SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 21 of 1958)

4.59 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 $1,219,777 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. 21 of 1958.

Sir, the items in the Schedule are fully explained in the Paper and I will be happy, of course, to add any further explanations which are required.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): I second it.

Motion committed to Committee of Supply.

Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

5.00 p.m.

The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): Schedule-

The Chairman: The summary is at page 8.

Head 11-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $46,522 for Head 11 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am somewhat bewildered to find under Head 11 - Subhead 4, new item... $12,000 in respect of the Royal Malayan Navy. It says here: "Housing allowance for married locally commissioned officers". Sir, I understood the Singapore Government handed over the Royal Malayan Navy, together with its personnel, to the Federation of Malaya Government. In fact, there was a ceremonial handing over of the crafts involved, together with, I think, the changing of the colours on the crafts. I would like to know why we are being asked to incur this expenditure.

Mr Hart: Part of the agreement entered into with the Federation Government for the handing over of the Royal Malayan Navy was that we would be responsible for expenditure for the remainder of 1958.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The remainder of 1958 means up to 31st December, 1958, I take it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is right and proper that information regarding conditions and terms of the hand-over which were agreed should be disclosed to this House. We were under the impression - and I think we were entitled to draw the inference which we all did - that the Navy had been handed over lock, stock and barrel. If, in fact, we were asked to pay for the expenses for the rest of the year, we should be so informed. I do not think we would seriously object to it. We are quite relieved that the Federation of Malaya Government has taken over this Navy which was going to cost us millions of dollars a year, but at least we were entitled to know.

Mr Hart: I was under the impression that hon. Members were aware of this. There was certainly no secret about it.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, under "AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE, subhead 171 (1) - Personal Emoluments:- Staff Officer, Reimbursement to City Council ... $17,052", may I know for what period this amount is required?

Mr Hart: The period in question is for 1957.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it then that it is required for twelve months, which works out at $1,421 per month, and I take it that this was the salary of this Staff Officer. Can the Government not recruit a Staff Officer on their own rather than have a secondment from the City Council?

Mr Hart: It was considered to be more appropriate and more desirable to make use of the services of an expert on the City Council Fire Establishment.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, is there no one in Singapore who has the qualifications of a Staff Officer of the Fire Service, whose salary per month is $1,421? The Airport do recruit Fire Officers on their own. Why should we, as the Government, have to recruit this officer seconded from the City Council?

Mr Hart: I think I have already answered the question, Sir, in so far as I have said that it was considered more appropriate and more desirable to make use of the services of an officer of the City Council. We merely pay him the emoluments which he would normally draw from the City Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $46,522 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 17-

The sum of $5,100 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 18-

The sum of $115 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 24-

The sum of $100,000 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 26-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $57,240 for Head 26 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, under Head 26, on page 3 of the Paper, it reads "New Subhead-Crown Agents' Agency Fees ... $57,240", which is a large sum. The explanation reads:

"The Crown Agents have found it necessary to make a one per cent charge on all payments in respect of salaries, allotments, pensions and passages, with effect from 1st April, 1958, to enable them to meet increased costs of operation. These services have hitherto been performed without charge, but necessitate the employment of a large staff. On the basis of previous payments, the cost of this charge is expected to average $6,360 per month."

The question arises, Sir, why a service that has been performed without charge up to the 1st of April this year should suddenly require such a tremendous charge. We would like to know whether bulk purchases through the Crown Agents have fallen to such a low figure that it is not remunerative any more for the Crown Agents to perform such services for us, which they have done for the last 50 odd years, I believe. This is a very large sum, Sir, and I think we should require quite a lot of explanation before we can part with $57,000.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I want to know further, Mr Chairman, Sir, whether this charge has been made in respect of only certain colonies or whether it is a general provision now. If, in fact, it is a general provision and not one directed at Singapore alone, and if I understand what is intended by the explanatory note, we can easily avoid paying this $57,240 by making all salaries, allotments, pensions and passages payable from Singapore. If anybody wants to collect his salary or pension in the United Kingdom, then he pays the one per cent. Why should the Government pay for him?

Mr Hart: The Crown Agents, Sir, have performed many services for this Government as well as for the other governments in the Commonwealth and for many governments outside the Commonwealth. In respect of the various services which they perform, they normally charge a fee. For example, if they purchase materials on our behalf and inspect the materials while they are being manufactured and inspect them on delivery, they charge a fee. Similarly, they charge a small fee for supervising the operation of our loans, or surplus balances in London and for the handling of our cash balances in London. Hitherto, they have not made a charge in respect of the payment of salaries, allotments, pensions and passages and other matters which are connected with personnel. They have managed to meet the proportion of their total charges which these services represent from income from other sources; but with the very considerable increase in their overhead charges in recent months - an increase in the salaries of the staff employed in London, and increases in staff to deal with the increased volume of business - they have found it necessary to levy a charge on the various governments who make use of their services for the performance of these services. They made an approach to the Secretary of State who considered the matter, and it was subsequently recommended to all the governments that this charge was an appropriate charge for the services performed in this connection. We were then asked by the Secretary of State if we would agree to this levy, and in the circumstances, we considered that we had no option but to do so. We have been into this matter with considerable care and do feel that it is a legitimate charge in all the circumstances of the case. When you consider the volume of business which the Crown Agents do for us, I do not think that it is an inappropriate amount to pay and I hope that hon. Members of the Assembly will agree to provide money for its payment.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, for many years it has been the practice for officers of this service of the Government of Singapore and of all the other governments in the Commonwealth to have their leave salaries, pensions and other emoluments drawn from Government paid in London. The question of making a charge for these payments has never hitherto been raised. I do not think we would be justified at this particular juncture to say to these officers that, if they wish to have their pensions or salaries to be continued to be paid in London, or in the case of the local officers who are doing courses in London or in the British Isles generally, they should pay this one per cent charge levied by the Crown Agents. I think it is an appropriate charge on Government and I hope that hon. Members will agree with me in that respect.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, there was no charge before for paying people their leave pay, pensions, and so on in the United Kingdom, because nobody charged us for it. But if we are going to be charged by the British Government for making use of their services to pay pensions and salaries while officers are on leave, it is only appropriate that these officers or retired officers either agree to pay the one per cent charge, or arrange to have their pensions collected in Singapore. I see nothing immoral in standing on our rights. In fact, I think it will be immoral on the part of this Assembly to incur further charges just for the convenience of these officers, and because the British Government have decided that they will no longer bear the expense of the distribution of the money.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, from the Hon. Minister's reply, I take it that the volume of purchases through the Crown Agents has not diminished at all; possibly it is still increasing because the price of goods has increased. The only justification so far is that this sum is required to meet the increased cost of salaries of the staff; but to my mind the volume of business that they get from us has a very important bearing on this question whether we should agree to this one per cent charge. In any case, I think that one per cent for just payment of salaries and pensions is a very high charge. Why is it not possible for the Treasury here to arrange with one of the local banks, say the Chartered Bank or the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank - or one of the very efficient banks here - for their accounts to be paid locally into the officer's account and let the banks handle it? We can save three-quarters of this money. I am quite sure that the banks would not charge more than a quarter per cent for collecting salaries and pensions on behalf of government servants on leave.

Mr Hart: Sir, I am not in a position to say what the banks would charge for this particular function, but I think I am right in saying that we guarantee pensions under the Pensions Ordinance to be paid at 2s. 4d to a dollar. If pensions were paid locally, or if the salaries or any other payments to be made to officers in Britain were paid locally and the money remitted to London, they would do so at a loss to themselves and Government would fail to meet its obligation to pay their salaries or their pensions or any other emoluments at the rate of 2s. 4d to a dollar. As I say, Sir, it could be argued that the officers themselves should bear this new charge. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that this is a charge which Government, as a fair and benevolent employer, should bear on behalf of the officers.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I must say that this point has not been thoroughly ventilated yet. I would like the answer to my question to be made more fully. I would like the banks to quote us rates for the collection of monies. I am quite sure that there will not be any loss to the Government servant. I think the exchange rate is less 1/8 th of one per cent, in which case there would be no loss at all to the Government servant: whereas we can save something of this large sum every year. Sir, may I move that this item be held over to the next sitting? May I move an amendment?

The Chairman: Notice of an amendment needs two days. I think all that the hon. Member can do is to vote against the Question. The other alternative, of course, is to request the Estimates Committee to look into the matter, but in so far as this Committee is concerned, I must put the Question and take a vote.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Possibly, Sir, may I suggest that the Hon. the Financial Secretary might like to ask this matter to be adjourned?

The Chairman: I do not think our procedure allows a splitting of a matter of this nature. All I can do now is to take a vote on the Head.

Mr Hart: May I suggest, Sir, that hon. Members vote for the sum required on the understanding that we will examine the whole matter and perhaps report to the Estimates Committee? We merely have to vote money for the rest of the year.

The Chairman: Those are details which really should not be ventilated in this Committee. I have allowed details to be mentioned for information, but in so far as a debate is concerned, it must be on the principle of the service for which the money is required, and all I can do now is to put the Question to the House and take a vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $57,240 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 8-

The sum of $715 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 48-

The sum of $23,669 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D43-

The sum of $176,545 for Head D43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D48-

The sum of $1,038,038 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The sum of $1,219,777 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 $1,219,777 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. 21 of 1958.