

K. (Krian Laut).

ENCHE' ABDUL RAZAK BIN HAJI HUSSIN (Lipis).

ENCHE' ABDUL SAMAD BIN G UL AHMAD MIANJI (Pasir Mas Hulu).
DATO' ABDULLAH BIN ABDULRAHMAN, Dato' Bijaya di-Raja (Kuala Trengganu Selatan).

Y.A.M.

TUNKU ABDULLAH IBNI ALMARHUM TUANKU ABDUL RAHMAN, P.P.T.

(Rawang).

TUAN HAJI ABDULLAH BIN HAJI MOHD.

SALLEH, A.M.N., S.M.J., P.I.S.

(Segamat Utara).

ENCHE' A BU BAKAR BIN HAMZAH (Bachok).

TUAN HAJI AHMAD BIN ABDULLAH (Kelantan Hilir).

ENCHE' AHMAD BIN ARSHAD, A.M.N.

(Muar Utara).

TUAN HAJI AHMAD BIN SAAID, J.P. (Seberang Utara).

CHE' AJIBAH BINTI ABOL (Sarawak).

ENCHE' A LI BIN HAJI AHMAD (Pontian Selatan).


O.K.K.

DATU ALIUDDIN BIN DATU HARUN, P.D.K.

(Sabah).

DR AWANG BIN HASSAN, S.M.J.

(Muar Selatan).

ENCHE' AZIZ BIN ISHAK (Muar Dalam).

ENCHE' E. W. BARKER (Singapore).

PENGARAH BANYANG ANAK JANTING, P.B.S.

(Sarawak).

ENCHE' CHAN CHONG WEN, A.M.N.

(Kluang Selatan).

ENCHE' CHAN SEONG YOON (Setapak).

ENCHE' CHAN SIANG SUN (Bentong).

ENCHE' CHEN WING SUM (Damansara).

ENCHE' CHIA CHIN SHIN, A.B.S.

(Sarawak).

ENCHE' FRANCIS CHIAH NYUK TONG (Sabah).


ENCHE' CHIN FOON (Ulu Kinta).

ENCHE' C. V. DEVAN NAIR (Bungsar).

981 3 JUNE 1965 982 The Honourable ENCHE' EDWIN ANAK TANGKUN (Sarawak).

TUAN SYED ESA BIN ALWEE, J.M.N., S.M.J., P.I.S.

(Batu Pahat Dalam).

DATIN FATIMAH BINTI HAJI ABDUL MAJID (Johor Bahru Timor).

DATIN FATIMAH BINTI HAJI HASHIM, P.M.N.

(Jitra-Padang Terap).

ENCHE' S. FAZUL RAHMAN, A.D.K.

(Sabah).

DATU GANIE GILONG, P.D.K., J.P. (Sabah).

ENCHE' GANING BIN JANGKAT (Sabah).


ENCHE' GEH CHONG KEAT, K.M.N.

(Penang Utara).

ENCHE' HAMZAH BIN ALANG, A.M.N., P J .

K. (Kapar).

ENCHE' HANAFI BIN MOHD.

YUNUS, A.M.N., J.P. (Kulim Utara).

ENCHE' HANAFIAH BIN HUSSAIN, A.M.N.

(Jerai).

ENCHE' HARUN BIN ABDULLAH, A.M.N.

(Baling).

WAN HASSAN BIN WAN DAUD (Tumpat).

ENCHE' STANLEY HO NGUN KHIU, A.D.K.

(Sabah).

ENCHE' HUSSEIN BIN T O' MUDA HASSAN, A.M.N.

(Raub).

ENCHE' HUSSEIN BIN MOHD.

NOORDIN, A.M.N., P J .

K. (Parit).


ENCHE' HUSSEIN BIN SULAIMAN (Ulu Kelantan).

TUAN HAJI HUSSAIN RAHIMI BIN HAJI SAMAN (Kota Bharu Hulu).

ENCHE' IKHWAN ZAINI (Sarawak).

ENCHE' IBRAHIM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (Seberang Tengah).

ENCHE' ISMAIL BIN IDRIS (Penang Selatan).

DATO' SYED JA'AFAR BIN HASAN ALBAR, P.M.N.

(Johor Tenggara).

ENCHE' JEK YEUN THONG (Singapore).

PENGHULU JINGGUT ANAK ATTAN, Q.M.C, A.B.S.

(Sarawak).

ENCHE' KADAM ANAK KIAI (Sarawak).

ENCHE' KAM WOON WAH, J.P. (Sitiawan).


DATU KHOO SIAK CHIEW, P.D.K.

(Sabah).

ENCHE' LEE KUAN Y EW (Singapore).

ENCHE' LEE SAN CHOON, K.M.N.

(Segamat Selatan).

ENCHE' LEE SECK FUN (Tanjong Malim).

ENCHE' AMADEUS MATHEW LEONG, A.D.K., J.P. (Sabah).

DATO' LING BENG SIEW, P.N.B.S.

(Sarawak).

DR LIM CHONG EU (Tanjong).

ENCHE' L IM KEAN SIEW (Dato Kramat).

DATO' L IM K IM SAN, D.U.T., J.M.K., D.J.M.K.

(Singapore).

ENCHE' L IM PEE HUNG, P J .

K. (Alor Star).


DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD (Kota Star Selatan).

ENCHE' T. MAHIMA SINGH, J.P. (Port Dickson).

ENCHE' JOSEPH DAVID MANJAJI (Sabah).

983 3 JUNE 1965 984 The Honourable DATO' DR HAJI MEGAT KHAS, D.P.M.P., J.P., P J .

K. (Kuala Kangsar).

ENCHE' MOHD.

ARIF SALLEH, A.D.K.

(Sabah).

ENCHE' MOHAMED ASRI BIN HAJI MUDA, P.M.K.

(Pasir Puteh).

ENCHE' MOHD.

DAUD BIN ABDUL SAMAD (Besut).

ENCHE' MOHAMED IDRIS BIN MATSIL, J.M.N., P.J.K., J.P. (Jelebu-Jempol).
ENCHE' MOHD.

TAHIR BIN ABDUL MAJID, S.M.S., P.J.K.

(Kuala Langat).

ENCHE' MOHAMED YUSOF BIN MAHMUD, A.M.N.

(Temerloh).

ENCHE' MOHD.

ZAHIR BIN HAJI ISMAIL, J.M.N.

(Sungei Patani).

WAN MOKHTAR BIN AHMAD (Kemaman).

TUAN HAJI MOKHTAR BIN HAJI ISMAIL (Perlis Selatan).

ENCHE' MUHAMMAD FAKHRUDDIN BIN HAJI ABDULLAH (Pasir Mas Hilir).

TUAN HAJI MUHAMMAD SU'AUT BIN HAJI MUHD.

TAHIR, A.B.S.

(Sarawak).

DATO' HAJI MUSTAPHA BIN HAJI ABDUL JABAR, D.P.M.S., A.M.N., J.P. (Sabak Bernam).
ENCHE' MUSTAPHA BIN AHMAD (Tanah Merah).

DATO' N IK AHMAD KAMIL, D.K., S.P.M.K., SJ.M.K., P.M.N., P.Y.G.P., Dato' Sri Setia Raja (Kota Bharu Hilir).

ENCHE' NG FAH YAM (Batu Gajah).

DR NG KAM POH, J.P. (Telok Anson).

ENCHE' ONG KEE H UI (Sarawak).

ENCHE' ONG PANG BOON (Singapore).

TUAN HAJI OTHMAN BIN ABDULLAH (Hilir Perak).

ENCHE' OTHMAN BIN ABDULLAH, A.M.N.

(Perlis Utara).

ABANG OTHMAN BIN HAJI MOASILI, P.B.S.

(Sarawak).

ENCHE' OTHMAN BIN WOK (Singapore).


ENCHE' QUEK KAI DONG, J.P. (Seremban Timor).

ENCHE' S. RAJARATNAM (Singapore).

TUAN HAJI RAHMAT BIN HAJI DAUD, A.M.N.

(Johor Bahru Barat).

ENCHE' RAMLI BIN OMAR (Krian Darat).

TUAN HAJI REDZA BIN HAJI MOHD.

SAID, PJ.K., J.P. (Rembau-Tampin).

RAJA ROME BIN RAJA MA'AMOR, PJ.K., J.P. (Kuala Selangor).

ENCHE' SANDOM ANAK NYUAK (Sarawak).

ENCHE' SEAH TENG NGIAB, P.I.S.

(Muar Pantai).

ENCHE' SIM BOON LIANG (Sarawak).

ENCHE' SNAWI BIN ISMAIL, PJ.K.


(Seberang Selatan).

ENCHE' SNG CHIN JOO (Sarawak).

ENCHE' SOH AH TECK (Batu Pahat).

ENCHE' SULEIMAN BIN A LI (Dungun).

PENGIRAN TAHIR PETRA (Sabah).

ENCHE' TAJUDIN BIN A L I, P J .

K. (Larut Utara).

ENCHE' TAI KUAN YANG (Kulim-Bandar Bharu).

985 3 JUNE 1965 986 The Honourable ENCHE' TAMA WENG TINGGANG WAN (Sarawak).

DR TAN CHEE KHOON (Batu).

ENCHE' TAN CHENG BEE, J.P. (Bagan).

ENCHE' TAN TOH HONG (Bukit Bintang).

ENCHE' TAN TSAK YU (Sarawak).


ENCHE' TIAH ENG BEE (Kluang Utara).

DR TOH CHIN GHYE (Singapore).

ENCHE' TOH THEAM HOCK (Kampar).

ENCHE' WEE TOON BOON (Singapore).

ENCHE' YEOH TAT BENG (Bruas).

ENCHE' STEPHEN YONG KUET TZE (Sarawak).

ENCHE' YONG NYUK L IN (Singapore).

TUAN HAJI ZAKARIA BIN HAH MOHD.

TAIB, P.J.K.

(Langat).

ABSENT: The Honourable the Minister of Labour, ENCHE' V. MANICKAVASAGAM, J.M.N., PJ.K.

(Klang).

WAN ABDUL KADIR BIN ISMAIL, P.P.T.

(Kuala Trengganu Utara).


ENCHE' ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HAJI TALIB, P J .

K. (Kuantan).

WAN ABDUL RAHMAN BIN DATU TUANKU BUJANG (Sarawak).

ENCHE' JONATHAN BANGAU ANAK RENANG, A.B.S.

(Sarawak).

ENCHE' CHIA THYE POH (Singapore).

DR GOH KENG SWEE (Singapore).

ENCHE' KHOO PENG LOONG (Sarawak).

ENCHE' K OW KEE SENG (Singapore).

ENCHE' EDMUND LANGGU ANAK SAGA (Sarawak).

ENCHE' LIM HUAN BOON (Singapore).

ENCHE' PETER LO SU YIN (Sabah).

ORANG TUA MOHAMMAD DARA BIN LANGPAD (Sabah).


ENCHE' D. R. SEENIVASAGAM (Ipoh).

ENCHE' S. P. SEENIVASAGAM (Menglembu).

ENCHE' SIOW LOONG HIN, PJ.K.

(Seremban Barat).

ENCHE' TAN KEE GAK (Bandar Melaka).

PENGHULU FRANCIS UMPAU ANAK EMPAM (Sarawak).

ENCHE' YEH PAO TZE (Sabah).

PRAYERS (Mr Speaker in the Chair) ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS INCREASE IN SOME PRICES OF CONSUMER GOODS SINCE TURN OVER TAX 1.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair (Bungsar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask question No.
1 which reads— "To ask the Minister of Commerce and Industry whether he is aware of the spiralling of prices of consumer commodities since the introduction of the turnover tax and what concrete steps he has taken or proposes to take to hold the price-line"— with a very slight modification, if I may: the words "spiralling of" ought not to be there and they should be substituted by the words "increase in some", so that the sentence will read " .

.

.

.
.

.

.

whether he is aware of the increase in some prices of consumer commodities " The Minister of Commerce and Industry (Dr Lim Swee Ann): Mr Speaker, Sir, although no notice has 987 3 JUNE 1965 988 been given on this sudden change, I am preapred to answer the question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware that the Honourable there has been—if Member does not want the word "spiralling" to be there, then what does he want (Laughter), because otherwise it does not make sense!
Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: "Increase".

Dr Lim Swee Aun: Well, I am not aware of any increases of prices of consumer goods since the introduction of the turnover tax.

I am, however, aware that there were certain increases in the prices of certain commodities just before the last Hari Raya Puasa and the Chinese New Year due mainly to the increased demands for these commodities for the festival season.
The Ministry of Commerce and Indus to try has check these increases by invoking the provisions of the Control of Supplies Act, 1961.

At the Ministry has introduced P.O.

Box No.

8000 inviting complaints from the public regarding profiteering.

Prices have since stabilised.

immediate action the same taken time, Dato' Lim Kim San (Singapore): the Minister Mr Speaker, Sir, can enlighten this House as to how many complaints he has received from the consumers?

Dr Lim Swee Ann: Since the opening of P.O.


Box 8000, I have seen only eighty letters, INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL- LABOUR REPRESENTATIVES 2.

Enche' C. V, Devan Nair asks the Minister of Commerce and Industry to state why mine workers are not asso ciated with the work of this Inter national Tin Council and whether he would take early appropriate steps to accord recognition to mine workers on this important world body.
Dr Lim Swee Aun: Mr Speaker, Sir, the International Tin Council is an organisation of countries which have interests in the trade as a whole on an international basis.

Recently, it is con cerned mainly with the problems concerning price stability.

Therefore, when occasion arises when the Council is directly involved in labour problems, consideration will be given to consult ing labour and including its representa tives in the delegation.
Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: Mr in mind, Speaker, Sir, what I had Mr Speaker, was not merely the asso ciation of to labour when labour matters, but whether it would be a wise thing in the long run to make industry-conscious and labour more whether labour could not be associated in other general matters as well?
it came Dr Lim Swee Aun: Mr Speaker, Sir, labour can be more industry-conscious, but I am certain that it would not be necessary for them to be represented on our delegation to the International Tin Council.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, but would it be easier and more practical for labour to become industry-conscious, help it to become industry-conscious, by associating them directly?
Dr Lim Swee Aun: I do not see how it can, in view of the fact that the International Tin Council only deals with the trading of tin.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE BANKS PARTICIPATING IN INDUSTRIAL FINANCING IN MALAYSIA 3.
Enche' C. V. Devan Nair asks the Minister of Finance: (a) the number of Foreign Exchange Banks operating in this country that are participating in Industrial Financing in Malaysia; (b) whether Government will appoint a Commission to investigate into the activities and working of financial institutions in this coun try and make recommendations as to how these financial institu tions could provide maximum contribution to accelerate econo mic development of the Malaysian economy.
The Minister of Finance (Enche' Tan Siew Sin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the first part of the question is that foreign banks there are twenty-one 989 3 JUNE 1965 990 operating in Malaysia and all of them are participating in industrial financing in this country.

The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, because adequate arrange ments exist to deal with the activities of financial institutions in this country.
Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, could we have some idea of what the nature of these adequate arrangements may be?

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: I say that adequate arrangements exist to deal with the activities of financial institu tions in this country, because Bank is equipped with Negara, Malaysia, authority to give directions regarding bank lending.
Bank Negara is also one of the major shareholders of the Malay sian Industrial Development Finance Ltd with which it has close association through being the M.I.D.F.L's Board of Directors.

The activities of insurance companies come under the supervision of the Insurance Commissioner.
represented on MOTION THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG'S SPEECH Address of Thanks Order read for resumption of debate on Question, That an humble Address be pre sented to His Majesty the Yang di- Pertuan Agong as follows: "Your Majesty, We, the Speaker and Members of the Dewan Ra'ayat of Malaysia in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer Your Majesty our humble thanks for the Gracious Speech with which the Second Parliament has been opened", to which the following amendment was moved to add at the end thereof: "but regrets that the Address by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did not reassure the nation that Malaysia will continue to pro gress in accord with its democratic towards a Malaysian constitution Malaysia, but on the contrary the to the doubts Address has added over the intentions of the present Alliance Government and over the measures it will adopt when faced with the loss of majority popular support."
The Deputy Prime Minister (Tun Haji Abdul Razak): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, Dewan ini telah membinchang- kan Uchapan di-Raja sudah hampir empat hari lama-nya dan boleh di- katakan semua Ahli2 Yang Berhormat telah dapat peluang mengeluarkan pan- dangan2 dan buah2 fikiran indicated Enche' Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore): Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask for your ruling as to whether I should speak, the Deputy Prime perhaps, before Minister?
You to me on Tuesday night that I would have a chance to give an explanation at quarter-past eight, but it so happened that so many speeches were made that ultimately at nine o'clock I was waiting.

I think it is necessary that this explana tion should be given; and, perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister would wish to speak after me.

It may be convenient to him.


Mr Speaker: I am afraid you cannot be allowed to do so, because yesterday was the day at which you might offer your explanation, but you missed it because of the time limit.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say this?

It does not matter to me, if you so rule, that I cannot make an explanation in Parliament, as then I will be compelled to make an explanation outside Parliament, which I am prepared to do.
But, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would look so much better to the rest of the world, and to all the distinguished guests present in Parlia ment, if you would allow an explana tion by a Member who has moved an amendment.

I will not introduce any new matter.

Mr Speaker: It really is a matter of Standing Orders by which we are all bound.
I would the attention of the Honourable Member to Standing Order 35 (3) which provides that no Member shall speak more than invite like to 991 3 JUNE 1965 992 once except in Committee, in explana tion as prescribed in paragraph (4), or in the case of the mover of a substantive motion, only in reply.
Paragraph (4) provides that— "A member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not intro duce new matter."

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: (Rises).

Mr Speaker: The procedure as set out in Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, page 445, 17th Edition, is that the proper time for explanation is at the conclusion of the speech which calls for it.
Since the proper time is now over, I regret I am not in a position to allow the Honourable Member to address this House again.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I do not want to address the House again but .

.

.. to make an explanation, because Mr Speaker: But the time is not the proper time.

That is my ruling.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: That is your ruling, Sir?

(Enche' Lee Kuan Yew bows to the Chair).


Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya sa-bentar tadi berkata bahawa dalam empat hari ini, Ahli2 Dewan ini telah dapat peluang yang penoh membinchangkan Uchapan di- Raja itu dan juga Ahli2 dari pehak Pembangkang pun telah di-beri chukup peluang mengeluarkan buah2 fikiran itu.

Kebanyakan daripada mereka fikiran2 dan pandangan itu ada-lah menyokong dasar dan perjalanan Kera- jaan.

Sa-tengah-nya tidak bagitu me nyokong.


Saya suka, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, bagi pehak Kerajaan, me- nguchapkan berbanyak2 terima kaseh kapada Ahli2 Yang Berhormat yang telah menyokong dasar Kerajaan, sama ada dasar yang telah lalu dan juga dasar yang sedang di-buat untok masa yang akan datang.
Rakan2 saya, Menteri2 yang lain, telah menjawab kebanyakan daripada perkara2 itu dan Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Men teri berpendapat bahawa tidak ada perkara yang mustahak bagi-nya hen- dak menjawab untok mengulas per- bahathan ini.

Ada satu perkara sahaja Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Men teri hendak menjawab ia-itu pertanyaan daripada Yang Berhormat Enche' Lee Kuan Yew yang berkehendakkan kete- rangan di-atas ma'ana perkataan yang ada dalam Uchapan di-Raja ia-itu perkataan2 threat from within.
Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Menteri telah meminta supaya saya menjawab per kara ini.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya suka terangkan pada Dewan ini bahawa Uchapan di-Raja itu ia-lah tanggong- jawab Perdana Menteri dan Jema'ah Menteri dan Jema'ah Menteri ber- tanggong-jawab di-atas tiap2 perkataan terkandong di-dalam Uchapan yang di-Raja itu dan Jema'ah Menteri menerima tanggong-jawab sa-penoh2- nya di-atas tiap2 perkara yang tertulis di-dalam Uchapan di-Raja itu.
Akan tetapi sa-belum saya menjawab pada hari ini, saya suka hendak menjawab pertanyaan2 beberapa juga pandangan yang di-datangkan oleh dua tiga orang Ahli daripada pehak Pembangkang yang belum lagi di- rakan2 saya Menteri2 jawab oleh di-pehak Kerajaan.

dan The Honourable Member from Sarawak, Mr Ong Kee Hui, said that the recent crisis in the Sarawak Alliance was due to interference by UMNO.
My colleague, the Minister of Land and Mines, has already replied to him, but I would like to say quite clearly here, in case there should be any mis understanding on this matter, that this has nothing to do with UMNO, because the matter is for the leaders of the Alliance and Sarawak.

However, as the Sarawak Alliance is affiliated to the Malaysian Alliance Party, it is within the right of the Alliance leaders here to intervene, if requested to do so in order to settle any difference.
In this particular case, they were able to settle the differences themselves.

The Honourable Member has also mentioned that since the formation of Malaysia, the people of Sarawak have not received any benefit from Malaysia.

Sir, with the establishment of Malaysia, we promised the people of Sarawak and Sabah independence and with it the possibility of progress and develop ment as we were able to achieve here 993 3 JUNE 1965 994 and, in Malaya.
However, we now have as Honourable confrontation Members know, this confrontation by Indonesia is not due to us.

It is due to the Jakarta regime, and because of that, because of this threat to the security of our country, this confrontation has to be dealt with as a matter of utmost priority.

However, despite all this, we are determined to carry out our deve lopment plan in Sarawak.

We have the now geared Government of Sarawak to undertake work on development.
I would like to say that we are determined, with the co-operation of the State Government to do all we can to give the people of Sarawak the benefit from independence and from our development plan.

the machinery of The Honourable Member also made reference to the fact that the Simang- gang Road Sub-Branch of the S.U.P.P.

was proscribed by the Sarawak Govern ment.

It was not clear what his inten tion was in touching on this subject.
I believe that he also suggested that since those concerned are officials of the party, it would be logical, therefore, to arrest only the officials.

Let me, therefore, clarify to this House on the grounds why this particular Branch was proscribed by the Federal Secretary in Kuching under the Preservation of Public Security Regulations 1962.
We had information that the establishment of the Party, in the first place, was engineered by the Communist organisa tion in Sarawak through one of its leading cadres and that all along the activities of this Sub-Branch were conducted on the lines laid down by Sarawak Advanced Youth Association formerly known as C.C.O.

(Clandestine Communist Organisation) for its open front work.

Four of the five officials of the Party are now known to be in Indonesia.
In short, there is, therefore, evidence to indicate a long-term Com munist planning to create, through the medium of an open and legal front ideologically domi organisation, an nated area where political consciousness could be directed through the Com munist policy of struggle through the legal and constitutional means.

For the information of this House, there was no change in the registered officials since 1959; there had been merely a reshuffling of the key posts amongst the Communist faction.
The Communists had all the time been in control.

It is ridiculous for Mr Ong Kee Hui to suggest the officials concerned should be arrested—most of them are in Indonesia now.

The branch has to be closed, as is being used by Communist elements as a cover to carry out their subversive activities.

that it Now, Sir, the Honourable Mr Lee Kuan Yew has asked the Prime Minis ter to explain what is meant by "threat from within".
He said that when he this portion of His Majesty's heard speech he looked around him and it was clear to him that it must have meant some sector of this House.

He said that it could not be the Members from P.M.I.P.
or the Members from Barisan Sosialis; it could not also mean the Member for Batu; and so he was left with only one assumption, that is, that it was meant for him and his colleagues whom he said are "loyal Malaysians", gathering together now to establish the Constitution that Malaysia is a Malaysian nation and, perhaps, he said, "we were that 'threat from within'."

This statement, coming from him is sheer deceit.

The Honourable Member knows fully well what is meant by the "enemy from within" the nation.
He is the Chief Executive of the State of Singapore.

He has helped the Central Government with a lot of information, which eventually the arrest of enemies from within Singapore.

(Applause).

He knows who they are because when Singapore the Federation were discussing the question of Merger, which led to the formation of Malaysia, he was on the Singapore Internal Security Council together with my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs.
He produced a book which gave information about the activities of the Communists.

He made statements, about their danger to the peace and security of this country, and now his the National representative Defence Council where matters of internal security and defence are freely discussed.

He receives briefings from the Intelligence Branch of the Security Service and knows fully well who are and sits led to in 995 3 JUNE 1965 996 the enemies from without and who are the enemies from within.
As executive head of Singapore, he receives all the intelligence reports which give informa tion as to the activities of those people whom His Majesty referred to in His the enemies from within.

speech as They are the traitors—the Communists.

He knows that about 1,500 persons from Sarawak alone have gone over to Indonesia and there are no less than the mainland 150 Communists from and Singapore, who likewise have gone over.
service the enemy With confrontation from Indonesia, we have also those who are not Com munists, but who either for money, or some other form of inducement, have rendered in to co-operation with the Communists, and their object is to hand over this country to Indonesia or to the Communists.

Some of these people have been taken in and kept in custody, but others are at large who are actively working to undermine the authority of the legally established Government of this country.
Our Prime Minister has never thought of Mr Lee Kuan Yew or his Party as the enemy from within.

In the first place, he does not think they have indulged in these activities, at least not so far.

(Applause).

They are not trusted enough by the Communists, nor consi dered important enough, or strong enough, for the Communists to take them into their confidence.
As a Barisan Sosialis Member has revealed in this House the other day, that he who works with Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his Party must expect to be discarded, whenever it suits him.

Our Prime Minister also doubts if Indonesia will make use of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his Party for a take-over of this country unless it be to serve their own end.

So it is obvious from here that it was not him whom His Majesty referred to as the enemy from within.

that I am UMNO and the Assistant Secretary- the General of UMNO enemy?
He must disagree profoundly.

Am I safe in assuming that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister do not share the view of the Secretary- the Assistant General, UMNO, and Secretary-General, UMNO, who have stated categorically the enemy—"worse than Indonesia", said they?

I am that Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have said, I am speaking on behalf of the Government with the full authority of the Prime Minister.

I am stating the view of the Government.


like If we had thought of him as such, as the enemy from within, we would have dealt with him as we had done with all the other enemies from within.

(Ap plause).

Our duties and responsibilities are clear.

We will not be afraid to act whenever we consider any person a security risk to our country.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew would to hear an explanation from the Prime Minister.

I do not know what explanation he wants.


However, it is clear to all of us that he is out to make trouble.

(Applause).

From the reports which have appeared in the press, and from the visits he has made abroad, he had attempted to blacken the image of the Central Government in a way which was so aptly described by the Honour able the Minister of Home Affairs the other day.
Not so long ago, according to the Prime Minister, he was asked by a member of the Diplomatic Corps, why was it that he hated Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

The Prime Minister had always thought of him as his friend and, therefore, it was a surprise that such a story had gone round.

Now, who was responsible for this story?

It could be nobody else but Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself.

(Applause).
(Applause).

that Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification am I safe the Deputy Prime to assume Minister full is speaking with approval of the Prime Minister and that he disagrees profoundly with the view the Secretary-General of made by the Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of elucidation, Sir—would it be of any value to me to go round the Diplomatic Corps the Prime Minister hated me?

What benefit do I get out of it?


In fact, I am with the lunching with him Prime Minister, after Parliament, playing golf with him.

telling them that 997 3 JUNE 1965 998 Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Sir, we know a lot of things Mr Lee Kuan Yew has said.

Why did he invent such a story?

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: I never invented such a story.
Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Now, we are beginning to understand—it was done for a purpose and that purpose was to give the impression that the intention of to dominate Singapore and to discriminate against the people of Singapore.

this Government is and that According to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is Malay the Central Government the Central dominated Government is trying to foist Malay rule on the entrapped peoples of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, and that is treating all the Government these new States as inferiors.
for That was why he came to see the Prime Minister some time ago and put forward a proposal that his Party should share in the administration of this Government in place of the M.C.A.

This idea was wholly unacceptable, in fact, most objectionable to the mind of an honest and loyal leader.

(Applause).

The M.C.A.


has been a partner since the formation of the Alliance and they have been our true friends indeed and, the M.I.C., we have together with worked independence of the Malaya which led eventually to the independence of the other States which now make up Malaysia.

It is unthink able that the Prime Minister could discard the M.C.A.

for the P.A.P.

He has always regarded the M.C.A.


as a friend of UMNO and as a true partner who, together with the M.I.C., has worked for the well being, pros perity and happiness of this country.

The M.C.A.

represents the Chinese views and interest, and so the M.I.C.

in respect of the Indians, and through the co-operation of these two organisa tions we were able to work for the welfare and the good of the peoples of this country.

This cannot be said of the P.A.P.


As has often been said in this House in the debate, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in fact, thinks in terms of the the Chinese, or a small section of the only Chinese in Singapore, and Government which will be acceptable to him is one in which he can have a big say and a big share, and ulti mately a Government which he alone resort can have a say without to parliamentary democracy.

(Applause).

Now, Sir, since his proposal to replace M.C.A.


is not acceptable to the Prime Minister, he has switched on to his new insidious plan of a Malaysian Malaysia.

In other words, a breakup of Malaysia as constituted under the Agreement signed in London.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Is a Malay sian Malaysia insidious—really?

Is the Constitution an insidious document?

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: His plan is insidious.


Now, Sir, Honourable Mem bers can now understand the imputa tion, when he said that there are some who want secession.

We have never talked about secession, at least not by the Prime Minister and members of the Government.

He also said that probably the people of Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore and Malacca could come together.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker.


Sir, before the Deputy Prime Minister proceeds: I have here a complete transcript of what I said at the Delta Community Centre which was reported in the Straits Times.

The Deputy Prime Minister would be saved a considerable amount of embarrassment if I were able to give him a copy of this transcript.

He will see that no where was the word "partition" ever used (Interruption).

I never used this word.

I never said it.


Mr Speaker: I think the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister has a right to be heard in silence.

(Applause).

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Even when I am misquoted, I must remain silent?

This is parliamentary democracy?

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: This is what we read in the newspapers, and this is what we heard Radio Singapore said.

(Applause).
(Applause).

In short, he has suggested that Malaysia must be broken up into two: one is, as he stated, Malay Malaysia, and the other one Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Malaysia, or Straits he Settlement Malaysia—whatever 999 3 JUNE 1965 1000 wants to call it.
It is clear, Sir, that is doing the Honourable Member exactly what the enemies of Malaysia have been doing, creating doubts, sus picion and confusion in the minds of the people, undermining the unity, the resolve and determination of our people to face the threat to our security and our survival.

Just because he is not in control of affairs of the Central Government, he is doing all he can to wreck Malaysia.

As has been said, he is definitely playing into Soekarno's hands.
Now, that is why he brought this amendment the Motion of to Thanks for the Royal Address, alleging that we in the Central Government consider him a threat to the security of this country.

Sir, we do not consider Mr Lee Kuan Yew of that importance to be even a threat to the Alliance.

We are quite capable of dealing with him.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: (Rises), (Interruptions).


Tun Haji Abdul Razak: As my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs said the other day, we are quite cap able of fighting him democratically and constitutionally, so long as he and his colleagues do the same.

As one Honourable Member said the other day, Mr Lee Kuan Yew is like a bride, who was madly in love with a man and, having married him, the new home unsuitable and found would like to go back to the mother— (Applause).

the Old Colonial master.


(HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Shame!).

Having married to this new family, the bride is not content with being just a member of the family or having the right to inherit the family property.

but also she wants to dominate and rule the family at the same time.

there Now, having had this marriage trouble, Mr Lee Kuan Yew went around the world to tell people of our domestic trouble.

What has all this got to do with people outside this country?
between If political parties in this country, these are matters for us to settle internally.

We are a democratic country; we have a democratic Constitution; and in the last resort it is a matter for the people to decide.

differences are I would like, Sir, to explain to our friends overseas that these differences we have with the P.A.P.

are internal matters.

We, in the Central Govern ment, are quite capable of dealing with them.

(Applause).
(Applause).

We have a clear mandate from the peoples to govern this country and we shall not shirk our responsibilities.

(Applause).

Now that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has made his stand clear here, I say again that we will fight him democratically and constitu tionally.
Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification: Tun Haji Razak has said that he will fight us democratically and constitutionally I ask him, therefore, if he was mis quoted in Utusan Melayu when it said that he was prepared to use force— was that a misquotation by Utusan Melayu?

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Sir, I never said that I was prepared to use force, under any circumstances.
We have the responsibility for governing the coun try and in maintaining law and order; and if we have to use it, for maintain ing law and order, we will use force.

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: (Rises).

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Speaker: (To Enche' Lee Kuan Yew) Will you please be seated?

HONOURABLE MEMBERS : (Interrup tion).

Shame!

Get out!
Shame!

Get out!

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Sir, there is no need for Mr Lee Kuan Yew to resort to tactics of twisting facts and of casting doubt the people that the Alliance Government has intention of resorting to force, or to undemocratic and unconstitutional methods.

the minds of in this Government, Everyone in this country knows, and everyone throughout the world knows, the Alliance that in Government, has always believed the principle of parliamentary demo cracy and has practised it faithfully.
not only in our own political parties but also in the Government.

Indeed, Sir, the only criticism we friends, who have have heard from 1001 3 JUNE 1965 1002 visited our country, and from respon sible citizens of this country, is that we have been too democratic and too liberal in our attitude.

This attitude has been interpreted by certain quarters as weakness and some have taken advantage of it.
Dr Tan Chee Khoon: On a point of clarification, Sir: do the foreign visi tors know that Members of the Opposi tion are put behind bars for their political beliefs?

Is that democracy?

in In ever since strictly.

our Tun Haji Abdul Razak: They know—and they know the reason well.

(Applause).

It is also known to every the Alliance Party one that we in the practise democracy UMNO, Prime Minister took over the leadership of UMNO practised absolute democracy.
We have held elections to elect leaders of our Party, once a year.

Every member of our Party, from the branches to the Divi sion and to our General Assembly, has a say in the elections of the leader of our Party.

And the same is true with the other parties of the Alliance— the M.C.A.

and the M.I.C.

1951, we leadership of But what of the P.A.P.?

The for Batu was Honourable Member indeed right when he said that the democracy.

P.A.P.

never practised (Applause).

The the P.A.P.


nominates a number of cadres and these cadres elect their leaders, so that the leadership of the P.A.P.

can never be challenged, not even by their own members.

Is this democracy by any stretch of the imagination?

How can a leader who does not practise democracy in his own party, be expected to uphold the principle of democracy and practise democracy in Government?

(Applause).
(Applause).

Now, Sir, the Honourable Member for Batu was again right, when he says that there is no democracy in Singa pore.

What is the use of having elected they are not given a legislators, if chance to express their views and to criticise the Government, if need be?

We.

on the other hand, the Alliance Party, have followed the rules strictly.

We have held meetings of Parliament regularly and in our State Legislatures We have controlled by our Party, we have held meetings just as regularly too.
in this House allowed Members of the Opposition full free dom and particularly the Honourable Prime Minister of Singapore himself— to speak and we gave full freedom them full hearing.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: On a point of clarification, Sir: if that is so, why was the Prime Minister of Singapore denied a chance to reply?

Mr Speaker: I take very strong exception to that remark, because it was my ruling.

(Applause).
(Applause).

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Therefore, Sir, it is clear to all of us that we in the Government really practise demo cracy in this country.

I say clearly that the P.A.P.

does not believe in demo cracy.

The P.A.P.

believes in one-party Government and in absolute rule by that Party.

in the there Now, Sir, is no need for Enche' Lee Kuan Yew to impute any motives present Alliance Government, because we have shown by our deeds, by our action, and by our practice, that we are really true democrats.
We have held National Elections three times, and has followed not only in terms but also in the spirit of the practice of democracy.

the in which that during Honourable Members of this House will remember last National Elections, we gave the Oppo sition ample notice of our intention to hold the elections.

We gave them campaign six weeks throughout the country and put their views to the people, while in Singapore, the P.A.P.
only allowed other political parties nine days to prepare for the (HONOURABLE MEMBERS : elections.

Shame!).

Is true spirit of democracy?

this following the to In a democracy we have freedom freedom to speak, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, but there are rules to the game, and we must follow the rules, if we want to practise real democracy.
Now, Sir, we on this side of the House know the Constitution of the 1003 3 JUNE 1965 1004 country well, because we are respon sible for drafting this Constitution.

We are responsible for giving the people of Malaya and Malaysia the Constitution, a democratic Constitution, because we strongly believe in the principles of democracy and the fundamental rights of the people.
We have practised democracy in this country for almost ten years, and no one can truthfully accuse us of not upholding the principle of democracy.

I think not even the Prime Minister of Singapore could produce any evidence to say that we in the Alliance have not upheld the Constitution, both in terms and in spirit.

Now, Sir, parliamentary as of democracy, we welcome constructive criticisms.

We welcome a responsible and loyal Opposition.


But, Mr Speaker, Sir, what have we seen in this new so- called Malaysia Solidarity Convention, or Party, or Organization, or whatever they choose to call themselves.

We, had the privileges the other day, in the to see how this debate, course of Members of this Organization give a display of their so-called unity, or solidarity.
leader of The Prime Minister of Singapore, presumably, now this the Solidarity group, stated repeatedly and stressed strongly that he would uphold the Constitution, and that he supports Malay as the National language of the country, and he supports Article 153 the Constitution.
Then we had of another Member of this Solidarity Convention, the Honourable Member the the from Sarawak, S.U.P.P., who said he did not support Malay as the National language and would have the other languages to be recognised as Official languages of the country.
And then soon after that, we had the Member for Ipoh, the leader of the Peoples' Progressive Party, who said, equally strongly, that he does not support Malay the National as language, as the sole Official language, and that he does not support Article 153 of the Constitution.

leader of Now, Sir, where is the unity, or solidarity, or even common grounds this among group?

these parties that form Sir, we have another set of strange bed-fellows of the P.A.P.

in this so- called Convention, i.e., the U.D.P.


It is interesting to know that the U.D.P.

has become respectable socialists to make common cause with the P.A.P.

We all know that the present leaders of the U.D.P.

left the M.C.A., because they could not agree on vital national issues, the questions of National language and National Edu cation Policy, with the Alliance.

such as It may be that the U.D.P.

now has become supporters of P.A.P.


socialism, or it may be that P.A.P's attack on chauvinism, both Malays and Chinese, only bugles of advance covering a retreat.

They only say they are against communalism in order to camouflage their continuing dependence for poli tical and on support chauvinistic issues.

communal than other It seems, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Opposition bench the P.M.I.P.
and the Barisan Sosialis, only the Honourable Member for Batu is left out from the so-called Solidarity Convention.

Although at times we may disagree with the Honourable Member for Batu, he is basically a decent man.

(Applause).

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that is not a kiss of death for me—politically.

If Tun Haji Abdul Razak: the Honourable Member for Batu has been an opportunist, he will be sitting next to the Prime Minister of Singapore.

now the leader of the Convention.


But the Member for Batu is, as I said, a decent man and cannot swallow this practice of discarding and ditching out of friends however misguided he may think I believe, even if he disagrees with his colleagues and in public, he still stands by them.

He is a man of principle.

(Applause), supporters even (Applause) they are; and, Now, Sir, having seen the coming together of so many strange bed-fellows.
it is pertinent to ask ourselves, why Mr Lee Kuan Yew, so-called socialist, who not so long ago had the most utter contempt for all these men that he has now collected as colleagues in arms in a political battle?

the 1005 3 JUNE 1965 1006 in Singapore The fact is that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's is now political base being eroded.

The people of Singapore are disillusioned with his policies and promises.
The ordinary people of Singapore, shop the workers, keepers, are questioning his policy and all that he promised them in the past.

Therefore, he has to find new issues and, if there are no issues, he has to create them to prove that he is still the only man who can rule Singapore.

the says He has to find a giant to fight with and in this he has found the Central is a Government, which he Malay-dominated Government of the longer has UMNO.
Now, he no Mr Lim Chin Siong to mobilise the mass support for him and to instruct energetic cadres for him.

Instead, now, he has to pay the Workers' Brigade, the People's Association and other Government organizations to produce the cheering crowds for him.

(Ap plause).

He hopes to build himself up as the Chinese against the Malays and in this he has his allies—the U.D.P., S.U.P.P.

and P.P.P.
and P.P.P.

the champion of Now, Sir, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, being a man of intelligence and, as he says he calculates everything he does, he should know, and I think he knows well, and we know, that he is playing a dangerous game.

He knows that by this anti-Malay feeling he whipping may be pushing the Malays too far and the situation may get out of hand.

But he believes that as the Tunku is a man of goodwill and a man of peace, the Tunku will do everything possible to maintain communal har mony and goodwill.
It is this belief that gives him this reckless adventure—this mad seeking for power.

However, I must warn him that although we stand racial harmony, for goodwill, for peace, for unity, but if, as a result of his adven ture, troubles should break out in this country we must hold him fully responsible.

(Applause).

the courage for in Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, ?

Sir, may I Tun Haji Abdul Razak: I am not giving way, Sir.

.

.

.. Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, (Interruption).
Sir, I am not allowed to speak, to explain.

Is this democracy?

Mr Speaker: Have you got a point of order?

Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: I am being held responsible, Sir.

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: I must ask his colleagues in the P.A.P., some of whom I know are dedicated men whom I have the privilege of knowing, to ponder carefully the dangerous road their leader is leading them into.
In politics you can calculate, you can take your pencil and paper and work out various assumptions and presumptions, but you can be wrong.

As my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs, said the other day, we the Alliance do not the leaders of pretend that we are clever, but we know we are honest and sincere, and we play straight politics, and in what ever we do we always place the interest, the safety and welfare of our people in this country uppermost in our minds.

(Applause).
(Applause).

As I said, Sir, in Parliamentary democracy in which we believe, we will not object to opposition, but what we resent is this attempt, at this time of our national crisis, when we are independence facing a threat to our and to outside, from sovereignty blacken the image of our country in to the eyes of our friends abroad, create doubts and suspicions; in the minds of our people, and to under mine the goodwill and harmony among the various this country.

races of (Applause).


Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Lee Kuan Yew is a great expert in creating a situation which does not exist.

He is an expert in organising campaigns to create doubts, suspicions and confusion in the minds of the people, so that ultimately there will be chaos and troubles in the country, and out of that chaos and troubles, he hopes to emerge as the leader who can the country.
There is no need for him to waste his time in this sort of campaign and activities, because every underhand save 1007 3 JUNE 1965 1008 the himself people—he commonsense man and woman of Malaysia are has practical admitted that they are practical people.

They have to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.

They have enough commonsense to know where the truth lies.
There is no need for him to sweeten the feelings of the Malays and the natives by saying that he supports the National language and Article 153 of the Constitution, i.e., the special position of the natives and of the Malays, when in actual fact he continuously, by words and deeds, undermines these two funda mentals.

In one breath he supports Malay as the National language, and in the next breath he makes sneering remarks about the National language.
He said, "How could the Malay language help to uplift the standards of living of the Malays?"

Of course, he knows as well as we do that language has nothing to do with the standards of the people.

living of Language is the soul of the nation— "Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa."

(Applause).

This is not a matter which can be measured in terms of wealth, or of the standard of living or of material advantage.

He knows this, and we all know this.


Why make such a remark, if one sincerely believes in promoting the National language, in making it the language for unity of our people?

This continual habit of talk, in which the Hon'ble double is a great expert, cannot Member in any way, the people influence because sincerity must truth and prevail.

Now, Sir, the Honourable Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his newly found friends in the so-called Solidarity Convention speak of a "Malaysian Malaysia".
They put it across to the people as if this is something completely new which has never been thought of before, but everyone knows, as my collegues on this side of the House have explained, that this is the object of the formation of Malaysia.

Everyone knows that this is the objective contained in the Cons titution of Malaysia.

The Honourable Member himself knows the Constitu tion.

He accepted it and defended it in the State Assembly of Singapore.
There have not been any changes in the fundamental provision of the Constitu tion of Malaysia.

However, as I said, as the Honourable Member is not part of the Central Government and is not responsible for the affairs of Malaysia, he cannot accept the situation as it is now.

The Malaysia which he supported is no longer the Malaysia that he wanted.

That is why he talked about the winds of change.

That is why he the accused us of not various territories together.
integrating Now, Sir, if he is part of the Central Government as he had wanted to be, then everything would be all right.

The P.A.P.

now talks about the winds of change.

We had our winds of change in 1957, when we achieved indepen dence; and it is our duty now to consolidate the independence that we have achieved to give our people of all races a better and higher standard of living and a rightful place in our country.

(Applause).
(Applause).

The truth of the matter, as my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs said, is that the P.A.P.

in Singapore found that they cannot adapt them the new situation.

They selves cannot accept the fact that they are one of the 14 States of Malaysia, and that Mr Lee Kuan Yew is the leader of the Government of only one of those States.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew has found himself like a frog in a big lake.

Obviously, he has to croak in order to show his presence and to be heard.
to Sir, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance, said we in the Alliance have talked about Malaya for the Malayans since we first formed the Alliance Party in 1953.

When our Prime Minister first mooted out the idea of Malaysia, we the people of told Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore that we would like them to achieve indepen dence together with us, so that they would have the same status as we have enjoyed, the same rights and privileges as we had as an independent and sovereign nation.
We, the leaders of the Alliance, are now fortunately accustomed to this sort of talk, to smearing campaigns and to 1009 3 JUNE 1965 1010 talk ever since double the Prime Minister of Singapore came into the political arena of Malaysia.

But we hope and trust the people of Malaysia of all races know this and should be aware of this double talk.

We, in the Alliance have always tried to be fair.


We always like to play the game, and although politics is a dirty thing, there are rules to the game and we all must follow the rules.

For generations, Sir, people in this country, people of all races, have lived in peace and harmony.

Ever since we achieved independence in 1957, there have been peace and harmony.

Since we achieved through Malaysia in 1963, people of all races have lived in goodwill and harmony.
independence Now, Sir, why this sudden talk of racial tension, of one race tending to dominate another, or of possible trouble and, if there is to be trouble, let us have it now?

Why should there be such talk?

As I said, Mr Lee Kuan Yew has to find some issues to make noise.

Otherwise, his voice cannot be heard beyond the island of Singapore.

As my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs, said, he shouts, "Fire, fire", while at the same time commits arson.
This is the tactic employed by a des perate politician who is ready to use any means to get himself some support.

Now, in the happy situation that the people of this country of all races are, he finds it difficult to see anything wrong to criticise the Alliance Govern ment.

He has, therefore, to create an imaginary situation; the most sensitive issue, and one which can easily arouse the sentiment of the people, is this racial im issue, its differences and balances among the different races.
He, therefore, decided to throw a wedge between the different races.

First, in the order UMNO he attempted to discredit the M.C.A., stat ing that the M.C.A.

did not represent the Chinese, did not stand for the rights of the Chinese.

When he found that this tactic did not work and was completely rejected by the people at that UMNO large, and found out the decided friends with the Malays, to make and solidly with to stand the UMNO and M.C.A., he switched round his tactics the and attacked Malays.
He hoped by doing this, he would get the non-Malays to support him.

This is a tactic, and that is why he has been whipping up this campaign of anti-UMNO and anti-Malays.

I say, Sir, this is a dangerous way of attempting to gain political support in a multi-racial country like this.

This method must lead to racial strife and tension and ultimately to trouble and chaos.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister of Singapore cares very much about this as long as he has a chance of getting additional support for him self.

But we, in the Alliance, are res ponsible people.

We have the interest and welfare of the country at heart.

We place the the peace and harmony, unity of our people of all races above everything else.

We say, whatever we do, we must not upset this goodwill, this harmony and this unity among our people.
We must assure our people of various races that they have a place under our sun.

them a proper place Sir, our policy is clear.

We have made it clear many times that we are determined to maintain harmony and goodwill of our people of all races, to give in our country, to help the less fortunate, the "have-nots", so that they will have a decent standard of living and a proper place in our society.
It is our policy to maintain and strengthen the harmony, goodwill and friendship of our people of all races, so that ultimately they will regard themselves as members of one nation and not members of various races.

This is our policy and this is our approach as my colleague the Minister of Home Affairs has made it clear to this House.

is no reason why Our method of unifying our people by a slow and steady process has proved a success in the former Federa tion.
There they should not prove a success in Malaysia, provided the people give us this confi dence and their support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt the people will continue to give their support to the Alliance for many, many years to come.

(Applause).

1011 3 JUNE 1965 1012 Now, Sir, the gulf that divides the P.A.P.

and us, the Alliance, is now wide and clear.

We, the Malaysian Alliance Party, stand for unity in Malaysia, of harmony and goodwill among our people of various races, of peace and progress.
The P.A.P.

stands for division, for partition and for disunity.

Therefore, in short, Malaysia Alliance Party (M.A.P.)

means Malay sia, Abundance, Progress.

P.A.P means Partition and Perish—dalam Bahasa Kebangsaan P.A.P.

means Pechah akan Punah.

Thank you.

(Applause).

Amendment put.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I call for a division.

(Division ordered) Enche' Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of order.
Surely before the division is taken, the division bell has to be rung so that members in coffee houses and others can come?

(Division bell rung).

The House divided on the Question: Ayes 14; Noes 108; Abstentions 9.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair Enche' Jek Yeun Thong Enche' Lee Kuan Yew Dr Lim Chong Eu Dato' Lim Kim San Enche' Abdul Ghani bin Ishak Captain Haji Abdul Hamid Khan Enche' Abdul Karim bin Abu Tuan Haji Abdul Khalid bin Awang Osman Y.T.M.
Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub Tuan Haji Abdul Rashid bin Haji Jais Enche' Abdul Rauf bio Abdul Rahman Tun Haji Abdul Razak bin Dato' Hussain Enche' Abdul Razak bin Haji Hussin Y.A.M.

Tunku Abdullah ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman Tuan Haji Abdullah bin Haji Mohd.

Salleh Enche' Ahmad bin Arshad Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid Enche' Ali bin Haji Ahmad O.K.K.
Datu Aliuddin bin Datu Harun Dr Awang bin Hassan Enche' Aziz bin Ishak Enche' Bahaman bin Samsudin Pengarah Banyang anak Janting Enche' Chan Chong Wen Enche' Chan Seong Yoon Enche' Chan Siang Sun Enche' Chen Wing Sum Enche' Chia Chin Shin Enche' Francis Chia Nyuk Tong Enche' Chin Foon Enche' Edwin anak Tangkun Tuan Syed Esa bin Alwee Datin Fatimah binti Haji Abdul Majid Datin Fatimah binti Haji Hashim AYES Enche' Ong Kee Hui Enche' Ong Pang Boon Enche' Othman bin Wok Enche' S. Rajaratnam Enche' Tama Weng Tinggang Wan NOES Enche' S. Fazul Rahman Datu Ganie Gilong Enche' Ganing bin Jangkat Enche' Geh Chong Keat Enche' Hamzah bin Alang Enche' Hanafi bin Mohd.
Yunus Enche' Hanafiah bin Hussain Enche' Harun bin Abdullah Enche' Stanley Ho Nyun Khiu Enche' Hussein bin To' Muda Hassan Enche' Hussein bin Sulaiman Enche' Ikhwan Zaini Enche' Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman Dato' Dr Ismail Enche' Ismail bin Idris Dato' Syed Ja'afar bin Hasan Albar Penghulu Jinggut anak Attan Dato' Temenggong Jugah Enche' Kadam anak Kiai Enche' Kam Woon Wah Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh Datu Khoo Siak Chiew Enche' Lee San Choon Enche' Lee Seck Fun Enche' Lee Siok Yew Enche' Amadeus Mathew Leong Dato' Ling Beng Siew Enche' Lim Pee Hung Dr Lim Swee Aun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad Enche' T. Mahima Singh Enche' Joseph David Manjaji Dato' Dr Haji Megat Khas Enche' Mohd.
Arif Salleh Tuan Haji Mohd.

Ghazali bin Haji Jawi Enche' Mohamed Idris bin Matsil Dr Toh Chin Chye Enche' Wee Toon Boon Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze Enche' Yong Nyuk Lin Enche' Mohamed Khir Johari Enche' Mohd.

Tahir bin Abdul Majid Enche' Mohamed Yusof bin Mahmud Enche' Mohd.
Zahir bin Haji Ismail Wan Mokhtar bin Ahmad Tuan Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Ismail Tuan Haji Muhammad Su'aut bin Haji Muhammad Tahir Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir Dato' Haji Mustapha bin Haji Abdul Jabar Dato' Nik Ahmad Kamil Enche' Ng Fah Yam Tuan Haji Othman bin Abdullah Enche' Othman bin Abdullah Abang Othman bin Haji Moasili Tuan Haji Rahmat bin Haji Daud Enche' Ramli bin Omar Tuan Haji Redza bin Haji Mohd.
Said Raja Rome bin Raja Ma'amor Dato' V. T. Sambanthan Enche' Sandom anak Nyuak Dato' Sardon bin Haji Jubir Enche' Seah Teng Ngiab Enche' Senu bin Abdul Rahman Enche' Sim Boon Liang Enche' Snawi bin Ismail Enche' Sng Chin Joo Enche' Soh Ah Teck Datu Donald Aloysius Stephens Enche' Sulaiman bin Bulon Enche' Suleiman bin Ali Pengiran Tahir Petra Enche' Tajudin bin Ali Enche' Tai Kuan Yang Enche' Tan Cheng Bee 1013 Enche' Tan Siew Sin Enche' Tan Toh Hong Enche' Tan Tsak Yu Enche' Abdul Samad bin Gul Ahmad Mianji Enche' Abu Bakar bin Hamzah Wan Hassan bin Wan Daud 3 JUNE 1965 Enche' Tiah Eng Bee Enche' Toh Theam Hock Enche' Yeoh Tat Beng ABSTENTIONS Tnan Haji Hussain Rahimi bin Haji Saman Enche' Mohamed Asri bin Haji Muda Enche' Mohd.
Daud bin Abdul Samad 1014 Tuan Haji Zakaria bin Haji Mohd.

Taib Enche' Muhammad Fakhruddin bin Haji Abdullah Enche' Mustapha bin Ahmadl Dr Tan Chee Khoon Amendment accordingly negatived.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

The numbers you have given do not add up to the total number of M.P.s.

Mr Speaker: Some members may not be present in the House.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Would you indi cate to the House how many members are absent?
Mr Speaker: It is not required to be indicated to the House—only the result.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be pre sented to His Majesty the Yang di- Pertuan Agong as follows: "Your Majesty, We, the Speaker and Members of of the Dewan Ra'ayat of Malaysia in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer your Majesty our humble thanks for the Gracious Speech with the which Second Parliament has been opened".
the Second Session of Mr Speaker: Persidangan tempohkan sa-lama 10 minit.

ini di- Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m.

Sitting resumed at 11.50 a.m. BILLS THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL Second Reading The Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Justice (Dato' Dr Ismail bin Dato' Haji Abdul Rahman): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that a Bill intituled, "An Act the Criminal Procedure Code" be read a second time.
to amend The main amendments made by this Bill relate to the introduction of a new procedure of committal for trial by the High Court.

Under this new procedure the practice of holding Preliminary Inquiries in respect of cases which are to be tried by a court of a judge is dispensed with.
In 1958 the Government appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship then Attorney-General of to the examine the system of preliminary inquiries as laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, with a view to recom mending whether any modifications are required, or whether any alternative procedure for the recording of witness's statements for the purpose of trials in the High Court might, with advantage, be adopted.
The Committee its report found many advantages and dis advantages of the system provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Having considered both the advantages and the disadvantages mentioned, the Committee concluded that the present system should be altered so as to retain preliminary inquiries only in respect of very serious cases such as murder.

in safeguard The new procedure itself, which was the Committee, not worked out by the adequately should interests of accused persons.
Since the report of the Committee, it has been considered that all cases, which are to be tried before a court of a judge, including murder, should be committed to the High Court without there being held a preliminary inquiry, but that instead of such an inquiry, there should be adopted the procedure as set out in Clause 9 of this Bill, whereby upon an application being made by a Public Prosecutor in that behalf the Magis trate shall be empowered to commit an accused person for trial in the High the Court.
Upon such a committal, Magistrate shall require the accused 1015 3 JUNE 1965 1016 person to give orally or in writing a list of names and, in so far as practic able, the addresses of the persons whom the accused person wishes to summon to give evidence on his trial.
Not less than fourteen clear days before the date fixed for the trial, the Public Prosecutor is to furnish to the accused person a copy of the statement of each witness whom the prosecution proposes to call at the trial; and such statement shall contain a summary of evidence the witness will give in court.

It is considered that by this system not only will the interest of the accused person be safeguarded but that less judicial time will be consumed.
Other amendments have been made by this Bill, and the reasons for them are adequately set out in the Explana tory Statement to the Bill.

to This Bill, in addition to making the amendments set out above the Criminal Procedure Code in force in the States of Malaya, other than Penang and Malacca, also makes similar amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in force in the States of Malacca and Penang.
Opportunity has also been taken to amend the to latter Criminal Procedure Code bring certain provisions in line with the provisions of the former Criminal Procedure Code.

In particular, Clause 30 repeals section 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force in Penang and Malacca and substitute therefore a provision and that jury trials shall only be required where the punishment which may be imposed is death.
This follows the practice now existing under the Criminal Procedure Code now in force in the other States of Malaya.

These amendments are also adequately explained in the Explanatory State ment.

Since the Bill was published, certain amendments have been received and there have been comments made, questioning the desirability of some of the amendments proposed.
It is, therefore, considered appropriate that at the proper stage of the Bill it will be moved by me that the Bill will be examined by a Select Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Tuan Haji Abdul Hamid Khan: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.


Committal to a Select Committee Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, I beg to move that the Bill entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Procedure Code be commit ted to a Select Committee, which shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 81 with the Minister of Home Affairs as a Member and Chairman of the Com mittee.

Tuan Haji Abdul Hamid Khan: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.


Resolved, That the Bill entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Procedure Code be committed to a Select Committee, which shall be appointed the provisions of in accordance with Standing Order 81 with the Minister of Home Affairs as a member and Chairman of the Committee.

THE CONSTITUTION AND MALAYSIA ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1965 Second Reading Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Constitution and Malaysia Act (Amendment) Bill, 1965, be read a second time.
Sir, I do not propose to speak on every clause of the Bill as the Expla natory Statement to the Bill is compre hensive.

I wish only to draw the attention of Honourable Members to a few of the amendments, but before doing so I would like to say that none of the amendments should be controver sial.

The amendments do not involve major changes to the Constitution.

There are, however, Sir, two small amendments to the Bill and they have been circulated to Honourable Mem bers of this House.
One of the amend ments is in respect of Section 14 (3) (c) of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitu tion.

This section also provides that Trust Funds created by State law and held by the States should not be included in the Annual Estimates of 1017 3 JUNE 1965 1018 as Expenditure.

There are certain Trust the Conveyance such Funds, Advance Fund and the Personal Advance (Public Officers) Fund, created by the Federal law, i.e., the Financial Procedure Ordinance, and held by the State Governments.
It is, therefore, necessary to amend Section 14 (3) (c) to include in the provision the Trust Funds created by Federal law.

The other amendment is a consequential amendment arising from the amend ment made in 1964 to Section 14 (3) of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitu tion.

A new paragraph (c) was included when Section 14 (3) was amended last year.

This new paragraph should have been included in the reference made in Section 17 (3) to Section 14 (3).
In other words, the reference at present is in respect of Section 14 (3) (a) and (b) only.

It should be Section 14 (3) (a), (6) and (c).

Now, Sir, the amendments which I would like to speak about are in respect of the following matters.

(1) Power to extend legislative or executive powers of States.

that Article 95c (1) of the Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan provides Agong may by order authorise the Legislatures in the Borneo States to make laws in respect of matters in the Federal List.
It is considered that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should have this power not only in respect of the Borneo States but also in respect of Singapore and the States of Malaya.

As in the case of the Borneo States, there should be a provision in the Constitu tion to enable the Singapore State Legislature to make laws in respect of Federal matters during the first few years after Malaysia.
In actual fact, the Singapore State Legislature, with the concurrence of the Federal Government, had already enacted laws in respect of certain matters in the Federal List.

As regards the States of Malaya, there are in existence certain hybrid laws in the statute book.

The term hybrid law is taken to mean an Enact ment or an Ordinance which contains provisions dealing with matters in the Federal List as well as matters in the State List and/or the Concurrent List.
It will facilitate the work of the officers concerned in revising the laws a great deal if there are provisions which will make it possible for hybrid laws to be amended or repealed either by Parlia ment or by any of the State Legisla tures.

As the law stands at present, the amendment or repeal of a hybrid law would require an Act of Parliament in respect of the Federal provisions and a State Ordinance or Enactment in respect of the provisions which deal with matters on the State List.
The amendment to Article 95c will make it possible for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to authorise the State Legisla tures to legislate on matters in the Federal List.

Another amendment, i.e., an amendment to Article 74, will make it possible for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the concurrence of the Ruler or Governor of the State to declare a hybrid law to be a Federal law so that it can be amended or repealed by Parliament.

(2) Powers of constitutional bodies should not be affected by vacancy in membership.
Sir, Section 33c of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, 1948, provides that the powers and proceed ings of statutory bodies shall not be affected by: (a) any vacancy in the membership thereof; (b) any defect afterwards discovered in the appoint to be a member ment purporting thereof; (c) any minor irregularity in the convening of any meeting thereof.

This Section is not included in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Hence constitutional bodies do not have these safeguards.
therefore, proposed that the Eleventh Schedule should be amended so that constitu tional bodies too should have the same safeguards as statutory bodies.

(3) Vacancies in the Senate.

is, It The next amendment about which I would like to speak is in regard to a vacancy in the Senate.

This amendment seeks to overcome the recent contro versy on the legality or otherwise of the election of a Senator by the Kelantan Legislature.
Article 54 of the Constitution states, and I quote: "Whenever there is a casual vacancy among the members of either House of Parliament 1019 3 JUNE 1965 1020 it shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy, and an election shall be held or an appointment made accordingly."
the that the ground last General Election, Because of certain factors connected with the Kelantan Legislature did not elect a Senator within this stipulated period but after the sixty days' period had lapsed.

The election was debated in the Senate, and the House decided that it the was void on vacancy was not filled within sixty days from the time it was established that there was a vacancy.
It can happen that the State Legislature might not be able to elect a Senator within the period the of sixty days time from vacancy is established.

It is for this reason that it is proposed to introduce this amendment to the Article.

The amendment affects only elected mem bers of the Senate, that is, members elected by the State Legislatures, and it does not affect members of the Senate appointed by His Majesty.

the (4) Procedure to ensure that an election is held within sixty days.
There is a provision in the Constitu tion which states that an election shall the be held within sixty days from time a vacancy exists in the House of Representatives.

However, there is no provision in the Constitution as to the procedure which should be adopted, if there is no election within the stipulated time.
The proposed amendment will make it possible for any member of the electorate to take proceedings in the High Court for an order that the election be held where there has been no election within the stipulated period.

(5) Constitution of the Federal Court.

This amendment seeks to increase the number of Judges of the Federal Court.

At present, the Judges of the Federal Court comprise the Lord Presi dent, the Chief Justices of the High Courts and two other Judges.
The amendment seeks to increase this num ber by another two judges.

It also includes a provision for increasing the number still further, when it is consi dered necessary to do so.

This amend ment is in keeping with the Courts of Judicature Act which provides that proceedings in the Federal Court shall judges or such be heard by greater number of judges as the Lord President may in any particular case decide.

three (6) Appointments to religious offices in Penang and Malacca.
The Head of the Muslim religion in Penang and Malacca is the Yang di- Pertuan Agong.

Appointments to reli gious offices in these two States are made by His Majesty under the Muslim Law Enactment of the States.

However, it is arguable that the appointments should be made by the Federal Public Services Commission under Article 139 of the Constitution, in that the general public service of the Federation comes under the jurisdiction of the Commis sion.
It that the Constitution Article 132 (4) of should be amended, so that it is made clear to religious offices are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.

The appointments which will be removed from the juris diction of the Federal Public Services Commission are: is, therefore, proposed that appointments (i) the President of the Religious Affairs Department; (ii) the Secretary of the Religious Affairs Department; (iii) the Mufti; (iv) the Kathi Besar; or (v) the Kathi.
(7) Branch of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission in the Borneo States.

Article 146A (4) of the Constitution provides that only one Chairman of the State Public Services Commission in the Borneo States shall attend any one meeting of the Borneo branch of the Judicial and Legal Services Commis sion.

In other words, both of them cannot attend the same meeting of that branch.
It also provides that appoint ments in any one State shall not be the State the Chairman of made if Public Services Commission of that State is not present at that meeting unless he agrees that the appointments should be made during his absence.

This provision is cumbersome, in that there are cases where both Chairmen 1021 3 JUNE 1965 1022 of the State Public Services Commis sions should be present.
For example, candidates from both the States may wish to be considered for an appoint ment is, therefore, proposed that the provision be amended to enable both Chairmen to be present at the same meeting.

the States.

It in one of Sir, I beg to move.

Dato' Haji Sardon bin Haji Jubir: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Enche' Kam Woon Wah (Sitiawan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just take one or two minutes on the amendment to the Constitution in respect of Article 122 concerning the Federal Court.
Sir, this amendment is to enlarge the number of the Judges in the Court of Appeal from three to five.

The Expla natory Note here says: "The object of the amendments is to enlarge the membership of the Court."

to Sir, I do not know whether this amendment is necessary at this stage, because we have another Bill which has had its first reading, i.e., the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, abolish ing certain appeals the Privy Council.
I think the intention behind this amendment is to enlarge the Court of Appeal by increasing its membership with two Judges, so that it will take the place of the Privy Council.

Sir, I think that is not too good.

I think we all will agree that certain appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished on political grounds.

However, what we want, or what we should have, is another Court in place of the Privy Council in England.
It is no use of adding to our present Court of Appeal which, in fact, I feel is not a substitution, or can take the place of, the extra Court we are having at the moment.

Sir, what the people want is that they should be provided with an extra two Judges think Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, on a point of this amendment has order—I nothing to do with the Privy Council at all.
It is an amendment to increase the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, and if the Honourable Mem ber wants to discuss about the Privy Council, I think, he should wait when that Bill comes to this House for the second reading.

I is fear that Enche' Kam Woon Wah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not actually arguing against the case about appeals to Privy this Council.
What amendment might be for that purpose, that is, by increasing the number of the Judges in the Court of Appeal, therefore, we may forget about the Privy Council in England.

If that is the case, then we are putting the cart before the horse, and the increase in the number of Judges by two to the Court of Appeal is not what the people want.

sudah-lah ini.
sudah-lah ini.

Ini pada Enche' Mohamed Asri bin Haji Muda (Pasir Puteh): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, sekarang sampai-lah masa-nya kita berhadapan dengan satu Rang Undang2 bagi meminda sa-kali lagi Perlembagaan ingatan saya, ia-lah kali yang sudah beberapa kali agak-nya, pindaan demi pindaan yang di-kemukakan di-dalam Rumah yang mulia ini.
Satu gambaran yang dapat kita ambil daripada hal2 yang saperti demikian, ia-lah betapa dalam Perlembagaan kita ini kelemahan2 atau pun kekurangan2 maseh terdapat di- sana sini.
Pada pandangan saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sampai masa-nya bahawa keselurohan Per lembagaan itu di-tinjau dan di-perhati- kan supaya dapat-lah dengan demikian di-kemukakan pindaan yang lebeh lengkap pada masa akan datang, di- titek2 kelemahan dan mana ada-nya kekurangan2 yang perlu di-atasi bagi menjaga perjalanan negara kita ini dari berbagai2 sudut lebeh sempurna pada masa akan datang.
Dalam Rang Undang2 Pindaan Perlembagaan dan Malaysia Act yang ada di-hadapan kita ini telah di-nyatakan dengan jelas oleh Yang Berhormat Menteri yang ber- tujuan2 pindaan.

Saya kenaan tidak hendak mengambil masa yang panjang mengulas perkara2 saya hendak mengambil sadikit bahagian bagi mengulas beberapa perkara yang tertentu sahaja.
tetapi ini, Ada pun mengenai perkara dalam Article 95c ya'ani memberikan kuasa di-Pertuan Agong kapada Yang 1023 3 JUNE 1965 1024 mengeluarkan perentah supaya mem- beri, atau melanjutkan kuasa kapada Dewan2 Negeri saperti mana kuasa di-beri kapada Negeri2 di-Borneo di- dalam perkara2 yang tertentu, mengikut Perlembagaan kita dalam bahagian yang di-nyatakan oleh Yang Berhormat Menteri berkenaan tadi, bahkan meng ikut pandangan saya dalam perkara ini, ada baik-nya jika hal yang demi- kian itu di-lakukan pada masa yang akan datang.
Sebab sa-panjang kita perhatikan pada masa yang sudah, chara2 membawa satu Parliament Act atau pun di-jadikan Undang2 Parlimen bagi melaksanakan kuasa2 yang di- tunjokkan di-bawah Federal List atau pun Concurrent List ada-lah satu perkara yang memakan waktu.

Jadi chadangan pehak Kerajaan hendak merengkaskan kerja, memotong banyak sadikit waktu bagi melaksanakan kerja2 yang mustahak itu, itu-lah satu perkara yang munasabah.
ini Berhubong dengan pindaan yang di- kemukakan dalam Article 54, berthabit dengan chara2 perlantekan Ahli Senate, ini telah di-nyatakan oleh Yang Ber hormat Menteri tadi, bahawa sebab2 di-kemukakan ia-lah berbangkit daripada kejadian yang berlaku ten- tang perlantekan Enche' Wan Mustapha sa-bagai sa-orang Ahli Senate yang di-lantek oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan.

Saya suka-lah menerangkan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-dalam Rumah yang mulia ini supaya jangan timbul salah faham.
Mungkin sampai sekarang ini maseh ada lagi kekeliruan di- kalangan sa-satengah orang kita yang menyatakan bahawa yang menyebab- kan terkeluar-nya tempoh perlantekan oleh Dewan Negeri Kelantan terhadap Enche' Wan Mustapha sa-bagai Senator, ia-lah oleh kerana kechuaian atau pun tidak di-ambil berat dalam perkara ini.
Rengkas-nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kandongan2 yang nyata dan jelas yang telah saya kemukakan kapada Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Menteri kita ini ia-lah satu kedudokan perjalanan atau pun rengkasan sejarah atau kejadian yang bersangkut-paut dengan kejadian perlantekan Enche' Wan Mustapha itu.

Pada 1 haribulan Mach, 1964, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan di-bubarkan, bukan sahaja Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelan tan malahan semua sa-kali Dewan Undangan telah di-bubarkan.
Pada 4 haribulan April Senator Haji Nik Mohamed Adeeb meninggal dunia.

Erti-nya meninggal dunia Tuan Haji Nik Mohamed Adeeb ia-lah sa-sudah sa-bulan lebeh daripada tempoh Dewan Undangan Negeri itu di-bubarkan.

Pada 22 haribulan April, 1964, Titah Perma'aluman daripada Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong ka pada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Kelantan tentang kematian Senator Tuan Haji Nik Mohamed Adeeb dan di-titahkan supaya sa-orang Senator yang baharu di-pileh bagi mengganti- kan Allahyarham itu.
25 haribulan April baharu-lah pileh- an raya kebangsaan di-langsongkan di-seluroh negara kita.

4 haribulan Mei, Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan di-tubohkan.

10 haribulan Mei, Isti'adat ber- sumpah Ahli2 Ex-Co dan Menteri Besar-nya.

27 haribulan Mei, baharu-lah Dewan Negeri dapat bersidang pada kali yang pertama-nya dan pada hari itu-lah Speaker di-lantek dengan rasmi-nya di-dalam Dewan itu.
10 haribulan Jun, baharu-lah Titah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Kelan tan di-sampaikan dengan bertulis kapada Tuan Speaker mema'alumkan kekosongan sa-orang Senator di-sebab- kan kematian Senator Tuan Haji Mohamed Adeeb dan menitahkan supaya suatu pilehan di-lakukan bagi memenohi kekosongan itu dengan sa- berapa segara.
Untok perma'aluman, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pada 27 haribulan Mei itu sa-benar-nya sudah lewat masa-nya, tetapi Titah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan tidak dapat di-sampaikan ka pada Speaker pada 27 haribulan Mei sebab pada hari itu ia-lah pemilehan Speaker Jadi kemudian daripada itu-lah baharu di-keluarkan Titah ia-itu pada 10 hari bulan Jun supaya di-pileh sa-orang Senator baharu.

Sama ada kalau surat di-lakukan.


baharu 1025 3 JUNE 1965 1026 Titah daripada Duli Yang Maha Mulia di-sampaikan pada 10 haribulan Jun atau pun terdahulu daripada itu di- antara tempoh perlantekan Speaker baharu dengan tempoh 10 haribulan Jun tadi, maka tempoh 60 hari yang di-sebutkan di-dalam Article 54 "The sole vacancies" dalam Perlembagaan itu ada-lah sudah lewat, sudah lebeh.

Jadi 19 haribulan Julai baharu Dewan Negeri dapat bersidang dan baharu-lah pemilehan Senator di-jalankan.
Hal ini, Tuan Yang di- ma'alumkan-lah oleh Speaker Dewan Undangan Kelantan kapada Setia-usaha Tetap, Perdana Menteri, dengan taligram, dan kemudian dengan surat sama sa-kali.

di-Pertua, Jabatan telah dan perma'aluman Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalau kita saperti mempelajari latar belakang sejarah dengan mengambil daripada saperti yang di-paparkan, yang di- nyatakan tadi, maka dapat-lah kita mengambil beberapa pandangan.
Yang pertama Senator Tuan Haji Mohamed Adeeb meninggal dunia dalam masa ketiadaan Dewan ketiadaan Speaker.

Walau pun Titah Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong di- keluarkan pada 22 haribulan April, akan tetapi pehak Duli Yang Maha tidak dapat Mulia Sultan Kelantan menyampaikan itu, kerana Dewan Negeri dan Speaker belum ada atau pun belum wujud.

Speaker baharu di-pileh pada 27 hari bulan Mei, 1964.
Pehak Dewan Negeri tidak dapat memileh Senator pada sidang partama Dewan Negeri di- sebabkan Titah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan belum di-terima oleh Speaker, kerana pemilehan Speaker baharu pada hari itu di-langsongkan.
Sa-belum daripada pemilehan Senator Dewan Negeri di-lakukan, perhubong- an2 daripada pehak Kerajaan Negeri dengan pehak Kerajaan Pusat, ya'ani perhubongan dari segi perundangan atau segi legal, telah pun di-lakukan dan penyataan sebab2 pemilehan tidak dapat di-buat di-dalam tempoh yang tertentu juga di-nyatakan.
Tetapi walau bagaimana daripada pehak yang bertanggong-jawab dalam Bahagian Perundangan di-Kerajaan Pusat ini tidak dapat di-terima oleh pehak Kerajaan Negeri sa-hingga-lah jawapan pun kapada tarikh pemilehan Senator itu di-lakukan.
Senator Sa-telah pemilehan di- lakukan oleh Dewan Negeri, mengikut kehendak2 Perlembagaan, maka ma'- alumat mengenai-nya telah pun di- sampaikan kapada Setia-usaha Dewan Negara dan Setia-usaha Tetap, Jabatan Perdana Menteri, dan kemudian dari pada itu antara masa sidang Dewan Negeri memileh Wan Mustapha, pada 19 haribulan Julai, 1964, dengan masa di-adakan sidang Dewan Negara pada 11 haribulan September, 1964, di-mana berlaku-nya dalam Dewan Negara itu satu Senate drama yang berperistiwa yang sangat2 menarek perhatian Ahli2 Perundangan di-dalam negeri kita ini.
Memang satu Dewan telah ada Negara, ia-itu pada 22 haribulan dan 23 haribulan Julai, 1964, yang mana pada masa itu Enche' Wan Mustapha patut di-jemput sama hadhir dalam sidang tersebut bagi mengangkat sum- pah, akan tetapi pada sidang itu, ya'ani sidang 22 dan 23 haribulan Julai itu, Enche' Wan Mustapha tidak di-jemput.
Baharu-lah pada sidang Dewan Negara 11 haribulan September, 1964, Enche' Wan Mustapha telah di-jemput dengan rasmi-nya bagi menghadhiri meshuarat tersebut, pada hal sa-belum itu beliau telah pun menerima elaun bulanan sa-bagai Senator, ia-itu mulai daripada hari beliau di-pileh oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan pada 19 haribulan Julai, 1964.

Demikian juga kemudahan2 yang lain, saperti lenchana motokar dan pas keretapi telah juga di-beri kapada beliau.
Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, satu perkara yang harus menjadi persoalan, kenapa pada sidang 22 dan 23 hari bulan Julai itu beliau tidak di-jemput, sedangkan pada sidang 11 haribulan September, 1964, beliau di-jemput.
Kalau-lah pehak Senate atau Dewan Negara dengan nasihat2 yang tertentu, mengatakan atau memperchayai, atau meyakinkan bahawa beliau itu berhak menjadi Ahli Dewan Negara dengan pemilehan saperti yang di-lakukan oleh Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan itu, maka jemputan patut di-keluarkan pada 22 haribulan Julai, 1964, dan jikalau jemputan tidak di-keluarkan pada hari 1027 3 JUNE 1965 1028 sebab maseh ada itu, berdasarkan tidak tentang timbul keraguan yang berhak-nya beliau mengangkat sumpah, atau hadhir, atau menjadi Ahli Dewan Senate, kerana berlawanan pemilehan- nya mengikut Article 54 daripada Perlembagaan itu, maka kenapa beliau di-jemput pada 11 haribulan Septem ber, 1964, untok mengangkat sumpah dan sa-sudah beliau hadhir dalam Dewan Negara untok mengangkat sumpah, keluar-lah satu motion, atau satu chadangan, ia-itu chadangan-nya sa-bagaimana yang kita telah ketahui yang telah berakhir dengan keputusan tidak mengaku Enche' Wan Mustapha sa-bagai Ahli Senate, kerana chara pemilehan-nya berlawanan dengan ke- hendak Perlembagaan, saperti apa yang telah kita tahu, mengikut alasan2 yang di-kemukakan oleh pehak penchadang.
itu, sa-bagai jemputan pada Ini satu perkara, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, yang maseh menjadi tanda tanya dalam kepala saya sendiri, apa- kah 11 haribulan September, 1964, atau untok meng- sidang pada 11 haribulan hadhiri September, 1964 satu jemputan perangkap untok meletakkan Enche' Wan Mustapha kapada tempat yang serba salah dan kemudian meng- hukum dia sa-bagai sa-orang salah yang tidak berhak untok membela diri-nya, jikalau-lah beliau itu di-sifat- kan sa-bagai orang salah.
Satu Senate drama yang sangat mendukachitakan dan menyentoh kehormatan dan nama baik bagi perjalanan demokrasi dalam negeri kita ini.
Berdasarkan kapada kesimpulan dan perkembangan yang saya sebutkan tadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, maka Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan telah menyatakan pandangan-nya kapada Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Perdana Menteri, dengan menyatakan bahawa usul bagi mena- han Enche' Wan Mustapha daripada mengangkat sumpah di-dalam sidang Dewan Negara pada 11 haribulan September, 1964 itu, telah di-bawa dan di-kemukakan dengan chara mengejut dan luar biasa sa-kali.
Kerajaan Negeri merasa berdukachita atas chara yang kurang hormat yang di-lakukan ka-atas Enche' Wan Mustapha, Senator dari itu, dan di-atas kelulusan Kelantan usul tersebut.
Bahawa dengan kelulusan usul tersebut, ya'ani usul oleh Dewan Senate tadi, kedudokan Dewan Negara yang ada sekarang ini, pada masa itu, boleh-lah juga di-katakan tidak ber- perlembagaan, sebab Dewan Negara, mengikut Fasal 45, mesti-lah mengan- dongi Ahli2-nya, ia-itu dua orang di- pileh oleh tiap2 Dewan Negeri yang menjadi jumlah-nya 28 orang dan 32 orang Ahli yang di-lantek oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Maka dengan ketiadaan sa-orang Ahli dari negeri Kelantan, menjadi-lah Dewan Negara itu tiada berperlembagaan.

itu Fasal 62 (2) hanya mengizinkan perjalanan Dewan Ra'ayat di-atas apa2 perkara yang berlaku dalam Dewan itu, tetapi dengan tidak ada-nya sa-orang Senator yang sa-macham ini, boleh-lah di-anggap pemakaian Fasal 62 (2) itu tidak-lah boleh di-terima.
Sa-terus-nya Kerajaan Negeri memberikan pan- dangan, bahawa kalau hendak di- sifatkan pemilehan Senator oleh Dewan Negeri Kelantan melanggar Per lembagaan, maka kekurangan jumlah Ahli Dewan Negara yang ada sekarang lebeh nyata bertentangan dengan ke- hendak2 Perlembagaan sendiri, sedangkan pada hakikat-nya orang dapat memahami, kenapa pemilehan Senator oleh Dewan Negeri Kelantan baharu ini berlaku sa-demikian rupa.
Apa-kah dengan kerana hendak mem- baiki, atau menolak kesilapan-nya yang samar2 itu, jikalau hendak di-namakan kesilapan, maka Dewan Negara perlu melakukan kesilapan yang lebeh besar.
Perkara yang saperti ini mungkin akan berlaku hadapan, sa-orang Ahli Senator umpama-nya meninggal dunia pada masa Dewan Negeri di-bubarkan, maka dengan ini tidak boleh sa-kali2 Dewan Negeri melantek untok menggantikan Senator yang meninggal dunia ini Perlembagaan yang ada sekarang ini tidak-lah men- chukupi untok menghadapi kesulitan2 yang akan berbangkit di-masa hadap an.

Oleh itu Kerajaan Pusat patut-lah berikhtiar meminda Perlembagaan supaya apa2 kesulitan yang mungkin berbangkit boleh di-selesaikan.
Ini-lah kandongan-nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pandangan2 oleh Kerajaan Negeri.

itu.

Dengan di-masa2 di-berikan sa-orang Senator yang lagi 1029 3 JUNE 1965 1030 Kemudian daripada itu pada 4 hari- bulan Januari, 1965, Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Perdana Menteri telah menjawab surat daripada Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan yang bertarikh pada 29 haribulan Oktober, 1964.
29 hari- bulan Oktober, 1964, surat di-kirim- jawapan kan—4hb di-terima, yang kandongan-nya mengi kut pandangan Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Perdana Menteri, biar-lah saya bachakan sadikit kandongan-nya itu: Januari, 1965 "Sa-bagaimana Yang Berhormat sedia ma'alum, masa'alah yang terbit berhubong dengan pilehan Yang Berhormat Enche' Wan Mustapha bin Haji Ali, sa-bagai Ahli Dewan Negara itu ia-lah berthabit dengan sharat2 terkandong di-dalam Perlembagaan yang mengikut Perenggan Kelima di-dalam Jadual Ketujoh kapada Perlembagaan, maka Dewan Negara sahaja-lah yang boleh memutuskan, ada-kah sa-orang Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri menjadi Ahli Dewan Negara itu sah di-pileh menurut Jadual itu atau tidak.
lantekan Dewan Negara telah pun memutuskan, ia-itu lantekan itu tidak sah.

Sunggoh pun demikian, saya telah mengarahkan supaya langkah2 di-ambil untok mengatasi masa'alah sa-macham yang telah berbangkit itu berlaku pada masa yang akan datang.

Sharat2 di-dalam Perlembagaan hendak-lah di-pinda supaya tidak berlaku lagi kesulitan yang telah di-alami."
Jadi, ini-lah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, jawapan daripada Yang Berhormat Tunku Perdana Menteri dan saya perchaya pindaan2 yang di-buat ber hubong dengan perkara ini, berbangkit jawapan Yang Berhormat daripada Perdana Menteri.

Ini-lah masa'alah- nya, bukan masa'alah, perkara yang saya sentoh tadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ia-lah menyatakan perasaan tentang chara yang di-lakukan di-dalam Dewan Negara bagi menolak sa-orang Ahli daripada dudok di-dalam-nya dengan tidak memikirkan akibat2 yang lain terbit daripada itu.
Meminda Per dan lembagaan menyatakan kedudokan perundangan supaya dapat berjalan dengan lebeh lichin dan lebeh lanchar, ada-lah satu perkara yang mustahak dan sangat patut, tetapi melakukan satu perkara yang pada dzahir-nya hendak mem- betulkan sa-suatu, tetapi pada hakikat- nya boleh merosakkan sa-suatu yang lain, ada-lah satu perkara yang sangat kita kesali.

bagi menjelaskan Surat Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Perdana Menteri sendiri menyebutkan nama Enche' Wan Mustapha dengan kalimah Yang Berhormat.
Kata-nya yang masa'alah yang terbit berhubong dengan pilehan Yang Berhormat Enche' Wan Mustapha bin Haji Ali, yang pada masa ini Dewan Negara telah me-reject—telah menolak—per- lantekan Yang Berhormat Enche' Wan Mustapha.
Sa-kurang2-nya dapat-lah orang meyakinkan bahawa di-dalam batin Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Perdana Menteri sendiri mengakui wujud-nya kejadian ini sa-bagai satu fait accompli, satu keadaan yang mesti berlaku bagitu dan ta' dapat di-adakan satu hal bagi mengelakkan daripada wujud-nya kejadian saperti itu.
Demikian-lah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam masa'alah ini dan dengan pin daan2 yang di-buat ka-atas fasal2 yang tertentu di-dalam Perlembagaan ini bagi membetulkan perjalanan saperti dalam Article 54, dalam Article 118 (a) saya menyokong dan sa-terus-nya, lagi berlaku tidak supaya penoh kejadian yang burok itu, dan saya harap kejadian yang berlaku dalam Dewan Negara itu satu pengajaran yang pahit kapada perjalanan demo- krasi dalam negeri ini dan mudah2an tidak berlaku lagi pada masa yang akan datang dan dengan kelulusan Bill, atau Rang Undang2 ini kemudian kelak, bererti-lah bahawa pemilehan dari Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan itu di-sifatkan sah, sebab Rang Undang2 ini akan berjalan mulai daripada Hari Malaysia dan dengan sah-nya maka segala2-nya itu akan tersah pula dengan sendiri-nya.
Chuma bagini sahaja-lah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bimbang satu sahaja, bukan bimbang sebab pernah saya mendengar orang berkata, bahawa dengan mengemukakan Bill ini, Kera jaan sa-mata2 dapat menjalankan satu kehendak yang dapat memberi ke- untongan kapada kedua2 pehak.

Yang pertama sa-kali Perlembagaan dapat di-perbetulkan.
Yang kedua-nya kehendak2 dengan sebab kejadian per- lantekan Senator Enche' Wan Mustapha itu dapat di-luluskan, dan yang ketiga chara perbuatan Dewan Senate, oleh 1031 3 JUNE 1965 1032 sebab motion daripada sa-orang Sena tor itu pun di-akui dan di-luluskan serta di-jalankan.

Jadi, sa-kali kayoh, semua-nya itu dapat di-terima, sama ada betul atau pun tidak.
Sa-lain daripada itu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak berchakap sa- dikit sahaja lagi berkenaan dengan Article 122 berkenaan dengan hendak di-tambah satu perenggan baharu yang di-namakan (1A) ya'ani perenggan ini, Perlembagaan dalam perenggan memberikan kuasa kapada Yang di- Pertuan Agong, dengan nasihat dari pada Maha Hakim, bagi melantek dalam tertentu satu tempoh yang tertentu yang menjawat orang yang jawatan yang tertinggi dalam bahagian kehakiman kalimah Inggeris-nya di-sebutkan high judicial office, untok menjadi hakim tambahan Persekutuan.
di-dalam Mahkamah Yang hakim tidak-lah itu tambahan terikat kalau dia sudah sampai umor 65 tahun pun tidak-lah terikat.

dalam atau itu jelas chara2 Apa yang saya hendak sentoh di- sini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, nombor satu sa-kali chara melantek.

Chara melantek di-sebutkan di-sini ia-lah dengan jalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong daripada melantek dengan nasihat Lord President atau pun Maha Hakim.

Ini, pada pandangan saya, berlawanan atau luar biasa dengan sharat2 yang terkandong dalam 122B Perlembagaan kita ini.
Dalam 122B telah di-nyatakan dengan bagaimana melantek hakim, walau pun hakim yang hendak di-lantek sa-bagai hakim tambahan, tetapi dalam tugas, jawatan, dalam kehormatan, dalam ada-lah sama dengan hakim yang tetap yang di-lantek mengikut 122B.

Dalam 122B baik pun Maha Hakim, baik pun Hakim Besar atau pun mana2 Hakim dalam Federal Court, semua- nya di-lantek oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong daripada Perdana Menteri sa-sudah di-runding- kan dalam Majlis Meshuarat Raja2 Melayu.
Saya hairan dan saya tidak sebab2 yang menasabah nampak soal hendak me kenapa di-dalam lantek hakim tidak ini perlu melalui procedure 122B, tetapi terpakas di-buat satu chara baharu, di-buat satu kaedah baharu, sa-olah2- tambahan nasihat dengan ini tidak payah-lah satu nya kaedah yang baharu kaedah yang sengaja di-adakan sa- bagai satu sharat yang luar biasa yang hendak di-adakan bagi tujuan2 yang tertentu yang saya sebutkan dalam Dewan yang mulia ini, takut2 menyentoh kedudokan sebab lain.
Saya rasa pehak Yang orang Berhormat Menteri yang berkenaan dapat-lah mengkaji dalam tambahan perenggan baharu perkara (1A) dari Fasal 122 dalam Per lembagaan berkenaan dengan Federal ini di-kaji sa-mula-lah chara2 Court perlantekan itu.

sa-mula ia-itu di-Pertua, Yang kedua, satu perkara lagi, Tuan perkara Yang kalimah high judicial office—bagi saya- lah—maseh belum faham.

Siapa-kah sa-benar2-nya yang boleh di- yang sifatkan di-dalam judicial office itu sa- bagai high judicial office.
Saya chuba juga bertanya kapada ahli undang2, sebab saya bukan ahli undang2, ada ahli undang2 mengatakan yang di- namakan high judicial office itu hanya satu, ia-itu Maha Hakim.

Betul atau tidak—tidak-lah tahu.

Tetapi saya kalau betul pandangan, pentafsiran dan ta'arif, high judicial office ini ia-lah orang yang memegang jawatan Maha Hakim atau Lord President, maka bertambah janggal-lah lagi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, perenggan (1A) ini.
jawatan tertinggi Sa-orang yang menjadi Lord Presi dent mithal-nya, boleh-lah menasihat- kan kapada Yang di-Pertuan Agong supaya melantek si-polan atau nama siapa sahaja-lah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, melantek si-polan yang sedang me dalam megang judicial office, yang kebetulan barang- kali Lord President—bukan yang sekarang ini—sa-bagai mithal-nya, Lord President itu sudah sampai umor sampai 60 kapada had pension atau had konterek- nya atau had apa sahaja-lah terpaksa mesti berhenti pada tahun hadapan, dia boleh menasihatkan kapada Yang di-Pertuan Agong supaya melantek, untok menjadi kata-lah, Ya'akub hakim itu ia-lah Maha Hakim itu-lah.
Tukang menasihat itu dengan jawatan Maha Hakim-nya menasihatkan kapada Yang orang di-Pertuan Agong melantek tambahan, yang Ya'akub atau 65 tahun tahun 1033 3 JUNE 1965 1034 yang sebab bernama Ya'akub, yang ia-itu-lah tuboh yang memegang jawatan Maha Hakim itu sendiri.

Perkara ini tidak di-Pertua— mustahil, Tuan Yang banyak boleh lagi berlaku.
Dan chontoh2 saya tidak mahu sebutkan, takut melibat ke- hormatan diri orang—chontoh2 yang sudah berlaku, yang sudah berlaku dalam masa merdeka, dalam negeri2 yang tertentu.

Orang yang mempunyai kuasa menasihati orang yang berkuasa, bagi melantek sa-saorang untok ber kuasa, maka sa-belum kuasa-nya luchut dalam sa-suatu hal, dia menasihati orang yang berkuasa bagi melantek nama diri-nya menjadi orang yang ber kuasa dalam sa-suatu hal yang tertentu.
Bila sampai tempoh, kuasa-nya luchut, maka dia dengan terlantek menjadi orang yang berkuasa pada hal2 yang tertentu sendiri .

.

.. Dato' Dr Ismail bin Dato' Haji Abdul Rahman: On a point of informa tion, Sir—saya hendak bertanya mana negeri yang berlaku itu; saya pun ingin hendak mendengar-nya.
Enche' Mohamed Asri bin Haji Muda: Itu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tidak payah saya sebutkan nama-nya, tetapi itu pada masa dahulu di- negeri perentah oleh Perikatan, kejadian itu berlaku waktu Perikatan memerentah, tetapi tidak bersangkut dengan Parti Perikatan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tidak mahu risau.

Saya jangan-lah terangkan parti dalam perkara ini.

Saya hendak menjaga benda ini—ini tidak bersangkut dengan soal politik.
luar, pandangan tidak manis pada Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, amat- pandangan lah negeri, masharakat, pandangan pandangan dunia ahli2 perundangan, chara2 yang luar biasa itu di-adakan di-dalam per- lembagaan bagi memenohi kehendak2 hendak yang luar biasa.

Perkara melantek saya bersetuju, sebab hakim dalam negeri kita ini kurang.
Boleh jadi ada ahli undang2 yang bijak dan mashhor, tetapi umor-nya sudah tetapi dia maseh mempunyai badan yang sihat dan fikiran yang sihat untok menjalankan tugas-nya sa-bagai hakim, boleh-lah orang itu di-lantek sa-bagai tambahan hakim lebeh, dalam hakim tambahan, dengan demikian kita akan kaya dengan ahli undang2 yang sudah masak dan berpengalaman perundangan, jauh perkara tetapi chara melantek itu patut-lah di-kaji sa-mula dan satu perkara lagi tempoh pun patut-lah di-nyatakan.
Tentu-lah bahawa sa-orang yang di- lantek tidak akan mendapat men jalankan kerja bila sudah nyanyok.

65 tahun jadi hakim tambahan, kemudian bila sampai umor 75 atau 80 kerana dia itu orang yang sihat—orang baik, 80 tahun lebeh pula nyanyok, Tuan Yang pehak di-Pertua.

Tentu-lah Kerajaan akan menimbangkan bila sudah nyanyok dia di-berhentikan-lah, tetapi patut di-dalam Perlembagaan ini di-sebutkan tempoh perkhidmatan- nya.
Kata-lah lebeh umor 65 tahun, sampai umor berapa, sampai berapa tahun dia perlu berkhidmat di-dalam jawatan kehakiman.

160, kita, di-nyatakan Perlembagaan Satu lagi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak sentoh dalam Constitution Article 160 ia-itu-lah ta'arif (interpreta tion), ta'arif dalam perkara Common wealth country itu perkara B, ta'arif negeri2 Commonwealth.
Dahulu di- dalam dalam Article dengan sa-penoh-nya nama2 negeri yang di- sebut sa-bagai negeri Commonwealth— di-sebutkan United Kingdom, Canada, the Union Australia, New Zealand, of South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Nigeria, Cyprus, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika—entah apa lagi.
di-buang nama semua sa-kali ini kerana hendak memudahkan, sangat timbul negeri2 yang baharu merdeka, daripada negeri Africa yang dahulu- nya bekas tanah jajahan British, yang kemudian-nya menjadi negeri2 Com sangat-lah monwealth, maka hendak persatu, di-sebutkan satu apabila memadai-lah negeri baharu, maka di-aku'i-lah negeri baharu dan memadai-lah di-sebut di- dalam Perlembagaan sa-bagai itu negeri2 yang umum sahaja.
satu tumboh sebab banyak perchaya-lah Saya sulit saya yang Masaalah hendak sebutkan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ia-lah masaalah di-dalam hendak membuang- kan nama semua negeri tetapi kenapa-kah nama United Kingdom itu itu 1035 3 JUNE 1965 1036 tanah juga.

Pada hal orang2 di-sebutkan tahu Commonwealth country ini, ia- jajahan lah yang dahulu-nya British yang kemudian bersatu dalam Commonwealth yang mengakui kemah- kotaan Baginda Queen, orang tahu- lah—tidak payah di-sebutkan.
Apa- lah guna di-sebutkan "United Kingdom and any other country recognised by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong".

Pada hal kalau kita katakan "any country recognised by the Yang di-Pertuan termasok-lah Agong" United Kingdom itu.

Nampak sangat taraf United Kingdom itu mendapat tempat yang utama di-dalam Per- lembagaan ini, sayang rasa-nya hendak membuangkan kalimah United King dom itu.

chukup-lah, Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mengeshorkan—saya tidak-lah mem- buat pindaan—payah sangat cherita- nya.
Saya shorkan-lah, saya perchaya Yang Berhormat Menteri ini pun semangat-nya lebeh kurang-lah ya'ani segala2 perkara yang boleh nampak jelak pada pandangan orang itu kita sama2 saperti hendak chara2 membuang hal2 itu dia mudah sangat membuat-nya.

Boleh- lah kalimah United itu dan di-kira kalimah Kingdom "mana2 negeri yang di-akui atau di- recognised di-Pertuan oleh Yang Agong sa-bagai negeri Commonwealth".

Itu chukup-lah; kalau Melayu-nya bagitu-lah.


buang-lah, lain di-buangkan Yang kedua, chara2 hendak recog nise oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong, di-dalam Perlembagaan dahulu ia-lah di-jalankan melalui Parliament Act, perubahan daripada Act of Parlia ment dengan memberi kuasa kapada Yang di-Pertuan Agong itu, pada pandangan saya, itu tidak ada banyak perbezaan, malah di-buat sa-chara lama melalui Act of Parliament pun ia-lah sa-bagai formality sahaja.
Jadi, kalau di-beri kuasa kapada Yang di- Pertuan Agong mengakui Common wealth country pun, saya perchaya jauh perkara sangat beza-nya dalam chara amalan- nya, chuma chepat sadikit kerja itu dapat di-buat.
Dalam hal ini, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, hanya satu peringatan yang tidak-lah bagitu itu serba sebutkan negeri-nya susah—nanti saya hendak supaya di- dalam hendak mengakui Common tadi biar-lah umum, wealth country tiap2 negeri yang dzahir daripada tanah jajahan British, kemudian dia masok di-terima menjadi Commonwealth country, maka kita mengakui-lah country.

itu Commonwealth negeri Saya bimbang kalau2 perkara ini ada pileh kaseh.
Sebab, mungkin dalam Commonwealth country ini ada negeri2 yang barangkali dasar-nya tidak sama dengan negeri kita, dasar politik dalam atau mungkin politik luar negeri, kata-lah mithal-nya negeri—ta' usah-lah sebutkan mithalan itu, salah pula negeri2 yang berkenaan.

Ada negeri2 yang berlawanan dengan dasar politik kita umpama-nya, ta' kan-lah kerana berlawanan dasar itu kita tidak mahu akui dia sa-bagai negeri Common Jadi, patut-lah dalam me- wealth.
laksanakan semangat mengakui atau mengi'tiraf Commonwealth country oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong ini tidak memileh bulu, sa-barang negeri yang termasok sa-bagai anggota Common wealth, maka dia di-sipatkan sa-bagai negeri Commonwealth oleh Kerajaan Malaysia kita ini.

Chara yang demi- kian, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya perchaya satu chara yang sangat bijak- sana di-dalam kita menjalankan polisi2 atau menjalankan kerja2 pemerentahan dalam negeri ini.

Sekian-lah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.


Mr Speaker: Persidangan tempohkan petang ini.

sa-hingga ini di- 4.00 pukul Sitting suspended at 1.00 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 4.09 p.m. (Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move: That the proceedings of this House, in connection with Government business set down in the Order Paper for today, shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 12 (1) until 9.30 p.m. 1037 3 JUNE 1965 1038 Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.


Resolved, That the proceedings of this House, in connection with Government business set down in the Order Paper for today, shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 12 (1) until 9.30 p.m.

THE CONSTITUTION AND MALAYSIA ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Bill that is now before the House.
Before I do so, I wish to say that I hardly endorse all that has been said by the Honour able Member for Pasir Puteh regarding the unhappy episode of Enche' Wan Mustapha—his selection to the Dewan Negara by the State Government and his rejection by that body.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with this new "wind of change" that one can detect between the State Government and the Central Government, we hope the Central Government will be generous enough to find ways and means—and it is not difficult to find ways and means, given the goodwill and under standing on both sides—to settle this the bitter unhappy episode, so that taste that is still in the mouth of the Honourable Member for Pasir Puteh and of all Members from Kelantan will be removed and I am sure this move will lead to a better relationship I hope, and greater between the Central Government and its constituent States.
This has, of course, nothing to do with Selangor or with my small constituency of Batu.

co-operation, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill and a series of other Bills—I think there are twenty-five Bills being showered on this House for this Session affecting this about country—are, to say the least, very, very confusing to a non-legal man like me.
To say that, as the Honourable Minister of Justice has said, this House is given every opportunity to debate three hundred laws in these Bills, I think, is a little too far fetched.
It is true that this House is allowed ample time to discuss Bills— anybody can hold the Floor if he wants to talk on the Bills—but, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are so many amendments to the Constitution and, as has been pointed out over and over again, amendments to the Constitution are not things that one can take lightly: today an amendment may be a small and insignificant amendment; tomorrow it may well be a very important one.
As such, I hope the Central Government will give us adequate time—not in this House but long before the House sits— to send the Bills to us so that we can consult our constituents and then come back to this House, perhaps, in a better position to make our contributions to the amendments concerned.
Mr Speaker, Sir, these amendments coming so soon after Malaysia Day before the component States have enough time to settle down, to find their bearing and equilibrium, is, to say the least, very disturbing, I am sure, to the new constituent States.

The Central Government by coming to this House seeking amendments to the new Constitution is an eloquent proof of the unreasonable haste by which Malaysia has been formed.
at most of Mr Speaker, Sir, on the face of it, reading through the Bill, one naturally cannot grumble the the Central amendments sought by Government.

However, looking at it a little more carefully, one does not need to be a lawyer to know that there is a considerable erosion of the powers the State Government.

Now, Mr of Speaker, Sir, let me make it quite clear that my Party and I are not against the Centre growing stronger and stronger.
We are a small nation— we have been emphasised again and again on this—of about ten million people, and it is in the opinion of many people—and we do share the same view as well—that it is not quite correct that there should be fourteen State Governments and one Central Government.

For example, the fact that we have two Prime Ministers in this Chamber leads to confusion.

When I talk of the Prime Minister, Members, 1039 3 JUNE 1965 1040 into the powers of would quite rightly ask, "Which Prime Minister?"
So, if it is the intention of the Central Government to erode more and more the State Governments, then I would tell the Central Government, "Let us go whole hog and I am with them; my Party is with them.

Let us go whole hog: remove all the State Govern ments."

I state quite clearly that my Party is with them.

Let us strengthen the Central Government and do away with the State Governments and their appendages.

My Party is with them.


But let us not have innocuous Bill like this which, looking at it, an ordinary person may incline to think: "Well, there is nothing much.

You just want to increase the number of judges.

You want to make a few amendments here and there."

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me read some of the amendments that are being sought.
On page 7 of the Explanatory State ment, the amendment to Article 95c (1) states: of the the "The extension of legislative and executive powers of the States of Malaya and Singapore at present requires an Act of Parliament and much Parliamentary time will be saved if it can be done by order as for the Borneo States."
Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this of course presupposes that the States of Malaya and Singapore have been conscious of their State rights and have insisted that whatever amendments that affect State rights should not only be debated in Parliament but also should have the approval respective State Governments.

But the Bornean States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak, being not so sophisticated, perhaps being a little into too much to get in a hurry Malaysia, have not thought of this.
They might have thought, "Well, the imperial edict from Kuala Lumpur applies to Sabah and Sarawak".

Now, what is exactly happening is this: The imperial edict from Kuala Lumpur is being sought not to apply to Sabah and Sarawak; but the imperial edict once issued from Kuala Lumpur applies to all the constituent States of Malaysia.

As I said, if you go whole hog and do away with State rights, I am with the Central Government; but do not do it bit by bit: "Slowly catch the monkey and fool the people".
Sir, I think that is not the right thing to do.

the first the Heads of is made whereby Mr Speaker, Sir, let me go on to paragraph 2 of the same amendment in the Explanatory Statement.
It states: "Much time and expense will be saved if the Federal provision Government can delegate the legislative and executive functions in respect of certain hybrid laws to the States, so that the federal provisions will be treated as if they were on the Concurrent List; while other hybrid laws may, with the concurrence of the Heads of to be the States concerned, be declared federal laws and treated as such."
Mr Speaker, Sir, it states here that this imperial edict must have the concur rence of the Head of State.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first place, I do not know whether the Central Government has, the in instance, consulted various State Governments on this imperial edict.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is thoroughly wrong to say that in a matter that affects State rights the "imperial edict" should have the con currence only of the States.
Nowhere is it stated that not only the Heads of the States but the State Assemblies should be consulted.

Now, these are two different things.

I, for example, am a resident of the State of Selangor and fortunately or other wise to I have also been elected represent my constituency of Kepong in the State Legislative Assembly of Selangor.
Now, if this "imperial edict" comes to Kuala Lumpur, which is also the Capital of the State of Selangor as well as being the Federal Capital, and it has the concurrence of the Head of the State, although I am a State Assemblyman, I have no say as to whether a vital State right has been sold down the drain by the Head of the State.

That is a thing which is of fundamental importance to the people.
The concurrence of the Head of the State, namely the concurrence of the party in power, does not necessarily mean the concurrence of the people of the State.

These are two different things.
As I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am prepared to go the whole hog with the Central Government if they say "do away with all the State Govern ments"; I would be perfectly happy to do that, but that is not being so, then I would be happier if this concurrence 1041 3 JUNE 1965 1042 of the Heads of the States can be amended in such a way that the State Assemblies can have a say before State rights are being eroded away under this "imperial edict" that is now proposed by the Central Government.
that we need explained: well, May I now come to the explanatory note on page 9 regarding the amend ment of Article 122.

The Minister of Justice has the amendment sought is only to change to "four" as we need from "two" another two additional judges for the Federal Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may the I ask what are the reasons for additions the to that are necessary Federal Court?

Has the Federal Court amassed so much work which is so urgent and with which it is unable to cope, two additional judges?
Has this anything to do with the Bill that is now withdrawn sug gesting the abolishment of appeals to the Privy Council?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the I myself have no quarrel with Central Government to it wants increase the number of judges from two to four.

It may well have very good reasons and I can well understand that, but, Mr Speaker, Sir, looking very carefully at this explanation and at the Bill itself, nowhere do I see that there is a limitation on the number of judges.
Now, that is a very worrying thought, that the limitation of judges.

We all know that the late President Roosevelt in pushing the through his new deal packed Supreme Court with his nominees pre sumably they would favour his Administration.

But fortu nately the judges there did not toe the line of the Executive.

I would be much happier if it spelled out quite clearly the limitation—the exact number of the composition of the Federal Court.
is no provision for thinking there that if limiting Mr Speaker, Sir, finally, I do not know whether the this not number of judges to the Federal Court is intentional or is it an oversight of the Legal Draftsman.

We hope that these two new judges that are being sought, and presumably the door that is being left open for the appointment of new judges, are not an avenue for those whom it has been found con venient to be kicked upstairs.
We all know that this has been done time and again: a person has been incompetent and he is kicked upstair to a foreign embassy or somewhere else.

In England we know that people are kicked up stairs to the House of Lords.

Here we hope these new avenues of appointment will not be a sinecure for incompetent Ministers with legal qualifications.

Thank you.
Thank you.

that Enche' Abu Bakar bin Hamzah (Bachok): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dengan izin Tuan, saya hendak berchakap sadikit sahaja berkenaan dengan Bill ini oleh kerana sudah banyak di- chakapkan oleh Ahli dari Pasir Puteh, daripada parti saya sendiri, dan juga Ahli dari Batu.
pujian Yang pertama, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya rasa dalam uchapan Yang Ber hormat dari Batu petang ini meski pun dengan chara yang manis, kerana dia daripada sudah mendapat Kerajaan Perikatan pada hari ini (Ketawa), tetapi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada-lah satu chabaran yang paling hebat sa-kali lebeh daripada chabaran yang di-buat oleh Perdana Menteri Singapura, ia-itu Ahli Yang Berhormat itu dengan chara yang berpura2 marah, tetapi menyokong Kerajaan sekarang, supaya merampas semua kuasa2 Negeri daripada meminda bagini.
Ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, satu chabaran yang sa- chara tidak langsong supaya Kerajaan ini merampas Negeri Kelantan, boleh tidak jadi kapada Ahli dari Batu, mengapa kalau kuasa itu di-ambil, kerana dia tidak mempunyai negeri yang di-perentah-nya dan saya fikir sampai habis umor-nya pun dia tidak akan dapat memerentah (Ketawa).

Tetapi, kami di-Kelantan maseh harap lagi dapat mempertahankan negeri itu dan boleh jadi di-Selangor pun pada satu masa kami tidak membenarkan Ahli dari Batu memerentah.
Ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, satu chara yang kalau kita fikirkan betul2 dia sudah hendak pergi sana, lebeh baik-lah saya menchabar beliau itu supaya cross the floor dari pada sekarang biar tinggal kami jadi Pembangkang di-sini (Ketawa).

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya rasa itu satu remark yang besar yang saya harap ahli2 Pembangkang yang lain patut se- dar bahawa dalam Pembangkang ini 1043 3 JUNE 1965 1044 ada sa-orang yang sudah di-kirimkan oleh pehak di-sana.

ada dan Jadi, bahawa berjalan sah-nya.


penerangan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, apa yang saya hendak sebutkan ia-lah sadikit sahaja, ia-itu berkenaan dengan Article 95 (c) yang di-dalam di-sini, sebab2 atau pun maksud hendak di- pinda Article ini la-lah kerana Kera- jaan sendiri merasa bahawa beberapa undang2 yang tertentu yang telah di- buat kuat-kuasa-nya sa-belum Malaysia Day, Kerajaan sendiri merasa shak di-atas sah-nya undang2 itu—ia-itu dia merasa doubt ful.
Jadi, point atau asas yang saya minta Kerajaan menjawab ia-lah; boleh-kah Kerajaan dengan mudah mengaku beberapa undang2 yang telah berjalan kuat- kuasa-nya yang Kerajaan sendiri shak di-atas kalau-lah undang2 ini kita gubal sendiri dengan halal, maka undang2 itu menjadi halal dan kita terhadap tidak patut shak anak kita itu anak halal atau pun tidak.
Ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, membayang atau pun menggambarkan bahawa bagitu banyak undang2 yang Kerajaan sendiri pun tidak dapat hendak solve the problem itu, maka dia hanya pakai undang2 bulldozer membuat supaya validate undang2 yang dia sudah membuat salah dahulu.

Ini satu per- kara yang patut Ahli dari Batu itu memikirkan supaya dia jangan mudah2 join Kerajaan yang, berani membuat sampai bagini.
Ini, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya bukan-lah sa-mata2 sa- bagai Pembangkang, sa-bagai satu precedent atau satu perkara yang patut di-ingatkan dalam sejarah Parli- men kita, bahawa tidak-lah patut sa- belum daripada Kerajaan mengaku sah-nya itu maseh di-shaki, patut-lah dia table kapada kita, atau pun mem- tentang beritahu certain legislation, ia-itu undang2 yang tertentu yang sudah di-buat enactment yang Kerajaan sendiri tidak puas hati, atau pun shak di-atas sah-nya, entah berapa belas, berapa puloh, berapa ratus, di-negeri mana.
Jadi ini boleh menimbulkan bahawa shak Kerajaan Perikatan di-negeri2 yang dia majority, banyak memerentah, banyak undang2 yang di-seludup bagini dengan sa-banyak sadikit orang tetapi satu Ini-lah harapan pada satu masa kita boleh membuat undang2 yang sa-macham ini.
sahaja, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, yang saya hendak berchakap dan saya perchaya perkara2 lain telah pun di-chakapkan oleh Ahli dari Pasir Puteh dan saya rasa tidak-lah bagitu mustahak kesilapan sangat di-atas Kerajaan, itu, kalau sa-kira-nya Kera jaan sudah berhak boleh membuat undang2 untok memansokhkan kesila pan dengan sa-mata2 membuat amend ment yang sa-macham ini.
Dr Lim Chong Eu (Tanjong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise only to make a few general observations with regard to this Bill, and I would like to repeat the theme which is also becoming like an old song as far as I am concerned.

However, I will go on repeating it so long as I am here and so long as the members of the Government refuse to listen to what we have to say.
constitutional I admit, right from the Constitution, and We have, Sir, in the last few days begun a very heated debate centred over the question of the sacredness, sanctity, of I have not only in just these few days but over the course of years indicated that we should deal with this question amendments with of greater solemnity and with less haste.

the beginning, Sir, that much of the provisions of this particular Bill which is very long to my mind not objectionable.
are However, Sir, I feel that the country is now in a stage where the people are getting a little worried about this cons tant nibbling at and changes of the Constitution.

I have said, Sir, that one of the clear situations in our national life is that whenever the Honourable Prime Minister chooses to announce outside this House that neither he nor his Government would make any the Constitution, not amendment long after his pronouncement, the amendment is presented.
I remember, Sir, when I receive the first version of this Bill on the amendments to the Constitution, the Honourable Prime Minister at the meeting of the Malayan Grand Alliance mentioned that they had no intention of making amendments to the Constitution.

Not that to 1045 3 JNUE 1965 1046 two weeks had passed, when I received this rather long and interesting set of proposed amendments.

to provide things which Sir, what do we notice here amongst other things?
We notice, Sir, that we are making amendments to the Consti for tution of Malaysia certain the Alliance Government had done, for example, in my State of Penang, as far back as 1959, prior to Malaysia, these could probably have been ultra vires accord ing to the Constitution of that time.
I know that the Government has got every the present legally at moment to make such amendments, and I think it is proper, rather than to leave matters standing in a position of ambiguity with regard to the Consti tution, that we should make these little amendments.

To that I agree, Sir.


right However, when we come to read through these amendments, there are other amendments provided for, which carry far greater implications, as have been touched upon by the Honourable Members from the various constituen cies in Kelantan.

They naturally feel it very much, because they, as a State, have understood the constant struggles between State and Federal powers and the constant need for adjustments of State and Federal powers.
has already amended Sir, I would now like to make a suggestion to the Government, because I cannot debate this and the Govern ment the Constitution to the effect that we no longer require a two-third majority of the House to pass it and that we can pass it by a simple majority.

So, with this overwhelming majority of the Alliance, the suggestion made by me, I hope, can probably be just a dribble— but little drops of water can eventually be effective.
The Government has amended the Constitution now so that by a simple majority they can steam- roll this bill through.

With this present majority, what we have to say will I carry make if we suggestion believe in the sanctity of the Constitu tion and if we want in every way to the try and create a precedent for to future about how we are going little weight.
Nevertheless, this that from its of reading, to handle amendments to the Constitu tion, then the Government should take this as a precedent, because obviously there is no urgency for this Bill, to any second refer at proposal the amendments Constitution to a Select Committee of this House, which will consist of representative members every political shade of opinion together with a large majority of the Alliance members in that Select Committee; let that Select Committee sit over this question of the constitutional amend ments and report back to the House at a subsequent date; and let us take it through to the full second and third readings.
I think, Sir, by making such sort of a check, not as provided for in our Constitution, but by precedents, we will begin to show the rest of our the Government really country treats the Constitution as a sacred document and that it will consider even minority opinions with some degree of care.

that (2) of Sir, how have we tackled this Bill?


As I said, before I came to this House, after having gone through fairly care fully the provisions of this Amendment Bill, I was suddenly presented with it with minor version No.

amendments and was asked to ignore the Bill which I studied.

It may be so that they are minor amendments.

It means that I have to read through again the whole of this new Bill to find out where the amendments are and try to think out why they have been provided.
I am not so naive to look at the constitutional amendments and ignore even commas and semicolons, because constitutional amendments can have great implications even by leaving out a comma.

Sir, I am also taken aback by the statement of the Honourable Member for Batu, because obviously he did not have a chance to consult his Party members.
It is just like a bull which has lost one horn—the Honourable Member for Dato Kramat is not here and it is a little bit lopsided: I mean making such a terrible statement.

I hope the Alliance Government does not accept the this proposal Member for Batu although they have from 1047 3 JNUE 1965 1048 I mean the whole hog, apparently found some happy rapport at the present time.

It is just like a bull, which is lopsided, (Laughter) asking us to go to centralise State powers in the Central Government.
Sir, if we fall into the the Socialist Front—and trap of precisely what they want is absolute, dictatorial powers in the centre if they win, and the Central Government treats this lightly because they know the Socialist Front won't win that {Laughter)—with its simple majority they are going to rule us not from Kuala Lumpur but from the source of their inspiration where they derive their political ideology.

Sir, this is a very dangerous statement and I must, right from the outset, oppose it.
I am quite sure that if his colleague, the Honourable Member for Dato Kramat, who not so very long ago had aspira tions of capturing the State of Penang for the Socialist Front, were here he would even reject the suggestion made by the Honourable Member for Batu (Laughter).

Sir, that, however, is only a little aside.


question Sir, I am quite sure that the respon sible Members opposite in the front benches understand—right along from the beginning of the establishment of our Federation—from the Federation of Malaya to now the Federation of Malaysia—that of this balance between the State powers and Central power is always a delicate one.
I feel the concept why we have called ourselves "a Federation of States"—we could have called ourselves a nation and made a simple Constitution at the beginning—is because it involves the acceptance of the powers of the Rulers in their own States and the concept of State powers.

There will always be this constant struggle between State and Federal powers.

I would like to see more State powers given to the State of Penang.
For example, I would like to have some of the provisions that are made for the State of Singapore; and mind you, they were made at a time when the Alliance benches found the Honourable the Prime Minister of Singapore a highly acceptable person—and, there fore, they gave to him certain auto In actual fact, to refer sentiment and amendments the P.M.I.P and representatives liked nomous rights.

I would have for into privileges written those Penang too.
We would like to have, for example, a certain degree of auto nomy in education.

Sir, this kind of balance, as the country progresses, will the Alliance continue, and although Government has the power to amend Bills, Constitutional Bills, easily, I do suggest it will assuage a definite fear and apprehension amongst our people if you do not ride roughshod over any popular Constitutional a Select Committee of this House.
After all, Sir, if such Select Committee were to include a representative, for example, the Honour of able concur could with the Bill in Select Committee, then we could have a situation whereby there would be complete unanimity in constitutional amendments.
I realise that the experience of Honourable Members of the Government are such that they are always, probably, afraid and suspicious that if ever they allow a constitutional Bill, or a proposed amendment to the Constitution, to go to a Select Committee, Members of the Opposition, who do not come under the direct command of the Whips of the Alliance Party, might choose to write a minority opinion in that Select Committee.
Sir, I think myself such too are valuable minority opinions it because would mean that we have carried certain Bills with unanimity and certain Bills with reservations, and in the long run we will be able to balance what are pertinent and what are not.

in historical perspective in it the hearts of Another factor, Sir, is that, if such the a fear exists Government, really belittles our sense of responsibility.
We are not going to write minority opinions to a Bill which is considered very carefully, unless we ourselves felt that they mean something important to us.

Sir, what is the difference of referring such a Bill to Select Committee, when we have one Bill presented to us a week later with a series of amendments?

Sir, the Constitution of is this country every other week being virtually.
If we had met one week changed 1049 3 JUNE 1965 1050 earlier, we would have passed all Bills, and later on pass an amendment to an amendment to a Bill.

It shows, Sir, that the Government itself is hard pressed and that the Legal Adviser's Depart ment, obviously hard pressed, is being pushed by Government to write up amendments without really being able seriously to consider the import of the amendments that are proposed.
Other wise, why should it be that in a matter of one week we have amendments to proposed amendments, not to simple laws but to what has been ascribed by the whole of the Alliance as the sacred document of the country?

over after the rather heated debates we had heard di-Pertuan the Yang Agong's Address, I went down to the library to get a copy of the Constitu tion.

The librarian very kindly pointed out to me that the copy she got in the library was not up-to-date.
I asked her she said, for an explanation, and "Well, amendments have been made recently and I have no time to incor porate the amendments to the Consti tution."

Sir, we therefore can never follow quiet closely as to what we have done to the Constitution, which we all had very solemnly declared here to uphold.

Sir, I do put this as a suggestion to Government for the future processing of amendments to the Constitution.
If and when the time comes for a much more serious amendment to be pro posed—for example, the question of the Judicature Act—I think, Government will be well advised to listen sometimes to this side of the House.

Otherwise, this slow erosion can be interpreted as Government's complete arrogance— discarding the procedure which they themselves for constitutional amendments.
down have laid With this observation, Sir, I would like to ask the Government that, in future, they send us proposed amend ments, as has been suggested by the Honourable Member for Batu, so as to give us more time to study Bills of amendments to the Constitution.

Then we will really be able to come to this House and say that we are not just debating the Bill on our own, but the after consultation at people of our own constituency and our own Party.
least with Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze (Sarawak): Mr Speaker, Sir, last week when we came to this House we had on our table copies of the Constitution and Malaysia Act (Amendment) Bill for the first time, and we realise that this is the Bill to amend the Constitu tion of Malaysia.

Naturally without the Constitution itself in front of me, I went down to the library to look for a copy of the Constitution and to see to what extent these proposed amend ments to the said Bill would go.
So, Now, Sir, I do share the sentiments expressed by the Honourable Member for Tanjong, that in order to upkeep the dignity and sanctity of this Consti tution we must not treat it as if we are proposing amendments to other ordi nary laws.

I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot have a convention of some sort, or an under standing, any amendment to the Constitution without first consulting, if not, bringing to the the States which will be notice of, affected by any amendment the Constitution.
Now, take, for instance, you have here a proposal to extend certain executive powers to the States, enlarging the powers of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong by order.

Certainly, Sir introducing in not to Dato' Dr Ismail: On a point of clari fication, Mr Speaker, Sir, what Article is he referring now?

Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze: to Article 95c (1), Sir.
Amendment Article 95c (1) states: "This amendment provides for enlarging the power of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order to extend the legislative and executive powers of the States, which is at present restricted to the Borneo States, to apply to all the States of the Federation."

Sir, have the States in the Federation which are directly affected by this proposed amendment been consulted at all?
Sir, we all know that, not being an ordinary Bill that we are consider ing, this is a proposed amendment to the Constitution which has far reaching or will have far reaching effect.

Surely we as representatives of the people, 1051 3 JUNE 1965 1052 particularly from the Borneo States, will not be able to know what the real implications will be when we have never been given prior notice of the proposed amendment.

I do not say that the present amendment will affect the Borneo States.
I merely mention this as a matter of principle.

Again, in all proposed amendments to the Constitu tion they should not be made matters of urgency.

To my mind, it is neces sary for the Government to bear in mind that the only way by which one can have the confidence of the people in the sincerity and good faith of the Government is not to tamper too much with the Constitution; if it is found to to be be necessary for amendments made, then as much time as possible should people concerned.
be given the to that Lastly, Sir, I would ask should provide the Government free a copy of the Constitution as amended and up-to-date to every Member of this House; otherwise we will not be talking able about.

to know what we are Enche' Mohamed Yusof bin Mah- mud (Temerloh): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mengambil peluang juga sadikit untok menyokong Rang Undang2 yang ada di-hadapan kita ini untok me- minda Perlembagaan kita.
Saya telah mendenear beberapa orang daripada pehak Pembangkang yang telah me- nyuarakan atas tidak puas hati-nya terhadap Kerajaan meminda beberapa kali berkenaan dengan Perlembagaan kita.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pada masa kita membuat Perlembagaan dahulu ia-lah kita tidak mengalami bahawa perkara yang timbul kemudian dari pada itu, umpama-nya perkara per- lantekan Ahli Ka-Dewan Negara yang telah terjadi pada masa yang lampau yang mengakibatkan, ia-itu perkhid- matan sa-saorang daripada-nya di- dalam Dewan Negara itu tersekat, oleh sebab kesuntokan, atau pun tidak ada chara yang boleh meluluskan, chara yang sudah di-luluskan dalam Perlem bagaan.
Jadi, sava berasa hairan bagaimana sa-kejap pehak2 Pembangkang ini ketika mengatakan mustahak kita pinda undang2 ini, tetapi daripada satu ketika lagi mereka mengatakan tidak mustahak kita pinda dengan serta- merta.

Umpama saya cheritakan tadi berkenaan dengan Perlembagaan bagi melantek Ahli ka-Dewan Negara ini.

Rasa saya mustahak, bahkan pada masa itu, pada masa itu-lah patut kita meminda Per lembagaan itu yang membolehkan Ahli berkhidmat itu dalam Dewan Negara.
terjadi-nya perkara serta-merta masok Tanah Dalam pindaan ini saya memandang ada-lah Perlembagaan ini, sunggoh pun kita pandang, kita hormati satu benda yang sangat2 tinggi, yang kita sifatkan sangat tinggi, tetapi bukan-lah saperti Qur'an, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, yang ta' boleh di-pinda.
Kita pinda Perlemba gaan, mengikut keadaan negara kita, kerana negara kita pada masa dahulu negara Melayu—sekarang negara Malaysia, maka kita ada ba- nyak problem2, masaalah2 yang timbul yang tidak boleh di-jalankan dengan undang2 sa-patut-nya supaya yang Kerajaan meminda menyesuaikan bagi sa-buah negara yang demokratik dan juga berperlem- bagaan.
Itu-lah sebab-nya saya katakan tadi, saya menyokong, bukan sahaja sa-takat pindaan ini, tetapi pada yang ka-hadapan ada-nya masaalah2 yang tidak dapat di-jalankan bagi undang2 biasa, terpaksa-lah kita pinda undang2 ini.
biasa—sudah apabila juga Jadi, umpama-nya kita melantek lagi lebeh pegawai2 Mahkamah—Hakim2— ini sangat mustahak, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, kerana negara kita sekarang ini telah besar, daripada 11 buah Negeri sudah menjadi 14 buah Negeri; dari pada tujoh million manusia, sudah menjadi sa-belas million.

Kita merasa, mengalami beberapa kesulitan, dengan lain yang sebab boleh menjalankan, mengadakan, me- nambahkan lagi Hakim2 ini semua di- dalam Perlembagaan, maka dengan sebab itu, kita pinda Perlembagaan.
tidak ada undang2 Kita tahu sekarang dengan Hakim2 yang ada pada masa tersangat sebok, banyak kerja-nya, banyak case2 yang patut pergi appeal, yang patut di-selesaikan dalam masa yang singkat, tetapi mengambil masa yang panjang.

ini 1053 3 JUNE 1965 1054 Ini mengakibatkan susah kapada ra'ayat jelata.

Jadi, rasa saya, pindaan2 ini mustahak.

tentu-lah ini mustahak.


Hakim2 Jadi, tidak-lah timbul saperti kata Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Tanjong, kita boleh pinda di-lain masa yang panjang, tetapi masa ini mustahak— perkara ini mustahak.

Lantekan Ahli2 Dewan Negara mustahak pada negara.


Jadi, tidak-lah timbul yang mengatakan kita ini terburu2 untok meminda Perlem- bagaan, sebab itu, rasa saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pehak2 Pembangkang ini membangkang kerana membang- kang sahaja, bukan-lah dengan tujuan ada satu hikmat yang hendak memberi satu kebaikan kapada negara, melain- kan untok membangkang apa yang di- buat oleh Kerajaan itu semua-nya ta' betul.

Sekian, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.


Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid (Sebe- rang Utara): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun untok menyokong usul pindaan Perlembagaan yang di-kemu- kakan dalam Dewan ini, sebab pun saya menyokong ia-lah oleh kerana di- dalam Perlembagaan sendiri, Fasal 159 yang membolehkan Perlembagaan ini di-pinda.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada pan- dangan2 daripada pehak2 Pembangkang yang mengatakan bahawa Kerajaan terburu2 meminda Perlembagaan, dan juga oleh kerana Kerajaan ada kuasa, Kerajaan boleh berbuat sa-suka hati- juga sa-tengah mengatakan nya dan patut sa-buah kapada Jawatan-kuasa untok mengkaji pindaan yang di-kemukakan ini.
di-serahkan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pada pendapat saya, pindaan yang di-kemukakan ini ia-lah sa-bahagian daripada perkara2 yang kechil yang berkaitan dengan asas ini, yang ada dalam Perlembagaan bukan-lah pindaan ini pindaan di-atas asas yang terkandong dalam Perlem bagaan.

Sa-bagaimana yang kita ke- tahui, beberapa negara yang mengamal- telah pun meminda kan demokerasi Perlembagaan mereka itu beberapa kali untok menyesuaikan suasana politik, masharakat dan pentadbiran-nya.
Al- hamdulillah dan shukor, negara kita ini yang di-bawah Kerajaan yang di- beri keperchayaan yang penoh semen- demokerasi, lunas2 demokerasi, jak tahun 1959 kita telah pun meminda beberapa perkara demi kepentingan negara kita.
Sa-balek-nya kalau kita perhatikan beberapa buah negara yang menjalankan pemerentahan-nya dari segi dan sudah tukar chorak menjadi sa-buah negara pemerentahan yang di-kuasai oleh President, oleh kerana lunas2 demoke rasi yang di-amalkan, yang mereka jalankan, tidak dapat memerentah negara itu dengan sempurna.

Saya beri mithal atau chontoh bagaimana negara Indonesia.
Mereka pada mula-nya mengamalkan negara France mengamalkan pemerentahan demokerasi dengan suara ramai, negara Pakistan mengamalkan chorak peme rentahan demokerasi pada awal-nya, tetapi pada akhir-nya tidak dapat melaksanakan pemerentahan mengikut lunas2 demokerasi oleh kerana mana- kala ada satu masaalah kepentingan negara, hendak di-pinda undang2 atau perlembagaan, dapat tentangan yang hebat daripada parti2 Pembangkang yang mementingkan parti-nya bukan negara, sa-hingga terpaksa negara2 itu di-aleh kuasa kapada kuasa President.
Baharu2 ini saya bacha dalam surat- khabar pemerentahan negara India, ada ura2 yang mereka hendak menukar chorak pemerentahan memberi kuasa kapada President.

Jadi dengan chontoh2 yang sa-macham ini maka dapat pehak2 Pembangkang meng- baik- ambil nya chara pemerentahan demokerasi yang di-amalkan oleh Kerajaan kita yang kita telah pinda dari masa ka- masa demi kepentingan negara, bukan kepentingan parti.
bagaimana bagaimana perhatian Sa-kira-nya kita tidak meminda mengenai subversive, saya perchaya negara kita tentu-lah menjadi kuchar- sekarang, harus kachir pada masa pemerentahan kita sudah bertukar cho rak, tetapi oleh kerana kita ada kuasa telah chepat2 boleh meminda, kita meminda Perlembagaan itu supaya da pat kita menjalankan pentadbiran kita mengikut lunas2 demokerasi yang sa- benar-nya.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada fikiran yang di-kemukakan oleh Yang Ber hormat wakil dari Tanjong mengatakan 1055 3 JNUE 1965 1056 ra'ayat jelata berasa bimbang di-atas pindaan ini kerana parti2 mereka tidak dapat memberi fikiran dan wakil ra'ayat tidak dapat berunding, jadi, perkara ini ada-lah satu perkara yang alasan- nya terlampau nipis.
Sa-bagai sa-orang Wakil Ra'ayat yang di-pileh oleh suara ramai, maka mandate yang di-beri penoh kapada Wakil Ra'ayat itu me- mikirkan apa juga yang baik, maka terpulang-lah kapada Wakil Ra'ayat itu sendiri memberi fikiran-nya, sama ada hendak menyokong atau hendak meminda.

Sa-kian-lah sahaja, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dan saya menyokong dengan sa-penoh-nya pindaan ini.
Dato' Dr Ismail: Tuan Yang di- Pertua, terlebeh dahulu saya meng- uchapkan terima kaseh kapada Ahli dari Temerloh dan Ahli dari Seberang chadangan Utara Kerajaan hendak meminda Undang2 Tuboh ini.

atas menyokong that Sir, I would like to remind Honour able Members, who spoke opposing this Amendment, that when our Consti tution was first enacted it was never should never be intended it amended.

Otherwise, provisions for making amendments to the Constitution would not have been included in it.
In the Constitution it is provided that in the case of some provisions it needs only a simple majority to amend and in some other cases it requires two- thirds majority.

Now, having given those safeguards, naturally, it is left to Parliament to use the power very care fully in not amending this Constitution to the detriment of the people of the country.
Sir, I think this country is really blessed in that it has returned the Alliance to power with a two-thirds majority in this House, because if the Alliance does not get a two-thirds this House I am quite majority sure—if we take the criteria of some members of the Opposition in regard to any amendment in this House—that this Constitution would never be amended to the detriment of the smooth functioning of the Government in this country.
in Sir, we are proud of our record that although we have introduced amend this ments this Parliament to in Constitution, they have been amend ments designed to smoothen the func tioning of the Federation.

We have never introduced any amendments that will affect the fundamental rights of the peoples of this country.

We have never taken away any rights from the citizens of this country.
All that we have done in the amendments in the past, and now, is merely to smoothen the func tioning of the Federation, especially in the administrative field.
that Sir, I have already replied in the House the other day that the Govern ment shares with the Opposition in this complaint the Bills are not submitted to the Honourable Members in such a way that ample time is given to them to peruse the amendments, or the Bills; and I did say that the Govern ment tried to overcome this difficulty by trying to publish the Bills in the White Gazette.
As our Standing Orders stand at present, the Bills cannot be printed unless they have been given the first reading in this House, but we have tried our best to get over this difficulty by trying to publish the Bills in future in the White Gazette, so that Honourable Members can have ample time to discuss the Bills with whomever they like.

In regard to the suggestion of sending the Bills to Select Committees, we agree with the Opposition Members to a certain extent, if they affect controver sial matters.
However, in matters such as those in front of the House at the moment, they are purely designed to smoothen the administration as between the Centre and the States, and surely this sort of amendments could be passed by this House without sending them to a Select Committee.
It has been suggested that we send this Bill to a Select Committee—with generosity that the majority of the members of the Select Committee should be from the Alliance—but I can foresee, Sir, that in such a case only the members of the Alliance will attend the meetings of the Select Committee.
So, Sir, while we do not reject entirely the suggestion that Bills should be sent to Select Com mittees—in I announced in this House, and the House to a has agreed, to send one Bill this morning fact, 1057 3 JUNE 1965 1058 interest of Select Committee—surely, it is not in the the interest of the smooth functioning of the Government that every Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.

this House and Now, Sir, I come to the specific observations made by the Honourable Members.
saya tegoran-nya Yang pertama, saya suka-lah hendak menjawab tegoran Ahli Yang Berhor mat daripada Pasir Puteh.

Saya pada hari ini suka hendak menguchapkan tahniah kapada Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Pasir Puteh kerana tegoran2-nya ia-itu tegoran2 yang membena.

Satu daripada itu jikalau di- persetujukan oleh Tuan Yang di- Pertua, akan mendatangkan pindaan bila kita sampai dalam Com mittee, ia-itu-lah berkenaan dengan tafsiran Commonwealth itu.
Kata-nya, itu dalam tidak kita membezakan United Kingdom daripada lain2 negeri yang kita sipatkan Commonwealth, biar-lah kita samakan.

Ini ada-lah satu chadangan yang saya fikir satu chadangan yang membena yang kita terima.

Sebab2-nya, benda akan ini telah terletak membezakan United Kingdom daripada negeri2 lain, dalam ia-lah tafsiran negeri Commonwealth ada tersilap sadikit.

Jadi, saya mengu chapkan kaseh kapada Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada Pasir Puteh.
tafsiran Commonwealth patut-lah sa-tinggi2 terima saya Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Pasir Puteh itu sa-lepas membuat chadangan yang membena itu, ada pula membuat chadangan yang fikir boleh merosakkan sadikit kapada Rumah ini (Ketawa).

Dia bukan sahaja menegor bahkan menchercha Dewan Senate.

Saya fikir tidak molek-lah bagi kita Rumah bawah ini, Dewan Ra'ayat ini, menchercha keputusan2 yang di- buat dalam Dewan Senate sana.
Jadi, saya fikir kalau-lah perkara sa-macham ini selalu di-bangkitkan di-sini patut juga kita, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sen- diri menjadi Pengerusi Jawatan-kuasa Standing Orders, patut kita membuat supaya menahan Standing Orders, Ahli2 Dewan ini menchercha ke putusan2 yang di-buat oleh Senate, kerana tidak mengikut atoran atau pun adat Parliamen yang tidak molek satu Rumah menchercha keputusan yang telah di-buat oleh Rumah yang lain.
dalam chadangan juga menerangkan Dia juga menegor atas chadangan hendak meminda Article 122.

Dia kata ia-itu hendak meminda ini, chara2 hendak melantek Hakim Makhmah Persekutuan ia-lah berlainan daripada chara2 yang ada dalam Perlembagaan sekarang.

Saya suka-lah ia-itu chara2 yang ada dalam Perlembagaan sekarang ini ia-itu berkenaan dengan melantek Hakim yang dudok boleh di-katakan sa-lama2-nya di-Makhmah Tinggi.
Chadangan yang di-shorkan di-sini ia-lah supaya memberi kuasa melantek hakim sementara, jadi itu-lah sebab-nya ada perbezaan sadikit chara hendak melantek hakim yang di- chadangkan dalam pindaan ini.

to labelled Now, Sir, the Honourable Member for Batu was showered with compli ments this morning, and he was so embarrassed the that he compliments as the kiss of death.
So, in return, this afternoon he tried to respond that was the kindness extended to him this morning by trying to make us commit political suicide, because he suggested that we should the States take all the powers from and put them in the Central Govern ment.

Now, Sir, it has never been the intention of the Central Government to take the powers from the States as enshrined in the Constitution.
All that we have done here, all the amendments that we have in this Bill, some had been done at the request of the States and some after consultation with the States, and they are, as I said, mainly designed to smoothen the functioning of the machinery of government both in the States and the Centre.

in When to the High Court—I the Honourable Member spoke on Article 122, he made a valid there was no that observation the number of provision limit judges think in that was what he said.
He went on to say that if there was no further limitation, then there was a temptation to make use of this as one of the avenues for kicking unwanted people upstairs.

Now, Sir, first and foremost, it is in the interest of justice in this 1059 3 JUNE 1965 1060 the more judges we have country, of course within limitations, the that better; secondly, I think there is no need to have a limitation, because, I am sure, it will be governed by the simple economic law of supply and demand.
At the moment, the demand is greater than the supply, and I can not foresee the time when there will be greater supply than demand of judges in this country.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, it all depends on the standard that you set for your supply.

There are lawyers galore in this country on the Opposi tion benches.
Dato' Dr Ismail: Well, Sir, I do not know how His Lordship would take that comment, or Members of the Bar, but as far as this House is concerned, in our we have implicit confidence judges and also in Members of the Bar.

However, we cannot expect the Member for Batu to share the ideal opinion of ours.

itu atas saya chara jadi Undang2 yang Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Ahli daripada Bachok, soal ada berchakap Article 95 (c).
Dia takut ia-itu Undang2 sahkan yang kita hendak meminta dengan ia-itu kebelakangan ini barangkali Undang2 retrospective tidak itu boleh berpatutan.

Di-sini suka-lah mengeshorkan kapada Ahli2 Yang ia-itu Undang2 yang Berhormat ia-lah Undang2 telah di-perbuat ini yang memberi faedah kapada negeri dan Undang2 ini bukan Undang2 yang tidak ada controversial, dan chadangan hendak meminda ini pun, boleh juga di-buat dengan sa-chara lain di-bawa dalam Parlimen ini, di- bawa di-dalam State.
Tetapi oleh lebeh kemas sebab memandangkan jikalau kita masokkan dalam lagi Constitution ini daripada membuat chara2 yang saya sebutkan tadi itu-lah sebab-nya di-kemukakan Rang Undang2 ini.

jikalau Now, Sir, the Honourable Member from Sarawak, Mr Stephen Yong, has complained that copies of the Consti tution in the Library are not up to date.

Sir, I am not responsible for that, and nor is the Government.

That, Sir, is within your authority, and as you are his observation to you.
responsible, commend I The Sir, the Honourable Member also asked whether amendments the referred to in the proposed amendment to Article 95 (c) had been referred to the States.

Now, as I have mentioned in my reply in the National Language to the Honourable Member for Pasir Puteh, some of these amendments had been made at the request of the States and after some consultation with them.
same Honourable Member further suggested that free copies of amendments the Constitution with should be given to Honourable Mem bers.

Sir, at the Alliance the rate Government is amending the Constitu tion, I mean the minor amendments (Laughter) for the smooth running of the country, then probably we will have to send hundreds of copies of the to Constitution with Honourable Members time amendments are made in this House.
I am sure my colleague the Honour able Minister of Finance will have great objection to that.

amendemnts every Sir, I think when all is said and done, when we take out the attempt to speak to members of one's consti tuency, I am sure that these amend ments will be given the unanimous support of the House.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker: Meshuarat ini di-tanggohkan.

Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 6.00 p.m. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Question put.
The House divided: Ayes—116: Noes—Nil; Abstentions—Nil.

Enche' Abdul Ghani bin Ishak Captain Haji Abdul Hamid Khan Enche' Abdul Karim bin Abu Tuan Haji Abdul Khalid bin Awang Osman AYES Y.T.M.

Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub Tuan Haji Abdul Rashid bin Haji Jais Enche' Abdul Rauf bin Abdul Rahman Tun Haji Abdul Razak bin Dato' Hussain Enche' Abdul Razak bin Haji Hussin 1061 3 JUNE 1965 1062 Y.A.M.
Tunkn Abdullah ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman Tuan Haji Abdullah bin Haji Mohd.

Salleh Enche' Abu Bakar bin Hamzah Enche' Ahmad bin Arshad Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid Che* Ajibah binti Abol Enche' Ali bin Haji Ahmad O.K.K.

Datu Aliuddin bin Data Harun Dr Awang bin Hassan Enche' Aziz bin Ishak Enche' Bahaman bin Samsudin Pengarah Banyang anak Janting Enche' Chan Chong Wen Enche' Chan Seong Yoon Tuan Haji Muhammad Su'aut bin Haji Muhd.
Tahir Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir Dato' Haji Mustapha bin Haji Abdul Jabar Dato' Nik Ahmad Kamil Enche' Ng Fah Yam Dr Ng Kam Poh Tuan Haji Othman bin Abdullah Enche' Othman bin Abdullah Abang Othman bin Haji Moasili Enche' Quek Kai Dong Tuan Haji Rahmat bin Haji Daud Enche' Chan Siang Sun Enche' Chen Wing Sum Enche' Chia Chin Shin Enche' Francis Chia Nyuk Tong Enche' Chin Foon Enche' Edwin anak Tangkun Tuan Syed Esa bin Alwee Datin Fatimah binti Haji Abdul Majid Datin Fatimah binti Haji Hashim Enche' S. Fazul Rahman Datu Ganie Gilong Enche' Ganing bin Jangkat Enche' Geh Chong Keat Enche' Hamzah bin Alang Enche' Hanafi bin Mohd.
Yunus Enche' Hanafiah bin Hussain Enche' Harun bin Abdullah Wan Hassan bin Wan Daud Enche' Stanley Ho Nyun Khiu Enche' Hussein bin To' Muda Hassan Enche' Hussein bin Mohd.

Nordin Enche' Hussein bin Sulaiman Tuan Haji Hussain Rahimi bin Haji Saman Enche' Ikhwan Zaini Enche' Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman Dato' Dr Ismail Enche' Ismail bin Idris Enche' Ramli bin Omar Tuan Haji Redza bin Haji Mohd.
Said Raja Rome bin Raja Ma'amor Dato' Y. T. Sambanthan Enche' Sandom anak Nyuak Dato' Sardon bin Haji Jubir Enche' Seah Teng Ngiab Enche' Senu bin Abdul Rahman Enche' Sim Boon Liang Enche' Snawi bin Ismail Enche' Sng Chin Joo Enche' Soh Ah Teck Datu Donald Aloysius Stephens Dato' Syed Ja'afar bin Hasan Albar Penghulu Dato' Enche' Enche' Enche' Jinggut Temenggong Jugah Kadam anak Kiai Kam Woon Wah Khaw Kai-Boh anak Attan NOES Nil ABSTENTIONS Nil Datu Khoo Siak Chiew Enche' Lee San Choon Enche' Lee Seek Fun Enche' Lee Siok Yew Enche' Amadeus Mathew Leong Dato' Ling Bcng Siew Enche' Lim Pee Hung Dr Lim Swee Aun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad Enche' T. Mahima Singh Enche' Joseph David Manjaji Dato' Dr Haji Megat Khas Enche' Mohd.
Arif Salleh Tuan Haji Mohd.

Ghazali bin Haji Jawi Enche' Mohamed Idris bin Matsil Enche' Mohamed Khir Johari Enche' Mohd.

Tahir bin Abdul Majid Enche' Mohamed Yusof bin Mahmud Enche' Mohd.
Zahir bin Haji Ismail Wan Mokhtar bin Ahmad Tuan Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Ismail Enche' Sulaiman bin Bulon Enche' Suleiman bin Ali Pengiran Tahir Petra Enche' Tajudin bin Ali Enche' Tai Kuan Yang Dr Tan Chee Khoon Enche' Tan Cheng Bee Enche' Tan Siew Sin Enche' Tan Toh Hong Enche' Tan Tsak Yu Enche' Tiah Eng Bee Enche' Toh Theam Hock Enche' Yeoh Tat Beng Tuan Haji Zakaria bin Haji Mohd.

Taib Bill accordingly read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Chairman, Sir, when I introduced the Bill I mentioned definition to accept the that I was prepared suggestion made by the Honourable Member for Pasir Puteh in regard to the "Commonwealth of country" and I also said that I would the ask your permission amendment at the appropriate moment.
Sir, I beg to move the amendment to Article 160, Clause 2, on page 4 of the Bill.
The amendment is "to leave out 'Commonwealth of the Country' in Clause 2 and insert the following instead thereof: to move definition "Commonwealth any country recognised by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be a Commonwealth country; and country means 1063 3 JUNE 1965 1064 part of the Commonwealth, means any Commonwealth country, any colony, protec torate or protected states or any other territory administered by the Government of any Commonwealth country."
other The circulated and reads: amendment been to Honourable Members has "to add immediately before the item 'Ninth Schedule (legislative lists)', the following— In section 14 (2) (c), for the expression 'the State law, there shall be substituted the expression 'federal or State law'.

the expression In section 17 (3), for 'paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the expression 'paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)'.''
Enche' Abu Bakar bin Hamzah (Bachok): Tuan Pengerusi, saya meng- uchapkan terima kaseh bagi pehak P.M.I.P.

kapada pehak Kerajaan yang menerima pindaan itu, dan saya per- chaya kapada Bill No.

26 ada benda yang Kerajaan akan menerima pindaan lagi.

First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be reported back to the House.

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Sir, I beg to second the motion.
House resumes.

Third Reading Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, I beg to report that the Bill has been considered in Committee and agreed to with amend the ments.

I accordingly move Bill be read a third time and passed.

that Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Sir, I beg second the motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes- -117; Amendments put, and agreed to.

Noes—Nil; Abstentions—Nil.

Enche' Abdul Ghani bin Ishak Captain Haji Abdul Hamid Khan Enche' Abdul Karim bin Abu Tuan Haji Abdul Khalid bin Awang Osman Y .

T .
T .

M. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub Tuan Haji Abdul Rashid bin Haji Jais Enche' Abdul Rauf bin Abdul Rahman Tun Haji Abdul Razak bin D a t o' Hussain Enche' Abdul Razak bin Haji Hussin Y .

A .

M. Tunkn Abdullah ibni Alsnarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman Tuan Haji Abdullah bin Haji Mohd.

Salleh Enche' Abu Bakar bin Hamzah Enche' Ahmad bin Arshad Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid Che' Ajibah binti Abol Enche' Ali bin Haji Ahmad O.K.K.
Datu Aliuddlin bin Datu Harun Dr Awang bin Hassan Enche' Aziz bin Ishak Enche' Bahaman bin Samsudin Pengarah Banyang anak Janting Enche' Chan Chong Wen Enche' Chan Seong Y o on Enche' Chan Siang Sun Enche' Chen Wing Sum A Y ES Enche' Chia Chin Shin Enche' Francis Chia Nyuk Tong Enche' Chin F o on Enche' Edwin anak Tangkun Tuan Syed Esa bin Alwee Datin Fatimah binti Haji Abdul Majid Datin Fatimah binti Haji Hashim Enche' S. Fazul Rahman Datu Ganie Gilong Enche' Ganing bin Jangkat Enche' Geh Chong Keat Enche' Hamzah bin Alang Enche' Hanafi bin M o h d. Yunus Enche' Hanafiah bin Hussain Enche' Harun bin Abdullah Wan Hassan bin Wan Daud Enche' Stanley Ho Nyun Khiu Enche' Hussein bin T o' Muda Hassan Enche' Hussein bin M o h d. Nordin Enche' Hussein bin Sulaiman Tuan Haji Hussain Rahimi bin Haji Saman Enche' Ikhwan Zaini Enche' Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman D a t o' Dr Ismail Enche' Ismail bin Idris D a t o' Syed Ja'afar bin Hasan Albar Penghulu Jinggut anak Attan D a t o' Temenggong Jugah Enche' Kadam anak Kiai Enche' Kam W o on Wah Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh Datu K h oo Siak Chiew Enche' Lee San Choon Enche' Lee Seck Fun Enche' Lee Siok Yew Enche' Amadeus Mathew Leong D a t o' Ling Beng Siew Enche' Lira Pee Hung Dr Lim Swee Aun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad Enche' T. Mahima Singh Enche' Joseph David Manjaji D a t o' Dr Haji Megat Khas Enche' M o h d. Arif Salleh Tuan Haji Ghazali bin Haji Jawi Enche' Mohamed Idris bin Matsil Enche' Mohamed Khir Johari Enche' M o h d. Tahir bin Abdul Majid Enche' Mohamed Yusof bin Mahmud Enche' M o h d. Zahir bin Haji Ismail Wan Mokhtar bin Ahmad Tuan Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Ismail Tuan Haji Muhammad Su'aut bin Haji Muhd.
Tahir Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir D a t o' Haji Mustapha bin Haji Abdul Jabar Enche' Mustapha bin Ahmad D a t o' Nik Ahmad Kamil 1065 3 JUNE 1965 1066 Enche' Ng Fah Yam Dr Ng Kam Poh Tuan Haji Othman bin Abdullah Enche' Othman bin Abdullah Abang Othman bin Haji Moasili Enche' Quek Kai Dong Tuan Haji Rahmat bin Haji Daud Enche' Ramli bin Omar Tuan Haji Redza bin Haji Mohd.
Said Raja Rome bin Raja Ma'amor Pengiran Tahir Petra Enche' Tajudin bin Ali Enche' Tai Kuan Yang Dr Tan Chee Khoon Enche' Tan Cheng Bee Enche' Tan Siew Sin Enche' Tan Toh Hong Enche' Tan Tsak Yu Enche' Tiah Eng Bee Enche' Toh Theam Hock Enche' Yeoh Tat Beng Tuan Haji Zakaria bin Haji Mohd.
Taib Dato' V. T. Sambanthan Enche' Sandom anak Nyuak Dato' Sardon bin Haji Jubir Enche' Seah Teng Ngiab Enche' Senu bin Abdul Rahman Enche' Sim Boon Liang Enche' Snawi bin Ismail Enche' Sng Chin Joo Enche' Soh Ah Teck Datu Donald Aloysius Stephens Enche' Sulaiman bin Bnlon Enche' Suleiman bin Ali NOES Nil ABSTENTIONS Nil Bill accordingly read the third time and passed.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES (REMUNERATION) BILL Second Reading The Deputy Prime Minister (Tun Haji Abdul Razak): Tuan Speaker, saya menchadangkan supaya Rang Undang2 yang bernama Parliamentary Secreta ries (Remuneration) Act, 1965 di-bacha pada kali yang kedua.

kapada berdasarkan Tuan Speaker, Ahli2 Yang Ber- hormat sudah ma'alum ia-itu Perkara (Article) 43B dalam Perlembagaan ada ia-itu Parlimen hendak- menyatakan lah mengadakan undang2 mengenai gaji bagi Setia2-usaha Parlimen.
Ada- lah di-fikirkan ia-itu gaji Setia2-usaha Parlimen di-tetapkan ini patut-lah gaji dengan Menteri2 Muda dan gaji Setia2-usaha Politik.

Gaji Setia-usaha Parlimen sa-banyak sa- bagaimana yang di-chadangkan dalam Rang Undang2 ini ada-lah satu peran- taraan yang berpatutan di-antara gaji Menteri Muda dengan gaji Setia-usaha lebeh kurang Politik.

Bagitu juga keadaan mengenai sharat2 yang lain dalam undang2 elaun hitongan batu dan elaun sara hidup.
Dengan saya menchadangkan undang2 ini di-bacha pada kali yang kedua.

sa-bulan saperti $1,650 itu ini Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya menyokong.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon (Batu): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Alliance Government is, as always, interested in diverting taxpayers' money into the pockets of Alliance Ministers, Alliance Assistant Ministers, Alliance Political Secretaries, Alliance politicians, Alliance hangers- on, and now it is the turn to enrich the Alliance Parliamentary Secretaries.
Now it wants this House to approve the sum of $1,650 per month each for the Parliamentary Secretaries.

I ask this House and the people of Malaysia, is this fair, is this just?

When 60,000 lowly paid Government workers asked the Prime Minister for a rise of $20 per month from their present low pay of $70 to $90 per month, the Alliance Government said, "No, the Alliance is only prepared to give $10 a month— $20 is far too much."
If the Alliance Government refuses to give a rise of $20 to the poor worker with a wife and six or seven children, who have not enough to eat, not enough to wear and not enough to live on and to make both ends meet, what moral justice is there for a Parliamentary Secretary, who carries the bag and papers of the Minister, to be given $1,650 per month?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Alliance Government has forgotten the ra'ayat and the workers who put them in power.
The ra'ayat is lucky if he gets $30 to $40 per month from the land the Government has given to him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are not my figures.

The Honourable Member for Kota in his Star Selatan has stated constituency the people live on a sub to $40.

If human I remember the Honourable Member for Pontian Selatan also said that his constituents live at the same level of $30 rightly, that 1067 3 JUNE 1965 1068 is good level.

Now, I am but merely quoting the devil.


Mr Speaker, Sir, more than 75% of the Malaysian workers earn less than $130 per month.

Why then should the Parliamentary Secretary be given $1,650 per month, not to talk of the other perks that are to come later?

By paying the Ministers and Assistant Ministers high salaries, we have made them to live in luxury and they have forgotten the sufferings of the ra'ayat and the workers of Malaysia.
Why should we also make the Parliamentary Secretaries forget the poor of Malaysia?

It the Parliamentary Secretaries, who are elected people, to be unaware of is prevalent in this country and not know of the inconveniences of the poor, who have not enough money to meet all the needs of their families and children?

I say to the Alliance politicians, "Do not rob the people of Malaysia."

Let the people have a fair share of our national wealth.
The Alliance politi cians should wait until the Government has put more money into the pockets of the ra'ayat and the workers before the Alliance politicians can have more allowances for themselves.

the poverty that for Mr Speaker, Sir, in this country we all know that the honours degree man, or the man with professional qualifi cations—an engineer, an architect or a doctor—who enters the Civil Services needs to work for about 15 years before he goes to the top of the Timescale, and that is $1,254.
Now a politician with very little training and education to boot can be put safe constituency, can get elected and can be chosen as a Parliamentary Secretary, and he goes on these professional people who get $1,254 at the top of their Timescale.

top of in a the Mr Speaker, Sir, to get $1,650 the serving officers will have to be in the Superscale " F" i.e.

$1,490 per month; and there are only about—correct me if I am wrong—sixty to seventy such posts in the whole Civil Service.
What then, Mr Speaker, is the justification for paying the Parliamentary Secre taries this enormous sum of $1,650?

Now, these are not the other things.

He has got all the perks: he has got a housing allowance, if he does not stay in a Government quarters, of $150, which will push his salary up to $1,800.

Then of course, he has medical facilities, subsistence allowances and an allowance for the purchase of a motor car, mileage allowance and leave.
Mr Speaker, Sir, are all these perks and this high salary in consonance with the austerity drive that the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister himself has launched?

fool in they are Mr Speaker, Sir, I do hope that the Government will think seriously on the this, because you cannot workers whether the Government or in the industry.

You can fool them for some time, you can fool them for a little more time, but you cannot fool them all the time.
The workers will want to know, "How come this politician gets $1,650 and bumped up with a housing allowance to $1,800?

I have served for fifteen to twenty years.

I am not asking for $1,650.

The Government has offered me $10 more, and I am asking for is a vast yet another $10."

There difference, Mr Speaker, Sir, between the workers of this country asking for $20 more and what we are giving to the Parliamentary Secretaries—virtually $1,800.
To that extent, Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party and I wish to disassociate ourselves from this Bill.
satu peruntokan Enche' Abu Bakar bin Hamzah (Bachok): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ber- kenaan dengan Bill ini ia-itu hendak meluluskan atau bayaran gaji kapada Setia-usaha Par- limen, saya rasa memang-lah tiap2 satu jawatan itu mesti-lah di-tetapkan gaji- nya, kalau tidak bagaimana-lah orang itu hendak bekerja, tetapi yang menjadi masaalah-nya ia-lah bila kita mengada- kan tangga-gaji atau pun bayaran yang besar dan di-adakan pula beberapa kemudahan ini-lah yang berbangkit apa yang di-katakan oleh Ahli dari Batu itu.
Boleh jadi, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, negara kita sa-makin ma'amor dan sa-makin banyak per- olehan-nya.

ini Saya pernah mendengar daripada Yang Berhormat2 Menteri Perikatan berkata bahawa perolehan atau pen- dapatan bagi sa-saorang ra'ayat bagi 1069 3 JUNE 1965 1070 Yang kertas, ini di-pukul negara Malaysia rata tidak kurang daripada $300 sa-bulan.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, membuat per- hetongan saperti ini ada-lah membuat perhetongan tetapi di-atas tidak merasa kapada ra'ayat.
Mithal- nya, Berhormat Menteri Kewangan barangkali banyak wang, kemudian dia chari orang miskin 100 orang, jadi figure itu di-bahagi dan di- dapati ahli2 itu dapat wang banyak juga, pada hal wang itu tetap dalam pehak dia juga dan tidak di-beri kapada orang miskin ini sama-lah itu.
Hal dengan cherita sa-orang alim di-negeri Hadzramaut, dia sudah dapat sijil dan diploma yang tinggi, dia ada 10 ekor unta, dia kata 11 dengan aku, dan unta2 itu sama pandai dengan aku, kerana aku beri ilmu itu, yang 11 itu di-bahagi kapada unta itu juga.

Pada hal yang boleh merasa kealiman ia-lah orang alim Hadzramaut itu, yang unta itu, unta juga.
Jadi, ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalau-lah kita asaskan negara kita ma'amor sa-macham ini, maka tentu-lah berbangkit apa yang di-kata- kan oleh Ahli dari Batu tadi.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada satu perkara agak-nya saya sokong supaya gaji ini di-beri, walau pun tidak sa- banyak itu tetapi dekat2 itu patut-lah di-beri, kerana di-dalam Titah Uchapan Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong, mengatakan negara kita ini paling tinggi sa-kali di-dalam produc tion berkenaan dengan human ethnic ia-itu kita sudah dapat melahirkan manusia2 baharu dalam negara Malay sia ini sa-hingga hampir2 5 peratus banyak-nya.
Jadi, erti-nya patut-lah orang yang memerentah ini di-beri gaji, kerana dengan kebijaksanaan mereka itu dapat menjalankan negara ini sa- hingga kita dapat pujian dalam dunia ini ia-lah membuat anak yang lebeh banyak daripada negeri lain.

agak-nya, Ada pun satu perkara yang saya hendak sebutkan dan saya rasa Kera- jaan dan back-benchers sendiri pun bersetuju dalam Schedule (Section 2) 4, muka 2—Advan ces to Purchase Motor-cars.

Erti-nya, Setia-usaha Parlimen berpeluang men- dapat advance membeli motokar.
Jadi kita, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Ahli2 yang dudok dalam Dewan ini, membuat dan ia-itu juga Ahli2 Dewan meluluskan undang2 bagi Setia-usaha2 Parlimen ini mendapat advance beli motokar, saya rasa Kerajaan patut-lah timbangkan ini (Ketawa) boleh mendapat advance, jadi baharu-lah adil di-dalam chara itu.

Jika tidak bagaimana, Tuan Yang sa-mata2 membuat di-Pertua, kita undang2 yang hendak mendapat pehak Alliance advance sahaja.
Kalau ini di-beri barangkali parti2 lain pun dapat merasa dan saya perchaya Ahli dari Batu tidak mengachau perkara ini (Ketawa) sebab dia dapat advance.

Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Menteri dahulu telah berjanji dan pada hari ini janji-nya itu di-wakilkan, saya per chaya, kapada Yang Berhormat Timba- lan Perdana Menteri kita dan saya rasa beliau akan menerima dalam perkara ini.

Jadi, ini-lah yang saya menarek perhatian supaya perkara ini settle (Ketawa).
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed (Kota Star Selatan): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun menyokong Bill yang ada di-hadapan Dewan ini.

Saya ingin mem- peringatkan Ahli dari Batu ia-itu tidak berapa lama dahulu dia juga-lah yang membawa chadangan supaya gaji Yang Berhormat Perdana Menteri di-bayar dan sa-banyak Menteri2 lain juga di-naikkan gaji-nya.

Jadi, nampak-nya sekarang ini dia ber- changgah.

Kita tahu dalam Kerajaan kita, kita tidak suka mengadakan gaji yang besar2 bagi Menteri.
$8,000.00 sa-bulan ia-itu Tetapi kita kerja faham Menteri2 ini banyak dan supaya meri- ngankan kerja Menteri2, maka kita adakan Parliamentary Secretary yang menelan daripada menaikkan gaji bagi Menteri2.

Jadi, ini nampak-nya Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Batu sendiri telah lupa.

belanja kurang ini Lagi satu, saya ingin menarek per hatian Dewan ia-lah berkenaan dengan bilangan Menteri2 yang kita ada.
Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Batu selalu menyokong Indonesia, dan Indo nesia kita tahu Cabinet-nya ada 96 Menteri, kita di-sini selalu-lah berjimat berkenaan dengan belanja2, itu-lah sebab-nya kita ada satu Cabinet yang kechil yang mana Menteri2 terpaksa jawatan.

Dan memegang dua tiga 1071 3 JUNE 1965 1072 dengan chara ini kita mengurangkan belanja.

Jadi, ini menunjokkan bahawa kita selalu-lah menjaga dan berjimat chermat berkenaan dengan perbelanjaan bagi Cabinet dan Menteri2 kita.
gaji Berkenaan dengan kata-nya, gradu ate2 daripada University pun tidak boleh dapat gaji yang bagitu besar.

Saya ia-itu ingin memperingatkan untok menjadi Parliamentary Secretary, sa-orang itu mesti-lah terlebeh dahulu menang di-dalam pilehan raya.
Dan kita tidak ada larangan ia-itu graduate bagi mana2 University juga yang ingin supaya mendapat sa-banyak $1,650.00 ini, mereka itu sendiri ber- henti kerja daripada Kerajaan dan masok gelanggang politik dan bertan- ding dalam election, barangkali kalau mereka itu menang dan kalau-lah juga mereka itu dalam parti yang berkuasa, itu gaji yang sa- dapat-lah mereka banyak $1,650.00.
Sunggoh pun saya perchaya untok mendapat sijil2 dari pada University itu ia-lah satu perkara yang susah, untok memenangi elec juga satu perkara yang susah, tion chuma boleh di-menangi oleh sa-banyak 159 orang sahaja dalam satu negara yang ada 10 million.

Sa-balek-nya kita boleh dapat berpuloh2 ribu graduate kalau kita hendak, terima kaseh.
for Enche' Hanafiah bin Hussain: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask the Honour able Minister concerned some clarification on the interpretation of Clause 2 (1) (a) of this Bill with regard to the position of the monthly allow ance vis-a-vis the income tax position.

Here we have the remuneration of each $1,650 Parliamentary Secretary monthly including the allowance pay able to him as a Member of either House.
Does this mean that the $1,650 must consist of two sums—$750 which is exempt from income tax and the balance subject tax, or to whether the whole $1,650 allowed to the Parliamentary Secretary would be subject to income tax?
income at The second question I would like to ask the Honourable Minister concerned is, whether the Parliamentary Secretary therefore is a public servant and and governed by General Orders to Financial General Orders so as preclude him from participating actively in business and commerce?

Thank you.

to impression the wrong Enche' Chen Wing Sum (Damansara): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this proposed Bill.
Just now, the Honour able Member for Batu seemed to have this given House when he said that a Parliamen tary Secretary would be given $1,650.

In fact, he should know that every Member of this House is entitled to an to allowance of $750.

According Clause 2 (1) (a) of the Bill, $1,650 includes the $750 allowance; in short, he is only given $900 more to take up the post.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it may not be necessary for a University-qualified Member of Parliament to take up the post of Parliamentary Secretary, never theless it is necessary to have a highly- qualified Member or Members to take up such posts.

I am not worried of the amount of the salary but I am only worried that there may not be enough suitable applicants for such posts.
Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of points raised by the Honourable Member for Batu have been replied to by my Honourable for Kota Star friend, Selatan.

I think the Honourable Mem ber for Batu has got this matter a little bit wrong.
the Member This Bill is merely intended to make provision for the payment of remunera tion to Parliamentary Secretaries, and it is not our intention to appoint hun dreds of Parliamentary Secretaries— probably, we may appoint a few talks Parliamentary Secretaries.

He about the workers.

This, Sir, is another matter.

There are 60,000 workers and, if we were to pay $20 more to each, it will cost the Government no less than $15 million a year.
Also, as has been explained, to pay $1,650 a month to a Parliamentary Secretary is not very high, as he would already have received $750 allowance as an M.P.

So, it is just a little bit more to enable him to carry out his work as a Parliamentary Secretary.

Further, we cannot compare their salaries with those of professional men and the Civil Service.
In the Civil Service, a civil servant gets a pension 1073 3 JUNE 1965 1074 and other privileges, whereas a politi cian does not get any pension; and if he loses the election, then he will not have any more salary paid to him.

Therefore, it is clear, Sir, that the salary proposed for a Parliamentary Secretary is very, very modest indeed and, as one Honourable Member stated, the diffi culty will be to get candidates to fill posts carrying a salary of $1,650.
As I have said, Sir, the Alliance Govern ment has always the interests of the workers at heart, and we are prepared to do what we can to look after their welfare and to increase their wages within the limit of our resources.

As I said, there are 60,000 workers in the various branches of the Government service—in fact, there are probably more than that—and we are prepared to do what we can for them.
However, if we intend to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries, quite obviously we ought to pay them an adequate salary to enable them to carry out their duties, and I say again that $1,650 per month with no pension is not really very large.

One Honourable Member, I think, has asked whether the allowance of a Member of Parliament is exempted from income tax.
I am assured by my colleague, the Honourable Minister of Finance, that it will be exempted from income tax to the extent of $750 par liamentary allowance.

Berkenaan dengan chadangan Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada Bachok supaya pinjaman wang kerana membeli kereta itu di-lanjutkan kapada Ahli2 Parlimen, terpulang-lah kapada Committee of Privilege bagi menim- bangkan-nya.

itu Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment: read the third time and passed.
THE TIMBALAN YANG DI- (REMUNE PERTUAN AGONG RATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL Second Reading Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya pohon menchadangkan supaya the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Amendment) Bill, 1965, di-bacha bagi kali yang kedua.

(Remuneration) tentu Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ini satu Bill yang sangat pendek, tujuan-nya ia-lah untok menambah Peruntokan di-Raja bagi Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Ahli2 Yang Berhormat sedia ma'alum ia-itu sa-belum 1 haribulan Januari, 1964, Peruntokan di-Raja bagi Yang di-Pertuan Agong ia-lah $15,000.00 sa-bulan dan perbezaan di- antara Peruntokan di-Raja ini dengan Peruntokan di-Raja bagi Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong ia-lah hanya $500.00 sa-bulan.

Tetapi mulai 1 hari bulan Januari, 1964, Peruntokan di- Raja bagi Yang di-Pertuan Agong telah di-tambah menjadi $19,000.00 sa-bulan.
Oleh kerana itu pada masa ini perbe zaan di-antara Peruntokan di-Raja itu ia-lah $4,500.00 sa-bulan.

Oleh itu perlu-lah juga di-ingatkan ia-itu tugas2 dan tanggong-jawab Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong ada-lah sama.
Fasal 2 (i) dalam Undang2 ini menyebutkan ia-itu Per untokan di-Raja yang tersebut dalam Undang2 ini hendak-lah di-bayar masa Baginda menjalankan kerja2 dan meng- kuasa2 Yang gunakan di-Pertuan Agong sahaja dan tidak menerima Per untokan di-Raja sa-bagai Raja yang memerentah di-negeri Baginda sendiri.

Ada di-antara Duli2 Yang Maha Mulia Sultan yang menerima Per untokan daripada $14,500.00 sa-bulan.
Baharu2 ini Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Trengganu telah menjalankan kerja2 dan menunai- kan kewajipan Yang di-Pertuan Agong sa-lama satu bulan.

lebeh kurang Peruntokan di-Raja Baginda ia-lah di-Raja lebeh 1075 3 JUNE 1965 1076 $15,000.00 sa-bulan dan oleh itu di- chadangkan supaya Peruntokan Tim- itu balan Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendak-lah di-jadikan $18,000.00 sa- bulan.
Dalam Rang Undang2 ini ada juga sharat-nya ia-itu Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan yang menerima Per untokan di-Raja sa-bagai Sultan da lam negeri Baginda lebeh daripada $18,000.00 akan menerima Peruntokan di-Raja yang sama banyak-nya dengan Peruntokan di-Raja Baginda di-negeri Baginda.

Sekian-lah sahaja saya men- chadangkan Rang Undang2 ini di-bacha bagi kali yang kedua.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya menyokong.
Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I spoke in opposition to the Parliamentary Secretaries (Remune ration) Bill.

As I pointed out, the workers and the masses of the ra'ayat in this country are, to say the least, not getting, what is known as, a living wage.

The Alliance Government has, in all these years that it is in power, not yet defined what it means by a "living wage".
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are asked to increase the sum of $14,500 to bring it up to $18,000 for the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, without meaning any disrespect to the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, I submit is to be any there sacrifice, if there is to be any austerity drive, if there is to be any curtailment of social services and other things, it should be from the top—not from the bottom.
that, if I have already pointed out that— again and again I did bring this matter up to the attention of this House—the masses of the people, the workers of this country, are not getting enough and that we should look to their needs, first and foremost, and not the needs of a few Parliamentary Secretaries or those "higher-ups".

To that extent, Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party and I cannot support this little Bill that is now before the House.
Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Honourable Member for Batu brought up the same argument again.

the As I said, we in the Government are looking after the interest and welfare of the workers just as much as we are looking after interest of other people in this country.
However, we have a democratic Constitution, we are a monarchy and, obviously, if we have such a system, it is necessary for us to pay for our sovereign; and the Tim balan Yang di-Pertuan Agong does not exercise the functions of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong very, very often.

It is only once or twice in five years.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker; Sir, on a point of clarification—All the more reason that this Bill should not be before the House since it is appli cable only once or twice in five years.
Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Well, it is necessary, Sir, that our sovereign should to maintain his be adequately paid position and dignity—and this is only a very small amount.

It is only a matter of an extra $3,000 a month.

That is all.

So, it is a very small matter.

As I said, it is necessary for us to provide adequate emoluments for our sovereign and that is the only purpose of this Bill.
As we have lately increased the emoluments of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it is necessary to do the same for the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

looking after I repeat, again, that as regards the their workers, we are welfare, and we are ready to consider giving them increases in pay within the limit of our resources.
As I said, to compare the workers with the "higher- there are 60,000 Government ups", employees at least and it would mean a drain on the country's resources if we were to give a big in their pay, whereas there is only one Yang di-Pertuan Agong and one Tim balan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

increase Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.


1077 3 JUNE 1965 1078 (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment: read the third time and passed.

THE STATISTICS BILL, 1965 Second Reading Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mengemu- kakan Rang Undang2 Perangkaan, 1965, untok di-bachakan bagi kali yang kedua.

lengkap di-dalam Undang2 Perangkaan, 1949, hanya boleh di-jalankan di-dalam negeri2 da- lam Tanah Melayu sahaja.
Dan untok menyesuaikan dengan kehendak Per angkaan Kebangsaan, maka mustahak- lah di-pinda Undang2 Perangkaan 1949.

Undang2 tersebut tidak sesuai untok sekarang memandangkan kapada ke hendak2 perubahan perangkaan yang lebeh ranchangan merangkakan polisi2 kemajuan ekonomi juga polisi2 umum Kerajaan.
dan Jabatan Perangkaan medapati Undang2 itu sangat tersekat, terutama sa-kali dalam lapangan mengumpulkan data2 daripada orang2 professional dan juga data2 perolehan daripada badan2 per- niagaan yang ada dalam negeri ini.

Lebeh2 lagi dengan wujud-nya Malaysia dan perkembangan pekerjaan pada negeri2 yang di-Borneo, maka Jabatan ini mendapati Undang2 Perangkaan yang ada itu sangat tidak lengkap.

Rang Undang2 yang di-kemukakan ini di-rangkan untok mengatasi keku- rangan yang di-sebutkan di-atas.
Dan untok memberi Jabatan Perangkaan kuasa yang lebeh di-dalam perkara2 di-mana perangkaan sedang di-kumpul- kan.

Rang Undang2 ini di-rangkan sa-telah di-selideki dengan halus Un dang2 berhubong dengan perangkaan yang di-jalankan di-dalam beberapa dan negara Commonwealth buah negara2 lain yang maju.

Dalam mem- buat Rang Undang2 ini jagaan yang chukup telah di-buat untok menjaga dan melindongi orang ramai daripada tersalah guna kuasa2 oleh pegawai2 Jabatan Perangkaan.
Chontoh-nya da lam perkara mendapatkan perangkaan daripada badan2 perniagaan atau pun orang2 professional, kelulusan daripada Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong ada-lah di-kehendaki.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya pohon mengemu- kakan Rang Undang2 ini bagi bachaan kali yang kedua.

Tuan Haji Abdul Khalid bin Awang Osman: Saya sokong.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment: read the third time and passed.
THE OFFENCES RELATING TO VEHICLES (AMENDMENT) BILL Second Reading The Minister of Home Affairs (Dato' Dr Ismail): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that a Bill intituled "an Act to amend the Offences relating to Vehicles Ordinance, 1961, of Singapore" be now read a second time.

relating the Offences On account of the alarming incidents of theft of motor vehicles and bicycles in 1960, the Singapore Government enacted to Vehicles Ordinance, No.
3 of 1960, in order to deter and curb the commis sion of such offences.

This Ordinance the punishment prescribed enhanced by law, Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the Singapore Penal Code, in so far as they concerned offences relating to vehicles and vehicle parts, and at the same time made imprisonment a man datory punishment.

This law operated for a period of one year from 15th February, 1960 till 14th February, 1961.
For the benefit of this House, I deem it pertinent for me to mention 1079 3 JUNE 1965 1080 here the penalties provided by this law for the offences prescribed thereunder.
Offences Theft of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle part Theft of a bicycle or bicycle part Receiving or retaining stolen motor any vehicle or motor vehicle part, bicycle or bicycle part Penalties Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and not less than one year and shall also be liable to a fine Imprisonment for a term of not exceeding seven years and not less than three months shall also be and liable to a fine Imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than six months shall also be and liable to a fine Imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and not less than six months shall also be and liable to a fine Voluntarily assisting in concealing or dis- posing of any motor vehicle, motor vehicle part, bicycle or bicy- cle part This the District Courts to try the offences I have men tioned and to award the full punish ment for any such offence.
law also enables it 1961, but reintroduced The operation of this law lapsed on 15 th February, almost immediately afterwards the Singapore Government as Ordinance No.

19 of 1961 bearing the same title, except that its period of operation is much longer.

It is opera tive for four years commencing on 5th June, 1961 and will therefore lapse on this year.
The Singapore 5th June Government has now requested for an extension of the operation of this law for a further period of four years from the 5th of June, 1965, and the Police strongly support this request.

Judging from the number of reports made to the Police during the years 1961 to 1964, there is even justi fication for the introduction of a more deterrent law against these cases.

The therefore, strongly feels Government, that the extension the should be met.
The return of number of reports lodged during the four years, 1961 to 1964, shows the following— the return of request for Offence Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 Theft of motor vehicles or 1,279 1,340 1,343 1,457 motor vehicle parts Theft of bicycles or bicycle 2,412 2,860 2,886 3,209 parts Receiving or vehicle parts stolen vehicles 37 31 3 9 In view of what I have said, and in the interests of vehicle owners, I am sure that Honourable Members in this House will agree with me that the operation of the Offences this relating to Vehicles Ordinance, 1961, of Singapore should be extended.
law, administrative the Ordinance that the Bill be made As the Ordinance will lapse on the 4th of June, 1965, and as this Bill will not be passed by Parliament nor that date, it is published until after to necessary come into force retrospectively from the 5th of June, 1965; but in view of the the provision of Article 7 of Constitution, instruc tions have been issued to the effect that no prosecution will be instituted under in respect of offences committed between the 4th of June, 1965 and the date of the publica tion of the Bill in the Gazette.
At the appropriate time, I shall move an amendment, which has been circulated to Honourable Members, to Clause 1.

The slip providing for this amendment, as I have said, has been circulated to Honourable Members.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister of Transport (Dato' Haji Sardon bin Haji Jubir): Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

House immediately into a Committee on the Bill.


resolved itself Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair) Clause 1 Dato' Dr Ismail: I beg to move that the existing Clause 1 be substituted as in the slip circulated to Honourable Members attached to the Draft Bill, viz., "Short title, (1) This Act may be cited commerce- as the Offences relating to Vehi- ment and cles (Amendment) Act, 1965, and application.

1. shall be deemed to have come into force on the 5th day of June, 1965.
(2) This Act shall apply only to the State of Singapore.".

Amendment put, and agreed to.

1081 3 JUNE 1965 1082 Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendment: read the third time and passed.
THE TRUSTEE INVESTMENT BILL Second Reading Data' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that a Bill intituled "an Act to extend with amendments the opera tion of the Trustee Ordinance, 1949, to Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, to make further provision with respect to investment by trustees and persons having investment powers of trustees or statutory powers of invest ment, to validate certain investments made by trustees and to provide for matters connected therewith" be now read a second time.
the in force trust funds either The investment powers conferred on the Trustee Ordinance, trustees by 1949, of the State of Malaya and the corresponding in legislation other regions of Malaysia, permit the investment of in gilt-edged securities or in the making of loans secured by the charge of land.
Many of the classes of securities listed in section 4 of the 1949 Ordinance are no longer appropriate for an indepen dent country, and it is also desirable to throughout Malaysia in the classes of security in which trustees may invest.
introduce uniformity Since the end of the Second World War experience has shown that gilt- edged securities do not always ensure the preservation of the capital value of trust funds and it is now accepted generally that it is in the best interests of beneficiaries of the trustees should have powers to invest not only in gilt-edged securities but also in equities and unit trusts subject to suitable safeguards.
trusts that Clause 3 of the Bill will, therefore, permit trustees to invest in unit trusts trusts have been provided approved by His Majesty this the Government will purpose, and that the for ensure that certain minimum stand ards are maintained by approved unit trusts.

Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Clause 3 will permit trustees to invest in securi ties issued by companies provided the three main requirements are fulfilled, viz.
: (i) that the securities are quoted on the Stock Exchange of Malaysia; issued and paid-up is $5 million or total share capital more; (ii) the (iii) a dividend has been paid on all the company's shares in each of the preceding five years, certain stated categories excepted.

ensures Clause 4 of the Bill also provides that trustees must have due regard to the suitability of a particular invest ment for trust in question and must obtain professional advice in writing before making an investment.
I am satisfied that the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 provide adequate protection for the interests of beneficiaries.
The investment will be confined to quoted securities, which the companies in question comply with the listing requirements of the Stock Exchange of Malaysia; and no invest ment can be made in companies whose paid-up capital is less than $5 million established and do not have an dividend severe limitations having regard to the size of Malaysian companies, but I consider justified as no limitation is placed on the proportion of a trust which may be the practice in the United Kingdom.

record.
record.

These are in equities as invested that is The powers to invest in equities and unit trusts conferred by Clause 3 of the Bill will not be conferred on trustees constituted under any written law except to the extent approved by me.

This provision will limit primarily the powers of investment enjoyed by Boards of Statutory Authorities.
The Government will consider applications from Boards and other responsible bodies case by case, but in certain instances it may be, in the national interest, necessary the greater part of the trust funds continue to insist that 1083 3 JUNE 1965 1084 to be invested in the securities of, or guaranteed by, the Government.

Bill reported with amendment: read the third time and passed.
to securities and The amendments to section 4 of the 1949 Ordinance set out in the Schedule are designed to eliminate references to foreign substitute comparable Malaysian securities.

Pro vision is also made for the investment of trust funds in the making of loans to an approved company.

This is designed the flow of to encourage funds available to finance the construc tion of houses for owner occupation.
(2) of section 4 of The definition of "approved com pany" follows that contained in sub section the Employees Provident Fund Ordinance except that the paid-up capital required is $5 million or more to correspond with the amounts specified in Sub-clause (3) (a) of Clause 3. in order Sir, I beg to move.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to: Bill accordingly read a second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House immediately resolved into a Committee on the Bill.

itself Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3— Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that Clause 3 (3) be amended as in the circulated slip of paper, which reads: "In Clause 3 (3) delete the words 'either the total issued and paid-up share capital of the company is, or if converted into dollars from a currency other than dollars is five million dollars or more, or'."

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 as amended, ordered stand part of the Bill.

to Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY (1965) BILL Second Reading The Minister of Finance (Enche' Tan Siew Sin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that a "a Bill intituled an Act to apply sums out of the Consolidated Fund for additional expenditure for the service of the year 1965, and to appropriate such sums for certain pur poses" be read a second time.
for additional expenditure, an Clause 2 of the Bill seeks autho expenditure of rity $25,417,398 for the service of the year 1965 and this is shown in the Schedule to the Bill and also in the Supply Expenditure section of the Supple mentary Estimates of Expenditure, 1965, tabled as Command Paper No.

20 of 1965.

Of the sum required as addi tional amount of $5,938,426 has been advanced from the to meet urgent Contingencies Fund expenditure and this has now to be recouped.
As Honourable Members total sum of will observe, of $26,122,398 in this supple ment, a sum of $705,000 is required to meet the cost of financing "charged" expenditure services which are not included in the Supplementary Supply Bill.

Of this "charged" expenditure, an amount of $700,000 is required to be assigned to States in accordance with the Assignment of Export Duty (Mineral Ores) Act, 1964. included the The original Estimates of Expendi ture approved by Parliament for 1965 amounted to $1,598.9 million.
Taking both "charged" "supply" and expenditure in the present supplement for together, 1965 will come to $1,624.3 million.

total appropriation the the In the Supply section of this supple ment, the biggest item of expenditure is in respect of Head S. 32—Ministry of Health, under which a sum of $5.7 million is required to meet the cost of essential medical stores to be used in the treatment of casualties in the event of war.
Head S. 77—Tele communications, requires a supplement 1085 3 JUNE 1965 1086 in of $4.6 million to cover Personal Emoluments, other recurrent charges and Special Expenditure for operating the External Telecommunications Ser vice which was taken over from Cable and Wireless Limited, Singapore.

Head S. 25—Contributions to Statutory Funds requires a supplement of $3.4 million since the amount in the Co-operative Credit Trust Fund was found to be inadequate to meet the present commit ments of the Fund.
With this supple ment, the Fund's limit will be raised from $13.2 million to $16.6 million.

Head S. 24—Treasury General Services requires a supplement of $2.8 million of which a sum of $1.5 million is required for rentals in respect of State quarters occupied by officers serving in Federal Departments the Borneo States and in Singapore, and a further sum of $1.1 million is required to meet an ex-gratia assignment of a proportion of export duty on mineral ores to certain States.
Head S. 63—Civil Defence requires $2.5 million for the purpose of purchasing vehicles and appliances for the Auxiliary Fire Ser vices.
Head S. 21—Ministry of External Affairs requires a supplement of $2.4 million to meet expenditure mainly connected with the establishment of a Malaysian Mission in Nigeria and in Ethiopia and Algeria, Embassies and the United Nations as a result of the forma tion of Malaysia, the State visit of Their Majesties to the Middle East, as well as the goodwill mission to East African States led by the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister.
Head S. 33— Ministry of Home Affairs requires a supplement of $0.8 million to meet the Vigilante Corps expenditure for and tenant for registration the Emergency (Tenants Registration) Regulations, 1964. introduction of contribution increased under the to Honourable Members will also observe that, in this supplement, new sub-heads for entertainment expenses have been created under the Heads of Expenditure of the Ministries con cerned.
The total provision required for to these new sub-heads amount about $50,000.

This sum will enable to Ministries and their Departments their obligations meet in providing official entertainment for visitors and official guests attending official meet ings, conferences or official functions and in providing official hospitality to visiting foreign dignitaries or in return ing official hospitality which may have been received by the officers concerned.
Hitherto, such expenditure was met from the Government Hospitality Fund but experience indicated that unneces sary administrative work is involved when requests for releases of funds from the Government Hospitality Fund are made the Prime Minister's Department.

With the creation of these entertainment votes in the respective Ministries, an amount equivalent to the total appropriations these new sub-heads will be frozen in the Govern ment Hospitality Fund.
for to The other items of expenditure are relatively small in amount and these are described in the Treasury Memo randum tabled as Command Paper No.

21 of 1965.

The Ministers con explanations cerned will give any required during the Committee stage.

Sir, I beg to move.

Dato' Haji Sardon bin Haji Jubir: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the national Budget is one of the most important instruments of Govern ment in a parliamentary democracy.
It is the duty of a responsible Govern ment to prepare careful estimates of income and expenditure before present to Parliament; and ing is approved by once Parliament, it should not be necessary for Government to come back to Parlia ment for more funds unless an unfore seen and urgent need has arisen.

the Budget the Budget Mr Speaker, Sir, the Alliance Govern ment in 1963 submitted to Parliament a Budget of $l,087-plus million which was approved.
Before the year 1963 ended, the Government had overspent the money approved by Parliament by 31% and sought Parliament's approval for this by submitting five different Supplementary Supply Bills to a total value of $336 million-plus.

In 1964 the Alliance Government submitted to Parliament a Budget of $l,469-plus 1087 3 JUNE 1965 1088 million which was approved.
But before the Government the year was over had overspent by 23% and appropriated this money by presenting to Parliament three different Supplementary Budgets to the total value of $341-plus million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for 1965, last year, the Alliance Government presented to Parliament a Budget of $l,598-plus million, which was approved.
In a little over four months' time, the Govern ment has already overspent this alloca tion and is coming to Parliament today with a Supplementary Supply Bill for $26-plus million.

Some of this money has already been spent by appropria the form of virements, or tions advanced from the Contingencies Fund; and for the balance the Government now seeks the approval of Parliament.

This, I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the a rather unusual departure from accepted practice of the Government.
The Government in the past had always spent first and then come to Parliament.

I am glad to say that it has now come for to Parliament expenses incurred.

A careful study of the items of the proposed expenditure in this 1965 Supplementary Supply Bill will show that a good many of these expenditures are not due to urgent circum stances.
to seek approval and unforeseen to be in Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the attention of this House to the advice the Honourable Minister of Finance himself gave to the nation in his Budget Speech on the 25th November, 1964.

The Honourable Minister said that if we in Malaysia are prepared to work hard and practice thrift, then Malaysia can make the same outstanding progress that West Germany and Japan had made since World War II.

It is there fore, surprising why the Government its own advice.
has not Instead the thrift, practising Government is coming to Parliament today to seek approval for "prestige items"—for example, new furnishings for houses of Ministers and Assistant Ministers; permission to change cutlery, in official crockery and glasswares residences air- and conditioning of offices and an expensive car for our Minister, who is not here followed of in embassies; in keeping with this evening; entertainment allowances for Ministers and officials; and a large sum for buying medals for people whose chests are already covered with medals—full of them!
All of these are a wanton waste of public funds.

In these times of financial stringency, it is not the austerity drive that has been launched by none other the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister.

If this is the way how the Government practises thrift during the period of Indonesian confrontation, then I should say that our Government is no better than the Government of Soekarno which in prestige projects.
believes than also The Alliance Government has no moral right to ask the workers and the people of Malaysia to tighten their belts and continue to live in poverty, the Alliance while day by day Government and its Ministers are showing the nation and the world that money has been spent on prestige items—for example, as I have men tioned before, cutlery with the Federa them the Ministers tion crest—and selves wallow the luxuries in taxpayers' expense.
at Sir, it has been the habit of the Honourable Minister of Finance to say with monotonous regularity, whenever he presents a Supplementary Budget, that it is to the credit of the Govern ment—by this he means the Treasury, of which he is the Head—that such Supplementary Budgets are necessary.
He is also in the habit of saying that because the Government budgets are so carefully prepared and everything is cut so fine that there is the necessity for the Government to come to this House for extra sums required.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this thesis once and for all.

The Honour able Minister of Finance, who now has the added authority and prestige of a Doctor of Laws cannot, and must not, be allowed to pontificate in this in this House unchallenged.
manner It may be that what he says may well be valid, but the converse may well be true.

The Budget might have been badly prepared and those responsible might not have seen beyond their nose for the needs of the country for the let me demolish 1089 3 JUNE 1965 1090 next year, and hence the need of coming to this House for extra sums of money—not once but several times in the course of the year.

Is that good budgeting, I ask, Mr Speaker, Sir?


I say that every Supplementary Budget may well be a sign of incompetence on the part of the Government and the Treasury.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Supplementary Supply Bill may well be an attempt to deceive the people and the world.

As everyone knows, every Finance Minister who presents a Budget wishes to show as little a deficit as possible, and this is what the present Minister of Finance has sought to do.
However, as I pointed out before, in 1963 the Supplementary Supply Bills amounted to 31 per cent of the Budget; in 1964 it amounted to 23 per cent; and now this year it is already 1.7 per cent in excess of the budgeted sums.

If these deficits were shown at the time of presenting the Budget to this House, they may well give a far different the financial stability of picture of which the Honourable Minister of Finance is so proud of.
Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have stated in the foregoing does not mean that the Socialist Front is not in favour of Supplementary Supply Bills.

What we maintain is that the Government should only come to this House for money, when the necessity is urgent and unfore seen.

Let us take one example.

A total sum of $27,500 is requested for furni ture and furnishings of ministerial resi dences.
Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, such an item could be foreseen last year, when the Budget was being presented to the ministerial furniture and furnishings become un- useable overnight, Mr Speaker, Sir?

The House is entitled, and will be glad, for a clarification from the Honourable Minister of Finance.

this House.

Has Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote Article the It 103 (1) of the Constitution on matter of Contingencies Fund.
states: "Parliament may by law provide for the creation of a Contingencies Fund and for authorising the Minister charged with respon sibility for finance, if satisfied that there has arisen an urgent and unforeseen need for expenditure for which no other provision exists, to make advances from the Contin gencies Fund to meet that need."
Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have counted twenty-one items in the Supplementary to $5 Supply Bill which amounted million-plus which have been appro priated from the Contingencies Fund.

Can the Honourable Minister of Fi nance honestly say that all these twenty- one items mentioned are really urgent and unforeseen?

Let me take but one example.

I refer to Head S. 21, Sub head 21, regarding request of $361,600 from the Contingencies Fund the opening of embassies and for in Africa.
At missions the Budget Session I had drawn attention of this House to this omission of a pro vision for funds for the opening of missions in Africa.

That was a sin of omission and hence the request of $361,600 from the Contingencies Fund.

the Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has already provided many perks— like free houses, free cars, free servants, free petrol, free postage, free telephones, free railway passes and many other privileges—for Ministers in addition to their high pay and allowances.
Today this House is asked to vote for each Ministry various sums of money as entertainment expenses.

Day by day the Ministers are grabbing for them selves more and more money of the taxpayers, in order that they and their families and their children may live in luxury.

All these eight years that the Alliance Government has been in power, each Minister has had to depend on the Prime Minister's Department to meet expenses of all official entertain ment he has been called upon to do.
The Prime Minister has been voted $150,000 under Head S. 7 in the 1965 Budget for all Government hospitality.

We have just heard the Minister of Finance say why for administrative purposes there is a departure from this practice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have counted 17 Ministries that are now involved in this question of entertainment expenses which, the Minister of Finance himself am has stated—correct me if I 1091 3 JUNE 1965 1092 is the wrong—amounts to about $50,000— for entertainment, Mr Speaker, Sir.
This House should now know more about the entertainment our Ministers are expected to perform with the tax payers' money.

What is the limit that they can spend on a dinner for a limit foreign visitor?

What allowed for alcoholic drinks?

Can the money be used to hire dance hostesses to entertain the visitors?

Can this vote be used, or has it ever been used, for massage parlour expenses for Ministers and Assistant Ministers?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only asking for a clarifica tion—I am not making any insinua the Prime Minister tions—not does not supervise the way in which each Minister has spent his entertain ment allowance, but this House should lay down regulations on who should or should not be entertained with this money.

that to and democracy Mr Speaker, Sir, I am alarmed to know that under Clause (b) of each item of entertainment expense the civil servants can be entertained and can entertain.
This House knows fully well that civil servants are forbidden by their regulations to receive any form of entertainment.

The civil servant is execute Government employed policy and enforce the Ordinances.

He should not be wasting his time drink ing coffee at the taxpayers' expense and entertain the foreign visitors Ministers' political friends.
In a parlia mentary entertainment should be the job of the Ministers, Assistant Ministers, Political Secre taries and Parliamentary Secretaries where foreign visitors are concerned.

Will the Government explain why have civil servants been now called to do the job of political executives.

Has it been the practice all these years for civil servants to participate in dinners and dances paid for from the taxpayers' money?
Mr Speaker, Sir, this House should forbid the civil servants from using the money from to provide light refreshments either for other civil servants, or for members of the public, or for foreign visitors.

If we allow the civil service will suffer.

A civil servant who gives a contractor a cup of coffee this, the efficiency of this vote in his office most certainly will be invited to a sumptuous dinner which he to refuse.
If he will find it difficult attends the contractor's dinner, the civil servant will open himself to showing favour in other ways to the contractor.

This will eventually lead to a corrupt Civil Service.

This has caused the standard of the Civil Service to drop.

The Mentri Besar of Johore quite recently publicly civil servants for wasting far too much time drinking coffee during working hours.
Minum kopi often results in coffee money changing hands, Mr Speaker, Sir, and officers, however high in the temptation, Ministry, are not above if Ministers do not conduct themselves properly.

chided his to their because threatening situation has A new ranking high developed, civil servants have left the service of Government take up posts as directors and managers of local and firms.
These ex-Government foreign servants intimate are using their knowledge of Government and contact with the civil servants to obtain favours for their business firms and industrial concerns.

Members of the Malayan Civil Service are the officers mostly exposed to this form of tempta tion.

This House should not make matters worse by giving funds to these civil servants to indulge in entertain ment.

I should like to warn this House that should the Government Architects form and Engineers ring with the M.C.S.
officers contractors, or should form a ring with their ex- colleagues who have joined the private the money large part of sector, a which we in Parliament vote for pro jects to better the standard of living of the people of this country will find its way into the packets of politicians can and private depend on the M.C.A.

to organise this very efficiently.

individuals.


You a in Mr Speaker, Sir, in every Supple in mentary Supply Bill presented Parliament the Alliance 1964, Ministers put in an estimate for new furniture and soft furnishings for their thought a houses.

One would have total of $55,000 spent last year to give 1093 3 JUNE 1965 1094 them, their wives, and children such amenities was adequate.

No, Sir!
No, Sir!

The First Supplementary Supply Bill for 1965 now under discussion lists 11 items to the sum of $17,500 as being asked for furniture and furnishings for the Ministers of Labour, Lands and Mines, Welfare Services, Sabah Affairs and Civil Defence and the Assistant Minister of Education.

The Minister of Labour and Minister of Welfare Services have been supplied with good furniture when they assumed office, they being new to their offices, a short time ago.
They now want to change their furniture and furnishings; they want to change good furniture so soon after it has been issued to them.

These Ministers do surely know that there is a confrontation on and that all the money that the nation can find should go for defence.

Yet, these Ministers do not want to sacrifice their comfort or their prestige to provide furniture savings for the defence of this country.
If Ministers are not prepared to sacrifice their comforts for the country, what moral right have Ministers or the Government to ask the people to make sacrifices?

The Ministers of Labour, who recently attacked the workers of this country for fighting for a few dollars' rise in wages, is making sure that he gets his new furniture and furnishings by asking for those items under two headings.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of Labour grudges the workers, who are now drawing poverty wages and are living at sub-human levels; some of them earn only $65 a month in the rubber estates, oil palm estates, tea estates, commercial sectors and the domestic services.

These estates and others apply pressure to see that the wages of the workers are depressed.
But the Minister is content to let these workers, their wives and their children wallow in poverty, dirt and filth in the slums of Malaysia, while he has the audacity to come to this House to ask for furniture and furnishings.

However, the Minister of Labour is not content to see that his family and friends also sit on perfectly good furniture, which are a little old.

It is difficult to under stand how such heartless men can exist in the Alliance Party.
They do the national in sharing not believe cake with the people of the country, but they want to eat the biggest slice of the cake even before the cake can be divided amongst the people.

This is what the M.C.A., M.I.C.

and the UMNO have been doing since the time they have assumed office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one would have the Minister of Home that thought this above all Affairs would be pettiness of prestige and furniture furnishings—it is a pity, Sir, that he is not here this evening.
No, Sir, he too left must rush, in order not to be behind by his colleagues.

The Minister has consistently spoken in this House and outside as if he were a great patriot, who was doing a great duty to the nation in locking up in our prisons all citizens who are unpatriotic.

These detainees, who have lost their freedom purely on the opinion and the judgment of the Minister of Home Affairs, have had to spend days in the lock-up sleeping on wooden boards instead of beds.
There are no soft furnishings in the Police lock-ups, not even threadbare and worn out furnish ings.

Now, a Minister, who can condemn the people of this country to such an austere living, should be the last person luxurious and super-luxurious furniture and furnish ings for himself and his family.

Why the cannot our Minister austerity practised by the great Asian like Mahatma Gandhi.

A leaders, decade of Alliance left untouched the misery and poverty of the peasant farmers and workers in this country.
rule has think of to want Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever I bring up the subject of ministerial furnish ings and furniture, the Ministers all get hot under the collar and, not having anything to defend, one Minis ter has resorted to hitting below the belt.

The Minister has stripped me completely naked in this House.

Mem bers of this House will have noticed, I hope, that to all the questions that he has asked of me, I have answered without the batting of an eyelid and straightaway.
1095 3 JUNE 1965 1096 to task on to reel off the Ministers Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never been personal in my attacks on the Govern ment, or anyone in this House, and I still do not intend to.

But I must warn the Alliance Ministers that I can take care of myself either under Queens- rules or under Siamese style berry boxing, or even under all-in wrestling.
Supposing, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to ask some of the Alliance Ministers, or some of the back-benchers, to list their assets in terms of houses, estates, shares, etc., it would take a long time for some of them their assets.

Let me make it clear to the Ministers that I have every right to the take question of the spending of public funds.

What I want to make it clear is that what I do with my private funds is no concern of the Ministers or anyone in this House.
I do hope that the Ministers understand this.

If, Mr Speaker, Sir, I choose, despite the fact that I am being described as a God-fearing Methodist, to keep a harem, concubine, or to wine, dance and go whoring, that is my business, because I am spending not the tax payers' money, but my own money.
So Mr Speaker, Sir, I do hope that when the Ministers answer my attack of wallowing in luxury with taxpayers' money they will please not ask me personal questions, because those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

(Laughter) I have been stripped naked in this House.

I have nothing to hide from anyone in this House.


Mr Speaker, Sir, the Alliance Government, which has kept on shout ing from the house-top that it has no money to fight Indonesian confronta tion and has repeatedly called on the people of the country to tighten their belts, to eat less, now has the audacity to come to this House with a big bill for the purchase of fancy crockery and cutlery.

The Government asks for $464,000-plus for renewing cutlery at the Parliament House.
Now, Sir, on Saturday night, I had the good fortune to attend the Convocation dinner and last Monday night, I had also the good fortune the buffet dinner given by the Honourable Prime I did not see any Minister.

But to participate in crockery that was out of shape, that was broken, that had rusted.

Why then the necessity to change the cutlery in Parliament House, if it is not but a purely prestige project?
for for cutlery important than food in changing Mr Speaker, Sir, this House is also asked to approve $161,000 for renewing Istana Tetamu and the cutlery at $412,000-plus the Malaysian Embassies.

Sir, the Alliance Government, perfectly good cutlery, crockery and glasswares at this time of national crisis—and, as the Minister of Finance himself has described, in these times of financial stringency—to the tune of more than $1,000,000, to me, is not only a wanton waste but a criminal waste of public funds.
Is prestige cutlery with crest more for our people, clothes for our children, guns for our soldiers, ships for our army, fighter planes for our Air Force, air raid shelters for our people, cigarettes and hot drinks for our Vigilante Corps which patrol nightly?

Is somebody making money out of this huge order, which amounts to more than a million dollars?

Is this cutlery being made in Kelantan, or is it from some foreign country?
What is going to happen to the perfectly good cutlery that is now in the official buildings?

I must tell the Alliance Ministers and the other to get on with the job of officials improving living of the standard of our people and not waste the funds of this Government on prestige projects.

Do not rob the people of this country; let the people have the first share of the national wealth.
The Alliance the should wait politicians Government has put more money into the pockets of the workers before the Alliance politicians can be paid more allowances, more pay, or even before the politicians can be given more furniture and furnish ings in the new homes.

Do not cheat the people of this country.

The people of this country cannot be fooled all the time.

the ra'ayat and until It is alarming to note that in item 65, page 23, of Command Paper No.
21 of 1965, the Alliance Government admits that it is only now working out plans and costs of air-raid defence for 1097 3 JUNE 1965 1098 and cities towns our in Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.

It is a pity that the Minister for Civil Defence is not here this evening.

Is I have mentioned.

the second year of Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now enter ing Indonesian confrontation.
The Government admits that it has not done much to defend the people against air attacks by Indonesian planes in the three States that it not criminal negligence of the first order of the Government to have neglected to provide air raid defences?

Even today this House is only being asked to make a token vote of $10 for air raid sirens in Singapore.

Will this $10 save the thousands of lives in Singa pore should there be an air raid on Singapore?
Mr Speaker, Sir, should the their Indonesian planes unload bombs in Sabah, Sarawak and Singa pore, what is going to happen?

Is the Minister for Civil Defence going to wait for to happen, before he comes to this House to ask for money for civil defence?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the repeatedly Indonesia has fact announced that it is in a state of war with Malaysia should not have been ignored by the Alliance Government.
that this to the Government for to propose an amendment Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that under the Standing Orders I do not have the right to expenses listed in the Supplementary Supply Bill now before this House, but may I be permitted to make this proposal its serious consideration?

May I seriously propose to the Government that the item "Furniture and Fittings of Minis ters" to the tune of $27,500, and the item "Purchase of Cutlery, etc."
to the tune of $1 million-plus, making a total of $1,066,212, should be erased and that the money saved should be spent in Sabah, Sarawak on civil defence and Singapore.

I am sure that the people of Sabah, Sarawak and Singa pore will be grateful to this Govern ment, if my suggestion is accepted by the Government.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I shall speak in more detail on the Supplementary Supply Bill in the Committee Stage, I shall end by assuring the Alliance Government that I shall always be a careful watchdog of public expenditure so that every cent of the taxpayers' money will not be wasted.

Thank you.

Mr Speaker: The sitting is suspended for 10 minutes.

Sitting suspended at 8.03 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 8.25 p.m. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Debate resumed.
this Bill and I wish Enche' Jek Yeun Thong (Singapore): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak a few words on to confine my views to Head S. 49 in the Schedule—Ministry of Labour—regard ing the banning of strikes and indus trial actions.

Since many misleading statements have been made against the and Singapore since I was not given an opportunity to speak in the debate on the King's Speech, I, therefore, wish to take this opportunity the matters.
The Alliance Government had dealt a severe blow to the trade union movement in this country to clarify some of arbitration system, .

.

.. Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order under Standing Order 67 (3).

I do not wish it to be interpreted that I want to stop the Honourable Member from speaking, but S. O.
67 (3) clearly says that, "After the motion for the second reading of the Bill has been proposed and seconded the debate thereon may proceed forthwith but shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration as indicated by the supplementary appropria tions included in the Bill and estimates."

If the Honourable Member will have a look at Command Papers Nos.
20 and 21—the Treasury Memorandum— it will be shown clearly that the Minis try of Labour is concerned with only a sum of $1,000 which has nothing to do with the trade union movement at all.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid the Honour able Member will have to take note of that in his speech.
Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, my point is that the Supplementary Supply Bill here provides for $1,000 1099 3 JUNE 1965 1100 for the Ministry of Labour, and I think that the Ministry of Labour has made a mess of the labour situation.

So, I the Ministry does not deserve this money, and I must give my reasons I continue, Sir?

in my speech.

May think Mr Speaker: Yes, provided you do not exceed the limit.
is the Central Government Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: I wish to clarify some of the points made earlier, in that banning strikes is doing nothing more than the Singapore Government.

There fore, I must take this opportunity to say that there is in fact a vast difference between the law promulgated .

.

.. Enche Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not like to interrupt unnecessarily, but I would the to draw like Honourable Member to page 21 of Command Paper No.
21 of 1965, and any observation made should be confined to item 59 of that Command Paper.

the attention of Mr Speaker: Will you observe the remarks made by the Minister?

Enche' Jek Yeiin Thong: Sir, I just have some comments to make on the way the Government is promulgating the two regulations.

to do with Enche Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: This has nothing the regulations whatsoever.

I am asking for $1,000 for entertainment expenses, which has nothing to do with trade unions and the Emergency regulations.
We must follow the debating rules— the Standing Orders.

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: But surely the Minister is asking for money for his Ministry.

It is all right provided his Ministry is doing good work.

I object to giving this money and my reason is that the Ministry is not doing good work in advising the Government to promulgate the two regulations.
Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, Standing Order 67 lays down that debate shall be confined to the "general principles of Govern ment policy and administration as indicated by the supplementary appro priations".

We are not debating these things during the Budget session— during the Budget session he can speak at any length he likes.
But now he must confine himself to what is stated in the Treasury Memorandum; other wise, the whole House will be debating the general policies of Government without confining to the money asked for.

Mr Speaker: Will the Honourable Member observe those remarks made by the Minister and confine his speech to the Treasury Memorandum?

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Well I have made it very clear that I am not speaking on any other thing, but that I am speaking only on two regulations.
I want to draw the atten tion of the House to the fact that there are misleading statements made and I wish to take this opportunity to clarify them.

these Mr Speaker: What are the misleading statements?

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: I have said just now, Sir, the Minister of that Finance during the debate on King's Speech, has said that the system used in the Federation is nothing more than the system used in Singapore, and I wish to take this opportunity .

.
.

.. Mr Speaker: But we are now debating on another matter!

is asked Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

This two House to approve of sums of appropriation, under two the Supplementary items in listed the Ministry of for Supply Bill, Labour—one sum furniture for his and furnishings and another sum of $1,000 for entertainment—and I would ask your ruling on this, Mr Speaker, Sir.
If I am not satisfied in the way that the Minister of Labour has conducted himself, then, surely, I can give my reasons as to why I am not satisfied and I can ask for these two items to be deleted or, to show my disapproval, I can ask for a reduction from $1,000 to $500 in respect of entertainment and also for a reduction in respect of furniture and furnish ings—surely, I can ask for a reduction 1101 3 JUNE 1965 1102 these sums appropriated of the Minister of Labour.
I shall, therefore, be grateful for your ruling on this matter.

to Proscribed Industrial Action) Regula tions, 1965 and the Essential (Arbitra tion in the Essential Services) Regula tions, 1965 .

.

.. Mr Speaker: Yes, you can, but the Honourable Member who is speaking has .

.

.. Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I am not satisfied with the way in which the Minister of Labour is dealing with labour problems, and I feel that he should not get $1,000 for his Ministry.

I must give my reasons here.


there I may clarify Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Mr Speaker, Sir, probably, the procedure which is normally followed in an exercise of this kind.

As my Honourable friend and colleague, the acting Minister of Labour, has pointed out, is clearly a difference between a general Budget debate and a Supplementary Supply Bill debate.
That is why we allow three days for the debate on the second reading in the case of the annual Budget but only one day for the debate on the second reading in the case of a Supplementary Supply Bill.

So, unless the general debate is confined to the items of ex penditure listed in this Bill here, there is clearly a danger that it might become a second Budget debate, and I think that difference should be clearly under stood.
for Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Well, I have already given my reason for delivering this speech, and it is up to you, Sir, to give a ruling.

If the Government is not prepared to answer my speech, I am not going to proceed.

In this Bill to approve a we have been asked certain the Ministry of sum Labour; and if the Ministry is not doing good work, then why should we give the money to it?
My speech, in this the main, will be confined point that the Ministry of Labour, in promulgating the two Regulations, is doing harm the country.

So, I would urge the Government to take this opportunity to rectify their action by withdrawing the Regulations and to substitute them with a more advanced Labour Ordinance.

to to Sir, these two Regulations, i.e.

the Essential (Prohibition of Strikes and is why expression Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.
What is your ruling with respect to the interpretation of Standing Order 67 (3) compared with Standing Order 66 (11) which deals with the ordinary Supply Bill?

I submit that Honourable Members are only entitled to speak in respect of the items expressly specified in the Command Paper in question.

That "as the indicated by the supplementary appro the Bill and included priations estimates" is used that Standing Order.

If one compares S.O.

67 (3) with S.O.


66 (11), it becomes clear that during the Supplementary Supply to confine one's Bill, one has got observations, comments, etc., to the items mentioned the Command Paper in question.

Now, the Command Paper concerned makes no mention of the two Emergency Regulations regard ing trade unions and strikes.
I would like to have your ruling on this, Mr Speaker, Sir, in in in Mr Speaker: My opinion on this is that the debate should be confined to the items included in the Command Paper.

the Honourable Member If would do that, he may continue with his speech!

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Well, I have already said that I shall confine my remarks to Head S. 49, item 59, Ministry of Labour— $1,000.

I do not know what this sum is required for, but I think it must be for the enter tainment allowances to the Minister.

.
.

.

..

So, I would say Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Sir, on page 21 of Command Paper No.

21 of 1965, it is stated: "A sum of $1,000 is required for entertain ment expenses to meet the occasions when the Ministry and the Departments within it are obliged to provide official entertainment for the following purposes .

.

.

."

Mr Speaker: Yes, that is quite clear!


Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, these two Regulations to ban strikes in the public services and certain essential 1103 3 JUNE 1965 1104 in services sector cut the private across the fundamental rights of the workers .

.

.. Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, if it will satisfy the Honourable Member, I am prepared to debate against him at any time in connection with these two Emergency Regulations, other than this, with due notice.
Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: In that case, I must presume that the acting Minister of Labour is not prepared to answer these criticisms; or if he is afraid to answer all these criticisms, then I will really give up.

It is not, in fact, necessary to make this speech in this Parliament, as I will have ample opportunity to deliver this outside the House.

However, what I want is to have an opportunity in this House to tell the Government that it has done something wrong.
I would, therefore, urge the Government to take rectifying action before it is too late—I think, as a Member of this House, I have the right to do so.

in the that Mr Speaker: I must point out to the Honourable Member this House, including myself, we are bound by the rules of debate.

You cannot go outside the Standing Orders, which you have been doing the Honourable Minister has been trying to point out to you.

If you can continue without going outside the rules of debate, you may proceed.
rules allowed by and which Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, what I want to point out is the Essential in Regulations.

I am not interested the Government furniture which the Minister has asked I am not interested in the entertainment allow ance.

What I want to say is that he should not be given this money because he has done something wrong.

If the acting Minister of Labour is not things, I prepared think I would give up.
to answer these for; Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am prepared to answer anything.

What I ask is, let us abide by the Standing Orders.

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Then, why not let me carry on?

Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: We have got to abide by the Standing Orders, otherwise we might as well do away with the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker: Apart from the fact that you have to abide by my ruling, the Standing Orders are there.
You have been the Standing Orders, because your written speech probably contains those words and you cannot deviate from it.

to go outside trying Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: I have no written speech, Sir.

These are all my notes which I scribbled during the past few days.

Mr Speaker: Do you like to carry on and observe the rules?

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Well, what I want to say is about the Essential Regulations and nothing else.

If you do not allow me to do that, Sir, I have no alternative but to stop.
Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest let us hear the Honour able Member.

in the the Alliance this opportunity loud protests from trade union movement Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: I am very grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me to continue my speech.

So, naturally, I think in this country is very worried and we the have heard M.T.U.C.

But what can they do?

They have supported the past and the Alliance has now let them down.
I think even the I.C.F.T.U., the International Trade Union Organisa tion of the Free World, has expressed concern about this drastic action taken against the workers in this country.

The Asian Regional President of the I.C.F.T.U., Mr H. Wara has recently come to Kuala Lumpur specially to ask the Government to reconsider the matter with a view to withdrawing these severe Regulations.

He is not a Communist.

He is neither a supporter of Soekarno.

He is our friend in the free world.

The I.C.F.T.U.
The I.C.F.T.U.

wants us to succeed.

Of course, the Communists and Soekarno's supporters are very happy about this situation, because the the more you suppress the workers 1105 3 JUNE 1965 1106 the workers will more turn against you; and this hatred and bitterness the Government will gather against momentum until it reaches a stage when the workers lose confidence in the Government and the country will not be defensible against the attacks the Communists Soekarno's supporters.
and living I feel that the industrial situation in this country is not so chaotic as to justify the use of emergency powers to ban strikes and other forms of indus trial actions.

We have seen more serious labour troubles in Singapore, but no one in Singapore has ever dreamt of banning strikes.
Even during the last Emergency, when we had shooting wars all over the country, with road-blocks everywhere, people were in new villages behind barbed wire and were not allowed to carry food outside their houses, yet the British colonial government did not deny the workers their right to strike.

So, why is it then necessary to take the this drastic action now, when is not much more serious situation than that in the first emergency?
I feel that there is no need at all for the Government to emergency to resort powers to ban strikes.
If it is the trade union leaders who are giving trouble to the Government, and if it is true as alleged by a Member, when he moved the Motion of Thanks for the King's Speech, leaders are the union power corrupt and that they are hold ing the country to ransom with their strikes and industrial actions, then by all means replace leaders, bar them from carrying out trade union activities or even de-register the more the aggressive unions.
Why deny workers as a whole to strike just because of a few so-called mischievous and irresponsible leaders?

their right that the Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification—Is the Honourable Member from Singapore suggesting that there are irresponsible leaders and irresponsible unions within the fold of the M.T.U.C?

House termed these leaders as irrespon their sible, so I am phrases.
just following Sir, we appreciate that the Govern ment must have a period of industrial peace, in order to carry out its obliga tions to defend the country.

If this is what then the Government wanted, the easiest thing for the Government to do was to introduce a law similar to the Industrial Relations Ordinance in Singapore.

This law does not impose a blanket ban on strikes but provides ways and means to settle disputes to the satisfaction of both employers and the Government were employees.
If this sensible measure, we take to would be the first to give our whole hearted support.

But instead of doing this, the Government chose to bury the whole of trade union the free movement.

In this period of confronta tion, there is nothing more important than the support of a contented and loyal trade union movement.

By ban ning the Government has alienated the support of the workers.
What we need very badly is a per manent industrial law in the States of Malaya to put industrial relations on a proper footing.

strikes Enche' Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman (Seberang Tengah): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, mengikut Standing Order No.

67 (3): " shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and adminis tration as indicated by the supplementary appropriations the Bill and estimates."
included in buroh Apabila Yang Berhormat itu ber- chakap berkenaan dengan perbelanjaan buroh $1,000 maka patut-lah Ahli Yang Berhormat itu membacha juga Command Paper No.

21 ia-itu per bukan belanjaan as untok tetapi untok perbelanjaan indicated" lain2.

Hentam-lah refreshment Kerajaan mengatakan yang $1,000 itu tidak patut di-belanjakan.

Saya fikir bagitu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, as indicated.
"General Administration $1,000 dan Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I will qualify this phrase by saying the "so- leaders".

The called the Members on the other side of irresponsible Mr Speaker: Sa-benar-nya saya faham itu, tetapi Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada Singapura membacha ucha- jadi pan-nya dan barangkali boleh 1107 3 JUNE 1965 1108 uchapan itu sudah siap bertulis, biar- kan-lah dia habiskan uchapan-nya itu.

(Ketawa).

Carry on.

Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: May I continue, Mr Speaker?


Mr Speaker: Yes, you may continue.

a itself in nature, because is Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, the Essential Regulations promulgated by the Central Government can only be temporary the temporary Emergency measure.

Once the Emergency is ended all the laws made under this Act will lapse.
Even the Government will have us believe that these two Regulations will bring about industrial peace, we are still being faced with the same chaotic situation when these two laws lapse.

I wish to take this oppor tunity the Central Government in banning strikes was only following what the Singapore Government is already doing.
the belief to dispel though that the and Federation The Honourable Minister of Finance has earlier told this House that there was nothing wrong in banning strikes, the Singapore Government because had done is this already.

Nothing farther from the truth, Sir.

The funda mental difference between the Indus trial Relations Ordinance and the Essential Regulations is that the Indus trial Relations Ordinance was drafted with the assistance of labour experts the I.L.O.

and from Australia.
and from Australia.

from It was thoroughly discussed with trade unions of Employers before it was tabled at the Legislative Assembly, where it was fully debated, passed, and supported by both sides of the Assembly.

The Essential Regulations, on the other hand was drafted by civil servants, who have idea about labour matters and no prior consulta the tion was made with M.T.U.C.

or it was promulgated arbitrarily without even a debate in this Parliament.
It is Industrial that wrong Relations Ordinance in Singapore also bans strikes.

Nowhere in the Ordinance is it stated that workers cannot go on strike.

What happens is that when a dispute reaches a deadlock, then both the parties, the employers, and employers faintest either and say the the the to if to employees, can mutually agree to refer their dispute to an Arbitration Court.

Once the dispute is referred to that Court, both parties will refrain from taking any further action to prejudice their case.
So, you can see from here the workers voluntarily agreed that not to go on strike, and this is not something imposed upon them by the Government.

Now, the workers persist in carrying out a strike after the their case has been referred Arbitration Court, then this act will constitute a contempt of the Arbitra tion Court and the President of that Court will have to take action accord ingly—but not the Government.

This is treated as an industrial matter all within the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
But the Regula tions promulgated in the Federation stated that any contravention of the provisions of these Regulations shall be a seizable offence within the mean ing of the Criminal Procedure Code, which means that the Police will have to take action against the workers, if they go on strike and if they happen to be in the Civil Service, or in one of the Scheduled Essential Services.
the ambit of is that The next difference in Singapore the panel members of the Industrial Court are either nominated by the employers or by the employees.

The Government makes appointments only after consulting the Employers the National Trade Federation and Unions Congress, whereas the Federation of Malaya the Regulations provide for the Minister of Labour in the Central Government to make all the appointments without any consulta tion with any organisation.
This means that the Government can assume the role of the prosecutor, the jury and the arbitrator.

Now, the third difference is that in Singapore .

.

.. in Mr Speaker: How long more are you going to take?

(Laughter).

the Arbitration Court Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: A little the award more, Sir.

In Singapore given by is binding on both parties, i.e., if one party refuses to accept or carry out the award law provides for serious punishment.

In the Essential Regula such provision.


tions is no there the 1109 3 JUNE 1965 1110 Although section 4 (5) provides that any award made must be binding on both parties, but there is no provision in the said Regulation for the punish ment of the offending party.

Section 6 deals with offences, but these are only confined to offences in carrying out strikes or lock-outs.
So, there is no protection for the workers, if the Arbitration Tribunal gives out an award in favour of the workers but the employers refuse to carry it out.

Furthermore, how can the Govern to bind ment expect themselves the Government itself is the chief offender in this respect in refusing to accept the recommendations of the Arbitration Tribunal headed by Professor Ungku Aziz after the Minister of Labour had given his assurance to accept the decisions of the Tribunal?
to any award when the workers that In respect of Singapore, the Federa tion Constitution guarantees autonomy in labour and education, but the two Essential Regulations promulgated by the Central Government apply through out Malaysia.

This means the ban on strikes and other forms of industrial actions in the Public Services and certain Essential Services in the private sector will affect the workers in Singapore.
Although the Minister of Labour had personally assured me, and he had also publicly stated that the Central Government had no inten tion of interfering in labour matters in Singapore, the Regulations that the Central Government promulgated did not say so.

Your intention is one thing thing, but and when your intention comes into con flict with the law the law must prevail.
In order not to complicate matters, we have requested the Central Govern ment to amend the two regulations so as the to exclude Singapore from operation of the Regulations.

This is to give a legal backing to the Govern ment's to interfere with labour matters in Singa pore.
In all sincerity, I hope that the Central Government will accept our request, because interference with labour matters in Singapore will bring the Central Government no benefit at intention not is another expressed law the all, except the bitterness and hatred of the workers of Singapore.

the that our I personally feel labour laws in Singapore are more advanced and they are adequate to deal with our situation.

This does not mean that we have no fierce trade union leaders in truths.
We Singapore—far from trade have much more militant unionists trade and well-organised unions in Singapore than in the Main land.

It is my feeling that the Regula tions will not help to foster a better the employers relationship between and there.

These employees Regulations, instead of solving indus trial problems, will only create new problems, will only create bitterness and hatred against the Government.
In all sincerity, the Government will take this opportunity their Regulations and to withdraw replace them with a more advanced and comprehensive to regulate labour relations.

I hope labour that law the Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that I caught your eye before the Honourable Member who also rose to speak just now.

However, to come the House, I would like to reply to the Honourable Member for Batu.
the debate before to true true faithful is that to his If there isi one thing that we can say of the Honourable Member for Batu, it is that he is consistent and he is always love.

(Laughter).

It does not matter that he was given the kiss-of-death, no matter, but he will go on and be true to his love.

And what love?

That is the attack on the Ministers for the luxury which he imagines that we indulge in.
The Honourable Member's speech is confined a great deal to the money allocated to the Ministers for in passing, of their housing, and Istana the course, he mentioned Tetamu—of luxurious crockery and the furnishings there.

I think it may interest Honourable Members of this House that the person responsible for the furnishings and for the supply of crockery at the Istana Tetamu is none other than his comrade, a socialist, who happens to be in the Government Service.
It was he who to the Prime Minister recommended the 1111 3 JUNE 1965 1112 the dignity of that, Istana Tetamu being a guest house for the visiting V.I.Ps, it is in keeping with this country that that house should be fully furnished and that the crockery there should not be a shame to this country.
the Honourable Member knows, As we have had visits of His Majesty the King of Thailand and all the other dignitaries, and at least I am glad that one socialist this country, even though he believes in true socialism, recognises the fact that in society we must give due where due is required.

Now, look, for example, at Russia—I am sure that is a country from where the Honourable Member for Batu draws a lot of inspiration.
let us in Br Tan Chee Khoon (Batu): For the information of the Minister of Home Affairs, I have never been to Russia and I do not know Russians; neither do I read the Izvestia or Pravda.

Dato' Dr Ismail: It was not even in the Pravda; it was in our local papers, how the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr Gromyko—whom to know too—recently ordered a Lincoln.

I am sure that Mr Gromyko did that not because of anything but to upkeep his prestige as a Minister in the Soviet Union.
I happen the office which the House.

After Now, Sir, I come to the question before all, we Ministers here are holding high office in the country.

I am sure that, if the Honourable Member's Party came into power, we will not begrudge him, because, after all, what we do is not for ourselves but to upkeep the dignity of this House has already approved.

For example, this House has approved of the Ministers and has approved that we should have is why a monarchical system.
That luxury but we provide enough—not the Tim- enough—for His Majesty, balan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, to upkeep the dignity of office.

So I am the Honourable Member will sure agree with me that we Ministers in this House, not that we want to indulge in luxury, should be given the liberty to upkeep the prestige of the office of this country.

After all, Ministers of we are not a very poor country and we Ministers have not luxuries.
indulged in a in and fact, I am profession responsible—in the prestige of Now, take my case, for example.

I am the leader among the Ministers here—for asking our Minister of Finance to provide us with money to equip our houses because we feel, in the first place, that we should keep our dignity as Ministers, not luxurious manner, but according to a standard which we feel that we should keep, in order to uphold the office of Ministers of His Majesty's Government.
In my case, for example, I entered politics at the height of the time when I could have stayed in the medical probably become a millionaire and waited for now to enter the Parliament, as the Honourable Member did.

After all, the Honourable Member can boast in this House that there is need to furnish him, and he asked us not to strip him naked.

We are not going to strip him naked—after all, we do not like to see (Laughter).
him naked in this House But the fact remains, Sir, that besides being a Minister, I am also a man.

When I became a Minister of the Government I had only two children.

I was given a house—I am still stay ing in that house—where there is one room for me and my wife, one room for my two children and one room for the the guests; and Ministers of Government are expected sometimes to put up Ministers of corresponding their status from other countries houses.
Now and the Prime Minister entertains Members of Parlia ment and sometimes the Members of Parliament would like to have some ronggeng girls—there is nothing wrong with that, as we sit in the House for the whole day we need some exercise (Laughter).

To come back to my own personal affairs as a Minister.

I started with two children.

It was all right for the two children, a boy and a girl, to stay in one room.
But I have been a Minister for, I think, 14 years now and so the two children have grown up, and in addition—it is a pride of the Alliance that we are also not (Laughter)—I have produced sterile three more children.

So, I have five then in 1113 3 JUNE 1965 1114 the soft I have asked children now—and they are all stay ing in the room.

Now, the Honourable Member being a doctor must know that it is not good to keep grown up girls and boys sleeping in one room can happen!

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

Anything the (Laughter).

So, Minister of Finance for this money.

The other Ministers also seem to be very virile and they have also produced children.

So, we have asked the Minister of Finance for this money.

I can tell the Honourable Member that it is easier for the camel to go through the needle's eye than for us Ministers to get money from the Honourable Minister of Finance.

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

So what I did was, I asked for an extra room and most of the money provided is for me—the other Ministers have morsels.

So, all I did was to have an extra room in my house.

Then, of course, after five years, because I have to entertain so many foreign guests and also members of the public, naturally, furnishings have worn out and have to be replaced.

Again, naturally, when you have a new room, you have to buy beds and since some of to school you have to provide them with some furniture.
They are very cheap furniture and the Honourable Member can examine all the details.

Certainly they are not as luxurious as those recommended the Honourable Member's colleague or comrade for the Istana Tetamu, because after all Istana Tetamu from a Minister's house.

We, Ministers of the Alliance Government, know our place, but at the same time also we feel that being Ministers we must upkeep the dignity of Ministers.
I can invite the Honourable Member—if I have not invited him, I must apologise to him— and he can inspect and see whether my house is really wallowing in luxury because, I am quite sure the Minister of Finance, although being millionaire, is a very strict man—and that is why he became a millionaire— (Laughter), so generous as the Honourable Member thought.
and he was not the children go is different that by However, Sir, the Honourable if Member would like to attack us, the to him in upkeeping Alliance Government, I would recom find some other to mend subjects.

After all, I can guarantee him that if ever he becomes a Minister, I will support him the dignity of a Minister's office.

I would even urge him, although he may be an austere Methodist, that it is no good to is receive his guests when he stripped naked.

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

I think it is better, even at the expense of losing his political followers—and, in fact, I would recommend it to him—to follow the example of Mr Gromyko in the upkeep of the office of the Foreign Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So, Sir, what I would like to inform the Honourable Member is that he can rest assured that if, for example, we are indulging in luxury, then he has every cause to make the remarks that he has made.
But, all that we have done is to get the basic necessities for ourselves as human beings and to provide for the necessities of our families and, on top of that, to buy a bit extra, in keeping with our office as Ministers, to receive our foreign guests or even the mem bers of the public, so that they will not be ashamed of their Ministers living in hovels.

Now, Sir, .

.

.. Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.
I have not chosen to interrupt the Minister, because I do not believe in interrupt ing anyone while he is speaking.

However, it has just occurred to me, since the Minister has been so brilliant in defending the need for the upkeep of the prestige of a Minister, that this is a matter of interpretation: does he consider that a table and a chair in a prison cell is a necessity for one who is confined in solidarity confine ment?

Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, I was just coming to that point when he inter rupted me.
(Laughter).

I was going to say that one of my faults is that I smile sometimes and that I accede to the requests of the Members of the Opposition.

But, being a Minister, I have got to be responsible.
So, when ever the Member for Batu requests that he should go and see some of his 1115 3 JUNE 1965 1116 and others who comrades are detained—they are prejudicial to the interest of the country—and knowing that he is a Methodist and that he is a wonderful Member in this House— we have known him for a long time respect him, because his and we criticism is always fair—I have given him the opportunity to visit all his comrades who have been detained.
the Now, Sir, surely, a Minister of to Government cannot be compared those people who have acted pre judicial to the interest of the country.

Surely, the Honourable Member does not expect that a Minister should have the same accommodation as for those who have been, so to speak, "His Majesty's guests"?

(Laughter).

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Enforced guests!


Dato' Dr Ismail: Well, you may call them "enforced guests", but they are at any time allowed to be free, if they can convince the Advisory Council that they are no longer prejudicial to the interest of the country.

After all, not all his comrades are locked in— some of them are now free, and for that I am sure he must give me the credit.
After all, not all of them are detained forever; and so long as they are no longer of security interest to the country, they are allowed to be free.

that what Now, we come to the economics of it.

He has mentioned is being spent on the Ministers' houses should be given to the workers of the country.

Sir, what the Ministers ask is the in five years.


Now, only once other day, when he was making an adjournment speech, he had asked for $2 million for free legal service, but here we ask for $1 million for the residences built over a Ministers' period of ten or fifteen years ago.

So, if is calculated at $2 million annually, in fifteen years it comes to $30 million.

So, that should be the the for comparison.


Ministers had spent $30 million during the last ten years, then that, indeed, is a luxury, but not if you divide the amount spent by the number of the Ministers.

I can assure the Honourable is Member that our Prime Minister example, If, it very stingy in appointing Ministers.

I have to do double work, and I am the exploited Minister in this Bench, and so are the others.
But once we are appointed as Ministers, we expect to upkeep the dignity of the Minister's office.

So, I would ask the Member for Batu to be more kind and more gentle to the the overworked Ministers of Alliance Government.

If you want to score a political point, please take up other points, and I am sure we are more vulnerable on other points than this.

Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say a few words the Honourable to Minister of Labour from Singapore?
in reply a ago days The matter of Emergency Regula tions has come up again despite my in few explanation connection with them.

Sir, I cannot remember all the points made by him.

However, one of the points he has raised is that the Minister of Labour to the matter should have referred Parliament and asked Parliament to debate the the question.
Now, Sir, very name of the Regulations indicate that we must take immediate action— "Emergency Regulations"—and at the time when the Regulations were promulgated on the 13th of May, we had to take immediate action because, firstly, the Railway Services had to go on strike and, served notice secondly, I am sure the Honourable Member will agree, we could not afford at this stage to have firemen going on strike.
Also, we were threatened with strikes by the Railway Employees and by the Division IV and the I.M.G.

workers.

Under those circumstances, Sir, the Government has a duty to the country, to the people as a whole, as an elected Government, to see that the security of the country is preserved, to see that the important machineries of Government are not disrupted because of strikes at a time when we are facing a very grave external threat from Indonesia.
The Honourable Member seems to think has completely banned all strikes.

I have made it clear a few days/ ago that that the Government that 1117 3 JUNE 1965 1118 services, in essential is not so.

Even in Government sector, services only which must continuously run especially during this period of Emergency, have we banned strikes.

In the private sector, we have not said, "Well, no strike at in essential services"—we all even have not said that.
We have resorted to a practice which was adopted in England—I am sure the Honourable Member knows about it—around 1940 when the country was facing the war.

More or less on similar lines as the Singapore ones, we ask the parties to the dispute before going on strike to refer the matter to the Minister, and then the Minister will decide whether or not there are suitable means for settling the disputes existing between the parties.
If they cannot do that, then the Minister will refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Court.

If the Minister of Labour does not do that within twenty-one days, then the parties are at liberty to resort to industrial actions.

I am sure he cannot quarrel with that.

any "Don't have Mr Speaker, Sir, amongst other things, he has also said that Singapore has not banned strikes—legally, that is true.

But, what is the effect of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
We on this side of the House prefers to say, in essential services."

We say so clearly, but the effect of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in Singapore is also to stop strikes, when there is dispute.

As he himself has said in this House, when a dispute is referred to the Industrial Relations Court, no strike is allowed at all.

Why is that?

Because they want to have industrial peace even during a period when there is no emergency.
strike Enche' Jek Yeun Thong: I think in the the case of Singapore, it is not Government which imposes a ban on strike.

It is the workers who voluntarily agreed not to go on strike when a case is referred to the Arbitration Court.

Enche' Abdul-Rahman bin Ya'kub: Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance is there.

It is the law which prescribes the methods of settlement and other things, whatever may be the position.
Sir, at the time when the Industrial Relations Ordinance was passed, there from Bung was no confrontation Soekarno, and we did not have to worry our heads about Soekarno's soldiers coming into our territory.

But nowadays when you read the papers, you will see that in Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore and Malaya we are having trouble with Soekarno.

What are we going to do?

Sir, the M.T.U.C.

here, I spoke to them the day before yester day, and one very prominent M.T.U.C.
leader told me that he did not agree that the Singapore Industrial Ordinance than our present practice, is better the emergency regulations, forgetting is the practice nor that worse than the practice in Singapore.

In fact, he maintained that we have a better disputes to between employees and employers in is a very prominent Malaya.

He member of the M.T.U.C, and he does not like to see Malaya adopting the Singapore method: he prefers us to go on during normal times as we have been doing in this country.
in Malaya practice settle Another point which I would like to mention here, Sir, is that even the Geneva Convention—I am sure the Honourable member from Singapore is very well aware of that—recognises the that machineries for settlement fact of industrial disputes, etc., must be established in accordance with national conditions; and one Article specifically mentions that the Convention does not deal with the position of public servants.
The public servants in many countries, Mr Speaker, Sir, are not allowed to go on strike at all.

We have only resorted to this measure because of the emergency, and further we were threatened by the firemen that they would go on strike; we were threatened by the railwaymen and certain Division IV and they I.M.G.

workers would go on strike.

We have done this as a last resort, and it is an accepted principle that the Government must be the final arbiter of what is good for the country.
I can assure the Honourable Member and Honourable Members in this House that as soon as the need for those regulations is gone, we will be the first to say "Repeal those regulations".

that 1119 3 JUNE 1965 1120 to do so—we are In connection with those regulations the operation in Singapore—I of regret very much that he has mentioned it in this House, but he has every right in correspondence.

I saw his letter the day before yesterday and the letter is now being referred to the Attorney General.
I do not like to repeat what has been said by substantive Minister of Labour in this case.

The Honourable Member from Singapore knows it very well.

still the Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I see the Honourable Member speak, he reminds me of the Honourable Barisan Sosialis Member from Singapore, Mr Chia Thye Poh: he cannot take his eyes away from the paper, although he has assured you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he was not reading his) speech but was just looking at his notes.
However, I am sure that if he were to take away his eyes from the paper, he would not be able to say a word.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Honourable Member for Batu always repeats the same theme, when speaking on the second reading of any Supplementary Bill: that is, he says that Supplementary Bills are an indication of bad budgeting.
As I have tried to point out to him time and again, it would be quite easy for the Government to avoid the presentation of a Supple mentary Supply Bill to Parliament by the simple device of inflating every item of expenditure, so that whatever happens, whatever the miscalculations, no Supplementary Supply Bill need ever be presented to Parliament in the course of any year.
Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification—It is, of course, easy for the Government to do that, but then that would result in a big deficit which is no good publicity for any Minister of Finance.

I think Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just coming to the point.

(Laughter).

the pudding is in the eating, as has been said the Honourable Member had taken the trouble to go the budgets of the past six through years, he would find that in every case test of before.
the If than always anticipated when the Treasury had under estimated revenue and over-estimated expenditure, with the result that the actual out-turn of any year was always the better original estimates were presented to Parliament.

I think that is the proof that we have not resorted to any "monkeying" with the accounts as, I think, was implied by the remarks of the Honourable Member for Batu.
that his other I Therefore, criticism, that this was really a device to make the picture look better than it actually was, is not quite true.

think, and glassware, that the reason why Mr Speaker, Sir, now I should tell the the House Government embarked on this mass purchase of crockery, cutlery and glass ware was simply this.
Hitherto, we have found that each mission overseas, for its own crockery, example, bought cutlery and when certain items were broken or mislaid, it had to buy replacements at a much greater cost than that of the original pieces of glassware, or whatever they happen to be.
We, therefore, felt that it would be far cheaper to order one standard design for all our missions overseas, for all the Government build ings in this country, so that in case of future losses or breakages, we could have a single stock from which to replenish any supplies as may be required the long in the future.

In term, I think, the Government would save money, although I agree that the initial expenditure would be fairly high.
assure I do not think that the Honourable Member was quite fair in saying that the entertainment vote in the case of civil servants would be misused.

I can that very the House stringent rules are laid down for the operation of this entertainment vote.

For example, it has been laid down by the Treasury that a dinner is not to exceed $10 per head, a lunch is not to exceed $5 per head.

Further, there are controlling officers in each Ministry to ensure laid down by the Treasury are complied with.
There is also no question of civil servants entertaining contractors the (Laughter), as was the regulations implied by that 1121 3 JUNE 1965 1122 Honourable Member for Batu, because these funds will only be used to return hospitality given to civil servants in the course of official duties, and that would exclude entertainment which should not be paid for from this vote, and that would also exclude some of the items, which were suggested by the Honourable Member and which, I think, he himself did not believe would be paid for from this vote.
Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

ADJOURNMENT (MOTION) Dato' Dr Ismail: Tuan Speaker, saya menchadangkan ia-itu Majlis Meshu- arat ini di-tanggohkan sekarang.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Saya sokong, ADJOURNMENT SPEECHES GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS- GRIEVANCES OF Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to make a plea on behalf of the thousands of Government pension ers who have given their lifetime of devoted service to the country.
It is their plight today that prompted me to bring the issue up before this House.

It is not my intention to exploit their grievances for political gain, neither do I wish to trespass on the province of the amelioration of their present piteous position on an equitable ground where remedy through the law is closed to them.
It is not necessary for me to their delve into claims which, sure, many Honourable Members here, who are pensioners and whose political fortunes have enabled them to sit comfortably in this pleasant surrounding, are well aware.

the complexities of am I only seek law.
the for I However, it is sufficient for me, Mr that to state, briefly, Speaker, Sir, their claims inter alia, an include, immediate restoration of full pension to retirement have accepted the reduced pension and a gratuity equivalent to ten times the those who on total annual value of their productions so made in the pension; and to those who have survived ten years after their retirement there should be an adjust ment to their cost of living allowance and revision of pension, in view of the decrease in the purchasing value of money now.
the have lot of the British.

With Mr Speaker, Sir, the pensioners has not been a happy one.

Under the colonial regime they have laboured under oppressive conditions and been grievances their completely ignored.

As a matter of fact, they have appealed to the British Government to improve their lot as early as 1947 but their report came to nought, due to the adamant attitude of the advent of Independence their hope of improve ment was raised.
Indeed they present ed a memorandum setting forth all their grievances to our Honourable the Prime Minister in 1960, but alas this too received an unsympathetic rejec tion.

So, as a last resort, they went through all the expences to go to the law courts with a faint hope of obtain ing their claims.

But as the courts were there to give interpretation of law, their claims failed once again.
However, in the latest case heard at the Kedah High Court, Mr Justice Suffian in his obiter dicta suggested that they should consider pursuing their claims the in Parliament, or even before in Salaries Commission, rather than this Court.

It suggestion this this House, and I matter up before sincerely Honourable that hope Members here will give it their atten tion and consideration it deserves.
is in pursuance of that I have brought Here I take cognizance of the fact that legally a Member of the public holds office at the pleasure of the Head of State and he may, therefore, be retired or dismissed without compensa tion.
I also take note of regulation 15 of the Pensions Regulations which states that once an officer has opted to draw a reduced pension and a gratuity at the time of his retirement, he can not at the later stage change his mind and ask for something better and that he cannot draw his full pension ten years after his retirement once he had 1123 3 JUNE 1965 1124 opted.

I do not doubt or question the wisdom and impartiality of our learned judges when the they pensioners' claims.
But I strongly feel that it is the law giving rise to such iniquity that needs to be amended.

dismissed Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, the word "gratuity" means "pecuniary payment to an officer in recognition of his past service" and as such, when he chooses to accept such a bounty, he should not be made to forfeit a part of his pension entitlement or for the rest of his retirement.

Furthermore, the gratuity is actually part of his pension entitlement calculated for a ten-year period.
This is, in fact, not a gift nor a bonus at all but money granted in advance for the reason that if the the pensioner should survive retirement, first ten years after his this drawing a reduced pension all time, he has, intents and purposes, repaid the full sum of his so-called gratuity.

Hence in common fairness, he ought to be restored full pension after the first ten years—and this is not only fair but equitable as well.
for all The second point which I wish to raise is in the adjustment of the cost of living allowance and the revision of pension.

The purchasing power of dollars, as in all other currencies, decreases day by day.

In addition, confrontation and counter-confrontation has brought their wake soaring food prices and higher cost of living.

Yet the pensioners draw the same old pay and allowances their rising needs.
In most Commonwealth countries their allowances revised every three years to keep in step with their living costs.

Surely, we ought to look after our pensioners in the same way.

pensioners to meet have in In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to urge the Government, as a modal employer, to pay more atten tion and consideration to the plight and frustration of its former employees and, to that end, set up a Commission to the pensioners too.
the grievances of look into The Assistant Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports (Engku Muhsein): Tuan Speaker, oleh kerana ada sa- orang Ahli Yang Berhormat lagi yang akan berchakap dalam perkara yang bersamaan, maka saya minta kebenaran untok menjawab kedua2-nya sa-kali sa-lepas daripada Ahli Yang Berhormat itu berchakap.
to 12 1/2-times was tonight gratuity justified sense of to receive Enche' C. V Dewan Nair (Bungsar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have common ground with the Honourable Member for Batu, but I will speak in particular on the restoration of full pension for all those pensioners, who had opted to receive a commuted pension gratuity equal the amount of the reduction so made in their pension.
After the passage of ten years after receiving such reduced pensions, Sir, these pensioners labour under a injustice because they continue to receive the reduced pensions even after the period of ten years on which the commuted pension originally calculated.

They will, under the present regulations, continue the reduced pension till death, even though they have repaid) to the Government in full the commuted pension gratuity which they received when they retired.
To appreciate the injustice done to these pensioners, one has to go as far back as 1925 when Sir George Maxwell the then Chief Secretary to the Govern ment, devised the scheme of commuted retiring pension gratuity employees, who had opted for such a scheme.

The amount of such gratuity was an amount equal to one-quarter pension spread over a period of ten years.
This was not intended to be a 'golden handshake' but a useful device to help retiring Government servant to clear his debts and may be to put up a modest home, so that he could live in security after retirement.
These Government employees signed the option papers fully believing that full pension would be restored to them after the 10th year of their retirement, but to their chagrin and dismay they discovered to speak, they had, so signed their own death warrants when the Government ruled in 1951 that all those options were irrevocable, in that, the pensioners would receive reduced pensions till their death.
From 1948 those the for 1125 3 JUNE 1965 1126 onwards until 1964, they had protested several times, but to no avail.

Last year they filed an action against the Government, in which they failed, and lack of funds did not allow them to appeal against the Court's ruling.

the but does trouble nowhere Sir, I have to taken examine the provisions of the Pensions Ordinance, 1951.

The Ordinance defines the term "commuted pension gratuity", it specifically provide for commutation of pension.
The 1935 reprint of the General Orders had, I understand, a chapter on pensions.

Here it was stated quite specifically that pensions cannot be commuted.

Article 147 of the Constitution sets out protection of pension rights and it is quite clearly implied that any commutation should be more favourable to the pensioners.
to to is, and that Sir, I would the Honourable that in Ceylon, when like the Honourable Minister to pass this particular fact the Prime on Minister, the they pensioners found themselves in the same situation as their counterparts in this country, protested their Government and, realising that an injustice had been done, the Government of Ceylon in full 1964—i.e.

the pensions for all pensioners after 11th year.


this that I hope, Sir, particular fact will be brought to the Honourable Prime Minister's attention.

that our Is Government here should accord the same justice to its own pensioners?

last year—restored too much to ask it thousands In the United Kingdom pensioners constitute a very significant electoral factor.

Political parties in the United Kingdom vie with one another to woo their votes.
Unfortunately, in Malaysia, pensioners are electorally insignificant.

They are only a few in number and perhaps the Government might have taken better notice of the claims of the pensioners had they been a power to reckon with in times of elections like their counterparts in the United Kingdom.

But surely is morally wrong for any Government to equate justice with political expe diency or electoral expediency.

When we deal with human problems, num it some responsibility bers do not and should not matter.
Pensioners are those who have rendered significant service to the community at large.

They laid the foundations for the present day Civil Service and we have their welfare.

a for the Every year Public Services get wage increases, but the unfortunate pensioner, as the Honourable Member for Batu has pointed out, has not got a cent's rise in his pension since 1955.

But they do not claim any upward revision of their pensions.

They only claim restoration of their full pensions, as has been done in Ceylon.
section of in any restoration of Lest it be said, Sir, that the Govern ment cannot bear any more financial burdens, let me state that statistics will very clearly show that after all pensioners do not live very long after retirement.

The full pension is not going to involve the Government financial deep waters, but it will be an appropriate gesture of gratitude for the services rendered by these old pepple who have up unwept, till now been unhonoured and unsung.
And on this the wellknown to note our of generosity humanity Prime Minister to do the right thing by the pensioners and especially on the basis of the precedent which has already been set by a sister Common wealth Government, i.e., the Govern ment of Ceylon.

Thank you.

I appeal and kapada jawapan Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir: suka hendak saya Tuan Speaker, kedua2 memberi uchapan penanggohan ini dengan sa- kali gus oleh kerana kedua2-nya itu bersangkutan dengan perkara yang sama ia-itu perkara penshen.
Berkenaan dengan perkara memberi balek hak2 penshen yang penoh sa-lepas 10 tahun, saya bahawa suka menyebutkan peratoran2 yang ada sekarang menetap- kan ia-itu sa-saorang pegawai boleh memileh satu antara dua ia-itu sama ada mendapat penshen penoh atau penshen yang di-kurangkan mulai bulan Januari, 1962.

Sa-belum tarikh itu tidak ada apa2 pemilehan bagi sa- orang pegawai—dia berhak menerima penshen penoh apabila dia bersara.

1127 3 JUNE 1965 1128 atas tuntutan mendapatkan kembali penshen penoh itu.
Notis rayuan ulang bichara atau pun appeal telah pun di- buat dan sebab itu perkara ini ia-lah sub-judice di binchangkan dalam Rumah Yang Berhormat ini.

boleh tidak dan tarikh Berkenaan dengan tambahan penshen dan sara hidup kapada pegawai2 yang bersara, sa-benar-nya pehak Kerajaan telah pun membuat pertimbangan.

Sa-benar-nya tambahan penshen telah pun di-buat dari masa ka-samasa.
Sa- buah jawatan-kuasa terpileh telah pun di-lantek dalam tahun 1955 untok mengkaji elaun2 sa-belum tahun 1952 kapada pegawai2 yang bersara dan juga kapada pegawai2 yang bersara kemudian daripada itu.

Shor jawatan-kuasa ini telah pun di-terima oleh pehak Kerajaan pada masa itu dan telah pun di-timbangkan bahawa tambahan tidak akan di-buat sa-hingga 'am gaji2 atau pun ada perubahan penambahan sara hidup.
Baharu2 ini Persatuan Pegawai Bersara sa-Malaya penshen telah meminta perubahan mereka dan penambahan terhadap sara hidup.

Oleh kerana di-dapati belum ada 'am terhadap sara hidup di-buat semenjak penambahan dalam tahun 1952, maka pehak Kerajaan menimbangkan tidak- lah ada sebab untok di-buat tambahan sekarang ini.

lagi penambahan Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The House do now a.m. adjourned 9.30 till stand tomorrow.
Adjourned at 9.50 p.m. ini, kalau Sekarang suku bahagian bersama dengan sa-saorang pegawai memileh penshen yang di- kurangkan bonus ia akan menerima (gratuity), maka tiga dan penshen bonus bersamaan dengan satu suku penshen di-kalikan dengan kadar 12.5.

Kadar 12.5 ini di-asaskan atas nasihat Actuary dan di-kira sa-telah di-kaji pengagakan berapa lama hidup sa- saorang pegawai yang bersara dan interest.
faedah atau pun perkiraan Mula2 sa-kali kadar perkiraan-nya ia- lah 10 tetapi mulai daripada lhb Ogos, 1964, kadar itu telah di-tambah jadi 12.5. yang timbangan Saya suka menyebutkan kembali ia- itu di-bawah Undang2 Bersara, 1957, ia-lah kuasa memileh atau option sa- terpulang kapada saorang pegawai berkenaan.

Tidak-lah mustahak bagi sa-saorang pegawai menjalankan kuasa option (pemilehan) ini.

Sa-kira-nya dia tidak hendak menjalankan kuasa pemilehan, maka dia akan mendapat penshen yang jika dia men penoh.
Sa-balek-nya jalankan pemilehan maka dia mesti- lah membuat pengakuan yang bertulis.

Pengakuan ini tidak boleh di-batalkan sebab apabila dia menerima oleh pemilehan dia akan mendapat bonus.

Ahli2 Yang Berhormat tentu-lah sedar bahawa tindakan mahkamah telah pun di-ambil sa-bagaimana yang telah di-uchapkan oleh salah sa-orang Ahli Yang Berhormat tadi oleh Per- satuan Pegawai2 Yang Bersara untok mendapatkan kembali penshen penoh.
Keputusan atas tuntutan ini telah pun di-beri baharu2 ini dengan penolakan 9561—466—17-8-66.