MAIN ESTIMATES, 1960 (Cont.)

Head 22 -

The Chairman: I do not know whether the guillotine fell when the Member for Farrer Park had completed his speech on his amendment. If so, I will propose the Question.

The Question is, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $100."

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park) gestured.

The Chairman: The Member had not completed?

Mr Rajah: I had not completed.

The Chairman: I beg his pardon. I understood the Member to say he had. Well, that cancels the Question proposed. Mr Rajah?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I misunderstood your question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment of adjournment yesterday, I was speaking on item (1) of sub-head 58 "Confidential Stenographer". There is a sum of $11,700 provided for this post for the year 1960, whereas for the year 1959 provision was for $7,800. I have searched throughout the Budget Estimates for the pay for Confidential Stenographers, and I find that even the sum of $7,800 is high for a Confidential Stenographer as compared with the pay of such other persons throughout the various Departments.

There is a substantial increase from $7,800 to $11,700. Could the Minister please explain why it is that the post, which is already more highly paid than those of most other Confidential Stenographers, needs such a substantial increase for 1960?

The other point on the Head, Mr Speaker, Sir, is "Manager, $24,000". I understand that the person who is holding this appointment is also Chairman of the Central Provident Fund Board. Under the provisions of that Ordinance an allowance is payable to the Chairman. Could the Minister say whether an allowance is, in fact, now being paid to the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund Board?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must commend the Member for Farrer Park on the assiduity with which he has scrutinised the Estimates. What he said about the pay of Confidential Stenographers is substantially correct. The post against (iii) of item (1) of sub-head 58 is at present vacant, and the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board has temporarily loaned the services of an Executive Officer (Secretary) from the Ministry of National Development. To regularise the position in 1960, it is intended to second to the Board an Executive Officer with experience in Government procedure and accounting to relieve the Manager of his more routine functions, and to assist the Office Assistant in the administration of his office. The provision, therefore, includes the salary of this Executive Officer, a book-keeping allowance and his pension contributions for the period of his secondment. The salary will be about $8,000 per annum, the book-keeping allowance will be $100 per month (or $1,200 per annum), and the pension contributions about $2,000.

As regards his second query, the answer is yes.

Mr Rajah: Do I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in respect of what are known as Temporary Staff, an Executive Officer is being brought into that section as a Permanent Officer, and because of his present emoluments, he has to be paid that sum of money set out in the 1960 Budget?

On the second point of Manager-

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps for the convenience of Members, I think we could deal first with the Confidential Stenographer.

Mr Rajah: Is it desirable to have a Permanent Officer in such a place, particularly when the whole setup of this Board is in a state of flux and nothing definite is known as to what the Board is doing or about to do? When a manager was appointed to this Board, a large amount of publicity was given to this appointment and a statement was made that a number of things were going to be done and achieved. So far, Mr Speaker, we have heard nothing of the doings or the achievements of this Board. Therefore, I fail to see why it is necessary to have such a highly qualified officer, paid this salary in the Board.

The Chairman: Dr Goh. On "Confidential Stenographer".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very necessary to have the officer described on the Board. Members will know that it is the intention of Government to wind up the affairs of the Board as soon as the new Economic Development Board is established. The process of winding up will entail a considerable amount of work, such as finalising of accounts, making lists of assets and liabilities and, of course, there is a fair amount of work still to be done in connection with preliminary legislation setting up the Economic Development Board. As I said, it is not expected that the Industrial Promotion Board will last throughout the whole of the year, and therefore the secondment of this officer to this post will be really for a duration of a few months.

Mr Rajah: May I proceed with the question on the Manager?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Rajah: Could the Minister please inform the House the quantum of the allowance paid to the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund Board, and whether it is desirable that he should be paid these two sums of money for the work which he is doing probably during the same working time? I would submit to the Minister that in stringent times such as these, and even if they were not stringent times, it would not be very desirable to have him hold this post of Manager at $24,000 per annum, and at the same time be permitted to draw an allowance for some other post.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The man is really doing work in two capacities and I see no objection whatsoever to his receiving the allowances and remuneration of these two posts. He is not prevented under existing legislation from doing so, and the Government will not have the power to withhold the allowances from him. It is only a matter of whether he himself would voluntarily wish to relinquish the allowance as Chairman of the Central Provident Fund Board.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not yet told the House what allowances he, in fact, is drawing. Might I remind the Finance Minister that it is not obligatory on the part of Government to pay the Chairman any sums of money by way of an allowance? I believe the Ordinance says "may".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If the Member for Farrer Park feels very strongly about it, I will look into the position and consider his proposals on its merits.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $100.

On page 201 of the Estimates, just under sub-head 27, there appear the following words:- Contribution under Approved section 23 of the Estimates Estimated Singapore 1959 1960 Improvement $850,000 Ordinance

For the 1960 Estimates, there is no provision. Under section 23 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, it is a statutory obligation on the part of Government to provide the Singapore Improvement Trust with that amount of money which the Trust itself collects as an Improvement Rate. Now, there is an item before this House which will seek the leave of the Assembly to levy that rate. Could I ask the Minister why the contribution from Government to the Singapore Improvement Trust for the year 1960 is absent from his financial proposals?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, the answer is that in 1960 there will be no Singapore Improvement Trust.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised at the answer, because there is before this House a motion which seeks to levy an Improvement Rate of 2 per cent on all properties throughout the Island and to hand it over to the Trust in the year 1960. Am I to understand from the Minister that, at the proper moment, the motion will be withdrawn?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Trust now exists. An Improvement Rate must, as a matter of formality, be approved by the Assembly this year, if we were to levy this Rate at all. But in the case of the entry in the Estimates, this is another matter. As I said, at the appropriate time, if possible, we will, either by amending legislation or subsidiary legislation, make the transfer of such funds to the appropriate housing authority.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got the information I was seeking. May I have leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $26,094,780 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 25 -

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2*.

*An identical amendment also stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah.

Under sub-head 2 there is provision for Contribution and Charitable Allowances to the sum of $25,000 for the Ministry of Culture. Under the main Head, all charitable allowances and contributions have been itemised except for the Ministry of Culture. Will the Minister please give some indication as to the organisations which will enjoy the benefit of this vote under Culture?

Furthermore, Sir, under Head 40 - Ministry of Culture - on page 289 of the Estimates, there is a provision of $80,000 under sub-head 11 for the "Promotion of Cultural Matters". Sir, since these two items are almost the same, should not these two votes come under one heading?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the item is headed "Contribution and Charitable Allowances". My thought on the Ministry of Culture was that it was not interested in charitable institutions but was formed to further culture.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill might, I think, have drawn the attention of the House to sub-head 3 under Head 25. You will note that a number of names have been listed. These refer to funds and various organisations which were to receive in 1959 contributions from the Government. It is proposed next year to make a review of contributions payable to societies and associations such as these, and it is thought that the most appropriate Ministry to do so would be the Ministry of Culture.

It is not possible at this stage to list in detail the different organisations which would qualify for contributions, because they have yet to make applications and these applications have yet to be assessed by the Minister for Culture.

As regards the wording referred to and remarked upon by the Member for Farrer Park - I agree that the wording is not as happy as it could be, but nevertheless I think the intention is fair enough. There is a world of difference, of course, between contributions to cultural associations and the sum of $80,000 allot ted under the vote of the Ministry of Culture. I think I will leave it to my colleague to explain the difference.

The Chairman: Perhaps he can explain the difference when we come to the item, unless the Member wishes to have the explanation now.

Mr Rajah: No. Mr Speaker, Sir, am I to understand from the Minister for Finance that the societies listed in the sub-head: "Children's Concert Fund Children's Theatre Fund Orchestral Performances Committee. Grant for Maintenance of instruments Singapore Arts Council"

have not been ruled out but they could apply for allocation from this approximately $25,000 fund? Will they be eligible if they satisfy the Minister?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is indeed the position. These associations as well as others could make their cases before the Minister for Culture.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of the explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,315,110 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 26 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (18) of sub-head 1.

Sir, this provision is for the payment of hotel allowances. Although it has been reduced by $20,000 as compared with the 1959 Estimates, I would like to ask the Government whether this vote could not be further reduced in view of the many Government houses that are now vacant.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the provision under this subhead is for payment of hotel expenses for expatriate officers who are preparing to leave the State prior to retirement or on long leave. The maximum stay permitted in a hotel at Government expense is three days, and it covers cost of hotel expenses of the wife and family. As I said, this does not provide for expatriate officers who live in hotels in lieu of occupation of Government quarters.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I beg leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Head 27-

The sum of $1,043,870 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the present holder of this post, Comptroller of Customs, is an expatriate officer and that he is about to proceed on retirement, probably on Malayanisation terms - I do not know - but anyway I understand he is leaving the service. I also understand that, instead of making provision or arrangements to have somebody from within the Department promoted to the post of Comptroller of Customs, a person from the Police Force has been brought in with a view to taking over the duties of the Comptroller of Customs and subsequent confirmation.

Could the Minister please confirm whether my information is correct, and, if it is correct, whether it is desirable that somebody from outside the service should be brought in and made Comptroller of Customs, and whether such a procedure would not tend to discourage serving officers in the Department?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The post of Comptroller of Customs is not due to be malayanised until 1962. So whatever happens to the present incumbent will not affect the immediate position so far as local senior officers are concerned.

It is true that a senior Police Officer has been seconded to the Customs Department with a view to eventual promotion if he is suitable. This is not an easy decision either for the Government to make or for the officer concerned to accept. I would like to explain to the Member for Farrer Park that the staffing position in the Customs Department, while at present adequate, leaves room for anxiety as to the future. There are five local officers of any seniority in the Customs service, and their years of experience range from four years to eight years. It seems to me that, in such an important Department earning by far the largest single source of revenue to the Government, it would be undesirable to leave matters in the hands of relatively junior officers. I wish to make it clear now that I am in no way denigrating their ability, and indeed the present Comptroller of Customs has the highest opinion of the local senior officers in the service.

3.00 p.m.

But taking into account their youth and the comparative shortness of their experience, I have come to the conclusion that it would be a prudent move to transfer a senior police officer with many years of experience in the service to understudy the Comptroller of Customs for eventual Malayanisation. I do not think that this would lead to any frustration among the local officers, because by and large they are an extremely young group and the police officer concerned is more than middle-aged, and with his maturity of judgment and experience in police investigation methods, I think that when the time comes for the complete Malayanisation of the department (which is due to take place two years from now) we can be more confident that the whole service will stand up to all the tests placed upon it. I have discussed this matter with the Treasury officials and the Comptroller of Customs, and they have agreed with me on the wisdom of this move.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister for Finance for his explanation, but I think it is a great pity that somebody from within the department could not be trained to fill this post eventually. Mr Speaker, Sir, the efficiency and adequacy of the department is ultimately in the hands of the Minister and he is the person best qualified to judge it. In view of his explanation, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,879,280 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 31-

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker. Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (11) of sub-head 1.

In the Income Tax Department, it is now proposed to have a new post of Deputy Commissioner, Grade G, $1,520 per month. The post of Commissioner is graded in Grade D, $21,240 a year. As far as I can gather, Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been no Deputy to the Commissioner from the time of inauguration of that office up till now. We see from the budget proposals that, so far as income tax increase in collections is concerned, there is none. The position is the same in this year's proposals as in last year's. In view of that, could the Minister please explain why it is necessary to have a Deputy Commissioner of this high grade? If the suggestion is that it is intended by this appointment to accelerate tax collections and ferret out income tax dodgers who otherwise might have remained hidden, he has my whole-hearted support. But it would appear from the income tax proposals that that would not be the position. Is it intended that this post should be filled from within the serving ranks? Is it intended that it should be advertised? Or is it intended that it should be filled by a serving officer who has given efficient, loyal and faithful service to the Government?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Inland Revenue Department is the ultimate result of a reorganisation of the departments of Income Tax, Stamp Office and Estate Duty, and provides for more efficient revenue collecting in a sounder establishment structure. It is therefore necessary to provide this new department with a head. As an economy measure, however, it was decided not to create a new post but to re-title the post of Comptroller of Income Tax. Grade D, as Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Grade D. By this means then the Income Tax Department would be without a head. There were four Assistant Commissioners on the salary scale $1,300-40A-1,420, and the next highest post, therefore, would be a Grade G post. It would be necessary, as I said, to have this extra post to provide the Income Tax Department with its head, although the present Comptroller of Income Tax, as the head of the Inland Revenue Department, would have overall control and detailed authority over this department.

As regards the manner of recruiting an officer for this post, it will follow ordinary and normal establishment practice.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation of the Minister, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,835,100 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 34 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 34 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1. 1.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since a similar item was previously discussed fully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: The amendment has not been moved, and therefore there is nothing to withdraw. The hon. Member is not moving.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 34 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub-head 2.

Sir, throughout the Budget, the item "Postage and Telegrams" in every other Ministry has been cut down considerably, and I congratulate the Minister for Finance on the skill with which he has managed that. But in the Ministry of Labour and Law, instead of finding a reduction in conformity with the other Ministries, postages and telegrams have gone up seven times. Does the Minister propose to do seven times the amount of writing that the other Ministries do?

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed delighted to know that the Opposition has got over its bogey with Political Secretaries and is leaving them alone for the time being. I had expected to be obliged this afternoon to answer a number of questions on the work of the Ministry of Labour and Law, but I have been reduced to giving explanations on the amount of money we spend on postages, telegrams and diplomatic bags.

Mr Speaker, in the past, there used to be a block vote to pay for the cost of diplomatic mail and telegrams despatched on behalf of the various Ministries to the Secretary of State. With the introduction of the new Constitution, these obligations have been taken over by the United Kingdom Commissioner's Office. The Ministry of Finance asked the various Ministries to make a scrutiny of the cost of the various correspondence they had in the past sent to the Office of the Council of Ministers for despatch to the Secretary of State. An inquiry was made, and it was found that, although we did not have detailed figures on the actual cost of telegrams and correspondence that left our Ministry, it was estimated that a provision of $1,400 would meet our needs for next year. I would submit, Mr Speaker, that the Ministry of Labour and Law have not been extravagant in this proposed expenditure. If the Member for Farrer Park wants a breakdown, I can give it to him. $ Prime Minister's Office, correspondence costs 750 Ministry of National Development 500 Ministry of Finance 5,150 Ministry of Health 7,350 Ministry of Education 3,000 Ministry of Culture 9,000 Ministry of Home Affairs 8,800 Ministry of Labour and Law (approx.) 1,400

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $295,010 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

3.15 p.m.

Head 36 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.

Sub-head 5, "Accountant to Official Assignee - $21,240." Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the situation, so far as the Office of Official Assignee and Public Trustee is concerned, there is attached to it permanently an accountant. Therefore, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why the emoluments of the Accountant to the Official Assignee should be treated as special expenditure. I understood special expenditure to mean expenditure which would be incurred for that year and not for subsequent years. Does it mean that the Official Assignee will only require an accountant for next year, and provision will be sought for 1961 in some other form?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the person in question discharging the duties of Accountant to the Official Assignee is, I think, an expatriate officer on contract. He has been in the service from the 22nd July, 1946. In 1955 he was granted a renewal of his contract for three years. In 1958 the previous Government renewed his contract for another three years. His present contract will expire on 13th December, 1960. He has been a contract officer all along, and there is no hope of his appointment being made permanent. He will be helping out in the Official Assignee's Department for as long as he is wanted, and it is not proposed to extend his contract further than the end of next year.

Mr Rajah: Sir, as I understand the Minister, the expenditure incurred for the Accountant to the Official Assignee is not an annually recurrent charge. But as far as I can make out, he is an officer who has always been attached to the Official Assignee's Department. In fact that Department cannot do without an Accountant because the work is concerned with bankruptcy, figures and accounting. I am not questioning the payment to this officer. What I would like to know is why it appears as special expenditure and why it has not appeared under annually recurrent expenses? I am not in any way saying that there should not be such an officer. But what I do say is that the office is permanent - it might be held by an expatriate temporarily, but it must be permanent.

Mr Byrne: I will see to it, Mr Speaker. We will look into this matter when the officer's contract expires.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation, may I be given leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $250,130 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 37 -

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been said that one baby is born every eight minutes. The present ratio of population is that 51 per cent of the population are under 21 years, and in 1965, I believe, we are expecting 46 per cent to be under 14. I am quoting this figure just to show that the youth population is increasing very fast. I notice that there is only one Principal Youth Service Officer. There is no increase in that, and I believe that the youth officers are already overburdened with work. With the expansion expected in 1960, will we not need more youth officers?

Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we now know that the Member for Mountbatten is very interested in social welfare work. Why is she so interested in this? If I remember correctly, the Member for Mountbatten was, before the general election, the chairman of a youth club. We can therefore understand why she is interested in social welfare. Originally she was the chairman of a club in Siglap. Why then did she go to Mountbatten to stand for the election?

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Lady must understand that all these personalities, as I have indicated, are completely irrelevant. She is touching on the personal conduct of a Member of the Assembly, and the personal conduct of a Member of the Assembly cannot be discussed except on a substantive motion. I think the Member for Mountbatten asked a question about why no provision has been made in the 1960 Estimates for more Principal Youth Service Officers. That is all.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member, as I mentioned just now, is connected with social welfare work. That is why I said that. We know that under the old society, some of the youths were not organised and so they went astray. Under the new Government, we have to reorganise the old state of affairs. The task of reorganisation has fallen on us. In view of the increase in population, we must know how to organise. Unless we do that, we cannot take full advantage of our available resources. We should think of ways and means to achieve that. We must put a lot of effort and resources into that work. But we must economise. This is our present task.

We read every day about events concerning secret societies in the newspapers. This is the most immediate task we are faced with at the present moment. These persons were not born to be like that. They are the products of the old society. Under the colonial rule of over one hundred years and under the Lim Yew Hock Government, no notice was taken of this problem.

The Chairman: Order. So far as I can understand, the hon. Member for Mountbatten merely wants to know why no further provision for Principal Youth Service Officers has been made.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Bras Basah was trying to explain to the House the need for these youth services.

In answering the question that was asked by the Member for Mountbatten, I would like to point out to her that, in fact, the Principal Youth Service Officer is the officer who is in charge of the staff who man the community recreation centres. If you will turn over to page 256 of the Estimates, you will see under Head 1, sub-heads 38 and 39, the staff over which the Principal Youth Service Officer exercises supervision. I think that answers the question.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation, may I be given permission to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (41) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that in the case of the woman Children's Social Centre Organiser, she gets the same salary as the Assistant Lady Superintendent. Is that correct? Usually I think the Assistant gets less. Is there an explanation, or is it an oversight?

Mr Byrne: Where is it?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: On page 256, item (41).

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member comparing item (41) with item (42)?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Yes.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, they are on the same scale. The post of Children's Social Centre Organiser is a post that can be held either by a man or a woman. If it is held by a man, it attracts a higher salary scale. If it is held by a woman, it attracts a lower salary scale. The Assistant Lady Superintendent and the woman holder of the post of Children's Social Centre Organiser are paid the same pay so that they will not quarrel over pay.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Is it not customary for the assistant to draw less than the organiser in all the posts?

3.30 p.m.

Mr Byrne: That is not the hierarchy at all here. The Children's Social Centre Organiser is a distinct post. It is not related in any way to the post of Assistant Lady Superintendent.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (50) of sub-head 1.

Juvenile Court Magistrate - if I am not mistaken, Sir, the job has in the past been done on a voluntary basis. I believe the man who is doing it, or who has done it, has gone away. But I wonder whether it will not be possible to get someone else to carry out the job on a voluntary basis, as used to be done before?

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have decided to engage a magistrate to deal with juvenile crimes in the Juvenile Court. The Member for Mountbatten thinks that this will increase Government expenditure, but I fear she may not have the same views as the Government. We know that our youths, under a responsible Government-

The Chairman: Order. I think perhaps we are getting our procedure a bit mixed. If the hon. Lady wishes to speak generally on the Juvenile Court - and these remarks, of course, apply equally to the Member for Bras Basah if she wishes to speak generally on any division of social welfare - I think the opportunity will be given when the Member for Mountbatten moves the 12th amendment, that is, that the total sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $100. Bearing that in mind, any Member who wishes to speak on any general aspect of social welfare under Head 37 can do so when we come to amendment No. 12. I know the forces are ranged against the Member for Mountbatten, but shall we wait until amendment No. 12?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Stamford was trying to explain the need, under modern conditions, to introduce new blood into the Juvenile Court magistracy, which is what I think, and I think the Members of the Opposition will agree with me, should be done. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had two retired practitioners at the Bar giving their services full-time to previous Governments, and also to this Government, to fulfil the functions of the Juvenile Court Magistrate. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is about time that we have a change - that we who are responsible for the young of Singapore should show that we are not prepared to continue this system any longer. Therefore we do not appeal only to volunteers to assist youths in their problems. Sir, It is our proposal to create a post for the Juvenile Court Magistrate next year and we shall take steps to see that it is no longer filled by people who are retired and who have got nothing better to do; but we shall get a young person, who has ideas about the management of youths, who mixes with them, and who is interested in their problems to take over this very important post.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I see the point of the Minister in saying that we should get someone younger to deal with juvenile cases. But I do not see what objection there is in his other point of not wanting voluntary workers. If people are civic conscious enough to offer their services, I think we should thank them. We should be grateful for it. But if they are the unsuitable type, the retired type, the old people - it is, however, my opinion also that people, who are two generations ahead, cannot understand the minds of the young - I do agree with the Minister, but only on that point. May I have your permission to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (51) of sub-head 1.

Sir, it states there, Probation Officers, and it just gives the scale. The next one says Lady Probation Officer. Do I understand that "Probation Officers" mean men officers?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, we have 10 posts for male Probation Officers and one for a female Probation Officer. I do not think we have so many female delinquents to need an increase in female Probation Officers!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, my question has already been answered. I presume it does mean men officers, so may I be permitted to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (52) of sub-head 1.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to move the amendment on Head 37, item (52) of sub-head 1, but my question has been answered before I could move it. I was going to ask why there were 10 Probation Officers (men) to one Lady? Are women better behaved than men? But it has already been answered, so I shall not move it.

The Chairman: In effect, of course the hon. Member has moved by making a speech. But unless the Minister wishes to answer that, it will be recorded that the amendment has not been moved.

The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr A. P. Rajah and Mrs Seow Peck Leng-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 6.

The Chairman: Tun Lim Yew Hock. Tun Lim Yew Hock?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: He is not here, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Rajah.

Mr Rajah: The Member for Mountbatten will move the amendment, Sir.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 6.

Sir, it says there "Development and Integration of Community Associations". As this is something new, I think the House will be grateful if the Minister could tell us more about it - his policy and his plans; what they are going to be and how he plans to carry them out.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I would have to embark on a dissertation on Government's policy with regard to community centres to satisfy the Member for Mountbatten. But I will inform her now that we have community centres in Upper Serangoon, Siglap (she knows quite a lot about the Siglap Community Centre; she was President of the Siglap Girls' Club for some time), Sims Avenue Community Centre, and Keppel Harbour Community Centre.

Each of these large community centres, including quarters for the Centre Organisers, cost the previous Government round about $150,000 to construct. This expenditure did not include such other amenities like badminton courts, basketball courts and indoor and outdoor lighting for each of these community centres. It was not the policy of the previous Government to build medium-sized or small community centres, and it was agreed with the then Rural Board in 1956 that the Department of Social Welfare should build community centres in the city area only, leaving the rural areas clear for the Rural Board to build its own community centres.

The Rural Board built large and small community centres, but in 1958 it decided to build more small community centres throughout the rural areas of Singapore. The following Rural Board Community Centres have now been taken over by the Department of Social Welfare:

Large Community Centres - Bukit Panjang Community Centre (completed in 1954), the Buona Vista Community Centre (completed in 1956). I think all Members of the Opposition know this community centre. It is a very lavish community centre with beautiful parks and especially designed to accommodate the middle class who live in that area. The Changi Community Centre (completed in 1958), the Bukit Timah Community Centre (completed in 1959).

The Rural Board, I think, appeared to have more horse sense than the previous Government, Sir, It did build a number of adequate small community centres. They are to be found in the Kampong Ayer Gemuroh Village Hall, Changi Point Community Hall, Ama Keng Community Centre, West Coast Road Community Centre, Jalan Eunos Community Centre, Pulau Ubin Community Centre.

The cost of each of the large Rural Board Community Centres was about the same as that of a large community centre built by the previous Government, that is, more than $150,000 each, but the costs of small Rural Board community centres ranged from $4,600 for a small open shed building (an open shed building serves as the Kampong Ayer Gemuroh Village Hall) to $28,200 for the modern brick-type building with proper doors and windows, like the one at Jalan Eunos. The average cost of a small Rural Board community centre with windows and doors was about $12,000.

The annual cost of running the Social Welfare Community Centres, that is, those rented from the S.I.T. and those taken over from the Rural Board, amounted to approximately $350,000, which was the sum voted last year by the previous Government for this purpose. This figure includes the salaries of staff, cost of equipment, rent of premises, cost of city services, fuel and maintenance charges.

The cost had been low because all the community centres had previously been left to the control of Advisory Committees, Management Committees or Community Associations which raised funds for running these community centres and provided the additional money required from profits made from film shows, fun fairs, etc. In many cases the funds raised from film shows and fun fairs were misappropriated.

At the time I took over as Minister the control of all community centres in Singapore had passed out of the hands of the Department of Social Welfare and appeared to have been lodged with a certain Mr Winans, an employee of the Asia Foundation with his headquarters at the old Kallang Airport and with a private office in the Minister for Labour and Welfare's room. You must remember that the Minister for Labour and Welfare was then an absentee overlord in his own Ministry.

Realising that it was the duty of any Government not to allow costly buildings built as community centres from money provided by the taxpayer to come under the control of thinly disguised political associations and Committees of Management serving under the direction of an employee of the Asia Foundation who had direct access to the former Chief Minister (who I notice is absent from this House this afternoon), Government took immediate steps to bring these community centres under the direct control of the Ministry.

As the action proceeded many of these thinly disguised political associations and Committees of Management hitherto in control of these community centres either scattered or were dispersed to other less costly private dwellings.

3.45 p.m.

Immediate action was taken to stop private organisers from running film shows in the community centres for which fees were charged and often pocketed.

When the estimates for running the community centres this year were under consideration, it was realised that the money voted last year by the previous Government was insufficient to enable these community centres to maintain their present level of activities next year, let alone step them up.

Since the operation of cinema shows for profit by private organisers has been stopped, from which some of the community centres hitherto derived a portion of their income, it was therefore necessary to budget for next year on the basis that all the money required for the expansion of activities in the existing centres and for the maintenance of activities in the new Centres to be built would have to be found from Government sources. For this reason a sum of $1 million has been entered in the Social Welfare Estimates for next year for the development and integration of Community Associations.

This sum would be used not only for the construction of small community centres throughout Singapore, in addition to those built through the generosity of Shaw Foundation which donated $200,000 for the purpose this year, but also for the payment of honoraria to voluntary leaders and for the purchase of necessary equipment which had never been provided by the Department of Social Welfare in community centres. Without the service of active voluntary leaders and an adequate supply of equipment, no community centre can hope to reach a satisfactory level of activities. This will be cheaper than employing full-time paid staff. In particular, S.I.T. community centres are in great need of such help and they have been neglected by Government in the past. The following S.I.T. community centres will come under the control of the Department of Social Welfare next year when money is available:

(i) Alexandra Community Centre

(ii) Redhill Community Centre

(iii) Stamford Community Centre

(iv) Kim Keat Avenue Community Centre

(v) Guillemard Estate Community Centre

(vi) Havelock Estate Community Centre

(vii) Balestier Community Centre

(viii) Kampong Silat Community Centre

(ix) Pek Kio Community Centre

(x) Princess Elizabeth Community Centre

New community centres situated in the thickly populated areas, i.e. Minto Road, Banda Street and Joo Chiat Road are in the course of construction. Sites in the New Malay Settlement, Yan Kit Road, King George V Avenue, Macpherson Road, Owen Road, Nee Soon Village, Thong Hoe Village and Tuas Village are available for immediate construction and more sites will be acquired to construct small community centres in all areas where there are heavy concentrations of population.

The Minto Road Community Centre will serve an area with a mixed population of Malays, Chinese and Indians. Banda Street Community Centre is to be a medium size one and will be the first community centre to be built in the heart of Chinatown. Just imagine that. The previous Government allowed the Rural Board to build the lavish Buona Vista Road Community Centre for $250,000 which is very little used and allowed centres of heavy population in the heart of Chinatown to be without any community centre. The thick concentration of population here demands that this community centre should be a medium size one. The Banda Street Community Centre would have three classrooms, a large hall, an office and toilet facilities and although it will cost about $39,000, it will provide pearly as much floor space as that of the large size community centres formerly built for the Department of Social Welfare costing more than $150,000.

The estimated costs of the three community centres now in course of construction with electricity installed and sanitation provided are as follows:

Minto Road Community Centre estimated $10,000.

Banda Street Community Centre estimated $39,000.

Joo Chiat Community Centre estimated $13,000.

The Government's plan for the centralisation of all community centres under a single organisation which I mentioned in this Assembly on the 17th July, 1959, is progressing and will not be completed until all the existing community centres are brought under the control of the Department of Social Welfare, and the small and medium community centres planned by Government are all completed. Meanwhile control of all these community centres must rest with the Department of Social Welfare and will be my direct responsibility until the single organisation referred to finally emerges.

Youth organisations such as Boys' and Girls' Clubs have been permitted to carry on with their youth activities with the Federation of Boys' and Girls' Clubs as the parent bodies. With the winding up of the Singapore Youth Council, the responsibility for co-ordinating all youth activities now rests with the Singapore Council of Social Service of which the Federation of Boys' and Girls' Clubs are affiliates. Government has also entered a vote of $5,000 under Head 25 - Contributions and Charitable Allowances - for a grant to be made next year for the Council and also provides the Council with premises in Orchard Road from which it is now carrying on its activities.

What I have said about Government's future plans for the development and expansion of community centres should serve as a reminder to the Member for Cairnhill that whereas he was content to use these community organisations merely for building up a cheap political machine to fight the P.A.P. in the last elections, we, with our base firmly in the masses, are able to ignore such petty and puerile considerations and are able to plan the use of the existing community centres and those yet to be built to serve the purposes for which such community centres are designed, that is:

(i) to be the media through which the aims and intentions of the Government can be communicated and explained to the people;

(ii) to be focal points for programmes of activities organised to promote the welfare and recreational needs of the people by group participation in social, cultural, health and educational projects on a mass basis;

(iii) to serve as a training ground for future leaders of the community.

I hope that I have given the Member for Mountbatten all the information she required.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I must compliment the Minister for his full knowledge of the community work under his charge. After he has given us so much information, I hope he does not mind if I still have one more question to ask, and I hope he does not mind answering. There was a plan, I think, to use the materials of the Singapore Constitution Exposition to build 10 small community centres in different parts of Singapore. I believe the Jaycees, if I am not mistaken, and another organisation are providing the money. Is the Government proceeding with that plan?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Govvernment is making full use of all the Arcron structures that were used during the Singapore Constitution Exposition. That has enabled Government to cut down the cost of these community centres. As to the project of the Jaycees, the Government had an alternative scheme. They did propose to set up a children's social centre in the vacant ground in front of the Ministry of Labour in Havelock Road. Since then, the grounds have been taken over by the Ministry of National Development and have been developed as a park for children.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: May I have your permission to withdraw the amendment?

The Chairman: Before I obtain the views of hon. Members on that request, I might inform hon. Members that if any Member wishes to speak now on the community centres as a subject, this is the time to speak; otherwise he will not have an opportunity of speaking further on community centres as a subject. I have indicated that when we come to amendment No. 12, the debate may range over the whole of social welfare policy and the different departments. But as we are now on community centres, the debate on it must be finalised now. This is the opportunity. I trust I have made myself clear.

There was a request to withdraw the amendment. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): No. Mr Speaker, thank you for the explanation given on the community centres. I am taking this opportunity to speak on the subject. I was unable to find out from the speech of the Minister for Labour and Law whether the community centre at Jalan Penggaga was included therein.

Another point which strikes me is that the Hon. Minister in his speech in English said a plural number in the Malay Settlements. How many more community centres are going to be built in the Malay Settlements? I hope the Minister responsible for this matter will enlighten me further on this subject.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member for Kampong Kembangan that in the past, as far as community centres are concerned, there was a lot of neglect in regard to assisting the predominantly Malay areas of the population. There were very few Malay activity instructors who were employed. There was also only one Malay community centre in a predominantly Malay area, i.e. the one in Jalan Eunos, costing round about $28,000, which I mentioned earlier. We have spent quite a lot of time touring various areas in the Malay Settlements in the State which could serve as possible sites for community centres. We visited the site at Kaki Bukit, which could serve as a site for a community centre. We have also reorganised the children's social centre in the Malay Farm. That site is subject to floods and, for that reason, we could not reconstruct a new building on that particular site. But we are looking out for other suitable sites in these areas for the erection of small type community centres. We are in the course of engaging a lot of Malay activity instructors, and I am very happy to report that, for the first time, we have been able to recruit Malay girls, who are both Malay-speaking and English-speaking, to assist us in this work. We have gone forward in a big way and I hope we will be able to produce some very good results next year.

4.00 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his explanation, but I am still waiting for a definite reply on a community centre at Jalan Penggaga. I have singled this out because this area is subject to floods. It is very difficult for the residents to take advantage of the community centre there. I hope the Minister will state whether the community centre at Jalan Penggaga is included in his development programme or not.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will have to visit the area in question. I must confess that I am not yet in a position to do so, but in view of what the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said, I will take the opportunity of visiting this area and seeing whether we will be able to do something for it in the near future.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity of asking the Minister for Labour and Law about this. In Pulau Brani there was a building erected as a community centre before the general elections. Until today there have been no activities whatsoever there, and I would like to know the position in regard to this building.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess I have not noticed this community centre, but I will make a visit in due course.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will permit me to ask one more question on community centres. In the old plan, on the use of materials from the Constitution Exposition, I know that there was a community centre to be built in Jalan Ampat, the site chosen to house the fire victims at the Old Kallang Airport. I do not know whether it is to be built or not, because I did not hear it mentioned in the list of community centres the Minister had given.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, we are still concentrating at present on putting up these community centres in areas where there is a heavy concentration of population and where there are no community centres. There is one now being built at Minto Road. It is in a place where a number of houses have collapsed and the site is vacant. We are looking for such areas which will reduce the cost of construction. Otherwise, the money that is allocated for this purpose will have to be used for the purchase of sites and this would add considerably to the cost.

As I have explained earlier, the provision of $350,000 last year would be inadequate. We are now going to get control of all the S.I.T. community centres, and we would have to bear all these additional costs. It is, therefore, not possible for us to state now where we shall be putting up the other community centres. But we have these objectives: (1) to build where there are concentrations of population; and (2) we would also work this in with community centres in the rural areas - small ones in places where already we have Crown land.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to inform the Minister that in that area about 2,000 families are housed in S.I.T. buildings. I believe there is Government land there. And in his future projects, I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind and include in his scheme a Community Centre to be put up at Jalan Ampat. And I also hope that he will bear this scheme in mind when planning to use the Arcron materials for building community centres.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall take due note of what the Member for Mountbatten said.

The Chairman: I have explained and perhaps I had better explain again, that now is the opportunity for any Member who wishes to speak on community centres as a subject. Otherwise, he must for this Budget session keep silent in so far as this Head is concerned. I have put the amendment before the House and it cannot now be withdrawn.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 13.

Sir, I have given reasons why I think the young population is growing. Based on that argument, I notice that provision for the purchase of food for the Child Feeding Scheme will be reduced for the year 1960. Is Government planning to give them less food, or does Government think that the prices of food have gone down, or has Government other channels of getting cheaper food?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that we are cutting down on the food that we provide to the children. It is rather because of an over-estimate in 1958-9 that the provision for next year is reduced. The Estimate for provision in 1958 was $100,000, and in 1959 $90,000. It is considered that these sums were over-estimated, and that we can adequately provide the children with all their requirements on the amount that we have estimated for next year.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: In view of the explanation given, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be permitted to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 16.

Sub-head 16 is "Assistance to Youth and Recreation Organisations." Sir, I have moved this amendment in order to seek information, because the Estimate for 1959 is not shown and I am just wondering whether any provision for expansion has been made, or whether any increment is made in the Estimates for 1960.

The Chairman: The honourable Member, I take it, has read Note (iii).

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, this provision is utilised to pay honoraria to club leaders, activity instructors and so on, in our various youth clubs. As the Note says, the "Increase is due to more clubs receiving assistance". I will not bore hon. Members by giving them an itemised list of how we arrive at the sum of $156,000. Last year, in addition to this provision, a sum of $15,000 was provided for the Singapore Youth Council. The Singapore Youth Council has since been wound up, and this additional money brings the figure to $171,000 for next year. I feel that the money wasted by the Youth Council could be better utilised by providing more club leaders and more activity instructors for our various youth clubs.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, do I take it that the answer to my question is "Yes, provision has been made for the expansion of this work."?

Mr Byrne indicated assent.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Then may I have permission to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 22.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I do not wish to move the amendment to sub-head 22, as it was dealt with yesterday and the day before by the Member for Nee Soon.

The Chairman: The honourable Member is not moving.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 24.

Sir, the argument here is the same. I notice that further furniture and equipment for the Havelock Road Girls' Hostel, the Girls' Homecraft Centre and others listed, have not been provided. And since Government have announced that they do wish to expand this type of activities, I am just wondering whether this has not been an oversight, or whether the existing furniture and equipment will be sufficient for the expansion planned.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the furniture and equipment in the various hostels and centres have already been purchased with the moneys voted for last year. These hostels and centres are adequately furnished for our purposes, and we propose to expend another $2,000 next year to provide the furniture and equipment for these Children's Social Centres.

4.15 p.m.

I mentioned just now that there are three community centres under construction at present, in Minto Road, Banda Street, and at Bukit Timah. It is our intention to use this vote to provide furniture for the Minto Road Community Centre, the Banda Street Community Centre and the Bukit Timah Community Centre.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: May I have permission to withdraw the amendment, Sir?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 26.

Sir, an item under sub-head 26 shows "Covent Garden Slums Clearance - Rent of Singapore Improvement Trust Premises". We all know - and I think the Minister himself knows best as he was complaining just now that there were no community centres for the Chinatown area - that clearing of the slums is very important. I will not dwell on that because I think everybody here realises it. No estimate for 1960 is shown, but since the additional note to that says "Rent of Singapore Improvement Trust Premises", can I take it that the Government's promise of a subsidy to the people who have been cleared out of Covent Garden has now come to an end; that the Government has fulfilled its promise and no more money is required?

The Chairman: I take it that the Member for Mountbatten is enquiring as to why those two items have been left out? Sub-head 26 is, "Temporary Staff for Public Assistance Section". Is that the object of the question?

Mr Byrne: There is no vote for the items referred to.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: As Covent Garden comes under sub-head 26, I have filed my amendment on sub-head 26, and it is Covent Garden that I am talking about.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will notice, there is no vote for Covent Garden Slum Clearance for 1960.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Then I shall not press for the amendment.

The Chairman: The amendment, I take it, can be said to be misconceived. It is therefore withdrawn.

Amendment accordingly withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $100.

Sir, in Hansard of 17th July, the Minister for Labour and Law said [col. 215]:

"The reorganisation of the community and recreation services that are afforded to the public, especially to the young, will be proceeded with the utmost despatch by this Government...".

The Chairman: Order. I thought I had repeated three or four times what was in my mind, and that is that the subject of community centres is now closed. The Member was given a chance when the item itself was being discussed, and I tried to make it as clear as possible that that was the time when a debate on community centres could arise. If there is any other topic which the Member for Mountbatten wishes to touch upon, of course, this is the opportunity. But the subject of community centres is finished completely.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose debate on the running of community centres and its methods is also closed. So I shall not speak on that.

The Chairman: Madam Hoe, I think, wishes to speak, and this is her opportunity.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Mountbatten has previously asked many questions in connection with youth community centres, as if she is much concerned over this. We know all along that in the community centres-

The Chairman: Order. I think there must have some difficulty in the interpretation of my remarks. We have completed discussing community centres. But if there is any other aspect of youth services that the hon. Lady wishes to discuss, she may proceed, but the subject of community centres is a closed book.

Perhaps Miss Fung would like to speak on juvenile delinquency?

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Sir, just now I touched on certain questions regarding the Juvenile Court. After studying the appointment of a Magistrate in the Juvenile Court, I discussed it with the Minister. I did not make a proper statement just now and I express my regrets for that.

Juvenile crime is a very serious problem. I think a young magistrate will be in a much better position to understand the ways and thinking of a young man than can an old magistrate. When a youth commits his first crime, and if we can treat him properly, then it will be beneficial and advantageous to his future. Our view of this problem is quite different from that of the previous Government. If we get a capable and able Magistrate to deal with this problem and, further, if he can understand and analyse the factors and reasons for juvenile crime, then I think the Government will be in a better position to solve this problem. So if we look into this problem carefully and seriously, it will be solved more satisfactorily.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in case I have been misunderstood, I just want to make it very clear to the hon. Member that I am not against the appointment. All I ask is whether the post could be a voluntary one.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, in their discussion today on the particular items under the Head "Social Welfare" Members tend to forget the fact that, because of our young population, the problems of social welfare in these times will not diminish but will increase. That is quite understandable, because we have one of the highest population birth rates in the world. Also, many of the 300,000 people who have registered for Singapore citizenship came from other countries where originally they were not trained in any skilled work. Having come to Singapore, many have now found themselves reaching a stage where they have to find some means of livelihood. May I quote an example? It is quite pitiable to see in Queen Street many old women hawking by the sides of the road. Their husbands are dead but their children must eat. So you are left with a class of old women who have now got to fend for themselves. Women have a longer span of life than men. It is just like the drones dying faster than the bees. But what I would like to say is this: that social welfare covers all classes of people and considerable assistance has been given to this class of people - widows whose husbands are not in Singapore or are dead and with children to take care of.

Delinquency has lately been on the increase, mainly due to the fact that we have not been prepared for an upsurge in the numbers of those living in Singapore and, therefore, we have not been able to readjust our social conditions to find employment for them. It is because of this reason that social welfare cannot be considered solely in terms of dishing out public assistance funds. In this respect, the Minister for Labour and Law has done very well. He has explained his idea surrounding community centres and youth service centres. The point has been made that we have now appointed a full-time Magistrate for the Juvenile Court. Of course, it is desirable that we should accept any help which is being offered voluntarily. But, unfortunately, as the Minister has pointed out, those who have come forward to offer their services have reached a stage where they fail to appreciate the problems existing today. And in a Juvenile Court, it is not helpful to a young boy or girl of about 10 or 12 years old to have a man In his sixties or seventies quoting to him the analects of Confucius on how to behave and so on, when those trite sayings are quite divorced from the hectic days of modern life. For a young magistrate to come forward and volunteer his services to serve in the Court would take up much of his time and, therefore, it is only correct that a full-time Magistrate should be employed to serve in the Juvenile Court. We have no quarrel about that.

One important point which was brought forward in the discussion was that there were more male probation officers than lady probation officers. As the Minister has pointed out, this is because females tend to be less delinquent than males.

4.30 p.m.

That, of course, poses a real problem, and I think the only solution to that would be for the Ministry of Health to devise a method by which Singaporeans can produce more females! It would also ease the problem of the Minister for Home Affairs.

But all in all, I would say that when we talk of social welfare assistance, we ought not to do so in the light that we are giving out dole. We appreciate considerably the difficulties of the Minister for Labour and Law - that he has a heavy registration of unemployed in his Ministry and, at the same time, having these claims for public assistance for the unemployed compete with those who suffer from disabilities. Perhaps the public of Singapore could ease his problems if they genuinely seek to come forward, mix with the people and try to understand their problem rather than adopting an antagonistic attitude of: "Why did we do this? Why did we not do that?"

Men have a tendency to group together. Those who collect stamps come together. Those who take photographs group together. That is because they have a common interest. In Western countries, I understand, Sir, even nudists group together. But what I would like to say is this. If we wish to check juvenile delinquency, if we wish the people of Singapore to have a feeling that they belong to a society, an opportunity must be given to them to come together, and that opportunity is being provided for by the community centres, for which $1 million has been provided for in the Estimates. The opportunity is also given to them by the provision of sports centres and also other youth centres. It is our hope that these centres should not be abused and that they should not become the focal point of gangsterism. It has come to our knowledge that some of these centres have, in the past, become collecting points for youthful thugs where they plan their operations. It is therefore right that the Minister for Labour and Law should concentrate his attention on the organisation of community centres.

The Chairman: I think it is quite all right if the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister touches on community centres in passing. But if he develops the argument on community centres, then, of course, he is out of order.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I have just brought up the subject of community centres in order to bring out the ability of the Minister for Labour and Law in organisation and his attention and devotion to social welfare.

Time and again, Mr Speaker, it has been said that some women are interested in household duties and card games and in the pleasures of a leisurely life. But it is my feeling that if our Assembly women, including, of course, the hon. Member for Mountbatten, could come forward and organise the women of Singapore, they will go a long way to helping us stop juvenile delinquency. It has become public knowledge that, of late, those who have been involved in thuggery have not only been boys but they have also included girls, who in fact are the leaders of the gangs. I will not pretend to know anything about how these girls manage to organise the men. I am quite sure an understanding of the psychology of the female can be better understood by our Assembly women.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister about the women of Singapore coming out to try and stop juvenile delinquency. He calls upon the women in the Assembly, and I am glad he has included the Opposition, and has asked her to come forward and do some work to prevent juvenile delinquency. I wish to inform him that I have been coming forward and have been doing this for the last six years. My present plan is this. We are going up to the Federation. I do not know whether the Deputy Prime Minister knows that in the Federation the women are very active in this type of work. They go to the villages and kampongs attending to the needs of the people and the children. We in Singapore have not that experience. We have arranged to go there in January. A team of women from Singapore will go up, and I have invited two women, one from the Government Bench and one of the P.A.P. women members in the Education Department, and I hope they will co-operate with us and join this team of women to go up to the Federation and see how the women social workers there work in the villages and kampongs. We hope to come back here and adopt whatever methods we think will be good for Singapore. I do hope that, in view of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we will get the wholehearted support of the Government in this project.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Mountbatten raised one point. She said that the youth population of Singapore is increasing and, therefore, the number of Principal Youth Service Officers should be increased. I do not mean she is wrong, but the point is this. The birth rate in Singapore is supposed to be the highest in the world and, therefore, certainly the youth population is increasing. To reduce the birth rate is one thing, but to increase the number of Principal Youth Service Officers is quite another thing. I believe she is a principal of a school and she will know that if there are 200 pupils and one principal in a school, and if the pupils are increased to 400, it does not mean that there is need to employ another principal. Therefore, I think this will prove that, although the youth population in Singapore is increasing, it is not necessary for us to employ more Principal Youth Service Officers.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the budget for the Ministry of Labour and Law, I am taking this opportunity to put forward this point concerning the assistance given by the Social Welfare Department - public aid. The most interesting feature is that concerning a blind person who receives public aid. I understand from the blind person himself that originally the aid he received from the Social Welfare Department was adequate. It was a sum which enabled that person to satisfy his daily needs. But I am surprised to discover that when the new Government came into power, the usual aid of $25 which he used to receive was reduced to $5. This matter was brought to the attention of the Minister for Labour and Law. I drew his attention as to how one can live or subsist on $5, if he is blind. This problem is different from that of other persons who receive aid, like the unemployed persons who may be able to find some other means of employment. But to a blind person who cannot see, we must know the difficulties he is facing, unless he has a special trade or skill. I am told that the Minister for Labour and Law has drawn up a scheme to aid the blind, but until now there is no announcement that the scheme has been implemented, I hope that in the new scheme, the persons affected will not be made to suffer by receiving only $5 a month.

Another point, Mr Speaker, to which I would like to draw the attention of this House, particularly that of the Minister for Labour and Law, is that we do not wish to encourage people to depend solely on public aid for their living, and we also know that aid for the unemployed is given from public money. Therefore, we must draw up a plan so that the really needy cases should receive aid. In this matter, I should like to draw the attention of the Government to those needy cases who should receive Government aid and should be given help.

4.45 p.m.

I quote as an example the circumstances of the residents in the Southern Islands. They are a section of the society of Singapore, and their position is different from that of their brethren on the Singapore mainland. It can be said that 98 per cent of them - excluding the residents of Pulau Brani and Pulau Bukom - depend for their living solely on fishing. The problem of fishing is very intricate and complex. For that reason, these islanders cannot find an alternative means of livelihood except fishing. For instance, they cannot become hawkers because they are isolated. Their means of livelihood as fishermen will fail if they suffer ill-health. If they become blind, they cannot go out to the sea, whether at night time or day time, because they are unable to see. It is obvious then that they cannot go out fishing. In such circumstances, this will be an obstacle to their earning a living. Unlike the people living in the City, if they are ill, they cannot find employment. The people in the city can find other ways and means of subsistence. As I said earlier, the islanders depend solely on fishing for their means of livelihood. For that reason, assistance to them is very essential. They must be given special priority. They must be made an exception to the rule.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to state at the outset that this Government has been very generous as far as public assistance is concerned. When we came in, we found that the amount allotted for public assistance by the previous Government for this year was $5,500,000. There was no proper supervision kept of the funds that were administered by the Public Assistance Section of my Ministry in the sense that we have on our registers about 22,000 people who are given public assistance and there are only about 47 investigators to look into the claims of those who require assistance. You can realise, Mr Speaker, that, with such a large number involved, and with so few investigators, and because of the sheer weight of numbers, it is very hard to keep track of how, in fact, this money is distributed. However, we knew that to be the position, and we also knew that there was quite a considerable amount of poverty in the State. For that reason, we asked for a supplementary provision to increase the vote from $5.5 million to $6.7 million for this year. In spite of the demands that are made on this Government for money for development purposes, we have nevertheless been able to push the provision for public assistance even higher for next year, so that, ever since we have formed the Government, the vote has increased from $5.5 million to $6.7 million, and for next year to $7.5 million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the public for their co-operation in the matter of public assistance. We get a numbers of letters daily complaining that the sums which have been appropriated for public assistance are being mis-spent, and that there are people in very good circumstances who receive this public assistance. A check is made on every letter received, and I would say that in 90 per cent of the cases the information that we have received is quite true. We get our investigators to go round and recheck the position and stop the allowances where the reports are found to be true.

There have been more and more people coming to us for assistance, and with the proper distribution of this money, I think that with the money that is being made available by this Assembly for next year, we will be able to carry on.

We have also changed the rates of assistance. The head of a household used to get $15 per month previously. We have taken it up to $16 per month. The wife, as head of the household, used to get $8 per month. We have taken it up to $10 per month. A dependent child, aged 16 and over, receives $8 per month - we have not changed that rate. A dependent child under 16 years receives $5 a month - we have not changed that rate. The maximum allowance for a household has gone up from $87 to $90.

I think the Member for the Southern Islands said just now that there were fishermen in indigent circumstances in the Southern Islands. There was the case of a blind man who was refused any allowance. I think his information is not correct, because we have approved an additional public assistance allowance for people who are totally blind, to people who are totally deaf and dumb, to the crippled, and to those who have lost both arms or the right arm or lost both legs. So that people in those circumstances get, in addition to the public assistance allowance at the normal rate, this special disability allowance. We have stopped sickness allowances. It was the practice in the past for anybody who came to the Ministry for public assistance to get, in addition to public assistance, what was known as a sickness allowance. In order to give them an increased allowance, the officers in this Ministry decided that persons making a demand for public assistance should get this augmented allowance, an additional allowance of $16 on the grounds that they were sick, though there was nothing wrong with them. We have stopped that. We have also stopped the grant of public assistance to able-bodied single persons. A lot of people who are able-bodied and single were receiving public assistance allowances. We have stopped this. So that with the amount that we have voted for next year, I think we can extend public assistance to an increased number of people who are in need.

Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I want to add some more words to the subject of the Juvenile Magistrate which Members have raised. We know that different societies have different methods of taking care of children. For example, under the past Colonial government, the whitecollar class was created in order to serve the Colonialists better. In the methods of taking care of children, they did not do much. Under the past Government, many films were shown in the cinemas which were detrimental to the children. After seeing the rock `n roll films, we have seen children imitating that kind of behaviour.

Recently, someone told me that a boy of 14 years old was the leader of a secret society. I have since heard that this 14-year old youth has been arrested and taken into custody in the Social Welfare Department. The juvenile delinquent said that he did not like to come out. He wished to learn something in the Department and make himself useful in society in the future. Therefore, in a different society under a different Government, there are different methods of treating these criminals.

In my opinion, if we have a capable magistrate who can understand the behaviour and character of the children and understand their problems, that magistrate will be very useful to the future citizens of this State. For example, recently in my area, during Loyalty Week, we assembled many organisations to take part in Loyalty Week. When we were celebrating our Loyalty Week, we found many children taking part in our programme. They were from poor families. In the past, because of their poverty, they were not taken care of by the Government. Therefore, when they were five or six years of age, their cultural standard was very low, and they did not know anything. And by chance they became members of secret societies. When the P.A.P. Government took over, under the capable hands of our Minister for Culture and Minister for Education, these children are being guided by the new policies of this Government. The little children know how to behave well. Therefore, we say that if we want to tackle this problem, it is not enough to have so-called voluntary service offered by retired officers to act as magistrates, because their opinion is old-fashioned and would not be practical.

In my opinion, in the Social Welfare Department, unlike the Opposition who say that they cannot do better unless they have an increase of money - we have to adopt a method which is good, for example, an educational method by which to educate them about the kind of society they are living in, so that they will try their best to serve the society.

The Chairman: Order. I think we had better go into specific lanes, otherwise the Minister for Labour and Law might be lost in a sea of arguments. Perhaps we could now deal with public assistance and complete that subject. If any Member wishes to speak further on juvenile delinquency, he could speak later.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I just want to clarify the example I quoted of the blind man who was refused aid by the Government. It appeared as though the truth of the example I have quoted was doubted. I would like to emphasise that the example I have quoted is, in fact, true. I can say that I have been in communication with the Social Welfare Department when the assistance of $25 to him was reduced to $5. That is all.

The Chairman: The Minister might wish to answer that shortly before we suspend.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for the Southern Islands will write to me about that case, I will be prepared to look into it.

The Chairman: I think it is time to suspend.

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

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is suspended. I will take the chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Resumption of Debate on Question,

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $100."

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.31 p.m.

Question again proposed.

The Chairman: As I indicated to hon. Members before the suspension, for the convenience of Members, the debate is channelled on to Public Assistance at the moment. If any hon. Member wishes to speak on Public Assistance, he can do so now. After that, the subject will be closed.

No Member rising to speak-

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member for Jalan Besar went back to the subject of juvenile delinquency. I propose that the debate be now channelled towards juvenile delinquency. If any Member wishes to speak on juvenile delinquency, he should do so now.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, juvenile delinquency is a sickness in this 20th century. In many other countries such as Japan and America, juvenile delinquency may still be a problem, but in Singapore it is not so great. We, the Government, must prevent juvenile delinquency from getting worse. Although there is a Juvenile Court in Singapore, the magistrates presiding therein give their services without pay. But they do not know the problems and causes of this juvenile delinquency. Therefore, at the present time, we can see many juvenile delinquents. So we must appoint a magistrate who is well experienced in the behaviour and problems of the young criminals, and knows what causes them to be so.

Just now the Member for Mountbatten asked why we should use public money to appoint this magistrate. Our Government is trying its best to economise in every respect, but for a Juvenile Court it is useless to have the voluntary services of a magistrate. We must appoint a full-time magistrate and pay him. Therefore, we must appoint an experienced magistrate. He must be well aware of the juvenile delinquents' hobbies and their likes and dislikes in order to lead them into good channels. Now, since we are able to appoint a full-time magistrate with pay, we must do so.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been debated today on juvenile delinquents. But I noticed everybody was talking about curing juvenile delinquency. Sir, the problem is to prevent it. That is more important than curing it. There will be no need to cure that sickness, or disease as it was called, if it is prevented right from the beginning. What is the cause of juvenile delinquents? The Minister for Labour and Law has rightly tackled the problem from one angle - community activities and youth organisations to occupy their leisure hours. But I say that is not sufficient. I believe that the root of all of this delinquency lies in the adult's misunderstanding of the young people. A child is not born a delinquent. He becomes one. And why does he become one? When he has no confidence in himself. And he cannot have confidence in himself if his own parents do not understand him. So I would say that, apart from community activities and youth organisations, adult education should penetrate into the slum areas and villages where parents and old people only know one way of life - that of their ancestors - and their children go to school and learn all sorts of ways of life - Western ways and of the different people's - and these children come back with these ideas which are not understood by their parents. Therefore, they cannot reconcile their way of living with the way that their parents want them to live. If they are not confident and have no confidence in their own parents, they turn to other sources and sometimes, as usually happens, the bad hats, who try to get these young people in with them, will pretend to understand them. That is how these young people fall into the trap.

As I said, the Minister for Labour and Law has tackled the question of catering for their leisure hours only, but there is need for understanding from their parents also. I would appeal to the Minister for Education to push forward adult education from the point of view of not just to teach the parents reading and writing, but to make them understand the young people and the modern way of thinking and life.

The Chairman: Mr Byrne, would you like to reply on juvenile delinquency?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I am not omniscient and I find it difficult to reply to such matters, but I would like to point out to the House that it is my duty, amongst others, to read through the confessions that are made by our young gangsters in Singapore, and I am sad to find that the majority of them are not children. They are grown-up persons between the ages of 18 and 23 and most of them, if we trace back their records, are those who have had their early education interrupted by the Japanese Occupation of this country.

We are looking after the future of the younger people and we are taking real and determined steps to organise their leisure hours for them, so that it will keep them out of bad company and enable them to grow up as decent citizens of our State.

With regard to the delinquents, they are certainly not juvenile. We have tried to persuade them to correct their ways, and since that has not been effective enough, we have had to use other methods. The methods used are such as to ensure that the community will not be in any way held to ransom by hooliganism. That is the most I wish to say on this matter.

The Chairman: That disposes of juvenile delinquency. I do not know whether any hon. Member wishes to speak on any other topic of Social Welfare. Perhaps the Member for Mountbatten can now consider whether she wishes a vote to be taken on her amendment.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I thought just now I said I wished to withdraw. Could I withdraw it?

The Chairman: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $13,580,930 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 38 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 38 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of sub-head 1.

Item (6) is Legal Officers, three at $2,500 each, Posts approved in 1959. Could the Minister please tell the House what is expected of these three legal officers? Whether these three legal officers' posts are intended to be permanent? Whether the salary against their names is an inclusive salary? Whether that inclusive salary includes gratuities payable? And how is it intended to recruit these three legal officers?

5.45 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday when we were discussing the judicial estimates, the Member for Farrer Park enquired how many officers there were in the judiciary and what their experience was, and the answer I gave then was that there were now 12 officers in the judiciary, of whom there were four who had more than three years' experience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the same situation obtains in the office of the State Advocate-General. There are 10 Legal Officers there, and of these 10 three have experience of 18 years, three have experience of five years, one of four years, one of two years and two of one year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a very heavy legislative programme before us, and it will be necessary for us to get legal talent to assist us in implementing our legislative programme. As far as labour legislation is concerned, we have had to appeal to the Australian Commissioner in Singapore to assist us to get a legal officer who is an expert in labour problems to come here to assist us. Through his intervention we have been successful in getting Mr Weston, a legal draftsman in the Labour Ministry in Australia, to be here to assist us in drafting new labour legislation which will be introduced later this year. We are very short of a drafting specialist and it is intended that one of the legal officers to be recruited will be entrusted with the duty of being in charge of the drafting section of the S.A.G.'s office.

We also propose to recruit another experienced legal officer to be in charge of criminal prosecutions and to train police and legal officers in undertaking prosecutions before the criminal courts.

We also hope to recruit another legal officer to be in charge of revenue cases. I think that was a subject raised by the Member for Farrer Park yesterday. He wanted to know what steps we were taking to enforce the income tax legislation. One way of enforcing it is to get an experienced legal officer in income tax matters to assist us in that work. These are the legal officers we require. Mr Speaker, we have advertised these posts both in the United Kingdom and locally. So far we have not had any response from our advertisement in the United Kingdom. As far as the local advertisement is concerned, we received six applications, amongst which was one - I was surprised to know this - from the Member for Joo Chiat. I was also surprised to hear that the President of the Legal Commission has reported that, in the opinion of the Legal Commission, none of the local applications were worthy of consideration. I have forgotten the third question. May I be reminded, Sir?

Mr Rajah: Sir, the latter part of my question was whether these were intended to be permanent posts or temporary posts; whether the sum of $2,500 - that is, if they were temporary posts - included gratuities, or a further sum provided by way of gratuity; and how long are these posts for?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, these posts are on an inclusive salary of $2,500 a month, but it is proposed that the holders of these posts will be on contract for three years, at the end of which on satisfactory completion of their contracts, they will be eligible for gratuity at the rate of $300 for each month of service, including approved full-pay leave. The period of engagement is to be on contract for three years. I hope that I have answered the question.

Mr Rajah: I take it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when these posts have been filled and the officers have run their three-year course, these officers would not be necessary because the officers within the Department itself might then be in a position to carry on the work which has been undertaken by these three officers. In view of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, 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 38 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 19.

Sub-head 19 under the main head State Advocate-General, Legal Claims and Costs $20,000, and a note against it - "Required to meet claims for damages and costs for appeal." As I see from the Estimates, this seems to be an entirely new item which is being provided for, for the year 1960. Could the Minister please tell the House what legal claims and costs the State Advocate-General expects to be called upon to pay in 1960?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is required to meet claims for damages in respect of wrongful arrests and detention by police officers, and in respect of injuries caused by the drivers of Government vehicles. As Members know, all Government vehicles are not insured, and costs arise by way of legal representation when there are appeals in criminal cases to the Privy Council where it is necessary for Government to be represented in those appeals. We have had claims. I have got a list of claims here against Government from 1958. There was a claim for damages in respect of a collision between a sampan and a Master Attendant's motor launch for which Government was ordered to pay damages of $900. Then there was an accident in which a citizen was injured by a P.W.D. lorry and the damages awarded in that case came to $5,000. There was a case of a citizen who was wrongfully arrested by a detective in Joo Chiat Police Station. The damages awarded were $300. And there was the famous Chew Swee Kee case, where the Government have had to incur costs in respect of representation on behalf of the Comptroller of Income Tax in the inquiry into Mr Chew Swee Kee's banking account. They amounted to $3,040.50. In view of the fact that Mr Chew Swee Kee has since renounced his citizenship and left this country, I think we should make some attempt to get him to pay for those legal costs. Then there were costs arising out of damages for trespass, unlawful arrest and unlawful detention by a detective constable. They came to $750. There was a claim brought by the dependants of a P.W.D. labourer in respect of a fatal accident. The damages awarded were $13,000. There were other small damages that have arisen out of the negligence of the serangs in Government launches and the cost of an appeal to the Privy Council, so that the total amount that the Government has sustained up to date by way of damages is $25,953.05. Hitherto it was the practice to pay for these damages, as and when they were awarded, from a miscellaneous vote under O.C.S.E. In view of the fact that this is a commitment which Government is expected to incur annually, it is proposed that for next year a sum of $20,000 should be voted for this purpose, from which all, claims for damages against Government can be met.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation by the Minister, may I be given leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $446,500 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 40 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub-head 1.

This refers, Sir, to the appointment of a Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) at $1,400 per month.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member has got the wrong item. It is item (4).

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Yes, item (4) of sub-head 1. It refers to the appointment of a Personal Secretary (Political). Sir, the duties of the Personal Secretary (Political), as explained, include publicity for the Ministry. Now, item (3) has already got a Publicity Liaison Secretary. Sir, in view of that, I wonder if the Minister for Culture could please explain the necessity for having a second one.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever the Member for Tanglin gets up to speak, it is like a little ray of sunshine that bursts through to remove the clouds of words that have been stirred up just before he arose. Sir, I am not quite sure whether he had in mind item (3) or item (4), but presumably he has decided that it should be item (4), otherwise he would be precluded from debating on his motion.

As I have explained before, the Personal Secretary (Political) fulfils more or less the same functions as other Political Secretaries, and I assume that he was quite satisfied with the explanation offered as to their necessity.

The need for a Publicity Liaison Secretary arises from the specific character of my Ministry which deals with publicity, radio and other media of mass communication in four languages, and if these are to function as an effective integrated unit, it is necessary that there should be someone to co-ordinate the activities of Radio Singapore, printing, the publicity division and the field section. That was the reason why this particular post was created. Since then, the holder of the post has resigned and we hope that we shall be able to find someone suitable enough to fill this post.

6.00 p.m.

Of course, the Member for Tanglin will realise that, unlike the previous Government, we are not interested in telling the people that we are very important people and that wherever we go we should be shown respect and so on, but that we believe that one of the purposes of any government is not merely to make it popular but also to educate and instruct the electorate. And to that extent we have laid great stress on publicity, instruction and information; and since this Ministry is mainly concerned with that problem, we have the Publicity Liaison Secretary whose functions are more technical than political. It is a post which requires journalistic ability, and knowledge of publicity methods. I am quite sure the Member for Tanglin realises that if the previous government bad taken the precaution of appointing a Publicity Liaison Secretary, probably many of his colleagues who had hoped to be here would now be here.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 5.

Sub-head 5, Mr Speaker, Sir, shows: "Civics Programmes: - (1) Meals $12,050 (2) Transport 12,450 -------- $24,500".

Could the Minister please tell the House what exactly are the Civics Programmes which involve meals to the extent of $12,050 and transport to the extent of $12,450?

The Chairman: The Question is,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 5.

It seems to be indicated by the Member for Farrer Park that he wishes the debate to range over Amendment (3), i.e. item (2) of sub-head 5. That is in order. We will deal with both those items: "Civics Programmes: - (1) Meals (2) Transport".

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, when it was indicated to me that Members of the Opposition had a number of amendments, I had expected that they would be very weighty subjects pertaining to culture. Instead, they have descended from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Member for Farrer Park has chosen to make queries not about culture but about meals and transport provided in the course of administering culture to the people in Singapore.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that these Civics Programmes were started in June 1957 by the previous government as part of their election strategy. I quote from the Singapore Annual Report 1957, page 256:

"The definite need" -

that is for civic education of the masses -

"was created by the Singapore Citizenship Law which brought the great majority of the adult population into the political life of Singapore, and the Local Government Legislation which expanded the local government electorate and introduced elections for the first time into local government in the rural areas."

It goes on to say:

"With the passing of legislation for the first elected Councils in the rural areas, emphasis was placed at first on groups from the rural areas for whom the centralised administration had been too distant a factor."

The civic courses, again according to the Annual Report, included interviews with Ministers and Assistant Ministers, which probably explains why all but one of the Ministers and Assistant Ministers of the former government failed to get re-elected. I am not blaming them for organising these civic courses with the election in view, but what I am blaming them for is for having failed to achieve their objective.

In 1957 a sum of $5,200 was voted for transport, and $6,500 for meals. If you remember, Sir, the year 1957 was also the year when the City Council Elections were in the offing, and it was generally believed that the P.A.P. would stand for election. It did and swept the polls. So in 1958, the amount provided for transport was increased from $5,200 to $9,600, and the vote for meals was increased from $6,500 to $12,400. In 1959, with the general elections pending, there was a provision of $12,450 for transport and $12,050 for meals. Well, that was the rather humble origin of the civics programmes which we inherited and we decided that the Civics Programmes could be used for different purposes, because we quite agree that these civic courses are quite useful. It is necessary that ordinary people should get some idea of how democracy functions, how a government works. Where the visitors involved are farmers, trishaw riders or hawkers, it is necessary to provide transport to bring them from the rural areas and to take them around and show them the various Government institutions and other civic centres. Since we took over, we decided temporarily to halt these civic courses because, as I indicated, they were designed for quite different purposes. The courses were not so much instructive as primarily propagandistic in nature. So it is the intention of the Government to start these courses next year along lines which we hope will be interesting and profitable to those who participate in them. In fact, we do not believe that the civic courses should consist in press-ganging a few people and herding them into the offices of Ministers and Assistant Ministers. The courses should be of a wider scope with the primary intention of ensuring that people get a clear idea of what we mean when we say, "This is democracy - a government of the people, by the people" - they should have real meaning and substance. Such courses should be organised by people who know how to conduct civic courses, how to organise publicity. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, this task, I think very unfairly, was pushed on to the shoulders of officers who were not trained to conduct civics. With the reorganisation and the setting up of the Ministry of Culture, we hope we can organise better and more objective types of civic courses.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture is worried why I am not interested in his genuinely cultural activities. That is because I am confident that all sorts of cultures will thrive under his Ministry, except yellow culture, which he will eliminate. Being so confident in his ability to deal with culture in all its aspects, we felt that there was no need to raise the question of culture with a capital "K". But when the whole of his Ministry has been designed to bring culture and propaganda throughout Singapore, and when there are various items under the sub-heads set out under his Ministry to take propaganda to the people, it seems an odd thing that in the Civics Programmes, meals and transport should have crept in. He spoke at length, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the previous government. I am not interested in what the previous government did. I am interested in what his Ministry is going to do in the matter of Civics Programmes in the forthcoming year. And I want to know why these meals are to be provided. He has not given any satisfactory answer. And what is the need for transport? Does he mean to say that the people who want to take advantage of these civics programmes must be sent for either in taxis or trishaws; or should pool transport be sent across to fetch them to see the Pasir Panjang Power Station? Is that the idea? I see that if the horse does not want to go to the water, the Minister wants to take the water to the horse!

Mr Rajaratnam: It is not a question of trying to bring the horse to the water or the water to the horse. It is a simple physical problem of how to bring the people to Government. The Government organises and provides transport in cases where school children, farmers and so on might like to visit Government departments not as individuals but as groups. It is true that Government invites people to come and visit these places. In many other countries, groups of people are invited as Government guests to come and see how the Ministries function; in our case, we like people to know how the Pasir Panjang Power Station is run and how the Opposition conducts itself during debates in this Assembly. So there is nothing sinister or unusual in this sort of organised tours. In fact, one of the plans that we have in mind is to organise launch tours for people who have only seen the Island from the land-ward side and who have never seen it from the sea, which is our lifeblood. We want people to see how Singapore lives off the sea and how it looks from the sea. If we are bringing large groups of people for the whole day - because these tours do not last an hour or so, they generally last a whole day - we see no reason why we should not provide such amenities as food and refreshments, since they are our guests and we are their hosts. I think there is no harm in extending the ordinary courtesies of providing them with refreshments and possibly a meal. That is the reason why we have appropriated a not very exorbitant sum to provide tours for groups of 25 people with free lunch, tea and transport.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, on the last remark made by the Member for Farrer Park, I would like to say that the P.A.P., unlike the Member for Farrer Park, is not in the habit of associating the people of Singapore with horses. The only time when that is done is when on race days we find a few people like the Member for Farrer Park going to Bukit Timah.

The Chairman: Mr Rajah? I hope the Member has found a winner!

Mr Rajah: Unfortunately I have not, Mr Speaker. It might interest the Deputy Prime Minister to know that I have never been to the Race Course in the same way that I have never been to Fraser's Hill! However, that is beside the point, Mr Speaker. The idea of the Ministry wishing to provide hospitality and be the hospitable host - in the same way that the Prime Minister also wants to provide hospitality to the V.I.P.s - is a good one, and touches my heart. Therefore, Mr Speaker, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I take it that Amendment (3)* is not being moved?

*Amendment (3) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 5.

Mr Rajah indicated assent.

6.15 p.m.

Mr Rajah: I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 10.

Sub-head 10, item (2), Mr Speaker, reads: "Photographic Services: - (2) Film Production ... $100,000".

Could the Minister please indicate to the House what type of film production is his Ministry going in for? Is he setting up a film industry in Singapore as an additional attraction to people to come here?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, we are going to make films. The previous Government attempted but failed to make films. In 1956, the Government allocated $40,000 for films but spent only $14,000 of it. In 1957, obviously they lost interest in making films. The sum voted was cut down to $25,000 and only $11,000 worth of films were made. In 1958, there was a sudden interest in films when, as you will remember, Sir, there were rumours of impending elections. Strangely enough, of the $30,000 allocated, $27,000 was spent on making films. I may incidentally state here that most of these films never had a long run. They had a very brief existence and were withdrawn very rapidly. The people lost interest and the films are lying in the archives. I suggested to my Field Section whether we should not show some of these films and they said, "No. Generally, one of the purposes of these films used by the Film Unit is to draw a crowd so that you can, apart from showing them, put over other things as well!" And they also said, "By showing these films, even the few curious onlookers who gather around the Public Information Services' vans generally melt away."

So in 1959, which again was a very significant year, Sir, there was considerable activity in the film industry. Because the money appeared to be insufficient, $7,500 was transferred from some other Head and another $21,000 was transferred under Treasury Warrant No. 178/59. In all, $58,000 was spent within the first six months of last year when originally the vote was for $30,000.

The present Government is also interested in films but fortunately we have ideas, unlike the previous Government which failed to influence people and win friends primarily because the chief actors and the supporting cast and the scenario were not such as would make a hit or a box-office draw. Sir, we have made three films within the six months that we have been in office. I do not know whether the Members of the Opposition are interested in films to the extent of going to see them or they are just asking questions but if they had gone to the theatres during Loyalty Week, they would have seen a film entitled Forward With The People.

Out of deference to modesty, I shall quote a review in the Straits Times of this film. It said:

"A film produced by the Ministry of Culture, which is different from previous films designed to show the Government at work, was given a Press preview today.

Forward With The People...is aptly named, for it brings the Government before the people and puts the people very much in picture with the Government."

And it goes on to say:

"While past films of this nature had been focused on the VIP's who ran the Government, Forward With The People is filled with scenes of ordinary citizens - the masses who cheered the Government at their first post-election appearance on the City Hall steps, with thousands who changkolled and moved earth, shoulder to shoulder with Ministers to help build a new promenade along Nicoll Highway, and the mothers and babies at the hospital being attended to with a minimum of waiting.

"It is very much a film about how a large part of Singapore lives, of the problems they have and the active roles they are playing in helping solve these problems."

The Chairman: Can the Minister give the date?

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, Sir. 2nd December, 1959. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we therefore intend to make more films because we believe that films are important media of information and instruction and that democratic institutions can be sustained only by a well-informed and inspired public opinion. The film is, therefore, a powerful ally in this respect and that is why we have allocated a sum of $100,000 for next year. This is a modest sum compared with what the Federation Government spends on films - it is about a tenth of what the Federation Government spends on films - and is not far below what the last Government spent in the first half of 1959. But unlike our predecessors, we intend to make full use of the $100,000 to ensure that the people will have an understanding of what democracy is, what good government is. If the Opposition Members are interested, we have also commissioned a film in colour to cover the historic events of Loyalty Week, and when we have our preview I shall take the precaution of inviting Members of the Opposition to come and see the film.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff (Anson): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, to continue with the speech made by the Minister for Culture, I would like to say that the Field Section of the Ministry of Culture has shown three or four films every night in several areas throughout the Island. Mr Speaker, I feel that the amount provided under this sub-head is less than what is required. However, the Minister for Culture is aware that we cannot get all that we want, because we all know that there is a shortage of funds due to our having been bequeathed by the past Government with an empty coffer.

The films shown by the Field Section of the Ministry of Culture form a greater part of the films bought from the Malayan Film Unit and also loans from other departments in Singapore. Certainly, Mr Speaker, such films are not of good quality from the educational and nationalist point of view. Therefore, the Singapore Government, particularly the Ministry of Culture, propose to make more commentary films or documentary films with a Malayan outlook which will be shown to the whole population in Singapore.

6.30 p.m.

In the words of the Minister for Culture, the Ministry has made several films, and one of the films has been shown lately. The support has been tremendous. If the Opposition Members will see that film, they will be able to understand the aspirations and hopes of the people which the new Government helps to co-ordinate and further bring the people of Singapore to the Government which they themselves have elected.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder why the Minister for Culture is on the defensive. He is defending himself even before I have opened up against him. I do not intend to open up against him if I can get a satisfactory answer. I am not saying that the Government should not go for this sort of thing. What I am asking is a very simple question. Does the Minister intend to set up a film producing unit? I am not saying he should not. But he has not answered my question yet. If he had answered me, I would have asked him how many films does he intend to produce next year, and if so, the type and nature of those films. I have still not got an answer, Mr Speaker.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, it always pays to be first on the defensive - just in case. Now coming to the Member for Farrer Park who took the precaution of disarming himself before questioning me, I shall now give a direct answer to his direct question. $100,000 is not sufficient to set up even a fraction of a film unit. In the Federation, the capital outlay itself, apart from the recurrent charges, is in the region of $2 million. But we have, when we come to discussing Development Estimates, some ideas about how we should be able to produce our own films. This is purely for the purpose of producing films through commissioning local film producers to produce the kind of films we want. The $100,000 is not part of a scheme to set up a film unit. That is money which is necessary to get commercial organisations to produce films for us.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister also tell the House how many of such films he hopes to be able to produce out of this allocation of $100,000, or has he not yet got any clear set ideas on it?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, we can produce one very good film for $100,000 or we can produce two good films at $50,000 each. But normally the kind of films which we produce will cost in the region of $12,000 to $15,000 for a ten-minute film. I cannot say offhand how many films will be produced. All I can say is that we will spend $100,000 on films.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation, Sir, and in view of the fact that the Minister himself at the moment is not quite clear as to how many films he is going to produce, there will not be much point in my pressing him. May I therefore be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11.

May I request the Minister for Culture straightaway not to get on to the defensive? I merely want some information - Promotion of Cultural Matters, $80,000. May I know what he intends to promote with the $80,000 and how he intends to spend the money?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park enquired about the $80,000 to be provided for the promotion of culture - how this $80,000 is to be spent. I think he should be able to understand the work our Ministry has done during the past few months. Perhaps he is not interested in cultural matters. Or perhaps he thinks that culture means just putting on a coat and tie and then going to the Victoria Memorial Hall Theatre to enjoy a show.

The Chairman: Order. I think I have already reminded hon. Members that these personalities are really completely out of order, and they must not be raised except on a substantive motion. I have allowed passing remarks on personalities, just for the passing moment. But when it is persisted in so deliberately as all this, I must call a halt. The question is quite simple.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Sir, actually I would prefer to give a straightforward reply. I do not understand why the Member for Farrer Park does not understand why we want to make use of this $80,000. He must understand that in the past few months we have brought culture and arts to the masses. There have been many "Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat" shows. Hundreds and thousands of people have been given the opportunity to see these shows. This $80,000 is not going to be spent wholly on the people's shows. These people's shows are refreshing. They are able to promote and foster the arts and culture of the people.

Mr Rajah: It is amazing, Mr Speaker, Sir, how a simple question

The Chairman: I have ruled.

Mr Rajah: I have not said anything yet!

The Chairman: I am anticipating!

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very difficult to be in the Opposition. I asked the Minister for Culture a simple question. Promotion of culture - $80,000 - it is a block vote. Surely the House is entitled to know how this is going to be spent? It is I think a fair question and may we expect an answer? Can we have an answer?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Farrer Park is now on the defensive. Yes, the $80,000 is a reduction from the $100,000 which was voted by the previous government for cultural activities. Most of this money will be spent on open-air concerts which will be stepped up. Initially we started with about one open-air concert a week. Our intention is to build enough small theatres - apart from the National Theatre we have in mind - all over the island and be able to encourage concerts to be produced locally in certain areas. We can not only bring troupes or performers to particular areas, but we also hope, as a result of that, that people will be stimulated enough to set up their own shows, of which we have had a very good example during National Loyalty Week. We requested schools and community centres to provide their own shows, and something like 200 concerts were put up. During that one week, it was shown that, if given the necessary encouragement, stimulation and facilities, people would spend more time cultivating culture, if you like, and so much of this money would be spent on open-air concerts and providing facilities for people who might want to put up a show. For example, a school might want to put on a show for our open-air concert and they might say: "We can put up a nice show but we do not have enough money to make uniforms". So we might assist them in that direction. That will be the principal function of this promotion of culture. It will also be spent on, we hope, sponsorship of cultural programmes, such as courses of lectures over the Radio and so on. We hope to organise perhaps an arts festival from time to time and to help disseminate books by providing little libraries all over the place - providing books and manuscripts for them. The items cannot be foreseen in any detail. But this is the general line of expenditure of the $80,000 provided for the promotion of cultural matters.

Mr Rajah: May I thank the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir? That is all I want to know. May I be given leave to withdraw?

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

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: No.

The Chairman: Mrs Seow, no?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: No. Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely want to make a suggestion. The Minister for Culture just now said that they intended to build little theatres in different parts of Singapore. May I suggest that that project be put together with community centres so that the community centres will benefit by having a theatre? It will be of more use than if the theatre is built for the sake of having a theatre on its own.

The second thing he mentioned was the giving of money to schools and associations, or whatever it is, to make costumes. Could I suggest to the Minister for Culture that, just as the Ministry have a department for films, the Ministry should also have a department for costumes? The making of costumes is a very costly affair. It is a waste of money to give the money away to schools and associations to make costumes if they do not have the proper facilities for looking after them. If the Ministry of Culture could have a department for costumes, it will help schools and associations, for they will be able to borrow expensive and well-looked after costumes from the Ministry of Culture. That is all I wish to say.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, I think the suggestion is sensible and we might even also set up a sewing class! I thank the hon. Member for Mountbatten for her suggestion, and I will bear that in mind.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

6.45 p.m.

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $100.

Sir, I believe that the Ministry of Culture has also under its wing the old Department of Information and Public Relations, and therefore has close connections with the Press. The Minister for Culture doubtless is aware that since the elections a Saturday weekly paper, printed and published in the Federation, has become increasingly popular in Singapore. The impression is going round in Singapore, Sir, that because this paper is printed and published in the Federation, it is therefore capable of expressing a more independent view than the local Press. Now that kind of impression is damaging to Singapore, and I believe the sooner we can clear that up the better. I wonder whether the Minister for Culture can inform us whether any directive, instructions, or suggestions, verbal or written, have ever been conveyed to members of the local Press, to editors, reporters or management, which could be regarded by them as curtailing their freedom to express any independent views on Government affairs. If so, could the House be informed of the nature of the directive, suggestions or instructions?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, I have no doubt that the paper that the Member for Tanglin mentions is getting very popular. Of the 38,000 readers that the paper claims, the Member for Tanglin obviously is one of its most enthusiastic supporters, because sometimes he echoes precisely the same sentiments that find their way into the pages of this particular paper.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: I am not responsible.

Mr Rajaratnam: Well, he has been espousing its cause. As far as Singapore is concerned, any paper is free to publish, write and print anything it likes within the framework of the law. Where the newspaper exceeds the bounds of fair criticism and verges on sedition, then it must bear the full consequences of the Jaw.

I did not know whether the hon. Member meant to say that the newspapers are under a threat and that the Minister for Culture summons editors from time to time, cracks the whip, twists their arms and sends them back to the editorial chair to write as he dictates they should write. I am quite sure, Sir, that if - I do not know whether it is permissible - the Member for Tanglin would cast a quick glance up the gallery, he would see that the Press are quite happy! They are taking down everything I am saying and I am quite sure that before 10 or 11 o'clock tonight they will not receive a single telephone call from me. They will write their report as they think fit, both of what I say and what the Member for Tanglin has said. They will select those portions which they think are worth printing from both our statements and publish them. Certainly, it is part of the duty of my Ministry to make contacts with the Press. Very often, as I can quite well remember when I was a newspaperman, various politicians ring up the Press to plead for a particular cause, or ask the journalists whether they could either play up or play down an item. In the same way, the Government is perfectly entitled to lodge a complaint against any newspaper, to make a plea to any journalist, or even commend him for having written something which has caught the fancy of the Government or an individual. In that sense - and almost daily I meet journalists and editors - I do raise objections if I feel that a particular report is not fair or the relevant part of the sentence has been left out. To that extent I certainly do make my objections quite plain to any reporter or newspaper editor. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to express your views on any matter about the Press.

I do not know whether the Member for Tanglin was trying to insinuate that there is restriction on the freedom of the Press, which was, if I remember correctly, one of the lines taken by him and certainly by many of his colleagues before the elections, with the result that one newspaper in premature anxiety fled across the causeway, but is now, I think, not quite sure whether it should not have stayed in Singapore in the first place. So the Member for Tanglin should bring out specific instances instead of just fishing around in the hope that I might say something which could be construed as interference with the freedom of the Press. As far as I know, I have pleaded and intervened with the Press on behalf of Government, but I have certainly never gone to the extent of intimidating or threatening the Press with dire consequences, unless they themselves have transgressed the law. I have drawn the attention of the Press that if they indulge in sedition or subversion, then they will certainly fall foul of the Government and the law.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, on a point of information, may I ask the Member for Tanglin which Saturday paper he reads? Is it the Week-Ender?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of Members on the Government side, I wish to say that after my first reading of the Week-Ender, I decided not to read it after that, and I instructed my pupils not to read such a paper.

Sir, I am glad of the assurance given by the Minister, and I suggest that it should be given publicity because it is necessary, as Singapore is now independent, that there should be even greater freedom of the Press than in the Colonial days. Therefore I take it that if any newspaper wants to print and publish a paper in Singapore, it can be guaranteed freedom of the Press so long as it does not infringe the law.

In view of the assurance given, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): No.

The Chairman: No. Inche Alwi.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to thank both the Minister for Culture and his Parliamentary Secretary for their information. Sir, there are many matters on which I would like explanations, because the budget for the Ministry of Culture is big. There are two or three matters which should receive attention; whether they come under the purview of the Ministry of Education, it is up to the Minister for Culture to consider.

First, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Culture, who has worked hard to create a Malayan culture and a Malayan nation - a matter on which the Minister and I myself can compromise, because when we eat we use our hands. Of course, there are matters which cannot be included here so that we shall create something which will be acceptable to all the people. I do not wish to say that the administration of Radio Singapore is not going well. I can say that the administration has been going on smoothly. But what I am doubtful of is the question of the Malay language which will become the national language in our country. After each Assembly sitting, a report is given in the Malay language. I notice the language as used by members of the staff of Radio Singapore is a little unusual. I hope the Minister concerned will give this his consideration. I do not say that there is anything wrong with the language.

7.00 p.m.

Apart from that, Mr Speaker, there are many programmes for the creation of culture, which is our objective. I am not quite sure whether it is the policy of the Ministry of Culture that we do not like anything Western, and therefore at the moment we wish to create a culture free from any foreign influence whatsoever. I hope, therefore, that if it is so, the Minister for Culture will clarify where it is to be found in his programmes.

Concerning the subject of creating a Malayan culture, especially on the subject of Malay language', History of Singapore' and so on over Radio Singapore, is there any plan to explain to listeners what the Deputy Prime Minister has explained clearly, that his Ministry does not agree wih the Communist policy? If there is any programme about the Government attitude being anti-Communist, I hope this will be explained fully in the broadcasts of the Malay section of Radio Singapore. We are really longing for a culture that is truly Malayan.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, my apologies first of all to the Member for Kampong Kembangan because I am unable to follow the trend of what is intended by him. But, inter alia, the Member said that he felt concerned, or something like that, because on the subject of culture he said the vote allocated was too much. The vote for the Ministry of Culture was not too high. Secondly, he is prepared to compromise with the Minister for Culture on the question of creating a culture with a Malayan outlook. Further, he said he was most concerned with the Malay language, as used when the news items are read over Radio Singapore.

First of all, I wish to tell him that the vote provided in this budget for the Ministry of Culture, as I said earlier on, is not sufficient. With this limited provision we cannot fulfil our programme 100 per cent for the people, in order to develop and promote culture as we would have liked. But we must be thankful because the P.A.P. aims to restore culture which has been extinct over 140 years of Colonial rule and to create a new culture which will be Malayan in form and outlook.

Mr Speaker, concerning the news items mentioned by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, I am quite sure that Radio Singapore reporters and news editors - including Malay, Tamil, English and Chinese - compile the news which is then disseminated and the translation is done by the announcers themselves who read the news items. I feel the language spoken in the Malay Section is Malay language. Here, I wish to ask other Members of the Opposition, or the Member who spoke just now, whether he understood what is the real meaning of culture? Why is it necessary that a common culture should be created in the view of a country which is heading for progress? What is the result if the culture is not nurtured with healthy elements? I think, Mr Speaker, some of them did not know the answers to these questions. Why I say they do not understand is because it did not occur to the past Government at all that culture was a vital element for the people in a progressive country. If culture is allowed to deteriorate, thus making it possible for damaging influences such as `yellow' dances and rock-n-roll to gain full sway, then the result is that the moral well-being of the people will suffer. If our moral well-being is damaged, then peace will also be disturbed, which will result eventually in the Government being weakened and lead consequently to the Ministers and Members of the Assembly becoming robbers and gangsters. It is the aim of the P.A.P. to avoid the incidents which I mentioned just now. Therefore this Government is determined to set up a Ministry of Culture whose aim is to restore original cultural values and a more important factor is to unite the peoples of this multi-racial society.

There are many other programmes for the Ministry of Culture, but these will take time to implement because of limited votes and an empty treasury which was bequeathed to us by the past Government. One of our programmes is to unite the various communities by the creation of a language. I need not dwell further on the ways and means to be implemented. I think it will be better if these details are given by the Minister himself. Also, Mr Speaker, during the six months that the P.A.P. has come into power, we have made many improvements as far as culture is concerned which has been neglected by the past Government. For instance, we have inaugurated the Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat in an effort to try to unite the people through the radio and other media. I think this will satisfactorily answer the queries asked by the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

On the subject of Radio Singapore, I am sure the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not following closely its broadcasts. However, I would like to say for the benefit of the Member for Kampong Kembangan that the Chinese Section of Radio Singapore has started a special programme on Malay lessons, on Malayan culture, on definitions in Malay, and I have personally listened to this programme. Similarly, in the Tamil section, there is a special programme set aside for the items which I mentioned just now, with the object of establishing a Malayan nation. I hope I have been able to give some explanation to the Member for Kampong Kembangan and that he now understands the steps that we have taken in that direction and the means at our disposal.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise to the Member for Anson that I did not say that I did not agree to the Malay Section programmes of Radio Singapore. What I said in this House regarding the news from Radio Singapore in Malay concerns sittings of the Legislative Assembly. That is what I was directing my query to. It seems that the Member for Anson went beating about the bush and went astray from Tanjong Pagar to Changi! I say here that I did not wish to make a hue and cry about this. He has accused me of not having listened to the radio. I have one radio and I cannot tune to all programmes at once. So I cannot listen to all the four languages at one time. I am sure the Member for Anson has got many radios, so he can listen to all the sections at the same time. I hope what I have expressed just now on the news of the sittings of the Assembly is understood. That does not matter to me. But what I expect is a true report of the Legislative Assembly proceedings broadcast in the Malay programmes. It is hoped that my constituents in Kampong Kembangan are not given to understand that Opposition Members are attacked by the Members of the Government to such an extent that we are unable to reply. It is hoped that a true account of what is actually happening can be given in the broadcast of reports of proceedings in the Legislative Assembly. I am afraid that distortion of facts has taken place. This will be confusing and misleading. So if we return home at ten o'clock and hear from the radio an inaccurate report about our being attacked in the Assembly, the next day when we come back to this House I am sure our faces will be red. Members of the public listen in to the wireless and I hope that the Government will bear this in mind.

7.15 p.m.

The Member for Anson also said that Government has no money. I am not suggesting that the present Government can find ways and means of raising money. I have not yet received confirmation of Government's big programmes. I do not know what the Government has in mind about creating one culture. We have no liking for yellow culture, and therefore we kill it. But what are the programmes, what must be done towards achieving a culture which we wish to create, so that it will be acceptable? Today, I have not yet received a reply to such questions. Members of the Opposition will co-operate with the Government if programmes are carried out to put into effect what the Deputy Prime Minister has explained in the House concerning the anti-Communist policy in order to help the Federation of Malaya. If the Government has any such programmes, I hope these programmes will be announced over the radio. To create a culture which will be acceptable to all would need support; and if we are invited, particularly U.M.N.O., to give our support to such a policy, we will co-operate. We know that this is the policy of the Government and it has, on several occasions, been explained in this House. That is what I tried to bring home to the Member for Anson who alleged that I have never tuned in to Radio Singapore broadcasts in all other languages.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Tan Kia Gan): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Loyalty Week lasting between 3rd December, 1959 and 9th December, 1959 has ended triumphantly. It was a grand and glorious celebration, and a great movement that marks a new era culturally and politically in the history of the State of Singapore. It was an event of which the people of Singapore could be proud.

Now that the cheers of the National Week have died down, what remains to be done is the heavy cumbersome task of nation building; work which calls for patient and zealous dealing by all Members of this Assembly.

Owing to the Colonial rule in the past 140 years, most of the people have lost their self-respect and, through Colonial education, the people lack a proper understanding of their country. We are now having self-rule. First and foremost, we have to instil a national feeling and a love of the country into the people to enable them to realise the importance of active participation in national construction work. The P.A.P. Government has, in the past six months, put the anti-yellow movement into practice, made Malay its national language, introduced an overall improvement in the Educational policy, and established special training courses for civil servants. All these steps have been taken with a view to freeing our people from Colonial ways and thoughts, and with a hope that we will produce thousands upon thousands of right-thinking political workers to serve the country. This thought struggle is a long-term one. It requires our continued efforts to achieve the objective.

I believe that Members from the Opposition will support the Ministry of Culture and its programmes.

In all, the P.A.P. Government has full confidence in constructing a bright future for the State. We fervently hope that all the people of Singapore will fully co-operate and march forward. We further hope that all the fellow Members of this House, irrespective of party affiliation, will with one accord shoulder this mission of the epoch.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I can only elaborate on what has been said by the Member for Kampong Kembangan on the aims and objectives of the Government to create one culture for Singapore. The Member for Anson said that the Opposition Members have no culture or do not know about culture. So, perhaps, such a remark is meant to indicate that only the individual who talks about culture is able to understand it. When we talk about culture, it is not meant only for people who are up to date with ideas. Even the aborigines have their own culture. I would like to say that we from U.M.N.O., as an organisation, are anti-Communist. As far as we are concerned, we will not hesitate to say, in all frankness, that our stand is anti-Communist. Therefore, towards the creation of a common culture, it is our responsibility to know and understand exactly what is the kind of culture that we are going to create in the future. I do not wish to talk about the dangers of a Communist form of culture. The reasons why we oppose Communism is because their tactics and ideology have scant regard for humanitarian feelings and principles. One of the most extraordinary things why we cannot accept it is that the Communist ideology has no consideration for self-respect for those who are against them. This is all I wish to add to what has been mentioned by the Member for Kampong Kembangan on the subject commented on by the Member for Anson.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Culture was created after the P.A.P. took office. In my opinion to talk about the people's culture in Singapore or good culture is very difficult. Why is there no such culture? Because during the past 100 years of Colonial rule, there was no good culture for Singapore. The culture was colonial culture and communal culture. You can see for yourself, Mr Speaker, that after the P.A.P. took office we have had to try to turn this bad culture into good culture. That is very difficult. In Singapore it is desirable to have a good culture. In our Five-Year Plan we have clearly shown to the people, especially the Opposition, that what we want is a people's culture and a non-communal culture.

Mr Speaker, we cannot say the expenditure on the Ministry of Culture is either too much or too little. We do not know. The Member for Kampong Kembangan says that it is too much. There is no foundation for this statement because, during this transitional period, we do not know what we want to expand, especially on educating the people.

The second point is about the Communist ideology or culture. Our Prime Minister has said many times that the P.A.P. is a non-Communist, democratic, socialist Government. Since we are a non-Communist Government we do not foster Communist ideas or culture, because we have already told the people that we do not want a Communist culture. When we say non-Communist, it does not mean that we cannot import Communist books. We mean that we will not have Communist propaganda.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I feel it is my responsibility to answer the queries raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan and also the views expressed by the Member for the Southern Islands. Firstly, I would say that among the Opposition Members - not all of them - certain Members have no culture. What is the meaning and what is the proof, Mr Speaker? Culture has been ignored for 100 years.

7.30 p.m.

We have a Minister for Culture elected by the people. This is clear to the Member for Kampong Kembangan and the Member for the Southern Islands.

Another point: our culture has been corrupted by Western influences, one of which is the rock `n roll. We aim to improve and develop and foster one common culture. Let me tell the Member for Kampong Kembangan and the Member for the Southern Islands that what we wish to create is a Malayan culture. But the basis for a Malayan culture has yet to be gone into thoroughly.

Now, on the question of a Communist culture, communist this and communist that. This does not arise whatsoever. We should not be carried away by emotion and sentiments. The question of Communism has been explained by my colleague and now does not arise at all. I have heard just now the Member for Kampong Kembangan say that the news broadcast is different from the summary of reports on the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. I say the news and the summary of reports on the proceedings actually cover what happens here from 2.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. That is all, Mr Speaker, and I hope the allegations levelled at me are not true. I would say again here, not all, but certain Members of the Opposition have no culture.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the Member for Anson said that Members of the Opposition had no culture! I do not suppose that was really meant in that sense.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it was not my intention originally to have a say in this matter, but because so many cultural experts in this House have spoken, I am forced to say something in spite of the fact that I am not an expert on culture.

Since I was born into this world, it was only today that I heard things like `Communist culture'; probably in future there will be Liberal-Socialist culture, Islamic culture and other cultures according to the various political ideologies of the Parties. As far as I know, in Malaya there are many political ideologies - socialism, Islamism, democracy and many others. If each of these political Parties has its own culture, it means that in Singapore and Malaya there will be many cultures. But in fact I know that culture is the property of the nation - one nation with one culture; it is not based on political ideologies. Communism is a political ideology, not a culture. Islamism is a political ideology, not a culture. This has been expressed by cultural experts.

Furthermore, I would like to explain the meaning of culture. Perhaps the Opposition Members will know what is meant by culture. Culture, as defined by the Indonesian Cultural Congress in 1952, is the result of a struggle fought for by a nation and practised every day. If this definition is acceptable, then automatically in Malaya today Malaya is practising a culture that we call Malayan. From the way the Opposition Members and Government Members are dressed, perhaps we can say that we already have a Malayan cultural outlook. They put on trousers and coats which are of Western origin and songkok which is Malay in origin. Thus, as a result of assimilation, we have a dress which is Malayan in outlook. If we enter a house from the front, we may find furniture of western style and origin, and we may be served with Tauhu' of Chinese origin or curry from India. We are right at the moment practising Malayan culture in our daily life, Mr Speaker. There are many who have talked on culture today. I am not an authority on culture. Mention was made just now about Communist culture' and later probably about Liberal-Socialist culture.' It is possible that next time if another Party is in power, there will be a new culture' emerging. This is wrong, I think. Let me emphasise to the Member for Kampong Kembangan who said that we are against Western culture'; we are not against Western culture'. What we are opposed to, is `Yellow culture'.

Concerning the summary of the reports of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly over Radio Singapore, I think this is a bit difficult. Indirectly, the Opposition Members have accused it to be something near to distortion of facts. Indirectly they say that only the Opposition has been attacked. If it is true and if such a state of affairs exists here in the Assembly, then after this sitting, if there is a commentary or a report on it to the effect that the Member for Kampong Kembangan is attacked constantly, is the Member for Kampong Kembangan going to move a resolution in the Assembly, condemning the Ministry of Culture for the report, and so on and so forth? Then another request that arises is for Radio Singapore to widen the scope of its work so that a special programme of broadcasts that is anti-Communist in nature is put on, just because the Deputy Chairman of the P.A.P. has announced its anti-Communist policy. If the Member wishes to study the policy of the P.A.P., I recommend that he reads the booklet issued by the P.A.P. entitled the "Five-Year Plan". The P.A.P. is a political Party based on social democracy; it is not pro-Communist but is non-Communist. That is our policy, we do not need to expound it over the radio. What we have always emphasised is that we are opposed to undesirable elements, but our definition of undesirable elements does not concern such elements from one bloc only. It is irrespective of Where they come from - East or West. So long as such subversive elements are considered to be `anti' this Government, then we are opposed to them. But we want all the people of Singapore to strive for the interests of this country. This is our stand as regards undesirable elements or subversives. If hon. Members of the Opposition say that U.M.N.O. is prepared to study our theories, I think it is not necessary that it should be over Radio Singapore. I can suggest to them a course on the policy of the P.A.P. merely by reading the "Five-Year Plan", a souvenir booklet of the P.A.P. I remember that previously at a sitting of this Assembly, this booklet was produced.

Therefore, back to the question of culture; we are heading for and are practising Malayan culture right at the moment. Ideal or otherwise, we are, nevertheless, at the moment practising a Malayan form of culture whether from the point of view of dress, food or way of living. Therefore, I hope that from my brief resume, the Opposition Members will understand that we are in the midst of a Malayan culture and, indeed, are practising a Malayan culture.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to bring home to the Member who has just spoken that U.M.N.O. has its own policy in its struggle. We will not toe the policy of any other political Party.

The Chairman: Order. I think we are embarking on a debate on political policies. That is completely remote from culture, I should imagine.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am especially happy today that, after so many months of effort exerted by the Ministry of Culture and seeing the good response from the people, the Members of the Opposition feel interested in culture. I remember the previous Government in its 1958 Budget made provision of $100,000 for the promotion of cultural activities. But that was all in words and was not put into practice. They did nothing. They did not spend even a single cent. This is proof that the previous Government had no concern for the promotion of culture of the various races. In the Budget they planned to engage cultural officers, but there were no cultural officers whatsoever until a leakage of examination papers in the Ministry of Education caused an officer to be transferred to be a temporary Cultural Officer. This $100,000 was put into the Treasury up to the time the P.A.P. took office. The Government transferred a portion of the sum to promote cultural matters.

7.45 p.m.

Why did the previous Government not concern itself with culture? They were concerned only with the $250,000 over the Victoria Memorial Hall Theatre. Therefore, if you want to understand culture, you must, according to the definition, go to the Victoria Memorial Hall Theatre. Those who are unable to understand healthy culture are those living in the tower ivory. Another point is that they followed the policy of the colonial government, that is they followed yellow culture - unhealthy culture to intoxicate our young people, to make them forget their duty of nation-building. All day long they encouraged the young people to dance rock `n roll. We have seen all this ourselves. Furthermore they did not encourage the promotion of healthy culture. Under these circumstances, the people of the upper class were living in the tower ivory. When there was a performance in the Victoria Memorial Hall Theatre, they rushed to see it.

But since the P.A.P. Government took office, our first task has been to introduce healthy culture to the masses of the people. The first purpose of our open-air concerts is to introduce healthy culture to the masses of the people. Under 140 years of colonial rule, we can ask ourselves, was there any opportunity to foster the cultures of all races? Was there any secondary Malay school in Singapore? Was there a music teacher in Malay schools? Is that not proof to destroy Malay culture? Since the P.A.P. Government took office, we introduce the cultures of the various races in our open-air concerts and in the midst of them we encourage the Chinese to appreciate Malay culture, and the Malays to appreciate Chinese culture or Indian Culture. This is our first step. After the people understand one another, we will then integrate all the good points of the various cultures into a Malayan culture. You can see for yourselves that during Loyalty Week, the Chung Cheng High School put up a performance entitled "Unity". This is an example. In the past we never saw a Peking Opera. The first time that a Peking Opera has been "malayanised" was during Loyalty Week. This is only the beginning.

As a first step, we must, first of all, understand one another. The next step is that we will discuss through mutual studies and then create a Malayan culture. In the meantime, I want to thank the cultural institutions, including the Malay cultural institutions and the Tamil cultural institutions for offering their co-operation with the Government. This is the first time in the history of Singapore that they meet one another and study from one another to promote a Malayan culture. This is a good beginning. We hope that next year those people with artistic talents will work harder with a new spirit, to be loyal to Singapore, so as to create a Malayan culture. In the past, circumstances did not allow such things to happen, because mutual study and mutual understanding of the various races was detrimental to the policies of the past Government. To stimulate and to cultivate the ideal of a nation was to destroy the colonial rule.

The P.A.P. Government do not require $2.5 million to build a Victoria Memorial Hall Theatre because we have confidence in the people. The people have responded well to our open-air concerts. Therefore, we dare to encourage the people to make contributions to the National Theatre. Through this theatre we can build a culture full of Malayan ideas. The promotion of culture is not confined to a small portion of the people. It is directed to the masses. Therefore, we request the Members of the Opposition, if they really are interested in culture, to give up their communal ideas and co-operate with us to create a bright Malayan culture.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I congratulate the Minister for Culture, with a capital "C" and not a capital "K", as was suggested by the Member for Farrer Park, for the unexpectedly lengthy, but at times lively discussion which has taken place as a result of the debate on the policy of the Ministry of Culture?

I must confess that when we had to settle the nomenclature of the various Ministries which we were setting up, the natural English-educated reluctance to accept the idea of culture as other than that which is abnormal, the natural reluctance to talk of a Ministry of Culture because of its association with ideas and ideals which are supposed to be intolerant and illiberal, conflicted with the basic realities of our position. What was significant in this debate, I think, is that the whole approach of the Opposition is quite clearly different in that the English-educated middle class wing, as represented by the Member for Farrer Park, was quite distinct from the Malay-educated wing represented by the Member for Kampong Kembangan and the Member for the Southern Islands.

We did right in facing the issue and calling a spade a spade. In the long run, if we are to survive, we must find some basis of the highest common denominator amongst all our races and all our linguistic and cultural groups. If we fail to do that, then whenever we talk about national unity, we are in fact talking about temporary compromises and temporary balances of power. It would be foolish for us in Singapore to pretend that the difference in cultural vitality and cultural patterns of conduct is not a political force. It would be stupid for us not to recognise that language and culture is a stronger force that motivates human beings than political or ideological ideals. That being so, it helps if we openly bring these issues to the forefront, so that people can get away from hypocritical attitudes which existed at a time when cultural and linguistic urges were muted as a result of the ruling hierarchy being the colonial power which nurtured an English-educated middle class to be its assistants.

Throughout the whole of South-East Asia, we have seen what has happened when the colonial power is removed from the arena. India was completely united against the British. You remove the British and you get the Dravidian Movement. You have all other kinds of separatist movements based on language and culture, because these two are inextricably bound. And throughout the whole of South-East Asia, ranging from Ceylon - where the Member for Farrer Park's ancestors came - to Malaya, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Saigon, Vietnam, we see manifestations of what happens when races moving at different cultural momenta have to co-exist in one economic society. If we only thought of Singapore alone, then I say we could well afford it. If we only calculated in terms of the immediate future, we could well afford to ignore the explosive forces which are around us and within us.

I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for Culture for the enthusiasm with which he has gone into his job of building up a Malayan consciousness, and his belief that it is possible, desirable and attainable. That faith has sustained him where lesser souls might well have flagged in their enthusiasm. It is pressure-cooking. We are the first to admit it.

We are also the first to say that pressure-cooking, if we had other alternatives, would probably not be the best way of doing it. But the plain fact of the matter is that there are no other alternatives. If we do not do it and begin to produce the first results in the immediate future, then I say that the forces that are let loose and are already around us will overtake us.

The Member for Farrer Park criticised the Minister for Education. He is-

8.00 p.m.

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, and beg leave to sit again tomorrow, 13th December.

Mr Speaker: So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.