MAIN ESTIMATES, 1961

The Chairman: Main Estimates. For the convenience of Hon. Members, 1 intend taking the total for each head as it appears in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on page 31 of Paper Cmd. 26 of 1960.

Dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper. The amendments are in the Order Paper Supplement No. 3.

Head 1 -

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $100.

Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification from the Government as to what it considers the constitutional role of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to be. Sir, in the constitutional discussions in London, it was urged upon the Colonial Secretary that it would be desirable, in the interests of focusing loyalty on the Queen, to have a Malayan-born Yang di-Pertuan Negara-

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): You mean the contrary.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And in order that there should be no misunderstanding or misinterpretation that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara goes with the government of the day, it was agreed that the term of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be four years as against the term of office of the government for five years, so that whatever government succeeds the present Government, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be a nominee of the government of the day. But, unfortunately, Sir, some leaders of the P.A.P. in the Party as well as in the Government do seem to give the impression outside and to the Members of the Opposition that the present Yang di-Pertuan Negara is a P.A.P. Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It should not be so. I will just quote an instance where such a misinterpretation could have and has taken place. I refer to the visit of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the early part of this year to the Southern Islands. It is good, it is right, it is proper that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should visit not only the islands but all parts of Singapore, so as to bring it to the notice of the people of Singapore that we now have a Malayan-born Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Unfortunately, Sir, he was accompanied on his visit to the Southern Islands by a Minister (we can have no objection to that), by Parliamentary Secretaries (to that again we can have no objection), but there were included in that retinue P.A.P. Assemblymen; whereas the elected Member for the Southern Islands was completely ignored. Therefore, we got the impression that here was a P.A.P. Government trying to sell a P.A.P. Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am sure that that was not the intention. Then there was another instance where this misinterpretation could be given credence. It was because of the advice of certain of the Ministers that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had, as reported in the papers, given a speech making comparison of Governments-

The Chairman: Order. Will the Member take his seat?

Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

The Chairman: I have been following the hon. Member's speech very closely and I must, of course, be quite satisfied in my mind that he is not offending any of the Standing Orders. One of the Standing Orders is Standing Order 46 (8) which reads:-

`The conduct of the Sovereign, Members of the Royal Family, or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall not be referred to in any circumstances.'.

So that if the hon. Member is now embarking on a dissertation on what the Yang di-Pertuan Negara had said in any of his visits, then I think he is coming very near the line and is probably out of order. But if his speech is levelled solely at the matter he has touched on, that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is accompanied by P.A.P. Members and P.A.P. Ministers to the exclusion of Opposition Members, then perhaps he is just within the Standing Order. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, what I want to point out in my speech is that Ministers of the Government should understand and realise that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is our Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the whole of the people of Singapore. Any advice that any Minister tenders to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara must take into consideration the fact that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is above politics. If any advice given to him shows a political bent, then it is definitely wrong on the part of the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Government as a whole, to so advise him. It is just like asking the people of Singapore to express loyalty to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to the flag, to the State anthem. We all will show loyalty to this symbol. But if the wrong impression is given to the people of Singapore that it is a P.A.P. Yang di-Pertuan Negara, a P.A.P. anthem, and a P.A.P. flag, then surely one cannot expect that there would be that loyalty from the people of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am sorry that the leader of the Opposition has seen something to complain about in the conduct of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I think it is generally accepted that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is above party politics. He plays an important and impartial constitutional role. I do not wish to go into the circumstances in which it came about that the visit to the Southern Islands was made without the Member for the Southern Islands. It depends upon the circumstances. If it is a visit in connection with a government project, then it may be the opinion of the Minister in charge of that project that the Member of that particular constituency has nothing whatsoever to do with the project as such. The tour of the Southern Islands referred to was in connection with a project to give special development, not just to the Southern Islands but to the Malay community in Kampong Melayu. On that occasion, the Assemblyman for the area was not invited. But it might be of interest to Members of the Opposition to know that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has expressed the intention to visit as many of the kampongs on the mainland as possible in the coming year. I do not know if my Secretary has got in touch with the Opposition, but it is proposed that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara makes visits once a fortnight to a particular division and the Assemblyman of that division will introduce him to the community leaders there. I hope that Members of the Opposition will co-operate and make the visit of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to the kampongs a success. I think the principle goes without challenge, and I am sorry that it should be the subject of any comment in this debate.

2.45 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made it clear that it is quite all right for Ministers to go to the Southern Islands with the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Parliamentary Secretaries, but what I cannot understand is why it was felt necessary that there should be a retinue of P.A.P. Assemblymen; and it is because of the presence of P.A.P. Assemblymen that I raised the point that the elected Member for that particular constituency was not even informed.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Cairnhill wish to take the matter to a vote?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No. In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $192,160 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 2 -

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir,

I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of items (70) to (73) inclusive of sub-head 1.

The subject concerns the Rent Conciliation Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, after having had some experience in Government, it is my deep feeling that the Rent Conciliation Board in conjunction with the Planning Department and the Land Office - as a coherent whole - are the instruments of a very privileged landlord class in Singapore to suppress tenants and, in some cases, farmers. Because of that fact, we took steps to reconstitute the Rent Conciliation Board, at the same time re-organising the Planning Department and the Land Office. Earlier, when the Government was being formed, I asked that a certain practising lawyer, who had long been connected with the P.A.P. and who had a long record of service to the underprivileged masses, should become the Chairman of the Rent Conciliation Board. Earlier, when this appointment was discussed.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir, I think I had better remind the hon. Member that it is not that there is anything that can be disclosed which would disconcert the Government. It is the principle involved where breaches of the Official Secrets Act and other things would be concerned. I would also like to remind him that what is on the record is on the record; and if he in his peregrinations chooses to refer to fictitious events in order to build up a particular theory, then he does so at great peril. First, it is out of order.

The Chairman: Order. I am just trying to indicate that I would like to hear the point of order before a speech is made.

The Prime Minister: The point of order, Sir, is this. Is it in order for the ex-Minister for National Development to refer to the processes which led to the appointment which he made of the former Chairman of the Rent Conciliation Board?

The Chairman: Is the point that there is some secrecy in it, Mr Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: This was subsequently the subject of some discussion among Ministers in the Cabinet, Sir.

The Chairman: In so far as this Assembly is concerned, I do not think there is anything in the Standing Orders to say that the disclosure of a secret of that nature is against Standing Orders. There is a Standing Order anent questions on matters secret in nature which cannot be touched upon, but I cannot find anything in the Standing Orders which touches on the point raised. As the Hon. the Prime Minister has rightly pointed out, of course, hon. Members touch on those subjects at their peril, because I do not know whether privilege would apply in cases of that nature. I would not like to give any advice on that.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister was not telling us the truth when he said that the subject matter of the Rent Conciliation Board was discussed in the Cabinet. I must say that it was discussed in the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. on 10th January, 1960, and although the members of the Central Executive Committee are also members of the Cabinet, they are held under different conditions, and perhaps in this respect the Prime Minister's mind is confused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this issue, the reason why the Prime Minister stood up is that he has played a very dubious role-

The Prime Minister rose -

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

The Prime Minister: May I just make this point, that if we want to maintain decorum, it should be maintained at all times?

The Chairman: Order. The Prime Minister can rise on a point of order and leave it to the Chair to deal with that point of order. Will the Prime Minister rise on his point of order?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not wish to call people names which I am not prepared to substantiate outside. I am prepared to call them names here which I am prepared to call them outside. Perhaps you might consider, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the peace of this House, whether you want to start a little dog fight?

The Chairman: Order. I think hon. Members are forgetting that there are Standing Orders which are rather strict on procedure, that there should not be a free-for-all in these matters. The point of order is well taken, and I do rule that the word "dubious" is unparliamentary and the Member for Hong Lim should not use that word in relation to a Member of this House.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hereby withdraw the word "dubious".

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Prime Minister is so anxious that his role should not be disclosed, I shall save him from great embarrassment. I shall only deal with the principles of the issue.

The Prime Minister: Please do.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only trying to show the fight that is going on in Singapore. Yesterday I spoke of the fight between European capital and local interests, and today I speak of the fight between vested interests in land and the poor tenants.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): You have not forgotten Meadows!

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Woodbridge Hospital!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Very soon, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law will be sent there after all his powers have been deprived step by step.

Mr Byrne: He should be certified-

The Chairman: Order. Of course, if the Ministers on the Government Benches intervene with interjections, I suppose one cannot stop a Member from the Opposition Bench from responding. Perhaps if there is some quietude on my right, there may be progress on my left. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on 11th December, 1959, in the debate on the Main Estimates of the Budget, the Member for Farrer Park brought up the appointment of the Chairman of the Rent Conciliation Board. He asked this question in Hansard of 11th December, 1959, Volume 11, No. 15 at column 910; whether the House could be informed that the then Chairman of the Rent Conciliation Board was a practising member of the Bar. At column 912, the Member for Farrer Park went on to say:

`As far as I understand the Minister's reply, though he did not specifically say so, it would appear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the present President of the Rent Conciliation Board is, in fact, a practising member of the Bar. If that is accepted, then I will proceed on that basis. I would suggest to the Minister that it is highly undesirable for a practising member of the Bar to be appointed to such a post. In his normal practice, he would come into contact with all sorts of people-tenants, landlords and owners of property. I do not say that he will be influenced by them-but a number of people, who might not otherwise have gone to him on matters other than those appertaining to the Rent Conciliation Board, might go to him and seek his services merely for the reason that when then matters come up before him for consideration as President, they might get an added advantage.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was very interesting to see the way the Member for Farrer Park raised this question a year ago. I do not mean to say that this question was inspired by my former colleague the Prime Minister, but I would like to say that not very long after it was raised, this issue was discussed over and over again during the meetings of Assemblymen on Thursday afternoons. At a meeting of the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party on 10th January, 1960, the matter was discussed. As a result of that discussion, a decision was reached which was conveyed to all People's Action Party Assemblymen and lawyers. It reads as follows:

`This is to inform you that the Central

Executive Committee at its meeting on 10/1/1960 resolved that all statutory boards which have judicial or quasi-judicial functions, for instance, the Rent Conciliation Board, the Income Tax Board of Review, should not include Assemblymen, practising advocates and solicitors, accountants, and persons openly connected with political parties.

Signed-Ong Pang Boon Organising Secretary 24th January, 1960'

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of this circular, the then Chairman and eight Assemblymen on the Rent Conciliation Board resigned. The then Chairman resigned because he was a practising advocate and solicitor. The eight Assemblymen resigned because they were openly connected with political parties.

Mr Byrne: Obviously.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law seems to be inspired after his recent trip to Japan.

But was this decision carried out in all quasi-judicial and all judicial bodies? It was not. Although the decision mentioned the Income Tax Board of Review, the President of which is Mr Green who happens to be a golfing friend of the Prime Minister [Interruption].

The Chairman: Order. I am going to be very strict about asides of this nature because they are completely irrelevant. They may sometimes be offensive and may lead to disorder in this House. So let us have no asides.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the then Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review was also a practising advocate and solicitor. I believe that not long ago the Chairman, Mr R. H. Green, was replaced - I have a copy here - but he is still a member of the Board of Review. Taking his place is another European practising advocate and solicitor, Mr C. H. Smith. Mr Speaker, it is not possible to ask the Secretary-General of P.A.P. to dismiss the Prime Minister, or, for that matter, the Minister for Finance, for flouting the decisions of the Central of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker. Sir, this is an up-to-date list of the members of the Income Tax Board of Review, showing no less than seven practising lawyers and accountants. So this flouts the decision of the Central of the P.A.P. made on the 10th January, 1960.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not interested in whether members of political parties should or should not openly be members of quasi-judicial organisations. I think there is nothing wrong in that. In the case of practising lawyers, I say there is nothing wrong too, particularly in the case of the previous Chairman of the Rent Conciliation Board. Before he was appointed to the Board, I extracted a promise from him that he would not take any case concerning the Rent not. But that is not so with the members of the Income Tax Board of Review. The people know that the legal firm of the Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review takes up cases which come up before the Board of Review, although he does not attend those sittings.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another difference is that the members of the Rent Conciliation Board, including the then Chairman, are not paid for their services, but I believe the Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review is paid about $100 or $200 for each sitting, which might last from five minutes to one day.

Sir, the question of the composition of quasi-judicial organisations, whether the members should or should not be practising lawyers and accountants, or whether the members are openly connected with political parties, is not important. This is a clear and concrete example that the present leaders of the Government, as I proved yesterday, are protecting the interests of vested properties.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it gives me very little pleasure to expose the stupidities and ignorance of Members of this Assembly, particularly when such an action will hurt innocent parties who were appointed to take over the chairmanship of quasi-judicial tribunals. I am sorry that I have, by implication, to pass this review. About the judicial officers who should have stepped in to prevent the appointment, it is a basic principle, Sir, that justice should not only be done but seem to be done. Whilst I really do not place much weight on the argument put forward by the Member for Farrer Park, that it was because the person concerned is a practising lawyer and therefore should not be the Chairman, I think the sting of the criticism was this: here was a lawyer openly connected with a Party, a Party man, and a member of the Central Executive Committee right up to the time of the elections. He was provided with eight executioners, all P.A.P. Assemblymen, who were appointed without consultation. They did not know that they were being appointed - the ex-Minister for National Development thought that he would win their support in the Party if he appointed them. Now, Sir, let us get these things straight. Perhaps the ex-Minister for National Development thinks that he is a great champion of the poor, the underprivileged and all the rest of it. What we heard yesterday and this afternoon will doubtless continue.

The Rent Conciliation Board are concerned with the implementation of the provisions contained in the Control of Rent Ordinance. They can do no exploitation, and they are not in a position to. The exploitation, if any, is contained in the terms of the Ordinance. The provisions of the Ordinance, in so far as they are against the interests of the farmers and in favour of the landlords, have been suspended, and legislation is being prepared and will be introduced in the process of this Budget session to protect their interests permanently. But if you have a quasi-judicial tribunal- first, you are the prosecutor; then you appoint your friend to be the judge, and you provide him with powers to be the assessor; so what is the point of the quasi-judicial tribunal? You could just make an administrative order that that shall be so. In the same way, the Assessment Committee and a few other stupidities which have since been rectified. That is the simple basic principle - that you shall not be judge in your own case and you shall not be prosecutor and judge.

I am sorry that Mr Tann Wee Tiong was involved. He had a discussion with me and I immediately conceded the difficult position in which he was placed, particularly when he found himself accompanied by eight P.A.P. Assemblymen. They all resigned and Mr Tann Wee Tiong, with good grace, immediately withdrew. Since then a whole panel of people, with the Second Civil District Court Judge as President, have been running the Rent Conciliation Board. They are representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the Chambers of Commerce, together with three Government pensioners and a retired officer of the City Council. I should hate to imagine, Sir, that representatives of unions, Government pensioners and a City Council retired officer who are serving on a quasi-judicial body - even if it is not at great expense, at least some time and energy and effort is expended on these matters - are instruments of oppression of the poor tenants and farmers at the behest of the landlords. That is not their duty. They are there to allocate rent increases, and control rent of properties where sanitation is put in and roads built, and certain other specified or common improvements are made.

All I want to point out is this: the stupidity and repetition of lies in which innocent parties are hurt makes this-

The Chairman: Order.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am not-

The Chairman: Order. I think the word "lies" used in this context obviously refers to what has been said by the Member for Hong Lim. I do not think the Prime Minister is justified in using that unparliamentary word in this Assembly.

The Prime Minister: I am cheered to know that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have more regard for his personal reputation than he has himself.

The Chairman: Order. Will the Prime Minister withdraw that word?

The Prime Minister: I withdraw. I cannot help making that remark, Mr Speaker, Sir. However, may I go on and say this? It is a principle which is extremely important - what we do should be right and appear to be right. We have no intention of running a police State; that is not what we are here for. If you are to implement a principle of the rule of law, then let us at least observe the bare essentials. And for that reason, that directive went out-Party accountants, Party lawyers and Party men should stay out of tribunals where they have to adjudicate on members of the public, and sometimes the interests of Party men involved. Open identification and open bias is bad. The principle is simple. If that principle is challenged and if the Member for Hong Lim believes that that principle is being enforced because we want an instrument to oppress the people, then I think he is well on the way to one of the reputable institutions that were referred to in the asides.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): The Member for Hong Lim. Mr Speaker, referred to the membership of the Income Tax Board and I would like to make some points of clarification. Yesterday I had occasion to draw attention to certain regrettable perplexities of the Member for Hong Lim, and I pointed out several serious mis-statements of fact which he made in his speech. Today, within practically the first hour of this sitting of the Assembly, he perpetrated another. The Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review is a District Judge appointed in accordance with the policy enunciated by this Government.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to correct the suggestion by the ex-Minister for National Development that there has been manipulation by the Prime Minister in this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was aware of the directive of the Central Executive Committee of the Party. I was present at the meeting and it was my duty to carry out the recommendation of the Central Executive Committee. If the Member for Hong Lim will just look at page 42 of these Estimates, "Remarks" column-against the post "First Civil District Judge", he will see that the salary scale of that post was revised by Establishment Warrant No. 26/60 from the timescale salary $1,100-40A-1,420 to a Grade F post, drawing a salary of $1,620. It was my duty to take this matter up with the Minister for Finance in view of the Central Executive Committee's decision that there should be no practising member of the Bar as Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review. It was the intention, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the person who was to fill this post of Civil District Judge should also be the Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review. And we have on our side faithfully implemented the decision of the Central Executive Committee, so that there has been no manipulation whatsoever on the part of the Prime Minister. I was present at the Central Executive Committee meeting when that decision was made, and it was my duty to see that it was implemented. I therefore took it up with the Minister for Finance. As a result of that, there has been this revision of the salary of the post of "Civil District Judge". I cannot see how such a suggestion can honestly be made by a former member of the Central Executive Committee and a responsible person who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Hong Lim. I am indeed surprised that that suggestion should have come from him today.

3.15 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very grateful for the impartial interpretation of the decision of the Central made just now by the Minister for Labour and Law. The decision was that it was wrong for a practising advocate and solicitor to be chairman of any quasi-judicial organisation and not, as the Prime Minister has said just now, that it was not wrong for a practising lawyer to be chairman but that it was wrong for a political practising lawyer to be chairman. They are two different interpretations altogether. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very grateful for the assurance given us by the Minister for Labour and Law, that there is a Budget provision that a First Civil District Judge has been appointed. According to the Minister for Finance, Mr Jeyaratnam has been appointed to be Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review. But, Mr Speaker, I have had a letter from the Ministry of Finance only two days back saying that the Chairman is Mr C. H. Smith. I wonder whether the Minister for Finance has control of Mr H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine", so that he can go forward and backward any time he likes. If the Minister wants to have a look at this letter, I shall pass it over to him. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, that issue is not important. The issue is this: that the leaders of the Government are now, in full force, with all honesty and sincerity, protecting vested interests.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot imagine anything more stupid than the concluding remarks of the Member for Hong Lim. The explanation for Mr Smith carrying on with some cases of which he was Chairman early on is quite simple. Income tax review cases are often complex and require prolonged investigation. It is obviously nonsense and it would be quite wrong to pass on cases that have been under his examination for a long time to the new Chairman. What has happened was that all the old cases continued under the same Board of Review which sat on them at the beginning, and the new cases have gone to the new Chairman.

The Prime Minister: I just want to try and connect the two points neatly, Mr Speaker, Sir. The important and basic decision which was taken by the Central Executive Committee on my proposal was one of principle - that a Party man cannot sit on a judicial tribunal, and you say you are dispensing justice. But there is a subsidiary point that sometimes practising lawyers, although unconnected with parties, do derive an unfair advantage or benefit from their occupancy of the chairmanship of certain tribunals. Therefore, as in the case of the Income Tax Board of Review, it being a lucrative branch of the law, it might be necessary not to give anybody an unfair advantage. But the basic point contained in that resolution, which was adopted and which the Member so kindly read without knowing what it was all about, is that no Party man should be on a judicial tribunal. If anybody says that that is wrong, that it is contrary to democratic laws, and that it is against the interest of the people, then I say, like Alice in Wonderland. I think it is time to talk of cabbages and kings.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never expected that an experienced debater like the Prime Minister could find himself more and more driven into the net. Here is a Press cutting from the Free Press on the 30th of March, 1960. It says:

`Assemblymen are allowed to sit on Arbitration Court.'

And is not an Arbitration Court one hundred per cent a judicial organisation?

`"Members of the Industrial Arbitration Court will not be affected by the Government ruling that no Assemblymen or official of a political Party may sit on a judicial or quasi-judical tribunals," the Minister for Labour and Law, Mr K. M. Byrne, said yesterday.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, the issue as to whether he is a practising lawyer or not is not important. These persons are fighting for property interests.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it is very tedious. In the case of the Arbitration Court, it is in a somewhat different position. The Arbitration Judge is assisted b) one nominee of the employer and one nominee of the union. Therefore, a balance of interests is maintained. It is just like assessors helping a Judge. But the Judge himself should not be biased and should not be committed. If the Member for Hong Lim cannot see that, then I think a lot of time will be wasted if we try at this rather late hour to initiate him into the niceties of doing things in a fair and just manner.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, when one is ignorant I think it is folly to be wise. I have explained at great length in this Chamber what the Industrial Arbitration Court is. I have made the point that it does not exercise truly judicial functions. When there is a dispute and the parties fail to agree, or they cannot reach agreement, they then go to the tribunal. They go to this body on which both employers and employees are properly represented, and this body makes the agreement for the parties. There is no judicial process involved. For instance, one party wants $10. The Industrial Arbitration Court says, "You get $5." The Court decides on $5. That is the sort of thing. Being an accountant, he fails to appreciate these finer points.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the same position also obtains with the Rent Conciliation Board or the Income Tax Board of Review. When the parties fail to agree, or when one party does not agree, they submit the dispute to this quasi-judicial organisation for adjudication. It is a surprise to me to hear the Minister say that the Industrial Arbitration Court is not a truly judicial body. I am sorry for the President and members of the Arbitration Court. I think the Court should not be called the Industrial Arbitration Court. It should be called an Arbitration - it is very difficult to find a word meaning that you want to exercise the law. But there is a Chinese word for it. `A person who mixes marriages', we call him "Kung Chin". Mr Speaker, Sir, from the debate it appears that there are three types of quasi-judicial or judicial tribunals, depending on whatever interpretation the leaders of this Government wish to put to it. But that is not the issue. The issue is, as I have said just now, that they are protecting vested interests.

The Chairman: I have not heard that issue before in this House. The issue now is on the Rent Conciliation Board. Mr Byrne.

Mr Byrne: I just want to point out that the Member for Hong Lim did not take the trouble to look into that Ordinance. If he had looked into it, he would have found that the power of making an award, that is, making an agreement when the parties have failed to agree, is vested in the body, that is, the President and the two members of the Court; but the power to enforce the award that is made is vested only in the President. He alone can enforce the award. That is the point about it.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: The Question now is, "That the sum of $1,614,380 for Head 2 stand part of the Estimates." As many as are of that opinion say Aye -

The Prime Minister: Sir, I just want to take this opportunity to inform the House that the term of the Chief Justice-

The Chairman: Can I take the vote first?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

The sum of $1,614,380 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: By leave of the House, the Prime Minister will make a statement on the Chief Justice.

The Prime Minister: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that the term of the Chief Justice, which expires in January next, has been extended by the Government. Under the new Constitution, Sir, the Chief Justice shall be appointed from among persons qualified to be Judges by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. There are persons suitable for this appointment, Sir, but they are at present required for much more urgent and important duties. The leader of the Opposition has been consulted. The Bar and, I am informed, the Puisne Judges are happy that this arrangement can continue for the time being. The Chief Justice has indicated to me that he is not here to block the appointment of any local man. He is happy to continue to serve for as long as we require him, and will vacate his office at any time we wish to make the appointment. I would also like to add, Sir, that it has nothing to do with vested interests.

The Chairman: Which, of course, is also irrelevant!

Head 4 -

The Chairman: We are now on Head 4, Legislature. Mr Rajah.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

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

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have informed the Clerk of the specific nature of the objection on which I am going to speak, and I have requested him to inform the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. The particular point I wish to touch upon is one which has already been dealt with at the previous Budget sitting in this Assembly, and that is the question of the independence of the staff in the Assembly. At that time, the Prime Minister indicated to the House that the matter was under consideration. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would inform the House if any further progress has been made on this particular matter.

The Prime Minister: If only I can believe it is true that the Member for Farrer Park is as ignorant of these matters as he seems to be, then I will take the trouble to go through copious notes in order to keep the House up to date!

The Chairman: Will the Prime Minister take his seat? I was so interested in the subject that I have forgotten to pose the question!

The Prime Minister: I beg your pardon.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $100." Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: That proves my point, Sir. May I just refer to the various letters that we have exchanged, Mr Speaker, Sir? I almost wish that we can go round the Standing Orders and allow the Speaker to participate in the debate. Sir, you will recall that when you first wrote to me on the subject on 26th June, 1959, you gave me a memorandum on it. There was a subsequent exchange of letters - on 26th June, and the reply on 2nd July. On 8th September, 1959, a letter giving more details of why and where perhaps the Executive should not in the past have interfered. Another letter dated 30th June, 1960, followed up with the letter of 12th September. You will remember that after the last letter of 11th July, 1960, we had a meeting on 27th July. I think the position we reached then was this. I have here a note which was made immediately after the meeting, Sir, and I think it fairly represents the arguments on both sides.

3.30 p.m.

I then indicated to you that we were against having an Assembly with a closed service because of the paucity of talent that you would then be troubled with. You pointed out, Sir, that you did not want a closed service. You understood the position. But what you wanted was disciplinary control of the Assembly staff to be taken away from the Executive, because they are in the Assembly service, although they could still be transferred out of the Assembly provided, as in the case of the Clerk, the consent of the Speaker is first obtained. I then pointed out the difficulty of having a government servant under General Orders and Colonial Regulations (or what has replaced these Regulations) working in the Assembly and outside the discipline of the service he is in. I indicated that we were prepared to consider a closed service for specialist jobs like the Clerk of the Assembly, perhaps the Sergeant at Arms, and such other very specialised appointments. I think the meeting ended with you expressing unhappiness, and you indicated that you would pursue the question of closing the job of the Clerk of the Assembly and perhaps reviewing the whole matter again.

Sir, I have given this matter some further thought, and I had a further discussion with the Minister for Finance. I can only make this little concession. Mr Speaker, Sir. If the present members of the Assembly staff feel that they want to opt out of the Government service and be in a closed service of the Assembly, the Government has no objection. Then these people will lose their avenues of promotion in the Government service. They are not to compete with the rest of the Government servants when other appointments occur in Ministries outside this Assembly. But we cannot impose on them, and I think it is the considered opinion of the Government that it would be undesirable to close the service because, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will be unable to get that wide selection of talent which would be available in a wider establishment. But if there is anybody in this Assembly who feels that his independence of action would be better safeguarded if he were out of the Government service - perhaps I should not have used the word "out of the Government service" - and should forever be not transferable but remain in this closed service, then so be it. We have no objection whatsoever.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not possible for the Prime Minister, together with the Finance Minister, to devise a solution to this problem? Having listened to the Prime Minister and to the problem, it seems to me that there is a possible solution which I would like to put to him. In seeking to find a solution to the problem, one must try to put one's finger on the difficulties of a situation such as this. As I understand the position, normally a civil servant, wherever he may work comes under the control of the Minister for Finance who is the head of the civil service. Although the Clerk has statutory protection by the Constitution, that protection might not exist for a long time. Mr Speaker, Sir, so long as you are the Speaker I dare say the problem does not arise. But when the next elected Assembly meets, it could well be, Mr Speaker, Sir, that you might not be the Speaker of that Assembly. In those circumstances, naturally the majority Party would in the normal course of events appoint a Speaker from their side of the House. That is the time when the trouble begins. At the moment, by virtue of the fact that you are the Speaker and that you are, I hope, a non-Party - which I am sure you are not, - [Laughter] - which I am sure you are -

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): You have to be quite sure!

Mr Rajah: - The position is quite clear. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Clerk and members of your staff cannot be transferred without your consent, their protection lies in the fact that you are the Speaker and that you are not a Party man. But when you cease to be the Speaker and when a Party man becomes the Speaker, then, in the absence of tradition in these matters, there is a distinct possibility that the Government might seek to influence the Speaker in the transferability of the Clerk or in his being allowed to remain in his post. If some system could be devised whereby the Clerk and certain specified officers of the Assembly staff could not be transferred without the consent of a Committee of the House, then possibly that problem might be solved. Again, in the event of the Clerk falling down on his duties and, therefore, should either be transferred or dispensed with, that again could be left in the hands of the Committee of the House and certain devices could be worked out whereby a certain majority would be required before the decision of that Committee could be given effect to. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a possible solution which will keep alive the routes along which recruitment to the Assembly could be preserved and promotion outside Assembly House could also be preserved. The point of the discussion, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this - that the Clerk and his assistants are servants of the Assembly. The Assembly consists not only of the Government but also of the Opposition. If the Clerk is to discharge his functions efficiently, he might sometimes have to discharge them quite fearlessly, and in so doing he might tread on the corns of certain Government Members; and Members being human, they might try to take it out of him. In a democratic system, Sir, one must try to devise ways and means, a system of balances, as the Prime Minister once said, whereby everybody's interests could be protected. As the position of the Clerk of the Assembly and his assistants is vital in the traditions of a democratic government, I think one should devise a system whereby the Clerk and his assistants could fearlessly carry out their duties without looking over their shoulders all the time. I put this forward to the Prime Minister as a possible solution, and we on the Opposition, Sir, would be very grateful if the Prime Minister would give this his consideration.

The Prime Minister: I think the healthy approach to our problems is a practical one. This is not to say that I am in any way disputing the principle which you have tried to implement from the very beginning, Mr Speaker, Sir, particularly after your sojourn with the Speaker of the House of Commons, that you should have a separate establishment in this Assembly. But we have to face certain practical problems. As I have said, if all the present Assembly staff drawn largely from the more competent and above average Government servants say that they wish to stay in the Assembly, so be it. The problem is not that we want to transfer the Clerk out. I think one resigned; another man then became Clerk and he subsequently moved up to become Permanent Secretary. If the others say that they want to stay put, we have no objection whatsoever. As I have said, we are prepared to allow the Clerk of the Assembly and his assistants to remain where they are in their posts, where they develop certain expertise. They cannot develop skills which would be of much value in some other Ministry. But if you wish to recruit on your own - your stenographers, your personal assistants and your other clerical assistants - then I suggest you give this matter further consideration, not because you cannot recruit them, since it is likely that you can do better by tapping the government services where there are other avenues for promotion, from clerks to higher clerks, Executive Officers, Higher Executive Officers and so on. The point that the Member for Farrer Park has asked me to consider has already been considered. As far as the Clerk is concerned, and I have also included the Serjeant at Arms and other specialised officers, I think they could well be in a closed service. But the question is whether you should have a separate establishment as apart from these specialised officers. That is a matter which I think the Member for Cairnhill knew full well. It was debated and he decided against it, not against the interests of the Assembly but because we felt that it would militate against the efficiency of the staff of the Assembly.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in this matter, I speak perhaps from a selfish point of view as a Member of the Opposition. As a Member of the Opposition, Sir, I would like to see a Clerk, whose terms of service are such that he could be expected to advise any Opposition Member quite fearlessly and without being afraid of the consequences of the advice he may tender. At the same time, Sir, I do not wish to see that proper avenues of promotion are blocked either from outside or inside the Assembly. As the Legislature is an important adjunct of the government of the country, and as the Clerk is an important person in that very important adjunct of the country, could we not devise some system whereby we could make it possible for the Clerk, while he is Clerk of the Assembly, to carry out his functions fearlessly and without troubling himself as to whether he is going to be transferred outside this Assembly; or worse still, severely dealt with by some difficult Minister? I am not talking of the present Government, Sir. So long as the present Government is in power, the Clerk is protected, because you are there, Sir. But when this present Government goes and some other government comes in, it could well be that they might not be quite so reasonable as this Government and -

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): It could be yours!

Mr Rajah: It could be ours. I think, Sir, it is important that just as you are an independent member, Mr Speaker, Sir, and you have the protection of the Constitution in regard to your term of office here, so, in a similar way, I think this Clerk, and all future Clerks, should also be given that protection. With a little goodwill on both sides, surely it is not beyond the ability of the Minister for Finance, as head of the civil service, to devise some system whereby the Clerk's service would be protected, as well as give some assurance to the other important officials of this Assembly so that their interests too will be protected and they could give advice to all Members of the House fearlessly and as they think fit.

3.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the issue really does not arise because the Clerk is already in a protected position, according to section 46 (5) and (6) of the Constitution. All he has to do is to indicate to the Minister for Finance that he prefers to remain in the closed Assembly service and it shall be so done. But I think it may well be that there are other considerations which might bear not on the Minister for Finance but on the Government servants in the Assembly who may wish not to seal altogether their chances of advancement in the service by moving out of the Assembly. Under section 46 (5) and (6) of the Constitution, the Clerk can exercise that right.

Mr Rajah: With due respect to the Prime Minister, Sir, I think he has perhaps misunderstood the point. I am not worried about the present Clerk. It is not the Clerk as an individual who worries me. I am thinking of any particular Clerk who serves the Assembly and who should be placed in a position whereby his removal from the Assembly, or his dismissal from his post as Clerk, would be left in the hands of a Committee of this House composed of certain individuals from the Government and the Opposition, and his dismissal would depend on how that Committee votes. Whereas if the other clerks remain as government servants and continue to remain as government servants, they can opt to be transferred and can come into the Assembly as and how they wish. All I ask the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister to consider is whether it would not be possible to devise a system whereby the transfer of the Clerk from the Assembly - not the present Clerk, but any Clerk - would be determined by a particular Committee, and his dismissal also would be determined by a particular Committee and not according to normal civil service regulations.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I must make a final effort to clear the air. I am sure the misunderstanding is a genuine one. What I am saying is that we have already agreed with you in principle, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Clerk and his assistants are specialised men who should acquire expertise in Standing Orders, the procedures of debate, and all the intricacies which a good Speaker insists upon, and that they can be specialised jobs - as employees of the Assembly and not as government servants. We are prepared to allow the present incumbents who are government servants to switch over from being government servants to servants of the Assembly. We have offered that, not only for this particular Clerk, but for all the Clerks and for all time. The disadvantage of having to carry on an argument by proxy, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that we, are unable to come to grips with the issue. The issue is a separate establishment, with a House Committee in charge of the whole of the staff of the Assembly. The point I have made on behalf of the Minister for Finance is that if they do not opt out of the government service, if they still stay in the government service and they want their avenues for promotion - and you have conceded, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they should be given these avenues, because you would not otherwise be able to recruit good men - then they cannot be outside the rules of discipline which bind all the other competitors in the same service with them. That is a little bit of logic which I hope I am able to convey.

The Chairman: I think I had better clear the air. There seems to be an implication that the Member for Farrer Park is arguing my case for me. I think the word "proxy" was used. I may disabuse the mind of the Prime Minister when I say that I have not, in fact, briefed the Member for Farrer Park. If I had, perhaps he would have put forward some better arguments!

Mr Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to make the point straightaway that if you had argued the case yourself, you would have probably made a better case of it!

I do appreciate what the Prime Minister is saying. He says that the government officers can opt into this service. By that, I take it means that once they opt into this service, they go out of the government stream and remain here forever. The point I am trying to get across to the Prime Minister is this: let them continue to remain in the government stream, but the removal or dismissal of certain named officers from this Assembly - not all - should not follow the normal civil service code. The removal or dismissal and the question of discipline could be left in the hands of a Committee of the House. Once the Committee of the House has put them outside the Assembly, then they will come into the normal government stream and be subject to government discipline.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I am not quite sure whether I understand the Member for Farrer Park. Briefly, his object is to ensure some security of tenure for Clerks of the Assembly so that they can fearlessly perform their duties. He thought that if they are to be able to achieve this, then the question of promotion and discipline of the staff of the Assembly should be placed in the hands of the House Committee of the Assembly. That was his proposal. I would have thought that, in the event the party in power changes, you might have an unreasonable party which does not care for the niceties of the Constitution. Then the Clerks of the Assembly would surely be at the mercy of the political party in power. Whereas under the present arrangement, they have the safeguard of the Public Service Commission, which is an impartial body and is the final arbiter in matters of this nature.

Mr Rajah: The point which the Minister for Finance took, I think, could be got over by looking very carefully at the composition of the House Committee of the Assembly. Naturally it would not be on the basis of a Select Committee where the number of Members to be appointed would be according to the majority in the House. This particular House Committee I am thinking of would be composed of Members of the Opposition as well as of the Government where the removal of the Clerk is contemplated, then he will only be removed if the vote against him comes from both the Opposition and the Government side; the basis of the suggestion being that if both the Opposition Members and the Government Members are agreed that the Clerk should be removed, then there is something really seriously wrong with the Clerk. But where Members of the Opposition vote against the Members of the Government on an issue like this, it could well be then that the Government side want to get rid of him but that the Opposition think him well worthy of the post.

The Prime Minister: I would like to make this point. Sir. There is no real issue involved. We have spent a lot of time on this, and the point of view, of course, is sincerely held. But there is no bone of contention. We are saying that there are these specialised jobs and that we are prepared to let them be a closed service. That is the end of the matter. But in so far as the rules of discipline are concerned, if they stay within the government plane of the service and if they are still in the running for promotion in other Government Ministries, then they will have to abide by the rules and regulations which determine the discipline of that service as a whole. You cannot pull them out of the service for the purposes of discipline, but leave them in the service for the purpose of promotion. That is an illogicality which cannot be reconciled. Either they are in the service or they are out. I am suggesting that we are quite prepared to allow them to be out of the service and there is provision for that.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, this Assembly is the only place in Singapore where there is freedom of speech. I feel the same as the Member for Farrer Park does, that there should be some independence for the Clerk, the Simultaneous Interpreters and the other civil servants engaged in the Legislature. The Prime Minister says that the solving of the problem in the way suggested is a contradiction: the civil servants in the Legislature must be given promotion in the whole government service and the anxieties of Members of this Assembly must he allayed by granting a certain degree of independence to the Clerk and the other civil servants in the Assembly. In my opinion, we can resolve the problem by having a House Committee, comprising both Members of the Government and the Opposition, whereby disciplinary action and other matters concerning the conditions of service of the civil servants in the Legislature can at least be discussed in an advisory capacity in the first instance, so that there would still be an "oasis" in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, by "oasis", I mean this Chamber. I do not mean outside this Chamber, because at the sitting when the debate on the Malayanisation issue -

The Chairman: Order. Let us stick to the issue, shall we?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, and from my own personal experience, the civil servants engaged in work in the Legislature should not be subject to Treasury control, particularly in the matter of discipline and transfer.

The Prime Minister: I just want to repeat the point made by the Minister for Finance. Government officers are subject to the discipline of the service which is being administered by the Public Service Commission, and if they wish to opt out of that service and join the - service of the Legislative Assembly, we have no objection.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $588,260 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 5 -

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 5 be reduced by $100.

Sir, we have a Public Service Commission to ensure that appointments, promotions and disciplinary action are taken away from political control. But I am told that there have been instances where the Public Service Commission has been by-passed, and it has been by-passed in just one simple way: do not fill the appointments permanently. Unless my information is incorrect, I think there are in the Government service today hundreds of appointments that have not been filled on a permanent basis, but only by temporary officers. I know there is difficulty in finding suitable people for important jobs. In the Ministry of Education, too, there has been difficulty in finding fully-qualified teachers to take on permanent employment. But I do suggest that, in view of the allegations that have been hurled back and forth about "Meadowisation" "Batu Pahatisation" and "P.A.P.-isation", the quicker we get away from these temporary appointments and make full use of the Public Service Commission, the better it would be for all concerned.

4.00 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is not correct in assuming that temporary appointments can by-pass the Public Service Commission. All appointments for a period exceeding two months, either temporary or permanent, must be referred to the Public Service Commission, and to my knowledge this rule is being carried out. Recently I have asked my Ministry to undertake a detailed survey of all temporary appointments to make sure that this policy is carried out. I would say that this requirement is laid down in the Public Service Commission Ordinance.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning Head 5, Public Service Commission, I would like to seek clarification as to the policy of the Government, be it a colonial government, a Labour Front Coalition government, or any other government, in regard to Malay membership of the Public Service Commission. At present, there is not even a single Malay represented in the P.S.C. As appointments to the P.S.C. are made by the Minister, I would like to ask him whether the reason why there is no Malay in the P.S.C. is that there is no suitable Malay in Singapore with the necessary qualifications, although the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was at one time the Chairman of the P.S.C.

From the moral point of view, I am sorry to see that there is no representative of the Malay community serving in the Commission. Could this be due to the feeling of the Malays in the service of the Government - which may be unknown to the Government - that there is a suspicion that matters of promotion will meet with snags if there is no one to voice the cause of the Malays in the Public Service Commission? It is within the power of the Government to make nominations. I would like to know whether it is a fact that no suitable Malay with proper qualifications can be found to replace the former Chairman of the Public Service Commission, who is now the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, it is important that the Public Service Commission should have only one criterion in arriving at a decision. In making selections and promotions, it must assess the value, merit, experience and ability of the applicant. That is the only criterion. Considerations of politics and the race of the candidate are quite irrelevant. It is for this reason that we do not see any necessity, in making appointments to the Public Service Commission, to attempt to balance the racial composition of its members. I think it would be quite wrong to do so.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): I understand that, Mr Speaker, but I would like to have a more positive reply. Is that opinion based on the Preamble to the Constitution to which both the Government and the Opposition have agreed?

The Prime Minister: Sir, there is nothing in the Preamble to the Constitution which refers to the Public Service or the Public Service Commission at all. There is a separate reference to the Malay language, religion, economic interests and so on, but I think there is no reference whatsoever to the Public Service Commission. Whilst it would be wise always to try and maintain a balance in these things, I think the over-riding principle is to get a man to do the job regardless of race, religion or any other extraneous considerations.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it is true what the Prime Minister said that there is no reference whatsoever to the Public Service Commission in the Preamble to the Constitution. But recently the Prime Minister mentioned, among other things, the economy of the Malays. If we were to go deeply into matters in respect of promotion and higher remuneration for Malays, I think it is proper that the appointment of a Malay to the Commission should be made. However, it is left to this socialist Government to decide. It is not a big matter to us, but I would plead that it be given appropriate attention by the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the Member for Kampong Kembangan, because every time he rises to speak, he touches on trivialities. Is it his intention to accuse the Public Service Commission for neglecting matters concerning the promotion of the Malay civil servants?

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): On a point of order. Mr Speaker. I have been accused of making an allegation against the Public Service Commission. I want proof that -

The Chairman: Order. It is not a point of order.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the proof is found in the speech of the Member for Kampong Kembangan himself, when he insisted on the necessity of putting a Malay in the Public Service Commission, as otherwise the question of promotion for the Malays will be hampered. Does he mean that the appointment of a Malay to the Commission will cause all requisite qualifications to be put aside? If this is done, there will be no impartiality. Now appointments are made on the merits of the candidates' qualifications and integrity. There is no doubt that selections, matters of promotion and so on are based on merits and qualifications, etc.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I was under the impression that all Malays are sincere to their fellowmen, but apparently there are some who are not. This is shocking. As a Malay, I often speak on sincerity. Today we know who are sincere and who are insincere. Because I am sincere, I am still here. If I am not, I do not know where I will be.

Reverting to the subject under discussion, the question is, does it follow that, if a Malay is put on the Public Service Commission, only Malays be selected? Surely not. There are other members in the Public Service Commission too, and therefore the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary is out of place.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I will not kill the Member for Kampong Kembangan with the weapon used by he himself. He says that from the point of view of economy, if a Malay sits in the Public Service Commission, it will mean easy promotion for the Malays. So I am using that same argument to hit back at the Member for Kampong Kembangan-

The Chairman: Order. I think the debate is getting a little heated. Let us try and be calm and collected about it.

The Prime Minister: Could I have just one last word on this, Mr Speaker, Sir? I think we understand the underlying anxiety of the Member for Kampong Kembangan. I would like to mention this, particularly in respect of the Police Force where the rank and file are largely Malays, and where the officers are not represented in such equal numbers. I can assure the hon. Member that so far as I can see the way promotions have gone, the Public Service Commission is fully aware of the necessity to give those in the service, whatever their race, and particularly if they are Malays, opportunities for advancement by higher education and every other means. If the Member will look at last year's Estimates, he will see that we have a special commission for Police cadets, for Malays who join the service without the School Certificate but are required to pass the School Certificate Examination at the end of their probationary service. I would say that they will be qualified Inspectors and later on gazetted officers. We are trying to redress this problem of unequal educational background. I do not think the composition of the P.S.C. would make any difference - one Malay to five others. What matters is the policy underlying recruitment and promotion in the whole Government administration. I think it is necessary not just for the benefit of the Government but for peace, good order and amity of the races that the spirit of the Preamble is honoured in the actions of the Government.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am very satisfied not with what I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, but with what the Prime Minister, who is wise, has said in answer to my query.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of the fact that the debate has toned down somewhat, may I beg leave to withdraw?

4.15 p.m.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $143,420 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 7 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask your permission, when speaking on this amendment, to range over the other amendments that I have filed on Political Secretaries in the different Ministries?

The Chairman: If the hon. Member is speaking on the general principle of Political Secretaries, then, of course, it would perhaps be convenient to deal with the whole policy of Political Secretaries in one speech.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

The Chairman: Is it on a point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I have submitted amendments in regard to Political Secretaries too. May I however point out, Sir, that my amendments are of a different character entirely? So I would like to reserve the right to speak.

The Chairman: I am not going to exclude any other Member from speaking on the other amendments of which notices have been given by that Member. What I am trying to indicate is this, if there is to be a debate on the general policy of Political Secretaries - not on a particular Political Secretary - then perhaps it would be convenient to deal with that policy at once; and when we come to the Member for Cairnhill's amendments, we can deal with that particular appointment and not touch on the general principle again. I hope I have made myself clear.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to you for allowing me to range over the other heads of expenditure, because I shall be saving a lot of time by doing this.

Sir, each Minister has as his personal assistants a Permanent Secretary and a Parliamentary Secretary. In some Ministries there are other secretaries to help the Ministers with their work. The duty of the Permanent Secretary, according to the Constitution, is, subject to the general direction and control of the Minister, to supervise over the department or departments to which he is allocated. According to the Prime Minister, in Hansard Vol. 11. No. 9, col. 536:

`The Parliamentary Secretary, carries the burden of the Minister's parliamentary duties, to the extent that the Minister designates or delegates, he carries the burden of the Minister's ministrial duties.' He says:

`The Personal Secretary (Political), is the

Minister's closest confidant on the political implications of the moves, plans and policies of the various Ministries.'

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member quoting from Hansard or paraphrasing?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I am paraphrasing, Sir, I can appreciate the Government's desire to implement its policy to the satisfaction of what the Prime Minister calls the "four worlds". That is, the Malay-speaking, the Chinese-speaking, the English-speaking and the Tamil-speaking population I sympathise with the Prime Minister, Sir, and his Government in their difficult task of having to meet the requirements of a multilingual, multi-racial and multi-cultural society. I will even go so far, Sir, as to agree with what he said in Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 9, col. 545:

`It is the whole business of a government to govern in such a way that at the end of its term of office, the people say, "Yes, we shall have more of it."'

However, Sir, a lot depends on the incentives that stimulate the people to say this. If the Government governs so well that the people benefit and prosper, it is natural that they will say, "Yes, we want more of it." But there may be other factors that cause people to make this decision. For example, (i) fear of reprisals and victimisation; (ii) they might have been misled into seeing things through rose-coloured glasses, or (iii) a funny mirror might have been put before them, a mirror which contorts and distorts images. These are, of course, undesirable. If the P.A.P. Government intends to win the elections by governing so well that people will benefit and prosper by it, then it is a straightforward job that the Permanent Secretaries can carry out. I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the Prime Minister when he said that if the presentation and implementation of policies were left entirely to the Civil Service, an unnecessary faux pas will fail their way. I am quite sure, Sir, that our civil servants are men of intelligence and ability, and have sufficient integrity to he entrusted with the job of implementing Government policies, and can be expected to implement them efficiently. But if by implementation of Government policies is meant the propagation of P.A.P. propaganda, then I admit Government servants will not be capable of doing it. But, Sir, are Government servants not bound by General Orders not to take an active part in party politics? Or are they exempted from General Orders if they happen to support a party which happens to be in power? I can appreciate the point, Sir, that if the civil servant is not a member of the P.A.P. then he will not be able to follow the trend of thought that lies behind the policies of the Government. But may I ask, Sir, what better person is there than the Parliamentary Secretary who is himself a leading member of the Party, who knows all about the Party policies, who is so well versed with what goes on in the Ministry, and, most important of all, in whom the voters have shown confidence and have chosen to represent them? Should not such a person, who carries the confidence of the voters, be the closest confidant of the Minister? Is there anyone who has proved to the world better than he has that he understands the masses, and is able to get his message across to them so convincingly as to secure their confidence in him? If there are any people who have shown to the world that they are able to do that, it is the 51 Assemblymen who are sitting in this Chamber today. They have managed to convince the public and they have managed to secure the confidence of the public. And that includes the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Back Benchers of the Government too. So I can think of no people who are better qualified to get the Ministry's messages and intentions across to the masses better than the Assemblymen themselves.

The P A.P. Ministers may be the personal friends of the Political Secretaries, and understand them well enough to have confidence in them. But where the electorate is concerned, they have indicated their trust in and their choice of the 51 Members sitting in this Chamber. And to brush aside the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Back Benchers and put in others as liaison personnel between the Government and the people is tantamount to ignoring public feeling and the right of the public to choose their representatives, because this is exactly what the Political Secretaries are in effect, Sir. They reflect public opinion to the Government so that Government could frame their policies to meet the requirements, the opinions and the feelings of the people. Do the public riot have the right to choose those persons whom they think can understand - them best to represent their views and reflect their opinions? Moreover, Sir, - I stand corrected, but I believe it was mentioned in this Chamber that many of the Back Benchers of the Government resigned from their jobs and went into Government departments to serve the Government and the people. If this is the case, Sir, who would more deserve to be rewarded with the $1,100 monthly salary that is paid to the Political Secretary than the Back Benchers themselves who have resigned from their jobs to serve the Government and the public?

An hon. Member: Are you trying to spread revolt?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I am expressing my sincere opinion. And following my line of argument, Sir, that has gone before, these Assemblymen are the people who have proved their ability to convince and to impress the public. Surely the Ministers do not admit that their Assemblymen are not capable of getting across the P.A.P.'s policies to the masses? Or that they are not capable of convincing the masses? Or that they do not have sufficient confidence from the masses?

The Minister for Health, Sir, is not here today. He is absent. If he were here, probably he might say the same thing to me that he said to the Member for Tanglin on 11th December, 1959. You will remember, Sir, that the Member for Tanglin, not satisfied with the explanation given by the Hon. the Prime Minister at the September sitting regarding the necessity of using public funds to pay for Political Secretaries, filed an amendment and sought further elucidation on the matter. And because of this, the Minister for Health called him a man of unsound mind. I can assure you. Sir, and I can assure the House that it is no unsound mind that made me bring this subject up again today.

Mr Byrne: He does not mind it at all!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Rather it is sound logic and the calculation of events that have taken place in the recent past. In September 1959, it was not deemed that the Deputy Prime Minister needed a Political Secretary. Even if it had been felt that he needed one, his need was not regarded as being as urgent as that of the Minister for Labour and Law.

4.30 p.m.

This need of a Political Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Law would have continued had not Mr Fong Swee Suan criticized the Government's policy. His criticism of Government policy made the Ministry of Labour and Law decde that it no longer needed a Political Secretary, and suddenly made it necessary for the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry to need one. The public cannot see the logic in this sequence of events, nor can they understand the principle of cause and effect in this. The conclusion they draw, Sir, - and we agree with them - is that the creation of the posts of Political Secretaries is nothing, but, to borrow the Prime Minister's expression, "distributing largesse among the victors". It has been denied before, Sir, and I know it will be denied again today. But events in the recent past give clear proof that the Ministers do not need any Political Secretaries-

Mr Byrne: I need one!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Can the Government tell us, Sir, how much the Minister for Education and the Minister for Labour and Law have suffered through the loss of their Political Secretaries?

An hon. Member: None.

4.32 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: If they had suffered, then why had the vacancies not been filled? It is now quite some time since Mr Devan Nair resigned as Political Secretary to the Minister of Education. The fact that this vacancy as well as the vacancies for the post of Political Secretaries in the other Ministries, and the vacancy for the post of Publicity Liaison Officer Secretary (Political) in the Ministry for Culture have been left vacant, in some cases for 15 months, clearly shows that these posts are not necessary, at least not for the good of the State and the people. They do not in any way help the government machinery to run more smoothly. The Ministries without Political Secretaries have functioned as smoothly as, if not more smoothly than, those with Political Secretaries. It is nothing but a waste of public funds.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I could not help feeling that perhaps had I met ladies like the Member for Mountbatten, I would have decided that we should form a Men's Association to proclaim the rights of men. Sir, in the nature of things, I would like to hear a question once and give an answer once; and either we join issue or we will never join issue. Either we disagree for keeps or we agree over the issue. But to have the same old issue churned up everytime because otherwise one cannot go to sleep soundly is, to say the least of it, disconcerting.

However, may I assure the Member for Mountbatten that if the creation of the posts of Political Secretaries were a device to spread largesse, then we would have filled up all the posts. The fact is that it is not easy to pick men who are of value to the Ministers in those positions. That is the reason why Mr Devan Nair's appointment has not been filled. And we are still looking for a suitable candidate to take over the position of Political Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Law.

Let me just give a little example of how important it is that we should - and we do this openly within the ambit of the Constitution - have the services of men who, as a result of their background, are skilled in the performance of certain functions for the Minister. Let me take the example of the negotiations between the Government and the Nanyang University authorities to which my Political Secretary was asked to be a party of four from the Government, including three Parliamentary Secretaries. I think it is no discredit to the three Parliamentary Secretaries who sat with my Political Secretary in the Committee - and they would be the first to do that - to admit that he gave signal contribution to the deliberations, which were on a very delicate and extremely emotionally charged subject. That is the reason why it was handled with care, sympathetic consideration and thoroughness. Because these are men, not only the Parliamentary Secretaries but men like my Political Secretary, who are worth much more to the Government. If the former Government had men such as these, they might have avoided making some of the tremendous blunders they did, like flushing out the Chung Cheng High School and the Chinese High School. That is another matter. So these are men whom we value. They serve a specific function. If we had wished to give jobs away, we would have filled the whole lot of them, regardless of their worth to the Government.

In my position, Sir, as the Minister in charge not just of the Government Ministries but of statutory corporations like the Singapore Harbour Board, the City Council, if it were largesse that I wanted to distribute, it could be done quietly, without the slightest fuss and bother. We put this on the record because this is the proper way to do it. If the Member for Mountbatten's feminine instincts make her repeat this year after year, then I expect, Sir, at the end of it all we will have to get together and form an association for the rights of men! One of the rights is not to hear the same argument, which has been answered, repeated again and again as if it were something fresh out of the bag. We have had all this before. All I need add is to say perhaps we might be spared the same repetition when we come to the other Political Secretaries. I am sure the Member for Cairnhill has something special -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Of course!

The Prime Minister: - on the Political Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and Law, and I do not think he expects either the Minister for Labour and Law or me to say the things that he would like to hear; otherwise we shall give him value for the time and energy that he is going to spend on this subject. But for God's sake let us not repeat this any more for the peace and good order of this Assembly.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hon. the Prime Minister tries to make out that it was feminine instinct that makes me repeat this subject this year. Let me tell him that it was the masculine remarks of the people oustide this Chamber that make me bring this topic up again. If he had gone out and spoken to people outside about this matter, he would have found that they are all puzzled as to how the Deputy Prime Minister, who never had or needed a Political Secretary before, suddenly needed one when the occasion arose to suit the transfer. The Political Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and Law, Mr Fong Swee Suan, attacked Government policy, and all of a sudden the Ministry could do without a Political Secretary. It is the people who are puzzled, and I seek elucidation and clarification so that they will not be puzzled any more about it; and I do not think the Hon. the Prime Minister has given us that information.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Mountbatten had confined herself to that, then we would all have listened to her with avidity, because that was a valid point. It is not because the Minister for Labour and Law does not require a Political Secretary. The Deputy Prime Minister had always required a Political Secretary, but he had not been able to find a suitable one. Why was it necessary to transfer Mr Fong Swee Suan there? Because he had to be moved out of the Ministry of Labour and Law, and at once. There are ways of doing things, either politely or impolitely. We did it the polite way. We transferred him to the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry in order that his expressed views, which differed from those of the Ministry's on certain labour matters, should not be allowed to influence the workings of the Ministry of Labour and Law of influence the unions in that respect. Whether his services in the Ministry of the Deputy Prime Minister would be as valuable as he had hoped be would be in the Ministry of Labour and Law we will, of course, have to wait and see. But I am sure he will do his best.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister earlier said that these Political Secretaries are men who, as a result of their background, are skilled in the performance of certain functions for the Ministers. Sir, I did, and still do, agree as I said last year, or in fact this year, on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech, that there are Political Secretaries and Political Secretaries. I see that the Prime Minister has found it fit to illustrate his point with his own Political Secretary who, we admit, has done good work for him. But let us examine the other Political Secretaries on the basis that they are men who, as a result of their background, are skilled in the performance of certain functions for the Ministers.

Let us take the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Finance. He is never there. What kind of function does he perform for the Minister? You will find him in the Ministry of Labour and Law. What kind of a background has he, other than a trade union background, to advise a man who is a known economist not only here but in other parts of the world, to advise him when he is not there? A Political Secretary to advise the Minister from where? From the back seat or the front seat? He is not even in the Ministry of Finance, and is yet paid $1,100 a month. I would not like to accuse that it is a distribution or largesse. [Laughter] No, it is not. But I would like to say this. It is nothing but political manoeuvring. You want to give a job to a man who has been the Party's comrade. Therefore, a job must be given to him. So you create a job for the man to contain him. I will not call it largesse. To contain him - but have we contained him? He is never seen in the Ministry of Finance. And then to get a Political Secretary to advise the Minister when they will not look at each other face to face! What kind of advice can there be? No, it is not a distribution of largesse. It is something else more sinister. I would not like to touch on the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Law, because I will have something to say about the subject when it comes up. But to suggest that all Political Secretaries are there because they are performing useful functions for the Ministers is just an untruth. There are some Political Secretaries who have done good work. I will admit it here and now that the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister has done a good job. But I cannot say for certain about the other Political Secretaries. We created a Political Secretary for every Ministry last year, except the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry, and then we suddenly created one this year to contain someone else. But if the other Ministers have posts in their Ministries for Political Secretaries, they have not yet been filled.

Mr Rajaratnam: Do you know of any good ones?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Perhaps they have not yet found the comrades to contain, or maybe the other comrades have already been contained!

4.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall look forward very much to hearing the Member for Farrer Park when he talks on the Political Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law. He and I share one advantage in that he knows what the background was about, and so do I. He knows that at the end of the election we had a group who were comrades with us in prison. Whether in the new phase of the struggle they will fight as closely in the movement for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya depends upon their declaration and their action. At the time of their release, these gentlemen made an open and firm declaration that they were behind the Party stand; that they were in favour of an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya; and that they supported not only the long-term aims and objectives of the P.A.P., but also the democratic methods by which we hope to achieve them. Sir, if that declaration was honestly and sincerely believed in - and I am confident that it was so in the case of the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education, who resigned for other reasons - then I say that they are valuable men. If it was done as a tactical manoeuvre for other purposes, then I say that is a matter which is bound to lead to further developments at a later stage. What I would like to say is this. What is said is sometimes less important than what is unsaid, and we have a lot of unsaid things on this subject because the matter has not yet come to finality. The declaration stands - a clear-cut declaration on the democratic aims and objectives of a non-Communist, socialist Party and its methods. There was a minor disagreement as to certain policies on the trade unions which made it necessary for the Political Secretary, Mr Fong Swee Suan, to be removed from the Ministry of Labour. I think I need not say more, least of all to the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, he had access to confidential reports and all other kinds of material long before I had access to them. I would like to make this point. Unlike him and his colleagues, we trade in the open. We are unable to say, "Ah, although you say this, you do not believe it." In the nature of things, we have not only to do what is fair but what appears manifestly to be fair; and believe you me we have never been afraid to pursue things to their logical consequences when they are manifestly fair.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, let me not now deal with the things that have not been said or things that had better be left unsaid. Let me then deal with the things that the Prime Minister has said. He says, in reply to the Member for Mountbatten, that these Political Secretaries are mainly appointed because of their skill, as, a result of their background, in the performance of functions for the Ministers. And now he says that there is a different reason for their retention.

The Prime Minister: That is for the same reason.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I would therefore suggest that if an explanation is to be given, it should not only be a fair one but also a manifestly fair one. I would not want to touch on the niceties of the things that have been left unsaid, because we know that there are so many things that need not be said and could be left unsaid; but I can assure the Prime Minister that a lot will be said when it comes to my turn to speak on the Political Secretary to the Minister for Labour.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear that the Prime Minister believes in what is fair and what is manifestly fair. He has said that Mr Fong Swee Suan was moved to another Ministry for having attacked Government policy. He goes on to say that there were different ways of moving him - either politely or impolitely - and that he chose the polite way of doing it. Sir, would he not deem it fair also to give civil servants the polite way of treatment if they happen to violate any General Order? Would they be given the same polite treatment and transferred to another department instead of being sacked?

The Prime Minister: The civil servants are governed by General Orders and different considerations apply. They are dealt with by due process by the Public Service Commission. Since the hon. Lady has raised this matter, I might take this opportunity to say that reorganisation is afoot whereby the Establishment Section of the Ministry of Finance, which was inherited from the former Chief Secretary's Office, is slowly being transferred to the Public Service Commission, as it is in most other democratic countries where the civil service is neutral. The disciplinary proceedings and the necessary staff to look after them are to be moved from the Establishment Section to the Public Service Commission.

Mr Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while accepting, for the purposes of this argument, the proposition of the Hon. the Prime Minister that Political Secretaries were appointed because of their special abilities and their special background to fit into certain Ministries where they could perform a useful function, one saw the point of appointing Mr Fong Swee Suan to the Ministry of Labour. But when he was removed from that Ministry, instead of sending him to another Ministry where there was already an approved post, like the Ministry of Home Affairs, I would have thought that if any Minister needed a Political Secretary to get his views across to the population at large, it would have been the Hon. the Minister for Home Affairs; but he seems to have got on without a Political Secretary and he looks very happy! Can I attribute that happiness to the fact that he has not had a Political Secretary? A special post was created in 1960 under Warrant No. 60/60 in the Ministry of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the basis of the proposition is that Mr Fong Swee Suan is now going to perform a useful function in the Deputy Prime Minister's Office. Therefore, let us examine his portfolio. The subjects under his portfolio appear at page 81 of the Estimates. "Civil Aviation"-I wonder how Mr Fong Swee Suan is going to help by advising on civil aviation! The next one is "Marine". I am sure that Mr Fong Swee Suan will be completely at sea on that particular subject! The next one is "Marine Surveys". I think he will be m even deeper waters there! Head 16 reads "Meteorological Services"-it is very difficult to pronounce! Head 17 reads "Postal Services". Other than knowing how to post a letter at which pillar box, I wonder what Mr Fong Swee Suan could help the Deputy Prime Minister on! The next one is "Telecommunications". And the last is "Vehicles Registration". Really, Mr Kandasamy, do you think he could serve a useful purpose for the Deputy Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I think it does not require a Sherlock Holmes mind to trace the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister was originally not provided with a Political Secretary for the very obvious reasons which have been heavily underlined. As I have explained to the Members opposite, there are polite and impolite ways of doing things. We wanted to be polite and fair to the man concerned, and nothing would gratify us more than to have him develop a useful and keen interest in the subjects that the Member for Farrer Park has just mentioned.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on this matter of Political Secretaries, we can see very clearly the various goings on in the different Ministries during the past year. However much the Prime Minister can tell us as to how Political Secretaries are regarded, as far as the Opposition is concerned, money is involved in paying for them. If the money paid to them is not from public funds, then it is not a matter for the Opposition to raise. If these Political Secretaries can be of real benefit to the people and are paid accordingly, then there is no question about it at all.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman (Mr G. Kandasamy): Order.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Assembly is suspended for tea. The debate will be resumed at 5.30 p.m.

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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

5.31 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Head 7 (contd.)-

The Chairman: We are on the second amendment standing in the names of Mr Rajah, Mrs Seow and Inche Mohd. Ali, Mr Rajah.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (20) of sub-head 1.

Item (20) shows "Chauffeurs, five - One new post." Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, perhaps I could be permitted to speak at the same time on the next amendment of which I have given notice - the amendment on sub-head 5. There is also another amendment which I can usefully take together, i.e., the amendment on sub-head 14.

The Chairman: That is, amendments (3)* and (7)+. Perhaps that would be convenient to the Prime Minister?

*Amendment (3) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.

+Amendment (7) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 14.

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the present position in the Prime Minister's Ministry appears to be that there are four cars, for which he has four drivers. One new post has been created under the vote, and he is asking for another driver, making two drivers in respect of two new cars which will be purchased under sub-head 14 - if I may deal with all three at the same time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Prime Minister enlighten the House as to why his Ministry requires two more cars when his Ministry already has the use of four cars? That is the first point. The second point, Mr Speaker, is this: why is it necessary, under sub-head 5, for one chauffeur to be paid $3,040, that is, at the rate of about $253 a month, when the five chauffeurs under item (20) of sub-head I only cost about $120 each per month? The last point, Mr Speaker, is this: why is it necessary for two new cars to be purchased by the Ministry costing $32,400, that is about $16,200 each, and what is the meaning of the phrase "For use as State Cars."? I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the phrase "State Cars" might usefully appear under the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's vote. If one looks at the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's vote, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is, on page 37 of the Estimates, the Yang di-Pertuan has only five chauffeurs. And the total cost of those five chauffeurs to the State is $9,400, whereas the total cost of chauffeurs in the Prime Minister's Ministry would be $7,150 plus $3,040, making a total of $10,190. So that we get to the position where, in the Prime Minister's Ministry, Chauffeurs will cost $10,190 whereas the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's vote is Only $9,400.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: In view of what the Member for Farrer Park has said, I do not wish to speak.

Inche Mohd. Ali: I share the same view as the Member for Mountbatten.

The Prime Minister: May I save the time of the House by referring the Member for Farrer Park to Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 9, col. 617, where my Parliamentary Secretary has set out the position regarding State cars? There are, in fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, three State cars and one City Council car, making four cars. There are three drivers and one City Council driver.

Can I first deal with the second amendment, "Daily Rated Employee, Wages and Allowance - Chauffeur"? This is a curious situation where the chauffeur drives the car which formerly was used by the President of the Council, as and when he is required; otherwise he drives the City Council vehicle. And he is paid at a very high rate because he drives one of the larger vehicles. This vote is put in to ensure that, as and when he is used, he can be paid from this vote. But it is not intended to transfer him into the permanent establishment because his salary scale is completely disproportionate to that which obtains for the other chauffeurs.

Now, there are four chauffeurs in the establishment, and we are asking for an increase of one to look after the two cars which are to be bought. I want to be very careful of what I say. Our guests are people who come here from time to time - visiting World Bank teams, United Nations representatives, delegations from the Federation of Malaya and Indonesia and elsewhere. They have to be looked after, and looked after properly. There are monthly occasions where three Ministers have to be present at conferences and, at the same time, look after guests, and on these occasions we have so far managed by borrowing cars from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and, in some cases, by hiring them from the garages at about $90 per day, I think. We are intending to buy two cars to add to the pool to meet the contingencies which arise more and more frequently, when not only our Ministers on official duty have to travel in State cars to attend functions and conferences, but also our guests who are here have to be attended to.

I would like to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that although two new cars are being bought, we are only asking for one new post because, as I have said, we will only use the City Council employee as and when required to drive that particular vehicle; and perhaps be able to use such drivers as may be free from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's establishment when we have guests to look after.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of the Hon. the Prime Minister's explanation, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Inche Mohd. Ali indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah and Mrs Seow Peck Leng :-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 he reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.

The Chairman: Amendment (3) is in regard to sub-head 5 which we have dealt with. I take it that it will not be moved?

Mr Rajah and Mrs Seow Peck Leng indicated assent.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sub-head 10, Mr Speaker, Sir, is "Maintenance of Vehicles". The Estimates show for 1960 a sum of $9,300 which is to be increased by $2,500, making $11,800 for the ensuing year. The number of vehicles which is proposed in excess of the current ones is two and both of them are new. I notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that throughout the Budget estimates, there seems to be a tendency to reduce the vote on maintenance of vehicles in the other departments. But in the case of the Prime Minister's Ministry, although the additional vehicles will be new vehicles, it is proposed that the vote should go up by $2,500.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Member for Farrer Park is quite right as to the general trend. The answer is that we now have to include in this maintenance a City Council car which is about ten years old, a Humber Pullman, and which will no longer be maintained under City Council vote because of integration. Therefore, we have to carry out the repairs under this vote.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: May I make a suggestion that items of this nature are matters of detail? And perhaps the hon. Member moving the amendment in respect of such an item might consider whether or not it would be a proper item to be investigated by the Estimates Committee. We are really now dealing more with policy matters than with details, although of course there is nothing to prevent Members from asking for information. But if they feel that it could be better dealt with by the Estimates Committee, then perhaps they could indicate. Mr Rajah, amendment (5)*.

Mr Rajah: I think there is no principle involved in this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. Perhaps, as you have suggested, it is one of those items which could possibly be more usefully dealt with by the Estimates Committee. In view of that, might I be given leave to withdraw this amendment?

The Prime Minister: In any case, I would like to give the information for the record.

The Chairman: The Prime Minister would like to give the information. So perhaps the Member for Farrer Park will move formally?

Mr Rajah: I move,

*That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 12.

Sir, the point is this: the Prime Minister's Ministry now carries a Transport and Travelling allowance of $7,140. That I take it, would be transport and travelling expenses of the various members of the staff engaged on duties of his Ministry. But the vote is going up to $9,140 - an increase of $2,000. As the Ministry is going to divest itself of most of its duties in so far as the City Council is concerned, is it necessary that that vote should go up by $2,000?

5.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: The answer is that since the last Budget, the Land and District Offices and Planning have permanently become part of my Ministry, and they carry an establishment of permanent officials who have to travel from time to time. This vote is to cover their travelling expenses, and I will not be divested - not in the foreseeable future - of either Lands or Planning.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 13.

Mr Speaker, Sir, recently we have seen from the newspapers that a Minister from the Federation went to the United Kingdom in connection with Malaya Hall. I also notice that the vote is being reduced from $54,000 to $39,000. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether for the year 1961 Malaya Hall is going to be a joint venture of the Federation and ourselves, or whether we are going to maintain a separate establishment in respect of which this vote is now being sought?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The provision made in the Estimates is on the basis that Malaya Hall continues to be a joint venture. We have not received any indication from the Federation Government whether any changes are being proposed and, if so, in what direction. The reason why a smaller sum has been voted for is partly that of a more economical management of Malaya Hall, but principally because the development cost of expanding the hostel, which was the reason for the higher expenditure in previous years, is now coming to an end.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of that explanation, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah and Mrs Scow Peck Leng :-

*That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 14.

The Chairman: I take it that amendment No. (7) * is not being moved?

Mr Rajah: That is so, Sir.

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

That the sum to be allocated for head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 16.

+The same amendment stood in the name of Mr A.P. Rajah.

May I, Sir, with your permission range over sub-head 17 as well, because these two items are connected?

The Chairman: I have no objection. It is for the convenience of Members.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I would like to have some information from the Government side as to how these two items could be used. What do they have in mind when they want to open an office and residential accommodation in Kuala Lumpur, and what they are going to put there? He is just a Trade and Information Officer. If it is necessary to have closer contact with the Federation, I think an officer of a higher calibre should be there. But I still think, Sir, that if it can, be avoided, we should not have a sort of Trade Commissioner's Office or Information Office in Kuala Lumpur, because Kuala Lumpur is so near. Kuala Lumpur has been treated more or less as if it were in the same house. It is just a different room. For the sake of closer co-operation and with a view to having closer understanding, I think it would be better if Ministers would take it upon themselves to get in close touch with their counterparts in the Federation than to have a civil servant there trying to do a job which, in fact, is a political job.

The Prime Minister: There is considerable substance in the argument to maintain close, friendly and informal contact with the Federation Government and their Ministers. The best thing is not to have any representative in Kuala Lumpur, Sir. Personal contact both in person and by telephone could be made use of frequently. But a difficulty has arisen in that, unlike the procedure in the past, where officials of the Singapore Government could write direct to permanent civil servants of the Federation Government, it has been the practice for some time now for the Minister first to take up the matter with his counterpart before it goes down to the civil service level. There are two arguments to this. If you appoint someone there of a high calibre, he would substitute the personal contact which would normally have taken place between Ministers. And, therefore, it might be of advantage not to set up more than really a clearing house for the quick passing on of information of what we intend to do and of what they intend to do. We often have little difficulties like this: sometimes rumour, and sometimes more than rumour, spreads that the importation of, for instance, pigs is to be prohibited into the Federation; or that there is going to be a higher duty on eggs. The present arrangement is so cumbrous that the Minister for National Development has to take it up. Finally it comes to me, and I have to write to my counterpart in the Federation. Then it goes back down to the officials, and finally it turns out that they have no intention for the time being of either stopping pigs or putting up the tax on eggs. If we have a quick clearing-house for information, we hope that a lot of this kind of difficulties could be overcome. I am fully alive to the danger that if you have a high-powered representative, he would supplant the personal contact between Ministers, which is absolutely fundamental. I think we must go about this thing gradually and slowly - feel our way forward. What we do not want to do is to develop any institution in Kuala Lumpur, be it called a Trade Office or Information Office, which will formalise the relationship, which is at present on a very informal and friendly and sometimes intimate basis, between Ministers in the two territories. But I think there is a need for someone to be there to make sure that information is passed quickly and the lines are kept clear.

Mr Rajah: Sir, while the Opposition agrees that everything should be done with a view to bringing about closer understanding, closer relationship and quicker clearance of vital issues between ourselves and the Federation, what we on this side of the House, Mr Speaker, are afraid of is that something of this nature would rather tend to emphasise the separation of the two territories. It creates a psychological situation which I think at the moment would be undesirable. It shows in a concrete sort of way that Singapore and the Federation are separate and distinct territories, and that, therefore, it is necessary to create official establishments which would be used by the two Governments as a clearing-house. On this side of the House we rather feel, Mr Speaker, that although we cannot deny that there are desirable features about this proposal, it would appear that, on balance, and in view of the fact that there seems to be a tendency for us to go further and further away from each other, something like this would tend to emphasise it rather than bridge the differences. The Hon. the Prime Minister said, and the impression I got from his speech was, that we would start in a small way in Kuala Lumpur. But the nature of the work seems to indicate that it is not going to - be in a small way. It is committing the Finance Ministry to nearly $300,000. I think the Minister for Finance will in this instance agree with me that it is not a small sum.

The Prime Minister: Again I regret to inform the House of what the former Government wanted to do, namely, to exchange the use of Government quarters which were in Government's hands. Unfortunately, the Federation Government has already bought theirs in Singapore, and all their quarters have been taken up. Therefore, we are committed to getting a lease on an extremely high market in Kuala Lumpur. Whatever it is, we have to have a secretariat for one man - whatever we call him. I see a lot in the argument that if we start this we might finally wind up in more formal and more distant relations. It is for that reason that we have been careful not to call it more than a Trade and Information Office. Perhaps we might even go on a lower note, and just have an office to clear things for Ministers and, if necessary, have Ministers go up to clear things for themselves. But from our experience over the last eighteen months, particularly in view of the difficulties about channels of communication having to go out first to Ministers before the civil servants clear it among themselves, I think that will require some kind of office accommodation on a modest scale together with residential accommodation.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no objection to the Prime Minister having an office and residential accommodation in Kuala Lumpur. But what I do not understand is why he should have an office and residential accommodation which cost a quarter of a million dollars.

The Prime Minister: Sir, whoever goes to Kuala Lumpur has to live there, and there is a saying that "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." I would say that the person going up to Kuala Lumpur would have to move amongst people who have certain standards of social and other official courtesies, and I think nothing would be more damaging to Singapore than not to be able to fit into the scheme of things. I want to make this one point clear, and I am quite prepared to say unpleasant things if need be.

6.00 p.m.

There are two aspects to this. One, this Government and its Ministers in their private capacity. We have certain frugal and sometimes puritanical standards for a highly sophisticated political purpose, as political meaning behind the sort of things we do, and the sort of things we do not do. The other aspect is this. When we have to deal with other Governments, be it the Indonesian Government, the Consular representatives here and in Kuala Lumpur, then there are certain standards and forms which we have to maintain on behalf of the State. As I have said, what we would have liked to do was just to exchange the houses as was attempted by the previous Government. I think it did not quite see it through, and it was not successful.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (9)* is not being moved. Amendment (10), Dato Abdul Hamid, on page 64 of the Estimates.

*Amendment (9) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 17.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I welcome the appointment of a Trade and Cultural Representative in Djakarta, though it is late; but what worries me is the sum involved. The House has been asked to vote the sum of $215,290. If we delete the expenditure to be incurred on capital outlay, (two bicycles, furniture, two motor vehicles and office equipment and so on), it still leaves a sum of $147,900 to contend with.

Sir, I have here the Estimates of the Federation of Malaya Government for 1961. I notice that on pages 133 and 134, for a total of 22 home-based locally recruited staff, the Federation Government has earmarked a sum of $149,584 in personal emoluments, whereas the Singapore Government is budgeting for the sum of $106,240 for a staff of 11, which means more than two-thirds the amount for exactly half the number of staff. Then again the Ambassador of the Federation of Malaya in Djakarta is being paid a salary of $1,850 per mensem, whereas we are now being asked to vote the sum of $1,950 for our chief executive in Djakarta. Although the post of Trade Commissioner calls for a Grade G appointment, the salary being $1,520 per mensem, for reasons known only to the Government, the person to be appointed will draw a salary of $1,950 per mensem. I wonder, Sir, who this superman is who is going to be paid $1,950 per mensem for doing a job which the Government itself admits is worth only $1,520 a month. I wonder if the Prime Minister could assure the House that when the appointments do take place, there will be a bit of pruning here and there.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the estimates for our Indonesian Office have been gone through most carefully by the Treasury and have been finally agreed to after prolonged argument between the Treasury and the Commerce and Industry Division of my Ministry. I can assure you that there has been no undue extravagance anywhere. In fact, when running overseas establishments, it is important that we maintain certain standards and that we do not allow the good name of Singapore to be lowered by having poorly situated, poorly furnished and poorly managed establishments. Overseas establishments are necessarily expensive to run because of the prestige element involved. What we have done is to get the lowest rates applicable in the overseas establishments of various governments, and this is the final result. For a number of reasons, I do not think a comparison with the Federation establishment would be fair. Firstly, of course, this being the first time that our establishment is going to be set up, we have to incur pretty heavy capital expenditure. In the second place, you will notice that a fairly considerable sum of $34,000 has been allotted to overseas allowances. I have not before me the Federation Estimates, but I am inclined to believe that the allowances set out there, are in a sense, only nominal and that they do have other allowances which would be paid out of a central vote in the External Affairs Ministry. This is because of the practice which most governments observe of keeping the true amount of their overseas allowances and the expenditure on their foreign establishments a State secret.

As regards the proposed holder of the office of Senior Trade and Cultural Representative, the Government has in mind the appointment, in the first instance, of the present Permanent Secretary of the Commerce and Industry Division of my Ministry. He has been working on this project for a long time and he has excellent contacts with the officials of the Indonesian Government. Eventually, of course, when we find a suitable person to replace him, the post will be held substantively by a Superscale G officer.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, in that case, why do we not properly state in the Estimates that the Senior Trade and Cultural Representative would be drawing a salary of $1,950 instead of what is stated - Grade G [$1,520]?

In any case, Sir, I am not suggesting to the Government that they should blindly follow what is taking place in the Federation or in any other part of the world. My only point was to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, in spite of this being the first overseas office that is going to be established, they will be spending twice as much as what the Federation Government will be spending for 1961.

In view of the explanation of the Minister, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: Of course, hon. Members do know that there is the Estimates Committee. If they are dissatisfied with the amounts appearing in the Estimates, they could always ask the Estimates Committee to look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

I see, Sir, that under this sub-head a good number of new posts are being created, obviously with a view to making the Trade Commissioner's Office in London more effective and of greater use to Singapore. If one were to base it on what was said during election time and on speeches made in this Assembly, that the colonial economic structure is choking Singapore, then how is it that we are going to the United Kingdom to get them to come to Singapore to help in the economic development here? While on this subject, Sir, I would like to know who is the present Trade Commissioner in London.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Two points have to be cleared up, Mr Speaker. The first is this: why this new post? Second - the incumbent of the office. The reason for creating this new post is fairly simple. It has nothing to do with having more ties with the United Kingdom Government.

In the past, a number of services were performed by the Crown Agents for a fee. This included handling of payments of salaries to officers on leave, pensions, allowances to our students in the United Kingdom, passages to and fro and so forth. A fee of one per cent was charged by the Crown Agents, and this worked out to approximately $42,000 a year. After due examination of the work involved, we have decided that it is cheaper and more efficient if we perform that work ourselves. Accordingly, this new post is created to enable not only the work of payments, booking of passages and so on to be done, but better liaison with our students in the United Kingdom.

The answer to the second question is this-the present holder of the post is the former officer in the Commerce and Industry Division of my Ministry, Mr G. F. A. Hibberd.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, from the information given by the Minister for Finance, it would appear that the present incumbent is Mr Hibberd, who was only recently in a certain division in his Ministry. If I were informed correctly, Sir, this Mr Hibberd was malayanised and he took away with him the Malayanisation compensation. Yet, in spite of the compensation which has been given to him, he is now given quite a senior job in London. This makes it more easy for him. Surely, Sir, if we want a representative in London to look after the interests of the Singapore Government, I am sure the Minister for Finance will be able to find a suitable representative from Singapore to represent us.

6.15 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the position at the moment is that Mr Hibberd is running the place purely as an administrator, and for that reason it is still called the Trade Commissioner's Office. The proposal that has been put to us to send someone who would be able to sell Singapore - so to speak - has not been forgotten by the Government. The difficulty is to find somebody who would be an asset. Such people, particularly for a Left-wing Government, are scarce to come by in the commercial word, and they are in lucrative employment either as Managing Directors or Directors of companies, banks, insurance, etc. When such a person is available, we will make the appointment, as it is the ultimate intention to change the Trade Commissioner's Office to that of a Commissioner's Office. Mr Hibberd has been employed because he knows the background of the work that is required of him, that is, to take away the job that was done before by the Crown Agents and to run the office more as an administrator than as a trade representative.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in view of the explanation given, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 21.

Sub-head 21 reads "Preparation of Master Plan Documents". Mr Speaker. Sir, this appears as a new item

An hon. Member: A revote.

Mr Rajah: - with the remark "Revote", but I do not see it in the corresponding column as it normally appears in the Estimates. Either the revote is a mistake or something has been left out in error from the first column under "Approved Estimates 1960". Possibly there is an explanation for it.

The Prime Minister: This is a revote covered in the grant to the S.I.T. Budget. Sir, this is in respect of the cost of printing provisions to the Master Plan for maps and reports. It has not been exhausted so far because there has been some staff shortage, and one officer has now returned from training from abroad and he expects to make an interim revision for at least part of the town map area. The interim revision will cover Master Plan residential densities, spacing standards of residential buildings, school standards, special playground facilities, industrial land and minor changes in the zoning plan.

Mr Rajah: I think the Prime Minister has answered the point I wish to raise, that is, whether this $20,000 is going to be spent by the Government on preparing documents in respect of areas in Singapore which appear on the general Master Plan as allocated for a specific purpose but in respect of which no detailed plans are yet available; which position is causing great hardship to the owners of such land in the sense that whenever they go to the Planning Committee for the development of that land, the planners always say, "No specific plans are available. You will have to await developments." Now, that is a most unhappy state of affairs not only for the owners of the land but also for the general progress of the State of Singapore. Sir, I am happy that this money is being provided, but on the question of whether it is a revote, I am still not satisfied. If it was part of the Singapore improvement Trust Budget, then surely it is not a revote but a new vote.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I will enquire into this matter in more detail if the Member for Farrer Park is so desirous, but I would say that the reason could well have been that the planning section of the S.I.T. was transferred to the Prime Minister's office sometime this year. That might have been the reason why that particular item did not appear in last year's Estimates.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of the explanations given by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, may I be given leave to withdraw? Perhaps I could take up the matter with the Minister for Finance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,107,240 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 8 -

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 18.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of my moving this amendment is to draw attention to the position of the ketuas and penghulus, particularly in the Southern Islands.

Firstly, I would like to know the duties and responsibilities of these ketuas and penghulus vis a vis the Government in their respective areas. I would also like to bring to the notice of the Government certain matters which have been told to me in my Southern Islands. The ketuas and penghulus are not happy with their duties and responsibilities. It was the intention of the previous Government that a District and Island Council was to be formed, comprising representatives of the various Islands, to go into matters affecting the progress of the people. But under the present Government, this plan was not proceeded with. I do not deny that many good measures have been introduced by the Government. But what I want to bring up is that there are some penghulus who have their own representatives assisting them in some of the smaller areas. These people do not receive any allowance, it would appear that their duties and responsibilities are the same as those of the ketuas. From my experience, I know that their duties and responsibilities are heavy, as they have to look after the welfare of the people. It seems to me that the powers of the penghulus would tend to retard progress. Their powers are such that it would appear they do not like people to have direct contact with the departments of the Government. The people must channel any matter through the penghulus. I feel that this should not be so and that the people of Singapore should be aware of the position. To avoid all misunderstanding, I feel that elections should be held to choose the penghulus. The system of handling down the posts to the children and grandchildren of the penghulus should not hold good nowadays. In the Federation of Malaya, the penghulus are elected in their respective areas.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am unable to give any considered reply to the proposal by the Member for the Southern Islands. This is a new one which has just been put on the Floor and there may be something in it I would not like to commit the Government as to whether this would be an innovation worth trying. What we are doing is to use the existing system in which every contact between the islanders and the Government is maintained by penghulus appointed partly by us and partly by authority, by the fact that they are accepted by the people of the Islands. The increase in the vote is really to meet the point which was made by the Member for the Southern Islands, in that not only does the penghulu do the work but he has all kinds of helpers, and amongst the helpers are the ketuas. Before this, the penghulu was given $500 per annum and the ketuas $250. Now, in view of the fact that they spend $2 or $3 a trip every time they come down to Singapore, it was thought that a $100 increase for the ketua was justified. Whether we go further and give an allowance to the ketua's assistant who runs for the ketua, that is a matter which we will have to look into very carefully. I would not like to commit the Government on this. It is not just a question of doing what is right It is also a question of doing what is acceptable to the islanders and to the traditions and habits to which they are accustomed.

6.30 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister himself has admitted that the penghulus are obliged to make frequent visits to Government offices, thereby expending their pocket money. By travelling to Singapore, they are forced to be away from their work. The allowances they get will not, I feel, be sufficient, and this will have a more marked effect if their visits keep them away from fishing, especially during a good season. But because of the responsibilities entrusted to them by the Government, they have to carry out their duties, which will cause them to incur financial loss.

Concerning the election of penghulus, I know of two or three areas where the assistant penghulus do not get the co-operation of the residents in the areas. The election of a penghulu should prove that the people there desire to co-operate with him. I hope that my suggestion will be considered by the Government.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have stated, I am unable to commit the Government to changing the system whereby penghulus have been appointed. But I can assure the Member for the Southern Islands that if there is any penghulu or ketua who is unsuitable and obviously unacceptable to the islanders - even though he was acceptable or thought to be acceptable when he was appointed, but subsequently he lost the confidence of the islanders or lost interest in his job - then changes can be made. But beyond this statement, I do not think I can go so far as to say that we would like to do what the islanders want. If they would like a certain person to represent them and they accepted him as a penghulu, then we would be the first to acknowledge him as the local leader, because that would facilitate the business of government. But whether there should be a formal election, it is another matter altogether.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in view of the explanation given by the Hon. the Prime Minister, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 24.

The question is the vote of $8,000 for 1960 for water and electricity supplies to the Southern Islands. If I am not mistaken, at the moment expenditure is incurred on the water boats carrying water to the islanders in Pulau Sudong. Electricity supply is made available only to islanders in Pulau Brani, the electricity being supplied by the War Department.

Now that the vote is to be increased to $22,000, I would like to seek clarification as to the nature of the increase of expenditure. About nine months ago, an application was made to provide electricity to the residents in Pulau Brani, the suggestion being to supply generated power supply. I am told that this application has been K.I.V'd without any finality. I feel that if there is such an enterprise, it is proper that the applicant should get all encouragement, because this will reduce Government expenditure on the Southern Islands. If the application is approved for the supply of electricity to the residents in Pulau Brani, then it will set an example to the other islanders to install similar amenities for themselves.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the vote of $8,000 for 1960 has been increased to $22,000 because, at the beginning, the vote for 1959 for the construction of water tanks could not be completed in 1960, and therefore the water supply could only be made available during the last few months of this year. The supply of water for these few months did not incur much expenditure. Now that everything is completed, it is necessary to increase the expenditure to cover water supplies for the whole of next year. We have to take into consideration not only the water supply to Pulau Sudong, but also the water supply to Pulau Bukom Kechil. The islanders in Bukom Kechil at present tap the water from Bukom Besar through pipelines laid by the Shell Company, and it is paid by the Singapore Government.

Regarding the application for electricity supply, as far as I know, it is still being considered because the cost to be charged to the consumers by the applicant is exorbitant. There is a possibility that the application will be reconsidered in the not too distant future.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the subject of water supplies to Pulau Sudong, I am satisfied with the explanation, except that I hope the Minister concerned will give further attention to the matter, because I am told that there are insufficient water boats carrying water for storage, tanks, and supplies are transported once in two or three-days. However, this is a small matter which could be looked into by the Ministry concerned.

As regards consideration to be given to the applicant for electricity - supplies to the residents in Pulau Brani, I hope the matter can be expedited so that I will not be further pestered, as the decision on the application has been kept pending for so long. The question is whether the application will be approved or disapproved. I am so far satisfied with the explanation given. May I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to submit for the attention of Government the following three points-

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member first move his amendment?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I am sorry. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $100.

Sir, I wish to submit to Government for consideration and attention the following three points. First, an early revision of the Master Plan. I am glad to hear from the Prime Minister just now that work has commenced. Second, early legislation to take certain measures of land reform, because residents in the rural areas are facing an acute land problem. And third, continuation of the work of Government in the Southern Islands because the people there are really living under depressed conditions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to dwell on these three matters, and I hope Government will give them due consideration. Perhaps my colleague might like to add some words later, as he is more familiar with problems in the rural areas.

6.45 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Government has done nothing to solve the problem. Many peasants have no land. On the other hand, there are many golf clubs. For example, the Royal Golf Club possesses more than 1,000 acres of government land. These lands are freely given to the foreigners to enjoy themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should utilise Singapore's limited land for the benefit of the peasants or for the benefit of the State economy. The land should not be used for a few persons only to enjoy. I hope the Government will requisition these lands for development purposes. Ever since the P.A.P. came into power, the Government have promised land for the farmers. They have said that they will exercise their right to requisition the land which is intended to help the farmers. But after one year of office the Government has not carried out this promise. As a representative of the rural areas, I am more aware of their hardships and difficulties. For the past two years, the farmers have suffered at the hands of the big landlords. Therefore, their livelihood also suffers. The farmers need land badly for cultivation.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Hong Lim and his friend opposite have mentioned some problems relating to land. I wish to give my reply here. Everybody knows that the land in Singapore is limited and the population is on the increase. The P.A.P. Government already know this. We know all these problems confronting us.

To mention some of the actions of the former Minister for National Development with regard to his work for the farmers. I think many understand what he did in the past. I feel that the work which he did as a Minister was not right. In the past, he always said that he wanted to do something for the rural farmers; for instance, how to solve the land problem. Did he do any reform in this respect when he was the Minister? I believe the rural people are very clear about this. In this connection, I wish to touch on this problem again because I myself come from the rural area. I am a representative for the rural area. I have been brought up there. Therefore, I know very well the conditions there. And as such, I can speak for the rural people. Since the P.A.P. Government took office, the rural areas have undergone some improvement. If we look back, we can see that many of the land problems have been dealt with. With regard to these problems, we will have in future a programme, by way of legislation, to rectify and solve these problems in order to protect the people. We will put forward this legislation in the near future in this Assembly. These are some of the measures we intend to adopt in order to protect the rural people.

With regard to land disputes, there has been some improvement. For instance, there has been improvement made to roads and other things. If the Opposition Members wish to talk about the rural and land problems, they can go with me to the rural area in order to better understand the actual conditions there. They should do this before they talk about the problems relating to the rural areas. They must not sit in air-conditioned rooms and talk about the rural and land problems. Their attitude towards these problems is n t realistic. We must first understand the issue before we talk about it. Looking at things superficially is not practical. Without understanding the real facts and only talking of the issues superficially in order to gain the praise of s me people will not solve the problem. This may be just an opportunistic tactic in order to gain the support of the people. This, of course, will cause the persons concerned to be in the same position now that they have gone over -

The Chairman: Order. I have tried to indicate that perhaps we should keep away from personalities, and if the hon. Member will speak on the policy of the Government in so far as land reform is concerned, he is in order.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deal with this problem in the right way. It takes a long time and careful deliberation to solve the land problem in the rural area. We must also understand what use this land can be put to. After this has been done, we can start our work. Only in this way can we solve our problem. We cannot just talk about it, because that will not help us to solve the real problem.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have raised these three points in all seriousness, hoping that the Government will give them serious consideration. But what has happened is that we have heard "H.M.V." - His Master's Voice. For the benefit of the Member for Jurong, who was attached to the Ministry of National Development for about three months, when he thought he could get promotion by-

The Chairman: Order. I must not allow these personalities. I did stop the Member for Jurong-perhaps not early enough, but I did stop him-and the Member for Hong Lim will assist the Chair in that way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, during the short period from about June to about October, when I had more effective control of those departments which could give help to the rural areas. I could not do much because many of the things that I wished to do had to go through the slow process of finance and staffing. But within those limitations, I tried to do something. For instance, just to mention Jurong alone, we tried to complete the building of a railroad and others, and we built 200 standpipes within the short space of four months.

The Prime Minister: Are we talking about -

The Chairman: Order.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir. Are we talking about Land and District Offices for which I am responsible, or are we talking about the ex-Minister for National Development's proclivities to create standpipes on paper for which I am not responsible?

The Chairman: That is my difficulty, of course, to find out where the responsibility starts and where it ends. If the Prime Minister says that standpipes are not his responsibility, then possibly the Member for Hong Lim should bide his time end deal with standpipes at the proper moment.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the translation just now was not fast enough. It had nothing to do with the translator but it was because of simultaneous translation. I am only replying to some of the points raised by the Member for Jurong. I am not digressing on to new grounds. What I wish to say is this. Work started in July 1959 in the Southern Islands. A plan was drafted and it was completed. Since then no more was done. A plan to revise the laws concerning land reform was drafted but it was torpedoed. Measures were taken to build roads and other steps were taken to bring about land reform, but most of them were torpedoed. But earlier I have tried to bring up these points again without touching on what had happened, hoping that the Government would give these three matters due consideration without touching on personalities. the revision of the Master Plan. I do not know how the logic runs, but anyway, there it is for what it is worth.

The Prime Minister: As a new approach to this, Mr Speaker, Sir, in all seriousness, we must now look at the problem that has been posed, that an earlier revision of the Master Plan is absolutely basic and fundamental. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just explained to the Member for Farrer Park why an earlier revision was impossible because all the expatriate master planners were chased out of the Planning Department and we have had to wait for the one local chap to come back. He has just come back. No doubt the valiant efforts of the former Minister for National Development assisted the farmers in that he held up

7.00 p.m.

Sir, we have 224 square miles of land. There is a dispute as to whether it is 219 or 224. Some authorities have it as 224 and some as 219. I found out from the Land Office not so long ago, when I had to clarify just how much we had, that it depends upon whether you include those parts which are covered by tidal waters. If you exclude those parts that are covered by tidal waters, then you drop to 219. But if you say you can dam them and make them into fish and prawn ponds, then it becomes 224. Then we have the military establishments and so on taking one third of the arable land. We are dead against having a military base. We do not want it here any more than anybody else. But we also know that there are no less than 30,000 civilian employees of the military. So there are two propaganda angles on this. First, out with the military base and up with local nationalism, which is necessary and inevitable. More land for the farmers and out with military installations occupying land. We are also in favour of that. But, of course, the Member for Hong Lim has forgotten that there are 30,000 families of civilian employees. So the P.A.P. policy is as we have enunciated it in Sembawang-that we shall do it in a phased programme. Nobody loses his job quicker than is necessary, quicker than before he finds another job. These things have to be carefully thought out In the old days, we provided the Member for Hong Lim with the careful thinking, the Master Plan before he went and poured it out. But if you start shooting Les without having decided where one line is going to conflict with the other, you will soon come a cropper. Let us face these facts. Even if we drive all the military bases into the sea, as one day it will be done, and we save all the civilian employees by creating industries and civilian dockyards, we will still face a housing and land shortage. One of the problems of the master planners is this, Sir. Already we are having to resist the demands of industry and industrial expansion from eating into the limited arable land we have got.

Let me pose a concrete problem. Toa Payoh - it is in the town area - is also fertile farming area. According to the master planners, the ideal Master Plan means that Toa Payoh should be part of the City belt for high density, not for rural farming. For the time being, we manage to hold the position and say, " Well, for the foreseeable future that we can plan, it shall be farming." It is just to hold the fort, because it is serving the community, it is a fertile belt, and the pressure from the industrial development is not acute enough. But I think we have to face up to this, Sir. Whatever we do, we face a land shortage, and the problem is how to make the best use of the limited land. I shall be treating it very seriously, and I should be greatly obliged if people like the Member for Hong Lim would, with his careful thinking, make a contribution as to how we could make better use of the land we have got, apart from recovering land from the sea, and from the Army, Navy and Air Force, which we must do.

Sir, about the Southern Islands. I am grateful to the Member for having raised this, because as a result of the Parliamentary Secretary answering the Member for the Southern Islands on his amendment about provision for water and electricity for the Southern Islands, I missed the opportunity to explain that the Rural Board (for which I am responsible) used to carry a separate budget. Rural development, Malay settlements and so on have a clear-cut vote, which you will see. Now, because of integration, all these votes have been lost in the various Ministries. I do not wish to anticipate the many items on which I have seen amendments put.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the vote which was formerly shown for rural development, Malay settlements and so on has now been scattered, particularly the development votes in nearly 15 heads, according to the respective uses that would be made of the vote. It is my hope that the Treasury, in presenting the Budget next year, will have a summary which will show, for easy reference, just how much goes to rural development, how much to roads in the rural areas, Malay settlements, the Southern Islands and so on. This is no criticism of the hard work that has been put in to integrate the Budget, but because it is the first time, the point was overlooked that in presentation sometimes, for easy reference of Members, it is useful to have a summary to show just what, in fact, goes to town development and what, in fact, goes to country development. I will deal with it in detail as the various amendments crop up. But I would like to make the point that there is a total of $7.8 million intended for rural development, which includes the Southern Islands, and this also includes a sum of $200,000 intended specially for Malay development, which includes the Southern Islands. I would say that this is a generous vote - $200,000 specially for the Southern Islands and three Malay settlements so far. We are spending an extra sum of money per head on the Malay section to honour the spirit of the Preamble to the Constitution.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reply given by the Prime Minister does not tell us how he is going to tackle these three problems, except to say that he has started revision of the Master Plan, which I am very happy to learn-

The Prime Minister: One plan -

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - but, Mr Speaker. Sir, I must clarify what the Prime Minister has said just now about the expatriates, in the S.I.T. There were already lots of expatriates in the S.I.T. in the Planning Department, but there was no revision of the Master Plan. Numbers do not count. It is the will and the policies. After all, the Prime Minister is not well acquainted with what goes on in the Planning Section of his Ministry. For instance, just now he could not even understand where the $20,000 in preparation of the Master Plan Documents in his own office comes from. May I tell him where it comes from in the Budget? If he turns to page 131 under Head 20-

The Chairman: Order. I think we have finished with that item. Let us deal with Head 8 now.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope a better brief will be prepared for the Prime Minister. It is my opinion that the Land Office should perhaps be transferred back to the new Minister for National Development, because with his multifarious activities the Prime Minister has no time for plans, lands and other problems.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am always obliged for gratuitous advice. In my position, Sir, I am often the recipient of sometimes valuable and sometimes not so valuable advice. But may I say that it is because I have been judicious in the reception of advice that I am still with my comrades, with my Party, and with my colleagues? If I were to accept the gratuitous advice that is often flung with evil motives, I would wind up the way the Member has wound up.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $677,330 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 9 -

Mr A. P. Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head I.

Chief Planner - in the Estimates we are discussing, Mr Speaker, Sir, the vote in respect of the Chief Planner is $10. I take it that is the way of indicating to the House that it is not proposed to fill that post for the ensuing year. If my assumption is correct in that respect, then I wish to ask the Prime Minister, particularly as he has indicated that a revision of the Master Plan in some of its aspects is going to take place, whether it would not be wise to have the post filled in order that the revision of the Master Plan may go on as best it possibly can?

The Prime Minister: There is another reason why a token vote has been asked for. It is true that the present incumbent is the Acting Chief Planner, and no doubt final confirmation will follow. But the reason why there is a token vote is that the salary for the Chief Planner has to be decided in relation to the salaries for commensurate positions in other departments. Sir, the curious position is that a senior planner, which is what the present Acting Chief Planner is, has a maximum of $1,620 for his salary scale. That is $100 more than a Grade G post. Superscale G is $1,520, which is the equivalent of the scale for the Commissioner for Labour. So we are already tied down by the responsibility, on integration of City Council and S.I.T. employees, not to pay them less than what they are getting and there must be some adjustment somewhere - either the post has to be a Grade F post, in which case it would not even be a promotion for the senior planner, or it has to be a superscale D post. But these are matters which require time to look into. I do not think an early confirmation will make any difference to the work that is progressing. There is a man acting in that capacity, and in due course he will be confirmed.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.15 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of sub-head 1.

Sir, item (5) of sub-head 1 reads "Cadet Planners, three ... New posts". I welcome the creation of these three new posts. I understand how important it is that we should have cadets in training for the Planning Department. Could the Prime Minister inform the House how it is proposed to appoint these three Cadet Planners, and where their training is to take place, whether it would take place locally or abroad in the first instance?

The Prime Minister: Sir, can I also, in the explanation, take item (21) - "Expatriation Pay" - against which there is set down an amendment?

The Chairman: Yes, if they are connected.

The Prime Minister: Yes, they are tied up, Sir. There are seven planners on the Establishment. Four of the posts are being held by local office who have just returned from training. All the expatriate planners have left. Three posts are vacant and cannot be filled although we have tried to fill them with local recruits. Therefore, in order to expedite the work, it is intended to recruit three expatriate planners on three-year contracts. At the same time, we are recruiting three cadet planners. The posts will be advertised when the vote has been passed in the Assembly, and I hope University graduates will apply for the jobs. They will initially receive their training here by learning the job and will subsequently be sent overseas for the appropriate technical qualifications, such as the Institute of Town Planning Membership, Associate Membership Diploma.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of that explanation, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of sub-head 1.

Sir, item (8) reads "Enforcement Inspectors. New Posts" and might I, at the same time, touch upon the subject of "Notice Server", of which I have also given notice of an amendment [Amendment (4) ] because I think they are tied up together?

*Amendment (4) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (18) of sub-head 1.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I know that under the Planning Ordinance, there are certain sections in respect of which up till now no enforcement has been effected and, in fact certain provisions of the Planning Ordinance have been a dead letter simply because they have nit been enforced. If the point and purpose of the creation of these posts is to carry out the provisions of the Planning Ordinance to its fullest extent, I welcome these appointments.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Farrer Park is quite right. We are just setting up a unit to see that the Planning Ordinance is observed and that contraventions are properly prosecuted. There is a Notice Server, there are two Enforcement Officers, there is also the Executive Officer and one General Clerical Officer who will constitute the beginnings of this section which I am sure will have to be extended as more and more planning contraventions are detected.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (4)* is not being moved.

*Amendment (4) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (18) of sub-head 1.

Amendment (5) has been touched upon by the Prime Minister.

Mr Rajah: Might I move it formally?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (21) of sub-head 1.

Sir, I have already had the benefit of the Prime Minister's explanation. I was under the impression that, when officers are recruited on contracts, they get an inclusive pay and that the question of expatriation pay does not arise. Perhaps I was mistaken.

The Prime Minister: That was so in the case of the S.I.T., but now that the Planning Section becomes part of the Government, the practice of the Government's Establishment should be followed where contracts are given on basic and expatriation pay and variable allowances are separate items in the contract.

Mr Rajah: May I be given leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 6.

Sub-head 6 reads "Hospital and Medical Charges... $5,500". Under an integrated Budget, I would have thought that this should not appear as a chargeable item on the Budget, particularly as the hospital and medical charges of other Government officers are borne by the Government. I have searched the Budget and I think this is one of two instances where such charges are made. But this particular item seems to run counter to the general terms of the Budget. Normally, if you take any Ministry - the Ministry of National Development or the Ministry of Health - they do not carry a vote for hospital and medical charges. But in this particular case there is a vote for hospital and medical charges, and this gives the impression that the monies will be physically paid out by the Planning Department either to the Government hospitals or to private practitioners.

The Prime Minister: That is quite so. The monies will have to be paid out. As I explained when I move the Second and Third Readings of the Local Government (Financial Integration) Bill, there is no complete integration yet because this has to be worked out: how do the staff integrate? These are S.I.T. members, and by section 5 of the Planning Ordinance, every officer on the permanent establishment of the S.I.T. when transferred to the Government shall be deemed to be transferred to the service of the Government at the same rate of pay and as near as may be on the same conditions of service as those on which he was employed by the S I.T. And the S.I.T. paid this to the City Council to provide them with medical and hospital care. The S.I.T. was tied up with the City Council.

Sir, the same facilities will have to be used until they are completely integrated, when they will use the Government hospitals. Therefore the necessity for this vote, Where the City Council staff are involved as against the S.I.T., that will not be shown because they never had to pay anything. They were already on the City Council Establishment. Can I also touch upon sub-heads 7 and 10?

The Chairman: Perhaps, if the hon. Member wishes to move. I do not know. Are they connected?

The Prime Minister: They are.

The Chairman: Then let the Member move them.

Mr Rajah: Sir, in view of what the Prime Minister has said, may I have leave to withdraw amendment (6)?

The Chairman: Perhaps I have not made myself understood. I do not know whether the Member for Farrer Park would like to touch on - I should not have said move - sub-heads 7 and 10. He could say a few words on those sub-heads before the Prime Minister touches on them.

Mr Rajah: I will, Sir. The point that is exercising my mind is sub-head 7, which reads "Management Fee - Municipal Provident Fund", and sub-head 10, which reads "Public Utility Services - Subordinate Staff Quarters". The Municipal Provident Fund was managed by the City Council to which membership the staff of the Singapore Improvement Trust were admitted. I am not quite sure whether the Trust paid a management fee to the City Council. But the point is this. This is about the only item in the Budget which provides for a management fee in respect of the Municipal Provident Fund, whereas there are other members of the Singapore Improvement Trust who might have moved on to other departments. So the question is, why is it necessary to have a management fee in respect of the Municipal Provident Fund for the Planning Department and not in respect of other departments where either City Council employees or Municipal employees or Trust employees might have found their way?

The next one, sub-head 10, "Public Utility Services-Subordinate Staff Quarters", I take it here again that this is necessary to maintain the status quo.

The Prime Minister: The point is that Municipal employees who are members of the Fund do not pay this management fee. The management fee is charged to non-Municipal employees, like the S.I.T., who joined the Provident Fund. They are to pay an equal portion of the cost of management of the Fund and the only staff of a department that has moved from the S.I.T. into a Government Ministry is the Planning section. In the same way, Sir, we have to maintain the status quo for subordinate staff. There are about seven of these quarters and they have been accustomed to free light, water and conservancy charges, and by the terms of the transfer, we have to pay the S.I.T. now for the costs of light, water and conservancy.

Mr Rajah: Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw amendment (6)?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: I am not moving amendments (7)*, (8)+ and (9)++ in view of the explanations given.

*Amendment (7) reads as follows:

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

+Amendment (8) reads as follows:

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

++Amendment (9) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11.

The Chairman: Amendments (7), (8) and (9) are not to be moved.

The sum of $704,940 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 12 -

The Chairman: I take it that the Member for Mountbatten is not moving the amendment?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Yes, I am moving it.

The Chairman: I was under the impression that when the Member for Mountbatten moved the first amendment on Personal Secretary (Political), she wished to touch on all her amendments in connection with Personal Secretaries (Political) and, with that in view, permission was given. The procedure in such a case is that a debate would take place on all those amendments and when the amendment after the first one is reached, the practice is that the Member would either not move or just ask for a division. Perhaps she could explain now her attitude.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I spoke just now, it was on principle. Now, I would like to seek information on that particular Ministry.

The Chairman: Information of what nature?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Of what has arisen out of the debate on Head 7 - Prime Minister. Personal Secretary (Political).

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will let me know what is worrying her, perhaps I could rule as to whether or not it is in order. What is the information required?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: In view of the point that the Member for Farrer Park has raised, I would like to ask whether the Deputy Prime Minister would be kind enough to tell the House in what way his Political Secretary has been useful to him.

The Chairman: I was under the impression that the opportunity was given. I think the man mentioned was Mr Fong Swee Suan.

The Prime Minister: I have covered him adequately. I would like to mention this, in clarification-

The Chairman: There is no question before the House.

The Prime Minister: No question. All I want to clarify is that, in your absence, and in the presence of the dear lady from Mountbatten, we on the Government side have expressed the hope that Mr Fong Swee Suan will develop an interest in Marine Surveys, Telecommunications and other erudite matters.

The Chairman: I would like to assure the Prime Minister that I heard it all! I think I cannot allow the Member for Mountbatten now to reopen the subject, because I think the opportunity was given. There was, in fact, a request by her that she would touch on all these items and it was granted.

The sum of $165,630 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 13 -

Mr Rajah: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 13 he reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 20.

Sub-head 20, Mr Speaker, appears under sub-Main Head, "Air Registration Board Branch", and the vote is "Rent on Government Quarters, $11,100." I do not quite follow this vote, Mr Speaker, Sir. It would appear from the fact that the Air Registration Board Branch appears in the Budget Estimates, it is therefore part of the Government. This is probably the first instance in the Budget where such an item appears -Rent on Government Quarters. Now, I know that Government officers do occupy Government quarters, but in those cases the Departments concerned do not pay rent to the Treasury; in fact, it is the officers who occupy the quarters who pay rent to the Treasury. But as the vote stands here, it would appear that the Air Registration Board Branch is called upon to pay $11,100 to the Treasury.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, perhaps if I were to explain the functions of the Air Registration Board the position would be clarified. The Air Registration Board is a private company which is, at the moment, under the direction of the Director of Civil Aviation. The function of this Board is to survey the technical requirements to ensure that aircraft comply with statutory technical requirements.

This Air Registration Board was set up in 1951 and since then it has been under the Department of Civil Aviation. There are two persons employed as Air Surveyors. Both of them are living in quarters to which the Government contributes $11,100 as rent. Part of this money is apportioned to the Federation of Malaya and the Borneo territories, Singapore's share being one-third of this sum. So, strictly speaking, these two officers in the Air Registration Board are not civil servants on the establishment, and therefore the charges incurred by them will have to be paid by the Government.

Mr Rajah: Sir, if I understood the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister, he says that the Air Registration Board Branch is not part of the Government but some private organisation, and as it is doing work for the Government, the Government has agreed to contribute towards payment of its rent. Therefore all the other items are in connection with obligations incurred by the Government in connection with an agreement reached with the Air Registration Board Branch. I wonder if my appreciation of the situation is correct.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes, the Member for Farrer Park is quite correct. The officers in this Air Registration Board are not civil servants, as I have said. We have to fulfil certain international statutory regulations concerning air navigation. There is an Act called the Colonial Air Navigation Order, 1955, which was passed on 1st July, 1955. Under this Act the D.C.A. has to ensure the air-worthiness of aeroplanes. There were no qualified local personnel who could be classified as Air Surveyors and therefore, under arrangements with the United Kingdom Government, two officers from this private company, the Air Registration. Board, which is also known as the Air Registration Board in the U.K., were despatched to Singapore to act on behalf of the Singapore Government.

Mr Rajah: Sir, a further question that arises from the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister's reply is this: is it a statutory obligation that we should engage this Air Registration Board Branch? That is the first question, Sir. The second question is: if it is not a statutory obligation to engage somebody from this Air Registration Board, then, of course, this must be a voluntary association of the Government with these people. In those circumstances, could not this work be done by the Civil Aviation Department?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: We are not under a statutory obligation to engage these two officers from the Air Registration Board. But we are under a statutory obligation to observe that all aircraft which leave Paya Lebar Airport are certificated as air-worthy. This statutory intituled the Civil Aviation Colonial Air Navigation Order, 1955. On the second point, as I have mentioned previously, we had no local personnel who were qualified to examine into the air-worthiness of aircraft. However, it is our intention that in future we shall malayanise the Air Registration Board so that the functions of this body can be taken over completely by the Department of Civil Aviation.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation of the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister, may I be given leave to withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) sub-head 43.

If Members will refer to the next page of the Estimates, sub-head 61, they will see that sub-head 43 could be a duplication sub-head 61. Both items are "Maintenance" and both are for maintenance of the airfield. In the case of sub-head 43, the vote is $40,000, and for sub-head 61, it is $70,000. I would like the Minister to explain whether these two items are the same and, if they are not the same, in what way are they different? And if they are different, why are they described in the same manner, "Maintenance of Airfield"?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, under sub-head 43, item (1) "Maintenance of Airfield, $40,000", the explanation that has been given to me is that that sum of money is expended on labour required for daily sweeping and collection of refuse at the airfield, grass cutting, earth spreading, etc., overtime pay for emergency work due to floods, emergency work in connection with visits of V.I.P.s., etc. The labour employed for this purpose is calculated on a daily-rated basis, and altogether 27 persons are employed on this project.

With reference to sub-head 61, 1 am afraid I do not have enough notice from the Member for Cairnhill that he is going to bring this item up, and so I just cannot supply him with the information.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of the difficulty that the Deputy Prime Minister is having in supplying the information, may I beg leave to withdraw the motion?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Which motion?

The Chairman: I think, in fairness to the Minister, he is quite correct. If the Member for Cairnhill wishes for information on sub-head 61, he should have given notice. In respect of sub-head 61, I think the Minister is entitled to say that he will supply the information later.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With due respect, Sir, I do not think the Minister said that he would supply the information. He said that he had not been asked.

The Chairman: I take it that the Minister could supply the information. That is all there is to it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Oh, it is quite easy!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Let us make it easier, Sir - I withdraw.

The Chairman: I think leave has been asked to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,932,360 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

7.45 p.m.

Head 19 -

Mr Rajah: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 19 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 6.

Sub-head 6, "Hire of Breakdown Trucks - $1,900". As I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an item in respect of vehicles registration which previously came under the City Council. The question is, how did the Vehicles Department of the City Council get itself involved with accidents which necessitated the hire of breakdown trucks?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, having been a City Councillor before, the Member for Farrer Park is quite well versed in the business of the Registry of Vehicles. However, he has forgotten that one of the functions of the Registry of Vehicles is that, if there are motor or non-motor vehicles which do not pay their licence fees or other taxes, then they will have to be impounded. To impound these vehicles, it is necessary to tow them into the yard of the Registry of Vehicles. Therefore, it is necessary for the Registrar of Vehicles to hire, not really breakdown trucks, but trucks to tow those vehicles which have not paid their fees or their taxes. The City Transport Centre at present owns the vehicles which are used by the department for towing those vehicles which have not paid their licences. In previous years the provision was included under the Hire of Office Station-wagons and Hire of Trucks in the City Council Estimates. This year these vehicles have been passed over to the P.W.D., and to use these vehicles, a charge is made by the P.W.D. We have estimated that it will cost us about $1,900 to hire these trucks.

Mr Rajah: Sir, if the real point and purpose of this is to deal with owners of offending vehicles who have not paid their taxes. I would have thought that the easiest way to do the job is to get inside the car and drive it to the yard, rather than hire some truck to pull it along the street.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But you cannot drive it when the car has not got an engine.

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

Mr Rajah: Maybe there is a point in it if the hire of breakdown trucks is intended to deal with the results of motor accidents. But if it is merely to deal with vehicles the taxes on which have not been paid up, then the implication, Mr Speaker, is that the vehicles are in good running order. The fact is that because of an oversight or something else the taxes on these vehicles have not been paid. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to impound them, which they are entitled to do. Now, in impounding the offending vehicle, I see no reason why the Government should not employ a driver in the P.W.D. to go to the house and drive it to the yard.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The explanation is quite simple. There are vehicles which sometimes do not have a tire or an engine. It is hardly possible for anyone to drive such a vehicle to the yard of the Registrar of Vehicles. I am sure the Member for Farrer Park will realise the difficulty involved. Not even the best driver in the world, even Sterling Moss or the Member for Farrer Park, can achieve that purpose!

Mr Rajah: Sir, if the hon. the Deputy Prime Minister will look into the Local Government Ordinance, he will find that motor vehicle taxes can only be levied on motor vehicles which can be used as such. If this particular motor vehicle which the Deputy Prime Minister has on his mind has no engine in it, then I would suggest to him that it is not a taxable vehicle, and, as such, he would be committing trespass. And as a responsible Member of the Opposition, I must try to prevent him from doing it, because he will get the State of Singapore into paying very severe damages! But if that is the only explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is really no need for this vote. But if it were to cover some other item, whether it is necessary to hire a vehicle to tow something, then, of course, I have nothing against it.

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (In Mandarin): I have just heard what the Member for Farrer Park said with reference to this subject. He was a City Councillor and perhaps he had some experience in the Vehicles Department. The Deputy Prime Minister had just now said that if a car is damaged, we should use a truck to tow it back. Some cars are damaged and their owners refuse to pay the taxes; they allow the damaged cars to remain on the road. According to the regulations, the Government has the right to confiscate the car. If the Government does not confiscate it, it loses money. If the Member for Farrer Park is careless when he is walking and he is knocked down by a motor car and loses a leg, he is just like a damaged car. And if the owner of the card refuses to pay tax, then the Government should use a truck to tow the car back. Similarly, when the Member for Farrer Park breaks his leg and he cannot walk, the Government will have to hire some truck to tow him back!

The Chairman: The Member for Moulmein has indicated that if the Member for Farrer Park could not walk, he would be towed back!

Mr Rajah: I want to give my assurance to the Member for Moulmein that I have paid up all the taxes!

The Chairman: Including income tax?

Mr Rajah: Including income tax, and any other tax which the Government can extract from me I have paid up! Sir, for the sake of peace and sanity, may I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 19 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 18

*The same amendment stood in the name of' Mr A. P. Rajah.

Mr Speaker, this amendment refers to the parking meter scheme, where Government has made a provision of nearly $1 million. From what I have seen of the staff under this Government scheme, I feel that it is necessary that their conditions should be improved so as to protect the status of the State of Singapore as a cosmopolitan city. I believe the Government has plans to attract tourists to Singapore. One of the means to attract tourists is to show that we have the ability to govern or to administer our State. For instance Mr Speaker, Sir, the uniform of the attendants in the parking space is not proper. It is difficult for us to identify the attendants who look after the cars. I therefore think that it is not in the interests of Singapore. It goes to show that we are not able to maintain our status. I hope this state of affairs will be rectified by the Government. Besides that, there are complaints regarding the service rendered by these parking car attendants. If there is a means of identification, it would be a simple thing for the public to lodge such complaints against the attendants concerned.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 19 be reduced by $10 in respect of subbed 18." Order.

And it being 8 p.m. Mr Speaker therefore left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates for 1961, and beg leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.