Committee of Supply

Mr Speaker: Committee of Supply, what day?

Mr Hart: Now, Sir.

Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Hart: Schedule

The Chairman: Will hon. Members turn to page 38 where there is a summary of totals? I propose to call out the Heads and the amounts, and if any hon. Member wishes to speak on any Head, please say so.

Head 2-

The sum of $170,000 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 3-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $38,700 for Head 3 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I refer to item 195, Portrait of Sir John Nicoll. It appears from the explanation that the Friends of Singapore have sponsored this painting of Sir John Nicoll for a sum of $5,500. They have been able to collect only $2,100 and they expect or they are hoping that the City Council will bear half the balance and this Assembly will bear half the balance.

Sir, we have no objections to people forming quaint societies like the Friends of Singapore amongst whose objects is the entertainment of past and present Governors and one of whose duties is to collect portraits of previous Governors. But having launched this undertaking, to come round to the Government and expect it to pay half the balance which they cannot raise is, to say the very least, just not good form. If they want kudos, as I am sure the President of the Friends of Singapore, who was once A.D.C. to the Governor, wants kudos for paying tribute to past Governors, then let them cough up and not come to this Assembly and ask for a vote.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a founder and life member of this Society. It is not a Society to entertain Governors or to give farewell parties and so on. The main object of this Society is to keep the relics of past and present Singapore. It is possible that they might have entertained Governors, though personally since the last three years I have not attended any meeting - none whatsoever. This is what I want to point out to the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

As to the principle whether or not this Society should come to the Government for meeting the balance of the cost of a portrait of a Governor and whether the Government should contribute towards it, that is a matter of opinion. I am not going to express any opinion.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully endorse the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. If the Friends of Singapore as a Society sponsored this portrait, it is up to them to bear the expense for it and if they cannot find the money themselves, then let them go to the public. A portrait of the Governor should be paid for by individual contributions from the public and not through this Assembly. Let them go to the public and ask for contributions. The contributions may be ten cents, a dollar or five dollars individually. That should be the right way rather than that this Assembly should be asked to vote for meeting the balance of the cost of this portrait. I will definitely not support this.

Mr Hart: I am very sorry indeed, Sir, that this application for supplementary provision has met with the opposition which it has and I also much regret that the Friends of Singapore have come in for so much unjustifiable criticism.

When the application was received, it was realised that it could well be argued that the Friends of Singapore, having voluntarily decided to embark on this project, should be allowed to complete the matter on their own. At the same time, it was considered that this was a somewhat unsympathetic attitude to adopt to an association which has done a great deal to arouse and maintain interest in the historical associations of Singapore, which many of my colleagues and I regard as a most important matter. It is right and pro- per that Singapore should possess portraits of her distinguished citizens. It was a public-spirited move on the part of the Friends of Singapore to put in train the matter of a portrait of Sir John Nicoll, who by all standards is one of the most distinguished of Singapore's citizens. In these circumstances, it was considered that the Friends of Singapore deserved some assistance, particularly as they are finding great difficulty in raising funds. They have made public appeals and have other commitments in hand. It was therefore decided that Government would contribute half of the deficit if the City Council would contribute the other half. This, I am happy to say, the City Council has agreed to do and I now ask and I am sure I will have the support of the Assembly that this supplementary provision should be approved.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $38,700 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 4-

The sum of $1,460 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 6-

The sum of $20,000 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 7-

The sum of $29,927 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 8-

The sum of $30,000 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 9-

The sum of $3,700 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 11-

The sum of $38,475 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 12-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $450,284 for Head 12 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I do not know if I heard the Chairman right, Sir.I wanted to speak on Head 11.

The Chairman: The impression you gave me was that you wanted to speak on Head 12.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Head 11, Sir.

Mr Chairman: I have already put the question on Head 11.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Well, I thought, Mr Chairman, Sir, when you were on Head 11, I indicated that 1 wanted to speak on that Head and I was a bit astounded then when you went on to Head 12.

The Chairman: The decision has been taken. I am very sorry. I did try and indicate that I would read out the Heads and the totals and that if any hon. Member wished to speak on any Head, he should let me know. When I reached Head 11, I understood from the indication of the Member for Tanjong Pagar that he wished to speak on Head 12.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman: We are now on Head 12. I think it will be more satisfactory if I go item by item.

Question again proposed.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman. Sir, I refer to item 219. We are asked to approve a supplementary vote for $59,860 for Local Government Elections. I wonder if the Hon. the Chief Secretary can inform this Assembly what has happened to the equipment for the previous elections. I think it is a waste of money if that equipment has been thrown away and for the Government to come again to this Assembly to ask for approval for the purchase of such equipment. The equipment can be retained for use for subsequent elections and I do not see why we should again approve another vote for such equipment.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): Sir, the answer is a simple one. As the hon. Member will have noticed from the White Paper and other policy statements made by the Government, it is now proposed not to limit Local Government elections to the City Council but to have Local Government elections throughout the whole island of Singapore for the City Council and for four District Councils, involving a very great increase in the number of constituencies and the number of polling booths that will be required.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Am I to take it that this equipment is in addition to that for the previous elections?

Mr Goode: Certainly.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $450,284 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 16-

The sum of $1,213,750 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 19-

The sum of $12,000 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 20-

The sum of $3,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 22-

The sum of $6,120 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 23-

The sum of $6,030 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 24-

The sum of $50,970 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 27-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $193,403 for Head 27 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, on item 241, International Bank Mission, can I enquire from the Hon. the Financial Secretary how they worked out the percentage which was to be borne by Singapore? How was the figure 25 per cent arrived at? Further, on the actual total itself - "One-half of salaries of the Members (the other half of salaries and other expenditure being charged against the Bank itself)" - how was that division between the Malayan Governments and the International Bank Mission arrived at?

Mr Hart: Sir, it was appreciated when negotiations were made with the Bank for an economic survey of Malaya and Singapore that there might be difficulty in apportioning expenditure on the Bank Mission and it was then agreed between the two Governments that it would be left to Sir Louis Chick, the Head of the Mission, to recommend the apportionment of expenditure between the two territories on the basis of the work done and the value to the two territories of the Report. The proposals made by Sir Louis Chick have been accepted by both Governments.

As regards the second question from my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar, it is the custom of the Bank to pay all external travelling expenses of these Missions, to pay the salaries of their own employees who are posted to the Mission and half the salaries of the independent experts who are asked to join the Mission. The local Governments are responsible for all internal travelling expenses, accommodation and allowances in Malaya, and half the salaries of independent experts.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $193,403 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 29-

Question proposed.

That the sum of $275,000 for Head 29 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, on a point of clarification. May I ask the Hon. the Financial Secretary about the method adopted in advertising the tenders? As I see it, the cost has risen from 95 cents to $1.55.

The Chairman: Item?

Mr Nair: Item No. 243, Sir.It is a terrific increase and I would like to know the method of advertisement given to these tenders.

Mr Hart: The method adopted for advertising for tenders for toddy is the usual one: notices are published in the Gazette. The great increase in price in the tender for this year is due - I am led to believe - to the activities of a political Party in the Toddy Workers Union.

Mr Nair: In view of this increase, wi1l the Government reconsider the whole situation of the sale of toddy and see whether toddy sales can be abolished in Singapore?

Mr Hart: I am not certain whether the Member for Seletar would agree that we should, by stopping the sale of toddy, drive the drinkers of toddy to even more potent spirits, but we will give consideration to the point he has raised.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I ask whether the cost includes the removal of toddy shops from the places where the working people at present stay?

Mr Hart: No, Sir. The tender price merely covers the tenderer's expenses.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, Sir, do I understand from the Hon. the Financial Secretary that toddy will be abolished very soon?

Mr Hart: No, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Who is fighting for Indian hopes!

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum ot $275,000 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 39-

The sum of $39,385 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 43-

The sum of $73,864 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 45-

The sum of $110,210 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 52-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $52,940 for Head 52 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Will the Minister for Health explain why, within just about eight months since the Budget was debated, he is asking for three more Token Votes in items 261, 262 and 263? There was considerable debate during the Budget sittings on the question of medical expenditure being largely taken up by emoluments. He assured us then that every particular claim put forward had been carefully screened. Now within a period of eight months he is putting in three token votes.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Sir, the explanation is given under items 261 and 262. Are those the items which my hon. Friend -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Items 261, 262 and 263.

Mr Braga: The explanations are there. Due to expansion, these posts are necessary. On item 262, the post is being filled by a Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist; and under item 263, these are filled by local medical practitioners who are necessary for the expansion of the services of that particular unit.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, that is most unsatisfactory. We can all read the notes and we know that $10 (Token) is to try and get two private medical practitioners. What we want is an explanation why these things could not have been foreseen when the Budget was debated.

Mr Hart: Sir, these specialists have been employed for some time. It was envisaged, when the Estimates were drafted, that there would be savings on vacant posts for medical officers from which these specialists could be paid, but these posts have since been filled and it is now necessary to take a vote to enable the payment of these specialists to continue. That is why we ask for the token votes. It is a simple and normal procedure. That, I think, is the explanation which I have given and it is repeated in the Schedule.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, did I understand the Hon. the Financial Secretary to say that the reason why this thing was not claimed in the Budget was because, at the time, there were substantive appointments which were not filled and it was hoped that these people would be pushed into those substantive appointments?

Mr Hart: From savings.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Paid for? I do not understand how this Budget is being run. I thought that the Assembly is asked to pay against specific items for specific duties. Now we are informed that there could be some form of shuffling without the knowledge of this Assembly and that, although we are asked a certain vote for a particular post, the person who was holding the post at the time of the Budget debate was either just acting or temporary and it was hoped that when he moved up, those persons who were already then in the service could be pushed into those posts. But how does it work? I do not understand this.

Mr Hart: The position is briefly this, Sir. The establishment of the Medical Department allows for a certain number of posts for medical officers and provision is entered against these posts - the provision which we think we will spend. Now, in the past, when we have been short of staff, doctors from outside the service have been engaged on my authority in a purely temporary capacity to do precisely the same job as medical officers were intended to do and have been paid from the vote for medical officers. That is quite proper. I give the authority for the employment of these people on a purely temporary month-to-month basis. In some cases, as in this case, they are merely employed on payment of a fee. What happened in this particular case was that the Minister for Health, in framing his estimates, thought that there would still be sufficient posts and savings available from which these temporary specialists who had come to the assistance of Government could be paid. It has now happened that, with recruitment from the University of Malaya medical school, these posts have been filled. It is therefore necessary to create a vote to pay the specialists. That is why we ask for these token votes. Sir, I cannot explain the matter more clearly. Perhaps -

The Chairman: Order, please. I think possibly this is exactly the type of item which the Estimates Committee can look into in detail, but if the Member for Tanjong Pagar wishes to say something else, he can do so by all means.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: If I may, Mr Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: As I understand it now, the position is this. Take, for instance, this specialist under item 262. At the time of the Budget, there was somebody who was acting. It was thought then that savings could be made and there would be some particular Head under which this person, who was acting, could be paid. But since then somebody else has been recruited to fill that particular Head, and therefore this token vote is necessary to pay the person who, it was hoped, would be pushed under that vacant Head. But, in effect, what it means is this: at the time of the Budget, it was expected that only one person would be acting in that capacity, or would fill that particular post, but now two persons are doing the job - one, the person who filled the Head would be newly recruited; and, two, this person.

Mr Hart: I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that it would be desirable in the future if we have special provision in the Estimates for payments to specialists. I will bear that in mind in connection with the Estimates this year so that it will be clear to everybody that the honoraria or fees due to these specialists will be paid from a specific item under Personal Emoluments Subhead.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: That is elementary accounting.

The Chairman: Order. The point I did make, I think, appears quite clearly in Standing Order 61(6) where it does state:

"It shall be the duty of the (Estimates) Committee to examine any of the Estimates contained in the Schedules of Appropriation Bills and financial motions, to suggest the form in which Estimates might be presented, and to report what economies consistent with the policy implied in the Estimates might be effected."

That is probably one of the items which the Estimates Committee could look into with advantage.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $52,940 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 59-

The sum of $16,376 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 60-

The sum of $10 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 61-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $28,950 for Head 61 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Nair: Sir, on item 275, I would like to have some clarification about the increase on Transport and Travelling. It is stated here "so as to enable adequate supervision of work in hand". I would like to know the reason for the increase.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): It is necessary in the building of a structure that the engineer or architect concerned should go to look at it and should not leave it wholly to the Clerk of Works. I think, in his enthusiasm for economy, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pruned all items of this sort down to the barest bones possible; but, in fact, in order to supervise the building programme, it has been necessary to get out and see the buildings and ensure that adequate supervision is given and therefore they have had to spend a bit more on travelling than was originally allowed for.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: In fact, this is, payment made to Government officers for travelling in the course of their duties, using their own cars to inspect Government works. It must be some fantastic rate at which they are being paid.

Mr Francis Thomas: It is rather the fantastic rate at which we build.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Wishful thinking!

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $28,950 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 63-

The sum of $295,270 for Head 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 49-

The sum of $24,000 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 58-

The sum of $59,185 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 48-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $633,759 for Head D 48 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Chairman, Sir, there is going to be a school in Woodlands but that school, I think, will not be ready by next year -

The Chairman: Which item?

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Item 302, Tiffin Sheds at 15 schools, on page 33. I was just wondering whether I can ask the Assembly to approve some more money for a temporary school in Woodlands. I had better make it quite clear, Mr Chairman, Sir. The other day, I spoke to the Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid) about providing a temporary school at the present time for the Malays in Woodlands. I was told that a public school will be ready by next year. At the present moment, there are a number of school children who have no schools to go to. [Interruption.] I thought we are going to ask money for -

The Chairman: Order, please. We are now dealing with supplementary estimates and it is true that hon. Members can discuss the policy of Government on any item which appears on the supplementary votes. The item which has been indicated - item 302 - deals with Tiffin Sheds and I cannot see how the new school is relevant to that item. But under item 278, I think there is provision for schools and perhaps the Member for Bukit Panjang could refer to that item and then discuss the omission to which he refers.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Yes, Mr Chairman, Sir, it should be this item, under Head D 48 Education. My intention is to ask for some more money as provision for building a temporary school, or at least to repair a shed which belongs to the Malayan Railways just now. What I want to know is whether provision can be made for a temporary school in Woodlands.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): It would be uneconomical to build a school which might be completed at the end of the year and by that time we have another school. I do not understand what the Member for Bukit Panjang really wants.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Votes.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Under item 278, Subhead 1, (ii) Holy Innocents' English School, the provision is for "New Extension Buildings, Furniture and Equipment and Science Apparatus, etc.". Can the Minister for Education let us know the number of laboratories this school is intending to build and the amount that is given for science apparatus?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I am sorry I cannot give all those details now but if the hon. Member will see me in my office, I will give him the details.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I ask this question on the science apparatus because I am connected with quite a number of schools and usually the grants given under this Heading are always small and it is quite impossible sometimes for schools to cater for teaching as well as for examination purposes and that is why I put this question.

The Chairman: Order. I think hon. Members have probably forgotten Standing Order 69 (11) which reads:

"On any question in the Committee of Supply debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided and shall not deal with the details of expenditure...", so that any details of expenditure, I think, can possibly be examined much more conveniently by either the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Was I correct in extracting information, Sir?

The Chairman: The hon. Member was quite correct but I do not think he should pursue the question any further.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $633,759 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 60-

The sum of $6,504 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 63-

The sum of $210,200 for Head D 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 65-

Question proposed,

That the sum of $168,781 for Head D 65 stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: Mr Financial Secretary, I do not know whether you would like to correct what appears to be a typographical error on page 24, Head 65. Should that not read "Head D 65"?

Mr Hart: Thank you very much. Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $168,781 for Head D 65 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 52-

The sum of $65,590 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 58-

The sum of $50,423 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 64-

The sum of $4,622 for Head D 64 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: Turning to the motion, the Question is,

That the sum of $4,308,250 stand part of the motion.

Mr Nair: Sir, I am wondering whether Head 27 Treasury on page 25 has been placed before the House.

The Chairman: Yes, we have dealt with it.

Mr Nair: Can I speak on this question, Sir?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is too late now. We have passed Head 27.

Mr Nair: But the question of approving the whole vote has been proposed.

The Chairman: Yes, the hon. Member can speak on the whole motion but he cannot speak on it in detail now.

Mr Nair: In any case, I would like to take the opportunity of speaking on the expenditure on the Colombo Plan. As I understand it, Sir, most of the equipment and structures are still in the Victoria Memorial Hall and the City Council is bound to make use of them. I am wondering if I can be informed whether there is any return for the expenditure that we have met.

The Chairman: Order, please. I am afraid that the hon. Member is completely out of order. That question should have been raised when we came to Head 27. We are now on the motion as a whole. In other words, the hon. Member is asked now to approve the amount of $4.3 million and if he wishes to speak in general terms on that motion, he can do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $4,308,250 ordered, to stand part of the motion.

Mr Hart: Sir, I move,

That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment.

Question,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $4,308,250 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 43 of 1956,

put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $4,308,250 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 43 of 1956.