MAIN ESTIMATES, 1960

Head 1 -

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, the main reason for my wishing to move this amendment has, in fact, been cleared to some extent by you, Sir. Am I to understand that it is this meeting that has been called upon to fix the personal emoluments of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? I should have thought that this would have been done very much earlier rather than left to this last moment. Perhaps another point on which an explanation might be given, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the increase of $10 on the previous 1959 estimates in the total sum payable to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The third point on which an explanation might be given is whether on the total amount payable to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, income tax would be paid?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I would have preferred, Mr Speaker, Sir, to have been able to determine the emoluments of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before today. Members are aware that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara took office on the 3rd of December. We were all pre-occupied with Loyalty Week and there was this other consideration, that the emolument to be fixed was dependent upon the manner in which he shall live after he was installed in office.

He has, from the evening of the 2nd of December, moved into the domain which we now call Istana Negara, but he has expressed to me his desire not to reside in the Istana itself. He has informed me that he would prefer his private capacity to be distinct from his official capacity. He has therefore chosen to live in a bungalow inside the domain which used to be occupied by the former Under-Secretaries. He will, however, discharge the functions of his office - both the ceremonial and the official functions - from Government House. Istana Negara will be his official place for State business. This has to be borne in mind when we decide on the emoluments to be given him, because whilst Istana Negara is maintained completely out of State funds, his family and household commitments in the bungalow inside the domain will be on his own personal account. Bearing in mind that the former Governor received £5,000 as his salary, and £1,500 as his duty allowance, we decided that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall receive the sum shown as the estimated expenditure in 1960, namely $42,860. Another reason is this: that the order of precedence, which has now been settled by the Negara in consultation with Her Majesty the Queen, establishes the "Negara" as first in the order of precedence; myself as the Prime Minister second; third the Chief Justice; and fourth the Speaker. As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, your emoluments have been determined by the Constitution until June 1960, and I sincerely hope that this House will have equally charitable and generous considerations in mind when June 1960 comes. I am in receipt of $50 more than you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and although we originally intended to fix the Negara's emoluments at $3,500, which will make it slightly less than £5,000 we decided that there was no real reason why our Yang di-Pertuan Negara, in view of the fact that he would have to maintain his own family and his own private bungalow, should get less than £5,000.

The second point. There is really no mystery about the increase of $10. If the Member for Farrer Park will look at the item, he will find, under the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, Governor - $42,850, and then the Yang di-Pertuan Negara/ United Kingdom Commissioner $10. The Treasury procedure of budgeting requires a token $10. It was, in fact, $42,860, because the United Kingdom Commissioner was at the same time the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The United Kingdom Government has, from the coming into force of the Constitution, paid half the emoluments, duty allowance and entertainment allowance of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Therefore, the Treasury brought $60 down to $50, put $10 token against the other item - Yang di-Pertuan Negara/United Kingdom Commissioner.

Finally, the question of income tax. We have, after the Yang di-Pertuan Negara indicated to us that he would prefer to live in a private bungalow inside the domain instead of the Istana Negara proper itself, decided that he shall be exempt from income tax.

2.45 p.m.

The Chairman: It is so provided in the law, is it not?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there was a certain amount of argument as to whether or not it is so provided in the law. The intention of those who went to the London Conference is supposed to have been embodied in the law. If I remember correctly, it was our original intention that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, unlike the Governor in the past, should not be above the law. Unfortunately, it has been so drafted that there may be a measure of doubt. In any case, we have now decided, because of the considerations that I have stated, that he will be exempt from income tax.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of the explanation of the Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I put in this amendment for the purpose of eliciting information from the Prime Minister. Sir, under the previous constitution and under Colonial constitutions, this allowance of $1,800 has been inserted from time immemorial. This is to allow payment to a civil servant who, during the absence of the Governor from Singapore, was doing the job of Officer Administering the Government.

Sir, in the case of Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is not improbable that he too may have to be away from Singapore in the discharge of his duties. But I do not think that it will be proper-and I am sure it is not the intention of the Government-that the Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be drawn from the Civil Service, or from anywhere else, or even that the British Commissioner be allowed to be the Acting or the Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Surely, when a special Deputy Yang di-Pertuan Negara has to be appointed during the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's absence, that allowance of $1,800 is not enough.

Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of item (16) of sub-head 1.

The Prime Minister: On a subject which is well-known to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have determined that, in the event of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara being unable to act either through his being indisposed, or being away for short periods, a dormant commission will be issued which entitles you, Mr Speaker, to act as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Should, however, it interfere with a sitting of this Assembly, it is at your pleasure to opt out from these duties, in which case the Chief Justice would deputise for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I would not belittle the arduous duties of your high office in this Assembly, I should think that, if you move up from number four in the order of precedence to number one, it surely entitles a token payment to be made to signify the august position to which you would move from time to time in the course of your duties. It has been worked out at about $40 odd per day of actual deputising. I am quite sure that, whilst the Opposition have shown an inclination to be more generous than we are, you will certainly bear with us if we say that, in view of the frugal and thrifty habits of this Government, it is not an expression of disrespect to you.

The Chairman: Free from income tax?

The Prime Minister: Unlike the question of the emoluments of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara - I do not think there is any doubt about it in the Constitution itself - it is subject to tax; but if a case can be made out, I am quite sure the Minister for Finance will give it his careful and due consideration!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the explanation given, may I ask for leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $273,660 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 2 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (30) of sub-head 1.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, since it is on the same subject, I am leaving it to my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (30) of sub-head 1.

Sub-head 1 (30) says "District Judges and Magistrates, twelve". Could I ask the Minister for Law: How many of these posts are now held by officers? How many of the holders have more than three years' experience? How many of them have less than three years' experience?

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the questions from the Member for Farrer Park, I would like to point out that there are three District Judges and nine Magistrates. What was the next question?

Mr Rajah: How many years' experience?

Mr Byrne: In the case of the Acting District Judge and First Magistrate, Mr Eu Cheow Chye, he qualified as a barrister in 1951. In the case of Mr Choor Singh, he passed the Bar final in 1950, and was called to the Bar in 1955. In the case of Mr K. T. Alexander, a District Judge also, he qualified as a legal officer in Madras in 1932, and as a barrister in 1952. In the case of Mr Charlie Foo Chee Hee Tung, a Magistrate, he was called to the Bar in 1953. In the case of Mr Coomaraswamy, he was called to the Bar in 1956. In the case of Mr Goh Heng Leong, he was called to the Bar in 1957. In the case of Mr Lim Ewe Huat, he was called to the Bar in 1956. In the case of Mr Teo Chan Hong, he was called to the Bar in 1958. Mr T. Ariarajah was called to the Bar in 1958, and Mr Noel A. De Rozario in 1957.

As to experience, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see that, except for Mr Eu Cheow Chye, Mr Choor Singh, Mr K. T. Alexander and Mr Charlie Foo, the rest of them, I think, have less than three years' experience.

Mr Rajah: I would like to withdraw that amendment, Sir, with the permission of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have framed the amendment in this way in order that I may be permitted to speak on the Rent Conciliation Board, not so much particularly on items (67), (68), (69) and (70) as they appear therein, but on the question of the President of the Rent Conciliation Board and the principle appertaining to such appointments.

Under the Rent Control Ordinance, Mr Speaker, the provision is that the President of the Rent Conciliation Board should be a person who could be appointed to be a District Judge under the Courts Ordinance. He should have that amount of experience which would enable him to be appointed a District Court Judge. The practice appertaining to appointment to the post of President, Rent Conciliation Board, has always been to appoint either a District Judge, or somebody who was not a practising member of the Bar. Could the House be informed whether the present President of the Rent Conciliation Board is a practising member of the Bar?

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1", and, as indicated, the debate is confined to the Rent Conciliation Board.

3.00 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Ong Eng Guan): Mr Speaker, section 8 of the Rent Control Ordinance provides for the composition of the Board. Section 8 (3) says:

"The President shall possess the qualifications required for a District Judge under the provisions of section 56 of the Courts Ordinance, and shall preside at all sessions of the Board." Mr Speaker, when the new Government came in, we made a careful analysis of the old Rent Conciliation Board and we found that it was mainly a Board operated in the interest of the property and landlord class. We found that of the 15 members of the Board, 10 represented The property class, three represented the Singapore Clerical Union and two represented the T.U.C. So we have taken steps to rectify the position in order that the population of Singapore can be better represented on the Board.

As I have said just now, under the Rent Control Ordinance, it has been laid down that the President shall possess the qualifications required for a District Judge. It does not state that the President should be a District Judge. Mr Speaker, we have checked up with the new President, and he possesses the qualifications required for a District Judge.

Mr Speaker, the second point which the Member for Farrer Park has raised is that the President should not be a practising lawyer. It is not laid down anywhere in the Ordinance. If it happens that the past President was a District Judge, that is because one had been appointed. There is nothing in the Ordinance to say that the President of the Rent Conciliation Board should not be a practising lawyer.

Mr Rajah: As far as I understand the Minister's reply, though he did not specifically say so, it would appear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the present President of the Rent Conciliation Board is, in fact, a practising member of the Bar. If that is accepted, then I will proceed on that basis. I would suggest to the Minister that it is highly undesirable for a practising member of the Bar to be appointed to such a post. In his normal practice, he would come into contact with all sorts of people - tenants, landlords and owners of property. I do not say that he will be influenced by them - but a number of people, who might not otherwise have gone to him on matters other than those appertaining to the Rent Conciliation Board, might go to him and seek his services merely for the reason that when their matters come up before him for consideration as President, they might get an added advantage. Surely, Sir, the Rent Conciliation Board is a court of law. All its proceedings are judicial proceedings. This is the thin end of the wedge. Is the Government going to allow a practising member of the Bar to become a District Judge? Is the Government going to allow a practising member of the Bar to become a High Court Judge? The President of the Rent Conciliation Board is a judicial officer because the proceedings of the Rent Conciliation Board by statute are judicial proceedings. If I am required to cite chapter and verse, I am prepared to do so, but by virtue of the Ordinance itself all proceedings of the Rent Conciliation Board are judicial proceedings. If the Government accept the principle that a practising member of the Bar could become the President of the Rent Conciliation Board, then I think they should also accept the principle that a High Court Judge could practise his profession at the same time.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, whilst I do not concede the validity of the argument put forward by the Member for Farrer Park, I will be the first to admit and to uphold the principle that he who adjudicates must be above criticism or suspicion. This appointment, Sir, was made by my colleague the Minister for National Development. He is not a lawyer and is therefore not well versed in the principles of jurisprudence. Not because there is any validity in his argument but because of the general principle that the dispensation of justice - be it in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal - should be above criticism, I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that the position of the Rent Conciliation Board will be rectified.

Mr Rajah: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,598,730 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 4 -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $100.

Sir, this amendment is introduced by me with a view to ascertaining from the Government what their views are on the independence of the Legislature staff. It has been the practice elsewhere that the Department of the Legislature should be independent of the Executive and that the staff of the Legislature should hold loyalty to the Legislature itself and to each and every Member of the Assembly, irrespective of his Party affiliations.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a hoary subject. We have had it on and off for the last four years. Just to demonstrate his flexibility and resilience, the former Chief Minister now comes forward as the protagonist of the independence of the staff of the Legislature.

You will remember, Sir, that this was one of the matters which you strenuously pressed when the Constitutional talks were going on in London in 1956, again in 1957, and again in 1958. For three years running, we have debated this. We have gone over the arguments forwards and backwards umpteen times. In theory, if you go according to the principle of the separation of powers, the Legislature is independent of the Executive, and the Executive has no control over the Judiciary. The Executive implements the laws made by the Legislature. The Judiciary interprets them. Then the logical conclusion one comes to is that the staff of the Legislature must be recruited separately and must be a separate establishment.

All these arguments having been taken into consideration, we decided that the opportunities for advancement in such a small hierarchy in such a small establishment are so limited that this Assembly would find it extremely difficult to attract suitable recruits. For that reason, you, Mr Speaker, Sir, had put forward the rather ingenious suggestion that there should be an open service in the lower levels but that it should be a closed service in the higher levels. We have all seen the succession of Clerks of this Assembly since 1950. In 1950, my friend and colleague, now the Minister for Labour and Law, officiated in that capacity. And so it has been going on. The turnover has been fairly rapid. But we all hope that it has been stabilised by the present incumbent who, I hope, is sufficiently strong and healthy, and dedicated to the intricate and complicated art of Standing Orders.

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, when you pressed this matter again on our assumption of office, we stated that we would rather allow a reasonable period of time to elapse before we review the decision which we took after being pressed on this issue three years running. There were cogent reasons why we did not accept your views then and why the former Chief Minister also did not accept your views when he was in a position to determine these matters. I should hate to admit that we made those decisions in haste and without due consideration - which we would, in fact, be doing if we altered our decision so soon after the implementation of the Constitution. After a decent and reasonable interval has elapsed in which we are all satisfied that your compromise proposal is feasible, workable and sound, we shall take necessary steps to implement it. But right at this moment, I give no assurance of any kind that the position will be altered.

This is part of the past that we have inherited. There is also this other difficulty - that if we are to make it a closed service even on the top levels, the theory of not depriving an officer of his expectation of further promotion must apply to the present incumbent, and therefore he should be given the option to opt out of the closed service.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, you may find yourself with a new Clerk of the Assembly faster than you would otherwise have found yourself. Bearing all these considerations in mind, I think the position is that it be best left alone, and that it be considered after we all have had time to look into the practical merits of the proposal of a closed service for the top positions inside the Legislative establishment.

The Chairman: This is one occasion when the Speaker regrets that he cannot debate!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time that we have heard that there have been discussions between you and the Prime Minister on this subject. In view of what he has said - that the matter is in his mind and that he will require a decent and reasonable interval before he can make up his mind as to whether or not the Legislature should be made independent of the Executive - I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Prime Minister rose -

The Chairman: May I explain the procedure? The procedure is that if a Member gets up to speak after a request for leave to withdraw is made, then, of course, a vote must be taken.

The Prime Minister: So be it, Mr Speaker. I would like to make this point. It is important that one should not move from pillar to post without being reminded which was the last pillar one hid behind.

The last time the Chief Minister took his stand on the question of a separate establishment for the Legislature, he decided that the scope for promotion and the attraction to the service were so limited that he would not be able to recruit good enough staff into the Legislative establishment. Therefore, he decided against a separate Legislative establishment. And we agreed with him. It is not just a question of our needing a decent interval before we make up our minds. We want a decent interval to elapse before we change our minds. As I have said, Sir, if we conceded to your compromise proposal, it is not because we change our minds but because you had made out a strong and convincing case for a separate service at the top level.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $661,180 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: I take it that the Minister for Finance will cast his eagle eye on these figures, because they seem to be so close to each other that I might make a mistake!

Head 7 -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (9) of sub-head 1.

Sir, I tabled this amendment with a view to seeking information from the Prime Minister as to whether or not it was correct that when there was an Information Officer for Singapore in the United Kingdom, he was recalled on the grounds that no useful purpose could be served by having such an appointment in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Press report on this was correct.

3.15 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the Press report referred to by the Member for Cairnhill, but I am quite prepared to state the facts in regard to this Information Officer, Mr Yeh.

The former Chief Minister will recall that when the Federation of Malaya decided that they would be separately represented in London, their Information Officer who used to discharge duties for the Singapore Government was no longer able to discharge these functions. Therefore, as far back as 1957, it was necessary, if we were to have an Information Officer in London, to make our own appointment.

Sir, no such appointment was made until a few months before the general elections. My record shows that Mr Yeh, former Chinese Press Liaison Officer to the Chief Minister, took office in London three months before the general elections. After the general elections, and in view of the fact that the Minister for Culture, who is well advised in these matters, considered that it was not a judicious appointment, we decided to recall him. He was recalled. He returned on the 2nd September and was posted to the Ministry of Culture. On the 4th October, he tendered his resignation, obviously because he did not fit in with his duties in the Department or perhaps because he was not posted to a Department sufficiently important enough for him. Be that as it may, the post has been left in the Estimates because it is our intention that, when a suitable applicant has been found, an Information Officer will be sent to London.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I quite agree that it is important that there should be an Information Officer in the United Kingdom. But why I brought up this subject is because of the report of the P.A.P. in the Press but I was not going into the question of the present holder since he has resigned or of the previous holder of this post. I was just going to find out whether it was considered important enough by the Government that there should be such an Officer in the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister has said so. With that information, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (18) of sub-head 1.

Sub-head 1 provides for four chauffeurs for the office of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, if you will be good enough to turn to Head 1, page 36 of the Estimates, item (14), you will find there the item "Chauffeurs, five". That is for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. May I ask the Prime Minister why he needs four chauffeurs when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara only needs five?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I do not require four chauffeurs. I have got on in the world quite peacefully and. I hope, in a safe and business-like manner without having had a chauffeur. But in my Office there is protocol, which includes Government hospitality. The four chauffeurs shown there comprise three whom we have inherited from the former Chief Secretary; and we have one more car which was used by the former President of the City Council. Therefore, in the Government transport pool there are at present four cars with four chauffeurs - a Humber Pullman formerly used by the Chief Secretary, and another Humber Pullman which is more than seven years old used by the former President of the City Council. There is a Humber Supersnipe and a Humber Hawk. By some curious scales of salary, the chauffeur in the City Council is paid more than the chauffeur in the Government service. He has preferred not to be transferred to this hospitality pool, and chooses to remain in the City Council service. We have therefore to recruit one more chauffeur to look after the other car. May I say that these cars are used for purely State, official, and ceremonial purposes and are also placed at the disposal of visiting dignitaries who from time to time pass through Singapore?

Perhaps the Member might like to indicate that he is interested in the facts and figures of the cost and the maintenance. If so, my assiduous assistant has worked out the cost per mile to show that the expenditure incurred for ceremonial and official purposes is much less than it was before. This is just in case the Member for Farrer Park wishes to pursue his pet theory, that everything has gone up on the ministerial side. I have no reason at all to burden this House with all the cumbersome and wearisome figures, but if he so wishes, I shall certainly give him a whole bagful of them.

The Chairman: I suppose that can be construed as intimidation!

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some knowledge and experience of how transport allowances work and the cost of a transport pool, as they call it. However, I do not wish to burden the Prime Minister with facts and figures. We all know that Singapore is famous for her hospitality and it is not for me to say that the Prime Minister should not keep up the good name of Singapore by providing them with such good transport, particularly when they come here as our guests.

Therefore, in view of the explanation of the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (19) of sub-head 1.

Item (19) shows a watchman for the Prime Minister. It is not for me to say that the Prime Minister should not be watched; I do not think he needs watching but anyway he has got a watchman. I have searched throughout the Estimates to find out whether other Ministers have watchmen attached to their Ministries, and I have not been able to find any such specific post. I was intrigued at this completely new "Post approved in 1959 (Warrant No. 192/59)".

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, this post, according to my brief, was settled in September 1959, because we required someone to be outside the office in the foyer of the City Hall which leads, on one side, to my Office, and the other to the Cabinet Office, which was formerly the Committee Room of the City Council. In the evening and at night there are the City Council watchmen who look after the security of the whole building. But in the daytime there is only a Police officer on formal duty. To meet the problem of channelling large numbers of people who from time to time seek an audience with Ministers in order to present their grievances, someone has to be found not only to look after the premises, but also to direct members of the public who wish to have their complaints attended to either in the Prime Minister's Office or, more often than not, in the other Ministries. Therefore, a post had to be created which was in keeping with the duties of this man. For some inexplicable reason, the Establishment people told me that we could either call him a "receptionist" or a "watchman". The present holder is, in fact, a bit of both. If we call him a receptionist, his salary will be double what it is, and if we call him a watchman, his salary will be what is shown. Therefore, being frugal and thrifty people, and without meaning in any way to belittle the incumbent, we called him a watchman.

Mr Rajah: Sir, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on his sense of economy? But as the Minister for Labour and Law will admit this term "watchman" has most unpleasant associations and I wonder whether an officer who guides sometimes distinguished visitors into the Prime Minister's Office should be called a watchman. If necessary, why not called him a receptionist and give him a higher salary and a higher status?

However, Sir, in view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of sub-head 2.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether this particular item has reference to item (18). I take it this is the vote which provides for travelling and other expenses in connection with item (18) of sub-head 1. Or is it an item in respect of travelling allowances which might be paid to officials in his Ministry?

The Prime Minister: Sir, the cost of maintaining the four vehicles in the transport pool is set out in sub-head 11 "Upkeep of Vehicles, $9,300", for repairs, petrol and other expenses. This sum of $7,140 [sub-head 2, item (6)] is in respect of transport and travelling when Government officers in the Ministry from time to time have to incur transport charges in the course of their duties. It also covers the cost of transport for members of the Government when they travel from time to time to the Federation on official duty.

3.30 p.m.

I am unable to explain, however, how the figure of $7,140 is arrived at, and why it is estimated that there should be a reduction of $1,800. But I am quite sure that since there is a reduction, as a result of the vigilant activities of members of the Treasury, it is probably because the former Chief Minister was considered to have travelled too often to Kuala Lumpur and it is anticipated that we would not require such a high vote as he did. But then that was pure conjecture. My Ministry had put up a similar vote, but unfortunately, the Treasury officials thought we would be more careful with public money and therefore could do with less money and get much more out of it.

Mr Rajah: If the Prime Minister is worried that the Opposition will object to his going frequently to Kuala Lumpur, he need not be troubled at all. All he need to do is to ask us for the money and, so far as it is within our power, we will vote it for him. However, in view of the explanation given by the Prime Minister, Sir, may I have leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 7.

Sir, in view of the fact that we now have a multilingual Assembly, this provision of $24,000 for language facilities for Assemblymen is a very wise one. I would like to seek information as to how such facilities are being made available to Members of this House.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am sorry that the Member for Cairnhill was away, like John the Baptist in the wilderness, when we debated this item sometime in September. I hope he has sufficiently recovered from his misfortunes to make some noise at what he considers the improprieties of this Government. I am glad to know that he readily admitted the wisdom of this course initiated by the Government. On the 22nd of September, shortly after the Supplementary Estimates were passed in this Assembly, my Secretary issued a circular to all Assemblymen setting out the rules and regulations covering the expenditure of money on learning any of the four languages used in this Assembly. I am sorry if the one sent to the Member for Cairnhill has been mislaid by whoever has been keeping his mail for him. However, I can assure him that I will immediately cause another copy to be sent to him, and perhaps he might wish to avail himself of the opportunities for equipping himself more efficiently in the languages used in this Assembly. I am quite sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he would do well to follow in your footsteps and master the intricacies of Bahasa Kebangsaan. May I say that I apologise for the late delivery of the circular to you, Mr Speaker. My Secretary believed that the Speaker, being omniscient, need no further training in any matters. Therefore, I had to disabuse his mind after you had indicated to me that you are not so omniscient. I am glad, Sir, that the Ministry of Education has looked after your need to equip you with an understanding of what is being said in this House before it is being translated.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11.

Mr Speaker, sub-head II deals with the question of upkeep of vehicles - $9,300. This item, as the Prime Minister said, relates to the four vehicles driven by his four chauffeurs. Mr Speaker, Sir, would you be good enough to turn to page 36, Head 1, sub-head 2, item (7) - Upkeep of Motor Cars, $8,000? The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's cost of upkeep of motor cars is $8,000. The Prime Minister's cost of upkeep of one vehicle less costs $9,300. Could the Prime Minister please explain?

The Prime Minister: It is rather a sad explanation, and I hope the Member for Farrer Park will extend us his sympathy. At some convenient date in the future, we shall put in a supplementary vote to ensure that the maintenance shall not be so high because the vehicles are so old. Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara inherited wellkept and relatively new vehicles with which the former Governors and Commanders-in-Chief equipped themselves. He has a Rolls Royce in excellent condition. He has a Humber Pullman, also in excellent condition. Unfortunately our vehicles have seen more service, and because of this, they require a great deal more attention and replacement, from time to time, of vital moving parts.

The Humber Pullman formerly used by the Chief Secretary is a 1952 model. The one used by the former President of the City Council is a 1949 model. The Snipe is a 1955 model and the Hawk is a 1955 model. They have gone over 70,000 miles. I was told that after 70,000 miles, all moving parts of the engine must be changed and that has been attended to. But I regret to say that our mechanical engineers are unable to restore these cars, the average life of which is over six years, to the condition in which they were or ought to be when they were new. Hence the relatively high repair charges.

The other reason is that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara does not run as big a hospitality roster as we do. Take this morning, for instance. It is not for me to inform Members of the Opposition how important these little courtesies are. Not only did we extend transport facilities to visiting dignitaries from the Federation at this morning's Internal Security Council meeting, but there is also his staff. Therefore, frequent use of these cars are made by visiting Ministers and other important officials who from time to time pass through Singapore. More of the hospitality is looked after by the protocol section of my office than that of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's.

For these reasons, I hope I will receive the support of the Members of the Opposition when the time comes to scrap these cars after they have done more than 100,000 miles.

Mr Rajah: Perhaps, Mr Speaker, the final explanation as to why the cost in his sector is heavier than that of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's sector may be that his chauffeurs are not as well paid as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's chauffeurs. However, in view of the explanation given by the Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $471,500 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 8 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (40) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, item 40, Airport General Manager [$1,300 - 40A - 1,420]. The salary of the Airport General Manager for the year 1959 was such that his total emolument was $15,600. Estimated emolument for 1960 is $517.040, all increase of $1,440. May I ask the Minister why there is such an increase of salary?

The Chairman: The hon. Member will find a note at the foot of the page. Is that the answer?

Mr Rajah: Sir, the annual increment would not bring it up to that figure.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the Airport General Manager was appointed by the P.S.C. to act for six months. The person so appointed was Mr P. W. Ford. He proceeded on long leave in May this year. While he was away on leave, investigations were made into the affairs at the Airport, and as a result of these investigations, Mr Ford was recalled from leave. On September this year, Mr Ford was interdicted from duty. An inquiry is now in progress into these matters, and I can say no more at this stage. Meanwhile, the Director of Civil Aviation himself is supervising the functions of the Airport division, and the Airport Commercial Manager's post is filled in an acting capacity by Mr Tessensohn, and the Technical Services Manager, again in an acting capacity, by Mr Chong Pak Chow. Of course, both these officers are now called upon to shoulder additional responsibility. Mr Ford is not likely to return to duty because he has applied for retirement under the Malayanisation scheme. Meanwhile, the Government is looking for a suitable applicant to fill this post of Airport Manager. It may well be that we should recruit a man with considerable experience from overseas, and it is necessary therefore to have to estimate his salary at the top scale of $17,040 a year.

Mr Rajah: As I understand it, the Deputy Prime Minister feels that this post can only attract recruits to it if the salary at the top of the scale is offered. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister say that? Has he made any effort to recruit at a lower point, somewhere between $1,300 and $1,220? Why should he assume that it is so difficult to fill this post when it has hereto been filled quite easily?

3.45 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, on the advice which has been given to me, it seems that for the present at least, there are no local officers available to fill this post. What has been laid in the 1960 Estimates is only an estimate, and if on a future occasion we should find a man whose qualification and experience does not merit this amount of salary, then it would be natural that that person will be paid a lower salary.

Mr Rajah: I do ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make an effort to recruit at a lower point, and that it is only in the last eventuality that he will recruit at the top point. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,820,750 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 17 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (42) of sub-head 1.

Richmond Bungalow, Lady Superintendent-$ 1,400. Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister inform the House what category of persons are entitled to live from time to time at Richmond Bungalow?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I have not been given notice of the question which is being directed. I presume that only senior officials can stay at Richmond Bungalow.

The Chairman: The Minister will no doubt supply the hon. Member with the information required in due course.

Mr Rajah: Did I hear the Minister say senior officials? Would the Minister consider Cabinet Ministers as high officials?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I have not known of any Cabinet Ministers having stayed in Richmond Bungalow.

Mr Rajah: Does he know of any non-Government officials occupying Richmond Bungalow or any other Government bungalow?

The Chairman: Order. I do not think I can permit fishing questions of this nature. If the hon. Member has any specific information, he should inform the House of that information and possibly the Minister could answer.

Mr Rajah: I am sorry, Sir, I took the wrong line. Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that Richmond Bungalow and the other bungalows in the vicinity are sometimes occupied not only by Ministers or Government servants, but also by people who are not Ministers or Government servants. People who have happened to be heads of statutory bodies, or people who have been appointed by the Government as Chairmen of certain Boards, are known to have lived there. Could the Minister say whether the Chairmen of statutory boards or the Chairman appointed by the Government to any Board is entitled to go to Richmond Bungalow and push out Government servants while they are living there?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, as usual, the Member for Farrer Park's information, as we have seen in the past few months, is mostly based on presumption and presuppositions. It would have been better if he could have brought in specific instances so that the Government would know perhaps what goes on.

Richmond Bungalow is not in Singapore Island. It was built by the past Colonial government, of which the Member for Farrer Park had got much connections, for the expatriates to go and enjoy the sublime and cool climate up in Fraser's Hill. In this connection, the City Council has also built bungalows at Fraser's Hill, and perhaps the Member for Farrer Park during the good old days in the City Council had also enjoyed the perfect climate in the City Council bungalow which is not far from Richmond Bungalow up in Fraser's Hill. Few people can afford to go up to Fraser's Hill, and as such perhaps these bungalows are sometimes left vacant. When they are left vacant, it is better for the Government to let them out to any person who might want to rent them out. I have known occasions when the City Council bungalows during the time of the Member for Farrer Park, were let out to persons who were not City Council staff but who came from all the States in the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Rajah: Since the Minister thinks that it is necessary for him to touch upon my having gone to Fraser's Hill as relevant to the question I put to him, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel I should be afforded an opportunity of answering him on that point. For his information, I would like to inform him that I had not been to Singapore House during the last ten years I served on the City Council. So the Minister should perhaps look up his own facts before he starts. In view of what the Minister has been able to say - he has not been able to say very much - and as it would not seem to serve any useful purpose to pursue the matter further with the Minister today, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (58) of sub-head 1.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, the same points arise in connection with this particular matter as arose with item (42). So in view of my having withdrawn my amendment on item (42), may I be given leave to withdraw item (58)?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not moving?

Mr Rajah: No, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (88) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, item (88) is "Caretaker, Grade II [$93-2A-101]" and it comes under the head of "Hostel for Members of the Legislative Assembly." It also says under the remarks column "Post approved in 1959. (Warrant No. 196/59)". Sir, may I explain straightaway that I have not been in this Hostel, and I have not known about the existence of this hostel -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker,-

The Chairman: Order. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr Rajah: - although vague rumours have reached me that a certain house in Fort Canning has been allocated for this purpose. But as it is not usual for me to jump to conclusions without taking some precautions to find out the facts, I made investigations. I was busy on this when the Budget itself provided the answer to what I was looking for. Now there is a hostel for Members of the Legislative Assembly, but there are some Members of the Legislative Assembly who do not even know where the hostel is, what it is intended to do, or what it is meant for. A hostel, as I understand it, Mr Speaker - unless the Minister is going to give it a different meaning - is some place where a person is allowed to take a rest and perhaps sleep, and food is provided for him too. Has such a place been provided for Members of the Legislative Assembly? I might hasten to add that none of my colleagues here know anything about this hostel. So that the only persons who have enjoyed this governmental provision out of public funds must be high Government officials, including Cabinet ranking Ministers and Members occupying the back benches.

Could the Minister tell the House what all this is about? Perhaps some of us in this House might also like to go and partake of the Minister's hospitality.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the question raised by the Member for Farrer Park, if he wants to know how many Members have enjoyed these facilities I will say this. We, unlike the Members of the Opposition, all the Back-benchers of the P.A.P. are responsible for certain functions in the Government Ministries. That is why the Government has decided to provide certain facilities for the Members, so that they will be able to spend more time on Government affairs. If the Opposition Members are not prepared to pay rent to stay in this hostel, we will not accept them. If they cannot go home because of the late hour, we will take pleasure in opening the door for them and providing them with beds to stay overnight. If the Members from the Opposition Parties have credentials, we welcome them and ask them to enjoy the facilities provided they pay the rent as we do.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park is apparently under the illusion that he is missing something good, and that large sums of money are being set aside for the benefit of Government Members of the Assembly. I assure him that the Treasury keeps a strict watch on these matters, and that no extravagance is being incurred. In fact, the one being used is the one that was formerly allotted as Government quarters, and the Government is getting its full share of the revenue by way of rent from these quarters.

4.00 p.m.

There was a proposal initiated by I do not know who, that the hostel should be provided with crockery, cooks and other comforts of life. We decided that Members of the Assembly are made of very stern stuff and that if they want food they can buy it themselves. If they want cooked meals, they can do the cooking themselves. So I assure the Member for Farrer Park that there is no nice and cushy racket from which be is being excluded. Indeed, my impression was that a circular on this was issued quite some months ago. I received one. I do not know whether-

Mr Rajah: When was that?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: There must have been a failure of communication somewhere.

Mr Rajah: If it is merely a question of late hours that Assemblymen have got to keep in the Assembly, I would say, with respect to the former speaker, that eight o'clock is not a very late hour in Singapore. There is plenty of transport available at that hour to send Members back to their homes in time. I have still not been given a satisfactory answer, despite the Minister for Finance's attempt to do it. He said that a circular found its way to him but, strangely enough, it did not find its way to the Opposition benches. So, either somebody forgot the Opposition benchers as Members of the Legislative Assembly, or the circular went astray in the post. I should hesitate to think that it could have gone astray in the post, and, therefore, possibly the only reasonable conclusion I could come to is that nobody bothered to send it to us. However, the Finance Minister has assured the House that no food is being provided to P.A.P. Assemblymen on public account, and no bedding is being provided to P.A.P. Assemblymen on public account. In fact, nothing is being provided for them on public account. That they are paying an economic rental, as all Government servants, I am told, pay an economic rental; and, therefore, since the Government's scale of rents is being paid on it, it is quite a business proposition. May I therefore congratulate the Government on their business enterprise and beg leave to withdraw?

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

Some hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: The answer is no then.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I can assure the Member for Farrer Park and other Assemblymen on the opposite benches that a circular was issued to all Assemblymen that there will be a hostel at No. 9, Fort Canning Road. There are only 10 beds in three rooms and the rate was $2 per day for each Assemblyman. Some Assemblymen have moved into the hostel and they are paying a rent of $120 per month, plus charges for electricity, water and gas. All these charges are collected by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister from the resident members and paid into the Land Office.

With regard to Government expenditure on this hostel, it is very small. The Government has provided only furniture and is paying for only one caretaker.

May I add, Mr Speaker, and as the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said, if at any time the Members from the opposite benches wish to share beds with them, they are welcome.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $100.

Sir, even before Malayanisation, the Public Works Department had difficulty in getting qualified and experienced engineers and architects. Now, with, Malayanisation I am sure there is an even greater shortage. In view of the fact that the Government is embarking on a big expansion scheme in building more schools and hospitals, I would like to know, Sir, the present staffing position as regards engineers and architects, whether the posts for 1960 have already been filled, or whether there is a shortage. If there is a shortage, may I know how they propose to recruit suitable replacements?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, we still have in Singapore a very small section of the population who has that fear, consciously or unconsciously in their hearts, that when the expatriates go away they cannot run their own country. I think, Mr Speaker, that basic fear and the lack of confidence in our own people have been the greatest factors which had prompted the Member for Cairnhill to lay a: barrage against the Ministry of National Development, a barrage taken up later by the Member for Mountbatten and the Member for Farrer Park. That is why, when the Member for Cairnhill was running the government, he spent tens of millions of dollars in paying off the expatriates; and that is why, when the Member for Farrer Park was running the City Council, he ashamedly put up a bill in order to give $14 million to about 120 expatriates.

Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party is made of a different calibre. When the expatriate engineers came to see me during the time when we were in the City Council and threatened to resign as early as January 1958, I accepted the challenge. I told them that if they wanted to resign and play politics, they were at liberty to do so and I would welcome any challenge. Mr Speaker, our work in the City Council had been thrown open for a decision by the people. It was justified in the Kallang by-election and in the general elections.

We have confidence that our local engineers, architects and administrators can run this country. I am sure the Member for Farrer Park is not well aware that at present in Singapore there are many local engineers and architects who cannot get jobs at all. The first step I took in the first week of the new Government was to sack five expatriate architects in the P.W.D., who had been engaged by the old Government despite the protests of the local architects, both in the P.W.D. and outside. Not only did the old government engage five expatriate architects on a contract basis, they even gave work to outside expatriate firms of architects. Mr Speaker, the expatriate architects in the P.W.D. in those days and the local architects in the City Council in those days had a competition in the Constitution Exposition exhibition in which the Lim Yew Hock Government was trying to vie with the P.A.P.-dominated City Council as to who was capable of putting up the best show. Mr Speaker, despite the fact that they put up $600,000 and we only spent $100,000, the people of Singapore knew who put up the best show and who put it up on the target date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, there are many engineers and architects who have returned from universities in Australia, America and England, and who have found themselves unable to get jobs at present. There is no shortage of skilled personnel in this country. For instance, in the construction of houses, we took action to sack all the expatriate architects in the S.I.T. - six of them - and we replaced them with six local architects. In the same way, we took action to sack the five expatriate architects on contract basis in the P.W.D. and at present, because of the stand taken by the old Government, we are not able to take positive steps to recruit the unemployed architects and engineers hovering in Singapore. However, the position in the P.W.D. is very well under control, and the first step in the reorganisation of this most corrupt department will soon start. The Director of Public Works was an expatriate. He went last month, and a local man has now taken his place, officiating as Director of Public Works. The Deputy Director of Public Works was also an expatriate. He also left last month. Mr Speaker, I can assure you that when all these expatriates leave, I will never give the slightest indication that we need their services any more. We welcome them to leave if they are not interested in serving the people of this country. We have a local man at present to officiate as Deputy Director of Public Works. Mr Speaker, this local man is responsible at present for expediting the drainage scheme which the previous expatriates in the P.W.D. took many years to carry out. The Chief Engineer was also an expatriate and has also left. The Chief Architect was also an expatriate and he has also left. Mr Speaker, we do not attempt to make these people stay because we feel that, in national construction work, only persons who are dedicated to the service of this country can work properly and efficiently, and the S.I.T., which has been thoroughly reorganised, is clear proof of what we are doing. Six local architects to take the place of six expatriate architects! Never has there been more construction activity in the S.I.T. than now and in the future, because by March next year, we will be able to have over 6,000 units of flats being built at any one time. We prove the great lie to the Member for Farrer Park, Mr Speaker, and I hope that the sentiments which the Member for Farrer Park has for his old friends and colleagues - the expatriates - in the S.I.T. will not overcome his better sense of judgment. That his 10 years of friendship with them in the City Council and the S.I.T.-

4.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Member of the rule of debate, which has been framed to prevent utterances of this nature. It is Standing Order 31(9), which reads:

"The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose."

So, all these personalities must be ruled out.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The position in the P.W.D. is very satisfactory and we are sure and confident that we will be able to discharge many of the responsibilities entrusted to us. We have faith in our own people and I feel sorry for those persons who have no faith in our local architects and our local engineers. The top posts will soon be filled by local people and we will try to cut out red tape in our recruitment, so that many of the unemployed engineers and architects who have come back and will come back will be able to play their part in the national construction of our time.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are not imputing a lack of faith in our own local engineers and architects. In fact, Sir, I was a member of the Malayanisation Commission and was one of those who recommended Malayanisation. That shows that we have got faith in our own local people. But the point we wanted to be sure of was whether we would have enough of them here to be able to fulfil our obligations to the public through the P.W.D. Some time in the past, aided schools were not able to get their grant because we were told that the P.W.D. people had not yet inspected the job. I have already informed the Minister for Education and he is quite sympathetic. In the case of one school a quarter of a million dollars has been paid to the contractors, but not one dollar of capital grant has been paid because the P.W.D. has not been able to inspect the job and give it approval. We are glad, Sir, that the Minister for National Development has given an assurance that there will be no difficulty in getting replacements and we wish him success in his enterprise. We, therefore, look forward to a building boom not only in regard to public works but also in regard to private building projects, because the S.I.T. has got a great deal to do with either restricting the building projects of the P.W.D. or in stimulating and expediting such works. In view of the information given, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,245,660 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 18 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 18 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 12.

Sub-head 12, Mr Speaker, reads: "Tax on heavy Oil Engined Vehicles and Road Rollers". A reduction from $45,600 in last year's estimates to $27,000 this year. Could the House be informed as to why this reduction is being effected? Is it due to the fact that less heavy oil engined vehicles and road rollers are being employed, or whether other economies have been effected which have brought about the reduction in the amount?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, the reduction from $45,600 to $27,000 is incurred because of a transfer of certain vehicles to the District Councils.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 18 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 13.

Mr Speaker, Sir, UNALLOCATED STORES $ Purchase, Freight and Other Charges 1,500,000 Deduct Value of Stores to be issued to other Sub-heads and Services 1,433,000 causing a deficit on that of $67,000, and, therefore, appearing in the estimates of expenditure at $67,000. As I understand the vote, it is a vote which enables the Government to purchase articles for the use of various Government departments which eventually will be paid for from other sub-heads and other service votes. If that is the correct appreciation of the situation, why should there be a deficit of $67,000 on that particular item?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, the $67,000 represents the maximum margin allowed between stores purchased and the issues made. It means that at any time the stores should not exceed $67,000.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I do not at all follow what the Minister says, that at any given moment in the stores under unallocated heads, there must not be stores to the value greater than $67,000. That is not my appreciation of the vote. My appreciation of the vote is that the total provision made for purchase of stores by Government is $1,500,000, and it is a central purchase which will be allocated throughout the different departments for which apparently the different departments are going to pay the central store $1,433,000. I also know that it is the practice of Government that when they make these central purchases, they put a five per cent charge on it, so that they make a profit - they call it a cost charge - which will help to defray the cost of centralised storing before they sell it to the other sub-heads. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not accept the Minister's explanation.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I have tried to explain it just now in technical language, as I thought the Member for Farrer Park would be able to understand technical phraseology. The P.W.D. works as an agency on behalf of Government departments, and buys stores on their behalf. Stores come into the P.W.D. and they are charged to other Government departments' votes. But this transaction takes some time and there is always this margin in the past 13 years' budgets, so that between one year and the other year when the vote is not chargeable, the votes of the other departments are not charged. There is a vote in the P.W.D. to cover the unchargeable stores.

Mr Rajah: The Minister is an accountant. Figures are his metier, but still it does not make sense to me. I do not understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir. $67,000, as I understand it, appears in the budget as a debit item against Government. Where is the corresponding income item to offset that? The Minister's explanation is that, in one particular year there may be a debit of $67.000 towards the end of that year. He wants to give the impression that in the following year that debit will become a credit. Now, if that is so - and it may be so - could the Minister point to the income estimate which provides the credit?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I feel it is better that I try to illustrate it by way of example. Say, for instance, in December of each year, the P.W.D. buys certain stores for the Health Ministry, an order for which has been received in June of that year, but it has not been charged to the Health Ministry's vote as yet. In other words, the transfer item could not be executed in time for the closing of the P.W.D. budget by the 15th of December. So it is necessary for the budget to have an item to cover such transfer items.

The Chairman: I suggest that this is an item which could suitably be looked into by the Estimates Committee. I understand the Member for Tanglin is a Member of the Estimates Committee.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I am not satisfied with the explanation, but it does not seem to me that the Minister can take us very much further on this particular point. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 18 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 14.

Mr Speaker, the same point arises in this matter as in the previous matter, and I hope the Minister might be able to enlighten us better on this than he was able to on the other one. "Workshop Account $570,000 - Deduct Value of Bills recoverable before the end of the year $540,000," Therefore, a debit on the expenditure of the Government of $30,000, but not necessarily a loss to Government over a period of years. Could the Minister please indicate why there should be a debit of $30,000 when there is a possibility of recovering that amount in the following year? This must have been the position in 1958. If that was so, there should have been a corresponding entry in the income column to offset the $30,000 debit this year, as there will be in 1960 to offset this debit of $30,000 for 1960. Could the Minister therefore please indicate what was left over from 1959 in the estimates in the income column and which will be received in 1960?

4.30 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, this question involves the same principle of accounting entry as the previous question. I feel that in this House it is quite difficult for an accountant to show a lawyer the techniques of accounting debits and credits. But if the Member for Farrer Park has got some time, I shall be delighted to explain to him in more detail how these accounting entries are being put into the Budget.

Mr Rajah: Well, accountant-lawyer lawyer-accountant, there is nothing but that. I appear here not as a lawyer and neither does the Honourable Minister as an accountant. We appear as representatives of the people and let us, therefore, talk the language of the people. It is quite a simple thing. He says, "Workshop Account, $570,000. Deduct Value of Bills recoverable before the end of the year". The implication in that statement is some of the bills cannot be recoverable during the year and can only be recovered in the following year. As the practice of Government is that the final accounts for the year can only show those amounts received during the year, even though the amount may be received in the following year - this Budget is framed in this way - therefore, it is obvious that this $30,000, Mr Speaker, will appear in the 1961 Estimates as an income item. If it does not, it should. I am suggesting to the Minister that if that is the correct assumption, why does the 1960 Budget not show what will be received in 1960 in respect of unpaid work for 1959? It might be $25,000 or it might be $30,000 - that must be shown in the 1960 Budget as an income item. I cannot make myself any clearer than that.

The Chairman: As I have indicated, this is exactly the type of item which could be looked into in detail by the Estimates Committee, because we are now in Committee of Supply in a public meeting. It might require inquiry, and an item of this nature might require evidence, and I have no doubt it would require evidence. If the Estimates Committee will look into the matter, take evidence, its report will probably make the matter clear to all honourable Members.

Mr Rajah: In view of that, Mr Speaker, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $6,803,550 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 21 -

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1.

Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to find out from the Minister for Health the qualifications of the Personal Secretary (Political) to the Minister for Health, his functions and duties, the duration of his duty hours each day, and why it should be necessary for the Minister for Health to have a Political Secretary.

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the question put forward by the Member for Tanglin appears to have been answered by the Prime Minister in this Assembly already. However, I would also like to clarify that the Personal Secretary (Political) is a post approved in 1959 (Warrant No. 141/59). This is not a new post, but was created in 1959, and as such I do not see why the Member for Tanglin wishes to know the functions and responsibilities of the Personal Secretary (Political).

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I feel I have to ask that question because in the public mind there is a question as to whether the Ministry of Health is being run by the Minister or really by the Personal Secretary (Political), and whether the Personal Secretary (Political) is the real power behind the throne and above the Minister, or the Minister above the Personal Secretary (Political). Otherwise, Sir, the public will begin to have their doubts and all kinds of ideas which would be detrimental to the welfare of the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Dr Sheng Nam Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I might be allowed to answer on behalf of the Minister for Health. The Minister is the person who holds final responsibility for the running of his Ministry. He has two people to help him, that is, myself and the Personal Secretary (Political). I have said previously that Members of the Opposition must not make statements on false premises to frighten the people. This is another instance of an attempt to discredit the Minister.

I wish to state here very clearly that the running of the Ministry of Health is solely the responsibility of the Minister himself. In so far as Mr Woodhull, the Personal Secretary (Political), and I myself are concerned, we only help him in his duties.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I wonder if the Minister for Health could say whether the Political Secretary is medically qualified to advise him in his Ministry.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it seems that the Member for Tanglin is speaking like a man with an unsound mind. It seems that he is anxious to know the position of my Personal Secretary (Political). The position has been explained by my Parliamentary Secretary just now, and if the Member for Tanglin has good reasons to be dissatisfied with the administration of my Ministry, I would much prefer that this matter be put to me in the form of a written question to enable me to give him a satisfactory reply. It seems that his question put to me just now is not proper. If I am not mistaken, I think the Member for Tanglin cannot understand the term "Personal Secretary (Political)". He is still groping in the dark in spite of the fact that we have given him clarification.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the Minister or the interpreter has made me understand that the Minister has alleged that the Member for Tanglin is not of sound mind.

The Minister for Health indicated assent.

The Chairman: Order. If the Minister has, in fact, made the allegation, I think he ought to withdraw it. I do not think he can say that any Member of the Assembly is of unsound mind.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, what I meant was that the nature of the question was unhealthy or that the mind was not sober.

The Chairman: Does the Minister mean to suggest that the Member is drunk?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, my remarks were not intended to be in any way derogatory to the Minister for Health. In fact, our opinion is that there is enough political wisdom in both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary so that they do not require any further advice from a political adviser. Therefore, this post is really redundant.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I still cannot understand the intention of the Member for Tanglin. The post mentioned just now was approved by Warrant No. 141/59 and was created not only in my Ministry but also in other Ministries. Why was this question of Political Secretaries levelled against me and not against the other Ministries?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps in other Ministries the Political Secretary may be necessary. But in this particular Ministry, the Parliamentary Secretary is himself a medical man, and I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for another person, a political adviser, to be installed in the post.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, all facets of government involve politics, and that includes health. For instance, when the City Council build clinics, it is politics: when we build clinics for the people, it is people's politics. But when the Member for Cairnhill built clinics, he did not build them for the people. He built only three clinics compared to our fifteen clinics, and he looked after the interests of the other sections of the population, and, Mr Speaker, this too is politics.

I do not think the Minister for Health said just now that the Member for Tanglin is of unsound mind, because if he had said so, he would have seen to it that the Member is sent to a proper place. Instead, the Member brought in the Gospels and the Bible yesterday to read his Sermon on the Mount.

Mr Speaker, Ministers for Health do not have to be doctors, and doctors do not necessarily make good Ministers for Health. The former Minister for Health was not a doctor; he was a lawyer. In very few countries in the world do we have Ministers for Health who are medical men. As a matter of fact, it is better that a Minister for Health knows nothing about medical science, because in the running of their ministries they always have experts to depend on for professional knowledge. When I construct a house, Mr Speaker, I do not have to be an architect. This holds true with the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health has his Parliamentary Secretary, who is a doctor, to advise him on medical matters. He is there to run the Ministry on behalf of the P.A.P. Government and to look after the welfare of the people.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin did not criticise the Minister at all. He did not say that the Minister did not have medical qualifications. He was trying to find out from the Minister whether or not the Political Secretary is qualified.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Minister for National Development wishes to build a house for himself. I am so glad for him that he does not have to go to an architect, and that he is sufficiently competent to plan it and have it erected himself. When he is in his last extremities - and I pray that that will not be for some time yet - he will also say, "I do not need the assistance of the Minister for Health or any of the incumbents of the various doctors' posts in his Ministry."

Mr Speaker, Ministers are private individuals and the Minister for Health need not necessarily be a doctor. Not all doctors make good Health Ministers: and not all lawyers make good Ministers for Law, except in exceptional cases, such as the one we have in front of us. But the point is: if it is accepted that a layman who is a Minister for Health must have around him medical advisers, the question is, must he also have political scientists at his elbow in order to carry out effectively his medical policies?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it seems that the debate on this subject of Personal Secretary (Political) has got heated up. The Government has taken a decision in this matter and we have full confidence in the incumbents.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all reasonable persons will agree with the Member for Farrer Park that an expert in the field of politics will not be able to advise the Minister on how best to, say, operate on a case of acute appendicitis. Indeed, it is not the business of the political adviser to provide the Minister with such technical advice. I think the Member for Farrer Park has overlooked or underestimated the importance of making an impact upon the public of Government policies in all Ministries. It is important not only to provide services but to make sure that they are provided in a manner which the public wants. It is because the Member for Farrer Park and his colleagues have been unable to understand the vital importance of this link between the Government and the masses that they met with disaster six months ago. We are trying to impress upon him that this is the most basic and fundamental issue, but I am afraid we have so far met with very little success.

Mr Rajah: Sir, let me be the first to assure the Minister for Finance that I am well aware that a Party that is not rooted in the masses of the people has very little chance at the polls. I am the first to admit that, and it is always so in any democratic institution where the ballot box counts. Unless you get the confidence of the masses - and since the masses count these days - you will not get your seat. But what worries some of us and quite a lot of people outside, Mr Speaker, is this. The People's Action Party is deeply and firmly entrenched in the masses. That, of course, is accepted by all of us - there can be no doubt about that, and the Minister for Finance need not repeat that since we accept it. As a corollary of that statement, since they are the people who are so deeply rooted in the masses - and there are 43 of them sitting in front of us - is it necessary for them to engage the services of six others?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hate to refer the Member for Farrer Park to all that has been said on this subject. But can I ask him one simple question? Does he suggest that a Government is not entitled to use such resources that it has at its disposal to put across the policy of that Government, so that it can be again returned by the mass support of the people? If that is the business of government, and if successful government means not only governing well, but being able to convince the majority of the people that what you are doing is in their interests and so carry them with you, is there anything either unethical or improper that a government should spend a minute portion of its resources in order to equip itself with the necessary personnel?

Let me put this to the Member for Farrer Park. Since 1945 the Blood Transfusion Unit has been run on the basis of a bottle of beer in exchange for a bottle of British servicemen's blood. That is a fact; the doctors will confirm it. The only people who have no psychological resistance to losing red blood corpuscles are those who consider themselves to have a jot of it, partly because, having given a pint of blood, they are thereby discharged from their rather tedious duties for the rest of the day, and partly by the consolation of a bottle of beer. That is the way in which the Blood Transfusion Unit had been run. And because we are able to put across the message we have now for the first time got a roster of something over 6,000 donors in a short campaign. Our target is 12,000, and I think in due course of time we shall achieve the target. These are simple elementary things. No Minister is omniscient and omnipotent. We would be the first to admit it. But the business of collective leadership means having at its disposal people whose energy and drive can be used to advantage by the Government in furthering its programmes and policies.

I can imagine the Member for Farrer Park not being happy about these things. In fact, I am glad to know that all these little points we are scoring disturb him sufficiently to want to make a noise about Political Secretaries. I think it is a tribute to the Personal Secretary (Political) to the Minister for Health that Mr Rajah considers it worthy of mention.

The Chairman: The Member for Farrer Park!

The Prime Minister: The Minister for Farrer Park!

The Chairman: Not even Minister.

Mr Rajah: Not yet. Let me be the first to agree with the Prime Minister - that the business of every government is to see that it is returned again. One expects that. The Budget that the Finance Minister is presenting; the millions of dollars that the Government is budgeting for is intended to bring them back into power when the proper time comes for them to go to the polls. There can be no doubt that every action that the Government takes is intended to bring them back into power; they are not such altruists. When people go into politics, as the Members on the front Bench have done, they are not altruists. They go in in order to seize power and to keep that power, and nobody can blame them for it. Politics is that way.

The Prime Minister: You are that way!

Mr Rajah: The Government can certainly use Government machinery in the way it should be used in order to bring itself back into power. But the suspicion that rests with a large section of the public is this, and this is what the Opposition is also complaining of: that the Political Secretaries have been given jobs merely because at the time of the elections they were not able to compete at the polls.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, it is quite wrong. My Political Secretary was not at that time unable to compete at the polls. For divers reasons he did not compete at the polls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to deal with people who are almost psychopathic in their suspicions of the motives of other people. They project their personalities, the things that motivate them, on to other people. They read into our completely simple and straightforward actions all kinds of abstruse and dishonourable motives. But being honourable men, we are charitable enough to believe that in the course of the next five years, we shall be able slowly to re-educate them to believe that there are people in this world who, whilst they are not altruists, have sufficient political courage and conviction in what they believe, to fight for a cause even if it is against their personal advantage.

I understand the minds and the thinking of that generation that formed the Progressive Party. I know them well. I sat near their councils. I learned all about the elections - the way they fought. I was once an election agent! For one of them! I understand their motivations. But what I am hoping to do in the course of the next few years is to bring home to even dyed-in-the-wool renegades the message, that if self interest is all that you work upon, and is the only incentive you offer your society, then in this revolutionary situation you must fail. Let me explain the difference in technique which is brought about by a difference in basic approaches.

When I came back as a very young man

Tun Lim Yew Hock: You are not old.

The Prime Minister: Much younger than now! Sir, I was employed by persons who obviously shared the Member for Farrer Park's philosophy of life - that nobody is an altruist. I was employed on this basis, "Here is a good return for money." Having employed me for my legal skill, I was then carried over to the political front to further their political cause. And being sufficiently malleable and willing to learn, I went in and learned all about it. That is the reason why we understand them so thoroughly. If you want to have an election meeting - as indeed the President or the Vice-President of his Party used to hold in places like Kampong Amber, and nobody wanted to go and listen because the message was not worth the listening, you then arrange a satay party and a joget party. Then you arrange for $400 to be given to your clerk who arranges to give it to a friend of the headman who, in turn, is supposed to give it to the headman. When you ultimately go to the satay party, you find that not $400 worth of satay is being distributed. Then you are left with the riddle whether it was because the headman did get the $400 but decided not to buy so much satay, or whether it was because along the way, each went and bought and ate a little satay before the party itself. Then in the midst of all these festivities you make a speech. But not so the P.A.P.

5.00 p.m.

When we hold a meeting, there is a message, and the people come and listen. Last week's demonstration is an object lesson to those on the other side - that if you want to carry the mass of the people with you, you have to offer more than just your personal interest. True, the business of the whole expenditure is to further the interests of the people of Singapore; hence the way the $300 odd millions being spent next year.

We do not give jobs to people who do not deserve them. When we make political appointments, we explain it and carry it openly through. The whole thing is simple.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for us, as indeed it must be for every Party that believes in organisation, effectiveness and efficiency, the yardstick is the efficacy of the instruments you use. If your instruments are blunt, if you hire a lot of duds, then you must fail. If you can get effective weapons with which to forge your policies, implement your plans, then you will succeed. That is the acid test. And that is why I say the Political Secretary to the Minister for Health deserves to be complimented, as he has received special attention from the Member for Farrer Park. I hope, in the course of the debate in the next few days, that there may be other Political Secretaries who will receive this commendation.

Mr Rajah: I must congratulate the Prime Minister on the clever words he used to talk about a simple issue before the House. He has been so eloquent, Mr Speaker, that most of us have lost sight of what prompted him to speak. On that I congratulate him.

Now, he claims to be a simple man, not only for himself-

The Prime Minister: In objectives and in motives!

Mr Rajah: He not only claims to be a simple man, but he also claims other things besides. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, if you remember, he also claimed that he always places his cards on the table. But he did not tell the House whether he places them upwards or downwards. This is yet another classic example of the Prime Minister placing his cards on the table - face downwards!

The Prime Minister: If I may play it one step further. Only fools place all their cards face upwards!

Mr Rajah rose -

The Chairman: Are we still on a game of cards?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Prime Minister said that only fools did that; because when he did say that, I did not believe that he could be such a fool!

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we are playing a game of cards, as the Member for Farrer Park is suggesting that we should, you only show your cards after your opponent has put his on the table.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Is this a convenient time to suspend?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

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

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended. I shall take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.36 p.m.

Head 21 (cont.)

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub-head 1.

Item (4) "Permanent Secretary to Ministry of Health and Director of Medical Services". Could the House be informed whether this post is held by an officer, and, if so, whether he is holding it in an acting capacity or in a permanent capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, there is no change concerning the post or emolument. The post was vacated by Dr Doraisingham who retired on 31st May, 1959. He went on leave before retirement on 1st August, 1959. At the moment, this post is held by Dr Ho Yuen in an acting capacity. Steps have been taken to fill this vacant post.

Mr Rajah: How long has Dr Ho been acting in this post? As far as I can make out, he has been acting for four months, Mr Speaker. How long is it intended that this post should remain an acting post before it is filled permanently?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, this post has been vacant for four months. The Ministry of Health will consider Dr Ho's position.

Mr Rajah: Does the Minister not think that in such an important appointment as this, it is highly desirable, for the efficiency of the Department, for the incumbent of the post to know whether he will be made permanent or not, and that it is not in the interest of the efficiency of the Department to keep a post filled with acting appointments all the time?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, what is being put forward by the Member for Farrer Park is within our knowledge, and I agree that the administration of the Ministry should be carried on smoothly. We are taking steps to make the appointment permanent after we have satisfied ourselves with Dr Ho's work. The matter will then be referred to the P.S.C. for determination as to whether the incumbent is fit or not.

Mr Rajah: Do I understand the Minister to say that, at the moment, he is not satisfied that the incumbent in an acting capacity is capable of carrying out the duties of the post as yet?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, Dr Ho Yuen is new to the post. When Dr Marcus was on sick leave, Dr Ho acted as Director of Medical Services. When Dr Marcus returned from leave, he told me that he could not carry on with his job as Permanent Secretary because of ill health, and he suggested that Dr Ho Yuen who was the Acting Deputy Director should act in this post. Because of the short space of time, I cannot say definitely whether the present incumbent is fit or not.

Mr Rajah: Since the matter is now receiving the active consideration of the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of sub-head 1.

Could the Minister tell the House whether this, too, is an acting appointment and, if so, how long has that post been held in an acting capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, there is no change in the post and the emolument. Dr Calderwood, who was the Deputy Secretary, retired on 31st May, 1959. His leave, prior to retirement, expired on 16th November, 1959. At present an officer is acting in this post, and measures will be taken to fill it as a step towards the reorganisation of this Department.

Mr Rajah: In view of the active steps which the Minister is contemplating in this matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of sub-head 1.

Item (6), "Assistant Director of Medical Services (Hospitals) Grade E." Could the Minister inform the House whether this post is held in a permanent capacity or in an acting capacity, and whether this post is held by a medical man or by a layman?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, this post at the moment is held in an acting capacity, and the incumbent has no medical qualifications. There is no change in the designation and emolument. At the moment, the grading is Grade E. The incumbent will retire towards the end of this year. This matter is under my active consideration, and we will fill the post in the near future.

Mr Rajah: Do I understand the Minister to say that this post is, in fact, held by a layman? If I have heard the Minister correctly, is it desirable that such a post should be held by a layman? Was it not anticipated that this post should be held by a medical officer and not by a layman?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I agree with the opinion expressed by the Member for Farrer Park, and I am finding ways and means of filling this post by a qualified doctor.

Mr Rajah: In view of the assurance given by the Minister, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of sub-head 1.

Could the Minister tell the House whether this post, too, is held in an acting capacity or whether it is filled permanently by an officer.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, there is no change in the designation of and salary for this post. This post became vacant when Dr C. E. Smith retired on 26th July, 1959. At the moment, a doctor is acting in this post. Steps will be taken to fill this post as a step towards reorganisation of this particular Department.

Mr Rajah: As the Minister is here again taking steps to have this post filled permanently, may I have leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (10) of sub-head 1.

Under the Headquarters of the Ministry of Health, there is provision for five medical officers. Could the Minister tell the House how many of these medical officers provided for in the Budget are with him at the moment?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, at the moment, we have only one doctor attached to the Ministry of Health.

The Prime Minister: I would like to enquire, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Member for Farrer Park is aware that all these acting posts have remained acting for many months during the office of the last Government. He has discussed with his colleagues in the last Government the problems involved in confirming a whole series of officers who have received rapid promotion as a result of Malayanisation, before they have been tried and found adequate and suitable for this rapid promotion? The problem that this Government is faced with is exactly the same one which faced the last Government. Therefore, it might be as well, before the Member for Farrer Park appears as the champion for the officers who are holding acting appointments in the Civil Service, that he should perhaps be reminded that this is not a problem peculiar to this Government but is one which has existed for many months before this Government assumed office.

The Chairman: Strictly, of course, the Prime Minister is out of time. We are on item (10) "Medical Officers five" not acting appointments. But we are in the Committee of Supply. Perhaps I could allow that.

Mr Rajah: Let me hasten to assure the Prime Minister that I hold no brief, watching or otherwise, for the Civil Service. My job, as I see it, Mr Speaker, is to bring out in this debate the actual staffing position of the Medical Department. There is no malice behind this, and my view is that it is important for all of us to know what exactly is the position in the Medical Department. The answers to these questions seem to indicate quite clearly, Mr Speaker, even at this early stage - and I have not finished with the Ministry of Health yet - that something is very wrong with the staffing position of doctors - that there is a shortage of doctors. If there are going to be shortages in the Medical Department (and the posts of five doctors are not among the new posts, Mr Speaker - they existed in 1959, and the Minister says that only one of these posts has been filled at the moment). I entirely sympathise with the Minister on this. I am not criticising him. It is not his fault that things have happened this way. The only purpose of my raising this question is to persuade the Government to do something more vigorous about the matter, either by recruiting locally or from abroad, because the primary consideration for any department is to maintain its efficiency and efficacy.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the hon. Member for Farrer Park is not aware that in the Ministry of Health, there have always been vacancies unfilled, in fact ever since the last ten years. This is not a new feature peculiar to the new Government. All along there have been vacancies in the Ministry of Health. We have taken steps up to now to try and fill these vacancies. As I stated yesterday, we intend to recruit doctors from overseas on short-term contract. The vacancies, I cannot overemphasise, have been there all along. They are not something that are new.

The Chairman: I think we are in danger of getting out of strict procedure. I see that there is an amendment, amendment (32), which seeks to move a motion that the total sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $100. I think that that is the time when the overall picture could be debated. We are now on item (10), which is "Medical Officers, five", and the information elicited is that, of those five posts, one has been filled. Are there any further questions on that particular item?

Mr Rajah: No further questions on that particular item, Mr Speaker. This question has been framed merely to elicit that information. I have got that information. May I ask your leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (37) of sub-head 1.

"Senior Registrars, two." Could the Minister inform the House what exactly is meant by a Senior Registrar? Is the post held by a professionally-qualified person, or is it a post held by a layman? How many of such posts are attached to the Department of Pathology?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the term "Senior Registrar" is a medical term indicating a medical officer with a higher qualification. He can also be known as a junior specialist. He usually holds a higher qualification and has some seven or eight years' experience. There are at present no Senior Registrars attached to the Department of Pathology. But steps are at present being taken to fill these posts.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I have the information. May I be permitted to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (38) of sub-head 1.

In the Department of Pathology, there is provision for six medical officers. Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House, how many of such medical officers are now in the Department of Pathology?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, at the moment, three medical officers have been appointed. Three posts still remain vacant. Steps are being taken to fill these three posts as soon as possible.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, may I be given leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (63) of sub-head 1.

In the Dental Section of the Ministry of Health, Mr Speaker, provision is made for 41 dental officers, only one of which is a new post. Therefore, there are for the year 1959, 40 posts. Could the Minister inform the House how many of these 40 posts are now held by dental officers?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Thirty-six of the 40 dental officers' vacancies have been filled. Four posts are vacant, and there is one more new post for next year.

Mr Rajah: May I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (139) of sub-head 1.

In the Health Branch of the Ministry, there is provision for 32 Health Officers for the year 1960. Of these 32 posts, three are new posts. Therefore, there are now 29 posts in the Health Branch of the Ministry of Health. Will the Minister be good enough to inform the House how many of these are occupied?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in reply, there are at the moment 26 Health Officers in the Ministry and three posts are still vacant.

Mr Rajah: May I beg leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.00 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (188) of sub-head 1.

Senior Surgeon, Grade E, attached to hospitals and dispensaries. Could the House be informed whether this is held permanently by a doctor, or whether he holds it in an acting capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, this post is held by Dr Yahya Cohen. It is a permanent post.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I understand the Minister to say it is a permanent post. I was not querying the permanency of the post. I accept that. But what I want to know was whether that post is being held in an acting capacity or in a permanent capacity.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): It is held in a permanent capacity, not in an acting capacity.

Mr Rajah: May I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (189) of sub-head 1.

Could the Minister please inform the House whether this post - Senior Ophthalmic Surgeon - is held in a permanent capacity or in an acting capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, this post is being held in an acting capacity by a doctor.

Mr Rajah: Is the Minister taking steps to see that this post will be made permanent at the earliest possible opportunity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Reorganisation of this department is taking place, and I promise that this matter will be given active consideration.

Mr Rajah: In view of the Minister's reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (195) of sub-head 1.

Ear, Nose and Throat Surgeon - Could the Minister please tell the House whether this appointment is held in a permanent capacity or in an acting capacity, and if in an acting capacity, since when?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, the post fell vacant on the 25th of February, 1959, and at present it is held in an acting capacity. However, the Ministry is taking active steps to see that this post is filled in the near future.

Mr Rajah: May I be given leave to withdraw the amendment, in view of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (200) of sub-head 1.

"Senior Registrars, seventeen" - Will the Minister please inform the House how many of these 17 posts are now filled and, if so, how many such posts are held in an acting capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, seven posts have been filled.

Mr Rajah: Sir, the second part of my question remains unanswered. Of the seven posts filled, how many of them are held in an acting capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): All the seven are held in a permanent capacity.

Mr Rajah: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (202) of sub-head 1.

"Medical Officers, seventy - one new post." Therefore, for the year 1959, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be 69 posts. Would the Hon. Minister for Health please tell the House how many of these 69 posts are now filled?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, all the posts are filled. There is no vacant post now under this Head.

Mr Rajah: In view of the information given by the Minister for Health, may I be given leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (204) of sub-head 1.

"Housemen, fifty" - Will the Minister please tell the House how many of these 50 housemen are in the General Hospital?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, circumstances call for 50 posts for new doctors. In order to comply with the regulations, facilities for housemanship are provided for new medical graduates from the University of Malaya. All these 50 posts are attached to the General Hospital.

Mr Rajah: I do not know whether it is the translation or what, Sir. The impression I got was that all these 50 posts are with the General Hospital. I am sure the 50 posts are with the General Hospital. But what I want to know is, are any doctors attached to these 50 posts? Are there any vacancies?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): There are no vacant posts in this category. All have been filled.

Mr Rajah: I beg leave to withdraw, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (269) of sub-head 1.

In the out-patient services, there is provision for 58 medical officers for next year, eight of which are new posts. Therefore, Mr Speaker, there should be 50 posts of medical officers this year in out-patient services. Could the Minister please tell the House how many of these 50 posts are occupied by medical officers?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, 41 posts have been filled.

Mr Rajah: I beg leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (289) of sub-head 1.

Medical Superintendent, Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital. Could the Minister please inform the House whether this post is held permanently or in an acting capacity, and if in an acting capacity, whether any steps are being taken to fill the post permanently?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, this post is being held by a doctor in an acting capacity, and active steps are being taken to fill this post in the near future.

Mr Rajah: May I be given leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (290) of sub-head 1.

Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, two - Could the Minister please tell the House whether both of these posts are filled, and if filled, whether in an acting capacity or in a permanent capacity?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, one post is being permanently filled, the other one is at present vacant, subsequent to the resignation of the previous holder.

Mr Rajah: Are steps being taken to fill that post, Mr Speaker?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, steps are being taken to fill the post.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation given by the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Health, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: On a point of order, Sir! The Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Rajah: I beg your pardon.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (291) of sub-head 1.

Senior Registrars, three - Could the Minister please inform the House how many of these posts are filled, and if filled whether in a permanent or acting capacity?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, at the moment only one post has been filled and steps have been taken to fill the remaining posts.

Mr Rajah: May I be given leave to withdraw, in view of the statement of the Minister for Health?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (292) of sub-head 1.

Twenty-two medical officers attached to Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital. Will the Minister please inform the House how many of such posts are filled, particularly as we are informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health that this is one of the most overworked departments in the Ministry?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, there is no single vacant post at present in Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital. All the posts have been filled.

Mr Rajah: Congratulations! May I have leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (334) of sub-head 1.

Medical Superintendent, Tan Tock Seng Hospital and T. B. Clinic. Could the Minister please inform the House whether this post is held in an acting capacity or in a permanent capacity?

The Chairman: Are the same questions to be asked for items (334) and (335)?

Mr Rajah: Yes. For items (334), (335) and (336).

The Chairman: The same questions are to be asked?

Mr Rajah: Yes.

The Chairman: Perhaps we will take them together?

Mr Rajah: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: The questions are, firstly, that the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (334) of sub-head 1, secondly, the same amount in respect of item (335) of sub-head 1, and thirdly, the same amount in respect of item (336) of sub-head 1.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in reply to the questions on the three items, in all cases the posts are held in an acting capacity.

Mr Rajah: Could the Minister inform the House whether the person holding the acting appointment of Medical Superintendent, Tan Tock Seng Hospital and T. B. Clinic, is also acting in another capacity in respect of some other hospital?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): It is true. He is also the Acting Medical Superintendent, Thomson Road Hospital.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation given by the Minister for Health, may I have leave to withdraw items (334), (335) and (336)?

The Chairman: You mean, to withdraw your amendments? I do not think the Minister for Finance would like your withdrawing the items!

Mr Rajah: I beg your pardon, I mean the amendments.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (337) of sub-head 1.

The question, Mr Speaker, Sir, is how many of the four posts of Senior Registrar are at the moment filled, and if filled, how many of them permanently or temporarily, as the case may be?

The Chairman: Does the question apply to item (338)?

Mr Rajah: Item (338), Mr Speaker, Sir, could also be dealt with conveniently, that is, how many of these posts are now held by incumbents? I so move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (338) of sub-head 1.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, three out of the four posts of Senior Registrar have been filled. They have been filled in a permanent capacity and not in an acting capacity. Steps have been taken to fill the remaining one post.

Fifteen out of the 20 posts of Medical Officer have been filled. Steps are being taken to fill the remaining five posts.

Mr Rajah: In view of the answer given by the Minister, may I have leave to withdraw?

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (376) of sub-head 1.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be given permission not to move the amendment as I have already obtained the answer I wish from a previous question put to the Minister, namely, that this post is being held in an acting capacity by the person filling the post at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital.

The Chairman: The Member is not moving?

Mr Rajah: I am not moving, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (435) of sub-head 1.

Senior Registrars, two - Could the Minister for Health inform the House whether both these posts are occupied, and if so, whether in a permanent or a temporary capacity?

The Chairman: Those questions also apply to item (437)?

Mr Rajah: They also apply to item (437), Sir, and I so move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (437) of sub-head 1.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, the two posts of Senior Registrar at the Woodbridge Hospital under item (435) of sub-head 1 are vacant. Steps are being taken to see that these posts are filled as quickly as possible.

With regard to item (437) of sub-head 1, eight of the nine posts of Medical Officer are filled permanently. There is only one vacancy and steps are being taken to see that this vacancy is filled as early as possible.

Mr Rajah: In view of the answer given, may I be given leave to withdraw my two amendments?

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 33.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a similar item over which we got into difficulties some time ago. The same point arises here, Mr Speaker. In view of what the House had decided to do with the other two items, could the same thing be done with this item, and I will not move? I do not know what the procedure is.

The Chairman: Will the Member take his seat? I will explain the position.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

The Chairman: The position is that we have been informed by the Minister for National Development on another item that this is a matter of accounting. Therefore, it would be appropriate perhaps if the matter could be looked into in detail by the Estimates Committee, and thereafter the Estimates Committee could put up its report. Then Members would understand all these by-ways of accountancy which only experts could understand. Perhaps the Member will not move?

Mr Rajah: In those circumstances, Mr Speaker, I will not move.

The Chairman: It will be left to the Member for Tanglin, who is a Member of the Estimates Committee, to take the matter up with the Estimates Committee.

We are on "donkeys" now at page 183. Mr Rajah?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 51.

Under sub-head 51, it says, "Daily Rated Employees, Wages and Allowances" and under item (2) - "Donkey-man" $1,920. Could the Minister please tell us what manner of man is this "Donkeyman"? Whether he does any human chores in his Ministry, or whether he is put to the use to which a donkey might have been put had the Minister been able to obtain one?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did expect the hon. Member for Farrer Park would make a wisecrack on this particular item, and therefore I have come prepared, having looked up the dictionary what "donkeyman" means. A "donkeyman" is a person who looks after donkey engines. Of course, this does not give very much explanation as to why the word "donkey" should be used. A donkey engine is an engine that is usually less than one horsepower in capacity, and therefore is considered to have only one donkey power. So a man who looks after an engine of that capacity has come to be regarded as a donkeyman. We have such small engines at St. John's Island, and the terminology of this particular daily-rated employee has not been changed despite attempts made by the Ministry of Health to change it.

The Chairman: Mr Rajah, are you satisfied?

Mr Rajah: Sir, I have no doubt in my mind that it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health to find some other suitable name for this post. We have heard him describe a very difficult situation in this House in the most ingenious words - words which even got past the Speaker. So I am sure that this is not a situation beyond his capacity. Would he therefore give consideration to changing the name of this post from "donkeyman" to something more appropriate?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps you might have caught the last words of my answer. I was saying, despite attempts made by the Ministry of Health, it has not been changed this year. That was the tail-end of my answer to the hon. Member for Farrer Park.

The Chairman: Tail-end of the donkey!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, the budget for 1960 is compiled from facts and figures given by the old Government because it takes about a year to draw up the budget. I think the P.A.P. Government will take steps to simplify the phraseology next time. For instance, the word "peons" is, perhaps, undesirable. Next time, if we have persons to look after engines of over one horse-power, we will not call them "horsemen" but we will call them by some other name.

Mr Rajah: As I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health is exercising his mind on this very acute problem, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

Mr Rajah: I move, Mr Speaker, Sir, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $100*

*The same amendment stood in the names of Mr Thio Chan Bee and Mrs Seow Peck

Some moments ago, the Prime Minister seemed to want to give an indication that I had ulterior motives for putting these various questions to the Minister for Health. I would hasten to assure the Minister for Health that these questions were put not with a view to embarrassing him, but with a view to eliciting information in respect of a Ministry which is engaging the attention of the public. There is a feeling amongst the public, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Ministry is understaffed, and they hear various reports about doctors resigning for one reason or another which we need not go into now because it is not relevant to this particular debate.

The position, as I see it, from the replies given by the Ministry, would appear to be this: that, generally speaking, at the lower levels of the medical professional services, they seem to be all right. But in the middle and higher echelons, there seems to be a lack of officers and, if I may put it this way, even the Ministry is a bit doubtful about the capacity of the medical officers now with them because they do not seem to want to confirm them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have imagined that before a person is put in an acting appointment, sufficient consideration would have been given by the Ministry and possibly by the Public Service Commission as to whether that person is a fit person to hold that particular appointment; and normally a two or three months' period is given in order to test him out in that appointment. If he comes through, as he normally should, he is confirmed and, in 99 cases out of 100 all acting appointments are confirmed. Otherwise, it merely means that he should never have acted. Some of these acting posts have been held for six months and some for nine months. I appreciate the difficulties of the Ministry of Health in that Malayanisation has caught them on the wrong foot with the result that a large number of the senior posts are vacant; the Ministry also faces difficulties in promoting from below and are not able to recruit from abroad for reasons best known only to themselves. The service therefore suffers. And if the service suffers, it is the public at large that will suffer as a result of the lack of experienced medical officers in the Ministry. These services, Mr Speaker, are manned by human beings. With the best intent in the world, human beings can only work that hard and no harder. If you make them work beyond their capacity, particularly professional men or even for that matter men who work physically, or beyond their endurance, they will not give that efficient service which they could normally have been able to give if they had been able to do their work at a pace more in keeping with their profession. As far as I can see it, in the Health Ministry, the middle and higher echelons of the services concerned are being overworked. They can stand this overwork for a period of time, but if it is made to last too long, there must be a breakdown in their physical capacity to carry on their work. That indeed would be tragic.

Sir, I would urge upon the Ministry to use every possible endeavour to confirm these acting appointments already held for several months; if the Ministry is not satisfied with the ability of the officers, now holding these acting appointments, to fill the posts, then the Ministry must tell them as firmly as it can that they are no good, relieve them of their posts and go elsewhere for filling these posts. I feel that the main thing is that the efficiency of the Department must be maintained. In a service, particularly the medical service where the efficiency and the quality of the service would depend on the type of persons manning it, it is important that these doctors should not be overworked. The present staffing position is, as I see it, Mr Speaker, and as it emerges from the replies, that there is a definite shortage at the top levels. And if this shortage continues for some further time, there is a grave danger of the whole of the Medical Services breaking down.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the answers to my questions submitted on the 11th of November, it was stated that out of 31 doctors who have resigned or have given notice of resignation, 29 doctors have been recruited since 1st June, 1959. I have since found out, Sir, that these 29 doctors, regarded as having been recruited since 1st June, 1959, were already in the service as house-men; so that the actual position was in no way alleviated, but the shortage has remained the same.

Sir, we understand that negotiations are now taking place on the basis of the special allowances that have been offered by the Finance Minister. In the midst of these negotiations, Sir, we regret to say that the Press reported that the Minister for Health intends to recruit 60 doctors from abroad. Now, to some of the doctors in the service here, this is a form of intimidation when they are just in the midst of negotiations. If it is proposed to recruit 60 doctors from abroad, naturally they must be offered more attractive terms than those offered to local doctors. That would mean some overseas allowance, and passages too must be paid. And if extra expenditure has to be incurred, it seems to me that we may as well offer an inducement to our own local doctors to remain in the service. It is no use having another form of expatriate officers coming here on contract and then losing our own. It is better for us to retain those who are already here with some experience than to get new ones, and to let them go away and to replace them with new ones again.

I believe, Sir, if an adequate incentive were given, those who are intending to resign would remain and those who have just resigned and have not taken up private practice may be induced to come back. I hope that can happen because that would resolve the situation in a more constructive way than by just recruiting 60 doctors from abroad.

I sympathise with the Minister for Health, Sir, because in the midst of his troubles with his doctors, there has also been trouble with his nurses. At this particular juncture, it seems somebody gave notice to the nurses that they would have to pay more for dwelling in the nurses' hostel. That naturally got their goat because, having lost a portion of their pay, they are now being asked to pay more for residing in the hostel. So naturally they are now up in arms. I hope, Sir, the Minister will be successful in solving his troubles with the doctors and nurses so that the public will have the service of doctors and nurses who are quite satisfied and will give them good service.

The Chairman: We have had a session with donkeys, and now we are having a session with goats!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I made a remark yesterday about the cuts in the T.B. patient allowance, I was accused of having made wild allegations without investigations from proper and reliable sources. I am sure that the statistics on the chart at the exhibition during Loyalty Week are proper and reliable sources of information. I noticed on one of the charts that during the months of September and October, the aids for T.B. patients had gone down by over $30,000 each month. That is why I asked the question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health preferred not to call the cutting down of the maximum from - I believe he said - $300 to $180 a cut, neither would he admit that the cutting off of the high cost of living allowance was a cut. But the fact still remains that there have been cuts.

Sir, what I am about to bring up is not an attempt to try and discredit the Minister for Health, but I would like to point out that there could be misunderstanding in the minds of the public. In the Straits Times of 5th December, it says:

"The Singapore Government intends to recruit about 60 overseas doctors on short-term contracts to relieve the pressure on medical officers in the understaffed service."

A very laudable move, Sir. But unfortunately, as has been pointed out before, it has happened at a time when the local doctors are voicing their grievances. And just in case it is taken as a threat or a warning to local doctors, I am mentioning this so as to give the opportunity to the Minister for Health to confirm his real motive, that he is trying to relieve the pressure on medical officers in the understaffed service, because certain releases might cause doubt when he said:

"We shall not like to make such a move unless we are sure that it would not be possible to make this recruitment from local sources or if doctors to be recruited locally are not satisfied with the terms on which they are recruited."

6.45 p.m.

Sir, it comes to my mind that if the Minister for Health recruits overseas doctors whenever doctors here are not satisfied with their terms of service, what are trade unions for? Trade unions are there to negotiate in cases of grievances voiced by the workers. That is the proper channel, and I think the Minister should try to settle it with the local doctors before he tries to bring in overseas doctors. Nevertheless, Sir, I would like to confirm that I do not think that that is the intention. But it says here:

"If doctors to be recruited locally are not satisfied with the terms on which they are recruited...".

This might have occurred not only to me but to some other people as well, and it would be very useful if the Minister could confirm that that is not his intention. I would like to point out sincerely that it might boil down to this: if the Government takes the attitude that whenever they have staff who are not satisfied - they recruit from overseas - the whole civil service will one day or another be dissatisfied over one thing or another and then we will find that the whole civil service will consist of expatriates. If Government adopts this attitude, which I know they will not, they cannot stop commercial firms adopting it and what will happen? I suppose the one and a half million people will soon have expatriates replacing them. Then what happens to us? Where will it land us? In foreign countries I suppose?

The Prime Minister: Timbuctoo!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I know this is not the intention, Sir, because it will destroy the principle of trade unionism and weaken trade unions. If local doctors are not satisfied, I do not know whether expatriate doctors can be satisfied unless they are doctors who are unable to earn a living in their own countries.

As for the other article about 20 specialists, "More Doctors for Government Service and More Nurses too", it says:

"Against these, the Singapore Government has recruited 29 doctors. They are students from colleges."

The Chairman: Will the honourable Member identify the paper, as I seem to see scraps of paper?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: The Sunday Mail of 29th November.

The Chairman: Order. I have indicated in the past that if extracts are to be read from newspapers, those newspapers, if possible, ought to be produced. Mrs Seow, please continue.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, when students go on scholarship, they have to sign a bond that they have to serve Government for five years after they come back. These students will no doubt come back and serve five years. But if after five years the same conditions exist and the present specialists are again dissatisfied, they may resign if they have a choice. If this goes on, are we going to have new people every five years, and is the Health Ministry to have no officer, doctor or specialist with more than five years' experience?

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the Opposition Members who have talked on the Ministry of Health appear to be dissatisfied with the affairs prevailing therein.

First, I must direct my answer to the Member for Farrer Park. It is public knowledge that the Ministry of Health is understaffed. The Member said that in the lower echelons the position is not so bad as it is in the higher echelons, and he asked the Minister for Health to confirm the position in the higher echelons. To the questions raised by the Members of the Opposition earlier, we have indicated that every step has been or is being taken to resolve these difficulties.

I wish to be straightforward in my reply to the Member for Tanglin. I admit that there is a feeling of discontent among some of the staff of my Ministry. I do not deny this. Therefore, my officers and advisers are taking every possible step to overcome this feeling of discontent. The Member for Tanglin has said that, in reply to his question, I said that we had recruited 29 new doctors to replace those doctors who had resigned sometime this year. He further said that this matter had also become public knowledge in the Ministry of Health. Later, the Member touched on the Press release which I had personally made stating that the Ministry of Health would recruit 60 doctors from abroad. I will be very frank with the Member and also with the other two Members of the Opposition who spoke. I did not do this arbitrarily. This step has been taken in consultation with the Medical and Dental Officers' Association and experts. They have agreed with the steps and actions that I have taken. In fact, they welcome the action that I have taken, because they are of the opinion that the officers in the lower echelons will thus have an opportunity to advance their status in the medical field. If we engage overseas doctors on a contract basis, we can release our young and capable doctors to go overseas and advance their studies in the medical field. I did not do this arbitrarily. As I said earlier on, this was done in concurrence with the Medical and Dental Officers' Association in my Ministry.

The Member for Tanglin said that I am faced with many problems and difficulties over the question of nurses. He said that the nurses, who are in my Ministry, are not very happy with the new scheme of service whereby their pay will be deducted for hostel accommodation, water charges, etc. This scheme of service was not introduced by the Government of the day. This was introduced by the previous Government, and I am quite sure the Member for Cairnhill will not deny this fact. Also the Member for Geylang Serai in the Chamber here will not deny this. This scheme of service was put forward by the previous Government. The present Government is merely carrying it out. However, at the moment, I am still receiving representations from the Nurses Union and this matter is under consideration. I do not intend to dwell further on this subject here, but I will find ways and means of solving their problems and difficulties. As I said earlier on, I am sympathetic over this matter. We will wait until a solution is found.

The Member for Mountbatten talked about T.B. allowances. This will be dealt with by my Parliamentary Secretary who spoke on this matter yesterday. He will surely give a satisfactory reply to her. As regards the Press release of 5th December mentioned by the Member for Mountbatten concerning 60 doctors, I have already explained that this matter has been dealt with in concurrence with and is welcomed by the Medical Officers' Association. I think the 20 specialists who have just returned from overseas on scholarships awarded to them will be serving in the Government, and I do not see any possibility, as has been mentioned by the Member for Mountbatten, that when these people return they will be discontented. We should face the future together.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Farrer Park expressed much concern about the unbalanced state of affairs in the Ministry of Health. I do not blame him for not being able to understand the background of the medical services. The higher posts, the upper ranks of the medical service concerned, consist of two types of personnel so far as the Budget is concerned: (1) the administrative medical officers and (2) the professional medical officers. I think when the Member pointed out that the Ministry of Health is unbalanced at the top, he refers to the administrative people, because the various items he went over just now refer to medical administrators. In answer to this shortage, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to give a little background to the medical services in Singapore.

Previously there were two systems of medical services in Singapore which, after the war, were unified into one. During the fight for this unification of medical services, a lot of senior officers left that was just after the Second World War. Since then the service was held by relatively junior people. There was some degree of reluctance all along on the part of doctors or graduates to get into the administrative service because the professional service is the more lucrative part of medical practice. Therefore, there was a shortage in the administrative medical service which can only now be remedied slowly. Many of the medical officers in acting administrative posts are rather new and therefore cannot be confirmed in a short time.

7.00 p.m.

The Member also said that the top professional posts should have been filled by the Ministry of Health. I will now inform him that these posts were left vacant at the request of the Medical and Dental Officers' Association. The Association contends that if we fill these top posts, it will block the young members of the staff of the profession from coming up. These posts were left vacant at the request of the Association. The Member says that the doctors have been given too much work. Perhaps he does not realise that all along doctors have been overworked in Singapore, and all along there has been a shortage of medical staff. Despite all his fears, which are unfounded, the standard of medical care in Singapore has gone up. One cannot say that one is not maintaining efficiency when the standard is still going up. Perhaps if the Member visits some of the free hospitals, for example, Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital, Trafalgar Home or Woodbridge Hospital, he will find that the standard of medical care has gone up considerably.

The Member for Tanglin queries the Minister's written answer to his questions to the effect that 29 medical officers have been recruited from amongst house-men and were not fresh recruits. It is perhaps pertinent here, Sir, to say that there is a basic difference between a houseman and a medical officer. In fact, for a houseman to become a medical officer, he must break his service for one day. A houseman's pay is $400 a month, and a medical officer's pay is $820 per month. They are also in a totally different category, because a houseman is not qualified to practise unless under supervision. The fact the Minister's reply did not include the number of house-men who entered the service after 1st June is because that question was not asked. It is a very simple case here. Twenty-nine officers shifted from the housemen status to the medical officer's status. And even more officers came into the housemen's status to fill the 29 vacancies created by these 29 people who were promoted.

As to the Member's concern about the Ministerial announcement of the 60 recruitments from overseas, no time could have been more opportune than the present to make it, because the announcement came after the Minister for Finance had announced that our local officers would be given specialist allowances. I cannot imagine any other time more opportune than the present to announce that we are recruiting these officers. I do not see how it can be construed that there is intimidation as a result of the recruitment of these 60 officers. The recruitment of these 60 medical officers from overseas has had the support of the Staff Association itself. It may be said that in many countries doctors are being paid much less than in Singapore and therefore no specialist or extra allowances will be incurred in getting people here. Perhaps Members of the Opposition already know that in India it is possible to employ a doctor for 400 rupees a month, which is only about $250 here.

The question of nurses has been adequately dealt with by the Minister himself.

The Member for Mountbatten also wanted to open up the subject of T.B. allowance. I have stated clearly that the allowance was open to much abuse and people who were not entitled to the allowance were getting it. It has been reported in the papers that people owning five taxis were collecting these allowances. It is because this Government is very judicious in the expenditure of public funds that such savings were made after careful investigations. Certainly the hon. Member for Mountbatten will not agree that one should get $300 per month just because one has T.B. This amount is much more than one gets if one goes to work. The hon. Member for Mountbatten again raised the question of timing in regard to overseas medical recruits. I thought she was just trying to emphasise a point. I stress again that this is the best time to make such an announcement, because it was made after the announcement that specialist allowances would be given to these people. And just to relieve her mind of the fear that the service would be plagued with expatriate officers, the people who come to work in Singapore on short-term contract will only be on short-term service. I stated yesterday in my speech that in the meantime we are sending some 80 to 120 local boys abroad annually to study medicine. Those are the people who will come back and solve the problem of shortage ultimately, and not the expatriates on short-term contract.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I confess to a feeling of disgust when I listened to the speeches of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Mountbatten. They pretended to feel very concerned over the plight of nurses and doctors. I believe their feelings on this subject are completely bogus-

The Chairman: The Hon. the Minister might be feeling so disgusted that he is forgetting that he must still remain parliamentary. Therefore the word "bogus" must be withdrawn.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, I withdraw those remarks, but I thought that they were tempted quite unnecessarily to shed crocodile tears. But on this occasion, Mr Speaker, they could not have chosen a worse subject for discussion. They got their facts wrong - the question of charging hospital accommodation and fees for light and water at the hostel. The Member for Tanglin forgot that this was something that was negotiated in the past. He attacked on these facts and got himself into a mess.

As regards the recruiting of overseas doctors, great play was made that this was an attempt by the Government to intimidate a resentful group of doctors. Surely, had the two Members checked the facts, they would have discovered that a most cordial meeting took place between representatives of the Medical and Dental Officers' Association and the political leadership in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance. We found the doctors most responsible and understanding in their attitude, and between ourselves we worked out a sensible scheme, both to meet our long and short-term problems. I do hope that in future, when these two Members have occasion to shed crocodile tears, they should, in the first instance, try to get their facts straight so that we will be spared the necessity of having to listen to a lot of nonsense.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think it can be alleged that Members of this House speak nonsense. Perhaps the word could be withdrawn.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I withdraw the word "nonsense" and perhaps substitute a more parliamentary alternative - make irresponsible and unfounded allegations.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise only to make a very minor point. All the other points have already clearly been answered. All the speeches from the Opposition side - from the Member for Farrer Park, the Member for Mountbatten and the Member for Tanglin - were like the allegations from the Member for Cairnhill. They are all trying to frighten the public and trying to show to the House that there is a skeleton in the Ministry of Health's cupboard, namely, that there is a grave shortage of staff, that everybody is dissatisfied, that unless something is done Singapore will go down in ruins, and that very shortly we will be dying. Surely the facts are not true. Not being medical officers, they appear to the medical officers to be championing their cause. In this House we have doctors who know more about the subject than they do. The hon. Members are trying to give the impression to the medical profession that, but for them, the medical profession would not have all the attention they are supposed to have. We all know the difficulties that the medical profession is undergoing at the present moment. We also know the hard work that the doctors in the hospitals are doing. But we would like to remind the Members for Tanglin, Mountbatten and Farrer Park that the doctors at the present moment are not treated as if they are not human beings. No, Sir. They are treated very well indeed. If the hon. Members were to go to the hostels, they would straightaway see what a beautiful mansion the doctors have, to begin with. When we were students, Sir, we never had such amenities. We had only tiny rooms to study, and we had the lights out at certain hours. Now they have everything thrusted on them. May I also say that I was one of the doctors working in the hospital before? Let me remind these people who talked so much about hard work that we worked the hardest during the war and we never complained. I can also assure you, Sir, that our pay was very much less. We only received $75 or $250. Now, of course, they receive $400 or $820 or even higher.

But after all that has been said, it does not mean that we do not appreciate the good work being done by the medical profession in the hospitals. What we want to say is that the medical profession is only one part of the community in Singapore and, as such, as medical officers, they have to try and look at everything as a whole and in its proper perspective. In addition, Sir, I would even say that from our side we are all the time thinking of our medical colleagues outside. We are bound by some invisible ties which are not seen by a non-medical man. In fact, at the present moment, the medical doctors are the first to benefit from the extra allowance. It can be said they might be worse off but for some of our medical colleagues in the P.A.P.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been alleged that we the Opposition here, have concocted our own views about the situation in the Ministry of Health. But then there are always three sides - not just two - to a question. There is the Government side, there is the Opposition side, and there is the side of the general public. Sir, some doctors have approached us themselves and this shows that not all the doctors in the Government service-

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

The Chairman: If the Member will give way.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Well, we are in the Committee of Supply.

The Chairman: We are in the Committee of Supply. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Not all the doctors in the Government service hold views similar to the Government side. So it shows that the Government must give freedom to those who do not agree with them to have their voice heard also here.

The Prime Minister: I would like to enquire from the Member for Tanglin, if he could help in building up the morale and discipline of the civil service by telling us who the officers were who went and consulted him on these matters.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, the atmosphere in this State has been such that these people fear intimidation.

The Prime Minister: I can assure the Member for Tanglin that, far from intimidating them, I can guarantee a completely impartial disciplinary inquiry carried out in the best civil service tradition. But let me explain to the Member for Tanglin that, whilst he was making such a hue and cry about the integrity of the civil service, and how we must sustain and nurture its good points, one of the fundamental prerequisites to a disciplined and coherent public service is observance of the General Orders. One of the important rules laid down in the General Orders is that a civil servant shall not individually lobby to foster his own case. For that reason, I was very interested to see the Member for Farrer Park come out with a list of 20 odd cases, each and every one of which refers to a specific officer waiting to get, not just the $200 acting allowance, but the full reward as a result of confirmation of his substantive position. I make this point, Sir, because I think it is necessary that the Opposition should be reminded that we consider this kind of conduct as aiding and abetting the demoralisation of the Civil Service, and a good Sunday school teacher like the Member for Tanglin should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

7.15 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, it is very unfortunate that I have to mention the case of Mr Rajendra. We all know what has happened to him. We all know that he has now been "banished", as it were, into exile - to Jurong. Now, in the face an example like that, is it to be wondered that the people who work in Government service are scared of bringing up their cases in the proper way, because of what has happened to one of their own leaders?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Member for Tanglin is unable to reason out his case logically. If the Civil Service are scared as a result of what has happened to Mr Rajendra, the last thing they will do is to invite the executioner's axe by looking for the Member for Tanglin. It is perhaps because Mr Rajendra's case was too leniently dealt with, because the Committee of Inquiry and the Public Service Commission took a relatively compassionate and mild view of his case, because he has suffered only a minor reverse, that there are miscreants who have sneaked up to the Member for Tanglin.

I say this to the public service as a whole, that the number of queries raised by the Opposition has led the Government to believe that some public servants have rather foolishly sought to advance their own personal positions, and their own personal causes, by the kind of conduct to which the Member for Tanglin has confessed to have been a party. I say that the P.A.P. Government is not prepared to allow the public service to be subverted in this matter. Their duty as civil servants must be discharged. We are prepared to discharge our duty as a Government. Those who venture beyond the rules of the Civil Service must be prepared not just to be punished by loss of increments or stagnations, but to be properly and suitably dealt with in a way that will give finality to the man's career. This is not a Government that is going to stand by and watch the Civil Service turn on the political leadership. We play fair by the Civil Service. I have seen these amendments and I know that some members of the public service have not played fair. And believe me, Mr Speaker, let them think in good time. Let them consider whether in the long run this kind of conduct will invoke in the political leadership the kind of loyalty to rules, obligations and principles which we would otherwise extend to them.

Whilst there may be no General Orders to ensure adequate punishment for elected Members of the Opposition who have aided and abetted them, I am sure we have an efficient State Advocate-General who will be able to tell us under what provisions of the Penal Code or the Minor Offences Ordinance we can get Legislative Assemblymen.

The Chairman: Order. I think the Prime Minister might punctuate that by saying that that was spoken in jest. We cannot have intimidation of hon. Members of this Assembly.

The Prime Minister: Far from being intimidated, Sir, you can see that the Member for Tanglin is extremely joyful. However, I would say this. Intimidation implies the unlawful use of the threat. I have no such intention whatsoever. All I was intending to say is that the law shall be inexorably carried out to its logical conclusion. Therefore, I submit that I did not intimidate and I therefore submit that whilst I will withdraw the word "intimidate", I would tell the Member for Tanglin that if he embarks again upon any such cause and there is a tittle of evidence about it he must be prepared to face the consequences of the law.

The Chairman: I think the Prime Minister is forgetting that there is freedom of speech in this Assembly, and there cannot be any action taken in respect of any words spoken in this Assembly. But let the Prime Minister not debate with the Speaker - it seems to me that that was quite an improper thing to do, and I ask the Prime Minister not to intimidate Members of the Opposition in the way he has done.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I think we are not ad idem. I did not intend that the Member for Tanglin's public confession made in a privileged occasion should be used. When I was referring to a tittle of evidence, I meant evidence which would have been admissible in a kind of tribunal which brings about punishment in these matters. And therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it can hardly be said that I was intimidating the Member for Tanglin, but nevertheless, since you have so ruled, for the sake of order, propriety and decorum in the proceedings in this House, I shall withdraw it.

The Chairman: It is my view that it is improper to utter words of that nature.

Mr Rajah: The difficulty with the Prime Minister is that he gets so carried away by his own words that he sometimes forgets what he is saying. We had in this Assembly a former - not a Prime Minister - but a Chief Minister who also allowed himself to be carried away by his own words with the result that eventually he carried himself out of politics. I should hate to think that that would happen to the most promising Prime Minister that South East Asia has produced. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that because I had filed a number of amendments to the personal emoluments list to extract information already in the mind and on the lips of everybody in Singapore interested in the medical service, the Prime Minister comes to the conclusion that someone from the Medical Department must have come and seen me and given information which led to these questions. Really, really! Now, does he not give some consideration to the capacity of Members of the Opposition to do these things on their own account? Does he think that we must always be spoon-fed? Why does he suggest that I approached medical officers in the service or they approached me to do this? Has he a guilty conscience? What did he do when he was in the Opposition? Did he subvert the civil servants? He did not, did he? Why should he think that I am subverting the civil servants? If the House wants an assurance, I can give it, now. No doctors saw me about this. These are all amendments from my own head. And if the Prime Minister thinks that my head is not capable of it, let me assure him that this is not the last time that I am going to file amendments.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Farrer Park says that this is not the last time he will file amendments. As if we minded! I suggest to him that perhaps there might be the possibility of his being consulted, for his colleague, the Member for Tanglin, did so admit that he had been in consultation with officers of the public service. That was an admission, not an allegation. My allegation was made after his admission.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not fighting the battle for the Member for Tanglin. He can look after himself. But the Prime Minister accused the Member for Farrer Park, and the Member for Farrer Park is not the Member for Tanglin, Mr Prime Minister.

The Chairman: Order. I am not called Mr Prime Minister at the moment. Please address the Chair.

Mr Rajah: If the Prime Minister can try and intimidate the Opposition across the table with you presiding here, Mr Speaker, Sir, what would happen to the Opposition if there was not a Speaker, or if we went outside where we could not get the protection of the Speaker?

The Chairman: Order. I thought I had settled that point. I did indicate to the Prime Minister that the utterances he had made should not have been made in this Assembly, and I think he accepted my ruling. I think the Member for Farrer Park should contain himself.

Mr Rajah: I will so contain myself, Mr Speaker, Sir. But it is a bit difficult sometimes.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, we regret the shortage of doctors in this country. But this is not a thing which this Government can be blamed for. The shortage of doctors - and also the shortage of other professional men - is part of the old Colonial system. In running a Colony, the ruling power had to build up an apparatus with which it could carry out its policies of economic and political exploitation. As such, it had a tendency to limit the entry of doctors into the medical service, so that those in the medical profession, particularly those in private practice, would make so much money that they would cling on to the Colonial system. Mr Speaker, we cannot hope, in the course of five or six months of the People's Action Party Government, to remedy this state of affairs. We know that a great majority of the doctors are behind the new Government. We know that there are some doctors who are not behind the Government, and have left to advance their careers outside the Government service. We faced the same position when we were in the City Council when the doctors quitted. Other professional men also quitted in order to advance themselves outside. But we hope, Mr Speaker, that when colonialism is finally got rid of and when we have trained more doctors, engineers and other professional men, the situation can be remedied. Today we are faced with the same situation that we faced when the expatriate electrical engineers wanted to quit the City Council. When we went into the City Council, the whole of the Pasir Panjang Power Station was controlled by expatriate electrical engineers, and there was not one local qualified electrical engineer in the Pasir Panjang Power Station. The expatriates had the run of the place. We were not willing to give the $14 million which the Member for Farrer Park wanted to give to them. So they threatened to quit. Mr Speaker, we were left with no choice, but to try to engage a few engineers either from Japan or from India to remedy this situation. In this instance, we can sympathise with the position of the Minister for Health because not long ago I was faced with the same position.

Mr Speaker, just now the Member for Farrer Park talked about the upper echelons of the medical service in the Government - the shortage of specialists. If there is ever a shortage, who is to blame? It is the fault of the Colonial system and it is also the fault of those who have abetted and who are still abetting the Colonial system. They have never given our local people a chance to train themselves in order to become specialists, or, as in the case of certain professions like engineers, they have never been given a chance to secure promotion themselves. Not long ago, in June this year, after the new Government came into office, I entered the room of a very famous planner in the S.I.T. just as a spot-check. I found a girl architect in his room occupying a seat in a corner of the room reading novels.

Mr Speaker, if there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore, and if there is a shortage of specialists in the hospitals, it is not the People's Action Party Government which is to be blamed. We are doing everything we can to remedy the situation. The Colonial system and its henchmen in this country are to blame.

7.30 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Tanglin suggested that the Government was dealing in a very high-handed manner with its local employees and he asked the House to direct its mind to what had happened to Mr Rajendra. I think I should follow up on that and let the House know what did happen to Mr Rajendra.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember about two weeks before he was charged, Mr Rajendra sought an interview with me in my office and discussed with me what his position would be in the civil service if he championed the cause of the local civil servants. I said to him that it was open to anybody to make his representations to the proper authorities in a proper manner, but that he should be careful not to transgress the proper bounds of propriety. I reminded him of my own case. I told him that when we were fighting the Colonial authorities here, I got into trouble because I had spoken the truth. Amongst the things that I had said, which were considered to be highly improper during the Ritson negotiations, was that I did not consider that there were expatriate officers in the civil service then who were capable of implementing the Ritson recommendations. I had very many meetings with the Governor over that statement of mine. I told him that that statement was not in any way critical of the Government. It was critical of my own colleagues - my expatriate colleagues. But, nevertheless, it was held that the statement was improper and I was duly censured for it, Sir.

Mr Rajendra said that he felt it was his mission to champion the cause of the civil servants. He said that he was troubled by his young son and daughter who were always looking at the papers and saying, "Mama, Papa would be getting into trouble for all this." But nevertheless he felt it was his duty to go ahead. The next thing I saw was a statement attributed to him in the papers. In due course, the Government file came into my hands and I found that the Prime Minister was seeking the advice of the State Advocate-General on the correct course of action to be taken with regard to this matter. Amongst my other duties, as the Minister for Law, is my duty to deal with actions that the Government proposes to take in regard to legal matters. These are always sent to me for consideration after they have been considered by the State Advocate-General. It was decided that a disciplinary committee should be set up to look into the statements of Mr Rajendra. The disciplinary committee was set up. I took a hand in the appointment of that committee. I had seen the papers and I knew that Mr Rajendra had maliciously intended a personal affront to the Prime Minister. He had seen me and had actually suggested to me that he was determined to do this. Well, I did not interfere in that matter. It was within my competence to go before the tribunal and give evidence. My evidence would have shown that his statement was inspired by malice and would have really prejudiced his defence. I did nothing of the sort. We played fair by him. He made his defence and he was found guilty by the tribunal.

Now, I am mentioning all this to the House to show that we are not unreasonable with our civil servants. I quite appreciate their difficulties in the new situation. I have been a civil servant myself and have been closely associated with many of them for very many years. I have found that many of them find it very difficult to adjust themselves to the present situation. I have senior officers in my Ministry who have come up to me a number of times and have tendered their written resignations to me. I have asked them to reconsider their action. I have torn their letters up, because I know the difficult times that we are going through and it will take some time before they can make their adjustments to the new situation. We do not in any way harass them. We are trying our best to help them to come along with us in the tasks ahead. But we must be quite sure about their attitude. If we find that it is not a question of their finding it difficult to make these adjustments-that they are out to try and frustrate what we are trying to do for the people of Singapore (all of us on the Government benches have made sacrifices for the things that we believe in), if we find that it is something different which is behind their reluctance to assist the Government in the things that we are trying to do, then our whole attitude will have to be reconsidered. But I hope that it will never be necessary for us to reach that decision, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $35,246,030 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 22 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Thio Chan Bee:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, since an item of a similar nature has been discussed fully previously, I beg leave to withdraw this notice of amendment.

The Chairman: The Member is not moving.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub-head 1.

Sir, I find from reading this budget that it is the intention of the Minister to create certain new posts for this new Economic Development Division. There is already an Industrial Development Board with a director, and the Minister has already stated that he is seeking the recruitment of experts from overseas to help in running this Industrial Development Board. I fail to see, Sir, why a Permanent Secretary is necessary for this particular division. An Assistant Secretary, for whom a new post is also to be created, could take charge of this division under the direction of the Permanent Secretary in the Treasury division. The Minister, Sir, may have abolished one or two other Permanent Secretaries in his Ministry and this is just a change of name. That I do not know. I am seeking information.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the actual position is that I will be having next year one Permanent Secretary less and not one Permanent Secretary more. The post referred to is a new post only in a technical sense. There will be no increase in bodies because the present holder of the post is already there. It is really a renaming of the post and it is necessary to create a new post because the old post against which he was held has been abolished in the Estimates.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in the light of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (65) of sub-head 1.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Thio Chan Bee.

"Head of Political Study Centre, Grade P2, new post." Mr Speaker, Sir, I was under the impression that the post was already in existence as the Political Study Centre had already been created; possibly the Centre has a head for this already.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I raise this question to find out whether this gentleman has been appointed, and if so, what his qualifications and duties are, whether he is a member of the civil service, and whether the course he proposes to teach is on the side of any particular Party or above Parties?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: First, Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park. He has rightly observed that it is a new post only in a technical sense, because the Political Centre has been in operation for some time. It is necessary to create this post because the officer who is doing the work holds the position of Director of Information Services which has just been abolished in the Estimates. Therefore, there again, there is no extra officer. It is a matter of getting an officer who is doing one job and transferring him to a new function.

Now, for the Member for Tanglin. Obviously, he has not listened to the broadcast of the Ministry of Finance on its work, which was put over Radio Malaya during Loyalty Week.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Radio Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Radio Singapore. The Member for Tanglin always suspects the worst. And indeed it may be a good thing if he could be sent on a course of training at the Centre. I can assure you that the training given is being carried out under the direction of a civil servant. It is completely impartial. As we explained in the radio broadcast, we are not attempting to brainwash the civil service or ask them to subscribe to our ideology, because we rate the intelligence of the civil service high enough to know that such a course of action would be foolish and futile.

What was the other point? Mr Speaker, may I be-

7.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Member would ask the question again if the Minister will sit down. I suggest the Minister has pencil and paper ready.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this question is to elicit information. Unless information is supplied, how can people-

The Chairman: Yes. But the Minister is willing to give the information.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, the Minister imputed a motive to me, that I am always suspicious of the other side. If the Opposition has no right to elicit information, then there should be no Opposition. Sir, the question asked of the Finance Minister was what are the qualifications of this particular holder of the office - the information that he is a member of the civil service has been given. What are his duties and whether the course is on a non-party basis?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I have answered two of the questions. As regards the third one - what are his qualifications - the answer is that he is extremely well-qualified, holding a degree in social science and having lectured at the University of Liverpool at one time on this kind of subject. That is all, is it not?

The Chairman: Mr Thio, have your questions been answered fully?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the information supplied, I beg leave to withdraw.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

Mr Rajah rose -

The Chairman: No?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir-

The Chairman: Oh, it is Mr Rajah's amendment.

Mr Rajah: I am also involved, Sir.

The Chairman: Yes. It is the Member for Farrer Park's amendment, and not the Member for Tanglin's.

Mr Rajah: It is both our amendments. Sir, my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, whispers to me that it is Mr G. G. Thomson who is the holder of this post. If that is the case, then the other two amendments which I have put down, will not be put by me. May I have leave to withdraw, in view of the explanation given by the Finance Minister?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (71) of sub-head 1.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (73) of sub-head 1.

The Chairman: I take it the hon. Member is not moving in respect of items (71) and (73)?

Mr Rajah: I am not moving my amendments to items (71) and (73).

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 22.*

Note:-The two amendments are identical.

Sir, I filed this amendment in order to get information from the Minister as to how it is that the vote proposed for 1960 is, I think, $70,000 more than the provision for the 1959 budget. Sir, there are less and less expatriate officers and surely the vote should have been much less, unless, of course, under this vote, there are passages incurred as a result of scholarships.

Mr Rajah: The same points were in my mind when I filed the amendment. I do not wish to add anything further.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is true that there is an increase of $70,000 for 1960 as compared with 1959. It is estimated that 84 expatriate officers will be proceeding on leave prior to retirement in 1959, and a major portion of the expenditure incurred by these 84 officers, and by officers going on vacation leave in 1959, is likely to be made from the 1960 vote because of delays in submitting bills by the booking companies and Crown Agents. A total of $600,000 is likely to be incurred this year. The balance of $5 30.000 is required in 1960. But since there is an O.C.A.R. vote, the sum is not revoted but is shown as a new provision. It is, however, quite true that if we take a review of this vote over the last several years, there has been a steady declining trend. For instance, the expenditure of $1.8 million in 1956 went up to $1.9 million in 1957, went down to $1.3 million in 1958 and for 1960 it is just over $1.1 million.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in view of the explanation, I now beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 46.

Sir, sub-head 46 has as its title, "Scholarships, Courses and Fellowships". Below that, Sir, under establishment there are a number of items which may be shifted to the Treasury Division, namely, Chinese Aided Schools Scholarships and English Aided Schools Scholarships. Sir, after a year or two, these two items will disappear completely. What we are afraid of is that we might go back to the position some five or seven years back when we had a head of the Education Department who regarded Government schools and the children in Government schools as his concern and those not in Government schools as not under his care. The main complaint before was about this kind of Cinderella treatment which has been one of the causes of dissatisfaction especially among the Chinese-aided schools. We were given to understand, however, Sir, that in view of the fact that Government money comes from the tax-payers of Singapore, there should not be this kind of discrimination of treating children in Government schools as Government children, and children in non-Government schools as not being Government children. So it was decided to have some kind of allocation so that some scholarships should go to the aided English schools and some to the aided Chinese schools. Now, if this were to disappear completely - unless there is an assurance that it will not - it could well be that in future somebody might interpret that all these scholarships, courses and fellowships incurring Government money should only be for Government organisations. I hope, Sir, that an assurance will be given so that we will not go back to that kind of discriminatory policy and that these scholarships, courses and fellowships will be available to all who deserve them, regardless of whether they are in Government or non-Government organisations.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, the item on assistance to aided schools - that has been deleted from this sub-head, and provision of assistance for aided schools has quite rightly been transferred to the Ministry of Education. The Member for Tanglin raises the larger issue of scholarships and fellowships, and I was not quite clear in my mind what sort of assurance he was seeking. But I can assure him that the money will be spent to the best purpose.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I see here, under Establishment, there is a bracket which says, "Now shown under Treasury Division". Looking up that section under Treasury Division, I notice that (46) is the item. It says "Scholarships, Courses and Fellowships". Naturally I took it to mean that they have all been included under one general item. Therefore, the separate identity of scholarships would then be lost and, subsequently, in other budgets it would never be included.

The Chairman: Has the Minister lost his pencil again?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I did not quite follow what the Member for Tanglin was driving at. But there are two matters. One is that scholarship and fellowship courses have been going on for quite some time and consist really of sending doctors, civil servants and so on abroad. That kind of item comes under this vote. The other matter concerns the aided schools. That is quite a separate issue. It is now the responsibility of the Minister for Education.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case, I will raise it when we come to Education. I beg leave to withdraw the notice.

The Chairman: Of course, that will only be possible if the Member has given notice of an amendment on the appropriate item. He obviously has not found it at the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 58.

Sub-head 58 is "Singapore Industrial Promotion Board - Temporary Staff". The point I wish to raise, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in connection with the Confidential Stenographer who in the year 1959 was paid $7,800, but whose salary is now being raised from $7,800 to $11,700, - quite a rise, however confidential the stenographer may be. I have searched throughout the budget for the salaries which are being paid to-

The Chairman: Order. It is eight o'clock.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates for 1960, Paper Cmd. (New Series) 32 of 1959 and ask leave to sit again on the 12th of December.

Mr Speaker: So be it.