Committee of Supply

Mr Speaker: Committee of Supply, what day?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Now, Sir.

Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.32 p.m.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Schedule-

The Chairman: We are dealing with the Schedule. The summary is at page 27.

Head 1-

The sum of $5,901 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 5-

The sum of $65,060 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 8-

The sum of $49,326 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 9-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $153,681 for Head 9 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Explanatory Note says that it is proposed to make permanent a certain number of temporary officers: firstly, because it is likely that they will be permanent, and secondly, because if they are not made permanent, they are likely to leave. May we know how many of these persons to be appointed as permanent Government servants and put on the establishment are expatriates and who will therefore become entitled to abolition terms to which as temporary officers they are not entitled?

Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, all those who will be made permanent are local officers. There is one expatriate who will be employed and held against a permanent post but he is on contract and he will not be made permanent.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $153,681 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 12-

The sum of $32,522 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 15-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $25,282 for Head 15 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, if I remember rightly when we voted this sum in 1956 of $40,000 for film production it was the intention of Government to produce a film in colour of Singapore for distribution overseas for advertising purposes to encourage the tourist trade. I notice however that the amount spent in 1956 was only $14,700 odd. I therefore would like to know what has happened to that project?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Chairman, I have not got the details and I promise to let the hon. Member have them in due course.

Mr John Ede: May I ask for supplementary information, Mr Chairman? If such a film has been completed whether, in fact, it is earning revenue abroad in distribution and getting the money back which we have spent?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Chairman, I will let the hon. Member have this information also.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $25,282 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 16-

The sum of $13,040 to Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 18-

The sum of $71,941 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: Order. If hon. Members wish to have a private conversation, they should retire behind the Bar.

Head 20-

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $1,200,000 for Head 20 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, a sum of $1,700,000 is estimated to be the cost of the census that is intended for this year. Could we know before we level any criticism at the Government how much the Federation census over a much wider area and over six times as large a population as Singapore cost the Federation Government?

Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am afraid that I have not got that information.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Has there been no consultation or exchange of information between the Federation and the Singapore governments on this question of the technique of collecting census in Malaya?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Chairman, in the middle of last year, it was intended to hold the census on a Pan-Malayan basis and the Federation's Superintendent of Census was asked to make an estimate of the census. Speaking from memory, I think he estimated that the census in the Federation would cost $2.8 million and the census in Singapore about $� million .

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Surely if that answer was known to the Financial Secretary he should not have allowed the Chief Secretary to say in this House that it is not known to the Government what the estimated cost of the census was, if the Federation's estimate for the whole of the Federation consisting of several thousand square miles as compared with Singapore's 236 square miles is only $2.8 million, how do we explain the fact that our census over a much smaller area and one-sixth the population of the Federation is going to cost about 60 to 70 per cent of the cost in the Federation?

Mr Stewart: Mr Chairman, Sir, when I said that I had not the estimate for the Federation expenditure, I was meaning the present estimate of the Federation census. The $500,000 was the original expenditure put up some time ago by the Superintendent-designate for the Pan-Malayan census. Now that $500,000 has been proved to be grossly under-estimated. When the estimate of $500,000 was put in the 1957 Estimates, the Superintendent of Census, Singapore, which appointment was made in December 1956, pointed out that this estimate was an under-estimate and that when the Technical Census Committee on census matters had completed its task, it should be possible to give more accurate figures. Now that the Superintendent of Census, Singapore, has had the opportunity with a fair degree of accuracy to know where and what staff can be obtained for carrying out the various census operations, it has become clear that the vote is so far from sufficient for the necessary expenditure that a supplement is required of the order of $1.2 million.

The Government has set up a very highly organised machinery to carry out a thoroughly reliable census. Fully trained, full time, and adequate field staff under the supervision of trained senior officers of the Government will be employed. The numbers of supervisors, house-numberers and enumerators have all been based on a trial census held some time last year and the Superintendent of Census has given much time and thought to the proper reticulation of census areas.

2.45 p.m.

I think there is no need for me to stress how vitally important this coming census is to Singapore with the coming political changes. An up-to-date and thoroughly reliable census of population is vital for the determination of national policies in the spheres of economic, educational, social and even political planning. Consideration of questions relating to economic and social development, unemployment, housing, public health and welfare must be based on accurate facts about the population. Various plans of social assistance and social insurance are dependent upon reliable census material. Available population statistics based on the last census in 1947 have now become obsolete. In fact, Sir, the census in Singapore is I speak, subject to correction- probably on a more complex scale than the one in the Federation. Conditions differ in Singapore and in the Federation and the conclusion was arrived at after very careful consideration at high official level in both territories that as the Federation and the Singapore Governments desire the census in both territories to follow somewhat different lines, there should be separate censuses for each territory but to be conducted simultaneously on the same date. With the free movement of population between Singapore and the Federation, the reasons are obvious for administrative convenience for the count of population to be simultaneous in Malaya. Sir, census day is fast approaching and the whole machinery of the census organisation is in top gear.

I think we would like to get on with the job and I can assure this House that we are going to have a thoroughly reliable census. I think it will be the biggest census that Singapore has ever had and this is the first time that Singapore is holding a census of its own and we would like to see to it that the census is a very successful one. I would suggest to this House, Sir, that this increase of $1.2 million is well worth the money if we can achieve the aims that we intend to have in the census.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $1,200,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 23-

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $12,420 for Head 23 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Could the Government tell us whether this particular postmaster who absconded with $12,420 had any saving in the Government Thrift and Loan Society and whether any saving was made by the forfeiture of the pension that he would otherwise have been entitled to?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Chairman, from enquiries, it was found that he had no savings and it was not then known how much pension he would have been eligible for. But if the hon. Member would like to know, I can arrange for the information to be passed on to him.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, I would just like to know what steps have been taken to tighten up this system as a result of this misappropriation? I think that the House will agree that misappropriation generally takes place as a result of a faulty system or of someone taking advantage of a faulty system. We should like an assurance that losses of public money of this kind will be avoided in the future as far as possible.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Chairman, this matter was investigated by the Director of Audit and the Accountant-General and they reported as follows:

"We are satisfied that there is no flaw in the system of account, which is basically the same as that used in all British Post Offices. A defalcation of this nature could not remain undetected for more than two or three days. We also consider that surprise surveys are carried out at sufficiently frequent intervals by the Postal Services and Audit Departments. No system of account or check can prevent an officer in charge of cash from stealing it and the fact that an officer in a position of trust, such as a Postmaster, stands to lose so much in the way of retiring benefits by a criminal act is in itself a powerful deterrent against dishonesty.

In our opinion, therefore, no responsibility for the loss attaches to any officer of the Postal Services Department other than the officer concerned who has been convicted and sentenced."

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $12,420 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 26-

The sum of $123 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 27-

The sum of $19,715 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 28-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $48,458 for Head 28 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Chairman, supplementary provision of $9,200 is required for the purchase of toddy to allow the contractor to increase his price from $1.55 to $1.60 per gallon. I wonder if the Financial Secretary could tell this House whether the contract was given out on a public tender or was it under negotiations?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: It was by public tender.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: If it was given on a public tender, I wonder how we could allow the contractor to increase this price. If the contractor, after accepting the tender, could be allowed to increase the price, that serves no purpose of a public tender because there may be other tenderers who may have tendered either above or below this price. A public tender is a competition amongst the contractors or tenderers and once a tender is accepted, a price should be stuck on to that value. According to the explanation here, I see that the increase is to allow the contractor to rent 450 new trees to replace trees now in tapping which were discovered recently to have lost their toddy yielding properties. Now, if that be the case, why should toddy consumers be made to pay by increasing the price of toddy from 25 cents to 30 cents per pint? The contractor should bear the loss rather than that the toddy consumers be made to pay to recover this money. I cannot understand why we should allow this unless, in the tender, there is a clause which gives the contractor a variation in price and even if it does, the reason for the variation in price to increase this price should be sufficient enough to warrant this increase. I am not happy about this increase, Sir.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: The tender concerned was the only tender received. It was in 1955 and a two-year contract was entered into with the contractor. There is a provision for review at the end of the first year. At the beginning of this year, the tenderer made representations regarding the cost he would incur in order to keep up his supply of toddy for the rest of this year. They were carefully examined by the Treasury and it was agreed to a review.

With regard to the other point on the increase in the price of the sale of toddy from 25 cents to 30 cents per pint, the Government sells the toddy. It was calculated that, on the price of $1.60 per gallon, and if Government sold it at 25 cents per pint, it would be possible that Government might suffer a loss and this five cents per pint was meant to cover the possibility of a loss by Government.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given, Sir. As I have said, why should the toddy consumers be made to pay that extra five cents per pint so as to pay the contractor who has already tendered his price? He should bear the cost of whatever losses he may have to incur. May I then move, Sir, if I am allowed, to delete the sum of $9,200 under this item?

The Chairman: The Standing Orders require two days' notice.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, the hon. Member raises an important and interesting principle and one which perhaps needs some clarification. I myself am in complete sympathy with any efforts to economise in public service but, at the same time, I may be wrong here, I am of the view that Government should not act merely with legality and insist on the letter of the law but should also act with equity and that if there are contracts with Government which it is fully proved were entered into, through some misunderstanding, though the contractor is, in fact, liable in law and Government could insist on his bearing the loss arising from a misunderstanding for which Government is not responsible, nevertheless, I am of the view - here I say I may be wrong and I would like enlightenment from the Financial Secretary on the principles applied - that Government should show a sufficient sense of equity in conceding a review in those particular circumstances and should not seek to act with Shylock commercial instincts.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Chairman, each case will have to be decided on its own merits, in this case, the Government is satisfied that the price of toddy should be increased by five cents per pint.

Mr Marshall: What about answering me?

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $48,458 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

3.00 p.m.

Head 41-

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $2,712 for Head 41 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, the explanation makes the matter even more mysterious than it already is. It seems that this sum of money is now required to pay the Federation Employees Provident Fund - employers' contribution - in respect of certain employees of the Trade Marks Registry who were Federation Government servants seconded to Singapore and who were to be paid for by the Federation Government. What I would like to enquire from the Financial Secretary is: if he has been paying x dollars for these Government servants and has been receiving from the Federation Government x plus y dollars, y being the Federation contribution to the Federation of Malaya's provident fund scheme, how does he square up his accounts for so long before it is discovered that, in fact, he had been receiving from the Federation Government, x plus y dollars, and he is paying x dollars? After several years it is discovered that y dollars had not been paid to the Federation Employees Provident Fund. We have great respect for people who are intituled Auditors-General, but that respect cannot be commanded if this sort of mis-accounting is discovered now and again.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: When the accounts were received from the Federation, the Singapore Trade Marks Office thought that the Federation Government had made a contribution direct to the Employees Provident Fund. It was only when a reminder was received from the Employees Provident Fund that it was realised that the contribution had not been made. It was an oversight on the part of the Singapore Trade Marks Office.

Mr Marshall: How do you square your accounts? The question is an interesting one, Sir, I am merely drawing attention. It is not my idea; it is the idea of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. His question is simply this: how does the Financial Secretary square his accounts for 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956, to discover it only in 1957? In those six years, how did he square his accounts when he got x plus y dollars and paid out x dollars? That is a fair question.

The Chairman: I take it that the Public Accounts Committee will look into that.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $2,712 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 42-

The sum of $85,000 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 44-

The sum of $57,474 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 55-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $18,100 for Head 55 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, we are told in the Explanatory Note that:

"Provision of $16,200 was made in the 1957 Estimates for the salary of the Specialist Fire Officer for a period of six months."

In other words, six months' payment to the Specialist Officer comes to $16,200. We are told now that his services must be continued for a further six months because certain officers under training will not return in time to take over before this six-month period is out and we are asked to vote a sum of $18,100. There is therefore a difference of $1,900 between the first six months' payment and the second six months' payment. Is this officer getting a salary rise for the second six months?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: The salary has been revised from the 1st of January this year.

Mr Marshall: Do you mean the millionisation of the expatriates?

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $18,100 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 58-

The sum of $77,390 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 2-

The sum of $55,180 for Head D 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 5-

The sum of $6,500 for Head D 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 9-

The sum of $38,000 for Head D 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 10-

The sum of $2,210 for Head D 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 12-

The sum of $477,860 for Head D 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 16-

The sum of $418,750 for Head D 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 18-

The sum of $88,660 for Head D 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 46-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $458,850 for Head D 46 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Chairman, Sir, may I ask a question of the Minister for Education? It appears that the estimated cost of Group B Primary Schools (eighteen) is $4,680,000 and the estimated cost of Group C Primary Schools (eighteen) is also $4,680,000. I am sure that the Minister for Education can clarify the point: whether all these schools under Groups B and C will consist of English schools or other schools. If the schools are to become national schools, we still have the item reading "Improvements and Extensions to Malay Schools".

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Chairman, Sir, these are revotes. These are revotes required to complete the erection of these schools. The schools now are all national schools and they are not named as English schools, Chinese schools, or Malay schools and the extensions to Malay schools are for those existing Malay schools which need extensions and repairs.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $458,850 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 49

The sum of $1,026,790 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 53 -

The sum of $59,922 for Head D 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 57-

The sum of $144,040 for Head D 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 58-

The sum of $96,180 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 60-

The sum of $432,490 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 61-

The sum of $406,830 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

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

"That the sum of $5,496,603 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 $5,496,603 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: 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 $5,496,603 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. 15 of 1957," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,496,603 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. 15 of 1957.

3.15 p.m.