Volume II '^ fi TuesdayNo. 48 i 22nd March, 1966

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES

DEWAN RA'AYAT(HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES)

OFFICIAL REPORT

SECOND SESSION OF THE SECOND PARLIAMENTOF MALAYSIA

CONTENTS

EARLIER ADJOURNMENT (Motion) [Col. 6829]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS [Col. 6830]

BILL PRESENTED [Col. 68531

BILLS:The Preservation of Books Bill [Col. 6854]The Diplomatic Privileges (Vienna Convention) Bill[Col. 6858]The Internal Security (Amendment) Bill [Col. 6860]The Registration of Guests (Amendment) Bill [Col. 6897]The Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill [Col. 6899]The Cinematograph Films (Amendment) Bill [Col. 6904]The Common Gaming Houses (Amendment) Bill [Col.6905]The Civil Law (Amendment) Bill [Col. 69131The Supplementary Supply (1965) Bill [Col. 6918]

ADJOURNMENT SPEECH:East Coast States of Malaya Floods [Col. 6921]

DI-CHETAK DI-JABATAN CHETAK KERAJAAN

OLEH THOR BENG CHONG, A.M.N., PENCHETAK KERAJAAN,

KUALA LUMPUR

1967

MALAYSIA

DEWAN RA'AYAT

(HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES)

Official Report

Second Session of the Second Dewan Ra`ayat

Tuesday, 22nd March, 1966

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 Ministerof Culture, Youth and Sports, Y.T.M. TUNKU ABDUL RAHMANPUTRA AL-HAJ, K.O.M. (Kuala Kedah).

the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence and Minister ofNational and Rural Development, TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAKBIN 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).

„ 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 Welfare Services, TUAN HAJI ABDUL HAMID

KHAN BIN HAJI SAKHAWAT AL! 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 Labour, ENCHE' V. MANICKAVASAGAM,J.M.N., P.J.K. (Kiang).

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

the Minister of Agriculture and Co- operatives , TUAN HMIMOHAMED GHAZALI BIN HAJI JAW! (Ulu Perak).

6823 22 MARCH 1966 6824

The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Mines, ENCHE' ABDUL-RAHMAN BINYA`KUB (Sarawak).

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, P.M.N., S.M.T., P.J.K.(Trengganu Tengah).

the Assistant Minister of Education, ENCHE' LEE SIOK YEW,A.M.N., P.J.K. (Sepang).

the Assistant Minister of Finance, DR NG KAM Pox, J.P.(Teluk Anson).

the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health,ENCHE' IBRAHIM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (Seberang Tengah).the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour,ENCHE' LEE SAN CROON, K.M.N. (Segamat Selatan).

the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance,ENCHE' ALI BIN HAJI AHMAD (Pontian Selatan).

the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister,ENCHE' CHEN WING SUM (Damansara).

ENCHE' ABDUL GHANI BIN ISHAK, A.M.N. (Melaka Utara).

ENCHE' ABDUL KARIM BIN ABU, A.M.N. (Melaka Selatan).

WAN ABDUL KADIR BIN ISMAIL, P.P.T. (Kuala Trengganu Utara).

TUAN HAJI ABDUL RASHID BIN HAJI JAIS (Sabah).

ENCHE' ABDUL SAMAD BIN GUL AHMAD MIANJI(Pasir Mas Hulu).

DATO' ABDULLAH BIN ABDULRAHMAN, Dato' Bijaya di-Raja(Kuala Trengganu Selatan).

TUAN HAJI ABDULLAH BIN HAJI MOHD. SALLEH, A.M.N., S.M.J.,P.I.S. (Segamat Utara).

TUAN HAJI AHMAD BIN ABDULLAH (Kelantan Hilir).

ENCHE' AHMAD BIN ARSHAD, A.M.N. (Muar Utara).

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

CHE' AJIBAH BINTI ABOL (Sarawak).

DR AWANG BIN HASSAN, S.M.J. (Muar Selatan).

ENCHE' AZIZ BIN ISHAK (Muar Dalam).

ENCHE' JONATHAN BANGAU ANAK RENANG, A.B.S. (Sarawak).

P'ENGARAH BANYANG ANAK JANTING, P.B.S. (Sarawak).

ENCHE' CHAN CHONG WEN, A.M.N. (Kluang Selatan).

ENCHE' CHAN SIANG SUN (Bentong).

„ ENCHE' CHIA CHIN SHIN, A.B.S. (Sarawak).

ENCHE' FRANCIS CHIA NYUK TONG (Sabah).

ENCHE' CHIN FOON (Ulu Kinta).

ENCHE' D. A. DAGO ANAK RANDAN alias DAGOK ANAK RANDEN(Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' C. V. DEVAN NAIR (Bungsar).

ENCHE' EDWIN ANAK TANGKUN (Sarawak).

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

(Batu Pahat Dalam).

6825 22 MARCH 1965 6826

The Honourable 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' HANAFI BIN MOHD. YUNUS, A.M.N., J.P. (Kulim Utara).

„ ENCHE' HANAFIAH BIN HUSSAIN, J.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 TO' MUDA HASSAN, A.M.N. (Raub).

„ DATO' HUSSEIN BIN MOHD. NOORDIN, D.P.M.P., A.M.N., P.J.K.(Pant).

„ ENCHE' HUSSEIN BIN SULAIMAN (Ulu Kelantan).

TUAN HAJI HUSSAIN RAHIMI BIN HAJI SAMAN

(Kota Bharu Hulu).ENCHE' IKHWAN ZAINI (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' ISMAIL BIN IDRIS (Penang Selatan).

„ DATO' SYED JA`AFAR BIN HASAN ALBAR, P.M.N.(Johor Tenggara).

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

„ ENCHE' THOMAS KANA (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' KHOO PENG LOONG (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' EDMUND LANGGU ANAK SAGA (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' AMADEUS MATHEW LOONG, A.D.K., J.P. (Sabah`

DATO' LING BENG SIEW, P.N.B.S. (Sarawak).

DR LIM CHONG EU (Tanjong).

ENCHE' LIM KEAN SIEW (Dato Kramat).

ENCHE' LIM PEE HUNG, P.J.K (Alor Star).

DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMED (Kota Star Selatan).

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

ENCHE' C. JOHN ONDU MAJAKIL (Sabah).

ENCHE' JOSEPH DAVID MANJAJI (Sabah).

„ DATO' DR HAJI MEGAT KHAS, D.P.M.P., J.P., P.J.K.(Kuala Kangsar).

„ ENCHE' MOHD. ARIF SALLEH, A.D.K. (Sabah).

„ ORANG TUA MOHAMMAD DARA BIN LANGPAD (Sabah).

ENCHE' MOHD. DAUD BIN ABDUL SAMAD (Besot).

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

ENCHE' MOHD. TAHIR BIN ABDUL MAJID, S.M.S., P.J.K.(Kuala Langat).

„ WAN MOKHTAR BIN AHMAD (Kemaman).

„ TUAN HAJI MOKHTAR BIN HAJI ISMAIL (Perlis Selatan).

6827 22 MARCH 1966 6828

The Honourable 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' NIK AHMAD KAMIL, D.K., S.P .M.K., S.J .M.K., P.M.N.,P.Y.G.P ., Dato' Sri Setia Raja (Kota Bharu Hilir).

„ ENCHE' NG FAH YAM (Batu Gajah).„ ENCHE' ONG KEE Hui (Sarawak).

„ TUAN HAJI OTHMAN BIN ABDULLAH (Hilir Perak).„ ENCHE' OTHMAN BIN ABDULLAH , A.M.N. (Perlis Utara).

„ TUAN HAJI RAHMAT BIN HAJI DAUD, A.M.N.(Johor Bahru Barat).

„ TUAN HMI REDZA BIN HAJI MOHD . SAID , P.J.K., J.P.(Rembau-Tampin).

„ RAJA ROME BIN RAJA MA`AMOR , P.J.K., J .P. (Kuala Selangor).

„ ENCHE' SANDOM ANAK NYUAK (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' SEAR TENG NGIAB, P.I.S. (Muar Pantai).

ENCHE' D. R. SEENIVASAGAM (Ipoh).

„ DATO' S. P. SEENIVASAGAM, D.P.M.P ., P.M.P., J.P. (Mengaembu).

„ ENCHE' SIM BOON LIANG (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' SIOW LOONG HIN, P .J.K. (Seremban Barat).„ ENCHE' SENAWI BIN ISMAIL, P.J.K. (Seberang Selatan).

„ ENCHE' SNG CHIN JOO (Sarawak).

„ ENCHE' SULAIMAN BIN ALI (Dungun).

PENGIRAN TAHIR PETRA (Sabah).

ENCHE' TAJUDDIN BIN ALI , P.J.K. (Larut Utra).

„ ENCHE ' TAI KUALA YANG (Kulim Bandar Bharu).

„ 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).

ENCHE' TOH THERM HOCK (Kampar).

„ ENCHE ' YEH PAO TZE (Sabah).

„ ENCHE ' YEOH TAT BENG (Bruas).

ENCHE ' STEPHEN YONG KUET TZE (Sarawak).

„ TURN HAJI ZAKARIA BIN HAJI MOHD. TAIB, P.J.K. (Langat).

ABSENT :

The Honourable the Minister of Commerce and Industry, DR LIM SWEE AUN,J.P. (Larut Selatan).the Assistant Minister without Portfolio,TUAN HAJI ABDUL KHALID BIN AWANG OSMAN,(Kota Star Utara).

6829 22 MARCH 1966 6830

The Honourable ENCHE' ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HAJI TALIB, P.J.K. (Kuantan).

WAN ABDUL RAHMAN BIN DATU TUANKU BUJANG (Sarawak).

ENCHE' ABDUL RAZAK BIN HAJI HUSSIN (Lipis).

Y.A.M. TUNKU ABDULLAH IBNI AL-MARHUM TUANKU ABDULRAHMAN, P.P.T. (Rawang).

ENCHE' ABU BAKAR BIN HAMZAH (Bachok).

O.K.K. DATU ALIUDDIN BIN DATU HARUN, P.D.K. (Sabah).

ENCHE' CHAN SEONG YOON (Setapak).

TURN HMI HAMZAH BIN ALANG, A.M.N., P.J.K (Kapar).

ENCHE' KADAM ANAK KIAI (Sarawak).

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

DATO' KHOO SIAK CHIEW, P.D.K. (Sabah).

ENCHE' LEE SECK FUN (Tanjong Malim).

ENCHE' PETER Lo Su YIN {Sabah).

DATO' MOHAMED ASRI BIN HAJI MUDA, P.M.K. (Pasir Puteh).

ENCHE' MOHAMED YUSOF BIN MAHMUD, A.M.N. (Temerloh).

ENCHE' MOHD. ZAHIR BIN HAJI ISMAIL, J.M.N. (Sungai Patani).

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

ENCHE' RAMLI BIN OMAR (Krian Darat).

ENCHE' SOH AH TECK (Batu Pahat).

ENCHE' TAN KEE GAK (Bandar Melaka).

PRAYERS

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

EARLIER ADJOURNMENT

(Motion)

The Deputy Prime Minister andMinister of Defence (Tun Haji AbdulRazak): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg tomove :

That notwithstanding the provisions ofStanding Order 12 (1) the House shalladjourn this evening at 6.30 p.m, insteadof 8.00 p.m.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya di-beritahuAhli2 Yang Berhormat ada-lah sukayang Dewan ini di-tanggohkan padapukul 6.30 petang daripada per-sidangan ini, sebab di-fikirkan yangpersidangan ini tidak bagitu adabanyak perkara2 yang hendak di-binchangkan. Jadi, itu-lah saya men-chadangkan supaya pada petang iniDewan ini di-tanggohkan pada pukul6.30 dan tidak pada pukul 8.00 malam.

The Minister of Home Affairs (Dato'Dr Ismail): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sayasokong.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,That notwithstanding the provisions of

Standing Order 12 (1) the House shalladjourn this evening at 6.30 p.m. insteadof 8.00 pm.

ORAL ANSWERS TOQUESTIONS

TINDAKAN BALAS TERHADAPPERBUATAN KERAJAAN

SINGAPURA

1. Dato ' Haji Mustapha bin Haji AbdulJabar (Sabak Bernam) bertanya kapadaPerdana Menteri, oleh kerana Kera-j aan Singapura membangkitkan soalPerjanjian Pertahanan, mengenakanbayaran yuran sekolah kapada murid2yang bukan warga negara Singapura,menjalankan pendaftaran terhadapra`ayat Malaysia yang tinggal di-Singapura, mengapa Kerajaan terusmenerus sabar membiarkan tindakan2Kerajaan Singapura itu akan tetapitidak mengambil tindakan yang patutterhadap Singapura.

The Prime Minister : Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Kerajaan kita sedar di-atas

6831 22 MARCH 1966 6832

segala tindakan2 yang di-ambil olehKeraj aan Singapura terhadap ra`ayatdan Kerajaan Malaysia dan juga kitamemandang tindakan2 itu satu per-buatan yang tidak bijak. Jadi dengankerana memandang perbuatan itutidak bijak nampak-nya tidak hareshendak di-ambil tindakan balas.Jadi kalau memandang kapada per-buatan yang sa-umpama itu kita balas,nampak sangat sa-bagaimana per-buatan kita ini, budak2 pula. Jadidengan kerana itu, jikalau kita hendakambil apa2 tindakan balas, biarkan-lahdi-atas apa2 perkara yang besar. Per-kara yang sa-umpama ini tidak mem-bangkitkan keuntongan pun ataufaedah atau kebajikan kapada ra`ayatSingapura. Semua-nya kerugian yangkita rasa sangat-lah sadikit. Jadidengan kerana itu kita menj alankansatu perbuatan yang sabar, dan dengankesabaran itu kita harap-lah Singapuraini barangkali boleh memikirkandi-atas perbuatan2 mereka sakaliandan berasa kesal di-atas perbuatansa-umpama itu. Jadi ini-lah sebab-nyayang kita tidak ambil tindakan balasdi-atas perbuatan Singapura.

Berkenaan dengan soal PerjanjianPertahanan, ini tidak ada apa2kesulitan kerana soalan itu berbangkitsahaja dan dengan sendiri-nya ter-padam.

ARMS AND EQUIPMENTCONSIGNED TO PRIVATE

INDIVIDUAL THROUGH PORTSWETTENHAM

2. Enche' Lim Kean Siew (Dato Kra-mat) asks the Minister of Defencewhether he is aware that recently acrate which burst open at Port Swetten-ham was found to contain arms, thepresence of which has not been dis-closed either in the manifest or on thecrate itself, addressed to a certainprivate individual and that this led toconsiderable confusion in the dockarea and two days later, the Govern-ment allegedly issued a statement.claiming that the arms and equipmentbelonged to the Government; if so,whether he would inform the Housewhy these arms were not shipped inthe proper manner and if it was partof the military stores and equipment

why there was this misunderstandingand why was the crate addressed to aprivate individual.

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker,Sir, I am aware of the incident referredto. The crates containing the stores inquestion were addressed to a militaryofficer of the Logistics Division of theMinistry of Defence by name so as tofacilitate the delivery, but I can assurethe Honourable Member that thestores in question were intended for theMalaysian Armed Forces. Unfor-tunately, the crates in question did notbear any label or manifest to indicatethat they contained arms and ammuni-tions. The misunderstanding relating tothem arose simply from the fact thatthe Police and other Malaysian autho-rities involved in their handling werenot kept informed of the facts aboutthe consignment in these crates.

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Mr Speaker,Sir, will the Honourable Ministerassure us that these arms are reallyintended for the use of our MalaysianArmed Forces and not elsewhere,because you must have heard thatthese arms were intended to beconsigned elsewhere?

Tun Haji Abdul Razak : Sir, I havegiven that assurance and I can givethe assurance again that these armswere intended for our MalaysianArmed Forces.

Enche' Stephen Yung Kuet Tse(Sarawak): Would the HonourableMinister inform this House whetherthat would be the practice for thefuture that is arms consigned to theArmed Forces to be addressed toprivate individuals?

Tun Haji Abdul Razak : Mr Speaker,Sir, in this particular instance, in orderto facilitate delivery, the consignmentwas addressed to a military officer ofthe Logistics Division of the Ministryof Defence.

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Sir, is theHonourable Deputy Prime Ministerinforming this House that, if arms areconsigned to private individuals and

6833 22 MARCH 1966 6834

private addresses, the deliveries of thearms will be facilitated?

Tun Haji Abdul Razak: Mr Speaker,Sir, I do not wish to say very muchmore on this, because this is a matterconcerning security. I have given thefacts required by the HonourableMember.

INCIDENT BETWEEN CIVILIANSAND MILITARY PERSONNEL INKUCHING ON 24th JANUARY, 1966

3. Dr Tan Chee Khoon (Batu) asks theMinister of Defence the cause orcauses of riots between civilians andmilitary personnel in Kuching on thenight of 24th January, 1966, whetherhe is aware that such riots will haveserious repercussions in Sarawak, andif so, what steps have been taken toprevent a recurrence of such riots.

Tun Haji Abdul Razak : Mr Speaker,Sir, what took place in Kuching on thenight of the 24th January, 1966, couldhardly be called a riot. It started withan argument over food between amember of the Armed Forces and alocal mee seller in the Kuching openair market. This took place on the21st of January, 1966, but it. was mostunfortunate that this incident built uptension which later that day, and onthe 24th January, resulted in anumber of assault cases, involving asection of the civilian population andthe military. It is, of course, realisedthat such an incident will have seriousrepercussions in. Sarawak. A seniormilitary officer has now been appointedas Commander of the Malaysianmilitary troups in Sarawak, and one ofhis responsibilities is to establish closeliaison with the civilian authoritieswith a view to fostering close relation-ship and to create goodwill betweenthe civilian population and membersof the Armed Forces.

RANCHANGAN TANAHDI-SUNGAI PANJANG,

SABAK BERNAM

4. Dato' Haji Mustapha bin Haji AbdulJabar bertanya kapada Menteri Pem-bangunan Negara dan Luar Bandarada-kah benar bahawa Kerajaan Per-

sekutuan sedang mengambil langkahbagi memajukan tanah Sungai Panjang,Sabak Bernam, dalam RanchanganLembaga Kemajuan Tanah Perseku-tuan dengan menanam kelapa sawit,dan jika benar, bila-kah ranchanganini akan di-mulakan dan berapa ekartanah akan di-majukan.

The Assistant Minister of Nationaland Rural Development (Enche' Sulai-man bin Bulon): Tuan Yang di-Pertua,penyelidekan sedang di-j alankan di-atas tanah mi. Sama ada tanah inidapat di-buka atau tidak, atau berapaluas tanah ini akan di-buka, dan bilamasa-nya akan di-buka, maka ber-gantong kapada hasil penyiasatan yangdi-j alankan itu.

SEIZURE OF THE "VANGUARD",SARAWAK

5. Dr Tan Chee Khoon asks the Minis-ter of Home Affairs the reasons forthe seizure of the Vanguard whichgave a factual account of the riots inKuching on 24th January , 1966, andwhether he is not aware that this highhanded action of the police has givenrise to grave concern regarding thefreedom of the press.

Dato ' Dr Ismail : Sir, the seizure waseffected as a result of the order ofprohibition against a particular issue,i.e., the publication on 25th January,1966. This order was issued by theCommissioner of Police, SarawakConstabulary, on the direction ofmyself under Regulation 17 of thePreservation of Public Security Regu-lations, 1963, after due considerationhad been given to the article appearingon the front page of this particularedition. In general, the article wasconsidered to contain material cal-culated to promote feelings of ill-willand hostility between different classesof the population, to wit to exacerbateand resuscitate the extremely highfeeling existing between the KuchingMalay Community and members of theMalaysian Armed Forces. Inaccurateand alarmist portions of the articlewere as follows :

(i) The explosions were not hand-grenades and no statement that

6835 22 MARCH 1966

they were handgrenades wasmade by the Police.

(ii) The Honourable Dato' Jugah'saddress to the crowd was notdrowned by shouts of "send theMalayans back". His address wasreceived with acclaim and thecrowd cheered him and dispersed.

(iii) The account of the crowd notheeding the advice of Malayleaders is wildly exaggerated.Majority of persons did so heed,although some hot-heads inter-rupted by shouting. In general,the article was a lurid and rabble-rousing exaggerated account,which was calculated to inflamean already tense situation andrevive acts of violence. To saythe least, it was a highly irrespon-sible and dangerous piece ofjournalism. This view was put tothe editor by the State Informa-tion Officer prior to going topress.

For reasons only known to the editor,he chose to ignore this advice.

Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze: Isthe Honourable Minister aware that inspite of this order of seizure, quite aconsiderable number of copies had, infact, been distributed before the orderbecame effective that morning; andsince the Minister has stated severalinstances of inaccuracies, would it notbe better for the Minister, in fact, topublish all these inaccuracies so asto clear the air, and similarly to allowthe editor, or the journalist, respon-sible to put his facts right?

Dato' Dr Ismail : Sir, I said in myreply to the original question that thisview was put to the editor by the StateInformation Officer prior to going topress. For reasons only known to theeditor, he chose to ignore this advice.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: I have here acopy of the offending issue of theVanguard containing the article con-cerned. On reading through this, I,myself feel that there is nothinginflammatory. I wish to ask the Hon-ourable Minister whether he is awarethat a report of the same incident

6836

appeared in the Sabah Times of the28th January, which contained thesewords "Go home, Malayan Soldiers,we want peace" Thar is much thesame factual report. Why, then, is thisdiscrimination?

Dato ' Dr small : Sir, luckily for thepress of this country, the HonourableMember for Batu is not the Ministerof Home Affairs; otherwise, he wouldstart to censor all newspapers bytaking only small extracts of anyarticle written in any newspaper. Now,this article by the Vanguard must betaken as a whole, and the editor wasadvised that, if that article waspublished, it might inflame the alreadyhigh feeling between the Malay com-munity and the Armed Forces there.

COLLECTION OF TURNOVERTAX

6. Enche' Chia Chin Shin (Sarawak)asks the Minister of Finance to state

(a) the total figure of Turnover Taxcollected for 1965;

(b) the total figure of Turnover Taxwhich remained outstanding in1965;

(c) the steps being taken to investi-gate the causes of such outstand-ing unpaid Turnover Tax.

The Minister of Finance (Enche' TanSiew Sin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as thequestion is divided into three parts, Ishall reply accordingly :

(a) The total amount of turnover taxcollected to date on account of1965 is $20,781,326.

(b) The amount of tax outstandingfor 1965 is about $13 million.It should be recognised that asthe Turnover Tax Act did notbecome law until the end of June,1965, it was not possible to startassessing the tax until September.The total tax for 1965 has notyet been finally assessed and thelatest figure comes to about $33.7million.

(c) Every case of unpaid tax isinvestigated, and where theComptroller is satisfied that that

6837 22 MARCH 1966 6838

there is no good and sufficientreason for failure to make pay-ment , the necessary action istaken in accordance with theprovisions of the Turnover TaxAct.

SUBMISSION OF TURNOVER TAXAT SOURCES RETURNS

7. Enche' Chia Chin Shin asks theMinister of Finance whether he realisesthe hardship endured by Traders owingto ?tie volume of work involved inaccounting in order to submit theTurnover Tax at Source Returns,especially for Retail Traders, whowould have to summarise the Salesobtained from Local Purchase, fromMalaysian Products and ForeignImported Goods, and if so, whether hewill consider to amend the method ofpayment for Turnover Tax at Sourcefrom yearly to quarterly or monthlyin view of the strong opinionsexpressed by the Chambers of Com-merce throughout Malaysia.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Mr Speaker,Sir, to begin with, I must admit that Iam rather disturbed by the implicationsof the question which indicate thatthose liable to tax find it difficult tokeep even the simple accounts requiredfor Turnover Tax. If such is the case,one is driven to the conclusion that thepersons for whom the HonourableMember pleads keep no accounts at allfor income tax purposes, even thoughthey might be liable for it. I say thisbecause the accounts required forincome tax purposes will be muchmore complicated than those requiredfor Turnover Tax purposes. I certainlyam surprised that such an admissionshould have been made, but perhapsthe Honourable Member himself didnot realise the income tax implicationsof his question.

Coming to the question itself, I haveasked those concerned to contact theComptroller-General of Inland Revenueor the Controller concerned, if they infact have any problem of the naturementioned by the Honourable Mem-ber. It is not, however, proposed toamend the basis period of the tax, orto collect tax on a quarterly, or

monthly basis, but I have instructedthe Comptroller-General to see to itthat any case of genuine hardship isdealt with as leniently as possible andevery assistance is given to taxpayersto enable them to meet their taxliability. The Comptroller-General hasalso been authorised in genuine casesof hardship to use the current yearbasis to compute the tax liability andto allow payment to be made on aninstalment basis.

CHANGE OF TURNOVER TAX ATSOURCE TO IMPORT TAX

8. Enche' Chia Chin Shin asks theMinister of Finance to state whetherhe considers essential to change thesystem of Turnover Tax at Source toImport Tax instead and, if so, when.

Enche' Tan Slew Sin: There is nointention at present to change theexisting system.

NATIONAL ELECTRICITYBOARD NUMBER OF

EXPATRIATE OFFICERSEMPLOYED

9. Enche ' C. V. Devan Nair (Bungsar)asks the Minister of Commerce andIndustry to state the number ofexpatriate officers employed in theNational Electricity Board:

(a) on a permanent basis, and(b) on short-term contracts.

The Minister of Local Governmentand Housing (Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh):Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is in twoparts: (a) on permanent basis nil;(b) 12 entitled contract officers, 5 non-entitled contract officers, and ii short-term contract officers, totalling 28.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, will the Honourable Ministerclarify what he means by "entitledcontract officers" and "non-entitledcontract officers"?

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : "Entitledcontract officers" mean these are theofficers placed on the pensionableestablishment, or have expectations ofbeing placed on the pensionableestablishment. "Non-entitled contract

6839 22 MARCH 1966

officers" are those who are not on thepensionable basis.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, is it not a fact of the entitledcontract officers, practically all of themalready have received, or have beenpromised, the Malaysian Malayani-sation bounty? If so, how does onereconcile giving away this Malayani-sation bounty and permanency ofservice?

.Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : Mr Speaker,Sir, that is a separate question onwhich I require notice.

MALAYSIANS UNDERGOINGTRAINING IN OVERSEASUNIVERSITIES FOR SERVICEIN THE NATIONAL ELEC-

TRICITY BOARD

10. Enche' C. V. Devan Nair asks theMinister of Commerce and Industrywhether he can give particulars relatingto Malaysians undergoing higher train-ing in universities overseas with a viewto qualifying themselves for fulfillinghigher responsibilities in the NationalElectricity Board, under the followingheadings :

(a) number of persons undergoingsuch higher training abroad;

(b) branches of studies; and(c) duration of courses.

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : Mr Speaker,Sir, the N.E.B. Malayanisation date is31st December, 1967. However, fourcontract officers will still be in serviceafter that date. These officers areattached to the Generation Departmentby virtue of their wide experience andwill be replaced only when localofficers have gained the necessaryexperience in the particular field. Now24 officers will .....

Mr Speaker: That is in reply towhich question?

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : I am answer-ing Question No. 10. 24 Officers willleave the service by 31st of December,1967, one short term contract officerwill finish his contract at the end ofMay, 1968, two short term contract

6840

Officers by end of April, 1969, and onenon-entitled contract officer by the endof February, 1970.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: MrSpeaker, Sir, I think there has beensome mistake. I believe the HonourableMinister has been answering QuestionNo. 11.

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh: Mr Speaker,Sir, I got the wrong Order Paper asin the order of the previous OrderPaper. The answer is:

Electrical Engineering ... 61

Mechanical Engineering ... 5

Total ... 66

All these students are studying in theUnited Kingdom and the period ofduration of the course is three to fouryears excluding two years pupilagetraining in the industry. From the totalfigure, the Honourable Member wouldsee that the number being trained isapproximately twice the number ofexpatriate officers.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, if I heard the Honourable Ministercorrectly, he said that all the 60 oddstudents are all studying in the UnitedKingdom. Now, is the HonourableMinister aware that facilities for elec-trical engineering and for mechanicalengineering are available at the Uni-versity of Malaya at considerableexpense to the taxpayers of thiscountry? If so, Mr Speaker, Sir, willthe Honourable Minister give us anassurance that no students will be sentabroad by the N.E.B. in future, unlessthey cannot find places in the Facultyof Engineering, University of Malaya.This, Sir, not only gives them a localbackground to the training but alsosaves foreign exchange. If I heard theHonourable the Assistant Minister forFinance correctly yesterday, he wasvery concerned over the saving offoreign exchange perhaps that is notshared by the N.E.B.?

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : Mr Speaker,Sir, I have little doubt that thesepoints raised by the Honourable Mem-ber have been considered very care-fully by the substantive Minister,

6841 22 MARCH 1966 6842

Dr Lim Swee Aun. Nevertheless, thiswill be passed on to Dr Lim for hisfurther consideration.

11. Enche' C. V. Devan Nair asks theMinister of Commerce and Industry tostate the probable date by which heexpects to have the National ElectricityBoard organisation completely Malaya-nised, and adds that if the HonourableMinister has not finished answering it,he would like to hear the rest of theMinister's reply. (Laughter).

COMPLETE MALAYANISATIONOF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICITY

BOARD DATE

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : I am afraidI have just finished the whole answer,when I was interrupted.

LOW-COST HOUSING AT JALANPEKELILING, KUALA LUMPURCOMPLETION OF WORK BY THE

CABINET COMMITTEE12. Dr Tan Chee Khoon asks theMinister of Local Government andHousing to state if the Cabinet Com-mittee, consisting of the Ministers forFinance, Works, Posts and Telecom-munications, and Local Governmentand Housing, to consider the tenderfor the Low-Cost Housing at JalanPekeliling has completed its work,whether any other contractor has putin a new bid for the work, and whenwill the work on the project be started.

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : Mr Speaker,Sir, the Cabinet Committee has stillnot completed its work, although ithas met on two occasions. The negotia-ting committee consisting of officialshas, however, just completed its workon the 15th March, 1966, and is in theprocess of drawing up its final reportfor submission to the Cabinet Com-mittee. No other contractor has put ina new bid for the Jalan Pekelilingproject, As to when the project will bestarted, this depends entirely on thedecision by the Cabinet Committee onthe final report.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, if no other persons have dared toput in a bid, and if no contract has

been awarded, I take it that no workshould start on the site. Is the Honour-able Minister aware that piling haspractically started on the site? If so,on whose authority?

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh: Mr Speaker,Sir, I have answered that questionpreviously. No work has yet beenstarted on the site on the buildingproject itself. There has been boringtests for the purpose of piling esti-mates, but no actual work on thebuilding has been started, and I canassure this House that, quite unlikewhat the Opposition has presumed, thecontract is still very much in theprocess of being negotiated, and Ihave said that the Committee ofOfficials has just completed its workand will be submitting its final reportto the Cabinet Committee, and it ispremature for me to say anythingfurther on this matter.

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Mr Speaker,Sir, perhaps, the Honourable Ministeris not aware of a signboard on the sitewhich says "Piling by Gammons" andso on. I mean, it does not say "boringtest". If anybody is being misled, thenhe is being misled by the contractor'ssignboard on the site.

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : Mr Speaker,Sir, I am afraid that is a very oldstory. We have gone through this sign-board affair many, many, times in thelast meeting of Parliament; all I cansay in this House is that no contracthas been awarded, and this House willknow the final result after the CabinetCommittee has made its decision. It istoo premature at this stage for me tosay anything in that direction.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : While we areglad of this assurance that no contracthas been started, and the Ministerhimself has stated that no work hasstarted, is the Minister aware that Ihave consulted expert opinion, andthey tell me that the gadgets that areon the site are certainly not for boringtest but for piling. If so, will he notconsult his experts to find out theactual facts of the case? It is not we

6843 22 MARCH 1966

who are misled, possibly the Ministeris being led up the garden path.

Enche' Khaw Kai-Boh : Mr Speaker,Sir, I cannot stop the people, who arenegotiating in finding out for them-selves, for the purpose of estimates,the amount of work involved. If theyare prepared to involve themselves inunnecessary costs in putting anythingon the site for the purpose of theirestimates, I cannot stop them. Theydo it at their own risk.

PORT WORKERS EMPLOYED BYTHE PENANG PORT LABOUR

BOARD13. Dr Lim Chong Eu (Tanjong) asksthe Minister of Labour to state :

(a) what are the conditions forselection of port workers by thePenang Port Labour Board;

(b) whether he is aware of the graveanxiety among the port workerscaused by the decision of thePort Labour Board to curtailthe number of registered portworkers and to restrict thenumber of stevedoring employers;

(c) what was the number of regis-tered port workers who havehitherto been getting employ-ment in the Penang Port Areaand how many will be absorbedby the Penang Port LabourBoard; and

(d) what plans he has to alleviatethe potential unemployment ofnearly 1,500 previously registeredport workers and whether he willassure this House that the imple-mentation of the policy of thePort Labour Board will not causeundue hardship to those whoselivelihood has been taken awayfrom them.

The Minister of Labour (Enche'V. Manickavasagam): Mr Speaker, Sir,I must first point out, that the PenangPort Labour Board is an independentbody created under an Act of Parlia-ment. The question largely concernsthe activities of this Board, and muchof the information I can give thisHouse is obtained from the Boarditself. I will answer the question in the

6844

order asked by the HonourableMember:

(a) The conditions for the selectionof stevedores as laid down by thePenang Port Labour Board are :

(1) Physical fitness;(2) Ages between 20 to 25;(3) Number of years employed

as stevedores.

(b) The Board and I are aware ofthe anxiety amongst some workers,as a result of the restrictions inthe number of stevedores to beregistered. When the Port Workers(Regulation of Employment) Billwas introduced in this House lastyear, it was stated that there wasa multiplicity of employers andworkers in the port, most of themworking in a casual basis, andthat this was the cause for thedepressed conditions of employ-ment in the Port. It follows fromthis that the registration schemeto provide for greater regularityof employment of port workersunder improved conditions wouldnecessarily result in a reductionin the number of people employ-able under the scheme. Theemploying organisation to beregistered under the scheme wouldalso have to be re-organised witha view to ensuring reasonablesecurity of employment and termsand conditions of employment tothe workers.

(c) The present registration schemewill apply initially to stevedoresand later to other categories ofport workers. The exact numberof stevedores in Penang is notknown, but I am informed that atotal of 2,325 applications forregistration as stevedores werereceived by the Board.

(d) As I have stated, Sir, the Boardhas not yet decided as to howmany stevedores will be regis-tered. I can assure this Housethat all possible steps will betaken to ensure that workers whohave been dependent on portwork for their livelihood are notadversely affected. Those, whoseprimary employment is not in the

6845 22 MARCH 1966 6846

port, will probably not be regis-tered and will have to cease portwork.

Dr Lim Chong Eu: Sir, in the verylong reply, which the HonourableMinister gave, I noted, in particular,that in his reply to part (b), he saidthat the anxiety would only involvesome port workers, he said that thenumber of registered port workers willbe many and that those who will notbe registered will be some. Sir, later onin his reply to part (d), I think, hetacitly accepted the unofficial figure, orthe estimated figure, of 2,300 overpotential stevedores, being at presentinvolved in the port work and 1,500of them is not some, but the majorityof them. Under the circumstances, Sir,does not. the Honourable Minister feelthat this is a matter of considerableimportance involving the machinery ofGovernment with regard to labour and,therefore, his Ministry should supervisethe activities and the plans of the PortLabour Board on behalf of the interestof the workers on the Port?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam : Sir, as Ihave stated here just now, the Ministryplaces great importance in the workingof this Port, but I have also stated thatit is an independent Board, where wehave workers' representatives, em-ployers' representatives, and membersof the independent panel. Sir, I canassure this House that Government isas anxious, or even more anxious thanthe Honourable Member himself, to seethat workers, who have been dependingon port work, are given work and thattheir livelihood is not adverselyaffected.

Dr Lim Chong Eu: I am happy tohear the reply of the Minister. How-ever, Sir, will the Honourable Ministeralso assure us that he will take intoconsideration that those numbers ofport workers, who will be put out bythis de-casualisation scheme, will beput on a priority basis with regard tofuture employment, when the port isextended over to Butterworth?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam : Sir, as Ihave stated many times here, and I am

sure the Honourable Member is aware,there are people in the port who do notdepend solely on port work but dowork as casuals people who workelsewhere. In order to see that people,who are solely employed in port work,get, a fair deal, we will have to de-casualise those who are just doing workon a casual basis. This was explainedfully in this House, and I think peopleare aware that the introduction of thisport scheme will de-casualise certainworkers. But I can assure this Housethat those who find themselves short ofjobs, or who want to get extra income,we would do what we can for them.

Dr Lim Chong Eu : Sir,' arising fromthe reply of the Honourable Minister,is the Minister aware that in actual factthere is trouble brewing from the actualworkers, not the casual workers theactual workers of the Port Commis-sion-and that the casual workers areanxious? So, the position is not as rosyas was presented by him in his reply.

Enche' V. Manickavasagam : If I gethim correctly, Sir, I thought. he saysthat some trouble is brewing in thePort Commission, which is a separateissue, Sir.

Enche' Lim Kean Siew : Can theHonourable Minister inform this Houseas to how the Board came to thisscheme for the employment of em-ployees and the number of employersthat will be used by the Board?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: TheBoard has not come to any definiteconclusion as to the number of em-ployers or workers. They have receivedapplications from workers and that isthe figure I gave just now i.e. 2,325applications.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: TheHonourable Minister mentioned thenecessity to de-casualise the casualworkers. Would it not be possible, Sir,that a large number of these casualworkers may, in fact, have been casualfor a very long time, and in such casesde-casualisation should mean that. theyare placed on the permanent basis :would the Minister consider that?

6847 22 MARCH 1966 6848

Enche' V, Manickavasagam It willbe looked into by the Board, Sir.

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: What I askedwas, how did the Board come to anyscheme even though it might be atentative scheme, was there a properenquiry held, and whose views weretaken into consideration, and whetheror not any person appeared before theBoard before the Board came to anytentative scheme?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: TheBoard, as I said earlier, came intobeing after an Act. of Parliament, andthe people in Penang were given everyopportunity to appear before theBoard or to give their views to theBoard and the Board, I can assure thisHouse, is still prepared to hear viewsfrom interested persons.

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Is theHonourable Minister aware that in factthe Board held only two meetings? Atthe first meeting a Mr Freathy freelygave his advice, and the only personwho spoke at that meeting was MrFreathy who was the adviser of theBoard. At the second meeting of theBoard, the Board came to certaindecision, which were published in thenewspapers of Penang and the deci-sions published were as follows :

(1) that there will be only fiveemployers of stevedores;

(2) that there would be 1,144 steve-dores to be employed;

(3) that employers, who wouldqualify, would be those whocould give a guarantee that theycould employ at least 17 gangsof stevedores; and finally

(4) that the workers employed wouldbe given a guarantee of 222 daysa month and it is understood,apparently, that Legal Notifica-tion No. 7 of 1964 would applywith regard to the wages andconditions of work of the steve-dores and that this publicationwas what caused a furore inPenang.

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: MrSpeaker, Sir, I had been to Penang

three days ago. I met the members ofthe Board and I can assure this House,Sir, that nothing definite has beenarrived at by the Board.

LABOUR EXCHANGESREGISTRATION OF LABOUR

14. Dr Lim Chong Eu asks the Ministerof Labour to state:

(a) what is the system employed bythe Labour Exchanges for findingemployment for (i) skilled labourand (ii) unskilled labour; and

(b) whether he is aware of the factthat some persons are registeredfor as long as two or more yearswith the Labour Exchanges andstill have not, been able to findemployment; and that the presentsystem used of rotation of firstregistered first served virtuallymeans that any new registrationmay have to wait for at least twoyears in the case of unskilledlabour before a person canreasonably hope to secureemployment through the LabourExchange, and if so, what plansGovernment has to alleviatehardship and to give unemploy-ment benefits to those who areregistered with the Labour Ex-change but who have not beenable to secure employment.

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: MrSpeaker, Sir, the Employment Ex-changes can only assist employers infinding the type of workers they needand job seekers in finding work suitedto their qualifications and desires.The Exchange merely matches arequest. for workers with the jobseekers registered with it. The actualsystem used is that persons who areregistered first, where they meet theemployers requirements, are. referredto the employers for interview first.This principle of "first come firstserved" does not, mean, however, thatthe next senior registrant is only sentfor interview when the first has foundemployment. Once the first man hasbeen sent for interview, the nextregistrant gains seniority for the nextinterview. This is the system used forboth skilled and unskilled workers. I

6849 22 MARCH 1966 6850

am aware that some job seekers haveto wait for long periods before findingemployment suitable to them. This isprimarily because the number of jobseekers far exceeds the demand forthem in the exchanges , especially in theunskilled occupations . I am not awareof a system more equitable than thatI have described earlier , that of "firstcome first served". In some cases, thewaiting period is long because of lapseson the parr of the registrants them-selves. They fail to keep their registra-tion with the exchanges alive by renew-ing them every three months. Oncethis lapse occurs they inevitably losetheir seniority of registration.

The fact remains , Sir, that personswith no skills, or qualifications, willnot be absorbed into employment asquickly as the skilled job seekers. Theskilled ones experience little delay infinding employment . A look at theregisters at the Employment Exchangesclearly shows that more than 60 percent of the job seekers possess no skillsat all, and it will be impossible to findthem employment within a short period.Officers of my Ministry and thevarious Employment Exchange advi-sory committees widely publicise theservice provided by the exchanges, butnotifications of vacancies from emplo-yers still fall far short of the number ofjob seekers on the registers of ourexchanges. Even then registrants,including the unskilled ones appear, tobe very choosy about jobs. In 1959 ascheme to employ these unemployedworkers on a road building project inGenting Simpah , only twenty milesfrom here , was introduced , but thework finally had to be completed withcontract labour , as the registrants ofthe Exchange were unwilling to acceptsuch employment.

The Government is aware of thesedifficulties . The Development Plans sofar and the First Malaysia Plan arebold attempts to meet these problems,but their solution cannot be found over-night . The target of the First MalaysiaPlan to reduce the rate of unemploy-ment from 6 per cent of the labourforce to 5.2 per cent is as realistic asone can get . The various trainingschemes and indeed the educational

system itself are geared to making thelabour force generally more employ-able.

An unemployment insurance scheme,if it is studied carefully, cannot be theanswer to the unemployment situationin this country. The characteristicnature of our unemployment, as in alldeveloping countries, is that unemploy-ment is highest among youths, who arenew to the labour market. The pay-ment of unemployment benefits requiresthat the unemployed persons haveworked for some time to build upqualifying contributions. But thisstandard rule alone, the vast majorityof the youths will not qualify for suchbenefits. The answer, the Governmentbelieves, lies in the positive fields ofdevelopment and the expansion ofemployment opportunities. This is pre-cisely what we are doing.

Dr Lim Chong Eu: Sir, I have severalpoints to ask arising out of his lengthyreply, but I will take the last one first.Is not the Honourable Ministerexpressing rather a sanguine point ofview about the positive policy ofGovernment in view of the fact thatthe number of workers, who areregistered with Employment Exchangeshave been steadily increasing with theincreasing period of Alliance policy-making in this country?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam : Sir, asmore pupils leave schools every year,they are in the labour market lookingfor jobs and so the number increases.That shows that there is growth in thiscountry, Sir, even though we havefamily planning.

Dr Lim Chong Eu: It does appear,Sir, that the answer is not only inpositive planning but in family plan-ning, about which I had thought abouta great deal previously, i.e., to say thatthe best prospect for the future of thiscountry is not to be born at all. How-ever, Sir, there is one other supple-mentary question which I would liketo ask arising out of the reply givenby the Honourable Minister and thatis, what provision of review of theexisting system employed by the Labour

6851 22 MARCH 1966

Exchange is maintained by the Minis-try, that is to say, is the Ministryconstantly reviewing new methods, orbetter methods, of seeking employmentfor the labourers registered with theEmployment Exchanges; and, secondly,Sir, in so doing, will the HonourableMinister assure us that he will try andsolve the problem which he himselfhas indicated, namely "first come firstserved"? In this system of "first comefirst served", what happens is that,if a person is on the top of the listand there is a two-year waiting listbehind him, and his name is submittedfor an employment, but he is turneddown, he goes right down to thebottom of the list. Now, if he happensto have been at the bottom of thefirst list, that is, he had been alreadytwo years on the EmploymentExchange, he tries to get a job and hefails to get a job on the recommenda-tions, or through the help of theEmployment Exchange, he then has towait another two years, so that makeshim four years, and if at the end ofthe second period he again misses it,he goes to six years. So, the numberof these type of chronic membersregistered on the Employment Ex-changes is increasing. Will the Honour-able Minister assure us that he willlook into this problem of these chronicunemployable labourers and try andsolve their particular problem?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: Sir, Iwould like to reply to the second partof the question first. I said earlier inmy reply, a number of our workers,or youths, who look for jobs arechoosey about employment. That givesus lots of difficulties and creates pro-blems. However, Sir, in answer to bothhis questions posed just now, I canassure this House, Sir, that the Employ-ment Exchange procedures are beingreviewed as a whole, and we are gettingILO assistance to see how we canimprove the system.

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah(Kelantan Hilir): Tuan Yang di-Pertua,soal tambahan. Ada-kah Yang Berhor-mat Menteri yang berkenaan sedar danketahul bahawa orange Melayu yangtelah mendaftarkan diri mereka itu sa-bagai "unskilled labour" di-Pejabat2

6852

Buroh di-merata2 cherok rantau di-dalam Tanah Melayu ini semenjaktahun 1964-61 tidak di-panggil temu-duga wal hal orang yang bukan Melayuyang mendaftarkan diri mereka itu sa-lama 2-3 bulan telah di-panggil temu-duga dan di-beri kerja kapada merekaitu, dan ini ada-kah sa-bagai satuindustrial calibre to which Malays, ourunskilled Malay labourers, are sub-jected to? For his information, sayasuka-lah hendak refer Yang BerhormatMenteri kapada Utusan Melayu, 3 hari-bulan Mach. Bunyi-nya bagini :

"HAPUSKAN SAHAJA PEJABAT PEKERJAAN

Bukit Mertajam 2 Mach. Kerajaan akandi-desak supaya menutup sahaja PejabatMenchari Kerja di-Butterworth, kerana per-jalanan-nya di-katakan tidak memuaskanhati orang ramai. Keputusan ini telah di-ambil di-dalam Meshuarat Agong UMNO,Chawangan Simpang Empat, SeberangPrai, Kedah, yang berlangsong baharu2 mi.Meshuarat Agong yang telah di-hadhirioleh lebeh 200 orang itu telah di-beri tahubahawa ada-nya Pejabat Buroh di-Butter-worth itu telah tidak memberi untongkapada penganggor2, sebab-nya is-lah sa-tengah2 penganggor yang telah mendaftar-kan diri untok menchari kerja di-situsemenjak S tahun yang lalu, tidak pernahdi-panggil untok temu-duga bagi mendapatpekerjaan, sa-balek-nya ada pula yangbaharu sahaja mendaftarkan nama sudahdi-panggil."

Oleh sebab yang demikian, sayasuka-lah hendak mengetahui ada-kahMenteri Yang Berhormat sedar danapa-kah kedudokan-nya?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: TuanSpeaker, saya pun tidak tahu machammana, bila PAS dapat satu cherita yangdia boleh guna, dia gunakan resolutionUMNO, bila masa lain, dia bangkangitu. Saya beri nasihat kapada PartiPAS bila2 pun boleh dengar nasihatdaripada UMNO, tidak susah.

Permintaan daripada Ahli dariKelantan Hilir itu, saya tidak tahu satutempat pun mana ada pusat tidakmengambil pekerja2 daripada kaumMelayu. Yang saya tahu, Tan Speaker,mana2 kilang atau pun tempat industry,majikan ada ambil pekerja2 Kerajaan2orang Melayu, orang China, orangIndia dan orange lain. Jadi itu-lahtujuan Kerajaan lebeh2 lagi mahu mem-ber peluang kapada youth daripadaorang Melayu dan juga lain2 kaum.

6853 22 MARCH 1966 6854

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-kira-nyaMenteri Yang Berhormat tidak tahudi-mana-kah tempat kejadian ini telahberlaku, saya khabarkan kapada-nya,di-Butterworth telah berlaku perkarami. Saya minta dia selideki di-atasperkara ini; jangan-lah dia berkata initimbul-nya daripada PAS ini timbuldaripada UMNO sendiri.

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: TuanYang di--Pertua, saya baharu pergiButterworth Labour Exchange, dansaya tahu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, che-rita itu tidak betul.

OPERATION OF UNLICENSEDTRAWLERS ALONG SELANGOR

COAST15. Dato' Haji Mustapha bin HajiAbdul Jabar bertanya kapada MenteriPertanian dan Sharikat Kerjasama ada-kah Kerajaan sedar bahawa beratus-ratus buah pukat harimau masehmenangkap ikan di-Pantai Selangor,terutama-nya di-Sabak Bernam, di-kawasan ayer sa-dalam enam depa,serta merosakkan jaring2 nelayan ke-chil, dan jika sedar, apa-kah tindakanKerajaan berchadang hendak ambiluntok menj amin mata pencharian nela-yan2 itu.

The Minister of Agriculture andCo-operatives (Tuan Haji MohamedGhazali bin Haji Jawi): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Keraj aan sedar tentang perkarapenggunaan pukat tunda sa-chara ha-ram oleh nelayan2 di-pantai negeriSelangor. Dari penghujong tahun 1963hingga ka-akhir tahun 1965 sa-ramai109 orang tuan2 punya pukat tundatelah di-tangkap kerana memukat de-ngan pukat tunda di-perayeran negeriSelangor dengan tiada mempunyaikebenaran. Sa-ramai 80 orang darijumlah 109 orang itu telah di-bawaka-Mahkamah.

Tindakan yang sa-umpama ini akandi-teruskan.

BILL PRESENTED

THE FAMILY PLANNINGBill to establish and to incorporatethe National Family Planning Board

and to provide for matters incidentalthereto; presented by the AssistantMinister of Culture, Youth and Sports;read the first time; to be read a secondtime at a subsequent sitting of thisHouse.

BILLS

THE PRESERVATION OFBOOKS BILL

Second Reading

Menteri Muda Kebudayaan , Belia danSokan (Engku Muhsein bin AbdulKadir): Dato' Yang di-Pertua, sayamemohon untok membawa Undang2"The Preservation of Books Bill, 1966",untok di-bacha bagi kali yang kedua.

Undang2 Preservation of Books yangada sekarang yang telah di-perundang-kan sa-belum merdeka is-itu dalamtahun 1950, hanya meliputi negeri2dalam Tanah Melayu sahaja dan telahmembuktikan, terkebelakang, dalambeberapa perkara. Sa-bagai chontoh-nya walau pun Undang2 itu mensharat-kan tiga salinan daripada tiap2 bukuyang di-chetak dalam Tanah Melayuhendak-lah di-hantar kapada JabatanArkib Negara. Undang2 ini menghen-daki yang buku2 ini sa-telah di-senarai-kan, hendak-lah Pula di-bahagikankapada dua foreign institutions, is-ituPerpustakaan Universiti Singapura danTrustee of the British Museum, semen-tara salinan yang ketiga-nya di-hantarkapada Perpustakaan Universiti ofMalaya dengan tidak pula menentukansharat2 supaya di-simpan buku2 itu.Dengan sebab itu walau pun adasenarai buku2 yang di-terbitkan di-Tanah Melayu, tidak-lah pula adachukup kumpulan simpanan yang leng-kap bagi penerbitan2 kebangsaan dalamjurusan kesusasteraan, sain dan kese-nian dan lain2 lagi. Kejadian inisangat-lah ganjil dan sangat2 mustahakdi-betulkan. Rang Undang2 ini mengan-dongi dua tujuan.

Pertama untok menjamin bahawadua salinan tiap2 buku yang di-terbit-kan dalam Malaysia, kena-lah di-simpan di-dalam tempat simpanannegara yang akan menjadi teras kapadaPerpustakaan Kebangsaan di-Ibu Kota

6855 22 MARCH 1966

pada masa akan datang. Satu j awatan-kuasa untok Perpustakaan Kebangsaanitu telah pun di-lantek.

Yang kedua, walau pun Rang Un-dang2 ini mengandongi chara2 peneri-maan dan penyimpanan buku2 danpenerbitan2 tingkatan Persekutuan, diatidak-lah melanggar hake negeri dalamMalaysia untok membuat undang2negeri masing2 saperti, mithal-nya,negeri Sarawak yang sudah pun adaundang2 negeri-nya yang di-kenali sa-bagai Sarawak Museum Deposit Lib-rary Ordinance, 1961. Sharat2 baharuUndang2 ini apabila di-bandingkandengan Undang2 yang telah ada is-lah :

(a) Dua salinan sa-bagai mengganti-kan tiga salinan yang ada seka-rang daripada semua penerbitan2yang di-terbitkan dalam Malaysiahendak-lah di-serahkan kapadaJabatan Akib Negara untok sim-panan tetap. Penerbitan ini tidakakan di-bahagikan Pula kapadalain2 institution bagaimana yangtelah terjadi sekarang.

(b) Denda kerana tidak menurut Un-dang2 ini di-naikkan kapada$1,000 di-champor dengan hargabuku yang tidak di-serahkan itu.

(c) Perchetakan Kerajaan yang padamasa sekarang ini tidak di-kehen-daki menyerahkan penerbitan2Kerajaan kapada Jabatan AkibNegara ada-lah di-kehendakimembuat demikian.

(d) Akan ada empat institution is-ituPerpustakaan Universiti Malaya,Sarawak Museum, PerpustakaanPusat Negeri Sabah dan DewanBahasa dan Pustaka yang bolehmemohon untok salinan2 mana2penerbit dalam tempoh 12 bulandaripada tarikh penerbitan. Reng-kas-nya Rang Undang2 inibertujuan untok meluaskan lagisharat2 Undang2 SimpananBuku2 Preservation of BooksOrdinance untok meliputi selu-roh Malaysia dan juga untokm{emperbaiki bebeiapa keku-rangan2 untok kepentingan ke-bangsaan.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker,Sir, I think all of us must support this

6856

Bill, but I am a little perturbed thatthis Bill has taken such a long time incoming. The old Act states that thebooks in the past should have beendeposited, amongst other places, in theBritish Meseum and delivered to thetrustees of the British Museum. I amreally at a loss as to why nine longyears after independence the AllianceGovernment has now found out thisrelic of colonialism and chosen toremove this vestige of colonialism.Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt thatthere are many more vestigial rem-nants of colonialism and the sooner theAlliance Government excise themfrom the body politic the better it isfor the Alliance Government and forthis country' in general. There is norhyme or reason why any book printedin Malaysia should be deposited faraway across the seas to the trustees ofthe British Museum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to touchon one other point. I notice that in theSchedule, four bodies are mentionedthe University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, the Dewan Bahasa dan Pus-taka, the Sabah Central Library, andthe Sarawak Museum. I do not knowwhether the Assistant Minister inintroducing this Bill knows that thereis in the offing -and I hope in the nottoo distant future that we shouldhave a National Library, and in allparts of the world, books that areprinted are always deposited in theNational Library. I, for one, will bevery happy if the Minister will add inaddition to the four bodies, "5 anysuch under institutions as the Govern-ment may so desire, in particular theNational Library", which I hope theGovernment will establish in the imme-diate future.

Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam perkaraNational Library memang dalamuchapan saya dalam bahasa kebang-saan yang telah saya sebutkan is-itudaripada dua buku yang di-hantarkapada Akib Negara itu ada-lah di-tujukan untok menjadi teras kapadasatu Perpustakaan Kebangsaan yangakan di-buat tidak beberapa lama lagidan satu jawatan-kuasa untok perpus-takaan itu telah pun di-lantek. mi telah

6857 22 MARCH 1966 6858

saya uchap dalam uchapan saya yangpertama tadi.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Saya tidakdengar uchapan itu.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolvedinto a Committee on the Bill.

itself

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered tostand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, I have just now mentioned, andalthough the Assistant Minister hasclarified, that to the Schedule, I wouldbe very happy, if the Government willadd after "4", "5 The National Lib-rary and any other institutions as theGovernment may so desire". As itstands, according to the Schedule, allthese books are only consigned to thefour bodies listed in the Schedule.

Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dua daripadabuku ini di-minta di-hantarkan kapadaNational Archives dan daripada duabuku itu-lah boleh di-tentukan untokdi-gunakan oleh Perpustakaan Negaraapabila di-tubohkan kelak.

Mr Chairman : I believe the Honour-able Member for Batu suggested anamendment to the Schedule, but therewas no formal amendment moved.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Chairman,Sir, I beg to move that "after "4", add"5 the National Library if and whenit is established".

Amendment put, and negatived.

Schedule ordered to stand part ofthe Bill.

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

THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES(VIENNA CONVENTION) BILL

Second Reading

Engku Muhsein bin Abdul Kadir:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya memohonuntok membawa Rang Undang2 "TheDiplomatic Privileges (Vienna Conven-tion) Bill" di-bachakan kali yang kedua.

Perhimpunan Agong Bangsa2 Her-satu, melalui Ketetapan 1,450 Butir(14) yang bertarikh pada 7hb Disem-ber, 1959, telah memutuskan untokmengadakan suatu persidangan antarabangsa yang terdiri daripada wakil2Kerajaan di-luar negeri untok memper-timbangkan soal perhubongan2 dankebebasan2 diplomatik dan memasok-kan hasil persidangan itu ka-dalamsatu Perjanjian Antara Bangsa bersamadengan perkara2 yang berkaitan yangdi-rasai perlu. Persidangan Bangsa2Bersatu berkenaan dengan Perhu-bongan dan Kebebasan Diplomatiktelah di-adakan di-Vienna mulai 2hbMach, hingga 14hb April 1961. Kajian2daripada 81 buah negeri telah di-rundingkan termasok yang pada masaitu Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, yangtelah di-wakili di-Persidangan itu.Atas dasar pertimbangan2 yang di-ambil yang mengakibatkan beberapapindaan pada perjanjian itu, Persi-dangan itu telah menggunakan pada14 April, 1965, apa yang di-namakanPerjanjian Vienna berkenaan denganPerhubongan Diplomatik dan Protokolmengenai pendapatan kewarga nega-raan dan penyelesaian pertikaian2 yangdi-mestikan.

Perjanjian dan protokol yang di-terima oleh persidangan yang bertarikhpada 14hb April, 1961, telah di-buka-kan untok di-tanda tangani pada 18hbApril, 1961, menurut sharat2 hingga3 l hb Oktober, 1961, di-KementerianPersekutuan bagi Hal-Ehwal LuarNegeri Australia sa-terus-nya sa-hingga3lhb Mach, 1962, di-Ibu PejabatBangsa2 Bersatu di-New York. Perj an-jian dan protokol yang sama jugadi-buka untok pemereksaan mengikutsharat2 yang akan di-simpan olehSetia-usaha Agong Bangsa2 Bersatu.Persekutuan Tanah Melayu tidak me-nanda tangani perjanjian itu. Perjanjianitu telah di-kuat kuasakan pada 24hb

6859 22 MARCH 1966 6860

April, 1964. Dalam tahun 1965 Jema`ahMenteri telah memutuskan untok ikutbersama Perjanjian Vienna denganperhubongan Diplomatik Protokol2yang bersangkutan.

Pada 9hb November, 1965, Malaysiatelah menyampaikan persetujuan-nyauntok mengikut sama perjanjian ituka-Bangsa2 Bersatu dan dengan perjan-jian itu di-kuat kuasakan bagi Malay-sia pada 9hb Disember, 1965, is-itusa-bulan sa-lepas daripada perjanjianitu di-persetujui oleh Malaysia. RangUndang2 ini bertujuan menguat kuasa-kan beberapa fasal daripada Perjan-j ian2 Vienna berkenaan perhubongandiplomatik supaya membolehkanMalaysia mematohi perjanjian itu.Telah di-perhatikan bahawa beberapasharat2 tertentu dari Perjanjian Viennasahaja yang telah di-masokkan bagitujuan memberikan kesan Unlang2di-Malaysia. Sharat2 yang lain dariPerjanjian Vienna itu yang tidakdi-masokkan dalam jadual boleh di-jalankan oleh Malaysia tanpa membuattambahan dan pindaan kapada Undang2kita. Oleh yang demikian tidak-lahmustahak memasokkan sharat2 itudalam jadual Rang Undang2 mi.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mencha-dangkan supaya di-bachakan bagi kaliyang kedua.

The Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister of Health (Enche' Ibrahim binAbdul Rahman): Tuan Yang di-Pertua,saya menyokong.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered tostand part of the Bill.

Schedule ordered to stand part ofthe Bill.

Preamble ordered to stand part ofthe Bill.

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

THE INTERNAL SECURITY(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

The Minister of Home Affairs andMinister of Justice (Dato ' Dr Ismail):Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that aBill entitled "an Act to Amend theInternal Security Act, 1960" be nowread a second time.

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend theprovisions of Sections 41c, 59 and 60of the Internal Security Act, 1960. TheInternal Security (Amendment) Act,1964, which provides for the control ofadmission of students into specifiedinstitutions of higher education inMalaysia, requires any student seekingadmission to any of the specified insti-tutions of higher education to applyfor a certificate of suitability before hecan be considered for admission. ThisAct is so drafted that there is no pro-vision to exempt members of theteaching staff of an institution ofhigher learning, who intends to do post-graduate work, and persons, who pro-pose to attend extra-mural classesorganised by such institutions, or suchpersons as may be exempted by theMinister from obtaining a certificate ofsuitability as required by this Section.At present, therefore, members of theteaching star, who intend to do post-graduate studies, and students pro-posing to attend extra-mural classesorganised by the institutions of higherlearning have to obtain a certificate ofsuitability, if the regulations of theinstitutions provide that they have tobe registered or enrolled to attend thepost-graduate course, or any course ofstudy at a specified institution. It isconsidered desirable that members ofthe teaching staff proposing to do post-graduate studies in specified institutionsof higher learning and students pro-posing to attend extra-mural classes,which do not lead to qualifications ofany kind but which are normally heldoutside the normal teaching hours ofthat institution for the benefit of thegeneral public should be exemptedfrom the provisions of this Act.

The Amendment to Section 41c seeksto exempt members of the teachingstaff of the institutions of a higher

6861 22 MARCH 1966 6862

learning , who intend to do post-graduate work, and persons, whointend to attend extra-mural classesorganised by such institutions , or suchother persons as may be exempted bythe Minister from obtaining a certifi-cate of suitability as required bySection 41c of the Act. A new Sub-Section (6) is added to Section 41c inorder to make it clear that a studentwhose studies had been interrupted fora year must obtain a certificate ofsuitability before he can resume hisstudies.

Amendments to Section 59 arerequired in order to restrict the punish-ment of life imprisonment for convic-tion under the Section to cases wherethe supplies in respect of which aperson is convicted does not consist offire arms, ammunitions and explo-sives, so that if it does consist of anyof these, the punishment should bedeath. The proviso to Section 59 (3)and 60 also require amendments sothat immunity from convictions underthese two sections should be restrictedonly to cases where a person has madea voluntary statement to the policeprior to his arrest. Thus immunity fromconvictions will not be available if thestatement was made after his arrestthough it was made prior to his beingcharged or accused of an offences.

Amendments to Sections 59 and 60of the internal Security Act, 1960arose from two appeals decided by theFederal Court . In these two appealstwo persons were convicted of havingfire arms , ammunitions and explosivesunder their control contrary to Section57 (1) (A) and (B) of the InternalSecurity Act and as such weresentenced to death by the trial courtsitting at Johore Bahru . Accepting thecontention of the counsel for the appel-lants , the Federal Court substitutedthese convictions with convictionsunder Section 59 (1) of the Act for"Receiving Supplies" which expressionaccording to the definition containedin Section 2 includes ammunitions,explosives , fire arms and other articles.As a result , both the appellantsescaped death penalty and were,therefore , sentenced to life imprison-ment in accordance with Section 59 (1).

It is, therefore, considered desirablethat punishment for persons convictedunder Section 59 should be the deathpenalty in cases where the supplies inrespect of which he is convicted consistof fire arms, ammunitions or explosives,so that life imprisonment should onlybe restricted to cases where the suppliesconcerned are not fire arms, ammuni-tions or explosives. The proviso toSection 59 (3) and 60 as they stay nowhave also given rise to some difficulties,because as the law stands at themoment, a person who has givenvoluntary statement to the police beforehe is charged with or accused ofoffences under Sections 59 and 60cannot be convicted. Thus, if a personmakes a statement after his arrest, sinceit is made prior to his being charged,he cannot be convicted of the offence.In order to avoid this difficulty, it isdesirable that the provisos to Section59 (3) and 60 should be amended sothat the person can escape convictiononly if he gives a statement before hisarrest, so that if a statement is madeafter his arrest though before he wascharged, he can still be convicted.

Sir, I beg to move that the Bill benow read a second time.

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

Enche' Lim Kean Siew : Mr Speaker,Sir, I think that perhaps this is one ofthe times when those who talk ofdemocracy and of freedom of the mindand of thought should rise to call for,not the amendment as proposed by thisBill, but the removal of the whole ofSection 41c of the Internal SecurityAct, 1960.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if a person hasreached that stage of education andthe maturity of mind that futureUniversity training or further Univer-sity training would be beneficial tohim, surely he would have developedthe independence of mind and theability to analyse, which should enablehim, or should allow him, the freedomof deciding what is best for himself.As Section 41 (c) stands today, as myHonourable Colleague from Batu hassaid, even he, if he wishes to go fora further course of studies, would have

6863 22 MARCH 1966 6864

to apply to the Honourable Ministerof Home Affairs for a certificate ofsuitability . The very fact that there hasbeen need for this amendment is avery clear admission of failure by theGovernment, and its unduly harshstand on this issue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Section 2 (c) whichsays "such other persons as theMinister may, at his discret ion exemptfrom the provisions of this section givesto the Minister an absolute discretion,and therefore gives him absolute power,and therefore makes this essentially anarbitrary provision . How can we talkof democracy and democratic freedom,if a person who is going to Universityhas to provide himself with a certificateof suitability . We are not even toldwhat are the requirements of a certi-ficate of suitability , but merely that acertificate of suitability is necessarybefore a person can go on to Univer-sity. We may be assured in this Housethat the discretion will be exercisedwith the greatest caution and with thegreatest regard to individual freedom,we may even be assured in this Housethat the Minister himself will personallylook into every case where a personhas not been granted a certificate ofsuitability who wishes to go on toUniversity or wishes to change fromdiscipline to discipline but that is notthe point. The point is the principle ofit all. Should , for example a person,who has obtained the Higher SchoolCertificate obtain a certificate of suita-bility, or should a person , who is doinga course for his doctorate whose studieshave been interrupted for one year,re-apply for a certificate of suitability?Under Section 2 (b) the Governmentintends to insert a new sub-sectionwhich says "Nothing in this sectionshall exempt from the provisions ofthis section any student whose studieshave been interrupted for a period ofone year on disciplinary or othergrounds, notwithstanding that suchstudent has previously been admittedor that his name still remains in theregister of such institution". In otherwords if a student whose studies havebeen interrupted on any ground what-soever , even apart from disciplinaryground , will have to apply for acertificate of suitability.

Yesterday, this House heard thatwhen the Honourable the Minister ofEducation went to England and spoketo the Malaysian students , the Malay-sian student leaders gave him theimpression that they were in support ofthe Government 's move to separateSingapore students from Malayanstudents in England . My HonourableColleague from Batu produced theorgan of the Forum of Malaysian andSingapore students , published in Lon-don, called Suara Merdeka . There itwas stated quite clearly that the Forumand its organ was against this separa-tion . The Honourable Minister of Edu-cation himself , however , assured theHouse that the organ was underSingapore domination and therefore,did not rightly express the views of theMalaysian students in London whomhe met . Mr Speaker , Sir, somethingelse may. be true, because these studentshave had for years realised that theyhave to have a certificate of suitability,they ay have developed a certain kindof psychology which is that "if anyHonourable Minister should come to us,we should not show that we are personsto whom certificates of suitability shouldnever have been issued ." And thisaccounts , perhaps , for the timidity thatI sometimes find in young people, whoare otherwise endowed with great intel-ligence and independence of mindstudents who speak most sensibly andintelligently on Economics, on History,Geography , Science , languages , Litera-ture-who suddenly become dumb andconfounded when it comes to matters ofpolitics political theory and politicalconscience . This, Mr Speaker , Sir, is,indeed a cancer which does stultifygrowth of independence of mind of ouryoung Malaysian people. Perhaps, thisis why some teachers from foreign insti-tutions have expressed surprise thatMalaysian students sometimes seem sowilling to accept authority even thoughthe authority may be wrong.

As I have said , Mr Speaker, Sir, thisamendment is not sufficient but shouldhave sought to repeal the whole ofSection 41 (c) of the Internal SecurityAct. I understand-I may be wrongthat no other country claiming to be ademocracy has this kind of provision,

6865 22 MARCH 1966 6866

except for Malaysia and Singapore,whose Government recently deprived aperson of his scholarship purely becausehe went to Africa and toured Africaunder the auspices of the MalaysianGovernment. This is a student fromthe University of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to theother sections of the Internal SecurityAct, I should just like to state that theGovernment should consider that in thePenal Code there are provisions forarrest and punishment for acts againstthe State, for acts against the Agongand for treason. There seems to be verylittle difference between the provisionsunder the Internal Security Act and theprovisions under the Penal Code, exceptthat in the Penal Code a person mustbe tried by jury and the ordinary lawsof confession apply. The provisions ofthe Internal Security Acts has, to avery, very large extent, replaced certainsections of our Penal Code, and it hasreplaced it in a very unfortunatemanner, in that it allows for trials with-out jury in such instances. We all knowthat a crime against the State carrieswith it the threat of arrest and punish-ment, sometimes even extreme penaltyis asked for. The only thing I wouldlike to point out here is that under theInternal Security Act a person can betried by a judge sitting alone and this,we feel, is something which we mustabhor.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, I rise to declare that we in theLabour Party are categorically againstthe Internal Security Act. This infernaland heinous instrument has beenenacted by the Alliance Government ata time when the Emergency wassupposed to be over. In 1960, aftertwelve years of Emergency, the AllianceGovernment declared to the wholeworld that the Emergency was all overthat there was damai dan aman in thiscountry. Then it promptly proceeds toembody all the provisions of theEmergency Regulations which, duringthe Emergency had to be enacted everyyear, but now it is written into theStatute Book ad infinitum and thenmore so all the loopholes .. .

Dato ' Dr Ismail : Sir, on a point oforder -SO. 36 (1) . . . . (Pause).

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : I would like tosay to the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir,that I am not going, to go on a longharangue on the Internal Security Act.

Dato ' Dr Ismail : I thought I wasquite generous, I was looking at mytime, because I thought he was makinga preface!

Dr Tan Chee Khoon I was justmaking a preface. (Laughter).

Dato ' Dr Ismail: Don't make toolong a preface!

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Sir, before theHonourable Minister interrupted me,I was saying that all the loopholes hadbeen plugged up and now today we seemany more loopholes, and I think I amentitled to speak on the InternalSecurity Act, 1960, because this Billseeks to plug more of the loopholesembodies in the Internal Security Act,sections 59 and 60 if the Ministerwants to quote Standing Orders for-bidding me to speak on the InternalSecurity Act, I do not see why. Hehimself has talked about sections 59and 60, but I do not wish to burdenthis House with the stand of my Partyon this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I come specificallyto section 41c of the Internal SecurityAct, the amendment of which waspassed by this House last year. Per-haps, like my colleague, the Memberfor Dato' Kramat, may I present aslightly academic angle. As I see it,there are lots of students in the galleryand they are the persons, Mr Speaker,Sir, who will have to get this certificateof suitability from the C.E.O. Now,Mr Speaker, Sir, when this amendmentwas brought before the House last year,there was no doubt that students allover the country, whether they werein Singapore or in Kuala Lumpurand I talk of University studentsprotested in no uncertain terms againstthe enactment of the Bill before theHouse then, and this House wasflooded with telegrams from thestudents not only from Singapore but

6867 22 MARCH 1966

also from the University of Malaya.Since the passage of that Bill, theHonourabe Minister of Education willbear me out, time and again thestudents have protested to him regard-ing this certificate of suitability, andnot only to him but to many otherMinisters who were brave enough toventure to address University studentseither in the University of Malaya orin the University of Singapore. MrSpeaker, Sir, as I have stated before,this certificate of suitability seeks toproduce in our higher institutions oflearning a second class university, asecond class academic staff producingthird class students. Is this the situationthat we want? Do we want to enchainnot only the present generation ofstudents, sitting in the gallery, but alsogenerations of students yet unbornwith this certificate of suitability?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the few contactsthat I have had with people fromabroad, both locally and abroad, and1 have just been abroad recently, theywere all appalled by this letter of suit-ability, this infernal and heinousInternal Security Act, and they heldup their hands in horror and said,"How on earth can any Governmentthat professes to practice democracycan ever think of such a heinous Actto enchain the minds of the students?"Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the surfaceof it, this amendment that the Ministerhas brought before this House, per-haps, he can claim that it is a moveliberalising section 41c of the InternalSecurity Act. Now, let us see. He talksof members of the teaching staff andhe says, "Well, you know, if he has aB.Sc. (lions) and now he wants tocome to M.Sc., and he is on theteaching staff, well, he need not getthis letter of suitability from either theC.E.O. or from me as Minister ofHome Affairs".

I fail to see the subtle differencebetween people working in a teachinginstitution and those outside. Let megive an example. Let us say, this yeartwo people have graduated with a FirstClass B.A. Honours. One chooses to bea tutor in the University of Malayagoing on to an M.A. in the University

6868

of Malaya. The other, for reasons ofhis own perhaps, he cannot afford towork as a tutor has to go out into thiscruel world and earn a living, but yetby the nature of his work has registeredhimself for an M.A. The former, in aninstitution of higher learning, isexempted from getting a certificate ofsuitability, the latter not being in aninstitution of higher learning, buthaving been accepted and registered fora higher degree, has either to get aletter of suitability or go hat in hand tothe Minister of Home Affairs and say"Tolong-lah, beri saya surat itu". Whereis the logic of this section 41c (a) thatsays that only people teaching in aninstitution of higher learning should beexempted. I say that all those, who aredeemed fit by the institutions I listedunder 41c, should be exempted.

Proviso (b) here says : "persons notbeing students already admitted, whopropose to attend extra-mural classesorganised by such institution". Now Ido not see how this clause (b) can help.Personally, as we know that in Section41c amongst the institutions listed isthe University of Malaya, and it is trueto say that of all the other institutions,the Nanyang University, University ofSingapore, Ngee Yang University, theCollege of Agriculture, all these do notrun, except for the University of Singa-pore, extra-mural classes. Why thenthis one? Even, if it does, as I hope theUniversity of Malaya does, run extra-mural classes leading to an externaldegree of the University of Malaya,why should such people be exemptedand not the people, who have graduatedand who have worked outside theUniversity leading to a higher degreeshould not be exempted?

Proviso (c), Mr Speaker, Sir, as mycolleague, the Member for Dato Kramathas pointed out, supposing I want to doan M.D. and it is not beyond mycapacity to do an M.D. I have to dotwo things : either I go and see theChief Education Officer and get a letterof suitability from him, although Igraduated from the University long agobefore he did, or I have to go cap inhand, put on a broad smile like aCheshire cat and ask the Tuan Menteri,

6869 22 MARCH 1966 6870

"Can I have your permission to exemptme from this letter of suitability?".Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see what anabsurd position anyone who seeks toimprove himself academically is placedin? The institutions which I have justnow mentioned, three of them are nowin a foreign country namely NanyangUniversity, University of Singapore,and Ngee Yang College. If you want tocarry this to its logical conclusion,surely this amendment to the InternalSecurity Act, 1960, should seek toexclude these three institutions of higherlearning from the provisions of theInternal Security Act, or is it that theMinister of Home Affairs wants tospread his tentacles across the Cause-way and, perhaps, cause a greaterfriction, or may be these two Govern-ments are birds of a feather flockingtogether on the matter of InternalSecurity and on the question offundamental liberties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the new sub-section (6) here it states :

"Nothing in this section shall exemptfrom the provisions of this section anystudent whose studies have been interruptedfor a period of one year on disciplinary orother grounds, notwithstanding that suchstudent has previously been admitted or thathis name still remains in the register ofsuch institution."

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is such anall-embracing clause that I shudder tothink of the students in the Universityfor one reason or the other, not fordisciplinary if you say for disciplinarycause, there may be some justice in it;but it says for any other grounds.Supposing a person falls sick for oneyear, and is out of circulation in theUniversity for one year, and now hewants to go back; he has already beencleared by the Chief Education Officerand the Special Branch with a letter ofsuitability; and because he has fallensick and has been unable to attend theUniversity courses for one year, he hasgot to go back and, perhaps, cap inhand asks for another letter of suit-ability. I fail to see the logic of thisdiscrimination and this further hard-ship imposed on they younger generationof this country seeking, thirsting, forhigher education.

As regards Clause 3, it seems to methat the Government is seeking todemand its pound of flesh; because oftwo adverse high court decisions, theGovernment now seeks to plug all theloopholes. I think it is an acceptedaxiom in law far better for 99 peopleto go free than for one innocent personto be convicted. This axiom probably isunknown to the Alliance Government.It wants to demand its pound of flesh;perhaps its pint of blood from theperhaps misguided persons, who arealleged to have committed acts oftreason against the State.

Then, there is this Clause 4 whichsays that persons who confess to theauthorities before their arrest perhapsmay be given privileged treatment. Ido not know whether the Governmentis trying to encourage people who,perhaps, may have a brush with thelaw now falsely confesses or perhapsimplicate lots of other people. It seemsto me that the Government is seekingto encourage such persons to exculpatethemselves by making false confessionsand implicating perhaps innocentpeople and then perhaps these innocentpeople, may well swing as a result ofsuch people making false confessions.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, myParty, the Labour Party of Malaya, isunilaterally against this amendment,and I call upon all those who sit onthis side of the Opposition benches tosay (Interruption). My party is totallyagainst and unanimously against thisamendment now before the House. Icall upon all those on this side of theOpposition benches, if they cherishwhat little fundamental liberties thatthe Government has left for us, thenthey should all oppose this amendmentto the Internal Security Act, 1960. Inparticular I ask the I.A.P. to stateclearly its stand on this matter. I, forone, will be very grateful if it statesvery clearly as to whether it opposesthis infernal and heinous InternalSecurity Act, or it supports the InternalSecurity Act like its forbears, the P.A.P.

Sitting suspended at 12.00 p.m.

6871 22 MARCH 1966 6872

Sitting resumed at 12.20 p.m.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

THE INTERNAL SECURITY(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Enche' D. R. Seenivasagam (Ipoh):Mr Speaker, Sir, the Peoples' Progres-sive Party of Malaya is categoricallyagainst the Internal Security Act as itstands now. (Dr Tan Chee Khoon:Hear, Hear). We realise that in manyparts of the world there are lawssimilar in nature to the InternalSecurity Act, but we also realise andappreciate that in those democraticcountries there are provisions in theirSecurity Acts -I use the phrase "Inter-nal Security Act" for conveniencefor the protection of the fundamentalrights and liberties of the subjects ofthe States of those countries.

In the Internal Security Act ofMalaysia, there is no such protectionfor the' individual rights and libertiesof the subjects; and it is for that pur-pose that we state categorically thatwe are against they Internal SecurityAct as it now stands. We have saidthat, perhaps, at every session ofParliament where the opportunity tospeak on the Internal Security Act hasarisen; and at every session of thisHouse we of the P.P.P. have asked forthe inclusion of those safeguards in theInternal Security Act.

Now, an Internal Security Act, andamendment to the Internal SecurityAct, must only exist in a country ifsuch an Act is, in fact, necessary fora country.

Now, having made those commentsclear, and our stand clear, on theInternal Security Act as it now stands,I will go further and speak on the pro-posed amendments to this Bill. Wesupport in full and in tow all that hasbeen said by the Honourable Memberfor Dato Kramat and the HonourableMember for Batu with regard to thesecertificates of fitness or certificates ofsuitability required; and I think it will

not be' wrong for me to ask the Honour-able Minister, if possible, to tell us inwhich other part of the democraticworld does any provisions exist similarto the provisions in this Bill, requiringthese certificates of suitability foreducational purposes for the studentsof a nation. I am of course aware thatit exists in Singapore, and leavingSingapore aside my question is con-fined to the Honourable Minister to theother parts of the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, students are nofools---some of them, many of them, alarge number of them, are perhapswiser than many of us, who sit in thisHouse and provisions of this nature,when they grow up, will remain in theirminds, will play on their minds, andthe day will come when the studentsof Malaysia will have their revenge forthese very abhorrent provisions, whichare in the Internal Security Act to thedetriment of their future. Beyond thatI do not wish to say anything, becausemuch has already been said by the twoHonourable Members who spokepreviously.

Now, with regard to the proposedamendments on what I call confessionsor statements to the Police, one thingis clear : laws are made in countries,not to plug or not to defeat the endsof justice, but amendments are madein laws where amendments are just andproper and in the interest of the peopleand in keeping with the fundamentalliberties and rights of the subjects. Justbecause in two decisions the InternalSecurity Act, particularly the sectionmentioned, Section 59, was interpretedby the court perhaps by the highestcourt in the land in a certain mannerwhere death penalty could not beimposed does not mean that this Houseshould amend it for death penalty tobe imposed : nor should it mean thatthis House should introduce amend-ments to induce persons to make state-ment or confession to the Police beforetheir arrest merely to escape the deathpenalty, because the danger--and thegreatest danger in such an amendmentis the possibility of a false statementbeing made, as mentioned by myHonourable: friend from Batu, a falsestatement being made implicating

6873 22 MARCH 1966 6874

innocent persons merely to escape thelawful punishment which the maker ofthat statement or confession shouldsuffer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is commonknowledge-I say that it is so commonknowledge that all Members of thisHouse should know it that there arecases where the Police have interro-gated men throughout the night, orthroughout the larger portion of thenight, and throughout the early hoursof the morning without interval,without a break. Sometimes they havebeen offered inducements in the form ofexceptionally good food, or exceptionalchances to visit relatives, or allowrelatives to visit them in prison, allfor the purpose of getting confessionsand statements. If this amendmentcomes through, there is no doubt what-soever that Police officers and here Imake it clear that I do not accuse allPolice officers, but there are largenumbers of them who will abuse theprovisions of the amendments proposedin the Internal Security Act for pur-poses which, I say, would not be law-f ul, or proper, or just in the interest ofthis nation.

Sir, it is, I think, wrong on principleto introduce these amendments, justbecause, when the Internal SecurityAct was passed, the courts have con-strued it in a way and in a proper wayand in an accepted way. It is wrongof any elected body, our House ofRepresentatives, to try to defeat theends of justice by amendments ofplugging up holes here and pluggingup holes there. Then, it no longerbecomes a democracy; then it nolonger exists a democratic formof Government, but it becomes adictatorial form of Government; andwhilst I am not accusing this Govern-ment of being hundred per cent dicta-torial, I do say that the amendments ofthis nature give an indication to thenation as a whole that this Parliament,or this House of Representatives, isprepared to go to the extent of beingdictatorial merely to see that what theywant done will be done, whether itis an accepted practice in democraticcountries in other parts of the world,in the legal world of other parts of

the free world. For those reasons Iand my Party must strongly associateourselves with members from theLabour Party and condemn the amend-ments put forward before this House.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: MrSpeaker, Sir, I think it was Lenin whoonce described George Bernard Shawas a good man fallen among Fabiansand I, Sir, would like to take upLenin's description of George BernardShaw for the Honourable Member forBatu. He is a good man fallen in thewrong company. Sir, I think the wholeof Malaysia knows, the whole ofMalaysia including the HonourableMinister for Home Affairs knows, thatmy colleagues and I in the D.A.P. areno lovers of the Alliance Party andGovernment. But I think, Sir, at thesame time, the whole of Malaysiaknows that my colleagues and I inthe D.A.P. are no lovers either of theenemies of Malaysia. Sir, once that isappreciated, our stand on all matterscan be seen in their logical context andframe-work as ensuing from a con-sistent and logical position.

Sir, the Honourable Member forBatu for whom, personally, I have ahigh regard has invited me to state mystand on the Internal Security Act. Iwould like to say, Sir, that my standon the Internal Security Act is whatit has always been. But to throw theball into the other court, I would liketo ask not he himself but I would liketo ask.....

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, may I ask the Honourable Mem-ber for Bungsar being a very simpleminded person, if he can explain verybriefly whether he does support theamendments before the House, or hedoes not support the amendments.

Mr Speaker : He is coming to that.

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: MrSpeaker, Sir, with his usual aptitude,he would like to make my speech forme but with his permission I wouldlike to make my speech myself. I saythat I am throwing the ball into hiscourt and to ask "What is the standof the Labour Party?" I know what its

6875 22 MARCH 1966

stand is with regard to the InternalSecurity Act, but what is their stand inregard to the people who come intothis country , cross over the borders ofSarawak and Sabah , and explodebombs in our country ? What is thestand of the Labour Party towards theenemies of Malaysia , to the externaland the internal enemies of Malaysia?My stand , Sir, and that of mycolleagues , has been stated time andagain in this House . I need only go tothe 13th July, 1964 , when the amend-ment to the Internal Security Act,introducing the suitability certificatewas first introduced . I said then thatno one will quarrel with the proposi-tion that the preservation of nationalsecurity is of paramount concerninevitably the paramount concern ofany Government whether democraticor totalitarian and it so happens thatin the process of protecting nationalsecurity several Governments have toresort to obnoxious measures.

Sir, let us look at this matter inperspective . Malaysia and Singaporefor that matter in this region , and I amnot an apologist for the AllianceGovernment and its policy , Sir, butas a lover of the Malaysian peopleand nation , and as somebody whowould like to see this nation retainits integrity , its territorial integrity,I would say that the paramount con-cern of this country must be to guardits security . The manner in which themeasures , the Internal Securitymeasures are implemented may ofcourse be defective as has beensuggested by the Honourable Memberfor Ipoh that adequate safeguardsmight not exist and so on. Sir, anumber of things have been said. Letus talk about freedom , academicfreedom and so forth . Sir, I remember,I said last year that those who prateabout academic freedom do not knowwhat they are talking about. I saidthat I would be grievously disturbedif, for instance , it was held that theonly text book on the authoritativeinterpretation of Shakespeare was atext book written , say, by the Honour-able Member for Johore Tenggara, orif the only text book on Economicspermitted to be read in the University

6876

of Malaya was a text book, say, pre-pared by the Honourable AssistantMinister for Finance , Dr Ng Kam Poh.If that happens we really would be ina sad situation, but not so as long asin our University there is the freedomto instruct and to teach , without aStalin sitting at your back, telling youhow to interpret Shakespheare, how tointerpret economic theory, how tointerpret educational theory. I disagreevery much with the Honourable theMinister for Education , but so far hehas not been found telling the professorof education in the University that theonly authoritative dissertation on thetheory and practice of education wouldbe one written by him . If that everhappens , Sir, then I would say allliberals and all democratic mindedpersons have the right to stand up andshout , and shout with a view to bring-ing the whole structure down butthat , Sir, has not happened.

Coming, in particular , to the suitabi-lity certificate , Sir, I described it lastyear as an obnoxious necessity andit is so, and I also pointed out, Sir,that criticism of the Bill covered awide spectrum of opinions , rangingfrom the arguments of those whowould oppose anything which wasdone to safeguard internal securitythe friends of the external enemies ofthis nation; nothing would be rightby them , but I concentrated on, Sir,and I quote:

"responsible Members of the Oppositionmust feel obliged to bring to the attentionof leaders of Government the genuine fears,real, honest and sincere fears , that existamong large sections of the people , that theBill if passed into law may conceivablylend itself to abuse. I might enumerate someof the genuine fears which have beenexpressed to me personally by several res-ponsible and patriotic citizens of Malaysia.Parents , especially, are genuinely concernedas to what it would mean in terms of theeducational future of their children. I amstating their fears . . . . and I hope thatthe Government will take into serious con-sideration this general background ofopinion against which this Bill will beenacted."

"Sir, the fear exists that in the name ofnational security , the law may be usedagainst patriotic citizens of the State, forno other reason than that they may have,for a variety of reasons , incurred the dis-pleasure of the powers -that-be. And the

6877 22 MARCH 1966 6878

argument goes, Sir, that it would be thesimplest thing in the world for the Govern-ment to disallow, by the stroke of a pen,educational opportunities in our universitieson grounds of narrow, petty, non-securityconsiderations. In that event, which I hopeis extremely unlikely, democratic libertieswould suffer serious harm in the name ofnational security. The paradoxical conse-quence, Sir, would be that in seeking toprotect our national security and democraticway of life, we would have succeeded inshaping ourselves in the image of our totali-tarian enemies. One question may be as tohow far it is really possible to fight theenemies of democracy by using indiscrimi-nately weapons from the totalitarianarmoury. These are the arguments whichexist in the minds of several decent, honestcitizens of this country which will have tobe met by this Government."

Sir, I commend to the Governmentthe same considerations which Iadvanced last year--considerations ofanxiety which genuinely exists in theminds of numerous parents ever sinceSir, this Bill was enacted. I wouldwant the Honourable Minister tosatisfy me on this score, how manystudents have been denied suitabilitycertificates and on what grounds; whotook the decision; have those who,considered the suitability or otherwiseof a student who applied for a certifi-cate have they adopted a flexible andintelligent attitude? Sir, we are allaware of the fact that the young peoplein the University are enthusiastic andradical; and I believe several Honour-able Members sitting on the Govern-ment benches have probably gonethrough that phase themselves. If I amnot mistaken the Honourable Ministerfor Home Affairs himself had radicalenthusiasms, when he went to collegeand university; and on this basis arewe to place a premium and penalisepeople, young students, simply becausethey have the natural exuberance,glandular exuberance of youth. Iwould like to know how this has beenimplemented. If the Government canassure us that in the implementationof the provisions of this Enactment ithas been flexible, intelligent, then theGovernment would go a very long waytowards satisfying, not possibly thecriticisms of people who are not inter-ested in Malaysian security in anycase, but to satisfy the genuine fearsof large numbers of parents in thiscountry. If I may repeat the questions,

Sir. How many students have so farbeen denied suitability certificates?Who took the decision and on whatgrounds were these certificates denied?And I hope that the Minister whenjustifying the necessity for this amend-ment will be able to assure the countryat large that the powers, which theGovernment have vested in themselves,are being exercised with intelligence,and with a very high degree of publicresponsibility. And if that can be done,Sir, I say the Government can go avery long way indeed towards satisfy-ing the people of this country. That,Sir, in a nutshell is the attitude of theD.A.P. to the Internal Security Act.I must express my very real gratitudeto the Honourable Member for Batufor asking me that question and Irepeat that my answer essentially is:We are lovers of the Malaysian nation.Nobody will take us as lovers of theAlliance Government; and nobodywill take us as lovers of the enemiesof the Malaysian nation. And, Sir, hewill have an opportunity, not merelyhimself but, all the Members of hisParty, who go about painting gloryslogans like "blood-for-blood" and soforth, to assure this House and thiscountry that they take as categoricala stand against the internal and exter-nal enemies of Malaysia as they takeagainst the Internal Security Act.Then I would respect their intellectualhonesty. Otherwise stop talkingrubbish!

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : On a point ofclarification, Mr Speaker Sir. Notbeing trained in communism, or notbeing an ex-communist, I naturally amat a disadvantage in dialectics of thisnature. I have asked him a very simplequestion. Is the D.A.P. against theInternal Security Act in its presentform or not? I regret that despite allthe verbiage and verbal diarrhoea, Ihave not got an answer. All that wehave got is that those who are for theState, state their stand. On behalf ofthe Labour Party of Malaya, I wishto state our stand. We are against anyenemy of Malaya. (Interruption).

Mr Speaker: I would point out tothe Honourable Member that he is notallowed to make a second speech.

6879 22 MARCH 1966

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Mr Speaker,Sir, I do not think it was a speech. Itwas just a clarification . I thoughtthe language from the back was ratherabusive when he was trying to explainit. As far as I am concerned it wasjust verbosity.

Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze(Sarawak) : Mr Speaker, Sir, thisamendment to the Internal SecurityAct is to us, in the S.U.P.P.,as yet a further bureaucratic tentacle.These tentacles that are alreadythere, we feel, are interferingand destroying what we all have setout to achieve a democratic societyfor this nation . While saying so, MrSpeaker, Sir, we , in the S.U.P.P., alsorealise that there is a need forpreservation of national security andintegrity, but what we feel is thatalthough all these must be done inthe context of democracy , we fear thatwith the overwhelming majority ofthe Alliance, they have in fact lostsight of this very important aspect,and that is they feel that they shouldbe given all powers. Thereby in mysubmission, Sir, in some way destroy-ing the very institution that we allhope to establish. Sir, we havecriticised the Certificate of Suitabilityand I think this criticism has beenborne out by events that it is anobnoxious thing to have. We weretold the necessity for such a Certificateof Suitability, but what results has itachieved? To us , the result that hasbeen achieved is no more thanpreventing very good material in thepersons of young, enthusiastic, andradical type of students , from havingthe opportunity of going to the seatsof higher learning or institutions,colleges , universities , and the like.

Sir, we know that in this countrywe are sadly lacking in professionalpeople , people with special training,and we have been told that we haveto enlist the help of a lot of expatriateofficers to man our services in allfields. This requirement for Certificateof Suitability , to my mind , would insome way deny our future leaders theopportunity of being trained , or havingthe opportunity of being trained, inhigher institution . We know , Sir, thepurpose of having an institution of

6880

higher learning , and that is the veryplace where we hope to cultivateliberal thoughts. So, if we shouldassume the attitude that students haveradical views, or liberal views, whichseem not to coincide with the viewsheld by the Government of the day,and that they should be deprived ofsuch an opportunity, then I think weare creating quite a number offrustrated people not only of theseparticular persons, or students, whohave been denied this opportunity, butalso the parents and others connectedwith them.

I refer particularly, Sir, to sub-section (6) and that is in regard tostudents , who have been interruptedfor a period of one year on disciplinaryor other grounds. Surely, we can saythat students interrupting their studieson disciplinary grounds or groundsconnected with discipline should beconsidered whether they should beallowed to continue their studies butwhy "other grounds"? Here, Sir,again , I think, is an illustration of thebureaucratic attitude , because we knowall bureaucrats like to have thingstidy, and to have as much power asthey could. That is the very pointwhich has been made earlier on-thatsuch power is open to abuses. If anycriticism were made about certainactions, they say, "Well, the Parlia-ment has passed the law". "Any othergrounds" includes any other ground,which may not in any way beconnected with discipline at all. Sir,I hope very much that the intentionof this amendment is not to create arobot or simply create one obedientlot of our students , because, Sir, Ido not think it is possible , becausethe more one does that , reaction mightset in and the more violent this lotwill become . Although , as the Honour-able Member for Bungsar has said, noapparent steps have been taken tointerfere with the administration of theUniversity in the country, how can afirst class institution , the University ofMalaya, or any institution of higherlearning, train or give ideas and know-ledge to people , to the students whoare not of its first grade? I am notsaying, Sir, that the students, who

6881 22 MARCH 1966 6882

cannot obtain Certificates of Suitabi-lity are first class it does not follow.However , it is likely that students inthe secondary schools , who are activein extra-mural activities and, perhaps,very interested in politics , could be inthe eyes of the Police and the SpecialBranch undesirable persons , thoughthese are the people , Sir, who couldhave been the best materials that thiscountry needs people who are inter-ested in politics and people who areinterested in civic responsibilitieswhile those who are not interestednaturally would be able to get theirCertificates of Suitability without anyquestion . Therefore , I think theHonourable Member for Bungsar hasa valid point , that is to say, how wasthe machinery administered aboutthis . granting or denying of the Certi-ficates of Suitability? So far , we do notknow.

Now, Sir , we come to clause (3),and that is the question of punishmentin connection with a person convictedfor having supplies of firearms,ammunition or explosives. That seemsto be making a punishment moresevere when a person is found orconvicted of having been in possessionof firearms, ammunition or explosives.Sir, a matter of punishment ought inall events be left to the good sense ofthe judge of a court , who is tryingthe case ; and if we make it mandataryfor the judge to pass a certain sentence,in my view , Sir, it can be mostdamaging also, in my submission, tothe democratic principles . There arecases, Mr Speaker , Sir, which we havecome across of someone being arrestedbecause he was found to have onebullet or two bullets in the boot ofhis car, or in some places of hisvehicle , and he was charged in Court.In one case, a man got off because thewitness for the prosecution gavecontradictory statements , and theadvocate was able to expose the wit-ness as being unreliable . But if theaccused 's story was proved , that theaccused had a bullet in his car, and iffor some reason the witnesses for theprosecution have made up the storyso well as not to be shaken by thecross -examination of the advocates ofthe accused , well, that man will have

to face the supreme penalty, i.e. death.Of course, if one man is dead, hecould never be brought back to lifeagain even though in actual fact hewas innocent. Therefore, Sir, thereare degrees of gravity, even though itis a very grave crime to be found inpossession of firearms and explosiveswithout lawful excuse. It is so differentbetween a man who is found with onebullet and a man found with two sub-machine guns with all the ammunitionin the world. That, of course, is amatter of degree, punishment forwhich should be left to the Court,which will be the best judge in myview to pass the proper sentence.

Now, Sir, this Bill seeks to amendthe Internal Security Act. In principle,our Party is opposed to this InternalSecurity Act because, as I have alreadystated, so much in the InternalSecurity Act has already been takencare of by other laws of the land.The more that we try to make laws,the more they can be abused. Thiswould in my view be not conduciveto the good government of thiscountry.

Mr Speaker : The sitting is suspendedtill 4.00 p.m. today.

Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 p.m.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

THE INTERNAL SECURITY(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr Mahathir bin Mohannad (Kota StarSelatan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would likefirstly to say that no one in his rightsenses likes the Internal Security Act.It is, in fact, a negation of all theprinciples of democracy. But I thinkthe members of the Opposition whospoke against the Internal Security Act:are forgetting that we are not living innormal times. They have, it seems tome, forgotten that we are in fact stillat war; that there are people who arebeing shot at and killed in Sarawak andin other parts of Malaysia. There are

6883 22 MARCH 1966

still bombs which have been thrown anddetonated in various parts of Malaysia.Because of this situation, surely it isright for any country that wishes topreserve its security to have an Actsuch as this so that in the long rundemocracy itself will be preserved.

As to the matter of amending theInternal Security Act, the Member forIpoh is concerned that this amendmentseems to have cropped up becausecertain judges have made certain deci-sions in courts, and it seems to me heis suggesting that if a law is ineffective,we should do nothing about amendingit. To me, a law is promulgated in.order to attain a certain end; and if,having made the law , we find that it isineffective , I think the best thing wecould do about it is to amend the lawto make it effective . To castigate theGovernment simply because it hassuggested amendments to the InternalSecurity Act in order to make it effectiveis, I think , somewhat unusual for a man,who is a lawyer . The laws of anycountry have always been amended inorder to make them more effective, andthese amendments are not carried outonce or twice , but many times. As soonas we find that a situation may arisewhere the law becomes ineffective, it isthe duty of the Government to introduceActs, or Amendments , to make the laweffective , and I can see no reason whyanybody should oppose an amendmentsuch as proposed here , which is intendedmerely to make the Internal SecurityAct an effective instrument . In view ofthis , Sir, I would certainly support theGovernment 's introduction of theAmendment to the Internal SecurityAct. Thank you.

Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, the belief ofthe Alliance Party in freedom and inparliamentary democracy in this countryis second to none. This is so, because,unlike the Opposition members, whoonly profess in words, we have shownin deeds and in action that we believein freedom and in parliamentary demo-cracy. This dated back to the days whenwe fought for our independence. Wefought not only against British colonia-lism but also against Communists who,in the guise of fighting for the freedom

6884

of the country, were trying to subjugatethis country. We knew that at that time,because we believe that when we haveour freedom we want this country tohave a parliamentary system of demo-cracy. We knew that, if we had ourindependence aided by the Communists,in the end the Communists wouldswallow us, and the independence thatwe had gained would be handed overto the Communists; and because wehave won the hearts and minds of thepeople, we got that independence, with-out the assistance of the Communists.When the country gained independence,we scrupulously observed the practiceof parliamentary democracy. Wescrupulously practise to guarantee theindependence of the judiciary. Atevery election that was held afterindependence we guaranteed, and it isborne out and tested and testified bythe people of the country, that theelections that were held were not rigged,and that they were genuine parlia-mentary elections. That, Sir, is ourrecord of our belief in parliamentarydemocracy. During the time that wehad been in power, we had to face firstCommunist subversion and then lateron we had to face this confrontationfrom Indonesia. Because we had to facethis Communist subversion, we had topass the Internal Security Act in Parlia-ment.

The Internal Security Act was opposedby the Opposition Parties. Well, theyhad the right in Parliament, as Opposi-tion, to oppose any legislation by theGovernment which they consider is notacceptable to their party. In order toavoid the charge that we passed theInternal Security Act because of thesheer majority of the Alliance in Parlia-ment, I accepted the challenge of onemember from the Socialist Front thatwe made it a party platform. Duringthe last election, the Internal SecurityAct was part of the Alliance platform.I went to the people to explain to themclearly the necessity of having theInternal Security Act. I told the countrythat the Internal Security Act was andis necessary, if we want to fight againstthis Communist subversion. I told themthat it was not enough, if we believe inparliamentary democracy, that we

6885 22 MARCH 1966 6886

should sit back and allow our country to be subverted and, finally, to lose that freedom, lose that parliamentary demo­cracy that we love so much. I said that we wanted that arbitrary power. I told the people of the country that the Internal Security Act conferred arbitrary power to the Government, but I told the people too that there was a difference between the arbitrary power exercised by a totalitarian regime and by the Government elected by the people. Arbitrary power is essential, but the people in any democratic country, naturally, would like to see that that arbitrary power is not abused by the Government and that it is used for the purpose it was intended to be used­and that is against Communist subver­sion-and, lately, against any who supported our enemy in this country. Now, the people endorsed our platform and we returned to this Parliament with a bigger majority than the previous one (Applause). Now, Sir, I have said that there is a great deal of difference between the arbitrary power used by the totalitarian regime and by a demo­cratic government, because a democratic parliamentary government is answerable to Parliament for any acts in the country.

Now, the very fact that the Opposi­tion criticises the Internal Security Act in this Chamber shows that the Internal Security Act is being used in a demo­cratic manner. I do not share the opposition view that the Internal Security Act has been abused, because it has not been abused. In fact, if we are guilty, we have been guilty of taking risks in the interest and security of this country. Honourable Members have lately seen how many Opposition members had acted against the interests and the security of the country, who had acted prejudicial to the interests of this country. They had been detained and we had assessed their cases; and when we found that it is a reasonable and a calculated risk to let them out, we let them out, because we feel that it is better that we let these people out so long as they are not a total danger to the security of the country.

Again, Honourable Members of this House will notice that this Internal

Security Act in respect of the Certificate of Suitability since its introduction in this House has never been abused. There was an outcry, when I moved for the passage of the legislation of this Certificate of Suitability Bill in this House, but almost two years have elapsed and there is no outcry in the country that we have abused that power. Now, Sir, the Honourable Member for Bungsar has asked me, how many people have been refused the Certificate of Suitability. I would like to inform the Honourable Member that since the introduction of legislation requiring students seeking admission into specified Institutions of higher learning in Malaysia to obtain Certificate of Suit­ability in Octooer, 1964, only seven students applying for admission into the Nanyang University, Singapore, and three students seeking admission into the Ngee Ann College, Singapore, had been refused Certificate of Suitability. Since the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in August,1965, students seeking admission into institutions of higher learning in Singapore have applied to the Singapore Government to obtain Certificate of Suitability. Now, Sir, it can be seen that no one going into the University of Malaya has been refused a Certificate of Suitability. That shows that this Government has not abused that power. If, for example, we want to intimidate the students, or we are actin~ other than in the interests of the secunty of this country, then many students would have been refused the Certificate of Suitability. I gave an assurance · in this House that if there is a border line case, that student will be allowed to enter the University.

Sir, the question of the Internal Security Act is important because it is a preventive measure-I repeat, it is a preventive measure. One can argue that in a democratic country, there is no need for such an Act, because we should take remedial measures. Sir, as a docfor I believe that preventive measures are better than remedial measures. We have seen, in a country not very far from us, the results of waiting to take remedial measures rather than preventive measures. Let us look at Indonesia today, and other

6887 22 MARCH 1966 6888

countries : if they had taken the preventive measures that we have taken here, they would not have landed themselves into the position they are in today. It is a tribute to the Alliance Government that, because of the Internal Security Act, this country has managed to progress. We have managed to make this country prosperous, because we have prevented the Com­munists, in spite of the help frorp. the Socialist Front, to destroy the country.

Sir, let me go into the specific arguments put forward by Members of the Opposition against this amendment to the Internal Security Act. The Honourable Member for Dato Kramat, Sir. instead of behaving like a true parliamentarian and addressing himself to the Speaker, chose to address to the gallery; he chose to address the young people, who are in the gallery; and he appealed to the ability of their minds of the young people to discriminate between what is good and what is bad for them. Sir. I would suggest that when he appealed to the young people in the gallery there, he appealed not to their minds but to their emotions, and this is an insult to the young people of this country, because I know the young would rather use their minds than their emotions, if they are properly guided. Of course, if they are stimulated, if they are agitated, by rabble-rousers, naturally, being young people full of emotions, they can be emotionally led.

Then, Sir, the Honourable Member for Dato Kramat had the audacity to say that our university students are timid compared to university students from other countries because of the Certificate of Suitability, and he quoted about the students whom he had met in London. Now, S'rr, the Internal Security Act was introduced only in 1964. Some of the students whom he met in London had been there for more than two years, previous to 1904, and I would like to disagree with the Honourable Member. I do not think our students are timid at all, because whenever I met them in London they always asked me questions that all young people would like to ask. They show a great interest in this country, and they are not at all timid.

If they differ from students of other countries, it is because they are more courteous in asking their questions and they are more gentlemanly in their behaviour. You cannot call these qualities timidity. I would like to call these qualities the qualities that always are a tribute to the people of this country. We are noted for our courtesy; we are noted for our respect for other people; and I am glad that the young in this country adhere to the tradition of Malaysia being a courteous and respectable country.

Then the Honourable Member for Dato Kramat went on to say that it is a denial of democratic practice that people tried under the Internal Security Act are tried without jury, even if the penalty is death. Now, Sir, I have always told him-and he is not here to listen to my advice today-that the Internal Security Act is different from the ordinary laws of the country. The Internal Security Act is allowed by the Constitution. It is designed to fight against subversion-it is not designed against the ordinary law breakers of the country. It is designed against those people, who try to subvert this country, against whom the ordinary laws of the country are powerless.

Then, the Honourable Member for Dato Kramat and also other Honour­able Members have asked for the reason in respect of Section 2 (b) (6) which says that "Nothing in this section shall exempt from the provisions of this section any student whose studies have been interrupted for a period of one year on disciplinary or other grounds, notwithstanding that such student has previously been admitted or that his name still remains in the register of such institution." Sir, there is nothing much in this that is different than it was before, except here we want to make it clear that the idea of giving the Certificate of Suitability is to exclude those students whose intention to join the universities, or other higher institutes of learning, is for the purpose to subvert the students of that univer­sity or other seats of higher learning. If, for example, the student, who has interrupted his study for a period of one year, would like to continue, and

6889 22 MARCH 1966 6890

if he is not acting prejudicial to theinterest of the country, then he wouldbe automatically granted a Certificateof Suitability . It is only against thosewho purposely terminate their periodof academic study to undergo adoctrination a course of subversionand then to enter the university to sub-vert our students , that this proviso isintended . Of course , HonourableMembers from the Socialist Front ifthe Socialist Front is now dead, theMembers of the Labour Party-they cansee nothing good that we do againstthe Communists, because they have allthe time to court the Communists,because without the Communist sup-port they are leaders without followers.I have been trying to warn the Honour-able Members all the time that theywill never succeed in this country, ifthey want to base their political futureon the support of the Communists andthe pro-Communists . I shall not hesi-tate to take action against them. Butif they decide to form a genuineLabour Party in Malaya, we arewilling to help them we are willing tohelp them to get rid of these Com-munists and pro-Communists fromtheir midst , because we want a trulydemocratic Opposition party in thiscountry.

Then Sir, the Honourable Memberfor Batu queried the provision whichexempts members of the teaching staffof universities, or other higher seats oflearning, from getting Certificates ofSuitability, if they want to pursue apost-graduate course. He gave anexample, that if he and another doctor,who is in the staff of the University,want to do post-graduate work, he willhave to ask for a Certificate of Suitabi-lity, whereas the other man has notgot to do so. Now, Sir, in this parti-cular case, for example, at this period,at this moment, when I know that theHonourable Member for Batu is not asubversive, I can exempt him underSection 2 (c) where I am given thepower, which says, "Such other personsas the Minister may at his discretionexempt from the provisions of thissection". Of course, if later on he keepson flirting with the Communists andthe pro-Communists and is converted

to Communism and tries to get into ourUniversity on the pretext of doing post-graduate work, whereas in reality he istrying to subvert the country, then,naturally, instead of exempting him, hewill be put in detention.

I think , Sir, the reason why we wantto exempt members of the teaching stafffrom having to apply for the Certificateof Suitability is because there is aclamour from the University that thisclass of people should be exempted.Now, we have thought carefully overthis matter , and we feel that the tea-ching staff of the University, beingsurrounded by an academic atmos-phere , is less liable to be contaminatedby subversion than those who areoutside. Now, we take, for example,the case of the Honourable Memberfor Batu . He is a practising doctor; heis a politician and a leader of theSocialist Front, or Labour Party.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Labour Party !

Dato' Dr Ismail: Oh ! the LabourParty (Laughter), the deceased SocialistFront. Now, he is a practising doctor;he is a politician; and his contem-porary, who graduated at the same timeas he, is probably working as aresearch worker in the University. Nowthat friend of his being, of course, allthe time in the University, interested inresearch, away from politics, awayfrom meeting patients every day,always engrossed in academic workwell, he is less liable or the chances ofhim being contaminated are less thanthe Honourable Member. I do not saythat the Honourable Member is aCommunist, but he must admit that hischances, unless he is strong-willed,unless he is a laypreacher, for example,he might well have been a Communistby now. (Laughter).

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: For theinformation of the Honourable Minister,I am a prominent leader of my ownchurch, Mr Speaker, Sir. (Laughter).

Dato' Dr Ismail : I think that pro-bably saved him, Sir. (Laughter). Ithink that is a better analogy than theone that he posed. Then, he says thatit is better to let 99 guilty persons to

6891 22 MARCH 1966

be free than to let one innocent personto be convicted. Now, Sir, he is againusing the argument against the ordinarylaw-breaker of this country, against the,ordinary laws of this country. I wouldnot like to have 99 Indonesians withguns and grenades running about inthis country, trying to assassinateprobably the Honourable Member(Laughter) or Ministers. I wouldrather like to have them inside thedetention camps. I would rather havethem shot, rather than they be allowedto be free in this country. This is theargument of people who believe aboutfreedom and democracy in the vaccum,people who are oblivious to the threatto this country. I know and I can excuse,for example, the University students,who can argue this from the academicangle, who can only see from the prin-ciples of freedom; but what I cannot seewhy Honourable Members themselves,who are practising politicians, who seethat this country is being subverted,still arguing in favour of these Com-munists and these Indonesian saboteursbeing let free in this country. Theyhave not said anything against theIndonesian saboteurs, against the Com-munists, in this country. (AN HONOUR-ABLE MEMBER : Hear, hear). All thatthey do is to ask for freedom for thesepeople, freedom for these people tosubvert this country.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : On a point ofclarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Billdoes not deal with the Indonesians,and if I had spoken about the Indone-sians, the first chap to jump up andask you to rule. me out of order wouldbe the Honourable Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the benefit ofthe Minister concerned, since he hastalked about students and the like, Ithink all Members of Parliament havereceived an Express Letter from theNational Union of Malaysian Stu-dents Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar2Malaysia-and this is the voice of thestudents which, I think, is placed onthe table of all of us.

Dato' Dr Ismail: Sir, I did not saythat the students have no right tooppose this Bill, but it is one thing tooppose and another thing to decide.

6892

Now, the Honourable Member was nothere, and I am sorry that he objectedto my indulging in this debate on thebroad spectrum of the Internal Secu-rity Act, but I am only following hispractice. If he had stuck to the amend-ment to the Bill, I would have answeredhim in three minutes, but he chose togo and debate the wider aspect of theInternal Security Act; and if his speechis going, to be recorded in the Hansardof this Parliament, then the Govern-ment has every right to answer everyargument that the Honourable Memberput forward in this House; otherwise,the Government will be accused oflosing by default. Now, Sir, for thebenefit of the Honourable Member forBatu, I have said that it is no use tobelieve in freedom, in parliamentarydemocracy, if you are not prepared tofight for that freedom, and prepared todefend that parliamentary democracy.

Now, Sir, the Honourable Memberfor Ipoh he is not here also saidthat he opposed this Internal SecurityAct. That is his right as an Opposi-tion leader and of course, nobodytakes any notice of him, because afterevery election the representatives of theP.P.P. are getting smaller and smallerin this House. So, if it gives himsatisfaction to voice his dissentingvoice as an Opposition leader, he isentitled to it. Now, he admitted thatthere are similar laws but, he said, thatthere are safeguards. Now, Sir, it is nouse comparing the laws of this countrywith the laws of another country, ifthe conditions are dissimilar. The factthat other countries have similar lawsto fight against subversion is aprinciple the others are matters ofdetail. Now, subversion in this countrymay be different from the subversionin India and we have to have provisionsin our Internal Security Act differentfrom the ones in India. The very factis that if he would admit that heaccepted the principle, that the InternalSecurity Act is necessary, then we donot differ very much, but the factremains that he said that he opposed theprinciple of the Internal Security Act.Then why bother about drawing thesimilarity of the two countries of thiscountry and another country?

6893 22 MARCH 1966 6894

Then, Sir, he asks which part of thedemocratic world has an identicallegislation to that we have here. Whyis it necessary to have identical legis-lation if the principle is the same?Because subversion varies fromcountry to country that much youcan give to the Communists, and thatis why the Communist is a worthyadversary because he is very resilient.

Sir, I cannot let this debate passwithout answering one importantobservation that he made in respect ofthe amendment to Section 59 of thePrincipal Act i.e., the punishment isdeath in cases where the supplies inrespect of which he is convictedconsists of fire-arms, ammunition orexplosives, or life imprisonment inother cases. Now, Sir, he says that webrought this amendment to this Houseto defeat justice. Sir, an HonourableMember on this side of the House, theMember for Kota Star, has said thatthere is nothing wrong in bringingamendments to Parliament for anylaw in the country, if we find that thatlaw is defective. Now, Sir, the factremains that when we saw the twocases I have quoted that the presentlaw would defeat the purpose whichthe Government intended that is,for these people who carried suppliesconsisting of firearms, ammunitions orexplosives, in respect of which theywere convicted, and we wanted thepunishment for such crimes to be deathbut in fact this was not so we wantedthis amendment, and that is why webrought this amendment to this House.It is not a question of trying to defeatjustice. In fact, by bringing this amend-ment to this House, we are reallybringing justice to this country. I donot see why these people, who carriedsupplies, which consist of arms,ammunitions or explosives should notbe punished with a death sentence andbe allowed to escape only with a lifesentence, because they are a realmenace to this country, and theydeserve the death sentence. It wasbecause of a defect in the formerdrafting that we could not mete outjustice to these people. In fact, thesepeople were very lucky to escape thedeath sentence. By bringing this

amendment to this House, we aregoing to do justice to the people of thiscountry against these people who areacting against the security of thiscountry.

I have answered the HonourableMember for Bungsar about how manypeople have been refused the Certifi-cate of Suitability, and the only otheranswer that I have to give him is inrespect of, who decides these refusalsand on what ground. Now, Sir, I thinkhe will remember that when I intro-duced the Internal Security Act, 1964,I assured this House that the ChiefEducation Officer, or the Director ofEducation, as the case may be, towhom a student applies for a Certifi-cate of Suitability shall issue therequired Certificate, unless, aftermaking the necessary enquiries fromthe security authorities, he has reason-able grounds to believe that the appli-cant, if admitted to the said institution,would promote, or is likely to promote,or otherwise participate in actionsprejudicial to the interest or thesecurity of the country.

The Honourable Member, Enche'Stephen Yong, from Sarawak madethe highly exaggerated accusation thatthis Certificate of Suitability wouldprevent students from joining theUniversity. As I told this House, Ithink, before he came in, that as faras the University of Malaya is con-cerned no one has been refused aCertificate of Suitability. So, it cannotbe said that this Certificate of Suit-ability prevents students from joiningthe University. It may be that thosepeople, maybe his friends, are notallowed to enter the University be-cause they have not got the necessaryqualifications.

Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze: Ona point of personal clarification, Sir,I have no friends among those people.

Dato' Dr Ismail : Sir, I am glad thathe made that statement. I wish hewould match those words with deeds.He mentioned that we should encour-age people to enter University so thatwe have more qualified people in thecountry. Sir, I would rather not have

6895 22 MARCH 1966

qualified people in this country whoseaim is to subvert this country. I wouldrather do without that type of qualifiedpeople. We do not want qualifiedpeople in this country to just wreckour belief in parliamentary democracy;we do not want the Communists inthis country, who try to destroy ourparliamentary democracy; we wouldrather not have that kind of qualifiedpeople. What we want is genuinedemocratic qualified people in thiscountry. We want many of that kindof people in this country. Then, hesaid that this Certificate of Suitabilitywould deny this country of its futureleaders. I am glad, Sir, if that is true,because this Certificate of Suitabilitywould deny this country the futurecommunist leaders, and if this Certifi-cate would achieve that object, then,I am indeed a very happy man.

Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze: Isthe Minister suggesting that Commu-nism can be kept out only by thisCertificate of Suitability?

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : On a point ofclarification, is the Minister aware thatmost Communist leaders the worldover are not university trained? Theyare trained in the hard school of lifeoutside the university.

Dato' Dr Ismail : Sir, the HonourableMember for Batu had better argue withEnche' Stephen Yong with regard tothis. (Laughter). What I am doing,, Sir,is replying to Mr Stephen Yong'sobservation, in which he said thatbecause of the Certificate of Suitabilitythis country is denied of its futureleaders meaning that these peoplebecause of the Certificate of Suitabilityare not allowed to enter the university,and so they cannot be leaders in thiscountry. Sir, let. me repeat it veryslowly now. If these Certificates ofSuitability succeed in preventing thesubversive elements from going to theuniversity, subverting the university,and later becoming future leaders,then I am indeed a very happy man.

6896

section (6) this is from the Honour-able Enche' Stephen Yong about thereason that these people, who have tointerrupt their study for one year,having to ask for a new Certificate ofSuitability. I think he was not in thisHouse when I made my answer. Isaid that this is necessary, because itmay be that during that period of oneyear, while the student is away fromthe university, he may go out speciallyto be indoctrinated, or to take a coursein subversion; or he may for that oneyear period join the Labour Party andgiven the opportunity to associate withthe Communists and the pro-Com-nists in that party, and if that is so,it is quite dangerous to allow him togo back and to propagate the Com-munist doctrine, or trying to subvertthe other students in the university.

Sir, finally, I would like to wind upby quoting the very sentence withwhich I began my reply, i,.e., ourbelief in freedom and parliamentarydemocracy is second to none and thishas been borne out by our record, notjust by a profession of words but byour action in words and deeds. Wehave believed and we have practisedthe independence of the judiciary inthis country; we have not rigged theelections, and every political party isgiven every chance to win the heartsand minds of the people of thiscountry. (Applause).

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: On a pointof clarification, Sir, the Minister in-formed the House in answer to aquestion I put that, since the passageof this law, no student entering theUniversity of Malaya has in fact beendenied a Suitability Certificate. So, Sir,we have a law which the Governmenthas not found it necessary to enforce.Could we have an assurance from theHonourable Minister that if within thenext few months, or years, no validreason is discovered to deny anystudent a Certificate of Suitability,then this law might as well berepealed?

Sir, I do not wish to waste much Dato' Dr Ismail : Sir, I say that themore time of the Honourable Mem- Internal Security Act is a preventivebers, but he asked about the new sub- measure.

6897 22 MARCH 1966 6898

Enche' C. V. Devan Nair: I am notreferring to the Internal Security Actbut this specific provision relating toSuitability Certificates.

Dato' Dr Ismail : I am coming to it.It is a preventive measure, one of thepreventive measures, against anysubversive elements going into ourUniversity. For example, if there areno subversive elements going there,the law is there, it will not offendanybody, any law-abiding citizen, whowants to go to the University; in fact,it gives added confidence to ourstudents, who are going to the Uni-versity, that they will be free to studywithout any molestation from anysubversive elements. That is myjustification for leaving this InternalSecurity Act in respect of Certificate ofSuitability to be on the Statute Book.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered tostand part of the Bill.

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

THE REGISTRATION OF GUESTS(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, I begto move that a Bill entitled "TheRegistration of Guests (Amendment)Bill of 1966" be read a second time.

Sir, the object of this Bill is toamend Sections 3 (3) and 4 of theRegistration of Guests Act, 1965,which became law on 1st October,1965. Since the passing of the Regis-tration of Guests Act, it has beenfound that Section 3 (3) thereof is ofa restrictive measure and is notconducive to speedy Police investiga-tions. It imposes a condition that aregister kept by a hotel or lodging

house owner may be examined by suchan officer only at reasonable hours ofthe day. This, it is considered, mightgive rise to arguments when speedmay be the decisive factor in obtainingthe information that is being sought.With a view to overcoming this diffi-culty, so that the aims of justice arenot frustrated, it is felt that a PoliceOfficer in the performance of his dutiesunder this Act should be empoweredto have access to such a register atall times and Clause 2 (a), therefore,seeks to remedy this defect. Honour-able Members will note that apartfrom a Police Officer, a RegistrationOfficer, or a person duly authorisedby the latter, does not enjoy this right,and he continues to exercise hisfunction for the examination for hotelor lodging house register as providedin the old legislation.

The Explanatory Statement alsogives detailed explanations as to thenecessity of having Clause 2 (b), (c)and (d) to the main Act and I there-fore, do not propose to enlarge uponwhat has already been said therein.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister of Transport (Dato'Haji Sardon): Sir, I beg to second themotion.

Enche ' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze: MrSpeaker, Sir, speaking on the amend-ment sought, I would refer particularlyto the deletion of the words "at allreasonable hours". The original inten-tion, as I said, was that the registerof a hotel, one would imagine, wouldbe kept by a responsible person, whowould make it available to the Police,if the Police should call for it. Now,it seems that at any time the Policecan call and ask the register to bemade available for inspection. Sir,the explanation given by the Honour-able Minister did not specifically saythat the original provision was inade-quate, and if there were no instanceswhich really hampered the Police inits work in the inspection of theregister, then why should we give thisextra power to the Police? Then,there is a danger, Sir, of the keeperbeing put in a very invidious position

6899 22 MARCH 1966

of having to make available forinspection by the Police of the registerat any time; it may be two or threeo'clock in the morning that a PoliceOfficer might want to have a look atthe register. Surely, a register is notas important as the inspection ofrooms, if there were any suspicionabout the inmates of any room. There-fore, in my view, this deletion of thewords "at all reasonable hours" isunnecessary, because this provision of"at all reasonable hours" is a sensibleand workable one in all cases, andunless the Minister can say in factthere have been instances which makethe Police work difficult, then I thinkthere should not be any amendmentto the original Act.

Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir,I think it is a matter of opinion. Isay that it is inconvenient and unrea-sonable and he says that there havebeen no instances that this thing doesnot work well. But the very fact thatI have asked for this Bill shows thatthe present Act is not as suitable asit should be, in that it places anunnecessary restriction and makes itdifficult to conduct a proper Policeinvestigation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to standpart of the Bill.

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

THE MINOR OFFENCES(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, I begto move that a Bill intituled "an Actto amend the Minor Offences Ordi-nance, 1955" be now read a secondtime.

6900

Sir, the object of this Bill is toamend the Minor Offences Ordinance,1955, by inserting immediately aftersection 15 of the Ordinance a newsub-section 15A. The whole intentionof the amendment by the insertion ofthe new sub-section is for the purposesof controlling unauthorised personsfrom interfering with members of thepublic in their dealings with Govern-ment Departments by making it anoffence for anyone, who loiters for thepurpose of offering, or offers, orsolicits to offer his services for profitor reward. The Explanatory Statementin the Bill itself gives further expla-nation as to why these unauthorisedpersons should be controlled and I,therefore, do not propose to take timeof the House by enlarging upon whathas already been stated therein.

Dato' Haji Sardon : Sir, I beg tosecond.

Enche' Stephen Yong Kuet Tze: MrSpeaker, Sir, I notice that this MinorOffences (Amendment) Bill, 1966,would only affect the Minor OffencesOrdinance, 1955, which is onlyapplicable to the States of Malayathe Peninsular States. We have inSarawak also a similar Minor OffencesOrdinance which may have containedquite a number of matters similar tothe Minor Offences Ordinance here,and I would like to suggest to theHonourable Minister that this Ministryshould look into the question of con-solidating this Ordinance -I believe asimilar Ordinance also exists inSabah so that provisions of this Billmight be incorporated in the Ordinancethat are now extant in the BorneoStates. The question of touting and theother matters mentioned in this Billalso are prevalent in the Borneo Statesand if this Bill is aimed at the mischiefof touting and the like as explainedin the Explanatory note, I think theHonourable Minister might look intothe desirability of extending theseprovisions to the Borneo States.

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Tuan Yang di-Pertuan, saya hendakmengambil bahagian sadikit berchakapberkenaan Bill mi.

6901 22 MARCH 1966 6902

Sa-betul-nya ada-lah tujuan Bill inisangat2-lah baik untok memeliharaorange yang pergi ka-pejabat2 Kerajaankerana apa2 juga pekerj aan yang ber-sangkut-paut dengan pejabat2 Kera-j aan.

Mengikut pendapat dan pengalamankita, bahawa selalu-lah orange ini di-kerumuni oleh orange yang tidak mem-punyai sadikit pun perhubongan dansangkut-pact dengan Jabatan yang ter-sebut dengan tujuan hendak menolongorang2 kampong ini untok melichinkanatau pun menolong pekerj aan mereka.

Tetapi di-sini suka-lah saya hendakmenarek perhatian Yang BerhormatMenteri is-itu oleh kerana banyak dari-pada orange kampong kita yang tidaktahu atoran2 yang bersangkut-paut di-atas satu2 pekerjaan, oleh keranamereka itu tidak mempunyai pelaj aran,maka sangat-lah susah bagi mereka itumenjalankan kewajipan mereka ituyang telah di-tetapkan oleh Keraj aantentang mengisi borang2 bahkan adakejadian2 is-itu apabila mereka masokka-satu pej abat Keraj aan, katakan-lahPejabat Pendaftaran, untok mendapat-kan borang, sangat-lah susah bagimereka untok mendapatkan borang.Kerana, sa-bagaimana yang kita dengarrayuan atau aduan daripada merekaitu, bahawa ada sa-tengah daripadapegawai2 di-dalam pejabat2 yang ter-sebut mempunyai perhubongan denganorang yang di-luar ini yang kononhendak memberi pertolongan kapadaorang kampong kita. Jadi selalu-nyaorange yang hendak menchuba me-nolong orange kampong kita di-dalamsegi pendaftaran dan lain2 lagi, selaluorange ini mempunyai borang2 di-dalam tangan mereka itu, jadi ter-paksa-lah orange kampong pergi ka-pada orange itu, maka orange ini-lahakan meminta atau meletakkanbayaran katakan-lah $5 atau $10ada bermacham2.

Oleh sebab yang demikian untokmengatasi perkara ini, saya sa-bagai-mana permulaan perbicharaan sayatadi, saya telah kata bahawa tujuanRang Undang2 ini sangat baik untokmenyekat orange ini daripada meng-hisap darah atau pun menchari nafkahdi-atas orange kampong, to tapi saya

pinta-lah kapada pehak Keraj aan sen-diri membuat keterangan yang chukuptentang bayaran, tentang jalan2 mengisiborang dan lain2 lagi. Ma`alum-lahorange kampong kita tidak mempunyaipelaj aran yang chukup, maka sayatakut kalau sa-kira-nya apabila tidakKeraj aan memberi keterangan2 yangchukup dan borang2 itu susah pulahendak di-dapati, maka perkara iniakan menj adi lebeh lagi susah ka-atasorange kampong.

Dato' Haji Sardon: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Ahli Yang Berhormat dariKelantan Hilir apa yang di-chakap-kan-nya itu memang betul terutamasa-kali dalam Pej abat Kenderaan sayadi-Batu Road, kalau tidak ada undang2ini tidak boleh hendak buat apa2kerana benda itu public. Jadi, kiraharap dengan ada-nya undang2 ini dankita akan tengok lagi keadaan2 menjualborang ini. Saya, Kementerian di-pejabat2 saya, sa-berapa boleh-lah,akan menyekat perkara ini dan akanmenolong orang ramai hendak me-nyenangkan mereka. Terutama sa-kalipehak Pendaf tare di-seluroh negerimemang telah di-beri waktu khas dari-pada pukul 3.00-4.30. Sa-siapa yangberkenaan berkehendakkan borangyang tidak tahu mengisi borang, hendakbagitu bagini, memang di-benarkanberjumpa dengan Registrar dan kitajuga dapat peruntokan sa-orang keraniboleh menolong orang yang tidak tahumenulis bagitu bagini kerana hendakmengelakkan daripada apa yang di-sebut oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat dari-pada Hilir Perak, memang kita tidakbersetuju dan ini-lah chara hendakmenghapuskan. Terima kaseh.

Enche' Hussein bin To' Muda Hassan(Raub): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sayasuka hendak bertanya kapada YangBerhormat Menteri, ada-kah termasok,jika sa-saorang yang kita kata tadi diasuka pergi kapada tiap2 pejabat meng-ambil segala ma`lumat2 berkenaandengan kelemahan sa-sabuah pejabatdan di-beri-nya ma`lumat itu kapadaParti Pembangkang dan di-kemuka-kan-nya ka-dalam Dewan ini, ada-kahitu menjadi kesalahan juga?

Dato' Dr Ismail: First of all I wouldlike to thank Mr Stephen Yong from

6903 22 MARCH 1966

Sarawak for his constructive sugges-tion, which I will willingly exploreand, if possible, I will try to do as hewishes.

Berkenaan dengan tegoran daripadaAhli Yang Berhormat dari KelantanHilir, nampak-nya perkara yang ber-laku ini di-Kelantan sahaj a, sebab apaAhli2 Yang lain tidak ada. Barangkali,boleh jadi, Ahli2 Yang Berhormat di-Kelantan tidak menjalankan kerja.

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, untok pene-rangan, tadi ini baharu sahaja YangBerhor. mat Menteri Pengangkutansendiri telah mengaku di-Ibu KotaKuala Lumpur ini pun telah berlakubuat pengetahuan-nya.

Dato' Dr Ismail: Ya-lah dia mengaku,tetapi orange di-sini nampak-nya, Ahli2Yang Berhormat di-Kuala Lumpurmenolong orang di-sini mendapatkanborang semua itu. Jadi, saya mula2sa-kali hendak-lah bagi ingat kapadaAhli Yang Berhormat, tolong-lahorange yang di-kawasan dia itu, itusatu kewajipan-nya-lah dan orangePAS lain pun buat kerj a dahulu,kalau tidak buat ker ja nanti susahpula.

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Kami minta terangkan apa-kah ke-wajipan kami itu?

Dato' Dr Ismail: Kewajipan itu sa-patut-nya perkara yang tuan siarkantadi itu patut di-adukan kapada Polis.Sebab itu satu perkara yang melanggarundang2 dan Polis akan mengambiltindakan atas perkara itu. Jadi, kalauAhli Yang Berhormat itu tidak meng-erti undang2 pun boleh-lah belajarsadikit2.

Berkenaan dengan soal Ahli YangBerhormat daripada Raub saya puntidak tahu apa hendak jawab, apama`ana-nya, kalau pergi ka-satuPejabat untok mendapat information

Enche' Hussein bin To' Muda Hassan:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada prang yangsuka perkara yang tidak ada kena-mengena dengan diri-nya, dia pergi ka-

6904

tiap2 pejabat di-ambil-lah ma`lumattanah lambat di-benarkan atau punhal perkara yang lain di-beri kapadaParti Pembangkang. Dalam Parlimen,Ahli itu pun kemukakan-lah dalamDewan ini dan menudoh-lah pejabatitu, pejabat ini. Jadi, orang yang sa-macham itu apa hendak kita hukum-kan? Orang yang suka menchari salahuntok bahan Parti Pembangkangmenentang, menegor, di-dalam Dewanini.

Dato' Dr Ismail: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, itu ta' payah saya jawab-lah.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House. ,.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered tostand part of the Bill.

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

Sitting suspended at 5.20 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

(Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

THE CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Dato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, I begto move that a Bill entitled "theCinematograph Films (Amendment)Bill, 1966", be now read a secondtime.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the object of theBill is to amend Section 25 of theCinematograph Films Ordinance, 1952,so that the exhibition of films given bya foreign country in pursuance to anagreement entered into between thatGovernment and the Government ofthe Federation of Malaya will not besubject to censorship. As the law nowstands, there is no provision to grantsuch an exemption. Sir, I beg to movethat the Bill be now read a secondtime.

6905 22 MARCH 1966 6906

Dato' Haji Sardon: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya menyokong.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to standpart of the Bill.

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

THE COMMON GAMING HOUSES(AMENDMENT) ACT, 1966

Second Reading

Mato' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir, Ibeg to move that a Bill intituled "theCommon Gaming Houses (Amendment)Act, 1966" be now read a second time.

The presence of gaming in publicunder the guise of playing for pastimeand activities of illegal lotteries in thevarious States of Malaysia have becomea matter of concern to the Government.

The respective Common GamingHouses Ordinances that exist in theStates of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawakwhich are used against these illegaloperations have been found to bedeficient, and to enable the Governmentto overcome this difficulty formalapproval of this House is, therefore,sought to amend the legislation of eachof the States concerned.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of theExplanatory Statement give details ofhow each legislation of the State is tobe amended and I, therefore, do notpropose to explain what is alreadystated therein.

Sir, I beg to move.

Dato ' Haji Sardon : Sir, I beg tosecond the motion.

Enche' Ong Kee Hui (Sarawak):Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure Members ofthis House will happily support the

Minister in his attempt to tighten up allgaming activities gambling, generally,but this amendment, I think also extendsto Sabah and Sarawak. From his shortexplanation, Sir, I am not clear how itaffects the present law of Sarawakrelating to gambling as a whole. If Iremember rightly, in the SarawakOrdinance relating to gambling thereare certain Schedules which lay downthat certain types of gambling are notpermitted at all. From the ExplanatoryNote it would appear this has not beenstated. Perhaps, the Minister wouldexplain, if I am wrong, that it wouldbe competent for -I am referring to theThird Schedule -a Police officer notbelow the rank of Sergeant to decidewhether anything is gambling or not, orwhether an apparatus being used is forgambling or not.

With regard to gambling generallyand the control of gambling it wouldappear that it is often small children,boys, and women who fell foul of thelaw and are caught by the Police andit is very seldom that the big operatorsare caught at all. For that reason, Sir,I will recall that when an application ismade for certain types of fun fair, forinstance, run by a charitable institution,arguments always arose as to whatconstitutes gambling, what is a game ofchance, and what is in fact gambling. Ido not know whether this amendmentwhich is put forward now would clarifythis, or would only lead to furtherargument, as the decision of a Policeofficer not below the rank of Sergeantmight well be questioned.

As far as gambling by children isconcerned, I think the basic cause, orthe basic remedy rather, is in education.I do not think suppressive measureswould really solve the problem. It mightonly well lead to friction between thePolice and those concerned and con-siderable argument would ensue as towhat constitutes gambling, or whetherpersons are in fact indulging in, whatmay be called, an innocent pastime.Perhaps the Minister might clarify thisin the interest of public harmony.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, I rise to speak on this Bill that hasbeen introduced by the Honourable

6907 22 MARCH 1966

Minister of Justice. I am a little alarmedthat the Government, as has been shownin the past in passing the Turf ClubAct, the Lotteries Board and others, isactively conniving at the spirit ofgambling in this country, and all themore so, when I see amongst the Billsto be debated in this House is one forthe extension of Social Welfare lotteriesto the States of Sabah and Sarawak,although, as we are told, negotiationsare still being carried out with Sarawak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one can go on talkingfor hours on end on the evils ofgambling. I, myself, have in this Housespoken on the evils of organisedgambling : for example, in respect ofthe lotteries of Turf Clubs, where beforeone could only have a little flutter, ifone were a member of the Turf Clubs,now without being a member of theTurf Clubs one can have a flutter. And,of course, there are the Social Welfarelotteries that are sold now, I believe,twice a month, where before they weresold once a month. Pardon my ignor-ance on this, Mr Speaker, Sir, becauseI do not have the money to have a littleflutter either on the Social Welfarelotteries or on the Turf Clubs. However,what I am alarmed at is, Mr Speaker,Sir, that on my way home, either on aSunday afternoon after work, or on aWednesday afternoon during the lunchbreak, I see that when the horses arerunning at Ampang Road the wholeplace is packed with cars, and onSunday also if the horses are runningthe whole place is again packed withcars and sometimes there is a littletraffic jam. On other days when horsesare running, let us say, in Singapore, orin Penang, or in Ipoh, the cars arethere but they are a little less. Now,what perturbs me is the ordinary manwithout a coat, without a tie, goingthere hoping against hope that out ofhis $5.00 he may well get $50.00 out ofthe common tote, or may be out of his$5.00 he hopes to make a few hundreddollars. I am not accusing anybody, butI think if the Government were to looka little more carefully, not only at thecar numbers of the people going therebut also at the people going there, onemight find a few civil servants. This is

6908

the thing I hope the Government maywell inquire.

I remember very well that when theP.A.P. came into power they issued animperial edict that any one, any civilservant, found in the race course on aworking day faces disciplinary action.Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not saying thatour civil servants are doing that, but itcould happen and by opening the doorswide for gambling to take place, onenaturally tempts people to have a littleflutter.

Now, if I remember rightly, thisquestion of gambling has many sideeffects. I think at the Budget session theHonourable Member for Pasir Putehwas talking about playing cards withnude pictures on the back. Now, this isone form of gambling and if you do notprohibit gambling this goes an multi-plying, and I think I am right in sayingthat the Government has not prohibitedplaying cards of this nature. I standcorrected on this. I would welcome astatement by the Honourable Ministerthat he will prohibit the importation ofplaying cards which show nude picturesof women. If I remember rightly theMember for Pasir Puteh used the wordgalakkan, which he said has a differentconnotation in Kelantan as it is com-monly made known elsewhere. Theseare the evils among some of the evils ofgambling, and I would hope that theGovernment would take vigorousmeasures to stamp out gambling.

One form of gambling that is at leastin Kuala Lumpur that I know is thisgame of "tikam". That is very commonat the door steps of schools and here Ihope that the Minister not only in hiscapacity as the Minister for Justice, butin his capacity as the Minister for HomeAffairs will look into this. This hasbeen reported to me by several head-masters. You go to the M.B.S.; at thefoot of the hill, going up there, thesehawkers with the "tikam", they waylaythe children going to school, and youturn around and there goes your fivecents down the drain, and no pocketmoney for the rest of the day or atthe other end of the M.B.S. and Ihave no doubt in St. Johns where theHonourable Minister is the Chairman

6909 22 MARCH 1966

of the Board of Governors this alsohappens. This game of tikam is soprevalant in almost all these schools inKuala Lumpur and I do hope that theMinister for Home Affairs will orderthe Police in Kuala Lumpur to takemore vigorous steps to stamp out thisgame of ti kam, in the schools in KualaLumpur. It has two side effects, MrSpeaker, Sir, apart from the childrenlosing their money. One is that it leads tosome of these children extorting moneyfrom their fellow students. I rememberabout two weeks ago I had the unfor-tunate and unpleasant duty sitting atthe Board of Governors of the school,where pleading for the fate of two boyswho have been sacked from the school,because the headmaster found themguilty of extorting money. I saw onesmall boy extorting money from a heftychap and I asked the boy, "A pama^cham", would you allow this smallboy to take money from you?" and Ihave no doubt that it stems out of thisevil influence of gambling. Another sideeffect, of course, is well known to mostpeople, who have anything to do withschools; it is that the tuck shop peopleinside say, "we are losing money, wetender for this contract." In the schoolwhere I am the Chairman of Board ofManagers the tender price is $800 overper month, every month of the year,and the caterer there is grumbling, hesays, "I have no business; there youlook at it; the chaps with the tikamboards all are outside and the childrenbefore they come to the school, all theirmoney goes there, and they have nomoney to buy the things that we areserving." These are some of the evilsof gambling and I bring them to theattention of the Minister with the hopethat, if he has the welfare of the risinggeneration in this country, he shouldtake active steps to vigorously stampout this practice of tikam outsideschools. This is the plea of all theheadmasters that I have come in contactwith; and of course I need not mention,Mr Speaker, Sir, the other evils ofgambling, where families have beenbroken up, where people have taken todrinking to drown their sorrows, havinglost a tidy pack at the race course, ofpeople committing suicide, as a resultof gambling. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope

6910

the Honourable Minister will take intoaccount all these evils of gambling thatI have enumerated to you.

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mengambilbahagian sadikit di-dalam perkara mi.Gambling atau pun berjud, penyakitjudi ini, sa-sunggoh-nya telah merebakdengan merbahaya-nya di-dalam tanahayer kita, bukan sahaja di-antaragulongan orange tua bahkan masokpenyakit ini ka-dalam gulongan budak2.Penyakit ini, sa-bagaimana yang kitstelah dengar daripada Ahli2 YangBerhormat yang telah berchakap sa-belum saya, telah membawa kapadasatu penyakit lain di-dalam masharakatkita, is-itu apabila merebak-nya judiini ka-dalam sa-kalian gulongan, baiktua, mahu pun muda, maka timbul-lahpula penyakit2 yang lain sa-umpamamenchuri, bercherai berai dan lain2 lagi.

Penyakit judi ini is-lah satu penyakityang membawa kapada kepapaan,kesengsaraan dan pergadohan bolehberlaku di-dalam satu rumah. Sa-bagai-mana yang telah kita dengar tadi,penyakit tikam ekor sedang merebakdi-sekolah2. mi penyakit akan mendidekbudak2 sekolali dan menggalakkanbudak2 bermain judi, walhal merekaitu maseh di-dalam umor yang sangatmuda dan kechil lagi. Saya fikir kalaudi-biarkan penyakit ini merebak danberjalan terus, tidak berapa lama di-masa yang akan datang, maka semuapemuda2 kita akan mendapat penyakitsuka bermain judi, dan ini tidak-lahakan menguntongkan negara kita bah-kan akan membawa kapada penyakit2yang lain2 lagi sa-bagaimana yang sayatelah terangkan tadi.

Penyakit2 ini telah merebak masokka-kampong2, bukan sahaja merebakdi-bandar2, juga masok ka-kampong2,saperti mana yang kita tahu judi yangdi-namakan tikam ekor. Penyakit juditikam ekor ini telah merebak daripadabandar masok ka-kampong2 dan telahmenyebabkan beberapa perkara yangtidak baik is-itu banyak-lah orange kitayang berharap bahawa jika mereka itutikam ekor mereka itu akan untongberibu2 ringgit; telah menjual kerbaumereka itu, telah menjual barang2mereka dan wang yang ada di-kantong

6911 22 MARCH 1966

(di-pocket) mereka itu pun habis di-belanj akan untok menikam ekor inidengan harapan yang mereka itu akanmenang beribu2 ringgit.

Dalam lima enam bulan yang lalu,kalau tidak silap saya , ada juga satulangkah yang telah di-jalankan olehPolis untok menchegah merebak-nyapenyakit ini di -negeri Kelantan . Tetapikita dengar bahawa langkah2 yang telahdi-ambil untok menchegah penyakit inichuma buat sementara sahaja. Ke-mudian daripada tidak berapa harilama-nya , maka penyakit itu di-biarkanber jalan terus-menerus , bahkan ada kitadengar aduan2 yang bahawa ada sa-tengah daripada pehak Polis yang tidakmengambil berat walau pun mereka itutahu sarang tikam ekor ini bertempatpada satu tempat , tetapi mereka itutidak mengambil berat.

Oleh sebab yang demikian, sayapinta -lah kapada Yang BerhormatMenteri, kalau boleh , biar-lah di-hapuskan penyakit ini sama sa-kaliatau pun penyakit judi, kerana perkaraini mendatangkan kepapaan dan per-kara yang tidak baik kapada bangsakita.

Dato ' Dr Ismail: Mr Speaker, Sir,in reply to the Honourable Member forSarawak, Mr Ong Kee Hui, I wouldlike to say that it is the object of thisBill to allow the Minister, from time totime, by notification in the Gazette todeclare any game, method, device, orcompetition specified or described insuch notification to be a lottery. Theidea is to make it easier for the prosecu-tion to obtain conviction in cases wherea person is charged with an offenceunder the Common Gambling HousesOrdinance. If we do not have thisdeclaration, people can defeat the objectof the prosecution. So, if I can declarethat that particular game is a lottery,then we can get easier conviction.

Now, with regard to the HonourableMember for Batu, I cannot agree morewith him about the evils of gambling,but as regards the adults, I think, ofcourse, he knows more than myself,and being a lay preacher he knows thatit is an evil thing that every man shouldavoid, but most men do not. All that

6912

we can do as a Government is to tryto minimise the thing and to get asmuch prosecution as we can, and it iswith this object that I ask for theamendment of this Ordinance in thisHouse.

I agree with him with regard tojuvenile offenders, and I think weshould take more vigorous steps : I alsoagree with him that we should try tomake better measures. But, as he knows,this game that he has described aboutthe spinning wheel also existed in hisand my time, and I also indulged in it.Now that it has become more and morecommon, I think we must not encouragethe thing, and we will do our best tosuppress this sort of gambling. Withregard to juvenile offenders, it is notonly the law that must do its work, butalso the parents, the schools, the laypreachers, and everybody must helpfully to try and combat this evil thing.

Berkenaan dengan Ahli Yang Ber-hormat daripada Kelantan Hilir,memang-lah kita pun sudah tahuakibat2 daripada berjudi mi. Jadi bilakita dengar sharahan tadi, sharahan itukita sendiri pun sudah tahu, chumabagi Keraj aan kita mahu chuba-lahdengan sa-berapa Jaya upaya dan kitaharap juga-lah daripada. PAS Kelantandi-sana, berdo`a-lah lebeh2 lagi, bacha-lah Quran 10 kali, supaya kita boleh-lahbersama2 dapat menghapuskan judiyang di-haramkan oleh ugama mi.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to standpart of the Bill.

First schedule ordered to stand partof the Bill.

Second schedule ordered to standpart of the Bill.

6913 22 MARCH 1966 6914

Third schedule ordered to stand partof the Bill.

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

THE CIVIL LAW (AMENDMENT)BILL

Second Reading

Dato ' Dr Ismail : Mr Speaker, Sir, I begto move that a Bill intituled "An Actto amend the Civil Law Ordinance,1956, and to repeal certain written lawsrelating to apportionment and assign-ment", be read a second time.

This Bill, Sir, seeks to do three quiteseparate things. Clause 2 seeks toamend Section 7 of the Civil LawOrdinance, 1956. Clause 3 inserts a newpart in that Ordinance, and Clause 4repeals an Ordinance and an Enactment.

The main purpose of this Bill is theamendment of Section 7 of the CivilLaw Ordinance. The opportunity hasbeen taken to deal with other mattersat the same time. Section 7 of the CivilLaw Ordinance provides for the awardof damages in civil proceedings to thefamily of a deceased person whosedeath has been caused by negligence orsome other wrongful act. This is, ofcourse, a most important section. Thecommon law originally did not provideany such remedy, when a person waskilled by negligence. If a person wasinjured but not killed he could sue; butif he was killed there was no one whocould bring an action. Now, this stateof affairs was put right by legislation inGreat Britain in 1846, and Section 7 ofthe Civil Law Ordinance makescorresponding provisions here. AsHonourable Members will appreciate, agreat deal depends in many cases ofthis kind, on what lawyers called themeasure of damages. By that I meanthe method by which the amount ofdamages is calculated, when a personhas succeeded in winning his case. Thegeneral principle in fatal accident casesis that the amount of damages is arrivedat by calculating the amount that thewidow and other surviving members ofthe family have lost by the death. If adeceased person was a wage-earner, thewidow will have lost an amount equal

to a certain part of his wages for therest of his working life. That is ofcourse only the rough generalprinciple. There are a great manyrefinements which I need not gointo. It will be clear that if awidow has gained by her husband'sdeath, as might be the case, for example,if she has inherited a large sum ofmoney from him, that gain will have tobe deducted from the damages. Manyyears ago, it was held in the courts thatthis applied when the deceased hadbeen insured. Insurance payments hadto be deducted like any other gains.This was thought to be unfair, becauseit benefited no one, except the defendantin the case, who had to pay lessdamages, because the man he killedhad been prudent enough to insurehimself. Therefore, legislation wasenacted to provide that insurance pay-ments were not to be deducted from thedamages in fatal accident cases.

In a case in Johore in 1962, it washeld that, the payment to a widow fromthe Employees Provident Fund wasnot an insurance payment. It followedthat the amount of damages had t,o bereduced by the amount of the paymentfrom the Fund. The Government takesthe view that payments from theEmployees Provident Fund ought to beput on the same basis as insurancepayments. Accordingly we propose toamend the Civil Law Ordinance toprovide that payment from the Fundshall not be taken into account inassessing damages and we seek toachieve that object by Clause 2 of theBill now before the House. Clause 2does not, in fact, limit itself to pay-ments from the Employees ProvidentFund. It brings in other payments, byway of pensions or gratuities. Itappears logical that all payments ofthis kind should be treated on the samebasis. I am sure that HonourableMembers in all parts of the House willagree with me that this is an amend-ment to the law which is both fair andeminently desirable. I suppose it mightbe described as something of a lawyer'samendment, but it is by no meanspurely technical in it,s effect. On thecontrary, it will be of great benefit tothose who, through no fault of their

6915 22 MARCH 1966

own, lose the head of their family inan accident.

I turn now, Mr Speaker, Sir, to theother Clauses in the Bill. Unlike Clause2, these remaining Clauses are purelytechnical. Honourable Members willsee that Clause 3 seeks to insert in theCivil Law Ordinance a new partheaded "Apportionment,". This branchof the law deals with the questionwhen a periodical payment such asrent actually becomes payable : forexample, if a house is let at a quarterlyrent of $500 and the tenancy comes toan end for some reason half-waythrough a quarter, can the landlordrecover part of the rent, or is it thecase that he can recover no rent,because the period was never com-pleted? In Penang and Malacca whenthey were part of the Straits Settle-ments, an Ordinance called "theApportionment Ordinance" was passedto make it clear that in a case of thekind I have just quoted, the rent wouldbe deemed to accrue from day-to-dayand the landlord would, therefore, beable to recover a proportionate amountof the rent for that quarter. ThatOrdinance is still in force in Penangand Malacca, but there is no corres-ponding legislation in the other Statesof Malaya. To ensure uniformity, we inthe Government take the view that theprovisions of the existing Apportion-ment Ordinance should be extendedthroughout the States of Malaya. Toavoid multiplicity of legislation, itappears that amendment of the CivilLaw Ordinance, rather than an exten-sion of the Apportionment Ordinance,would be the best way of achieving thisobject. The Bill, therefore, providesby Clause 3 and the Schedule for theinsertion of the Civil Law Ordinanceof the new part headed "Apportion-ment" to which I have just referred.The only difference of substancebetween the new part and theApportionment Ordinance is that thedefinition of "rents' in the proposednew section 16A excludes rents payablefor State land. The reason for theexclusion is that rents for State landare now dealt with in the NationalLand Code. As a consequence of theinsertion of the new part in the Civil

6916

Law Ordinance, it will, of course, benecessary to repeal the ApportionmentOrdinance and that is done by Clause 4.Honourable Members will see thatClause 4 also repeals the AssignmentsEnactment, 1936, of the formerFederated Malay States. The reason forthat is simply that the matters providedfor by the Enactment are now dealt bysub-section 3 of section 4 of the CivilLaw Ordinance. The Enactment is,therefore, redundant and can berepealed.

I should also make one final pointclear to the House. The Civil LawOrdinance extends only to the States ofMalaya, and the Borneo States will notbe affected by this Bill. The mattersdealt with by the Civil Law Ordinanceare far-reaching and of great import-ance. It is to be hoped that in duecourse it will be possible to haveunified legislation throughout Malaysiaon these matters, but it is not possibleas yet since many difficult legal affairsare involved. We do not think it rightto hold up the amendment of section 7of the Civil Law Ordinance pendingthe settlement of this question, andwe have thought it best to proceedwith amendments here and now.

Sir, I am afraid, that I had to go intoa good deal of detail. I am sure,however, that the House will agreewith me that the amendment tosection 7 is bath necessary andimportant and that the other amend-ments, although perhaps they wouldnot justify an amending Bill bythemselves, are desirable and rightlyincluded in the Bill. I think I can saythat this is a non-controversial andthoroughly useful Bill, and I com-mend it to the Honourable Membersaccordingly.

Sir, I beg to move.

Dato ' Haji Sardon: Sir, I beg tosecond the motion.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Mr Speaker,Sir, as the Honourable Minister ofJustice has rightly put it, this Bill,particularly section 7 of the Civil LawOrdinance, 1956, must have the supportof all the Members of this House, and

6917 22 MARCH 1966 6918

I for one heartily endorse all thegrounds that he has postulated for theamendment of this section. It seems tome an act of gross injustice, if prudenceon the part of the deceased shouldpenalise his dependants should he havean insurance policy, and more so if inany court award the E.P.F. is deductedfrom the damages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw theattention of the Honourable Minister ofJustice to a recent case in the HighCourt where, although the Lord Presi-dent agreed that the defendant wasguilty of killing the deceased, he couldnot award any damages, because theclever lawyer of the insurance companyexamined the licence, I believe, of thecar very carefully and found thatalthough it had been supposed to betransferred the transfer had not actuallytaken place and, therefore, the defendantwas not culpable and, consequently, theLord President could not award anydamages to the dependants of thedeceased. The Lord President then wenton to say that in a civilised society likeours, it is appalling that the insurancecompanies which make bags of moneyshould try and escape their liabilitythrough a technicality. Now, MrSpeaker, Sir, I believe this thing wasaired in the press about a few monthsbefore the case in question was heardby the Lord President and, if I amcorrect, after the case was heard beforethe Lord President, the Minister ofTransport did issue a statement that hewould bring legislation to see that theinsurance companies should form apool to cater for cases of this naturewhere through a technicality theinsurance companies can escape liability.Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to commendthis as an urgent necessity for theGovernment to bring forth a legislationto prevent insurance companies who, Irepeat again, are making, I would notsay fabulous sums of money, butmaking a fair amount of money andthen escaping liability through a techni-cality that has been overlooked. Icommend this suggestion to theMinisters both of Transport and ofJustice and hope, between both of themin the next session of this House, theywill bring the necessary legislation to

have the insurance companies to have apool of money to cater for cases of thisnature.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second timeand committed to a Committee of thewhole House.

House immediately resolved itselfinto a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

(Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Clause 1 to 4 inclusive ordered tostand part of the Bill.

Schedule ordered to stand part of theBill.

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

THE SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY(1965) (No. 3) BILL

Second Reading

The Assistant Minister of Finance (DrNg Kam Poh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I begto move that a Bill intituled, "an Actto apply sums out of the ConsolidatedFund for additional expenditure for theservice of the year 1965, and to appro-priate such sums for certain purposes"be read a second time.

Honourable Members will recall thatwhen the Third Supplementary Esti-mates, 1964, were presented in thisHouse in early March, 1965, theMinister of Finance pointed out thatit was a normal procedure and inaccordance with the Constitution thatthe Supplementary Estimates in respectof expenditure for the past year couldbe presented for the approval of theHouse in the following year. The Billnow presented to the House seeksauthority for additional expenditure in1965. The Minister of Finance alsopointed out that under the FinancialProcedure Ordinance, 1957, theTreasury is empowered to issue moneyfrom the Contingencies Fund, pendingthe approval of Supplementary Esti-mates, to meet urgent and unforeseenexpenditure for which no provision orinsufficient provision had been enteredin the approved Estimates. Some of the

6919 22 MARCH 1966

supplements now sought refer to suchexpenditure which has been authorisedvia the Contingencies Fund; and inaccordance with the Financial ProcedureOrdinance any sum authorised by theTreasury in such a manner must bereported to Parliament irrespective ofwhether the full amount has actuallybeen spent or not.

Honourable Members will observethat there are a number of token votesof $10 sought in the SupplementaryEstimates. Under the Financial Proce-dure Ordinance, the Treasury has thepower to transfer a provision appearingunder one sub-head of the Estimates toanother, or create a new sub-headwithout reference to Parliament as longas the total for the whole Head ofExpenditure is not exceeded. Legally,therefore, there is no necessity for theGovernment to present such token votesto Parliament at all. However, theTreasury feels that in certain cases ofsuch transfers of funds by means oftoken votes, particularly for the purposeof a new service, they should bereported to Parliament.

The total supplement now sought is$51,930,248 of which a sum of$24,820,195 is charged on the Consoli-dated Fund by authority of therelevant laws' and therefore needs nofurther approval of the House. Theamount required to be appropriated bythis Supplementary Bill is $27,110,053and this is mentioned in Clause 2 ofthe Bill. The original estimatesapproved for 1965 amounted to$1,598.9 million, and taking intoaccount the two supplements approvedin May and November, 1965, and thepresent supplement, the total estimatesfor 1965 amount to $1,735.8 million,of which a sum of $338.4 million ischarged on the Consolidated Fund.

The need for these supplements isalready explained in the TreasuryMemorandum accompanying the ThirdSupplementary Estimates of Expendi-ture for 1965, tabled as CommandPaper No. 7 of 1966. I will, therefore,confine myself to those items whichare quite substantial and are ofgeneral interest to Honourable Mem-bers.

6920

The largest supplement of Supplyexpenditure is in respect of Head5. 25, Contribution to Statutory Funds,with a sum of $9.6 million, of which$5 million is required for increasingthe amount in the Supplies TradingDepartment Account to $73 million,$4 million for increasing the amountin the Inter-administration Account to$10 million, so as to cover the needsof all the States of Malaysia, and $0.6million is for augmenting the StateReserve Fund and the PersonalAdvances (Public Officers) Fund. Thenext biggest item is in respect of Head5. 19, Education Grants and Subven-tions, where an additional sum of $7.2million is required to meet the pay-ments of statutory grants in respect ofPrimary and Secondary Schools in1965. Head S. 24, Treasury GeneralServices, requires an additional sumof $2.36 million, of which $2 millionrepresents an advance towards the $5million equity investment in BankBumiputra already provided for in theDevelopment Estimates and thebalance of $0.36 million is requiredfor supplementing the provision forRoad Grants to Municipalities. HeadS. 32, Ministry of Health, requires asupplement of $1.2 million, of which$0.9 million is for meeting the cost ofextra provisions needed for hospitalsand $0.3 million is in respect of anti-malarial services, i.e., for settlingarrears of housing allowances andwages of anti-malarial labourers andthe cost of drugs for the treatment ofaborigines. Head S. 33, Ministry ofHome Affairs, requires a sum of $1.06million to meet, among other things,the personal emoluments and othercharges due to the increase in thestrength of the Senoi Pra'ak, theexpenditure on the protection of keypoints and the cost of emergency roadsand airfields in Sabah, and the expen-diture in providing financial assistanceto fishermen affected by curfew orders.Head S. 21, Ministry of ExternalAffairs, requires a sum of $0.95million for supplementing the varioussub-heads of the Ministry and for thepayment for four years' advance onrented accommodation for the Malay-sian High Commission and Staff inLagos, Nigeria. Head S. 12, Overseas

6921 22 MARCH 1966

Service Aid Scheme, requires a sum of$0.8 million since the original provi-sion in the Estimates has proved to beunder-estimated, as it was difficult atthe time of framing the Estimates toforecast the likely expenditure. HeadS. 34, Royal Malaysia Police, requiresa sum of $0.84 million to meet the per-sonal emoluments and other chargesfor the Malaysian component of Com-bined Intelligence Headquarters inSongkhla, Thailand, and the cost ofradio sets and equipment for thePolice Force and its non-regular unitsin Sarawak and Sabah.

As the Ministers concerned will beexplaining to the House in detailduring the committee stage the pur-poses of the additional sums sought bytheir Ministries, I need not thereforego into them in detail at this point.

Sir, I beg to move.

Enche' Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman:Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker: The time isup. I shall call upon a Member of theGovernment to move the adjournmentof this House.

ADJOURNMENT

(Motion)Dato ' Haji Sardon : Mr Speaker, Sir, Ibeg to move that the House do nowadjourn.

Tuan Haji Mohamed Ghazali binHaji Jawi: Sir, I beg to second themotion.

ADJOURNMENT SPEECH

EAST COAST STATES OFMALAYA FLOODS

Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir,it is the avowed purpose of theAlliance Government to raise thestandard of living of the bumi putraLs'.That being so, we find it difficult tounderstand the almost callous andcasual attitude of the Central Govern-ment to the annually recurrent floodson the East Coast States of Malaya.Now, the people living in these Statesare mainly bumi pufas. Why then has

6922

the Central Government done almostnothing towards prevention of floodswhich come with every North EastMonsoon towards the end of eachyear? Is it because that one of theseStates happens to be Kelantan, whichis P.M.I.P. controlled but which isalso the worst affected of the EastCoast States? I hope this is not so, for,in the matter of prevention of floods,it is the duty of the Central Govern-ment, with all the resources of theDrainage and Irrigation Departmentand of the Agriculture Department aswell, to do its best to prevent floodsthere, irrespective of the politicalidentity of the States Governmentsconcerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the advent ofevery North East Monsoon, the poorpeople in the low-lying areas of theEast Coast States of Malaya find them-selves flooded out of their homes.When they come back, it is often tofind their crops ruined, their livestockdestroyed, and much of their belong-ings swept away, or ruined by thefloods.

During the recent floods, whichoccurred during the Budget Sessionlast year, more than a hundred thou-sand acres of padi land in Kelantanalone were under four to eleven feetof water. The damage done not onlyto the padi crops but also to livestockand other properties is enormous. Thefloods last year brought memories tothe old timers of the great floods thatoccurred in Kelantan at the end of1926.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-malamkita di-Rumah Yang Berhormat initelah mendengar Menteri Pertaniandan Sharikat Kerjasama, berchakapmengatakan Jabatan Pant dan TaliAyer hendak membaiki kerosakan di-Pantai Timor. Saya hendak bertanya.mengapa Jabatan tersebut tidak meng-ambil tindakan untok mengurangkanbanjir2 di-Pantai Timor dahulu?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is tragic that theCentral Government has almost takena fatalistic attitude towards thesefloods and have come to regard themas an act of God, brought by Allah topunish the recalcitrant P.M.I.P.

6923 22 MARCH 1966 6924

Government of Kelantan but Treng.ganu has been affected too. The pro-blem is an agricultural and engineer-ing one, and by these means it ispossible to alleviate the effects of thesefloods and not regard them as an actof God. So far as one can see, nomeasures to lessen their severity havebeen undertaken by the CentralGovernment. On the other hand, wesee the Social Welfare Departmentgoing there, and we have now thepromise of the Minister of Agricultureand Co-operatives saying we want tomembaiki kerosakan di-sang why notprevent or alleviate the floods?

Sir, the obvious measures are tokeep steep land as far as possibleunder its natural jungle cover and toensure that the rivers function as theyshould. A river is merely a naturaldrain on a large scale and a drainmust be kept clean and open. Thushouses, huts and the growing of cropsshould not be permitted on the riverbanks which should have a reserve onboth sides of about two chains wide.If there is human habitation by theriver banks, then rubbish will fall intothe river and erosion will take place.Silt will collect in the river bed of themuddy dirty river which will meanderabout and be unable to generate acurrent swift and strong enough toscour away the silt and keep a straightchannel. It is obvious that whereerosion has taken place, the riverbanks must be renewed and streng-thened. If there are large bends thatimpede the rapid flood of water, thenthese should be straightened. The siltat the mouth of the rivers must beremoved, and, in order to ensure rapidexit of water to the sea, the rivers atthis point must be canalized.

All these engineering problems are,I am sure, within the capability of theofficers •of the Drainage and IrrigationDepartment, and given the tools andmoney, I am sure they will make agood job of it.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, onbehalf of the flood victims of the EastCoast States, may I make a plea to theCentral Government not to ignore thefloods in that region but to tackle theproblem with vigour so as to mini-

mize the havoc that follows in the trailof the floods annually. Thank you.

Tuan Haji Mohamed Ghazali binHaji Jawi : Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-bagaimana yang di-nyatakan olehAhli Yang Berhormat dari Batu is-ituada-lah menjadi dasar, chita2 danhasrat Kerajaan Perikatan bagi me-ninggikan taraf kehidupan bumiputradan ra`ayat negeri ini seluroh-nya.Dasar dan hasrat jni belum berubahdan tidak akan berubah sa-lagi Peri-katan berkuasa di-dalam negeri mi.

Di-dalam melaksanakan chita2 ini,Kerajaan tidak memileh kaseh danmemberi layanan yang berlainan,dengan sharat ra`ayat, khas-nya Kera-jaan Negeri, sanggup bekerjasama danmahu menerima ranchangan2 yangdi-susun dan di-lancharkan oleh Kera-jaan. Sa-bagaimana Ahli Yang Ber-hormat itu sendiri ma`alum, urusanmenjaga dan memberseh sungai dankerja2 kechil ada-lah di-bawah kuasaandan urusan Kerajaan Negeri. Walaudemikian Kerajaan Pusat telah mem-ber bantuan berkenaan KemajuanRanchangan' Pant dan Tali Ayer di-dalam Negeri, termasok negeri Kelan-tan is-itu Ranchangan Lemal danRanchangan Kemubu.

Banjir atau pun bah yang berlakudi-Pantai Timor di-akhir tahun sudahbukan sahaja di-Kelantan, bahkan di-Trengganu dan di-Pahang jua. Mengi-kut keterangan yang di-ambil dandi-sampan, sungai2 di-Kelantan dandi-negeri yang dua lagi ada-lah chukupbesar untok mengelakkan banjir yangdatang 10 tahun sa-kali. Tetapi, sungaiyang ada itu tidak dapat m engelakkanmerbahaya banjir yang datang dalammasa 30 tahun sa-kali. Kalau sa-kira-nya kita hendak mengelakkan banjiryang datang 30 tahun sa-kali itu ter-paksa-lah di-besarkan;. . . .

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : Untok penje-lasan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada-kahdi-Pantai Timor banjir 30 tahun sa-kali, atau tiap2 tahun ada banjir atauayer bah di-Pantai Timor yang ter-utama di-negeri Kelantan tiap2 tahun,bukan 30 tahun sa-kali.

Tuan Haji Mohamed Ghazali binHaji Jawi : Tuan Yang di-Pertua, banjir

6925 22 MARCH 1966

datang ka-negeri Kelantan dan PantaiTimor pada tiap2 tahun, tetapichuma degree besar banjir itu dandalam 10 tahun sa-kali banjir yangbesar akan datang dan pada 30 tahunsa-kali banj it yang lebeh besar akandatang.

Jadi, saya akan mengemukakan,atau mencheritakan keadaan2 sukatanayer hujan di-dalam jawapan sayakelak. mi kalau sa-kira-nya hendakdi-besarkan sungai di-dalam negeriKelantan, Pahang dan Trengganu, duakali daripada keadaan sekarang ini,akan memakan belanja yang besar,kerana terpaksa mengambil tanah2orang, mengubah rumah2 dan ber-ma.cham2 perkara terpaksa di-jalankan.

Ranchangan menchegah banjir jugadi-dapati sangat besar belanja.-nya dantidak akan memberi kesan, oleh sebabhujan telah turun mengejut dan lebatdi-dalam masa yang singkat. Untokma`aluman Dewan ini mengikut ke-terangan yang di-simpan, hujan yangturun pada waktu yang sama padatiap2 'tahun ada-lah saperti berikut:

Dalam tahun 1961 di-KotaBaharu bulan November,hujan turun sa-banyak .. 42.1 inchiDalam tahun 1962 ... ... 13.64

„ 1963 ... ... 21.6„ 1964 ... ... 11.9„ 1965 ... ... 35.53 „

Dalam bulan December tahun1961 ... ... .. ... 36.51Dalam tahun 1962 ... ... 23.37

1963 ... ... 13.72

1964 ... ... 13.55

1965 ... ... 40.79

Hujan bagi tiap2 satu hari yang di-dapati di-dalam masa yang lebatdalam tahun 1965 pada bulan Novem-ber, pada satu hari 24 jam 12.22 inchidan pada bulan December 5.91 inchi.Dalam masa 10 hari daripada 27 hari-bulan November sampai 6 haribulanDecember, dalam masa 10 hari hujantur un 43 inchi.

Bagi negeri Trengganu dalambulan November, tahun 1961 37.01 inchiTahun 1962 ... ... ... 13.42

1963 ... ... .. 23.971964 ... ... 18.02 „1965 ... ... ... 32.77

Dalam bulan December,tahun 1961 ... ... ... 31.74

6926

Tahun 1962 .. ... ... 21.82 inchi„ 1963 ... ... ... 18.93„ 1964 .. ... ... 12.8 „„ 1965 ... ... .. 54.2 „

Hujan yang lebat sa-kali dalam satuhari dalam bulan itu dalam bulanNovember is-lah 14.67 inchi, dan.bulan December 8.12 inchi. Dalarnmasa 13 hari daripada 27 haribulanNovember sampai 9 haribulan Decem-ber hujan turun sa-banyak 54 inchi.

Itu-lah keterangan hujan yang turundalam masa bulan November, bulanDecember bagi lima tahun yang sudah,dan nampak-lah di-sini is-itu dalamtahun yang sudah hujan turun lebatsa-kali sa-hingga dalam satu hari,bulan November, hujan turun sampai14.67 inchi.

Dengan hujan turun lebat padaminggu akhir bulan November danminggu pertama bulan December danayer mengalir dan berkumpul di-tanahrendah, maka bah dan banjir, sa-bagaimana berlaku itu, tidak dapatdi-elakkan. Walau bagaimana pun,Jabatan Pant dan Taliayer telah punmenyediakan satu ranchangan bagimenyusun dan membetulkan sadikitsa-banyak sungai2 yang ada di-dalamnegeri ;tu, tetapi pehak Jabatan Pantdan Taliayer juga terpaksa menjalan-kan satu kajian yang lain. Kalau sa-kira-nya sungai2 itu di-betulkan, bolehjadi manakala hujan datang lebat,ayer daripada ulu akan turun lebehderas ka-tanah2 yang pamah, atau punrendah dan itu akan menyebabkan bahyang lebeh besar lagi bagi kawasan2yang rendah. Jadi, perkara2 ini akandi-kaji dan sa-telah di-adakan kajianini, akan di-jalankan perusahaan ber-kenaan dengan membaiki-nya . . .

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Untok pertanyaan, tidak-ka h bolehdi-adakan canal yang sekarang iniuntok irrigation, untok memberi ayerkapada sawah2 padi? Canal itu jugadi-gunakan untok mengambil ayeryang lebeh untok di-buang ka-laut.Sa-bagaimana yang kita tahu sekarangini, parit2 yang di-korek di-Lemal danakan di korek pula di-Kemubu, makaparit2 ini semua-nya dapat menjalan-kar satu kerja sahaja, is-itu untokmemberi ayer sahaja kapada sawah2

6927 22 MARCH 1966

padi . Tidak-kah boleh di -fikirkansupaya di -jadikan pant ini pada masaorange sawah berhaj at kapa da ayer,pant ini dapat memberi ayer, tetapidi-masa hujan , pant ini dapat pulamengeluarkan ayer ka-laut? Jadi,dengan satu perbelanjaan sahaja dapatdi-gunakan untok dua kerj a yang dapatmenghendarkan dan menyelamatkanra ayat daripada bah.

Tuan Haji Mohamed Ghazali binHaji Jawi : Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sayarasa Ahli dari Kota Bharu Hilir iniberchakap dengan tidak mengetahuikeadaan2 ranchangan pant-memaritdan sa-bagai-nya, kerana di-dalamranchangan mana juga pun bila di-sebutkan ranchangan sawah, mesti adapant masok dan ada pant buangtidak ada satu ranchangan di-dalamMalaya ini yang mempunyai chumapant masok dengan tidak mempunyaipant buang.

Jadi, saya harap Ahli itu sendiripergi tengok bendang. Jangan-lahchuma berchakap di-sini, kemudiantambahan yang kedua .. .

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Abdullah:Untok keterangan, di-ranchangan pantyang telah di-buat di-Lemal itu, sayatengok tidak ada pant yang menge-luarkan ayer, chuma mengambil ayersahaja daripada sawah2 padi. Itusebab yang menjadi pertanyaan saya.

Tuan Haji Mohamed Ghazali binHaji Jawi : Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sayatelah menerangkan di-mana ada ran-changan irrigation mesti ada ran-changan drainage atau pun di-manapant masok mesti ada pant keluar,kalau masok sahaja tidak buang bolehjadi kembong perut, hanchor habisranchangan itu (Ketawa).

Yang kedua, sa-masa berlaku bahdi-negeri Kelantan baharu2 ini di-akhir tahun 1965, saya rasa Ahli YangBerhormat itu sendiri tida.k melihatsa-masa ayer bah itu berlaku dengansa-benar-nya, kerana pada masa ayerbah berlaku di-Kelantan hujan turunlebat di-Ulu Kelantan, Machang danlain2-nya. Ayer itu semua turun marika-Kota Baharu, Pasir Mas. Padamasa itu ranchangan taliayer tidak

6928

ada guna-nya lagi dengan sebab padamasa itu di-dalam kawasan bendang,ayer telah pun naik sa-hingga empatlima kaki dan ada sa tengah-nyasampai bumbong rumah orang. Jadiberma`ana-lah ranchangan pant dantaliayer itu tidak memberi f aedah lagipada masa itu kerana ayer lebehtinggi daripada pant yang ada ataupun batas yang ada. Jadi ini-lah sayasebutkan kalau sa-kira-nya di-betul-kan sungai2 yang ada boleh jadi lebehderas ayer yang datang daripada ulumenimpa ka-kawasan rendah danboleh jadi kalau sa-kira-nya hujandatang lebat ayer laut pasang, makaayer tidak dapat mengalir ka-laut danakan berkumpul di-dalam kawasanrendah.

Walau bagaimana pun, sa-bagai-mana yang saya nyatakan, pehakPej abat Pant dan Taliayer sedangmenjalankan siasatan dan kajian bagai-mana dapat menchegahkan sadikit sa-banyak berkenaan dengan banjir bagimasa yang akan datang ini, tetapibagaimana yang di-katakan kalau sa-kira-nya banjir datang sa-bagaimanayang tahun sudah, walau pun machammana baik sa-kali pun ranchanganpant dan taliayer, tidak dapat di-elakkan banjir dan bah itu.

Dr Tan Chee Khoon : On a point ofinformation, Mr Speaker, Sir, theHonourable Minister has stated justnow that the Department of Drainageand Irrigation is investigating ways andmeans of trying to alleviate floods, butthe whole burden of his speech is that,if there are floods of the nature oflast year when these waters come fromthe hulu with such swiftness, nothingthat the Drainage and Irrigation Depart-ment can do will be of any use. That,to me, is a very fatalistic attitude totake. We all know that the YellowRiver of China has been called "TheSorrow of China", but since the adventof the Communists, the Communistshave taken active steps to see that thefloods are even prevented. I am merelyasking for an alleviation of the floods.The floods in China have now all beenprevented, and this I commend to theDrainage and Irrigation Department,in particular to the Minister concerned,to prevent floods and not to take a

6929 22 MARCH 1966 6930

fatalistic attitude "Nothing that wecan do will prevent this huge volume ofwater coming to the lowlands ofKelantan, Trengganu and Pahang".

Tuan Haji Mohamed Ghazali binHaji dawi : Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sayatelah nyatakan pehak Jabatan Pantdan Taliayer sedang mengkaji untokmembaiki keadaan2 tempat itu dan

ikhtiar untok mengelakkan kerosakanberlaku manakala bah datang dan sa-bagai-nya.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker: Majlis ini di-tanggohkan sa-hingga pukul 10 pagiesok.

Adjourned at 6.50 p.m.