Committee of Supply

Mr Speaker: Committee of Supply, what day?

Mr T. M. Hart: Now, Sir.

Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr T. M. Hart: Schedule

The Chairman: Hon. Members, the summary of totals appears at page 8.

Head 6-

The sum of $9,370 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 14-

Question proposed, "That the sum of $13,210 for Head 14 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The explanatory note reads:

"A supplement of $13,210 is required to pay arrears of expatriation pay to an officer who, owing to a misinterpretation of the regulations, was not considered to be eligible for expatriation pay when it was introduced in August 1947."

Sir, this is a most curious little item. We in the Assembly should want to know more of it. How far does it go back? What is this misinterpretation, and how is it that this man is going to get a bounty of $13,210?

Mr T. M. Hart: As will appear from the Sessional Paper, the story goes back a considerable time. The officer concerned was born in Portuguese India and was serving in Burma in 1923 when he was offered appointment, through the Government of India, in the Gardens Department of the Colony Government as a Field Assistant. He accepted the appointment and served in Singapore until the date of his retirement, I think, in 1952. When the expatriation pay rules were introduced, it was considered - mistakenly - that because he was appointed originally as a Field Assistant, which had subsequently been classified as a Grade III post, he was not eligible for expatriation pay. He petitioned the Government but his application was rejected on the grounds which I have stated. Again he returned to the charge and I am glad to say that the matter was examined carefully and it was clear, on further examination, that he was entitled, without a shadow of doubt, to expatriation pay, and the object of this vote, Sir, is merely to right a wrong which was done in 1947. I feel sure that every Member in this Assembly will support this application for the vote on these grounds.

Mr Marshall: And regret the delay.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Could we ask whether this man is now re-engaged as a Government pensioner, or whether he has retired and, if so, whether he has retired in Malaya?

Mr Hart: I am happy to say, Sir, that the officer made his services available as a re-employed pensioner to the Gardens Department after his retirement. He is still serving with the Gardens Department and we are very glad to have his services. He is at the moment residing in Singapore. Whether or not, on his ultimate retirement from Government, he will return to Portuguese India or not I cannot say.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Is he in receipt of expatriation pay as a monthly employed Government pensioner?

Mr Hart: I believe not, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $13,210 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 15-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $78,180 for Head 15 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): On a point of clarification, Sir, Item 17 gives the commencing salary of the Information Officer concerned as $560, and items 19, 20 and 21 give the commencing salary of an Assistant Information Officer as $690. I cannot see how it can be for an assistant to receive a commencing salary of $690 whereas a senior officer commences at $560.

Mr Goode: This difference, which seems rather an absurdity, Sir, is explained by the fact that in certain cases the officers are put on what we call a long scale which starts at a low salary and works right through a whole period of 15 or 20 years; others are on a short scale which only provides for a limited range.

11.52 a.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, there is considerable addition to the expenditure of the Information Services and I think some explanation is called for. I know we are all conscious of the deficiencies of that organisation in the past, and if it is a question of re-organisation, well, let us hear a little about it, and not merely be presented with this paper.

I would like to say that in the past, Sir, the most useful aspect of that organisation that I found was the Daily Digest in English of the vernacular Press - the only opportunity the English-speaking citizens of this country have of knowing what the rest, and the majority, of the population do and what they think, and the only opportunity, more often than not, of refreshing themselves with ideas that are not steeped through with colonialism. Sir, if we have to depend upon the garbage that is dished out in the English Press for inspiration, there would be no men in this country.

I ask - I insist, Sir - that an undertaking be given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary that, in return for this additional payment, the Daily Digest of the vernacular Press in the English language issued by the Information Services - the only thing so far which they can be proud of - should be made available to members of the public who are prepared to pay the cost thereof.

Mr Hart: The Member for Cairnhill asked for an explanation of the reorganisation of the Information Services. I regret, Sir, that I cannot add anything to the very full explanation which is already given in the Sessional Paper. Anything which I could add would merely be padding-padding of something which has already been said.

11.54 a.m.

The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Sir, the experience of the past years in the Public Relations Office has shown that there is much room for improvement in the organisation for making Government policy known and for keeping the various Ministries of the Government informed of the trends of public feeling. An organisation for the effective public presentation of its policies and actions is an essential requirement of a modern parliamentary government. The basis for such an organisation in Singapore, Sir, already existed in the Public Relations Officer and his staff working as a department within the portfolio of the Chief Secretary. This instrument, Sir, has not been as effective as desired, mainly for the reason that the title "Public Relations Office" suggested an organisation mainly of a press liaison agency. The duties of the Public Relations Officer have never been defined in detail and there has never been any prescribed contact between the Public Relations Officer and the other Ministries and Departments of the Government.

A good public relations organisation, Sir, is much more than a press liaison unit. The public presentation of the Government's policy, if it is to be effective, cannot depend on sporadic campaigns and statements arranged according to the particular needs and events, but requires a continuous effort to obtain an atmosphere, an audience receptive to Government policy. To get this effect, the instrument responsible must be accorded the necessary degree of importance and authority, and be given a corresponding position of trust, and facilities in carrying out that trust.

Sir, the re-entitlement of the Public Relations Office to Information Services itself has gone so far to indicate the part it is to play in the Government structure, and would serve to lift the organisation above what is commonly but erroneously thought to be a simple function of the press liaison officer. Sir, the Government has considered all these aspects and recognises the important role to be played by information services in this democratic system of government in Singapore. It regards that there should be adequate funds and staff to meet the needs of this service. The tendency to neglect the information services, Sir, until a moment of crisis, is bad. It is not possible for information services to be an effective instrument overnight.

Having considered all these subjects, Sir, the Information Services is now equipped with a Central Translation Bureau, and it is intended that, from now on, the non-English speaking population will be served better than in the past. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, that every effort is being made to reorganise and improve even the daily and weekly digests and make them more effective and useful in future.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a bit confused by all this because before, when the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister, we were so often told that the Information Services were excellent, and they were complimented on many occasions. I remember one particular occasion most distinctly, when I took them to task for doing a lot of things irregularly with a bias in favour of people like Chief Ministers - distributing their speeches and blacking out the Opposition. As I understood it, everything was well and everybody was happy. But it now seems everything was not all well, and even the former Chief Minister was not happy. I am therefore a little bit disturbed by all this uncertainty and doubt. I hope in future we will not be regaled with Ministers who, having stepped down from office, thereupon dispel all the beautiful compliments they had paid while in office.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $78,180 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 16-

The sum of $39,600 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 18-

The sum of $133,180 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 25-

The sum of $1,127,143 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 28-

The sum of $10 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 50-

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $49,155 for Head 50 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, on the first item which reads, "New Subhead-item (1) Director of Legal Aid, Grade F ($1,620)". I would like the Hon. the Chief Secretary to tell us, as I did not have the opportunity to question him during the Budget debate, why this particular post has been graded as F in the Civil Service hierarchy.

12.02 p.m.

Mr Hart: In the original report which we had on this question of legal aid, Sir, it was indeed recommended that the post of Director should be, if I recall rightly, Grade D. This recommendation was considered by a committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the Chief Secretary's Office and my own office, and it came to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate, having regard to the duties which will be discharged by the officer holding this appointment, and having regard to the grading of posts in the Legal Service of Singapore, that it would be more appropriate, for the time being, if this post were graded F.

The fact that the post has been graded F does not exclude the possibility that, in future, as the duties attached to the appointment grow, and perhaps when a deputy has to be appointed to assist the Director, the post will be upgraded. For the moment, I feel that it would be desirable for the post to be graded F, and hope Members will accept that recommendation, which has been made after most careful consideration.

12.03 p.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am extremely unhappy at this grading. I would like to remind the Minister responsible, and I would also like to remind the Front Bench, that this Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance received the unanimous support of the House, that it was intended that the concepts of justice and the machinery for justice in this country should be made available to all the people in the country. As I see it now, Sir, we have nothing but a head peon with a sub-peon. That is the Department we have created to bring justice to the people of the country and to bring the law to all the villagers.

Sir, there is a suggestion that we must depend upon the Bar for the working of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance. This Ordinance is not a lawyers' aid Ordinance. It is not intended to put money into the pockets of lawyers, although as a lawyer I have no objection to having money being put into my pocket! At the same time let us make it clear that this Ordinance was not intended to assist members of this trade union - who are doing extremely well, thank you! It was intended to bring the law to the people, and they need it. Therefore, to begin with, Sir, unless this country is going to spend fantastic sums of money which it has not got, it has to create a large and efficient department, a public defence department, and it was the intention as I understand it (and I am proud that I was mainly responsible for this Ordinance), it was the intention that the officer-in-charge should have equal status with the Attorney-General. He should have a large, qualified staff. He should have branches in the various parts of the country so that he can give aid and advice.

Out of those ambitions and ideals we have nothing but a mouse! I would ask, Sir, how come that this Ordinance, after having gone through the various Civil Service departments, has been whittled down to a farce? We had been promised in November 1956 by the Chief Minister that additional appropriation would be asked for from this House in December 1956 to bring into effect the first part of the Ordinance. These provisions are two months late already. I take it that before they are even in force there will not be a Department of Legal Aid at all.

Sir, I view with considerable concern the approach and attitude to this problem. Either we have a Legal Aid Department, or - if that is the intention of the Government let us have it frankly - the whole thing is going to be shelved. But I am quite certain that the present Chief Minister, who as Labour Minister at the relevant time so warmly proposed and carried through the Bill, would not and does not intend to bring about what seem to be the present consequences. It may also be that representations of the Bar Committee are having their effect, not upon the Ministers who are sitting on the Front Bench, but upon other organisations which are responsible for seeking to minimise the stature of the person responsible for this Legal Aid Department and the whole working of the Department, and seeking to nullify it.

12.07 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, may I clarify just one point? When I supported the Legal Aid and Advice Bill, we did not envisage branches of the Department all over the country, nor did we envisage a competitor to the Attorney-General! I would like to clarify this point because I did not have that in my mind when we passed the Bill. But I do agree with the Member for Cairnhill - even if I cannot say so as vehemently as he has done - that a very serious attempt should be made by the Legal Department to get this machinery going. It is no use telling the people that you have a wonderful democratic machine if you do not offer them the mechanics to operate that machinery for them as and when required.

It is also important that we should not call it a Public Defence Department because if we do so the public will soon lose confidence in it. It has been said at the Bar, of course, that if you have one department of the Government prosecuting and can nip around to the other Government department to defend you, the public may think that it is not likely that the Government should want to contradict itself, that it should want to prosecute a man and then get the man whom it is prosecuting off. Therefore the Bar would, in spite of all the effort of this legal aid scheme, still be stuffing their money with pockets - I mean their pockets with money - I get confused when I think of the stories that have been floating around! If you go to see a government lawyer to get you off from a government prosecutor, how would you think you are going to get off? Therefore, I would not dismiss so lightly the representations of the Bar Committee. After all, they do represent 125 members at the Bar who, in spite of the fact that they have financial interests in this Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, have also considered the matter carefully and have made representations based on the principles upon which the legal aid scheme has been working in England. Sir, I am not speaking on behalf of the Bar Committee but I think the Member for Cairnhill was somewhat unfair when, in the heat of argument, he sloshed at everybody. I do not think the Bar Committee really deserve to be sloshed at in that way.

12.09 p.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Bar Committee has been obstructing free legal aid to my personal knowledge since 1939. I should imagine the Member for Tanjong Pagar was still knee-high to a grasshopper! Sir, if we are to depend upon the Bar for the working of this Ordinance, it would cost us far too much and, consequently, the Ordinance would not work. If we approach it from the practical point of view, Sir, and appoint our own men - and we have some very fine men coming out and practising at the Bar today, youngsters who would do credit to any task assigned to them for the purpose of the practice of the law - I say, Sir, that it can be worked and it can be worked at a moderate fee.

As regards the public fears that one government employee would not be able to defend you where another government employee prosecutes, let us remember that in New South Wales, where I first learnt about this system, the Public Solicitor's Office is a flourishing one which is consulted by very considerable numbers who cannot afford to go to a lawyer. The point is not that we should compel people to go and seek advice - if they do not want it they do not have to. The point is that we should try to make available to those who cannot afford to pay for legal consultation. We should make available to them at such cost or without cost, as they may be able to afford, the machinery for enforcing their just rights, and make available to them advice which they may need to understand their rights. By the creation, Sir, of just one individual at $1,620 and an assistant, we do not do so. That is my argument, and I would like to ask now, Sir, for a full explanation as to what is intended under this Legal Aid Ordinance.

12.12 p.m.

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Sir, the meeting has been quiet so far, but now we come to a position where a back-bencher of the Government attacks the Government, and a Member of the Opposition tries to defend the Government!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of order, Sir, I object to being misrepresented in that way. I was defending myself. I do not wish to be misconstrued by any Member in this House, let alone the Member for Cairnhill. I was saying something on behalf of the Bar Committee because it has been unjustly attacked. But let me not carry any of the burdens the Chief Minister has on his shoulders!

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar called it a point of order. It is not a point of order but appears to be a point of elucidation. The Chief Minister did give way.

The Chief Minister: I gave way, Sir, because I am in a very friendly mood, even with the Opposition. Sir, when the Opposition said it was trying to say something to defend the Bar Committee it said something that I would have said myself. Sir, the purpose of putting in a request for a vote for the sum in question is to set Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance in motion. As to the other parts of the Ordinance, I have pointed out at previous sittings that it is because of representations from the Bar Committee, and mainly because of their assurance that they wish to cooperate with this Government in making the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance work, that I feel we should hold more consultations with them. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, Sir, I said that it could only work if we had, the cooperation of the Bar Committee. However, if after discussions with the Bar Committee we are unable to come to a satisfactory solution, the Government will of course have to go ahead with what the Government think is right for the people of Singapore. The Government have not given up hope that the Bar Committee, after expressing their desire to co-operate with the Government, will not come, shall we say, to an amicable solution on the opposition which they have raised.

For the operation of Part I of the Ordinance, Sir, it is felt that the posts now to be created under this vote are sufficient. The Department will be set going to have discussions, to work out with the Bar Committee the putting into operation of the other parts of the Ordinance as soon as possible.

Members have remarked on the grading of the Director of Legal Aid. In this matter, I gave the assurance that their views on the grading of this post will be duly considered and reviewed by the Government, but I would emphasise that the purpose of this vote is to enable the Government to set the Department going.

12.16 p.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, surely the Hon. the Chief Minister is conscious of the delay, as I have tried repeatedly to explain. For 16 years and more - for 20 years - I have been trying to get the Bar Committee to support some kind of free legal aid. Since 1939, Sir,I have been trying. I had, by the grace of God, to become Chief Minister before I could get anything done. And now, Sir, if we are going to depend upon negotiations with the Bar Committee, are we going to put any time limit to it, or are we going to take another 20 years until they can get a government in power which they would support in order to throw this Ordinance out? How long are we going to wait for the Bar Committee? How long are we going to accept its obstruction or alleged obstruction to the application of a measure necessary for the welfare of the people? Just how long, Sir?

12.17 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I have all along consistently supported the Member for Cairnhill in his demand for free legal aid, and I still do so. However, I do not today agree with his approach to this matter. I think that, for this free legal aid scheme to succeed, we will have to depend a great deal on the legal profession. I have been given assurances by some members of the profession that they will support the scheme and I do not think there is any point in antagonising them now.

It is true that they have not shown much interest in past years, but this is not to say that they will not do so now. Practice at the Bar has been very lucrative, and I am quite sure that some members of the Bar who have already come to the age of retirement will give their best effort to make this free legal aid scheme work.

12.18 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I want to clear certain further doubts that have been raised by the Member for Cairnhill in his tirade against the Bar. I was a grasshopper in 1939 and I did not then know who were the people who so resolutely prevented the previous Chief Minister from carrying out his ambitions with regard to free legal aid. I would remind him, however, that the character of the whole profession is rapidly going through a great change. Whilst in 1939 it was an exclusive white man's preserve, it is now very rapidly, parallel with political developments in the country as a whole, undergoing a change. The Bar is going to be - and we should make it - a local man's Bar.

There is therefore no point in going around shaking one's fist, or rattling one's sabre, or brandishing a pen-knife and antagonising 120 members of the profession (and perhaps another 20 more who are awaiting entry) with whom we want to co-operate. We need their assistance to make the machinery work. We must not go around making what I know are unfair accusations. The Bar Committee have not said they will not co-operate with the Government. All they have said is that there are certain aspects of the Ordinance which they do not like, and the Government have said they will listen to the Bar Committee's representations. If in the end, however, the Government wish to push the scheme through, the best the Bar can do is just to let it be. The Bar cannot oppose the Government and they know that. In such a case, however, the Bar could sit back and say: "You work it."

That would be another matter and the scheme would then depend on the men you can get into this public legal aid and advice bureau and also the attitude of the Bar. If the general opinion of the Bar is that the bureau is staffed by feeble lawyers who cannot make a living at the Bar, then the whole scheme is stymied from the beginning. There is no point working up all this feeling just because I happened to ask why the post was graded F. I was genuinely curious to know why some Civil Service expert had down-graded this job. I am not usually prone to making pleas for moderation, but we must not be unreasonable if we want to make this legal aid scheme work, as I believe the Member for Cairnhill does want to make it work. I do not have to be convinced as to his sincerity. In fact, he will remember that on one occasion, I think it was in 1952 or 1953, when he was struggling with the then Bar Committee which was governed by expatriates, they appointed him a one-man committee and thereby shelved the problem. But I would remind him that, at the moment, the Bar Committee consist of six local men and one expatriate, who got in only on a re-count. It is a local man's Bar. Every year there are 20 or 30 students returning, and there is no point rattling the sabre at them. Let us make sure, first, that they are really a nasty and selfish lot of people before one rattles the sabre. Let us first try to make them understand that it is in their interests to make the scheme work, that it is in their interests to make the whole legal machinery work efficiently, so that the democratic system can be preserved and they can continue to be lawyers and not garbage collectors.

12.22 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, it is a surprise to me to see the Member for Tanjong Pagar suddenly becoming an unofficial representative of the Bar Committee in this House. My sympathies and feelings go out in support of the statement by the Member for Cairnhill. It is time for Government to set up free legal aid offices all over Singapore. We see the P.A.P. has established Party branches all over the island, promising their supporters free legal aid and advice. Why then cannot we support the suggestion of the Member for Cairnhill? It is time the Government pay serious attention to the Legal Aid Department. We need not only one Grade F man to run the Department - we want many more lawyers to help the people solve their difficulties.

Sir, to quote one example of such difficulties. After the trouble in October last year, many people were arrested and detained. The family of one of them, who had been ordered to be banished, approached me for help. I brought them to a respectable lawyer, one whom I thought was interested in politics and in helping the people. He demanded $2,000 to appeal on behalf of the detainee. I think it was a shame. I told him the man was very poor but he was firm - "No money, no services."

Then, Sir, there was the poor hawker arrested sometime ago for a minor offence who also approached me for help. The lawyer I saw demanded $150, so the hawker told me, "It is better to plead guilty because then the fine will be only $50."

Sir, these are some of the difficulties and hardships facing the lower income group and the poor classes, and I think it is high time that Government seriously, and with determination, implement the free legal aid scheme and appoint more lawyers to help the poor.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $49,155 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 46-

The sum of $80,500 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 61-

The sum of $37,000 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

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

"That the sum of $1,549,428 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $1,549,428 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule 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 $1,549,428 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. 10 of 1957,

put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,549,428 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. 10 of 1957.