FINANCIAL PROCEDURE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.31 a.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, sections 95 to 100 in Part XI of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, establish a general framework for the control of public finances by the Legislative Assembly. It leaves the detailed forms of financial control, however, to be provided by law. The provisions of these sections of the Order in Council come into operation on the appointed day. It is therefore necessary that the former financial procedure for accounting based on Colonial Regulations and General Orders, which are now obsolete, should be replaced by new provisions.

The new Constitution will effect certain changes in procedures and introduce new ones. For example, the terms of the Order in Council are such that it will not be possible to continue the practice of Below-the-Line Advance Accounts, financed from cash balances without a vote. These have hitherto been extensively used for trading and working accounts involving suspense payments. Again, section 99 of the Order in Council creates a Contingencies Fund which will be a new and useful method for meeting urgent and unforeseen needs. These and other changes in procedures will be effected by the Financial Procedure Bill now before the House.

As indicated in the Preamble, the Bill will provide for the control and management of the public finances of the State of Singapore, and for financial and accounting procedure, including procedure for the collection, custody and payment of the public moneys of the State of Singapore, and the purchase, custody and disposal of public property, other than land, of the State of Singapore and for matters connected therewith.

The explanatory statement sets out in simple form the effect of the various clauses of this Bill, and I therefore do not propose to enlarge at this stage upon this explanation.

The Bill is complementary to the Audit Bill, which has had its First. Reading today, and to the Development Fund Bill which will shortly be introduced.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed with the Second Reading, I think the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is required.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I have the recommendation, Sir.

Question proposed.

10.35 a.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise to speak on the general merits of the Bill, and in doing so, I would like to touch particularly upon clauses 17 and 19 of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 17 refers to the Audit Ordinance, 1959, and the provisions of clause 17 of this Bill seem to hinge on section 9 of the Audit Ordinance, 1959. As the House is aware, the Government proposes to take this Bill through all its stages this morning, this day. Perhaps the Minister for Law might indicate whether there is such an Ordinance known as the Audit Ordinance, 1959, on the statute book because, if there is not, it seems to me that clause 17 is quite meaningless.

Now, clause 19, Mr Speaker, Sir, proposes a new method of dealing with defalcations of public servants or negligences committed by public servants with regard to public property or public finance. I have nothing to say against the principle of surcharging public servants, but Mr Speaker, the manner in which it is proposed to bring home the surcharges to public servants as set out in this Bill is, to say the least, very drastic and most unfair. The Bill proposes that if certain events do occur, then the Treasury calls upon the offending public servant to give a satisfactory explanation. The "Treasury", as defined in the defining clause, is the Minister himself, so that the position is - and the Minister here, I take it, is the Finance Minister - that when a public servant has infringed the provisions of clause 19 (a), 19 (b) or 19 (c), the Minister for Finance calls upon the public servant to give him a satisfactory explanation within a period specified by the Treasury - which again is the Minister himself - and if such a satisfactory explanation is not furnished to the Minister - who is again the Finance Minister - then the Minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to surcharge the said person.

The Constitution being what it is today, any advice tendered by the Finance Minister must be accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and he must act on it. So we reach the position, if clause 19 is accepted by the House, that the Minister for Finance is both the policeman, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury - a state of affairs which I think the House will agree is undesirable if we desire to maintain a public service which has confidence and faith in the Government. And I do not think any Government which bases itself on parliamentary democracy would wish to destroy the morale of its public servants. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the appropriate time I shall move an amendment to seek to rectify what I consider an undesirable position.

The second point, Mr Speaker, on which I wish to address the House, appears in line 22 of clause 19, which says "the original value of the property destroyed". I think it should not be the original value. It should be the value of the property destroyed at the time of destruction, and therefore I shall, at the appropriate time, move an amendment to seek to rectify this rather difficult position.

Mr Speaker: Mr Minister, in reply? If the Minister who has moved the Bill rises in reply, then, of course, no other Member will be allowed to speak. But if any other Member wishes to speak, perhaps the Minister will wait.

10.43 a.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I have heard the comments by the Member for Farrer Park on the Financial Procedure Bill in respect of clauses 17 and 19. In my experience, the most important thing is to see that the public finance of the State is being properly audited, to have a proper system of accounts instituted by Government, and a strengthening of the Audit Department. Clause 17, as far as the law is concerned, gives the Legislature enough power to check on the public accounts.

I feel that the Member for Farrer Park has exaggerated what is laid down in clause 19 of this Bill. The purpose of clause 19, as I see it, is to protect the funds of the people from any misappropriation or any loss due to the negligence of certain members of the public service. Those members of the public service who have done a good job need have no fear. I remember in the Local Government Ordinance, which was passed in the previous Legislative Assembly, that there is also a clause which entitles the City Council - and I think the Member for Farrer Park has much experience there - to deduct from the provident fund of any member of the staff of the City Council who has misappropriated funds, or who has caused a loss of public money due to his negligence.

There is no question that the Minister for Finance shall be the jury, the prosecutor and the judge, because, as it stands, there will be checks inside a democratic framework which Will prevent the Civil Service, or any member of the Civil Service, from being unduly brought to bear on any loss of public money. I am sure that the Member for Farrer Park will know that if any member of the Civil Service is to pay up money which the Government has decided that he should pay back to the public funds, there is always the resort of going to the courts of law; and in a democratic system, so long as the independence of the judiciary is being protected, I see there is no undue encroachment on a responsible, honest and efficient civil servant.

10.47 a.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, within my experience of Government which has extended over many years, I can assure the House that it is not the usual practice to institute, say, judicial proceedings against officials when it is established that funds properly belonging to the State have not been carefully accounted for by the officials concerned. Whenever it is found that there has been a misappropriation or misapplication or an unaccountable loss of public property or public funds, the usual practice is for the head of department concerned to make a report to the Audit Department, and the Audit Department then in its executive function proceeds to make a full enquiry. After that, the matter is reported to the head of department and it is then up to him, after getting an explanation from the person concerned, to decide whether that person is to be surcharged with that loss. There is no question of there being a judicial inquiry into such matters. In this, Mr Speaker, we are not in any way departing from the usual procedure.

In the procedure indicated in clause 19, it is quite clear that it is the Minister who will initiate action when it is brought home to him that there are defalcations and misappropriations or misapplications of public funds or public property. An inquiry is made if a satisfactory explanation is not given. Then he takes the matter up. He advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to surcharge the person with the whole or such proportion of the amount as is unaccounted for. That is the usual procedure. So I do ask the House to disregard what the Member for Farrer Park has said. He has suggested that the Government is trying to introduce a novel procedure - a procedure that is not in accordance with democratic practices. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that there is no substance in what the hon. Member said.

10.50 a.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park made two points in his speech on the Bill. The first is a technical one, namely, that clause 17 of this Bill refers to an Audit Ordinance which does not exist and, to that extent, this clause of the Financial Procedure Bill may appear somewhat nonsensical. May I refer the learned Member for Farrer Park to clause 1 (2) of the Bill which provides that "The Minister may appoint different dates for the coming into operation of different provisions of this Ordinance."?

Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is clearly an elementary matter to hold up the enforcement of clause 17 until the Audit Bill has become law.

His second point is that clause 19 concentrates too much powers on the Minister in charge of finance in the civil service. Sir, the power to surcharge civil servants found guilty of carelessness or defalcation of funds is not, as my colleague the Minister for Labour and Law has pointed out, a new introduction in financial procedure in this country.

I am surprised that the Member for Farrer Park raised objections to the granting of such powers to an elected Minister of the country, while he had no such objections in regard to powers. formerly held by the Financial Secretary to surcharge negligent public servants. My colleague the Minister for Labour and Law has explained in detail the procedures for disciplinary action when negligence is discovered in respect of public servants, and I have nothing more to add to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Dr Goh Keng Swee].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

10.53 a.m.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: Honourable Members will notice two manuscript alterations in the clause.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

The Chairman: Honourable Members will notice a manuscript addition in line 20.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -

The Chairman: Honourable Members will notice a manuscript addition in line 11.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 -

The Chairman: Honourable Members will notice a typographical alteration in line 5 and a manuscript addition in line 6.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 -

The Chairman: There are deletions in lines 34 and 35 and manuscript additions in lines 35 and 38.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 -

Mr Rajah: Sir, I beg to move two amendments to clause 19. May I hand up the amendments?

The Chairman: May I just look at the amendments?

Amendments handed in.

11.00 a.m.

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will move the first amendment.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

At page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "a satisfactory explanation is not, within a period specified by the Treasury, furnished to the Minister" and insert "after due and proper inquiry, the Public Services Commission is satisfied that the said person has been guilty of misconduct or negligence".

The Chairman: Has the hon. Member got copies of the amendment by any chance?

Mr Rajah: Sir, I have only two copies. I regret that I have not made extra copies.

The Chairman: If the Member will please take his seat, perhaps hon. Members on the Government side would like a repetition of what is proposed to be moved unless notes have already been taken.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

The Chairman: It is:

At page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "a satisfactory explanation is not, within a period specified by the Treasury, furnished to the Minister" and there to insert "after due and proper inquiry, the Public Services Commission is satisfied that the said person has been guilty of misconduct or negligence".

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development, when speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, seemed to indicate that I was averse to the position where public servants can be surcharged for their misdeeds.

In fact, the truth of the matter, Mr Speaker, is that when the Municipal Ordinance was in force for some considerable period since 1946, from which time I was a Member of the Commission. I felt that one of the defects of the Municipal Ordinance was that it did not have provision in that Ordinance whereby the neglect of Municipal servants could be surcharged. When the Municipal Ordinance was amended and the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, was brought into force and for some considerable time prior to that while the Ordinance was being considered by the City Council, I was in charge of that Bill on the City Council and I might inform the Minister for National Development that it was on my suggestion that that provision was inserted in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957.

I want to make my position quite clear - that I am not quarrelling with the principle that a public servant should be surcharged for his misdeeds. It is only right and proper that it should be so because he is dealing with public funds. But my quarrel with this clause of the Bill is not the surcharging of the public servant but the manner in which the surcharge is sought to be brought about.

Now, public servants, Mr Speaker, are an important category of persons in our system of government and they should be given every possible protection. I do not say that they should be molly-coddled and pampered like some of the past civil servants were, but they should be made to realise their proper position in society as we now know it, and they should be given proper protection in the discharge of their functions. That is the first point I would like to make.

The second point is I think the Minister for Finance is the head of the civil service, or at least he is in control of the civil service, it would place the Minister himself, I beg to tell him, in the most invidious position where he has got to investigate the defalcation or the misappropriation of public funds, call for the individual servant for a satisfactory explanation, sit in judgment over it and then advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who merely is the constitutional hand that imposes the surcharge, but the real hand behind the surcharge is the Minister himself. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were the Minister for Finance, I should hate to be placed in that position. It is not merely a question of giving the public servant adequate protection but it is also giving the Minister himself adequate protection against placing himself in such an untenable position where he calls for an explanation from the public servant concerned and proceeds to take action himself.

If hon. Members of the House will turn to the Explanatory Statement on page 12, paragraph 16 says:

"Clauses 19 to 22 provide for the levy and enforcement of surcharges against any public servant who has been guilty of misconduct or negligence...".

Might I repeat the phrase again:

"...who has been guilty of misconduct or negligence which has occasioned the loss of moneys or stores, or overpayments of moneys, or failure to collect moneys duly payable to the State of Singapore."

Quite a proper explanation: quite the proper thing. But the Bill itself, I regret. Mr Speaker, Sir, does not bring out the intention set out in paragraph 16 which appears on page 12 of the Explanatory Statement. It is the misconduct or the negligence of the public servant that must occasion the loss of the moneys. Now, does clause 19 bring that out, Mr Speaker, Sir? I beg to suggest that it does not.

We have a Public Service Commission here, the Members of whom have been recently appointed. The function of the Public Service Commission is two-fold. First of all, to appoint public servants without fear or favour, and those public servants having been so appointed should hold their offices without fear or favour and without any danger of being victimised by a particular Minister or somebody over him. It was for that intent and purpose that the Public Service Commission was created. We have that body. Why do we not make use of that body? It costs the Government nothing. If the Minister for Finance or a departmental head finds that there has been defalcation, he merely reports the matter to the Minister concerned. The Minister concerned then reports it to the Public Service Commission which, I take it, has its own machinery to make these inquiries.

All I ask this House is to accept this, not that surcharges should be dispensed with but that surcharges should be strictly adhered to. But in surcharging the officer, because the matter is so serious to the officer concerned, I think it is necessary that not only the officer but the Minister for Finance should himself be satisfied that perhaps he has not made a mistake.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

The Chairman: Hon. Members are of course at liberty to range over the whole of the amendment.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Farrer Park is still trying to make a gentle smear against the Government, that the Government is either lending its hand to or giving its support to undemocratic practices whereby good civil servants can easily be punished, say, by an irresponsible and a very bloody Minister for Finance.

Now, Mr Speaker, I think my hon. Friend has not taken the trouble to read the Order in Council for, if he had done so, he would then understand the true functions of the Public Service Commission as laid down. I would refer my hon. Friend to section 81 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council where it is stated:

"Subject to the provisions of this Order, the appointment (other than an appointment to act in an office for two months or less), promotion, transfer from one Division or Service or from one class or grade to another, termination of appointment, dismissal and disciplinary control of every public officer is hereby vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara acting in accordance with the advice of the Commission."

Mr Speaker, the question of a surcharge against any public officer for any misappropriation or defalcation of public funds or public properties is not a matter which concerns the discipline of an officer. It is just ordinary accounting practice: if it is found that the officer concerned is accountable for that loss, I would submit, with respect, that it is the duty of the Minister for Finance to see that that loss is properly accounted for. The question of discipline is an entirely different matter. Should it be found that an officer, through his negligence, merits dismissal, then the procedure will be through the Public Service Commission. I have no doubt that my colleague the Minister for Finance, who has been in the civil service with me for many years, understands that practice. If it is found that an officer should be surcharged and if it is found that although he has been negligent he has been a good officer and that the Government does not wish to take any disciplinary proceedings against him for that loss, then he will be only surcharged for that loss. But if it is found that his conduct merits more than a surcharge, then I have no doubt that the Minister for Finance will see that the necessary disciplinary proceedings are instituted against that officer. I have no doubt that he will then have recourse to the Public Service Commission, because it will be the Public Service Commission that will be the proper organ to deal with cases of indiscipline in the service.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I again refer the Minister for Labour and Law to the clause in the Objects and Reasons on page 12?

The Chairman: Objects and Reasons are out of date. We now have Explanatory Statements.

Mr Rajah: I am sorry, Sir - the Explanatory Statement. Well, apparently the object of clause 19 would appear to be to surcharge a public servant who has been guilty of misconduct or negligence which has occasioned the loss. The loss should stem from negligence or misconduct. If there was any loss which did not stem from negligence or misconduct, clause 19 does not apply, according to the Explanatory Note.

Now, negligence and misconduct are matters of discipline in any system of government. If the Public Service Commission is an instrument for discipline, what is the object of preventing the Public Service Commission from going into the question of misconduct or negligence before surcharging the officer? According to the Explanatory Statement, it is not the intention of Government to surcharge a public servant every time loss occurs but only when such loss stems from negligence or misconduct, which are matters of discipline or could be matters of discipline.

11.15 a.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I think the proposal before the House now is that the words,

"if a satisfactory explanation is not, within a period specified by the Treasury, furnished to the Minister"

be left out, and that they be substituted with the words indicated by my hon. Friend. Now, the explanations given in the Explanatory Statement will never form part of the Ordinance. I am only concerned with that proposal, and it is quite clear that it is very necessary that those words should be included in the text of Clause 19, because it is the Minister who will have to satisfy himself as to the reasons for the loss.

I have already indicated just now, Mr Speaker, that it would be quite improper for the Minister for Finance to abdicate those functions of enquiry to an extraneous body like the Public Service Commission, when the question at issue is a loss of public funds and public property. Those are not the functions of the Public Service Commission, and I do recommend, Mr Speaker, that those words be left in the text of Clause 19.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Farrer Park. The hon. Member, when proposing the amendment, said that it was moved in part by feelings of compassion for the Minister for Finance, who would be faced with very hard decisions as to whether or not a public servant alleged to be negligent had provided a satisfactory explanation within a specified period. He said that the Minister would be placed in an untenable and invidious position.

Sir, the Minister for Finance is responsible to this Assembly and to the country for the proper collection, custody and expenditure of public funds. In order to discharge these functions, he must have at his disposal certain powers to act against negligent public officers. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that the Ministers of the P.A.P. Government are of a more robust disposition than the Member for Farrer Park would credit us. I myself find no difficulty when confronted with a particular case to decide whether the explanation is satisfactory or not. There are certain rules and regulations which financial officers have to follow in the discharge of their duties, and if they have failed to observe these regulations, as a result of which the Government suffers financial loss, then I say it is quite an easy matter in a particular case to decide whether a surcharge should be levied against the offender.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I take objection to this amendment on principle. If Ministers abdicate their functions and hand them over to impersonal bodies, be they statutory or otherwise, then the whole business of this Government will slow down. We have seen what has happened in surrounding countries where, after they attained independence, the framework of the Government was based on the theories of democracy, and how by hard, practical experience, they went back to forms of guided democracy, or controls by Generals - in Burma and Pakistan - and by a Governor-General in Ceylon.

Let me make it quite clear, at the opening of the five years of the P.A.P., that this is a Government prepared to govern. We are not going to "pass the buck" to anybody else. We need no Public Service Commission to be our executioner. We can carry the burdens of office, and I would be ashamed of my Minister for Finance if I believed that he could not discharge his duties as well as a former British official. And the activities of many former British officials, who had powers similar to these, have not, at any rate according to the opinions of Members of the Opposition, brought about the ruination of the Civil Service.

Let me assure them that when we take action, the paramount consideration is the interest of the country as a whole. We are not out on petty vendettas. If we were, some of the Members opposite would be having a much more unhappy time than they are having at the moment.

Mr Rajah: Mr Chairman, I am glad of the assurance of the Hon. the Prime Minister that the P.A.P. Government are not engaged on any vendetta. All they are concerned with is the preservation of parliamentary democracy. I am very glad to have this assurance from no other a person than the Prime Minister himself. I should hate to agree with anybody outside that is not so. However, Mr Chairman, the point and purpose of this discussion today is not on the mechanics of parliamentary democracy, or what is going on in surrounding territories, or that guided democracy has come into force, but a system of-

The Prime Minister: Check and counter-check.

Mr Rajah: No. If you will let me finish, Mr-

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Mr Rajah: What we are trying to do here today is to find a suitable financial procedure within the context of our own conception of what parliamentary democracy should be. We in the Opposition feel that there are others also besides Ministers who have their places in a parliamentary democracy. Those sitting behind the Hon. the Prime Minister too have their place in a parliamentary democracy, and I and my colleagues sitting beside me too have a place in a parliamentary democracy. So let us therefore not talk about our various allotted and destined places in the system of government on which we are now embarked.

But what I am concerned about, Mr Chairman, is this: if the point and purpose of this clause is to see that the public does not lose its funds, then let us create a system which will ensure that without causing untold damage or harm. Let us not get too dictatorial because we think we have the power at our disposal. Let us find a system under which we will meet the needs of the situation without causing too much hardship, and giving the impression to everyone that the thing has been done properly. That is the purpose of this amendment, and if the Government feel that they cannot accede to it, they have got 43 votes and they can use them against me.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, imagine ourselves, the people of Singapore, as shareholders of a firm and entrusting the money of the public to the Manager, the Minister for Finance. In order to carry on business, the Minister for Finance, as Manager, will engage many accountants and storekeepers. One of these storekeepers was found out - that instead of 10 cases of beer, there were only five cases in stock. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that it is the duty of the Manager, and not of a judge, to go and claim the 5 cases of beer lost. Why has this to be done? Why have clause 19 and the whole idea of the Financial Procedure Bill, to be pushed through? It is because we have found out that the whole state of affairs of public finance in this country is most unsatisfactory.

In the City Council, we found out that many bills were paid without proper vouchers. Money had been wasted. The auditors had passed very pertinent remarks on the accounts of the City Council for 1956 and previous years, and even 1958. When we were in the City Council, we managed to put the whole thing right.

We have now moved into the Government, and we find that the same state of affairs exists in the Government as existed in the City Council. The Public Works Department, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, has only a qualified accountant, working part-time, and I can assure hon. Members that certain regulations will be enforced. The Telecommunications Department, where millions of dollars a year are involved, has no qualified accountant; neither has the Post Office any qualified accountant in the past few years. I am not in a position to make mention of the departments in other Ministries. In my Ministry, where these three departments are, the most money is spent on them, and in the Ministry we have only the services of a part-time qualified accountant to look into the question of how hundreds of millions of dollars which the people pay in taxes are spent.

Mr Speaker, clause 19 is to see that the public funds of the people of this country are properly spent, and that every cent which our people have to contribute to the State Treasury through their sweat and toil is properly looked after by our Minister of Finance.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, it appears that the Member for Farrer Park is against clause 19 of the Financial Procedure Bill just because, in his interpretation, the absolute authority is vested in the elected Minister. The Member quite obviously is prepared to accept an inefficient and inadequate management of public finance, as it has been in the past, but not the integrity and judgment of an elected Minister.

11.30 a.m.

Sir, during the past 130 years of colonial rule, there have been many stages in our history where colonial masters were in absolute authority over many affairs of the country. It was so even a few years ago when the hon. Member for Farrer Park and his colleagues were in reign. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Farrer Park is confusing the mechanics of democracy with the functions of the civil service. The duty of this Government is to make sure that the civil service implements the policy which we want implemented. We have stated very clearly that we do not intend to victimise the civil servants.

An elected Minister of this Government has a duty to the Party, and the Party as a whole has a duty to the country. Our paramount duty is to implement our policies in general, and in this particular event to make sure that the finances of the country are in order and that there is no misappropriation and mishandling of public finances, it is proper and morally right that that duty should be vested in the elected Minister and not in any public body.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Chairman, regarding the Financial Bill which is under discussion in this House, on this the first day we are carrying out our duty together, I, on the Opposition side, do not wish, at all times, to oppose or criticise the Government on any matter to be carried out for the people and for the country. But, at first, today, it did not occur to me, nor do I see, anything in clause 19 which could be said to be a matter that can cause fear to those who are in or who are serving in the Government.

If we really truly love our responsibilities, then there is not a thing, I find, in clause 19 which gives the Minister power whereby he could threaten or victimise people who, as I said, truly wish to serve loyally for the benefit of the people and of our country.

So I would like to emphasize that we, on the Opposition, particularly speaking, for myself, I would like to state that whatever is good we will surely support. But we are not happy because a while ago, I myself was surprised to see that when the Prime Minister rose to speak, it appeared as though the Prime Minister wanted to pounce on the Opposition Members - not all perhaps - but it certainly appeared as though the Prime Minister wanted to pounce on and to devour the eight of us including me myself.

But we the Opposition will always co-operate and give due consideration to whatever is for the benefit of the country, but not with the object of benefiting a political party or those in sympathy with any political party.

This is what we wish to emphasize, because our duty is to develop the country; and for national development we need money and it is our duty to see that every officer to whom we have entrusted power, should safeguard the property of the public and of the country, so that we would be able to carry out whatever is deemed appropriate for our count.

So, clearly, I do not wish to say that I do not completely agree with what is in this clause. But I wish to emphasize that whoever among the government staff will really serve and sincerely carry out his duty, will not have anything to fear in this Bill, if it is passed - for it seems, passed indeed it will be; for if it is not, and if it takes two or three days, we are surely going to be steam-rollered; but even if we are steam-rollered, we still say that if whatever the Government proposes to do is for the good, we will surely support it, but if, and I stress, if it is for the selfish interest of only a handful of people, my fellow citizens, then we will surely voice our regret and sorrow, for, perhaps this Government is not based on such an outlook.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Rajah: My second amendment concerns clause 19 again, line 22, Sir. It is quite a simple amendment, by striking out the word "original" in that line and substituting nothing for it. The purpose of the clause, Mr Chairman, is to charge the officer concerned with the original value of the property destroyed. I take it that the original value of the property destroyed would be the value of the property at the time of the purchase. Now, if the property destroyed is, in fact, destroyed three or four years after purchase, the value of the property would have gone down. In these circumstances, would it be fair to charge the officer with the original value? I take it that there is no intention on the part of the Government to make a profit on this surcharge, but merely to recover whatever actual loss Government might have suffered.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the amendment. The Member for Farrer Park seems to have in mind the fact that the Government intends to surcharge the offending officer with the whole value of the property destroyed. But it is clear that the wording of this clause, which I will now read, gives the Minister discretion to reduce the amount of surcharge. Now, may I refer him to line 19 onwards:

"...the Minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to surcharge against the said person the whole, or such proportion of any such amount not collected, payment, deficiency, or loss or the original value of the property destroyed as the case may be,".

The presumption which moved the amendment seems to be that this Government has in mind the worst possible penalty to inflict upon the civil service. I see no reason whatsoever for the Member for Farrer Park to have this frame of mind against the present Government.

Mr Rajah: Sir, when a statute gets on to the statute book, it remains in force for a longer period than five years. Surely, Mr Chairman, when we do get a statute on to the statute book we do not think of the particular Government in power at the time when that legislation is enacted. One thinks of the enactment as an enactment which will remain in force for a longer period than the P.A.P. government itself. So why the P.A.P. should align itself and identify itself with all the provisions of the Bill I am at a loss to understand. We are legislating for the country and not for P.A.P. Ministers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 -

The Chairman: There is a manuscript addition in line 35 after "21".

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.