APPROPRIATION BILL

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.08 a.m.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Head 1-

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely want to seek information on this Head and, if you will permit me, Sir, I will take the two items standing in my name together, namely:

(1) That the sum to be allotted for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

(2) That the sum to be allotted for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1 therein.

Of course, nothing is laid down as to how long the Governor will draw his salary. It all depends on when the new Constitution comes into being. But then on item (2) $10 is reserved there. I understand that for six months - if I am wrong, I stand corrected - both the posts of Yang di-Pertuan Negara and United Kingdom Commissioner will be held by one person, but later on the post of Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be separate from the post of the United Kingdom Commissioner. Who will be paying for the salary of the United Kingdom Commissioner? Ordinarily, it is the British Government which should pay for its own man but, at the same time, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be Her Majesty's representative. Is the United Kingdom sharing any of the expenditure and salary? I only seek information, Sir.

The Chairman: It has been proposed as an amendment, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein."

Hon. Members may, if they so desire, range over the next amendment standing in the name of the Member for Telok Ayer, namely, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1 therein."

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Governor on the coming into force of the new Constitution will be the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and at the same time the United Kingdom Commissioner, half his salary will be paid by the British Government and the other half by the Singapore Government. When the Malayan Yang di-Pertuan Negara takes office, all his emoluments will be paid by Singapore.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member withdrawing his amendment?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, in view of the explanation given, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $326,540 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 2-

The sum of $1,871,890 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 3-

The sum of $156,680 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 4-

The sum of $537,710 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 5-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $254,300 for Head 5 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to place on record the wonderful job done by the Public Service Commission. At the same time, Sir, I want to remind the Commission of two points. First, it is about the recognition of foreign degrees. This question has long been pending. I wonder when the Public Service Commission will be able to decide on the recognition of foreign degrees, including those of America and China, because I think this can contribute greatly towards helping the Minister for Education to solve the salary tangle with the Chinese school teachers.

Secondly, I wish also to remind the Public Service Commission about the number of graduates from the Chinese middle schools. Are they prepared to encourage as many as they can of these graduates to get into the public service?

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the recognition of degrees other than Commonwealth degrees, the Public Service Commission have submitted an Interim Report, and I believe the final Report has already been forwarded to my Ministry. I have not considered the final Report yet. I will make a statement later as regards the recognition of such degrees.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, I am only interested in degrees other than Commonwealth degrees, such as American, which are foreign degrees.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the Member for Changi on the question of recognition of foreign degrees other than Commonwealth degrees. I think it is high time that the Public Service Commission should consider recognising degrees other than British Commonwealth degrees in education as well as in all the other professions. In the past we have had no alternative but to accept what the British Government wanted us to accept. On the eve of self-government, I think it is high time that we should review the whole matter.

10.15 a.m.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: From what I gather from the Interim Report, it does not confine itself only to the question of recognizing degrees of holders of teaching posts. It is an overall question on which the Public Service Commission have already given us a final Report.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Sir, I am in favour of the views expressed by the Minister for Education. Although I welcome the recognition of degrees of other countries, we must be very careful. Sir, I have been to many countries in the East which have a lot of so-called universities and colleges, and, from personal knowledge, I would say that if we were to accept at random their degrees, then, I am afraid we would not be able to provide suitable education for the people here.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $254,300 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 6-

The sum of $646,470 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 7-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, to initiate a discussion, I have selected this item for discussion.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is moving?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, the Chief Minister's post in any democratic country is a post of honour. People select him because of the services he has rendered to the country. This has happened in India, Burma, Ceylon and many other countries where they have had to fight for their freedom. Similarly with the other Ministers. Here, of course, with the progress of time, the colonial powers - the United Kingdom is the only colonial power left in the Far East - are giving us constitutional progress, and we have now come to the stage of internal self-government.

Sir, the Chief Minister's post carries a salary comparable to that of the Chief Secretary, and the Chief Justice - he is above them. But let me explain further. As I have said in my speech on the Budget the salary structure is too high. The local man has not got to run two homes. He stays in his home. He might possibly be shifted in future to a different one, i.e. the Government provide residence and other benefits. Sir, I would suggest that as we are replacing the White men with our local men, their salaries should be fixed by the incoming Government per local requirements. I also want to know who is going to fix the salary of the Prime Minister of the incoming Government and whether the salary of the present Chief Minister will be allowed to continue. I would suggest that the incoming Government consider my points in the interests of the taxpayers. They should not pay the Chief Minister the maximum for such a post of honour, but should reduce his salary and the salaries of the Ministers as well to suit the local needs.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, when the Rendel Constitution came into force, there was nothing in the Budget regarding payments of salaries to be made to Ministers and, therefore, the first Government which came into office under that Constitution had to consider what salaries were fair for Ministers. A motion was brought before this House in 1955 and the salaries suggested by the Council of Ministers were adopted by this Assembly. If I remember rightly, it was even pointed out by one Member of the Opposition that the Government was rather cautious in its recommendations, and that particular Member of the Opposition felt that the salary of $3,500 for the Chief Minister of Singapore was, in his view, inadequate.

Be that as it may, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, may I say to him that when the new Constitution comes into force next year, it will be the Assembly which will have to fix the remuneration of the Prime Minister. For the present, while it may appear to the hon. Member that $3,500 is rather high, may I point out to him that out of 12 months' salary, two months' salary is being paid out as income tax?

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I am afraid I am unable to agree with the Member for Telok Ayer. Sir, the Chief Minister's post is very important. We can say that it is an honour to whoever holds that post. But a man cannot do the work if he is incapable. The Chief Minister has a lot of responsibilities and he has entertainment expenses which I do not think he would like to charge to the Government, although he is entitled to term the expenses as "official". There are also contributions and other expenses which he could not really charge to the Government. Therefore, if the salary of $3,500 appears to the Member for Telok Ayer to be excessive, may I ask him what he considers an ordinary professional man should earn?

The Chairman: Order. I think hon. Members are doing exactly what they are not supposed to do in Committee of Supply. In Committee of Supply, the debate is really on the general principles of Government policy. A debate of this nature, of course, could be properly conducted in the Estimates Committee.

As I have always pointed out in the past, I have permitted hon. Members to ventilate what they think ought to be ventilated, and that is all, but a debate should not develop around those subjects.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Sir, I want to take part in the discussion with the Opposition Members as to the salaries to be fixed.

The Chairman: Order. I thought I did indicate that I am stopping the debate on this particular item.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: I consider the amount of salary for the Chief Minister should not be less than $3,500.

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member should now stop at that.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Chief Secretary -

The Chairman: We are on the Chief Minister!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am so sorry. Sir.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the amendment moved by the Member for Telok Ayer on the salary of the Chief Minister, I personally do not consider that it is too much or too little. If the Chief Minister has done a good job, he deserves all that he earns and more - he also deserves our gratitude. If the job is not done properly then we know what our feelings should be towards him.

Sir, on the subject of the Chief Minister's office, I have noticed that for three long years the Chief Minister has also been the Minister for Labour and Welfare and that the Chief Minister's post is one without a portfolio.

However, I notice that this year there is going to be added another department called the Rural Development Department with a Commissioner appointed. I think not only are Members in this House grateful for that appointment, but also all the people in Singapore, especially those in the rural areas. It is a long time since anybody mentioned the rural areas. Attention has been focussed on the city and the rural folks have been left to do what they can for themselves and with whatever means they have at their command. In fact, in comparing the Rural Board to the City Council, I think the Rural Board is a very poor cousin, one of the very poor relatives who are always living from hand to mouth, holding out their hands and begging for money and then finding that not much is forthcoming, or what is coming will never be sufficient for any project. The people in the city live in houses made of brick, mortar and stones and supplied with modern sanitation, but the people in the rural areas live in attap huts. While the people in the city have good, well-lighted and well-metalled roads to move about, the people in the rural areas must content themselves with moving along unmade-up roads, or even roads that are almost impassable. Bridges in the city area may cost as much as a few million dollars, whereas in the rural areas you may still find the one-log bridge - the trunk of a coconut tree felled and placed across a river or stream to form a bridge. We find that the health problem in the city is well looked after, with many clinics spotted all over the place, whereas in the rural areas they are few and far between. Sir, all these are just a few of the examples of how the rural people have always been treated by the Government.

10.30 a.m.

Today, as we look through the whole Budget we find that the Chief Minister has remembered the rural people. He has appointed a Commissioner to deal directly with the problem of rural development. I am sure this scheme is going to help the rural folks in giving them more amenities. I am aware that work has already been started, and that roads are being made. Many of the unemployed are finding this Department a useful means of gaining their self-respect, by earning their money instead of getting it from the Social Welfare Department. But I would like the Chief Minister to remember that not only is the work that is in progress important and must be carried out but that more of such work must be done. Work should be selected from all areas in Singapore based on population concentration and requirements with a view to long-term development. I would also urge the Chief Minister to make known to the people the nature of this work, and that the people should actively co-operate with the Government to help themselves. I would like to see a scheme whereby the Government is identified with the people. I would like to see it not only welcomed and praised by the people but that the people should show their willingness to co-operate with the Government by coming out and contributing what they can for their own welfare.

Let me take an example, Sir. Suppose we have a stretch of road that must be repaired. I do not want to see just the Government coming along with their employees repairing that stretch of road and then going away quietly. It does not give the people a feeling that something is being done especially for them. I would like to see the request coming from the people for making up or repairing of roads or bridges and that it be channelled to the Commissioner of Rural Development. Thereafter, there may be a conference between government officers and the people concerned, and a plan drawn up whereby the people will assist the Government in pointing out those places that need repair. Those who can come along to help voluntarily will come forward to help in that capacity, thus showing that they are not helping because they are paid, but because they have a sense of civic responsibility. Then also, they could, by discussion between them and the Government, get the Government away from the usual red tape of doing exactly what the people do not want them to do, and do instead the right thing. In fact, I know many projects where Government officials want to implement their pet schemes without consulting the people, and they ended in failure. Here is an opportunity for great participation, where the people can be consulted and where they can give their best ideas to the Government.

Sir, I am only quoting an example of road building or road repairing. There are other things the Government can do. Perhaps Government can assist the people in large scale fruit plantation. Perhaps we may have Government loaning out tractors for ploughing agricultural areas, and in that way save a lot of trouble for the people. Perhaps the Government may assist the people in poultry and pig rearing. Government may perhaps be able to give these hard-working rural folks a new store. Or Government may be able to give them poultry, cattle, goats or pigs in order to breed better strains and in order to increase their production. I think a host of these things can be done for the people if the Government will go to them.

I would like, of course, the Chief Minister to let us know more details about these schemes, especially in this Assembly, so that they may be conveyed to the people and the people will know that the Government are going all out to help them, and help them in the right way.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to repeat what I already said on the Second Reading on Friday; but on this subject of the Rural Development Panel which the hon. Member for Serangoon has brought up - the Commissioner and the members on his Panel - I would like to ask the Chief Minister how he reconciles the decentralisation of local government, which is going to go forward through the District Councils, with the centralisation in the opposite direction which is being proposed through this new Panel. I would refer again to page 466 of the Estimates, to the notes on the Head which we are discussing at this moment; the reference to the fact that the "activities of various Departments and organisations concerned with the rural areas have tended to be unco-ordinated in the past"; and this co-ordination which is to be brought about through the setting up of the Rural Development Panel, consisting of the Heads of Departments concerned with rural development - a purely Government Department. As I pointed out on Friday, there is no reference to District Councillors or Chairman of District Councils being represented on this Panel, so that the District Councils elected through the people can be brought into close touch with this centralisation scheme. As I already elaborated on Friday - and I do not want to do it again - I do suggest that we should give very serious thought to making an entirely fresh appraisal of the way in which our administration is being carried out, for we cannot afford various Councils at various levels - Government (or national), City Council and District Councils. Will the Chief Minister not agree that the expenses involved should be looked into afresh so that we might possibly streamline our administration for a very small island much more inexpensively and, at the same time, more efficiently?

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind the hon. Member for Telok Ayer about what he said on the question of the Chief Minister's salary, when that question was originally brought up. I am not sure whether you have closed the question on the debate.

The Chairman: Order. I have, in fact, closed the debate on the salary itself. The debate can of course be pursued, as I have indicated.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, rural development is a very important part of any elected Government's activities in any country. Our rural areas happen to be not very big compared with the rural areas in most countries which have a large land mass. Perhaps it is for that reason that rural development has been neglected in the past. I personally think that the real reason why rural development was neglected in the past is because the Government in those days was mainly interested in Singapore's progress as a commercial centre, and therefore the concentration on development was more on the city itself, which played a part in the commercial development of Singapore. Not much interest was therefore taken in the rural areas which were not directly contributing to the commercial progress of Singapore.

Things have changed, Sir, since the last few years. Rural development now assumes a more important role in our economy, because the commercial progress of Singapore is slowly dwindling, with the result that we have to rely more and more on our home production and cut down on imports. For that reason, Sir, I have always advocated that the development of the rural areas should receive better encouragement from the Government, so that we may be able to produce more of our own foodstuffs at home and thereby depend less on imported foodstuffs, and spend less money on imported foodstuffs. The progress made because of rural development has been phenomenal in the last three years, as I have often stated in this House and outside. We have been able to achieve remarkable progress in poultry rearing. Production of poultry has increased from 5 million to 25 million.

Our rural development assistance consists of three phases. In the first phase, attention has been given to the elimination of risk which the fanner would normally, take because of the disease factor in the livestock. Once that risk is lessened, then the farmer would proceed to go into livestock production in a big way.

The second factor is that farmers should be given the advantage of scientific knowledge which has been accrued over the years, and, therefore, the second phase is to give them that knowledge through research work carried out in Singapore by specialists.

The third phase will be to encourage the farmer to enter the export market and thereby create a new industry for Singapore. We should earn money by these exports.

There again research is important. It should also be part of Government's policy to carry out further research in order not only to eliminate the disease factor in poultry rearing, but also to cut down the cost and the time of production, so that the ultimate cost would be cheaper, and therefore the farmer would be able to compete in the export market. In fact, that is what is happening now.

We are now not only self-sufficient in pigs, about 60 per cent of which used to be imported in 1955, but we are actually exporting them to neighbouring countries.

10.45 a.m.

Sir, reference was made by the Member for Tanglin to a statement in the Budget that rural development was not co-ordinated in the past. That was so, Sir, because rural development consists of various aspects which were being handled by different Ministries.

For instance, land alienation and resettlement were in the hands of the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing; the development of roads and bridges was in the hands of the Ministry of Communications and Works; assistance to farmers in the raising of livestock and agricultural production, the use of fertilisers, germicides and so on, were in the hands of my Ministry.

Now, that would mean that three or four Ministries were handling rural development from different aspects. It was necessary to have a co-ordinating body to centralize the work, so that all aspects of rural development would go hand in hand and the whole project would not lag behind because one aspect had lagged behind. That is why the Government decided last year to form a Rural Development Panel and, as I explained to the House last year, it was thought that the best person to co-ordinate the activities of the various Ministries would be the Chief Minister. He could then issue directives to the Ministries concerned, saying, "I want this aspect to forge ahead", and could ask questions as to why one aspect was not going ahead, thereby holding up other rural development work, and so on.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin also raised another point - why no reference was made to District Councils playing a part in rural development.

The fact that they were not mentioned does not mean that they will not be consulted, but since the rural development envisaged in the Budget is a matter of Government expenditure out of the public revenue, that is, Government revenue, it is only fit that the Panel should consist of Government department heads. But it is quite clear that wherever any matter concerns the District Councils, the Rural Development Commissioner would consult them and get their opinion on the subject. Any definite decision has got to be made only by the Panel because it is Government money that is being spent.

Mr John Ede: Sir, I would not like it to be thought - and I think my hon, friend who has just spoken rather implied it - that I was against centralisation, the Rural Development Panel and the necessity of having a co-ordinating body for improving our rural areas. I am very much in favour of them. But in these days of economic difficulties, I think we' should consider whether we can afford the luxury of having so many administrative bodies on a small island, and whether we should not think afresh about greater centralisation rather than greater decentralisation of local government - which is the way in which we are moving at present. It is not too late for us to reconsider and give a further appraisal to this whole problem. It has been sparked off, I think, by the fact that the Government have found it necessary to set up this Panel to look after the interests of local farmers and the people living and working in the rural areas.

Sir, there are many problems connected with development of our livestock production and our egg production. There has been an enormous advance in the last few years, and it has been a very welcome one. At the same time, it has its dangers and its difficulties.

I think the Minister for Commerce and Industry will agree with me that egg production has probably dropped in the last six or nine months, the reason being that, because of the enormous increase in egg production, the price of eggs has dropped, I think, from 14 or 13 cents to something like 10 cents. That is because there has been overproduction. A lot of the farmers in the rural areas are fighting shy of going in for poultry because of this drop. They are unable to make both ends meet in keeping poultry. As a result of this, the price of eggs has begun to rise again and perhaps found its economic level somewhere around 13 cents.

Now, the problem here - maybe the Minister can inform us - is whether we can cheapen feeding stuffs for poultry, so that the price of eggs can drop and the farmers can make a living. That is the crux of the whole problem. In the good old days, as we sometimes call them, there was the kampong hen which could scratch around wherever it liked in the neighbourhood of the village, eating whatever there was off the ground, and it produced one egg a week. You can call that pure gain. Now that our new methods are concentrated methods, possibly a hen could produce four eggs a week, but if it costs three and a half eggs in foodstuffs to produce them it is not pure gain.

That is the problem with which we are faced in Singapore, and it is one which certainly requires a Rural Development Panel to look into and to centralise all our methods.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I am glad that my amendment has aroused so much discussion. When I moved this amendment - of course, I knew it will be the next Assembly that will fix the salaries of the Ministers - it was just to initiate a discussion and to give a warning to the incoming Assembly. The reason is this -

The Chairman: Order. I think I did make it quite clear that there cannot be a debate on the salaries as such. A debate on that can take place in the Estimates Committee. We are now on the policy of the Government covered by the Chief Minister's Ministry.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, on principle I am discussing it, and the principle is this - whether the Colony can bear such high salaries? That is on this principle; if you will allow me, I will go on with that.

The Chairman: Order. On the question of salaries as a whole - I may be wrong, and the Chief Secretary will correct me if I am wrong - that will come under the Ministry of the Chief Secretary. If the hon. Member wishes to speak on salaries as a whole, he can, of course, do so when he comes to the Chief Secretary's Ministry.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Mr Chairman, Sir, I think it is correct that the salaries of the Civil Service are matters which come under my Ministry. I would be more doubtful, Sir, in the case of remuneration of the Ministers.

The Chairman: In that event, I will permit the hon. Member for Telok Ayer to range over all the Ministers' salaries, but not the salary of any particular Minister.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, that is exactly what I meant. I will be coming to the M.C.S. salaries later on in Head 8. But here, I am concerned with salaries of the elected Ministers.

The Colony should pay salaries according to its means. These should not be so high that, as a result, the burden on the taxpayers gets heavier, as we have seen during these 3½ years. If we were to reduce the salaries of the Ministers, who are elected by the people, it would be possible to bring down the salaries of others.

The cost of administration, as I have said in my speech on the Budget, takes up 55 or 65 per cent of our revenue. How are you going to start building up Singapore's financial position in a sound way if we are to pay as we have been paying the expatriates? As I have pointed out, I am not against the expatriates, because they had to run two homes. But my suggestion, on principle, is this - that the cut in salaries should start at the top and then the administration cost will come down. That will reduce the burden on the taxpayers; it will increase the trade and industry of the Colony; it will bring down the cost of living, and we will then be able to compete with others.

Sir, I move my amendment on principle.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The Member for Tanglin, Sir, has brought out one or two points on rural development which I think need explaining.

It is true that egg production has taken a slight dip in the last few months. The reason was not only because there was greater egg production, but also because there was strong competition from eggs from China. The increase in egg production brought down the price from 14 cents to about 11 cents. Then came the competition from China eggs which further brought down the price to eight cents. The farmers found that this was an uneconomical price, and, therefore, production was lessened.

Since we took the stand that all imported eggs should be stamped, it has put a little curb on unfair competition and has resulted in the farmers taking an interest again in increasing egg production. At the present moment, egg imports from China have considerably lessened, not because of the stamping requirement, but because, I think, of the seasonal shortage in China.

Sir, on the question of cheaper feeding stuffs for livestock. Feeding stuffs are imported, except probably a little bit that is found here in Singapore. The price of feeding stuffs is beyond the control of the Government. We have to depend on the market prices prevailing in the supplying countries.

However, what we are now doing is carrying out research into the dietetics of livestock and, if we succeed, we may be able to find a mean diet which will be cheaper than, and just as nutritious as, the present diet provided by the farmers. If we can do that, I am sure we can cheapen the cost of poultry and pig production.

The other point which the hon. Member raised was that Singapore cannot afford to have more of such bodies as District Councils, City Council and the Rural Development Panel. But this Panel is not paid, Sir,It is just a co-ordinating Panel of Government officials who receive no extra pay. Only the Commissioner and his Department do. That will be necessary in any case if concentration is to be directed to rural development. You need a person in charge and a department with him - the field workers - and that is why this Department is created. The Panel is just to give the Commissioner advice on how to proceed and how to get co-ordination.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Chairman, Sir, while listening to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer about the reduction of the cost of living if the salaries of Ministers are reduced, I did some quick arithmetic.

There are six elected Ministers, five of whom are drawing $2,500 each per month. The five Ministers will be drawing $150,000 in all and the Chief Minister will be drawing $42,000, making a total of $192,000 a year.

If to this amount we add the remuneration of three more Ministers for next year - their total remuneration come to $90,000 - $192,000 plus $90,000 will make $282,000. Does the hon. Member for Telok Ayer seriously mean to say that the whole of the $282,000 should be scrapped to reduce the cost of living to the public? Or does he mean to say -

The Chairman: Order. The Minister is now inviting a debate. I have been trying to keep the debate on a proper level and he is now going into details, and that is exactly what the Standing Order says he must not do. Can I remind hon. Members of paragraph (11) of Standing Order 69 which reads:

"On any question in the Committee of Supply debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided and shall not deal with the details of expenditure, but may refer to the details of revenues or funds for which that service is responsible."

I think we have had enough on salaries. Shall we go on to the Ministry itself?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I would like to explain the position. I was actually talking on the policy of the remuneration of the Ministers. The hon. Member for Telok Ayer says that it will reduce the cost of living if we reduce the Ministers' salaries. I have not heard any constructive suggestions as to how this paltry sum, I would say, could affect the Budget as a whole.

11.00 a.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I do not know whether the Minister for Education has followed the trend of my argument. What I said was this. You start cutting the salaries from the top. If you work on that principle, you will bring down the cost of living.

Mr John Ede: Sir, I would like to ask further from the Chief Minister - and I hope to tempt him from his seat - whether he would say what he proposes to do or whether he proposes to do anything about considering the question of reducing our administrative expenses throughout the island by centralisation. That is a matter I raised on Friday. I raise it again now. I have stated it point by point. I hope the Chief Minister will give an assurance that he will go into this matter extremely seriously indeed. We have heard from the Minister for Commerce and Industry that a Rural Development Panel is not a very costly matter, and that it can be a Panel of extreme importance. I welcome it. I think it is a very good thing. What I am suggesting is that we can go one step further and save so much expense in administration if we streamline the whole of our administration in this very small island.

The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am at last tempted to rise from my seat! I find it difficult to understand what was the purpose of that question. Is it suggested that we should scrap the District Councils? If the hon. Member will let me know his thoughts in this matter, perhaps I can give him a more detailed reply.

Mr John Ede: Sir, I thought on Friday I made that quite clear. In view of the fact that it is quite clear that the revenue which we can obtain cannot rise very much above the present level of $264 million for 1959 - this is a rough guess; it might be closer to $300 million - and whereas it is inevitable that expenditure must rise, particularly in education, which is one of the most tricky problems we have - how to educate all our children - I put forward the thought that we cannot afford the luxuries of the democratic system but only the necessities. I felt the luxuries were to have three or four District Councils plus the City Council plus the national (or central) Government and all the other administrative bodies that we have on such a small island. I asked whether we should not all of us think again whether we can afford it and whether we should not run this island as a City State, as I put it, with a single, streamline, well-planned administrative body. I further gave the thought that if in the future we were to merge with the Federation, it would be easier for that to come about as a result of having put our own house in streamlined order.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, Sir, in my division I find there are many plots of land lying fallow. These plots of land were earmarked for persons from the Queenstown and Alexandra Road areas, but they were rejected by these people. There are, however, a lot of people in my division who would like to make use of these plots of land, and I hope the Rural Development Panel will make it easier for these people to be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, I was asking the Chief Minister this morning questions concerning the work which the Rural Development Commissioner and his Department expect to do, and I have not had a reply from the Chief Minister. I shall be obliged if he will give me a reply now.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, there was hardly any debate on the Heads which came before this Head 7, but there has been a lot of debate on my Ministry.

I can assure the hon. Member for Serangoon that all his urgings upon the Government have been taken note of by me. The Rural Development Panel will be so informed and will be instructed to give consideration to the points which he has raised this morning.

The Member for Tanglin has brought up the question of centralisation. I think it is a bit too late in the day to suggest now that there should be no District Councils. All of us in this Assembly are committed to having District Councils, a City Council and a Legislative Assembly. I am sure that when the District Councils come into operation it may be found that what the hon. Member thought would be a good thing for the whole of Singapore might be feasible. It is therefore for the incoming Government to give consideration to the points which he has raised, but I would suggest that it is now too late to say that District Councils should not be formed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I shall be glad if the Chief Minister will inform us how much money the Rural Development Department are going to spend and where the vote appears in the Budget. If it does not appear in the Budget, will it be put up as an A.S.V.?

The Chief Minister: There is no item at present in the Budget on rural development. A revised programme on rural development is being drawn up, Sir, and an A.S.V. will be submitted later.

The Chairman: I must apologise to hon. Members for the sound system, but we must carry on as best we can.

Mr John Ede: In view of the remark of the Chief Minister that a programme has still to be drawn up, will that not mean that the expenditure for next year of something like $268.5 million is not the end and that we will be faced with further expenditure which has not yet been contemplated?

The Chief Minister: Sir, an amount of about $275,000 is left to be spent this year in addition to the revote.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Sir, as a member of the McNeice Committee on Local Government, I can tell this House that we considered very thoroughly the question of the additional cost as a result of the formation of the District Councils. We felt that the efficiency of the District Councils would amply compensate for their cost. It was also recommended in the McNeice Report that, if there was not enough work for, say, the building surveyor or the sanitary inspector of one district, he would also take charge of that particular work in the nearby district, thereby saving on the cost. The McNeice Committee was represented by all Parties, including the Progressive Party Member, Mr Kulasingha, who also agreed to such a recommendation.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker. Sir, one last point. The Government feel that the District Council elections must go on. They could have come in any time after August 1957 when the Local Government Bill was passed. A year and a quarter has now gone by. Presumably another year must go by before these elections can be held. Why is it that there has been so much delay if the Government are convinced that the District Councils should come into operation?

The Chief Minister: Sir, I am sure that the hon. Member must have in his possession a copy of Sessional Paper No. L. A. 22 of 1958. It gives the Report of the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill. The Elections Ordinance has to be amended in the light of the recommendations of the Elias Commission.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $383,240 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 8-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

I move my amendment on principle, Sir. In the next Assembly we will not have any ex-officio Ministers. Sir, in a small city like Singapore we have six elected Ministers, three ex-officio Ministers and four Assistant Ministers. Will it not be wise now for one or two or even three Ministries to be amalgamated into one? The Chief Secretary is a very important Minister. In other countries I believe he is called the Minister for Home Affairs. I do not know what the incoming Government's designation will be of this Ministry, but as it will be retained, I suggest the abolition of the Ministry of Law as this Ministry can be taken over by the Minister for Home Affairs. This will reduce the cost of one Minister.

Coming now to the principle of salary reduction, Sir, can any honest person in Singapore say that the salary drawn by an expatriate Minister and local born be the same? The former has to run two houses but not the latter. If an expatriate officer is replaced, then the salary of the local man who replaces him should be according to the needs of Singapore. Now that is the proper way to judge salaries; and along with this the salaries of the other Ministers should be reduced.

On that principle, Sir, I move my amendment.

11.15 a.m.

Mr David: Sir, the first item raised by the Member for Telok Ayer was the question of economising on the number of Ministries and he made one specific suggestion as to a Ministry which might be abolished when the new Constitution comes into force. I can only say on that, Sir, that the number of Ministries under a new government must clearly be a matter for that government, and there is nothing that I can usefully say on it here except that I would remind the hon. Member that there is a limit to the amount of responsibility and work which one Minister can undertake in regard to the departments under his charge.

On the second point, Sir, of Ministers' salaries and their relationship with the salaries of ex-officio Ministers who are civil servants, I would say that the considerations which should be taken into account for fixing the salaries of Ministers are not necessarily those which are properly related to the criteria for fixing the salaries of the civil service. I do suggest to the hon. Member that there is perhaps a fundamental distinction there and that while civil service salaries are properly fixed, firstly, in relation to comparable remuneration and benefits enjoyed by persons outside the public service who carry similar responsibilities, for Ministers, it is more a matter, I think, of politics than of straight criteria for fixing civil service salaries. Ministers also must clearly be remunerated in relation to the responsibilities which they are undertaking to the electorate but not necessarily on the same basis as the civil service which provides for a career during a man's lifetime.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Hon. the Financial Secretary enlighten us on the creation of new posts? According to his speech on 3rd December, he stated that 1,584 posts were created in 1956, 1,727 in 1957 and 1,723 for 1958.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member indicate what figures he is giving?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: The figures are those given by the Hon, the Financial Secretary on the Second Reading of the Budget on 3rd December.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if we deal with one point at a time. The point that has been raised by the Member for Telok Ayer is now before the Assembly, and if the hon. Member wishes to speak specifically on that point, he can do so. If he wishes to speak on salaries in general, perhaps he will wait until the Head is proposed to the House.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I will speak later, Sir.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I am glad that the Hon. the Chief Secretary has explained how the ex-officio Ministers draw their salaries and how they would be drawing them if they were in other countries of the Commonwealth or colonies. He also explained the salary of the Minister is in relation to the political position. As such, if any person takes charge of this portfolio, then his salary should be according to the local needs, and local needs could be judged. What are the needs of ex-officio Ministers and what are the needs of the local man holding the same post? And with that, as I suggested before, the salaries should be reduced. I just bring up this amendment - I am not pressing it - for the attention of the incoming Government.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member withdrawing his amendment?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, I am not pressing the amendment. I beg to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $7,248,140 for Head 8 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, there are a few points on the Chief Secretary's Ministry which I wish to put forward for him to consider. Of course, the point of primary importance is about salaries, Sir. Is it not high time for the Government to set up a Committee to survey and study the workings and the efficiency of the public service? There is even a charge that luxuries are being enjoyed by the public service, because so many new posts have been created. That is what I just mentioned - that in 1956, there were 1,584 new posts; in 1957, 1,727; and in 1958, 1,723 new posts. These exclude the Guard and Escort Unit. A tremendous number of new posts have been created and I would like to ask whether it is possible for the Permanent Secretary (Establishment) to look into the working efficiency of the public service with a view to their improvement, or whether arrangements can be made to cut down their personal emoluments. The public outcry is this: almost 50 per cent of our revenue is spent on salaries. I think, if I am not mistaken, the expenditure on this item is the highest in the world. That is the first point I wish to put forward to Government to consider. Of course, I would like it to be borne in mind that such a rearrangement must not create any mistake as for example in our neighbouring countries where, with the cutting down of salaries, corruption increases and there is less integrity.

Coming to the second point, I wish to touch on our internal security, Sir. Although 1958 was a quiet year - no rioting and no subversive activities - the state of affairs is uncertain. The people still do not feel that they are secure in what they are entitled to enjoy. Gangsters terrorise society and I shall touch on this when we come to the Head - Police. But regarding the two measures taken by Government against subversion: the first is the striking out of certain persons from the citizenship register; the second is the banning of some publications from Hongkong and China. Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to the Hon, the Chief Secretary to consider carefully before taking drastic action to strike off from the citizenship register certain persons. I have learned that many Chinese community leaders - quite a few of them are members of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce - have laboured for this country. They have contributed a great deal to Singapore, either in providing education or giving charities, and yet their names have been struck off. Sir,I wish to take this opportunity to ask whether the Hon, the Chief Secretary will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation as to what circumstances have decided him that such persons' names should be struck off from the citizenship register.

Coming to the banning of publications, Sir. Despite the announcement made that over 400 books have been released by the Hon, the Chief Secretary, there are still thousands of publications which are already in the bookstores and libraries, and even in the hands of students and teachers. I would like to quote a specific case. Even in the English schools - because many of the English schools have Chinese lessons - there are many pamphlets and works on literature published in Peking and Hongkong and yet such publications have also been banned by the Government at the same time. Therefore, why have all these unnecessary inconveniences as a result of introducing these measures which, in the minds of the Chinese community, especially the intellectuals, are harsh and rash? Will the Hon, the Chief Secretary give a detailed explanation as to why a lot of books which have already been censored by the Chinese Secretariat - if I am not mistaken, the Government has said, "Tighten the grip and reimpose the ban on the importation of such publications" - are in the hands of many school students and individuals, and what are they going to do since such books have been officially banned by the Government but they have already bought them before the ban was imposed?

My third point is on external affairs. Since external affairs is in the hands of the United Kingdom, and also the Hon, the Chief Secretary will be responsible for this even in the future new Constitution, I wonder if the Hon. the Chief Secretary will express the public opinion of Singapore towards S.E.A.T.O., and whether the Government has decided to issue an invitation to make Singapore a rendezvous for S.E.A.T.O. meetings here? If this can be avoided, so much the better, because public opinion should be respected. And I assure you that, if you can make it possible to have a Gallup poll taken on this subject, you will find that the people here do not want to embark on any, say, cold war conflict, and unfortunately S.E.A.T.O. is one of the main controversial issues in the minds of Asians today. I wish that S.E.A.T.O. would not take Singapore as the ideal meeting place for their future meetings because the public here do not welcome them. This will stop unnecessary ill-feeling that Singapore is the Gibraltar of the East, that Singapore is a British imperialist military base. I think that is very harmful to our belief that our independence should be the cause of peaceful evolution.

11.30 a.m.

Another point on this subject of external affairs is the echo of the Afro-Asian national aspiration. From time to time meetings are held in Cairo, Djakarta or some other Afro-Asian country, and, if I am not mistaken, the Federation of Malaya has taken part in quite a number of such meetings on matters of economy and culture; and yet the Singapore Government have never for one moment considered sending a delegation or even an observer to such conferences. Therefore, what I wish to put forward to the Chief Secretary is this: the general feeling among the people here is to echo, to support, any move of the Afro-Asian national aspiration; and if we sincerely believe that the British Government are honest and happy to grant us independence then they should practise that honesty by showing us a good example and encourage us - by allowing a Singapore delegation to attend as many Afro-Asian conferences as they wish.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, the hon. Member for Changi has brought up a very important issue before this House about S.E.A.T.O. Sir, Singapore will be getting a new constitution for internal self-government, but it will have no responsibility for defence or external affairs. I do not know whether any S.E.A.T.O. meetings are held in Singapore. If they are held, I think it is improper. Meetings of such nature should be held in those territories which are members of S.E.A.T.O. Singapore is not a member. The United Kingdom Government is. Therefore, on this principle, meetings should not be held in Singapore.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a question on subhead 61 of Head 8, page 67 - Rent on Quarters. Why must Government, year in and year out, spend such a large sum of money on rent on quarters? It has already been pointed out time and time again to the Government that this unnecessary expenditure should not arise. Furthermore, Government should not waste public money on such a silly item.

As we all know, Sir, most of the bungalows provided for all Government officials are bungalows with two or three bedrooms with bathrooms attached. Why cannot Government make arrangements to accommodate two families in the same bungalow instead of one family living in one big bungalow of four bedrooms? Moreover, the bungalow itself occupies a very large piece of ground. The occupants of these bungalows never make use of these bungalows. I also understand that Government have to pay for the maintenance of these bungalows and their grounds.

Coming to subhead 10 in page 57, Sir - Upkeep of Chief Secretary's Residence. In the year 1958 we are spending $13,860. We have here today a sum of $4,620 which is only a part provision of this expenditure. This is unnecessary. Why must this money be spent at the expense of the taxpayer's pocket? Government should try to conserve, as many Members themselves have pointed out in this House, and should try to cut down expenditure to save money. As we all know, we have spent money unnecessarily on things like that.

Another item, Sir, is in page 59, subhead 20 - Teachers' Allowances. I would like an explanation from the Chief Secretary as to what this amount is for. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Secretary's Ministry has cost the taxpayer about $7,240,000. I am quite sure, Sir, this money can be saved. If we cannot cut it by 50 per cent, we can cut it by 40, 30 or at least 20 per cent. Look at subhead 54, page 66 - Passages and Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses. In 1958 the amount is $1,200,000. This year it is $1,130,000 - a saving of $70,000 - but that is not enough.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Sir, I have a number of points to review in a relatively short time. The hon. Member for Changi suggested that it might be useful, if I understood him right, to set up a Commission to inquire into the efficiency of the running of the Public Service with the object thereby of cutting down staffs. Sir, I very much doubt whether setting up a Commission of that kind would indeed achieve very much. A Commission could clearly only concern itself with the broad principles of Government administration, and what is clearly required in relation to the matter which the hon. Member has raised is a detailed examination so that whoever is conducting the examination can satisfy us that in any particular department or in any particular office, the work which that office or that department has to undertake is being done with the greatest economy of staff, and that all the staff are fully occupied. If the hon. Member will refer to page 64 of the Estimates, subhead 5, Assistant Secretaries (Organisation), he will see that provision has been made for three officers trained in Organisation and Methods to be appointed for this very purpose of investigating the efficiency of the working of the different offices. And I would only add to that, Sir, that in regard to the additional posts required for the Public Service year by year, to which the hon. Member referred, he must remember that year by year the Government is being called upon to do more and more, and in order to do what it undertakes to do, it has to have the necessary wherewithal to do it.

The next point the hon. Member for Changi raised was the working of the Singapore Citizenship Registration Ordinance. Sir, hon. Members will remember that the provisions inserted in that Ordinance were designed to facilitate the registration of the largest number of people in the shortest possible time, with a view to drawing up a new electoral register for the elections which it was thought at that time would be coming very shortly. Every country which provides for the naturalisation of persons not born in the country always conducts enquiries into the application made by any particular individual. It is a normal practice to provide also for referees or sponsors from responsible citizens who are themselves citizens of the country. In this particular case, all applicants who filled up a form which, on the face of it, complied with the provisions made in the Ordinance, were registered without further ado. But it was intended at the time when the Ordinance came in, that there should be a review of the registrations made during the first three months, and it was for that purpose that the provision was inserted in section 26 of the Ordinance to enable the Chief Secretary to revoke the citizenship within twelve months of the registration; but it was also made quite clear that that was no bar to a further application at a later date.

Sir, on the question of books which have been banned under the ban imposed on certain publishing houses, I can assure the hon. Member that the work is being carried on with the greatest possible speed. It is being done in consultation with the importing houses concerned who, by agreement, are acting on behalf of all the bookshops. Certain figures which I gave at a recent meeting show that there are some 500 books which have already been exempted, and I will try and ensure that that work does proceed with the greatest expedition.

Sir, the third point which the hon. Member raised was the question of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. This matter, in which he was also supported by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, seems to me to be reopening part of the Constitutional Agreement reached in 1957. It is specifically provided in that agreement (the report of the Constitutional Conference), and it has been reflected in the provision made in the Constitution that the United Kingdom Government should have full and free use of the Base in Singapore for the discharge of her defence obligations.

11.45 a.m.

Now, Sir, I am quite sure that all of us, as the hon. Member for Changi has said, would be very glad if there was no cold war and, indeed, if we could avoid getting caught up in it. But I am afraid we cannot deny its existence, nor can we deny that certain obligations have to be accepted by certain countries, of which the United Kingdom is one, to try and ensure that the cold war does not get into a hot one, or that the potential aggressive designs of other countries should not be allowed free rein. This is a matter which has been discussed fully and agreed in the Constitutional Conference, and I do not think that there is any question of reopening it at this stage.

The hon. Member also referred to the question of Afro-Asian meetings and representation by Singapore. I am not sure whether he has any particular meetings in mind, but I would only say on this, that when it comes to attending international conferences or international meetings, it is customary to wait for an invitation. I am not aware of any invitation of this kind which the Government has received and which has been turned down. I would also remind him, in connection with sending representatives to conferences of this kind, of the considerable criticisms this Government has received from time to time from the hon. Member for Telok Ayer.

The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru referred to the item for rent on quarters. That item, Sir was no doubt considered by the Estimates Committee; I do not expect that money will have to be spent. The only matter of doubt on this question of housing has been recent, and may still be during the forthcoming year -

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $7,248,140 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 9-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name.

That the sum to be allotted for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, I have been speaking on this subject from year to year - I see some people opposite me smiling. I consider the Department of Broadcasting a haven for white men who are drawing big salaries. A reduction of salaries or a reduction of personnel could be made. This would result in economy and lessen the burden on the taxpayers.

It is only recently that we hear that Singapore will be running its own broadcasting, and that it may be run on a commercial basis. I would suggest to the incoming Government that, instead of making the Department a burden on taxpayers, they should make it self-supporting and revenue earning.

Sir, I would like to enquire from the present Government as to how many expatriate officers are now on the staff of Broadcasting and in what grades; how many local men have been sent for training overseas, and when can they replace the expatriate officers, so that the Department of Broadcasting can be run by local men.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of broadcasting, a question has been tabled regarding the deletion of certain dialects from news broadcasts. I understand that representations have been made to the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary on that subject. We have had a reply from the Ministers saying that the representations will be considered, but up to today we have had no clear-cut views from the Government.

I would like to remind the Chief Secretary that Radio Malaya, or broadcasting, exists for one very important function and that is to keep the people informed of what the Government are doing, and all the important things that are happening in this country. Now, that is of the utmost importance. After that come cultural or entertaining broadcasts. But we must always remember that broadcasting exists primarily for the communication of ideas - important ideas which affect the people most intimately. If we take away that aspect of its function, then Radio Malaya, or any other medium of broadcasting, is no more than any ordinary form of entertainment, like that of a cinema or even a concert.

On the matter of informing the people, it is important that news broadcasts should reach out to all types of people. I venture to suggest that if we cut down trivial entertainment broadcasts so that the time may be saved for more broadcasts of news items it will serve a much more useful purpose to the people. It is no use if a small number of people know a great deal of Government affairs and the rest of the people are excluded from knowing what Government are doing or are trying to tell them. News that is important should be conveyed to one and all, and not to selected people.

Representations on this matter have been made to the Government by responsible people and by very many important guilds and associations. The Ministers have given their reply that they will consider this matter. I hope they have interviewed all the representatives so as to get a clear picture of what the people want. I certainly hope that the Government will not ignore their pleas and their representations and do away with this aspect of broadcasting which might keep them informed of what the Government are wanting to do, and co-operate with them.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to endorse the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Serangoon.

Sir, let us recollect the question I raised at the last sitting of this Assembly when I asked the Chief Secretary on what grounds the Government had decided to cut down the news item in the vernacular dialects. I was astonished to hear the Chief Secretary say that it had only been decided to cut the news item, but that the period for entertainment still remained the same. This, Sir, is indeed astonishing. For what purpose are the Government running the Department of Broadcasting? Is it solely to entertain our people? If so, the decision to continue with the entertainment programmes in Teochew, Kheh, Hylam, Foochow is correct. But the Broadcasting Department's policy is not merely to entertain the people, but to inform the people. The decision to strike off the news item is therefore wrong, especially when there are more than 200,000 Teochews, Khehs, Hylams and Foochow. Many of them are illiterate. They cannot write or read the newspapers, and the only source of information for them is from the radio or Rediffusion. The policy of this Government is to cut down these news items, but they are ready to continue with the Turf Club broadcasts, race by race, in order to encourage more people to play the "Wan Tse Piao Chap" which is an illegal lottery.

12.00 noon.

The bookmakers actually have to pay a big reward to the Broadcasting Department for helping them to run an illegal lottery and have illegal bookmaking.

If the Government really consider that broadcasting time is insufficient, why do they not increase broadcasting time by having two shifts of workers? Instead of finishing off at 11 o'clock at night, make it 12 midnight and cut down many of the nonsensical items in the English programmes especially the sexy jazz music.

Sir, I strongly oppose the Chief Secretary's decision to cut down the news item broadcasts in the vernacular units, despite strong representations from dignified and very respected guilds and associations, as indicated by the hon. Member for Serangoon. The voice of the people cannot be over-ruled just like that!

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Speaker Sir, I also oppose the closing down of the news broadcast in Teochew.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Mr Speaker Sir, the Teochew community, I was told in this House, is more than 200,000 and it would really be a pity if they were to be cut off from broadcasting.

As the hon. Member for Changi has mentioned, if the main idea of broadcasting is for entertainment, then, Sir, it does not make much difference. But, unfortunately, the purpose of having a radio station is to provide an information service which will tell the people actually what is going on. So if this medium of Chinese dialects were cut off, it would be very difficult for the masses of the Teochew community to know what is going on all the world over and, in particular, in Singapore.

I think the Government should reconsider this matter very carefully before they decide to cut off this Teochew dialect, which is one of the other dialects they want to cut off.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to get a reply from the Hon, the Chief Secretary. The collection from broadcast listeners' licences in the year 1957 was $1,135,000; in the year 1958 it is $1,129,000; and in 1959, it is expected to be $1,213,400.

What I cannot understand, Sir, is that year in and year out this figure remains almost the same. I am quite sure we sell more radio sets in Singapore today, or every year that passes, and yet the figure remains stationary. There is no improvement at all.

And talking about Teochew broadcasts, I, for one, will support its retention. I am a radio dealer, Sir, and I know with certainty that 60 per cent of the purchasers of radio sets from me are from the Teochew community and, in their applications for licences, they stated that they wanted to hear Teochew broadcasts. I can vouch for that, Sir, because I have been in the trade since 1946.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Sir, the hon. Member for Telok Ayer raised the matter of the future of Radio Malaya which, as he informed the House, has been his practice year after year.

Clearly, this is not a matter on which I can commit an incoming government; but the present policy, as has been announced, is to provide a commercial service in Radio Malaya, or Radio Singapore as it will be then, with a view to obtaining revenue which we hope will go some way to offsetting the declining contribution from the Federation towards the upkeep of broadcasting in Singapore as and when they are able to develop their own services.

I would point out, Sir, that in regard to the expenditure provided under Broadcasting, which he refers to, I think, as being a burden on the public purse, he will see, at the foot of page 76, that that expenditure is offset by appropriate revenue through listeners' licences and through contributions from the Federation.

The estimate in respect of the contribution from the Federation of Malaya - $2,000,000 - is drawn up on the basis which has been in operation up to now, of adding together the broadcasting expenses of the two territories and then dividing or apportioning the cost according to the number of licence holders in each territory.

The financial negotiations still being conducted with the Federation have not yet been completed and I, therefore, cannot say what the final figure will be under that head for 1959.

He also referred, Sir, to the expatriate staff in this Department and asked for information.

Sir, out of a total figure of 20 expatriate staff at the time the Malayanisation proposals were introduced, the staff is now down to 10 and is, therefore, cut down by 50 per cent and this has been kept in line with the scheme set out in the Malayanisation White Paper.

There are local officers both on scholarships overseas and also the University of Malaya here for taking up higher responsibilities in the Department. I am afraid I have not the figures to hand but I will supply them to the hon. Member.

On the question of Chinese broadcasts, Sir, I would like to reiterate what I said when I announced this attempt to improve the standard of Chinese broadcasts, that the only object of the Government in endeavouring to cut down the amount of time spent on repetition of news broadcasts is in order to improve the service for the Chinese population as a whole.

Every Member who has spoken in this House, has spoken solely on what it is going to mean to the Teochew community if these news broadcasts are cut. But I have not heard any word on behalf of the other communities for whom the proposals are designed to produce a better service.

I have been into the matter further and despite the figures which I gave the House at the time, I made the first announcement that broadcasts of news bulletins at present occupy 10½ hours out of a total weekly broadcast of 83½ hours, I can tell the House that we will arrange to retain the Teochew broadcast - the news broadcast - and, in fact that will mean - maybe the incoming Government may wish to review it - that we do not make any alteration, at any rate for the time being. We will not make any change for the time being in respect of the present Teochew broadcasts.

It was suggested, Sir, that it was important that broadcasting should be used for cultural and educative purposes rather than for entertainment. Here again, Sir, I pointed out when I made this announcement that the object of revising and reforming the present Chinese broadcasts was in order to be able to give the opportunity for improving the educative nature of these broadcasts.

It was also suggested that it was important that all listeners should be able to listen in to Radio Malaya in order to understand what the Government wanted to give them but I would stress on that, Sir, that the Department of Broadcasting is not an instrument of Government policy and it is not in any way a means whereby any particular political party which is in power at the time should influence the electorate and those who are listening to broadcasts. Its presentation of news and other matters should be entirely unbiased and impartial and that is what this Department always seeks to achieve.

Mention was made, Sir, of racing broadcasts, I think. That has, I am advised, ceased some considerable time ago and has not been renewed.

It was also suggested by the hon. Member for Changi, that we should improve the broadcasting service by increasing the hours of broadcasting, and I think he mentioned the possibility of working staff in two shifts. But, in the light of the criticisms that we have already had from the hon. Member for Telok Ayer in regard to the expenditure under this Head, I think any idea of doubling the number of programme staff in order to provide a larger and longer broadcasting service is clearly not in the picture, at any rate at the present time and having regard to the standstill nature of the 1959 Budget.

I will conclude, Sir, by referring, firstly, to the matter of licence fees to which the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru drew attention. I have no doubt he is certainly correct in saying that radio sets are being sold every day, and if they are being used in Singapore, then we hold that the owners of those radio sets should take out listeners' licences, and I hope that the listeners themselves would accept their proper obligation in this respect, because it is not at all easy to chase after and detect the unlicensed receivers. But what can be done certainly will be done and is being done.

I would also point out to the House, in relation to the expenditure of this Department for 1959, that the estimates do in fact show a saving of roughly $450,000 on the estimates for 1958.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, there are only five minutes to go and I wish to be correct. Just now, when we were talking about the Chinese section of vernacular broadcasting, we did appeal also on behalf of the Hakkas, Hylams and Foochows.

Sir, if a person moves about freely in Singapore society, he will know that the Foochows and the Hylams are commonly connected with work as coffee-shop assistants, taxi-drivers and trishaw-riders. This very important section of the working community should not be condemned. Many of them cannot read and write. So how can they be kept well informed of what is going on in the State of Singapore?

I therefore make a last appeal to the Chief Secretary to reconsider the question of Chinese dialect broadcasts of news items. They should not be touched at all.

12.15 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I am glad that the Chief Secretary has given me satisfactory information, and that he will inform me how many of the local personnel have been sent overseas for training. The whole object is that Singapore should run every Government department with local men. That will, firstly, give them employment and, secondly, it will cost less in salaries and the expenditure will be greatly brought down. If this is done in every Government department, and not only in Broadcasting, it will help to reduce taxation to all.

Sir, I am moving many amendments. It is immaterial whether they are withdrawn or defeated. Why I bring them up is to get information, and this is the occasion for Opposition Members to do so, by moving amendments. In any case, the Government is ending within the next three or four months. The other reason why I started all this discussion was to give the incoming Government an idea of what they ought to do.

Therefore, Sir, I withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the sum of $3,238,490 for Head 9 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr David: Sir, I have certain figures for the hon. Member -

The Chairman: Order. The Hon. the Chief Secretary is now too late. He should not have agreed to the withdrawal of the amendment. Perhaps he could supply those figures to the hon. Member after the sitting?

Mr David: May I say something further, Sir?

The Chairman: On the general aspect of broadcasting, certainly. We are now on the general aspect. Is it in answer to the Member for Changi?

Mr David: Yes.

The Chairman: I think the Hon. the Chief Secretary is too late.

Perhaps I might explain the procedure. If the Hon. the Chief Secretary had a reply to be given to the speakers, he ought not to have agreed to the amendment being withdrawn.

The amendment, of course, is in the hands of the Member who moved it, and his reason in asking for leave for the withdrawal of the amendment is that he is satisfied that what he hoped to raise has been amply answered and therefore he asks leave to withdraw the amendment.

If any hon. Member was not satisfied that the questions raised on the amendment had been amply answered, then it was up to him to say "No" when I asked the Question, "Is it the pleasure of hon. Members of the Assembly that the amendment should be withdrawn?"

Now we are on the main Head - Broadcasting - and if any hon. Member wishes to speak on any other aspect of Broadcasting, he can do so.

Question agreed to.

The sum of $3,238,490 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: I think we should now suspend.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

2.31 p.m.

Head 10-

The sum of $368,150 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 11-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $9,108,730 for Head 11 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I spoke on this subject during my Budget speech and I want to elaborate a little further on what I said at that time, and that is this. Singapore is a small city. We were formerly spending a lot on naval and other services. At that time, Singapore was most advanced politically and we thought that it would be the first to achieve independence, as we had the system of elected Members whose number was increased from 6 to 9, and now to 25. As it happens, the Federation has achieved independence and Singapore still remains a Colony. The burden of defence, or the responsibility for defence, is not on us.

Sir, at the last Budget sitting, it was I and many others on this side of the House who said that all naval expenses should be scrapped. We made a lot of arguments and, with the reasons advanced, we are glad that this is no more our responsibility.

Sir, in the modern world, a small city like Singapore, in the event of an attack, cannot stand alone or defend itself singlehanded. Even the big countries - both the Western democracies and the Russian bloc - have pacts with other countries. No one can simply stand alone today. Recently we have seen what has happened in Egypt, Jordan, and the Lebanon and many other countries where the United Nations have come to their aid. Then is it worthwhile to have such a heavy expenditure on defence services? One thing is certain, and that is that we cannot defend ourselves from air attack or any other attack. We are a small city and have a small population. Then why spend so much on defence services and also on the capital cost? I would advise the incoming Government to scrap the maximum expenditure. After all, the Budget stands for three or four months and no more. The framers of the Budget will not be there too!

I might explain about the cutting of salaries, if you will permit me. What I said this morning is that it is an honour to be elected Chief Minister or a Minister but what is the use of replacing expatriates who came from 8,000 miles with our own men if our own men cannot reduce the burden on the taxpayers? That is the gist. For, after all, Sir, each one of us knows what is our expenditure. If anybody brags, income tax returns and prewar, war tax returns are there. Death duties records are there - what they inherited and what they have. So I think there should only be reasonable salaries for our elected Ministers.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I rise to speak on defence, but the line I am taking and the course adopted is quite different from the Member for Telok Ayer.

Sir, to me it is a sheer waste of time to argue and debate about how much money is spent on defence and on which item we should keep on spending. I would like to ask this House whether the time has now arrived for us to consider whether Singapore can be defended, and also whether Singapore should be defended. In other words, Sir, whether to take the course to make Singapore an open city with no fear of any type of war or the threat of war.

Sir, merger with the Federation seems very far away. Singapore has to look after herself. And if Singapore can be made an open city, Sir, I do not think that we have much to worry. As a Switzerland of the East, Singapore can naturally attract wealthy investors who will know that Singapore is the safest place in the world besides Switzerland. It is an open city without any fear of war or the threat of war. Sir, I am supporting this motion and even our new Constitution clearly states that the defence of Singapore is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, why should we still have an item called Defence?

Sir, I purposely want to emphasise that we have now arrived at the stage Where the Government will work towards a policy to make Singapore an open city as well as a free port. Whether merger with the Federation is going to be a reality or not is of secondary importance.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, looking through the Defence Estimates, I am very glad to observe that the item for the purchase of three minesweepers amounting to $15 million has been deleted. For two successive years, I have attacked that item as being unrealistic and unnecessary, since minesweeping is an obsolete method of warfare. I said that the money could be much better spent on social services. I am glad that at last my views and criticisms have taken effect.

On the items that have been singled out for attack by the Member for Telok Ayer, I see that most of them are for salaries for our local people who have been recruited into the Royal Malayan Navy and the Singapore Battalion. Some of the expenses are for the salaries of expatriate officers and they must, I am sure, be for a very limited period. They will only be engaged when it is absolutely necessary for the instruction of our local boys. I do not agree that we should pare down on a means of employment for our local lads, as we know that the problem of unemployment is terribly acute.

Sir, I think on the whole the items are realistic and I support the expenditure.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, defence for a country, no matter how small it might be is necessary; but what i would like to touch upon today, Sir, is Civil Defence. The Civil Defence, as you will see, Sir, has done good work not only in war time but also in peace time. We have had reports time and again that whenever there are fires and other disasters which need help, they are always there the first in service and the last to be recognised. When I say "recognised", Sir, like other services, they will have honours bestowed on them - Long Service Medals, Meritorious Service Medals and so on - but the Civil Defence get nothing and I am afraid the Government has, to a certain extent, overlooked the good work done by them. For the past few years, they have been poorly equipped. I was in the Civil Defence, Sir, as a top officer for six years. I had to pay all my expenses. That did not matter, but what I am talking about concerns the rank and file, Sir. They have had only one uniform since the last six years. I do not know about this year at all. So I would like Members of this House to know that when they say that the Government are extravagant in their expenditure on defence services, they are not right. Government have been most stringent with their money on civil defence, Sir.

Mr David: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take up the remarks of the Member for Changi that the only and obvious solution to the defence of Singapore is to declare it an open city. It seems to me very much on a par with the solution he suggested for dealing with the gangsters, namely, that you should take them aside and pat them on the back and say, "Be good boys in future." if you declare Singapore an open city, the value of that declaration does not depend on you. It depends on the people who may have designs on the city and, in the light of current methods of warfare, I very much doubt whether that is going to give you much protection.

2.45 p.m.

Sir, the Government's policy on defence as a whole in this Budget is in line with the rest of the Heads of Expenditure; a standstill Budget with a certain amount of consolidation, particularly in the First Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. There does seem to be some idea that, when the new Constitution comes into force and Singapore enjoys self-government, there will be some radical chang in relation to this responsibility. I suggest, Sir, that this is a mistaken view. The responsibility for external affairs and for defence rests now, and has always rested, with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. After the appointed day that responsibility will continue to rest with Her Majesty's Government but she will not thereby he assuming any fresh responsibilities. They are there already, and it has always been an accepted practice that while Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has to accept the strategic defence of a number of widely separated territories all over the world, those particular territories have always made some contribution, however small, towards looking after themselves, and Singapore, it seems to me, has a very definite intered craft, and it is very desirable that is quite unrealistic to suppose that Singapore can, so to speak, wash its hands of the defence of the island from external aggression, or whatever it may be, and to say that it belongs to somebody else, because the people of Singapore have a very genuine interest in seeing that Singapore is defended. Moreover, if hostilities did break out, it is quite clear that there would be a number of matters in which the Singapore Government would be vitally concerned, such as continuation of supplies. There is no reason to suppose that, in any future war, we should not have the same type of situation as has occurred in the past, indeed it is likely to be probably more severe, and immediately on the outbreak of war, whether it is conventional weapons used or whether it is nuclear weapons, there would undoubtedly be an interruption of supplies. Supplies might be difficult to obtain and the Singapore Government would have to take whatever steps were necessary to try and ensure that supplies were brought under Government control and fairly distributed, and so on. All those matters which come within the internal jurisdiction of the Singapore Government arising out of a state of war will still rest with the Singapore Government and they will, in the interests of the people, have to take the necessary steps.

As regards the size of the contribution made by Singapore towards its own defence, the present figure rests at round about 3 per cent of the Budget as against 5 per cent for last year, and I suggest that no one can reasonably claim that this is an inordinate proportion of the expenditure under this Head, particularly bearing in mind the corresponding percentage of expenditure and the burden which is borne by, for instance, people in the United Kingdom who have accepted and will continue to accept its very much wider defence responsibilities. I would also suggest to hon. Members that the defence of Singapore is a vital matter to the Federation, and if we do as we do one day look forward to a merger with the Federation, it is indeed proper that Singapore should also play its part and bring a contribution to that merger.

As hon. Members are aware, the Royal Malayan Navy has been transferred this year and will, from the 1st of January, no longer be the responsibility of the Singapore Government. I should mention in that connection that there is one service which the Royal Malayan Navy has provided for us in peace time while it has been a Singapore Force, and that is acting in support of the Marine Police. There have been occasions, and there may well be occasions in the future, when our territorial waters have been entered by foreign gunboats in pursuit of Singapore registered craft, and it is very desirable that the Marine Police, who are not a trained fighting force, should have behind them some support to deal with situations of that kind. The Federation Government have generously agreed that the Royal Malayan Navy will continue to provide that support in so far as their other commitments permit, but that does mean that we are dependent on their goodwill and indeed their commitments towards the Federation will naturally increase, and the time which they can spare for assisting Singapore will correspondingly reduce. I, therefore, suggest that one of the matters which the incoming Government may have to consider in connection with the defence of Singapore is the need for some small regular element in the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve for meeting just that particular situation.

I would also like to say a word on the volunteer forces, and in this connection I should like to say that I know of no foundation whatsoever for any idea that the M.R.N.V.R., or any other volunteer force is nothing but a centre for drinking, and any such suggestion is, in my view, a quite unjustified slur on a patriotic body of men who, whatever the merits or demerits of the policy of maintaining those forces, or whatever their military value or lack of military value, are devoting their spare time very willingly in this way to the service of their country. The volunteer forces, Sir, have, as hon. Members are aware, been now made subject to call-up for internal security purposes and, therefore, they are an additional reserve on which the Government can draw in the event of widespread internal disturbances which will, of course, under the new Constitution, still remain the full responsibility of the Singapore Government.

There is one other aspect of volunteer service to which I would also like to refer. We have had a number of debates in this House, sometimes on legislation, sometimes on motions, in which very considerable apprehensions have been expressed as regards the youth of this City and the way in which they are caught up with the secret societies and the way in which they are inveigled into spending their time hanging round corners, coffee shops, and so on, where it is only too easy for them to be drawn into bad habits or indeed into crime. In the course of these debates, considerable stress has been laid on the need for finding some proper outlet for the energies and spare time of our youths, whether it be in youth clubs or any other form of organisation, and I do suggest to the House that the volunteer forces in this respect do provide a very valuable means indeed for teaching discipline, self-respect, and a genuine pride and sense of service to their country. There are at present, counting the regular and volunteer forces together, something over 9,000 men. Of those, the regular element is a very small element - 600 or 700 - and the balance of those 9,000 are all volunteers, and I do, as I say, suggest to the House that, quite apart from the arguable military value of these forces, in this respect they have a very real value towards providing training for the youths of Singapore.

Sir, the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, and I think in this he enjoyed the support of the hon. Member for Changi, suggested that in this day and age no one could stand alone in matters of defence, and the implication of that, if I understood him correct, was to say that since you cannot stand alone, it is no use doing anything about it at all. There, I entirely disagree with him, Sir. It seems to me that is clearly the policy of the ostrich - put your head in the sand and take no account of the realities which are going on around you. The true answer is that, against the potential threat of outside aggression, there must indeed be an alliance and a drawing together of all the free countries, and that each should take a hand in ensuring the defence of the whole to the best of its ability and resources.

I would just conclude, Sir, by associating myself with the tribute paid by one of my hon. friends to the Civil Defence organization, and to say to him that I realise they could indeed do better with more and with better equipment, the need of which indeed we have very much in mind, but in the present state of our financial resources it is unfortunately one of those needs which have to wait.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add three minor points to what has already been said by the Chief Secretary. First, I think, out of self-respect to ourselves and to our pride, we should be ready to play our part should this little island home of ours be attacked. Secondly, as all Parties have agreed to seek a merger with the Federation of Malaya, we should also be ready, in the event of the Federation of Malaya being attacked, to go to her assistance. Thirdly, as already mentioned by the Chief Secretary, our volunteer forces will be a great help to the Police, Force for the purposes of internal security. In the event of internal disturbance, I hope whichever Party is in power will use the military forces only as a last resort. We should be able to look after ourselves, at least to the extent of looking after our internal security. Without spending this $9-million out of our revenue of nearly $250-million and without being ready to die in defence of our island home, all this shouting for Merdeka would be just an empty shout.

3.00 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $9,108,730 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 12-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $208,910 for Head 12 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise one point regarding film censorship. The revenue derived from censoring films is estimated at $305,000. As against this, expenditure is roughly $209,000, which includes a sum of about $108,000 which is paid to the Federation as their share of the revenue, which means, roughly speaking, that each country makes a profit of about $100,000 out of censorship fees. Now the Federation is about to set up their own Board of Censors, which I think will take place during 1959. Presumably, therefore, this payment to the Federation will not continue to be made. If that is so, then the Government will make about $200,000 on this particular operation. Apart from the financial side of the question, we would like to know whether the Government is contemplating any change in policy or procedure when censorship is separate.

The film trade does not feel that it should pay the existing censorship fees twice, once in the Federation and once in Singapore, when the revenue already collected of $300,000 could meet the expenses in both territories. We would like to know what arrangements have been reached between the Federation and ourselves with regard to this question.

Mr E. B. David: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Member for Tanglin has pointed out, this is a Pan-Malayan service and the Estimates reflect that the revenue more than covers the expenditure, and the difference is apportioned between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government according to the amount of entertainment tax paid in each territory. That, Sir, is the present position. As the hon. Member has said, the Federation, as is understood, are proposing to set up their own film censorship organisation, but we have at the present time not come to any arrangement with them yet in regard to any change in the existing arrangements.

As regards any reduction in the fees charged for censorship, I think, Sir, that it will be a matter for consideration by my honourable friend, the Financial Secretary, in due course.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $208,910 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 13-

The sum of $530,110 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 14-

The sum of $919,380 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 15-

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Cher Kheng -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

In Mr Lim Cher Kheng's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

The sum of $24,922,540 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 16-

The sum of $1,886,060 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 17-

The sum of $3,224,920 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 18-

The sum of $35,470 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 19-

The sum of $1,083,780 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 20-

The sum of $359,420 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 21-

The sum of $304,050 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 22-

The sum of $23,176,090 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 23-

The sum of $7,580,000 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 24-

The sum of $16,520,070 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 25-

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 30 therein.

In Mr R. Jumabhoy's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 31 therein.

Sir, I know that this controversial issue which I have initiated looks, especially at this juncture, not only like an anti-climax to what has been debated in previous years, but is also very silly. Indeed, it is useless for this House to hear the arguments for and against family planning being repeated year after year.

So I wish to bring out one argument which was overlooked in previous years. This is our confidence in the future. I am not prepared to go into detail into the merits or demerits of family planning. What I would like to emphasize, however, is the belief, the confidence in the future held by those who oppose family planning. These people have been termed a conservative type. The supporters of family planning have accused the opponents of family planning as being ignorant of and blind to the present state of affairs. They say we are blind to the need to plan the growth of population in Singapore. They have argued that, in order to provide for more hospital beds and more schools for our children, family planning is necessary.

Sir, I put this fact forward. Those who support family planning have no confidence in building hospital beds and more schools. Why do the opponents of family planning hold the contrary view? Because they have full confidence that they can build more hospitals and schools to accommodate their children.

I have good reasons for my confidence in the future, especially at this juncture when everybody is shouting for a merger with the Federation. I wish to stress that the opponents of family planning have good reasons to believe that the future is in their hands. Sir, we who oppose family planning can run our own affairs. We can provide for our means if and when we attain self-government.

The population has not risen much since the colonial regime. Now that we are reaching self-government, we are beginning to lose confidence in ourselves. We say we must stop our population from increasing because our future is not bright. With the mounting increase in population, we cannot tackle our social problems.

Sir, I used to advise young persons who liked to come to me for advice as to whether they should get married or not. I simply asked them this question: "Do you believe in family planning or not? If you believe in family planning, you had better not marry. But if you do not believe in it, you may get married." The reason is simple, Sir. A young man who decides to get married has full confidence in himself. He believes that he has reached the stage where he can do everything himself. He may even lie to his fiancee that he can pull down a mountain. We know a man usually likes to lie to his loved one. He wants to show that he can do everything to win her heart and get married.

Sir, I do not think this is the sort of conversation we should hear in a young nation, "For three or four years and until I receive a salary of $250 we must not get a baby".

3.15 p.m.

A young nation must have vigorous and extraordinary confidence in herself, just like a rising sun from the East. As a young and vigorous nation, we know that the future is very dark. We know the population of Singapore is one and a half million. We know it is only 225 square miles and very small. If one knows Manhattan Island which is in New York City one will not say Singapore is too small to have one and a half million people. What is the size of Manhattan Island? It is very small and yet it can carry millions of people. I do not think the Americans find that family planning is a "must" and so must be subsidised by the Government. No, Sir, even in Britain the Government do not subsidise family planning. Therefore, why should it be in Singapore?

I will call him, who supports the Family Planning Association in Singapore, a coward who has no confidence in the future or no confidence of a merger with the Federation of Malaya.

Another point which I wish to touch on the Family Planning Association itself is that this Association is one of the most distinguished and noble organisations. Judging by the personal wealth of its office-bearers, we know that it is one of the wealthiest organisations in Singapore. To many of them, $100,000 is just petty cash. It does not come up to the cost of a piece of jewellery or a diamond ring.

Sir, if all the office-bearers of this Association sincerely believe that they must contribute something towards the welfare of the people of Singapore, they should not come and bother the House by asking for money. They can easily get the money from their husbands, Sir. If you want to put it as a challenge, there are numerous charitable organisations in Singapore which render a more tremendous and wonderful service than the Family Planning Association. Last year, I mentioned the Blue Cross Association. It wants to be connected with welfare work. Any fires or any disasters that happen, you can immediately see Blue Cross officials reaching the place much earlier than the Social Welfare Department people, Sir. They contribute and collect not only cash but also other goods - foodstuffs, clothing, everything. They provide even cooked meals for the victims. And I have not heard of the Blue Cross Association coming to the Assembly and saying, "You see our record. We served the Geylang fire victims. This is what we give. Therefore, the Government must subsidise us." They do not. The officials of the Blue Cross Association know they are just performing their duties and that it is up to them, the office-bearers of the Association, to look for the donors, not only in cash, but also in foodstuffs.

So, Sir, I strongly oppose the Government granting another $100,000 to the Family Planning Association, especially in view of our financial hardship at this juncture, and more especially as the Minister for Education has been forced to cut down a lot of things, like the building of more schools. Let him first build more schools and then Government can indulge in the luxury of contributing $100,000 to this Association.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 31 therein." Honourable Members will have noticed that the hon. Member for Telok Ayer has given notice of a similar motion.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, I support the hon. Member for Changi's amendment on subhead 31, Head 25. The same amendment stands in my name. If I can support him now, then I will not move my amendment. I hope that will be in order.

Sir, when this subject was discussed last year, we had a full gallery to hear the arguments for and against, but now the gallery is empty. Possibly the Association know that they will receive their money and the future lies in the lap of the gods and the incoming Government.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will probably find the gallery full tomorrow morning, when the item was scheduled for debate.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I hope so, Sir! If you like, I can continue with this subject till tomorrow morning, but it will not appeal to Members on the Government side!

Coming to this question, Sir, on principle. To save a woman or to protect her health from giving too many births, advice on birth control is not forbidden in religion. But we have received objections from certain sections of different religions. Why should the taxpayer's money be spent, when there are conscientious objections to it?

Sir, I do agree that in various countries associations of this nature have been set up - some on a voluntary basis, some by the Government. I think we have to satisfy the taxpayers who pay into the revenue fund and their objections should be upheld.

On the other hand, if the Government has a clinic for consultation on this subject, that will serve the purpose and satisfy the taxpayers because it is part of the health services for giving advice or treating the people coming into the clinics.

Then, Sir, is it wise to hand over $100,000 to a private association over which the Government have wry little control? They can spend the money in any way they like. I do not question their motive, their integrity or their honesty. But you are parting with the taxpayers' money and giving it to a private body which is doing some work in their own way.

The Government has hospitals and clinics, and the best solution to the problem is to establish a clinic for this purpose and not to give a cent to this Association.

Sir, I support the hon. Member for Changi that the association, as a private body, should not be given such a big sum. There are many other bodies giving voluntary help. Why cannot this Association do the same thing? If they say they cannot raise the money, well, that is their own lookout. We should look to the Government to get the work done. If the Association cannot raise sufficient money, the major portion of the money should not come from the Government coffers.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Chairman, Sir, I have discussed this subject with the Chief Minister and he has agreed, as in former debates on this controversial point, that there can be a free vote. I therefore second the motion.

All the arguments in favour of or against this have been advanced in the past and I can only repeat them, but there is no necessity whatsoever to do so. I support this motion.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the hon. Member for Changi to know that I am not a member of the Singapore Family Planning Association: neither do I know where the place is. But I am no coward when I stand here to say that I support family planning.

I am taking a realistic view. Sir. To say that the Committee of the Family Planning Association are composed mostly of members of the wealthier class and that they should be in a position to make contributions without asking for Government aid, is in my opinion not right. They have given their time and their energy to this work. I believe they do not live only on the $100,000 which the House is being asked to approve. But they have also drawn from their own pockets whatever expenditure they could afford.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Not enough!

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Sir, I said just now that I took a realistic view, because all these years I have noticed that the housing problem has not been eased, in spite of the number of houses that have been built by the S.I.T. I also think that the incoming Government might find difficulty in providing for adequate housing for the people of Singapore.

The education problem also exists. Sir, a few months back I got the shock of my life when I read a statement in the Press that out of 16,000 children only 5,000 would be allowed to go to secondary school, and the rest would have to find places elsewhere. It was very nice of the Hon. the Minister for Education to announce later that those who passed would be admitted into secondary schools, but for those who failed, there is still no solution.

3.30 p.m.

The Family Planning Association is doing its best, and although it may not, as the people expect, stop the growth of population, it has, to a certain extent, prevented the multiplication of children in Singapore. We also know of the crimes that exist here and that, I think, Sir, is due to the fact that we have too many children who could not get the facility of having a good education. First, because the Government could not give them that facility, because they could not build sufficient schools; and, secondly, their parents are poor and there are a lot of them who are unemployed.

Therefore I feel it is a sad case today that the Government are not rich enough to give the Family Planning Association more money and they have to reduce the amount to $100,000. They know that the Government have not got the money. I hope that the incoming Government will take the right view and give the Association more money if they can manage it.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am really caught unawares. I thought the subject would come up tomorrow and I have left all my papers at home. However, I will try my best. In the first place, I support what the Member for Changi has just said, and I think I will be failing in my duty if I do not stand up and voice my disapproval of this grant of $100,000 to the Singapore Family Planning Association for no purpose whatever.

According to the Report of the Association for 1957, some 20,000 visits were recorded at the various clinics of the Association. These visits are different from the actual number of women attending. Supposing one woman visited a clinic twice in a year, therefore only 10,000 women had been to the clinics; but I am prepared to take it that the 20,000 visits were made by 20,000 women.

Sir, in my estimation I think there were in 1957 at least 200,000 married women. So you will see that 180,000 of them did not go to the clinics for advice or treatment. Therefore, how on earth is this Association going to prevent or slow down the growth of the population? It is impossible. It is just like asking for the moon. So why should the Association carry on and waste the ratepayers' good money? I have yet to see the Association producing evidence to prove that family planning or artificial contraception anywhere in the world has ever been a success. There are many institutions right here which deserve more help and yet they have been given a niggardly sum. I suggest that the $100,000, instead of being handed over to the Singapore Family Planning Association, should be distributed among the more deserving institutions in Singapore, [or instance, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Youth Council and so on.

Sir, I strongly oppose this grant.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Chairman, the hon. Member for Changi told us that we must have confidence to face the future, instead of trying to help the Family Planning Association. I think it is relevant here to give him some facts and figures and we must face those facts and figures.

In another ten years we are going to have a population of two million, of which one million will be under the age of 14, all needing primary education. These one million children will necessitate the construction of school buildings to the tune of at least 2,800 extra schools in order to absorb all of them. At present we have a total of 701 schools - that is the latest figure I have up to the middle of this year. Of this number, there are about 6 secondary schools to about 100 primary schools. If we are going to have another 2,800 primary schools, I do not know where you are going to find the places to build them. We must also have another 180 secondary schools. Sir,I have done some quick arithmetic. 2,800 primary schools at $300,000 per school will cost $840 million. 180 secondary schools at $750,000 per school will cost another $135 million. It means a total of $975 million. Our total revenue is only $270 million odd. I do not know how we can raise that amount of money.

Sir, the Family Planning Association are not advocating birth control, a subject which may be objectionable to certain religions; but they are only giving advice to parents who feel that they should plan their family, or they should not have any more children, either because of financial circumstances or health reasons. I do not see any reason why there should be this objection to a mere $100,000 grant to an Association which give advice to parents who can ill afford to have more children. I personally feel that this amount is much too little. I would like to see a grant of $250,000 to this Association.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, we still have 23½ hours to go for this subject, and that prompts me to rise to my feet on the question of the Family Planning Association over a period of four years; and I do so on this occasion in protest against the reduction in the grant, for the first time in four years, from $120,000 to $100,000. I would like to know what the reason for this reduction is. The answer which the Financial Secretary may give may be an obvious one, but it is not obvious when one realises what a retrograde step it is in this very important matter, and I am quite certain from what the Minister for Education has already said that if he were on this side of the House he would support me even more vigorously than he appears to do now.

But what in fact has the Family Planning Association done recently with the $120,000 at its disposal this year? The figures I have are that, from an average of 1,600 attendances per month during 1957, they have gone up to 2,500 in 1958 and reached a record figure of 3,000 in October. In one month there were no less than 600 fresh cases to deal with in the clinics that have been set up.

With a reduction of $20,000 in the grant, the good work that has been done will be stultified just when it needs further encouragement and just at a time when the whole movement is getting under way. It is not only the mothers who go to the clinics who have to be considered, it is also what I call the word of mouth propaganda that those mothers spread far wider in the population that counts as well. As I say, I feel this is very much of a false economy. I would like to have an assurance from the Government that it is not losing interest and withdrawing support from the Family Planning Association which, to the extent of $20,000, is in fact true. This indeed is something which the Government should be tackling itself, and I for one would accept with equanimity this reduction if Government is going in the next year or so to take the whole matter over on a proper basis. The only thing about that would be that it would probably cost very much more than the paltry $100,000 which the Association, as a voluntary association and with voluntary help, is doing at the moment.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, the whole debate reminds me of a delightful Malay proverb. I may not quote it correctly because I learnt it 30 years ago. It sounds something like this - Seperti kodok didalam tempurong - which means, according to the Wilkinson dictionary, like a frog, hiding under a coconut shell, looking at the sky through a hole in the shell and saying, "That is the whole heaven."

I cannot help feeling, Sir, when I heard the arguments put up by some Members before the House supporting this reduction, that they have wilfully closed their eyes to what is happening in this small country of ours. In spite of moaning about unemployment and the increased population, they still say that there is no need for family planning. My colleague here who sits on my left, usually my good friend - I do not attack him except on occasions such as this - wants proof. What proof can one want when an occasion like this will take years to produce proof? However, there is one proof that can be shown straightaway, and that is the record of the number of people who go to the clinics to seek advice. As the learned Member for Tanglin has pointed out, the number has increased from about a thousand odd to nearly 3,000 a month. I think the record is 50,000 attendances for a year. Any businessman will tell you that if his goods appeal to the public, he will get more and more customers. What better proof than that - that so many "customers" have gone to the family planning clinics and have benefited from what they have learnt and received?

So far there has only been one cogent argument against this grant to the Family Planning Association and that is: why cannot all this work be done at the Govvernment clinics? Well, I have heard complaints about long queues and delays at outdoor dispensaries and hospitals. I believe, after bitter complaints, the position is now much better. If we had these 50,000 people going to the clinics for advice, God help us!

3.45 p.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, to say that some sections of the taxpayers do not approve of the spending of public revenue, part of which is derived from them, because it is against their conscience, Sir, is rather confusing an issue which should be judged purely from its economic angle. It is true that some sections of the public may not approve the grant for family planning purposes, because family planning is against their religion. It is also true that pig rearing is against the religion of Muslims, and therefore it is logical that they will not approve any grant to the Veterinary services which assist in pig-rearing for food purposes. Similarly, those who are against the taking of life for any purpose, even for the purpose of eating, will oppose any grant to the Fisheries Department because this will be used for fishermen to catch fish for food purposes. So will the same persons oppose a grant for dog-shooters, which also appears in the Estimates. Then again I take it that the Muslims will probably oppose utilising any part of the revenue derived from liquors, because the drinking of alcohol is against their religion, and therefore any part of the revenue derived from alcohol which is sold for drinking purposes should logically be opposed by them, if that revenue is applied to purposes which are of benefit to the schools to which the Muslims go. Therefore, I say that that issue should not be confused.

A government runs the country not on the basis of the likes and dislikes of any particular section of the community, but rather on the good of the whole community as such. Personally, I have no views either way on family planning. I do not support it, neither do I oppose it, but I think it is an economic necessity in the circumstances that we are in today.

Now, coming to that, the Member for Changi said that Singapore is not too small to hold a much bigger population than it is holding now, and he mentioned the Island of Manhattan which holds a much bigger population. That is quite true, Sir. In size, Singapore may not be too small. It could probably hold two or three times the population, but what the Member has not foreseen is that the economic necessities of the situation dictate that the population of Singapore should be limited to the size where our economic resources would be capable of taking care of that population. Now he has many times spoken on our economic difficulties: the unemployment problem which is growing day by day; and also, Sir, hon. Members on the Opposition side have belaboured constantly Government spending so much money that, as a consequence, taxes are raised, because the money has to be found. That money has to be found for what? For providing the necessary educational, medical and other social services for an increasing population. Now if that population goes on increasing and we have not the resources to provide for that increase, what arises then? You will get a lot of hooligans and vagrants amongst school-age children, because Government cannot provide enough educational facilities, and so on, and you will get, as during the Occupation period, sick people lying in the streets. I am sure the hon. Member must have seen them during the Occupation period, because there were not enough medical facilities to cater for them. Therefore, family planning becomes an economic necessity.

Now, it is not the size of Singapore that is dictating family planning but the economic necessity. Sir, how has that economic necessity arisen? The Member for Tanjong Pagar is very clever in his analysis of any situation, but he is not here at the moment to give us a brilliant analysis. The economic necessity has arisen because of this: God made earth for mankind to inherit. But does mankind inherit the earth, as mankind? It does not. Today we find a part of mankind has taken big chunks of the earth - hundreds of thousands of square miles - and reserved it for themselves, leaving the other part of teeming humanity in countries which are not able to support them: for instance, Java, China, India, Japan, and so on. Yet we have examples of vast continents having a population that is not even one-tenth of the continent's capacity to hold that population - all reserved for certain groups of people who thought that God intended that the earth should be inherited by them only and not by the others. Now that is the real reason for our economic plight today.

When I was in Australia recently, I was asked by many people, "What do you think if the immigration quotas are relaxed for Asians?" I said, "It is a jolly good idea. If you do that, I am sure that a lot of the antagonism which some of the Asians have against Australians will be removed." I think that is the background to the whole situation - that the teeming humanity in certain parts of the world is confined within small land masses which have not the resources to provide for them, whereas vast tracts of land - hundreds of thousands of square miles, which can hold ten times the population that they have now - are lying fallow; and therefore if the world can come to an agreement whereby these vast tracts of land can be opened up to the teeming masses who cannot provide for themselves, because their land cannot provide enough resources, then we do not need any family planning anywhere in the world. But until that happens, it is necessary for small countries like Singapore with limited resources to try and limit their population, because there is no other way out of these economic difficulties. The well-off countries have to realise that sooner or later a situation is going to be brought about where they will have to open up and they cannot keep their doors closed. In the meanwhile, they are trying to put off that evil day by giving assistance under this plan and that plan, and so on. It is all very well - as I said to somebody, "I have not come to the United States to beg. If you give us assistance, it will be as equals, but no begging from anybody." They have realised the situation and they are trying to avoid the evil day. I do not know how long that can be averted, but it is exercising the minds of many Asians today. Hence this bitterness today amongst certain classes of Asians. The only way by which these vast lands could be opened up is by going to war, and we want to avoid war at the moment, because war is not going to benefit anybody today - not with hydrogen and atom bombs being let loose. All humanity will suffer or be killed if they go to war. Therefore, the only way for us to do is to limit our population until such time as the other people see reason and realise and open up their countries themselves.

Sir, I hold no brief for the Family Planning Association, but that is the only Association today doing such work; and because it is the only Association and because Government is not directly giving any family planning assistance, that is why it has to give a grant to that Association. I do not know whether the money is being wisely spent or not. I have not gone into the details of how the Association works, but because it is the only Association, there is no other way out for Government but to give it a grant.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder how many of us know this Chinese proverb "Cutting the foot to suit the shoes." Suppose a boy has grown up very quickly, and he tells "Pa, my shoes are too small." And then his father replies, "Cut out your d - toes to fit the shoes." Do you think that that is the attitude for the father to take?

The Chairman: Order. I must have misunderstood the hon. Member, but I do not know whether the hon. Member used a word which is not really used in the Assembly beginning with 'd'. If he did, I will ask him to withdraw that word.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I beg to withdraw it. I said, "Cut short your foot and then you can suit your shoes. Your foot is too big. Therefore cut it out. Papa will be able to save money. There is no need to buy a pair of new shoes." Sir, we must be grateful to the Minister for Education for having given us wonderful figures concerning school buildings and how much they will cost. I am also very grateful to the Minister for Commerce and industry. This is the first time he spoke in this House as an expert on mankind! He gave us a classification of mankind; he talked about the shortage of land and this and that. But I am sorry to say that both the Ministers show that they have no courage to face the future. They also do not have the courage to face a merger with the Federation of Malaya. We are going to have vast lands very soon. They also do not have the courage to face the advancement of science. Sir, human beings have succeeded in conquering space. Human beings have been able to produce millions of tons of explosives to kill human beings. So it is only a matter of policy - how to divert the wonderful brain of man into productive rather than destructive channels. Then the population question can easily be solved. If you have kept in very close touch with British economic progress, I am sure you will know that they have discovered a means whereby they could extract energy from sea water. That discovery, I think, is a year old. It is called Zeta. If we are able to extract energy from sea water instead of from fuel or firewood why should we worry about the future? If a responsible parent has the courage and confidence to provide all the necessities for his family why should he worry about the future? He will not say, if his family keeps on getting bigger and bigger, "Cut down the expenditure on clothing. Cut down the food expenses, because your daddy's income is only $200 a month." Or "Because another baby is coming, therefore there will be extra expenditure on milk." If the parent thinks like this, if he does not think of any other means to try to solve the family problem; if he just only hopes that the new baby does not suck milk; if he just waits for his other sons and daughters to cut down their food ration in order to save on food, then he has no confidence in himself. It is not the right attitude to take that because his salary will not be increased until next year, therefore he cannot afford to have a baby, a new member of the family this year. That is a defensive attitude. I do not think it is the right attitude for every responsible man who should be able to shoulder the burden of having a family. On this moral ground I strongly oppose the grant.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, with your permission, I think we will have to continue the debate tomorrow, because there is a lot of time still left for this Head. If you like, Sir, I will say a few words until four o'clock.

The Chairman: That depends entirely on what the hon. Member wishes to say. Is it on family planning?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir, because I have an amendment on this subject on the Order Paper.

Sir, the whole question is whether Mr and Mrs Singapore should have children. If they think they should have and there are many, what will happen to them? How will they be accommodated? How will they fare economically? The question before the House, as far as I am concerned, is this: Do not give away to a private association such a big sum of money, because some members of different religions are objecting.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Hart: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress in the consideration of the Bill and beg leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.