APPOINTMENTS TO THE SINGAPORE TELEPHONE BOARD

4.15 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, the section in the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance which prescribes the constitution of the Singapore Telephone Board is section 5. That section reads as follows:

"5.-(l) The Board shall consist of-

(a) a Chairman;

(b) a Deputy Chairman; and

(c) three other members,

all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor in Council."

The "Governor in Council" now, of course, Mr Speaker, is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

On or before the 31st of August this year, the composition of the Board was: a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and three other members. On the 31st of August this year, the period of appointment of the Chairman came to an end and his appointment as such therefore lapsed. The period of appointment of one of the four other members also came to an end on the 31st of August this year, and his appointment therefore also lapsed, leaving three members on the Board on the 1st of September this year.

In the Gazette of Friday, 4th September, 1959, there appeared on page 470 thereof the names of two members of the Board. One was Mr Goh Kee Song, who was gazetted as Chairman of the Singapore Telephone Board for a term of one year, with effect from 1st September, 1959. The other appointment, Mr Speaker, Sir, which immediately followed the appointment of the chairman, is that of Mr Lui Boon Poh as a member of the Singapore Telephone Board for a term of one year, with effect from 1st September, 1959. So that, as from the 1st of September, these two members, it would appear, became members of the Board. I understand that the other three members of the Board have since then sent in their resignations. I have searched throughout the Gazettes for further notifications as to the names of other members who have taken their places, but, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am unable to find those names. That is the first point which I wish to raise.

The second point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. I have already quoted part of section 5 of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance to the House. Now, subsection (2) of section 5 reads:

"No person who is in the public service of the Colony shall be appointed to the Board by the Governor in Council [now, of course, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara]".

So, therefore, there is a group of persons who are excluded from service on this Board and they are persons who are in the public service of the Colony. There is a definition of "public officer" in section 2 of the Ordinance which reads as follows:

`"public officer" means a person holding any office of emolument under the Crown in the Colony;'

which means a Government servant, in other words. I take it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that section 5 (2) takes within its net a bigger group of persons than a public officer. Had it only intended to exclude Government officers, section 5 (2) quite easily could have read, "No person who is a public officer shall be appointed to the Board by the Governor in Council." But the Legislature had seen fit to use a different phrase, "who is in the public service of the Colony shall be appointed ...". Therefore, the expression "who is in the public service of the Colony", as I understand it, should be given a more extensive meaning than "public officer". If the House accepts that, let us now examine the nature of the appointments which have appeared in the Gazette.

Mr Goh Kee Song, I understand, is a young accountant who, until quite recently, was studying accountancy in the University of Melbourne. After having passed his accountancy examinations he returned to Singapore and found employment in the City Council. After the advent of the P.A.P. in the City Council and under the Mayorship of the now Minister for National Development, Mr Goh Kee Song was appointed Acting Registrar of Vehicles. Latterly, he was also appointed to the position of Acting Assessor of the City Council. So he now holds, in so far as the City Council is concerned, two positions - Acting Registrar of Vehicles and Acting Assessor. And he has now been appointed to the Singapore Telephone Board as its Chairman. The first question that arises, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: is this appointment a correct one? Does it violate the provisions of section 5 (2) of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance? It would, I suppose, be contended by the Minister that City Council employees are not public officers. Certainly that would be correct because a public officer is a person in the employment of the Crown. But section 5 (2) of the Ordinance says "public service of the Colony". And if City Council service is not public service, Mr Speaker, Sir, then what is that public service, beside that of Government service in which a public officer finds himself, which is public service within the meaning of the section?

The phrase "public service" has received judicial interpretation and that interpretation will be found, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Words and Phrases Judicially Defined, volume 4, page 436, 1944 edition. May I read under the heading "Public Service":

"A railway act provided that if at any time it should be made to appear to the Board of Trade to be requisite for the public service, the company should lay down additional rails." The question that arose there, Mr Speaker, Sir, was, what is the meaning of public service? And the quotation which I am now going to read is a quotation from a judgment delivered in that particular case.

`It was argued that the expression "requisite for the public service" means requisite for the public service of the Government or of Her Majesty. But we see no reason for taking "public service" to mean no more than Government public service or the service of Government acting for the public. And we think any service which would supply wants felt by the public or which the public might reasonably be desirous of having on its own behalf is included.'

On the basis of that judgment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I submit, with respect, that "public service" as defined in section 5 (2) of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance takes in the category of City Council employees. If I am correct in that submission, then the appointment of Mr Goh Kee Song as Chairman is certainly ultra vires. On the other appointment - Mr Lui Boon Poh. He is also a member of the City Council. I understand that he joined the City Council under the mayorship of our now present Minister for National Development. Prior to joining City Council service, he was a salesman. But he was appointed as Acting Superintendent, Town Cleansing Department. Since then he has made such a good job of it that I am now told he is Deputy Administrator of the City Council. What I said with reference to the Chairman, Sir, in so far as the illegality is concerned, or, shall I say, the ultra vires position is concerned, applies equally to Mr Lui Boon Poh. So that if the other three members have resigned and no other appointments have been made, it appears to me that there are now only two members on the Board. Since both of them are members in the public service of the Colony, their appointments are ultra vires.

May I also draw the attention of the House to section 9 of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance which reads as follows:

"The quorum at all meetings of the Board shall be two members present in addition to the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, and, in the absence of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman shall preside at such meetings."

I read that to mean, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in addition to the Chairman, there must be two other members to form a quorum.

4.25 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Ong Eng Guan): Mr Speaker, I wish to describe in detail the position of the Singapore Telephone Board, when I was first asked by the Prime Minister to take over its functions, so that the public will understand why we have these appointments. When I first took over the Singapore Telephone Board, I found, to my horror, that the General Manager was paid $4,150 a month, not including other special benefits like leave pay, special housing allowance and other various benefits; that the Deputy General Manager is over 60 years of age, or nearing 60, and getting about $4,000 a month; and that there were many other anomalies which had to be rectified. As such, we felt that a certain amount of reorganisation work had to be done.

In August this year, Mr Speaker, the retiring Chairman of the Telephone Board, Mr Loke Wan Tho, came to see me and he indirectly asked me whether he would be granted permission to stay on. I told him that the policy of the new Government was to reorganise all statutory Boards so that the interests of the people could be looked after. I further requested him to do this, "If you will be kind enough to ask the other three members of the Board to retire on their own initiative?" Accordingly, the other three members of the Board submitted their resignations. Mr Speaker, we had nothing personal against the members of the old Telephone Board as such, but we felt that all the five members of the Board represented business interests. In order to look into other aspects of telephone facilities - for instance, the rural areas have been completely ignored in the past: the trade union world has also been completely ignored in the past - we set about the task of reorganisation. Our object was to have as much as possible a representative field in the newly-constituted Telephone Board.

On the 1st of September, Mr Goh Kee Song was appointed Chairman of the Singapore Telephone Board when Mr Loke Wan Tho's term of appointment lapsed. I must clarify, Mr Speaker, what and who is Mr Goh Kee Song. The Member for Farrer Park has said that Mr Goh Kee Song was from the University of Melbourne. That is not correct. I had never met Mr Goh Kee Song until he joined the City Council. He was from the University of Tasmania, and, I think, as usual, the Member for Farrer Park's sources of information, or his informants, were wrong. Mr Goh Kee Song studied accountancy, as the Member for Farrer Park said, not long ago. He has not, like the Member for Farrer Park, taken up law before the war. But he is an expert in his trade. He studied accountancy and, I believe, got his accountancy degree as far back as eight or nine years ago. Although he would not have the same amount of grey matter as the Member for Farrer Park has, he has, however, got a degree in commerce. He is a Chartered Accountant and had worked in Australia for some years before he joined the City Council. From what I knew about him, Mr Speaker, he was engaged in Australia by a firm of English accountants in Singapore at the rate of $1,400 a month. He came to Singapore and worked in this firm for nearly a year. Because of the discrimination against local accountants in this particular firm and the fact that he was not willing to serve expatriates and Europeans - as the Member for Farrer Park would like him to serve - for whom he got much business, he got fed up with the job and he sent in his letter of resignation. Later, there was a vacancy in the City Council to supervise a $30 million contract in Ulu Pandan in which the Member for Farrer Park had a hand - $30 million being handed over to an expatriate firm and paying the consultants $2 million in fees without any accounting or engineering supervision from the City Council. So Mr Goh Kee Song was asked to supervise the contract which the Member for Farrer Park during his time in the City Council did not do properly.

It is true, Mr Speaker, that Mr Goh Kee Song has held two positions since the new Government came into power. First, he was made the Registrar of Vehicles and then the City Assessor but, Mr Speaker, this is because of the past policy in the City Council in which the Member for Farrer Park had a hand. There was no attempt made to malayanise certain departments and when the City Assessor left-

Mr Rajah: On a point of order, Sir. The question, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Singapore Telephone Board, not the City Council or Mr A. P. Rajah in the City Council.

Mr Speaker: It did occur to me that the Minister for National Development was embarking on personalties which are quite irrelevant to the subject which we are discussing.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, it is because the Member for Farrer Park has indirectly hinted at the relationship between Mr Goh Kee Song and myself and about his education that I am forced in honour bound to clarify the position. Although he holds two positions and has been made Chairman of the Singapore Telephone Board, may I say that the former Chairman of the Singapore Telephone Board was in charge of more than two establishments? I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will agree that Mr Loke Wan Tho is in charge of about 100 establishments, and he still finds time to attend an hourly meeting once a month, leaving the job to the General Manager.

Now, Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to explain the position of Mr Lui Boon Poh on which the Member for Farrer Park also tried to cast some remarks. It is true that Mr Lui Boon Poh who recently joined the City Council was a salesman. There are many types of salesmen, as there are many types of lawyers. Some lawyers are Q.Cs, standing on their own rights without having to kow-tow to big businessmen in order to eke out an existence. Some lawyers make their living through means which are contemptible. We read in the Press in the last few days how some of them chase after car accidents. Now, Mr Lui Boon Poh, as I have said, joined the City Council. He was a salesman but he did not receive any additional financial benefit. Neither did Mr Goh Kee Song who was paid $1,400 a month; he joined the City Council and was also paid $1,400 a month. These persons did not join the City Council to receive additional financial benefit.

Mr Speaker, there are always persons in society belonging to the old school who judge persons by the education they have received. May I add that Mr Lui Boon Poh's education was up to Standard VIII level and so is the case with more than half of the Assemblymen in the P.A.P.? I remember during election time that it was the habit of the Opposition Parties to cast aspersions on candidates of my Party saying that they were either barbers or hawkers and that they received very little education. Mr Speaker, we judge a person's standard by his contribution to society, by his willingness to sacrifice and by his devotion to a cause. We do not care how much education he has received or what he was, whether he be a hawker, a salesman or even a petty trader.

The other mistake which the Member for Farrer Park made was to mention that there are at present two members on the Telephone Board. There are at present three members on the Board and I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is now in charge of the Singapore Telephone Board, will fill the vacancies very soon. The third member on the Board, in addition to Mr Goh Kee Song and Mr Lui Boon Poh, is Mr Tan Siak Kew who has been asked to stay on because he also wants business interests to be represented on the Singapore Telephone Board. There are three persons and the Board has, in the short course of two months, done much to rectify certain of the anomalies which existed in the past. One of the anomalies is that at present there is not even one local officer in the Singapore Telephone Board who has got the Senior Cambridge qualification, so that the expatriates, whose interests the Member for Farrer Park has at heart, will stay on forever.

Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not in a position to argue with the Member for Farrer Park as to whether Mr Goh Kee Song and Mr Lui Boon Poh, being members of the staff of the City Council, come under the terminology of "public officers". But, Mr Speaker, I rely on the State Advocate-General, Inche Ahmad Ibrahim, and he has assured the Cabinet that these two persons do not come under the definition of the words "public officers" as defined in the Singapore Telephone Board.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park just now tried to persuade the House to believe that the expression "public service" means what he wanted it to mean, and for that purpose he referred the House to Words and Phrases Judicially Defined" by Roland Burrows at page 436 when he drew the attention of the House to the Report under the caption "Public Service" in that publication. I would like to draw the attention of the Member for Farrer Park to the fact that that particular case dealt with a requisition which the Board of Trade is authorised to make on a railway company on the agreements of being "requisite for the public service" and it was held, in the case of the Launceston Railway Acts reported in volume III of the Railway and Canal Traffic Cases at page 139, that the expression "requisite for the public service" is not narrowed to the service of the Government, that it could include any service which would supply wants felt by the public or which the public might reasonably be desirous of having on its own behalf.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has not drawn the attention of the House to the definition of "public service" in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Third Edition) where it is clearly stated that the expression "public service" means:

"a service under the Government of the United Kingdom and includes any service of the Crown anywhere". That is the only meaning that there is in that expression. Now in Stroud's definition, there is a reference to a number of cases which all dealt with Government contracts, contracts made with, say, colonial governments or with the Government of the United Kingdom, and it was held in all those cases that the expression related to service under the Government of the United Kingdom or under the government of any colony. This point, Mr Speaker, Sir, was specifically referred to the State Advocate-General and he has advised the Cabinet that the two officers named by the Member for Farrer Park are employed by a local government authority and that they are therefore fully qualified for appointment to the Singapore Telephone Board.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Five o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 25th November, 1959.