MALAYANISATION COMPENSATION TERMS TO MALAYAN OFFICER

11.35 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name,

That this House deplores the payment of Malayanisation Compensation terms to any Malayan officer who had been given and had accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation.

Yesterday morning, Sir, the Chief Secretary gave us an account of what must be one of the most sorry episodes that ever took place after the publication of the Malayanisation terms.

I would like to preface the strong remarks that I wish to make on this subject by stating my Party policy with regard to the public service generally. I know that there is a certain amount of concern over the welfare and well-being of the public service as a result of expected political changes. I would like to remind them, first, that it is their duty as civil servants to be politically neutral in carrying out the orders of the Government in power, and that they enjoy a special position under the new constitution with their basic salaries guaranteed; but that corresponding to these special provisions for their benefit, they have to shoulder special responsibilities.

First, I would like to read what I stated last Sunday with regard to our policy on labour and trade unions. We have a special provision entitled "Special Duties of the Civil Service" which I stated on behalf of my Party:

"At this point, we would like to emphasise the special duties of workers in the public service like the Government, the Government agencies, the Singapore Telephone Board and semi-Government agencies like the Singapore Improvement Trust.

We support the right to a fair wage and good conditions of employment, holidays, leave, medical benefits and good terms for retirement. We support the principle of collective bargaining between unions of workers in these categories and the Government or these statutory Boards, but we expect and will enforce high standards of service and courtesy to the public and equally high standards of efficiency and discipline in these services.

It is the business of the P.A.P. Government after it has been elected by the people into office to implement its policy and no civil servant has the right to oppose or block or hinder our policy.

Apart from these few special observations, a P.A.P. Government will treat its workers and the unions as a good employer and as the people's trustees."

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of the deliberate distortion and propaganda carried on by the English language Press for the specific purpose of trying to demoralise our English-speaking supporters, the public service thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the P.A.P. is against them because they, being members of a privileged class, will be destroyed in a non-privileged society. I would like to remind the civil service that it is our duty, if and when we form the Government, to abide by the rules of the game, and the rules are laid down in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, which safeguards their basic interests. I would like to say this: that their interests having been safeguarded, it is their duty to exert themselves to the best of their ability on behalf of the people whose taxes help to pay their emoluments and ensure their peaceful and happy retirement.

Yesterday I asked a question to which I received a reply which was silent on several matters. My motion is in general terms, and I am asking this House to join with me in stating something which is a matter of general policy. It is my view that any Malayan officer who has accepted promotion as a Malayan on account of the Malayanisation scheme is automatically disentitled, whatever the Secretary of State and the special provisions that are written into the abolition terms can say to the contrary. I do not know if there are any other members of the public service who hope to follow the example of this august official who will retire with a sum of money the total of which we have not been informed, but I would like to state here and now that nobody has the right, if he has accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation, to say, "Ah, but I am really not a Malayan. I would like compensation like the white man." The Chief Secretary said yesterday, in regard to this particular officer, that he made representations to the Secretary of State in 1957 - he did not say at what particular time in 1957 - under section 18 of Ordinance No. 43 of 1956. The Chief Secretary said:

"The Secretary of State after considering these representations expressed himself satisfied that he had reasonable grounds for anxiety regarding the future of his career in the public service."

I would like to know from the Chief Secretary when the Secretary of State expressed himself satisfied that this officer had reasonable grounds for anxiety. I would also like to know what advice the Singapore Government tendered to the Secretary of State in regard to this particular application. When I first came to know that moves were being made to retire this officer, I warned the Chief Minister that this is a political issue and not just a civil service matter. When an officer gets promotion and then says, "I am going to scoot with a bagful of notes" - it is the duty of the Government to prevent that from happening. I want to know from the Chief Minister what advice his Council of Ministers tendered to the Secretary of State, for the Secretary of State does not act on these matters without advice.

The Chief Secretary went on to say that the officer, having become entitled, gave five months' notice in November 1958 of his intention to retire under section 3 of the Ordinance.

Sir, I want to know these facts. What is the compensation to be in terms of dollars? What would have been the position of the officer had there been no Malayanisation scheme? When in 1957 did he apply to be entitled? When was he advised that he was entitled?

Sir, when a country moves from a state of tutelage and dependence towards independence, it is the practice in British territories to allow their civil servants to quit the service and enter the political arena. It is a legal and open recognition of the fact that, in a colonial territory, the civil service is not necessarily neutral. Two officers opted to retire and enter the political arena. They were given the opportunity to take part in politics. They were given no compensation terms. They will be candidates at the next elections. If this officer felt that at the next elections a government will come into power which would give him grounds for anxiety as to his future, it was quite open to him to opt out of the service and contest the elections against the Party which he dislikes, or which he thinks will be against his interests. But for him as the Head of the Intelligence organisation of the Government, to scoot with a bagful of notes is the most deplorable episode ever recounted anywhere in the world. A man who was entrusted with the whole business of Intelligence and anti-subversion, turns out to be not a great idealist and a man of convictions and ability to match his duties, but a lout who only wanted to further his own ends.

Sir, it is a tribute to my Party, if what the Straits Times said was true, that he quit because he expected the P.A.P. to come in. I will say this, that no officer will be penalised in the service for having carried out his orders, whether they be for or against the benefit of the P.A.P., because we expect the civil service to carry out orders. Therefore, we acknowledge the fact that they must carry out the orders of the present Government or any future Government which follows the P.A.P. In the case of this particular officer, his position is especially entrenched in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. The position of the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Director of the Special Branch receives special mention in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. I do not know on what grounds the officer can conceivably be anxious when his position is already a built-in one. All I can say is that either he must have done a very treacherous act which he was afraid would be subsequently discovered, or that he was a despicable mercenary, and it was a deliberate and calculated plan to go twice at public expense to England, qualify himself as a barrister-at-law, and then give five months' notice of his intention to retire on full pay at public expense, while he sits in Chambers waiting to be admitted to practise at the Bar and rake in the shekels. Sir, I notice that he is prudent enough to make sure of collecting his compensation terms, because, if I read the Chief Secretary's reply yesterday correctly, his retirement will be effective from next month, that is before the elections. But, as I told the Chief Minister, this is a political issue. No officer is entitled to do this. It is our view that this man should be made to refund the $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 that was spent on him on several trips to Britain. On the first trip that he went for special training as a policeman in order to equip him for his special duties, he enrolled as a member of the Bar. He is an able officer in his particular field, and nobody objects to a police officer acquiring some legal knowledge. Subsequently, he wangled a return trip during which he completed his studies. He then came back, took full advantage of the fact that there was Malayanisation and that vacancies were two for a penny right at the top, and got himself ensconced in a convenient job.

Sir, I have nothing against Mr Khaw. I am only sorry that he did a disservice to the whole police force and to the whole of the public service by what he has done. My Party has every intention of resisting this officer in his scheme to get about $100,000 for compensation. I would like to add this in case any other officer thinks of opting out of the service in a similar way, that it is the business of the Government to prevent this. I do not believe that there can be any other such mercenary in the service. For those who stay behind to serve the next Government, I say it is a Government which will play strictly according to the rules, which states what it intends to do, and will do what it has stated. We have carefully considered the position of the public service. We are party to the provisions regarding their future, and we shall abide by those rules. But we expect and will enforce high standards of efficiency, discipline and loyalty to the service, and I am quite sure that they will rise to the special and heavier responsibilities that will fall upon them after the next general elections. But just in case there happens to be some other adventurer wanting to take advantage of a weak and vacillating Government giving the wrong kind of advice to the Secretary of State, I ask the House formally today to join me in saying that we deplore the payment of Malayanisation compensation terms to any Malayan officer who had been given and had accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation. I shall have more to say on this particular officer in my reply, after I have been provided with the information I have sought from the Chief Secretary. But I ask the civil service, particularly those in the higher strata, to remember that their future, and the future of the country, depends upon high standards of integrity and service to the people. That these Malayanisation terms and schemes are avenues for them to serve their people better, and that we expect them so to approach the future.

11.55 a.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion.

I think it is ridiculous that Government should embark on a policy whereby a local officer not only gains accelerated promotion as a result of the Malayanisation policy, but also that he should be allowed to retire from the public service after having accepted promotion with compensation on the terms approved for expatriate officers.

Sir, in carrying out the Malayanisation policy, expatriate officers have to make room for local officers, and it is for this reason that they receive compensation for loss of employment. Does the Government not realise that it is acting foolishly, as well as perpetrating a fraud on the taxpayers, when it agrees to allow a local officer who has been promoted to a job vacated by an expatriate officer to leave his job and to receive the same amount of compensation which has been paid to the expatriate officer, with the object of making the job available to the local officer?

Sir, if a local officer has accepted promotion and has been promoted as a result of the Malayanisation policy, he should surely never be allowed to pretend that his appointment will no longer be safe for him with a change of government, and that after having gained early promotion, he should then be allowed to leave his job on lavish compensation terms. Sir, if a local officer in the restricted class wishes to retire for political reasons, he had the opportunity of declaring his intention some time ago. In this case, Sir, he will leave the service on his usual pension terms and will not be compensated for loss of employment; but the case to which I am referring cannot be so compared. In that case, a local officer has been paid compensation on a very lavish scale for loss of employment on vacating a post which he was never required to leave and which it was his duty not to relinquish at a time when important constitutional changes are to take place.

Sir, the officer concerned has been allowed to leave the service and is now practising at the local Bar. He has been paid compensation far above what he would ever have received on normal retirement after having enjoyed the higher emoluments of the post which he would never have reached were it not for the Malayanisation policy. I consider this action of Government to be indefensible and deplorable.

Question proposed.

12.01 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): It seems to me, Sir, that the ex-Labour Front Government, now the S.P.A. Coalition Government, has bungled everything in its management. Sir, memories, especially in Singapore, are very short. In 1952, the Legislative Council, in order to help the local-born boys to rise to higher positions and to take over high posts from the expatriates, got a Committee appointed through me, the Ad-hoc Committee of the Legislative Council, with Mr L. C. Goh as Secretary. The Report of the Committee was ultimately presented, and it recommended that local-born officers should go up to the top and take over from the expatriates the right to run the administration of this Colony. Later, the Malayanisation scheme with compensation terms for the abolition of the expatriates came into being. What was meant by that scheme? The spirit of it is that if we want to take over as early as possible for the benefit of our local-born boys, we must give favourable terms to the expatriates - white or black, it is immaterial - so that they can strike this big lottery and retire to their homes. Well, all this is past now.

Sir, in any democratic country democracy can rule only if the local men, forming the public civil service, are loyal to their own country. If any local-born officer takes advantage of the Malayanisation scheme by retiring with compensation, and that was not meant for such people at all, and the Government has allowed him to so retire, then that is wrong in principle. He is not retiring to any other country as he is not an expatriate; and if he is not an expatriate, why should this huge sum then be paid to him? Sir, I do not know this officer in question. I do not know anything about his case, and I am only talking on principle - that our local boys, trained at the expense of public revenue, should give loyal service and stick fast to their jobs. Then only can we gain independence; not otherwise.

Sir, I do not know what has happened in this case, and while awaiting the reply of the Government, I wish to stress this principle - that no local-born officer, trained at the expense of public revenue, should be given the advantage of compensation terms.

12.05 p.m.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is quite obvious that whoever this officer may be, he is not a member of the P.A.P., and perhaps he does not like the P.A.P. He may even fear the P.A.P., Sir! He may feel that he should not allow himself to be made a "Marcus"! Sir, if this particular officer, according to the existing law today, is entitled to retire and is entitled to the compensation which he has been paid or will be paid, where then is the kick? It may be that he is not sporting. But if he has fear that the future treatment which he might receive may not be fair, then why should he not have the right to retire and receive compensation if the law so allows him? Sir, bad law is considered better than no law at all. If the law is bad, it has to be changed; and until that law is changed, every person working under that bad law, has his legal rights to it.

Sir, I am not defending this man; I do not know him well. But it is unfair to attack him as he cannot be here to defend himself.

Coming to Malayanisation, Sir, In 1924 I fought for better terms of service for local officers. I was then employed as a teacher. My maximum salary was $300, and it could not get beyond that. A European coming from England started with $400. In 1924, Sir, I fought a losing battle. There was no chance. Today we have our chance. We have fought and won Malayanisation by which we have got rid of all expatriate officers, and by which we are giving our local boys a chance to get better terms in Government service. Sir, their salaries must be commensurate with their responsibility and be equal to those offered by commercial firms, otherwise we will not get the best men in the civil service. If commercial firms offer higher salaries than what the Government can offer to its civil servants, Sir, I shall feel very sorry for the class of civil servants we shall have in future.

12.08 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim referred to the year 1924. I remember coming out here myself as a young teacher in 1934 - ten years later. There was a senior Chinese teacher on the staff who was, so I thought, in charge of me and he told me what to do, and kept an eye on me. I called him "Sir" until I was sent for by the principal who said that this senior teacher had been to see him, and would I stop calling him "Sir", because that embarrassed him. I then looked into the matter - it had not occurred to me before - and found that this man was longer in service than I, and was getting $300 a month; and that I with about six weeks' service, was getting $400. That was my first shock at the irrationality of the way things were done in Singapore some time ago. I thought then of the importance of giving proper treatment to all officers, and I did not feel it was fair, speaking for myself, that I should start at a scale higher than that of a man of long experience. I have in the course of nearly 25 years of life here seen the extreme value of the work of the long service officers, who have come up the hard way in all departments of the civil service, and who, in addition to basic qualifications, have acquired the practical administrative experience which is of vital importance, without which mere intellect and scholastic achievements can make most serious mistakes.

Recently, I was reading, Mr Speaker, a very interesting book by a Mr Tarzie Vittachi, a Ceylonese. It is called "Emergency 1958" and in it this journalist of a most responsible Ceylonese paper described how, in May 1958, they arrived at a state of communal riots, deaths, murders. He described them in some detail. For example, how a gang of rioters set fire to a sugar-cane plantation in which people were hiding, and the flames thus drove the hidden people out; when they were set upon and beaten up, and pregnant women had their stomachs ripped open, and bled to death. That was the sort of situation which they arrived at in Ceylon. His book is banned there; he himself is not allowed to live there apparently.

But it sounded to me convincing. I was in Ceylon a year previously and it seemed to me something like that was on its way. I recollect also that when the Labour Front Government took office in 1955, it was not long before we had rioting in the streets. I recollect then that the experienced Governor we had at that time warned us that rioting and death were on the way, and he was right. These things can happen, they can happen in Singapore, and they have happened to some extent in Singapore. And the safeguard against them is, very largely, the experience, the practical wisdom of the senior civil servants in the public service; whether it is the Government public service, or the City Council, or the Rural Board, or the S.I.T., or the Telephone Board, or the Harbour Board, or any of the other quasi-governmental bodies, we always come back to the same problem that somebody has got to know the answers from experience.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of order, Sir. My motion is on a specific issue. I state a precise principle that there should be no officer who should be paid Malayanisation compensation terms who had been given and had accepted promotion. Is Mr Francis Thomas relevant and in order?

Mr Speaker: I was about to say that perhaps the hon. Member was wandering a bit far away from the motion. But I take it he is touching on the civil service, because the hon. mover did touch, in passing, on the civil service. Perhaps the hon. Member might touch on the civil service in passing.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was well aware that I was not strictly relevant to the precise details of the motion. If I may come closer to the motion, I would like to say that, as far as I understand the case - and I heard primarily only the Opposition side because I am not well informed about the details from the Government side - it may be that there are other factors of which I am not aware, but prima facie on the information available to me as I stand now (and I rose partly because nobody else wishes to rise, and I thought I might fill up the time) on the information available to me, I do think that it was rather unfortunate that the situation had so arisen. I do not understand in what way the officer concerned was positive that he felt-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Anxiety!

Mr Francis Thomas: -anxiety about the future of his career in the public service. There has been a great deal of anxiety expressed in getting around the political reasons in the last few weeks. I have heard a lot of anxiety. A lot of it is artificially engendered in my opinion, but nevertheless there is that in the air because, throughout many territories where new governments have come in, there have been difficulties for civil servants. I would like specifically to say, Mr Speaker, that I do not think this anxiety, which some people feel, arises only from P.A.P. activities. I have risen frequently before in this House to express my disagreement and disapproval of the things that have been said in this House, the sort of things which inevitably damage the confidence of the civil service in the good sense of politicians, the sort of things that have been said from this side of the House very frequently as well as from the other. It is not a matter of one Party or another; it is a matter of people coming rather new to administration. I would like to start again on that one, Mr Speaker.

When I was myself a politician without any experience, except as a schoolmaster, I was pulled out by the former Chief Minister and made Minister for Communications and Works. I came into my Ministry with a profound belief that, on the whole, I should find a lot of things wrong and that with my piercing mind I should be able to put them all right. I said obviously this ought to have been done, and if it had not been done somebody was very much to blame. But as I went about my work I discovered, of course, that certain things ought to have been done, and what was possible was being done, but we could not do more than was possible. The former Chief Minister, Mr Marshall, used to have a telephone on his desk at the "Meet the People" sessions, and telephoned senior officers. That, I am sure, induced in them considerable anxiety about their future, because they are dealing with important work. They got a telephone message from the Chief Minister based on inaccurate information given by a man dealing with a special case, and they got instructions to do or undo something on which no proper consideration had been given. That was the thing that would cause great anxiety to any officer who is seriously concerned in getting his work done.

I really speak, Mr Speaker, rather on the edge of the motion to the effect that even if, in this particular case, the officer concerned is actually in a degree of anxiety which is unnecessary and has taken advantage of his legal position to the extent which is undesirable, it should not induce any of us to think that that is widespread throughout the civil service. I know myself of senior civil servants who had resisted the most tempting offers of posts to go into private life. The rates of pay in government service are not equivalent to what a man can earn in the commercial world, and in carrying on the senior civil servants are making real sacrifices, and they should be remembered.

If I can finish with one of my favourite authors, Mr Speaker, Confucius, in the English translation, remarks that "an accomplished scholar is not a utensil". A senior civil servant is not a tool; he is a person; and so is a junior civil servant; so is the man who cleans the drains; they have their feelings; they have their impulses; these have to be borne in mind. The idea of the mechanical civil service is unreal. Certainly the civil service must carry out orders, just as much as a soldier carries out orders. We have had War Crimes trials after the Japanese and the Nazis had been beaten, and we have seen there how some people did carry out orders, and how the orders were held to be invalid because they were contrary to public morality. These principles come down to personal decisions in the end.

I am ready at the present, Mr Speaker, to support this motion, but I cannot make up my mind clearly on it until I have heard more of the other side of the case.

Mr Speaker: I think it is time to suspend.

The Chief Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended. I shall 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.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Resumption of debate on Motion.

Question again proposed,

"That this House deplores the payment of Malayanisation Compensation terms to any Malayan officer who had been given and had accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation."

2.31 p.m.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the conduct of a public officer is called in question in this House, when he has been acting in his official capacity, it is a normal convention that responsibility for that act is accepted by the Minister concerned. In so far as the particular matters under discussion concern the personal act and decision of a public officer, it is not a matter in which the Minister concerned can accept responsibility. It follows that the discussion in this House must necessarily be of an ex parte nature, since the officer concerned cannot in the nature of things be here to defend himself, and I would ask the House, in considering the terms of this motion and in discussion and any conclusions to which they may come, to bear that point in mind.

It seems to me, Sir, that this motion really falls into two parts. One is concerned with the acceptance of the application made by this officer under section 18 of the Ordinance, and the second part of it is concerned with the personal election of the officer to exercise the privilege he has been given and to retire. On the first point, some of the criticisms which have been voiced, and in particular the observations made by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, seem to me to be addressed to the principle embodied in that section of the Ordinance with which this motion is concerned. Under that section (Ordinance No. 43 of 1956):

"An officer not in receipt of expatriation pay who holds his appointment by the approval of a Secretary of State who following representations made by him before the expiry of a period of three years from the operative date satisfies a Secretary of State that he has reasonable grounds for anxiety regarding the future of his career in the public service shall be eligible to retire and receive a pension or gratuity and compensation for loss of career as if he were an entitled officer and the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply accordingly."

Sir, I think I am correct in saying that at the time of the 1956 discussions in London, the Secretary of State did make it clear that he considered he had a responsibility towards local officers who had accepted appointments under his authority, and this section was included in the Ordinance when it was enacted in December 1956. I do suggest to the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, and those who are concerned with the general principles involved in this Ordinance, that the time when that matter should have been queried was when the Ordinance was enacted, but I have consulted Hansard on the debate on the Second Reading and in the Committee stage of the Bill, and the matter was not raised at that time when this Ordinance was enacted by this House.

The second part of the matter, Sir, is concerned with the particular application which is the subject of this motion. As I stated in reply to a question yesterday morning, this officer made his application under that section in October 1957, and the gist of his representation in short was that, in the execution of his duties, it had fallen to him to play a major part in investigating the subversive activities of, and taking appropriate action against, certain persons who might at later time be in a position to exercise influence, either in or over a future Government, and he accordingly had grounds for apprehension regarding his future career.

It was suggested by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that the position of this officer in the post he fills had special protection in being enshrined in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, but the only section of which I am aware in that Order which concerns this point is section 82 (1) of the Order which provides that before any appointment is made to this post then the advice of the Public Service Commission has to be referred to the internal Security Council which then has the right to refer the advice back once for reconsideration.

The decision of the Secretary of State on this application was given in May 1958, and I would like to make it clear that the Secretary of State's decision in this matter was made on the recommendation of the Governor.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Council of Ministers.

Mr David: The Governor - not the local Government. If I may revert for a moment to the general principles embodied in this application, I would also mention that I am advised that this section has been incorporated in similar legislation in all other territories at the time of their achieving independence or self-government, namely, in the Federation, in India, in Pakistan, in Ghana and in Nigeria.

Turning now, Sir, to the personal decision of the officer to retire and to take advantage of the privilege he had been accorded in reply to his application, I can only say I regret that he should have decided to retire, but I must make it quite clear, in fairness to him, that he had a perfectly legal right to do so and, in this matter, he is only exercising that legal right as an entitled officer.

As I mentioned in reply to the question yesterday, the compensation to which he is entitled for loss of career is not in fact calculated on the appointment which he fills at the present time as Director of Special Branch, but on the previous rank held by him before his promotion, and the sum involved is approximately $75,000.

In regard, Sir, to the wording of the motion that he was an officer who had been offered and accepted promotion as a result of Malayanisation, it is, I think, difficult to say exactly when a promotion results from Malayanisation or when it does not. If it is to an appointment which, as a result of the policy laid down in the White Paper on Malayanisation and accepted by this House, is laid down as a post to be Malayanised within a limited period of time, then there is clearly no argument in the matter, but in this particular appointment the post is not in fact due for Malayanisation under the policy laid down in the White Paper for a period of six years from the time the Paper was tabled and the decision taken. That is on the narrow definition. On the broad definition, it is of course perfectly true that certain senior officers have retired since the date of the Malayanisation Paper and consequently vacancies have occurred in the higher ranks and officers have been appointed thereto on promotion.

I will only say, in conclusion, that I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in opening his speech on this motion, and I am sure that the civil service as a whole will respond to their responsibilities under the new Government; and I hope that all parties, and in particular the party which will hold office, will always subscribe to the principle that the civil service should be neutralised from politics, that for acts done in good faith and in an official capacity, there should always be ministerial protection; that in matters affecting them, the approach by the Government should always be objective and not subjective; and finally, in any issue in which disciplinary action is involved, that the matter should be dealt with by an independent tribunal, as is indeed provided by the existence of the Public Service Commission.

2.45 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had hoped that this motion would be debated impersonally, but I must admit that this is most difficult as the motion would never have arisen had it not been for the defection, if I may say so, of the officer concerned. I support the sentiments expressed in the motion on the ground that it is a principle to which the Government should subscribe.

Malayanisation of the public service was a policy which my Government had pressed vigorously. Our reason was to ensure that Ministers would have local men with local sympathies and the requisite local knowledge and experience to advise them and to ensure the execution of the Government's policy.

Undoubtedly, Malayanisation has benefited a good number of local officers and, in certain instances, Ministries have had to make-do with available local talent. That local officers should take advantage of this national move is to be deplored.

I am trying, Sir, not to touch on personalities and I wish to speak on general principles affecting the public service. The civil service has a tradition of impartiality, loyalty and service, and no Government in its right senses will want to sweep away this tradition. It is a good tradition. But the civil service must realise that they do not exist for the purpose of maintaining a tradition. They must make sacrifices and contribute strenuously to justify this tradition and to ensure that they so conduct themselves that all Parties who subscribe to it - the people, the Government and the civil service themselves - respect it.

If we are to have a civil service taking advantage of the times and the moods, we shall be left without a public service, and only an empty shell of a tradition will mark the passing of a body from which the Government and the people have a right to expect service and sacrifice.

The public service has seen many changes since the introduction of the Rendel Constitution. It has adapted itself to these changes creditably. There have been new and heavy strains and stresses, but the machinery as a whole has withstood these. I would like accordingly to pay tribute to the public service.

The public service has a place and a part to play in the changes and challenges awaiting us under the new Constitution. I would not like to see this machinery impaired and it is the duty of this Government to ensure that this vital machinery is handed over intact, in good condition and ready to continue to serve the people, whatever Government may come into power.

While I will defend that tradition, I cannot defend defection on the part of any officer, and an officer who sees fit under the circumstances facing us today to quit the service other than on grounds of ill-health or old age or other legitimate grounds is failing in his duty to the Government and the people and damaging the tradition of the service to which he belongs. Respect for that service cannot be maintained if those who are responsible for it, by their actions disregard it and bring it into disrepute.

The new constitution has provided safeguards to ensure the independence of the public service and has set up machinery to maintain its integrity and impartiality.

The public service owes its being to the public and its first duty is to serve the public through the duly constituted Government returned by the people. An inadequate public service will make an inadequate Government rendering inadequate service to the public and common sense dictates that no Government will want this to happen.

Sir, having said all these things, I cannot help but share the grave concern of the public service over what has been happening in the City Council since the P.A.P. took over control. Much damage has been done to the morale of the City Council employees, but the public service need not be unduly alarmed because there is adequate protection afforded in the new Constitution and this protection cannot be taken away without constitutional changes. In a parliamentary democracy, they are not completely helpless. While it is true that as civil servants they should steer clear of political activities, as citizens they have the right to exercise their votes freely and in their best interests. Surely, they and their families and their families' families constitute a good percentage of the electorate. Surely they and their families and their families' families will not be so foolish as to cast their votes to bring into power a Government whose policy is going to be detrimental to their security and their wellbeing. Their fate is in their hands. They should bestir themselves.

I have been asked several questions by the hon. mover of the motion. He asked me what advice the Singapore Government tendered to the Secretary of State. I would like to tell him, Sir, that I was not aware of this officer's intention to resign from the service under the particular section in this Ordinance - the Retirement from the Public Service Compensation Ordinance, 1956 - until sometime in November.

I was just informed that this officer had sent in notice of his retirement. I was indeed flabbergasted. I tried to do what I could to persuade; to see to it that such a situation did not arise which, in my view, would embarrass this Government. It has happened. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he warned me that he would make this a political issue. I know he will make it a political issue and I know that I have been embarrassed, but I must say it here and now that I have nothing to do with it apart from this particular Ordinance, to which I made reference just now. In this Ordinance there is a section - section 18 - which gives an officer the right to make representations to the Secretary of State, and it is for the Secretary of State to consider whether or not such an officer is entitled to come under this Compensation Ordinance. I have nothing to do with approval or advice in regard to this matter. In fact, as I said, I was flabbergasted and I was against it because, according to my way of thinking, to allow such an officer to retire at a time when the danger imagined has not happened is to indicate to the public that such a danger cannot be avoided. Surely the people of Singapore have not been so mesmerized or so frightened or so intimidated that they will not wake up to the danger that faces them, that they will not unite and avoid this evil that they fear is coming into their midst.

This officer, Sir, just takes advantage of this particular section and I must say that I do agree, as I said earlier, with the hon, mover of the motion that such an advantage should not have been taken of at this time, particularly when there is already sufficient protection written into the Ordinance.

If at a future date when a future Government is in power and that future Government is conducting itself in the same manner as we see from the antics in the City Council today, surely such an officer can make representations to the Secretary of State that such an eventuality has arisen and that he seeks protection under section 18 of this particular Ordinance. But to seek protection now and to retire now before that eventuality has arisen is one that I considerably deplore. Here again, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, in moving his motion, issues warnings and threats. He says that the P.A.P. will see to it that whatever expense the Government has incurred in sending this officer overseas for training shall be deducted from whatever compensation he is to receive.

Sir, the public service is very sensitive to utterances of this kind. If we want the public service to serve the country well, it is up to us to see that they are not unnecessarily threatened or intimidated. They have to be instructed no doubt to do their duty, and I am sure the civil service know their duty and will do their duty to the best of their ability. But to be threatened with dire consequences as the poor City Council employees have been facing since 1957 is not going to help to build up the morale of the public service.

The hon. Member in passing mentioned that there are two members of the civil service who retired from the civil service without compensation because they are going into the political arena. It is true they could not retire with compensation because the Compensation Ordinance does not allow them to take advantage of it. But one must not forget that they were allowed to retire with their pension rights protected. One must not also forget that the Government does not demand back the expense that had been spent on one of them for his training. The Government does not demand that such expenses should be deducted from whatever pension he has and will be receiving. We do not go out doing such things. If we feel a thing is right, we allow it to take its course. We do not allow ourselves to be so stirred by emotion as to shout threats or intimidation and such other evil things against the civil service which is dedicated to the service of the people of this country.

The hon. mover of the motion says that it is because of this weak and vacillating Government that such a situation has been allowed to happen. Sir, had this Government been weak and vacillating, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and his two colleagues would not be sitting on that side of the House this very minute. It is because this Government is not weak and vacillating, because it is strong in its service to this country, that subversives were taken away to allow them to breathe the air of democratic freedom.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: In reply. I cannot believe that the Chief Minister intended to incite the civil service into disobedience, but I would ask the civil service, since the Chief Minister was ill-advised enough to tell them how they can oppose the P.A.P., to remember this. Keep your politics and your personal views out of your service. If you take the Chief Minister's advice and try to down the Government because you do not agree with it, then that Government will not tolerate it. Take the advice of the Opposition: Do your duty because that is right; do not try to 'fix' the Government.

A lot has been said about the City Council. Let me say this: In so far as an officer does his duty, we will be the first to cheer him, because nobody understands the necessity of having effective instruments of policy so well as the P.A.P. We are the people who have a political organisation and know the meaning of that word "organisation" - the necessity to build a machine over and above the individual, and the necessity to get your cadres. Whether they be in the civil service or the party organisation, we cheer a man when he works hard.

One speaker mentioned Mr Marcus. I did not want to bring up City Council matters in this Chamber. Mr Marcus was a good officer. For that reason, he was promoted and we cheered him. But Mr Marcus mistook his loyalty to his brother, as his duty to the people. When he did that, he went against the primary principle to which we subscribe - service first and service last, and your brothers and your relatives do not count. That is basic and fundamental. If Members in this House would like to know, Mr Marcus also happen to be a brother-in-law of a Central Committee member of the People's Action Party, but we do what is right by the public, not by our friends and our relatives. He was promoted not because he was a relative of this Member. When he defended his brother, although his brother was in the wrong, he was brushed aside. I told the civil servant who is in charge of the Establishment Section quite frankly that that is the policy of the Party and that he had nothing to fear, whatever his personal views were. But if he was asked to execute policy and he allowed his personal considerations to prevent him from executing that policy, then he must be prepared to fight the Party - and no civil servant is in a position to do that.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: No, Sir, on a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Minister for Commerce and Industry will have plenty of time later on. He has had four years working with the civil service, but I know more about how he runs his Ministry than he does himself. His Permanent Secretary is my colleague.

I think the Chief Minister did the civil service harm by trying to bring them into the political arena and inciting their families to 'fix' a P.A.P Government. I say this. Whatever you do or you do not do, remember this - that the civil servant has only his career at stake. When we enter the political arena - unless we do it for half a million dollars at a time and vanish with it - our lives are at stake. When my colleagues' lives and my life are at stake, I say this: I will brook no nonsense from my quarter, not from the Chief Minister or any Government. He said that these things were done without his knowledge. What kind of a Government is his? He is responsible for this. He advises the Secretary of State. His Government does it and it is his business to see that the Governor gives the right advice.

Sir, the Chief Minister is a wily and able politician, unlike the nominated Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim. He knew that it was political suicide to try and defend this officer. Mr R. C. H. Lim wanted to defend him, not the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister joined me in deploring this act which is worse than defection. When Dr Otto John hopped from West Germany to East Germany, he defected. When he hopped back from East Germany to West Germany, he also defected, but there were deep political complications and emotional implications. But when this officer says,"Give me $75,000. I am going into private practice. What is more, I am going to take my five months' leave with full pay and I will sit in Chambers as a lawyer while awaiting admission to the local Bar. Then I am going to make money" I say that is not defection. It is a sell-out. I am not threatening any civil servant. In fact, I went out of my way at the outset to state the Party policy on the civil service generally. But I say to this officer, if he believed that the P.A.P. was going to do him in, then either he must have a very guilty conscience, something which he has done which he would not like us to know about, or he has not got the courage of his convictions to step out and fight the P.A.P. on the S.P.A. ticket. If he does that, we will pay him his pension.

Sir, I say this quite frankly, particularly to the English Press. They may have gone out of their way to give the English-educated, particularly the civil servants, the fright of their lives. Changes are going to come within the next few months, and they are necessary and vital if we are to survive and not collapse. If the English-educated knew what the problem were, they would be the first to cheer us, because we are making it possible for the system to survive and not collapse. If you get Ministers who resign on the eve of a big debate on an enquiry into their financial affairs and they are referred to as the democratic forces, setting an example to the civil servants, then I say that the whole system will collapse. Anybody and everybody will grab half a million dollars at a time and flee the country.

I say this of the Director of the Special Branch. He says that he is anxious. I should have thought that with 12 years of special training in that job he should have nerves of steel! Anxiety! If he had felt anxious, he should have seen a doctor and got a couple of tranquillizers that would put his nerves right! There were no grounds for anxiety whatsoever. If he felt there were, it was because he had no confidence whatsoever in the Labour Front Government at the time when he resigned in November-it might have been the Labour Front, it might have been the S.P.A. On the general principle, I do not think anybody has got the courage to disagree. As regards this particular officer, I say that we are not going to leave the matter there, because it is an absolute scandal that he should have been allowed to go back to finish his legal training at public expense and then come and say,"Well, I am anxious about my future." Nothing is a better tranquillizer than $75,000 in the kitty! It is disgusting, an utter disgrace to the whole police force and the public service, and I would like the House to know that if he were here to defend himself, he would shrivel for shame. It is a lucky thing that he does not have to be in this House, and he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

The Chief Minister: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I think the Member has sat down.

The Chief Minister: I did not want to interfere just now while the hon. Member was talking.

Mr Speaker: I think the Chief Minister is too late.

Question put.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 21; No, Nil; Abstentions, 3; Absent, 7. Ayes. No. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Nil. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abstentions. Ede, John. David, E. B. Goh Chew Chua. Oon Khye Kiang. Jumabhoy, J. M. Shanks, E. P. Jumabhoy, R. Lazarous, A. R. Absent. Lee Choon Eng Lee Kuan Yew Braga, A. J. Lim Choon Mong. Fergusson, Ewen. Lim Koon Teck. Goh Tong Liang. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Cher Kheng. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Ching Siong. Nair, M. P. D. Lim R. C. H. Seah Peng Chuan. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House deplores the payment of Malayanisation Compensation terms to any Malayan officer who had been given and had accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation.