SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1955)

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I beg leave to mention two matters - financial matters - which will be of interest to hon. Members. I would like to invite the attention of hon. Members firstly to Sessional Papers No. Cmd. 1 and No. Cmd. 2 which were tabled at this sitting of the Assembly.

The first Paper, No. Cmd. 1 of 1955, contains a Schedule of applications for supplementary provision which were unanimously recommended for approval by the Standing Committee on Finance of the Legislative Council and in respect of which Special Warrants were issued in accordance with established practice before the dissolution of the Council.

The second Paper, No. Cmd. 2 of 1955, contains a list of applications for supplementary expenditure of an urgent nature which were approved by His Excellency the Governor and in respect of which Special Warrants were issued during the period of interregnum between the dissolution of the Legislative Council and the election of the Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to take this opportunity to give a brief explanation to hon. Members of the procedure which we hope to follow in connection with applications for supplementary provision in this Assembly. Throughout the year we receive a considerable number of applications for supplementary provision. These represent services which could not be foreseen when the annual estimates were framed and which are so important and urgent that they cannot be postponed until the estimates for the next year are drawn up. These applications come to the Treasury from departments and are scrutinised with great care. If they are considered essential in the interests of the public service, they are put to the Council of Ministers and, if they are approved by the Council, presented to this Assembly. We intend to accumulate these applications for supplementary vote until we get a sufficient number to make up a Schedule such as has been laid on the Table of this Assembly today. We hope, if possible, to limit these Schedules to four in a financial year.

When these Schedules are prepared, they will be laid on the Table of this Assembly, and at the first opportunity after that, the Financial Secretary will move that this Assembly approves that the sums mentioned in the Schedule be approved for the purposes of the government. Hon. Members will then have an opportunity to debate the motion, and subsequently when the motion is approved, Special Warrants will be issued and the amounts covered by these Warrants will be included in the Supplementary Appropriation Bill which will be presented to the Assembly at the end of the financial year. That is the procedure which we hope to follow in this Assembly, and it is based on sound constitutional practice.

Now, Sir, if I may, I move, with the authority of His Excellency the Governor,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $800,344 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1955 laid on the Table of the Assembly this 26th day of April, 1955.

Mr Speaker: I do not think I was fortunate enough to hear you saying that you had received the Governor's recommendation. Did you? Would you mind repeating it? I do not think hon. Members heard.

Mr Hart: Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. I did, I think, say that I had the Governor's authority to move this motion.

The Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1955 contains nine applications for supplementary provision and rather over 30 applications for revotes of provisions which had been approved by the Legislature in the past. Time is passing on, but I will give a brief explanation of the various items for which application is made.

The first item, No. 62, merely seeks the authority of the Legislature for a revision downwards of the salary scales attached to three appointments on the establishment of the Chief Secretary. The salaries attached to these appointments were upgraded in the Estimates of 1955, but on re-examination after that date, the conclusion was reached that perhaps the duties and responsibilities of the posts had been over-rated at the salaries stated in the Estimates. We consequently seek authority to downgrade the salaries to a level commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the posts.

The next item, No. 63, seeks provision for projection equipment and accessories for the Films Censor's Office. Hon. Members are aware that all films which are shown to the public in Singapore must be examined by the Censor. During the last 18 months to two years numerous new techniques of film projection have appeared on the market. The Film Censor has been reluctant to ask for provision for the new equipment until it was quite certain which of these new techniques were going to be permanent. It now appears that those techniques which use a wider screen will be permanent, and consequently he seeks provision to purchase the necessary equipment to view these films.

The third item, No. 64, seeks provision for the legal fees in connection with the drafting of new legislation for the registration of title to land in Singapore. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) drew attention to the fact that this Government hoped to introduce new legislation for registration of land titles based on the Torrens system. Attempts have been made in the past to draft legislation on this basis without success. Recently, however, we have been fortunate in being able to obtain the services of perhaps the leading authority in Australia on the Torrens system of land tenure. He and his colleagues in Chambers have drafted a Bill which is now in Singapore and this fee is required to remunerate him for his services. I should say that the fee includes the cost of his appearing before any Select Committee which may be set up by this Assembly to consider the Bill, and, if necessary, before the Bar Committee of Singapore.

The fourth item, No. 65, seeks provision for the upkeep of the Speaker's house and grounds. Mr Speaker's residence is one of the official residences of Government, and it is necessary that it and its grounds be upkept appropriately. Most unfortunately this provision was omitted from the Estimates when they were drafted in 1954.

The fifth item, No. 66, seeks provision for the salaries of Ministers-the Chief Minister and Ministers - for the remainder of this year. You will see from the Schedule that it is proposed that the Chief Minister should be paid $3,500 a month, and that the Ministers should be paid $2,500 a month, and the Assistant Minister $1,500 a month. In addition, they will, of course, draw the stipends paid to them as Members of this Assembly. These salaries and stipends have been considered with very great care, and I feel myself that they are no more than adequate, having regard to the nature of the duties which the Ministers have to discharge and to the great responsibilities which they have to bear.

The sixth item, No. 67, seeks provision for salaries, wages and equipment of the Flood Prevention Investigation Unit. Hon. Members will recall that after the disastrous floods in December of last year it was decided to recruit the services of an expert to examine the whole question of floods in Singapore Island and to make recommendations for their prevention, or at least their alleviation. We were fortunate to get the services of the Chief Construction Engineer of the Drainage and Irrigation Department in the Federation on secondment, who is an expert in these matters. He has now been in Singapore for a little over a month and has made a preliminary review of the situation, and this provision covers his requirements for staff and equipment which will enable him to complete the investigation as soon as possible. I think all hon. Members will agree that that is required as soon as possible.

Item No. 68 seeks provision for the purchase of high frequency mobile wireless sets for the use of security forces in Singapore. The present wireless sets used by the Military security forces are field equipment which are in certain respects unsuitable for use in built-up areas, certainly built-up city areas. Domestic appliances, neon lights, trolley-buses and industrial plant cause such disturbance that these sets are unsuitable, and enquiry has brought to light the fact that it is unlikely that these forces will be issued with equipment suitable for use in built-up areas for some time to come. The Army have therefore asked us to purchase the equipment on their behalf and lend it to them for use in Singapore. We propose to do this and it has been agreed that the Army will pay a satisfactory rent which will be sufficient to amortize the equipment purchased well within its useful life.

Item No. 69 seeks provision for the purchase of a teleprinter switchboard at Police Headquarters. The existing teleprinter switchboard at Police Headquarters contains provision for 30 lines; 24 are at present used, the other six will be used in the very near future. Having regard to the development of police communications, it is quite clear now that an extension will be required for the switchboard. A switchboard takes a year to build. It is desirable that it should be ordered now, and we feel that if a switchboard containing 30 additional lines is ordered, it will be sufficient for all new requirements of the police for some time to come.

The last item, No. 70, seeks provision for the purchase of very high frequency radio equipment for Police Headquarters. This provides for five Duplex transmitting-receiving sets which are regarded as essential for use in the new Combined Police Operation Room for establishing a network of emergency Police Communications.

The remaining items in the Schedule refer to applications for revotes of expenditure which have already been approved in past years by the Legislature, which have remained unspent either in whole or in part, and which are now required for expenditure. These have all been examined with great care in the Treasury, and the authority of the Legislature is now required for their revote. As they have all been considered in the past by the Legislature, I will not take up the time of hon. Members to give a detailed explanation of each item - there are 34 - but I shall be happy to answer any questions which Members care to put.

Lastly, on page 5 of the Schedule, you will find a summary of the sums involved in applications for provision which have been approved, or for which approval is now sought, since the beginning of the year. You will see that applications for supplementary vote in the Ordinary Estimates to-date total $3.8 million, and in the Development Estimates close on $1 million. Hon. Members will be anxious to have an assurance that funds will be available for this expenditure, and I can give that assurance.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Goode: Sir, I rise to second.

Question proposed.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I want to speak on item No. 66 - Salaries of the Ministers. During the recess - and it was wisely suggested by the Chief Minister that we ought to have a recess - we discussed this item. This afternoon I had a little jibe at the Chief Minister about his coolie and labourer, income for whom he should think about when he thinks of this princely salary that he might be getting. But after consideration during the recess, we find that he has made a considerable sacrifice in his income by accepting this salary. Even the P.A.P. leader (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) went so far as to say that he would like to increase - [Interruption.] - and the Chief Minister said, "I am quite satisfied."

Now, Sir, further discussion arose. I might tell the House that only two days ago we had an informal meeting of the would-be Trade Advisory Council, representing Chambers of Commerce and other interested business, and they were of the unanimous opinion that the Minister for Commerce and the Assistant Minister to him have very responsible jobs and that they should not be engaged in any private vocation. That was the unanimous decision. In the House after enquiry I find from the Government side that there are no private interests or private vocations for the Assistant Minister. Now, considering this, the Assistant Minister's salary is rather low. It is a full-time job, Sir, and I would like to say, with the concurrence of my friends over here on my side, that it should be raised to $2,000. I do not know whether I could move an amendment. I do not know, but that is my expression of opinion.

Sir, I am advised that we can delete this $1,500 and make it $2,000. I would like to be guided on procedure.

Mr Speaker: Mr R. Jumabhoy, unless you have the recommendation or consent of the Governor, I am afraid you will not be able to move any motion on this matter.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Then, Sir, may I suggest that this suggestion of mine be placed with His Excellency the Governor?

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of clarification on Sessional Paper No. Command 3 on one of the items. The first item which I would like to deal with is item No. 64 which read:

"New Subhead-Legal fees in connection with the drafting of new legislation for the registration of title to land in Singapore - $20,000."

Although an explanation has been given by the Hon. the Financial Secretary, I would like him to elaborate on how this figure is arrived at. I really cannot understand that it is so expensive to seek legal opinion for the drafting of new legislation in respect of title deeds in Singapore. If the Hon. the Financial Secretary could enlighten us on the question of how this figure is arrived at, I will be quite pleased to accept it.

Mr Speaker: I think, hon. Members, it would be convenient if we disposed of each item that is raised by any hon. Member so that we will not have confusion. This, of course, will not debar the Member for Queenstown from asking questions on any other Head. We will then deal with item No. 64.

Mr Hart: May I, first of all, tell the hon. Mr R. Jumabhoy that we will note his suggestion in connection with the salary of the Assistant Minister for Commerce.

As regards the question which has been raised on item No. 64, I appreciate that in all probability the sum of $20,000 appears, prima facie, to be a considerable sum. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the gentleman who has assisted us in this matter is the leading authority in Australia on the Torrens system of land tenure and land registration. We have made enquiries in Sydney and are given to understand that this fee of $20,000 is not out of the way, having regard to fees which are paid to leading counsel at the Australian Bar. Furthermore, I would point out that this fee is not paid for the services of one man alone. It is paid not only to him but to the assistants in his Chambers who helped him to draft the Bill. Also I would point out that this Bill is not a simple matter of drafting. It is a piece of complicated legislation which endeavours to incorporate the best features of the Torrens system of land registration in Australia and New Zealand and in the Federation of Malaya, and at the same time to introduce the best features of land registration in the United Kingdom, and to modify them all in accordance with the needs of Singapore. I myself raised this question about the suitability of a fee, and I can say, after examination, in my capacity as Financial Secretary, that I am satisfied that the fee is suitable.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite satisfied with the explanation given by the Hon. the Financial Secretary, but I think it would be more appropriate, since no definite figure could be arrived at, that a token vote be included in the Estimates. However, since an explanation has been given and it is included in the Estimates, I am happy to accept that.

I wonder, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you would allow me to proceed on the next item before the House -

Mr Speaker: Will any other hon. Member wish to speak on that item so that we can dispose of it? Carry on, Mr Lee Choon Eng.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, my next item refers to revotes, which the old Council passed as item No. 90. It refers to renewal of locks in the local prison which costs $97,438. It really surprises me, Sir, that the renewal of locks would cost such a heavy amount as this. I wonder if those locks are made of gold or so forth, and, if not, I would like an explanation from the Hon. the Financial Secretary telling us why it costs so much for the renewal of locks.

Mr Speaker: Item No. 90 is now before the House.

Mr Hart: Mr Speaker, Sir, this item refers to renewal of locks in the Outram Road Prison. The existing locks were put into the prison, or put into the doors of the cells in the prison, and to other doors in the prison 80 years ago. They were considerably tampered with during the time of the Japanese occupation, and at the moment they constitute a security risk. Not only is it possible for prisoners to pick the locks and get out. It is also on some occasions impossible for the Superintendent to get the prisoners out of the cells. I may say in this connection that we employed a representative of the famous firm of Chubb who came out from the United Kingdom, made an examination of the locks in the Outram Road jail, and on his advice we placed an order for them. Again, I may say that I regard the sum as a reasonable figure for the service being performed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I should have risen earlier had I known the procedure that would be adopted, because I would like to refer to item No. 66 (Salaries of the Council of Ministers). Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Hon. the Chief Minister will be delighted this evening to know that the People's Action Party takes a very high view of his attitude, his sense of self-sacrifice, and we say, without any condescension whatsoever, that the figures that have been submitted are modest and moderate. I am made to understand that the other Ministers are getting less than the professional administrators who are Ministers in this House. That, in my opinion, is not a proper state of affairs, for it must never be forgotten that whilst they are performing the same duties and undertaking the same responsibilities, they do not, in the first place, have the same perquisites of office like a Government house, Government quarters at a sub-economic rent; and what is more important is that they, more than the professional administrators, face the hazards of a political life. In my opinion, this is a useful stage to consider what they ought to be getting, not now, but for many years to come, because once the point is fixed, it would be an invidious task for any succeeding government to try in any way to change it. Of course, there could be a lot of mock hypocrisy about this - we have come to serve the people. We do not want money, and as proof of the fact that we want to serve the people, we are prepared to take very little for it. But I think we ought to be more realistic about it and face the facts. By the time a man is doing that job, by the time that confidence is reposed in him by the public and by the Party that has a majority in this House, he ought to be given an emolument adequate to his position. And a situation where a Minister gets somewhat less all-round than a Permanent Secretary who is supposed to be assisting him in the functions of his Ministry is, I think, not a healthy one.

It is impossible to make full amends. Members of the Bar will realise that. Two Ministers have given up their practices and I think it is impossible for us to compensate them for what they were getting in private practice. To that extent there is the inevitable sacrifice. We must face the fact that if it is allowed to remain as it is, any succeeding government - be it Labour, Progressive, Democrat or even P.A.P. - will find it extremely uncomfortable to have to go back to the people and say, "Well, after all, the Labour Front did it for you very cheaply, but they did it very badly because they were not properly paid."

I think one should remember that there is not very much really involved in it except the question of prestige and principle, because the total amount involved to the country is very little. One bridge-building mismanaged which collapses and costs the country on rebuilding $500,000 would pay for all the Ministers for the next two to three years. In my opinion, there should be a suggestion taken back to His Excellency the Governor, after proper consideration by the Council of Ministers, that this list be revised. We appreciate the restraint. We appreciate also the hesitation to open the Council of Ministers to attack, but I think hon. Members on the other side have under-estimated the generosity, not just financially, but the generosity in spirit with which we approached this problem.

Mr Speaker: I just want to make my suggestion quite clear. Hon. Members, of course, are not debarred from reopening any item which we have passed. That is quite clear. I only suggested that procedure for convenience, and the only thing Members must remember is that they can speak only once to any one item. That is all.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed indebted to the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), but the latter could not avoid the jibe that perhaps there was a little mock hypocrisy on our part. The Hon. the Financial Secretary in mentioning this item said he thought that it was no more than appropriate considering the work involved, and the Member for Tanjong Pagar compared it with what was being received by Permanent Secretaries. I think the true approach should be: What is adequate for a reasonably spacious way of life for a person in that particular position? And no more than that.

I myself feel that in this country we have learnt to live on too extravagant a scale, and that, in fact, $3,500 to the Chief Minister is pretty high. I am conscious that I am not married, Sir, and I have to look forward to the possibilities of change where others may be in a more difficult position. $3,500 is a great deal of money. However much more I may have earned in the past is not the point. But the question is: Is it adequate for a decent way of life in the position of the Chief Minister in this country? I think the answer, Sir, from me, is yes, and I hope for my successors. It is adequate.

We do not lack courage. I do not wish to seem boastful. We do not lack courage in taking unpleasant steps, and it was not because we feared the lack of generosity of hon. Members in this House that we placed our salaries at a modest scale. It is because we would like, Sir, to set a new standard, a new outlook, as to what is proper, and from that point of view, Sir, we have given ourselves a little too much. And hon. Members will remember this: that apart from the salaries we are getting as Ministers, we are also receiving emoluments of $500 a month by way of allowances to all hon. Members here; we as Members of the Assembly are receiving $500; the Assistant Minister receiving $1,500 makes it $2,000; $2,500 for the Minister plus $500 makes it $3,000; $3,500 for the Chief Minister is $4,000.

Since it has been suggested, we will certainly not only note, but bring forward for further consideration to the Council of Ministers the suggestion made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I think we ought to clarify this point of it: that Permanent Secretaries do not receive more, if we take into consideration the additional $500 we receive as Members of the House. It is true we serve full time, and it is true that there are no trade union hours for Ministers. The way to look at it is: Is it adequate for a reasonably spacious way of life? And though there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction, admittedly, I think that this House should be chary of encouraging extravagance in public expenditure, and I hope that this House will set a new standard in respect of public expenditure and public emoluments.

Mr Speaker: Mr Hart, in reply?

Mr Hart: I do not think there is anything more I can add, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $800,344 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1955 laid on the Table of the Assembly this 26th day of April, 1955.