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]

Schedule

The Chairman: The summary is at page 2.

Head 7-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $48,000 for Head 7 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, I missed the opportunity during the Budget debate of drawing attention to the fact that for the past year it has been the practice of this Government to put in an unending number of supplementary votes. The practice in the United Kingdom is that in Easter the Budget is presented and every item -

The Chairman: Order. I take it the hon. Member is speaking in general terms and not addressing his remarks to this particular item?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed.

The Chairman: In that case, would the hon. Member wait until I propose the Question on the motion itself and then his remarks will be in order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I had intended to make certain general remarks and also certain particular remarks as regards this particular item.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member then, to start off with, make his particular remarks on this particular item?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, the post of Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister is one of those appointments which were initiated by his predecessor. We in this House are very much in the dark as to what exactly are the duties of such an Economic Adviser. We do know that the previous Economic Adviser produced a number of reports, including the Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood. But we would like to know: first, why this item was not included in the normal Budget Estimates if the post was considered a permanent one; and, secondly, why it is proposed to engage, however internationally well known that person may be, an Economic Adviser at the prohibitive salary of no less than $4,000 a month?

3.47 p.m.

Mr Hart: Sir, first of all, on the question of the duties of the Economic Adviser, these are, of course, to examine and advise on all matters of economic and financial importance to the Colony of Singapore, as may be directed for investigation either by the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers or by the Financial Secretary.

As regards the question why provision was not made in the normal Budget Estimates, it is only very recently that we have been able to obtain the services of Dr Benham. We were not in a position to make any provision for the post when the Estimates were printed.

Lastly, as to why, according to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, we have to pay a "prohibitive" salary to Dr Benham, we have to pay the proper fee for ability, and Dr Benham's ability is unquestioned, and I have no doubt in my mind that we will get full value for the money which we pay to Dr Benham in the course of next year.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, why was no token vote entered for the post of Economic Adviser when it was intended to continue this particular appointment?

Mr Hart: I can only say that it was overlooked, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Disgusting!

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $48,000 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 8-

The sum of $25,800 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 49-

The sum of $75,680 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

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

"That the sum of $149,480 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule stand part of the motion."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, the practice in the United Kingdom is that in Easter the Budget is presented and the nation and Parliament know once and for all what the Government proposes to do with the finances of the country for the next fiscal year. In the autumn sums which are required but which could not be foreseen are introduced in a Supplementary Budget. But it has been the practice, in pre-Rendel days, and for the whole of the last session of this Assembly we allowed it to pass unnoticed, to put in a supplementary vote at almost every sitting of this Assembly. Sir, barely one month from the Budget debates, we are today presented with two supplementary votes of about a million dollars. None of these items of expenditure could be said to have been in the "could-not-be-foreseen" category. Every item that appears here - from the provision of Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister, to the Assistant Minister on to the confidential stenographer to the Assistant Minister - could have been foreseen and should have been included in the Budget, which is the proper time for discussion and debate. We must oppose this practice, on principle, of having the Budget of this country debated piecemeal at every sitting of this Assembly. Sir, the Financial Secretary should understand that the House expects at the beginning of each fiscal year to know exactly what it is asked to vote for, how it is going to be spent, and does not expect to be approached at every sitting with items which should have been foreseen but were not, either through negligence or carelessness or sheer stupidity.

3.52 p.m.

Mr Hart: Sir, the first point is that it is inevitable that throughout the year we have to make applications for funds for services which could not be foreseen at the time the Budget was drawn up. Preparation of the Budget starts in February of each year for the following year. It is printed for the first time at the end of August and any corrections are subsequently made. It is not very easy after the first printing of the Estimates to make many corrections and it is inevitable that many services which are required in the following year are left out of the Estimates. That is not true of Singapore alone; it happens in every country in the world.

As regards the number of applications for supplementary vote, we have achieved a very considerable reduction this year in comparison with any previous year, and the hon. Member will find this to be true if he compares the totals of the last Schedule for 1955 and the last Schedule for 1956.

It is inevitable that things which should have been foreseen are omitted. We cannot be omniscient. We cannot foresee everything. We are liable to make mistakes, as perhaps the hon. Member is. On the other hand, I do not think there are many occasions when we have to come to this Assembly and ask for funds for services which could have been foreseen.

Lastly, as regards the method of presentation of these applications for supplementary vote, before the new constitution came into being we considered very carefully what procedure we should follow - whether we should proceed on the lines of the United Kingdom Government where the Government operate a very, very large Civil Contingencies Vote. It is from that vote that the United Kingdom Government spend money on all the services which are similar to those for which we ask funds in these Sessional Papers; and towards the end of the year, in the autumn, when the Government brings up a Supplementary Budget, it is merely to ask for funds to meet the services which have already been paid for from the Civil Contingencies Vote and to make good the total of that vote.

It may be that in future this Government will operate on the principle followed by the House of Commons, but I thought in March 1955 that it would be better for the time being if we proceeded on the basis of Sessional Papers rather than on the basis of a Supplementary Budget once or twice a year. This procedure does keep Members in touch with the course of expenditure incurred by the Government for services which they supply, and Members are not kept in the dark for a period of nine months until the first Supplementary Budget comes up. I still think, after an experience of 18 months of this procedure, that it is the best procedure which we can have at the present time. As I have said, perhaps in the future we will adopt the House of Commons procedure.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, I do feel that the answer given by the Financial Secretary has not entirely convinced me. He has admitted that there was an oversight in the case of Head 7 and I suspect that it may have been the case in respect of Head 8 and Head D 49. I do feel there is something wrong with a procedure by which within one fortnight of the Budget sittings we are asked to pass a further $150,000 for 1957.

Mr Hart: With regard to the cases which my hon. Friend the Member for Tanglin has mentioned, apart from that dealing with the appointment of Dr Benham, it was really a matter of printing the Estimates. If my memory serves, I think my colleague the Assistant Minister in the Chief Secretary's Ministry was appointed sometime in October. By that time, we realised, of course, that funds would be required to pay his salary for 1957 and it was suggested to me that the provision might be included in the Draft Estimates. In fact, it was suggested that we might move in Committee of Supply that an addition be made to the Estimates, and it was my decision then that we would come with an application for supplementary provision at the last sitting of this year to obtain funds rather than to alter the Estimates and cause the Printer yet further trouble. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar is gasping with astonishment! No doubt when his turn comes to prepare the Estimates he will find it just as difficult as we now find it.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $149,480 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Mr Hart: Sir, I beg to 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 $149,480 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. 64 of 1956,

put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $149,480 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. 64 of 1956.