SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 14 of 1958)

3.17 p.m.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $735,900 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. 14 of 1958.

Sir, of the 34 items in the Command Paper, all but 12 refer to unforeseen revotes of funds already voted by the Assembly. These applications for revotes are fully explained on the Paper and with one possible exception do not call for special comment. The 12 applications for new money are also fully explained on the Paper. The majority are for small amounts which do not call for additional comment. There are, however, one or two which hon. Members will no doubt wish me to amplify.

Hon. Members who have been engaged in the constitutional discussions at different times will appreciate that, under the new Constitution, the position of the Director of Audit and the Audit Department will change and will increase in importance. Hitherto, the Audit Department has been a department of Government, and its duties, other than those prescribed by law or regulation, are laid down by the Government. Its officers are subject to governmental discipline and control. With the change in the Constitution, however, it is essential that the position of the Audit Department should be changed and that it should no longer be a department of Government, but that it should be completely independent of the Government and free from political influence of any kind.

The new status of the Director of Audit and the Audit Department will be recognised in the new Constitution. In the circumstances, quite apart from the additional work and responsibility which will fall on the Director of Audit as a result of the termination of the old connection with the Auditor-General in Kuala Lumpur, it is desirable that the post should be regraded to take account of the responsibility which will arise out of his independent position in the hierarchy of Government.

It has been argued with some force that, following the example of the Federation of Malaya, the post should be upgraded to Grade C, that is, on a par with the permanent secretaries, but it has been decided that Grade D is sufficient, at any rate for the time being. I hope that hon. Members will support the application for a token vote.

Perhaps the most important item in the Paper is the creation of the post of Secretary (Loans). On a number of occasions in the past, Sir, I have drawn attention to the wide gap which is likely to exist in the future between the needs of the various central and local government bodies and corporations in Singapore for development capital and the total amount of development capital likely to be available. I have also stressed the need to mobilise and tap all available sources of development capital in Singapore if the gap is to be narrowed. I do not think that anybody who has studied the matter will deny the existence of the gap now and in the future, or the need to do everything in our power to narrow it by integrating and phasing development plans on an island-wide basis, by avoiding cut-throat competition for the funds likely to be available, and to explore and mobilise every possible source of investment capital.

Integration and phasing of development plans on an island-wide basis is a difficult and complicated matter but it will have to he done if the best use is to be made of the limited funds likely to be available. We can no longer afford to allow every development authority to go merrily ahead planning what it considers desirable without regard to the needs of other authorities or to the funds likely to be available. There must be co-operation and coordination, and I ask that this co-operation will be given when the question of setting up a suitable coordinating body is discussed with the various authorities concerned.

I think it will be generally agreed that it would be folly for the various authorities responsible for development in Singapore to indulge in cut-throat competition for the limited funds likely to be available for development in Singapore. Clearly there is a case for one authority, in this case the Government, to mobilise and tap all resources and to apportion the proceeds between the various authorities for the implementation of a phased, integrated and agreed island-wide development plan.

Mobilisation of investment, capital will be far from easy. It will involve not only the flotation of loans of all kinds necessary to meet the requirements of local investors, but also the question of the issue of Treasury bills, the creation of short-term deposits and the like. It will involve the servicing of these loans, the operation of sinking funds, the investment of sinking fund money, the redemption and conversion of the loans, and so on. It will involve the consideration and implementation of savings campaigns. It will involve the gradual building up of a local money market, thus giving a greater measure of liquidity than exists at present to local trustee securities. It involves such questions as the investment policy of provident funds, insurance companies operating locally, and so on.

It is a task which will call for a high degree of specialised knowledge and financial experience which is not available in the Treasury at the present time The Treasury is understaffed and the officers at present serving in it are lacking in financial experience. It is in my opinion of vital importance not only to the immediate pressing problem of mobilisation of investment capital, but also to the general efficiency of the Treasury to recruit a Secretary (Loans)

Having regard to the qualifications and experience required for this task, it is considered necessary to offer the inclusive emoluments which are proposed. This particular question has been most carefully examined and I am certain that we would not obtain the services of the kind of man we want for anything less. I trust that hon. Members realise the importance of the matter and support me in this application.

Item 130 seeks a revote in connection with the investigation of the Oriental Telephone & Electric Company's assets. Hon. Members will note that the explanatory note refers to the need to go to arbitration. That is indeed the position. Valuations were exchanged in 1956 and, as agreed at the time of the conclusion of the purchase agreement, valuers on both sides subsequently entered into negotiations with a view to clarifying points of difference and making such settlements and compromises that might be possible. These negotiations have been protracted but considerable progress has been made in certain aspects of the valuation. There are, however, certain major points involving considerable sums of money which have proved to be quite unsusceptible of compromise. These must now go to arbitration under the terms of the original indenture. Arrangements are now being made to set up an arbitration tribunal which, it is hoped, will sit in Singapore in the autumn of this year. Hon. Members will realise that I cannot at this stage make any comment on the details of the negotiations or about the matters which have been referred to arbitration.

Items 133 and 134 deal with the pan-Malayan development of trunk telephone facilities between Singapore and the Federation. Singapore's share of the project amounts to roughly $1.3 million but I am assured by the Minister that it will remove the serious bottleneck existing at the moment and provide facilities which will meet with the needs of the peninsula for a considerable number of years to come. More important, it will be a project which will pay for itself in a comparatively short period of time.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Nair: Sir, I second it.

Motion committed to Committee of Supply.

Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.28 p.m.

The Chairman: The summary is at page 16.

Head 6-

The sum of $10 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 15-

The sum of $600 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 20-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $4,000 for Head 20 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to refer to Head 20 Legal, item 108 at page 2 which reads:

"A further supplement of $1,500 is required to meet in full settlement, inclusive of costs, another claim by a member of the public for alleged wrongful search." Would the Hon. the Financial Secretary kindly give us more details regarding this wrongful search?

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): Mr Chairman, Sir, this case was a somewhat involved affair in which a police officer used powers which it might be considered by some were not really sufficient for the search he made. There was the possibility of a somewhat involved legal argument which might have become extremely expensive and on considering the case as a whole, it was decided to compromise the issue and offer a sum of money in settlement of the claim that had been made and that sum has been accepted. It is not always possible to forecast with any certainty the outcome of a case before the courts. Fortunately, for lawyers, there are differences of opinion occasionally as to the effect of particular provisions of the law and, in this particular case, the matter was one of some considerable doubt. It was because of the doubt and the possibility of the expensive results of litigating that doubt that it was decided to settle the matter. Having settled the matter, steps have been taken to explain to the officers concerned precisely how in future they will exercise the powers that have been given to them. Steps have been taken to avoid any recurrence of this particular unfortunate type of search.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Hon. the Attorney-Genera! tell us whether the officer or officers involved in this case were either reprimanded or punished as a result of this illegal search?

Mr Shanks: Sir, to the best of my knowledge, the officers were not punished. There was no reason why they should be punished but the officers have had explained to them the way in which they should use their powers in torture. It is not a case of an officer deliberately doing something wrong; the officer was mistaken.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Attorney-General has not answered my question as to whether they were reprimanded or not. I appreciate that it was not intentional that they did wrong but because of the result of that wrong, were they ever reprimanded?

Mr Shanks: Sir, I am quite convinced that the officer concerned did nothing for which punishment or reprimand, which is a punishment, would be appropriate. I am not even prepared to say that what he did was wrong. As I have explained, it is a matter on which even lawyers might disagree but what I am satisfied about is that this particular type of action will not be taken in the future. But I must resist any suggestion that the police officer concerned is deserving of punishment. What he wanted was help and it is help that he has got.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $4,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 22-

The sum of $21,000 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 25-

The sum of $50,465 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 48-

The sum of $20,156 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 49-

The sum of $9,790 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 50-

The sum of $7,000 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 52-

The sum of $1,340 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 9-

The sum of $680 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 11-

The sum of $578 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 37-

The sum of $2,760 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 57-

The sum of $156,371 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 59-

The sum of $53,036 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D56-

The sum of $25,500 for Head D56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D59-

The sum of $433,344 for Head D59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D48-

The sum of $570 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The sum of $735,900 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment.

Question on the Motion put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $735,900 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. 14 of 1958.