MAIN ESTIMATES, 1962

The Chairman: We are on the Main Estimates. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head as it appears in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure for the year 1962 on pages 41 and 42 of Paper Cmd. 35 of 1961.

We are dealing now with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper.

3.00 p.m.

Head 1 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.*

*The same amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohamed Ali bin Alwi.

Subhead 4, Mr Speaker, as it appears on page 50 of the Estimates, reads "Purchase of Official Presents . . . $500." This apparently is an entirely new item which has been introduced this year. I am not complaining about the amount, Mr Speaker, Sir. But what I wish to inquire of the Minister is, what is expected to be purchased out of the $500 for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or on his behalf? In this connection, perhaps I might throw this into focus better if, while discussing this item, I touch on the Prime Minister's vote. On page 6 of the Order Paper, I have an amendment standing in my name, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7." I have personally no objection to these two heads as such. But what I wish to know is something about the comparative figures, and why it is more in the case of the Prime Minister than in the case of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will permit me to deal with both those items at the same time, perhaps it would be more convenient.

The Chairman: It would be convenient.

Mr Rajah: On page 74, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an item under the title "Official Presentations . . . $1,500." Here again this is an entirely new item which appears in the next year's Estimates. Could I, therefore, ask the Minister why it is that $500 appears under the Yang di-Pertuan Nagara's vote and $1,500 under the Prime Minister's vote?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I must first explain the normal procedure with regard to gifts. From time to time, the Head of State and the Ministers receive gifts from visiting dignitaries and other Ministers from foreign countries who pass through Singapore. Normal courtesy requires that there is reciprocity of these gifts. In the old days, Sir, what happened was that where they were personal gifts, that is, the gifts were to the person con, cerned, he kept it. When he reciprocated, he paid for it out of his own expenses. He kept the gift that was given to him, and he paid for the gift that was given to the visiting dignitary. In fact, the ruling since the Government took office is that all gifts presented to the Ministers or to the Head of State are surrendered to the Treasury. If they cannot be used, they are either disposed of by the Treasury or they are left in the Istana Negara, the State Guest House, or the reception rooms of the various Ministers.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker. I am not participating in the debate. But I would like to correct the suggestion that previously the ruling was that we could keep the gift. In so far as I am aware, at no time did any of the Ministers retain any gifts received officially from other Ministers or Government. They were all handed in to the Treasury.

The Prime Minister: I think there was a distinction between the official and the non-official Ministers. The elected Ministers, as in the case of the former Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill, and his colleagues, paid out of their entertainment vote when they bought gifts in return. They surrendered their gifts to the Treasury. In the case of the other officials, I think the practice was that either they bought gifts in return out of their own emoluments and then kept the gifts, or they left the gifts in the Istana. As far as I know, either the gifts were kept in the Istana or left in the Treasury. Anyway, these are not very important things. What has happened is that for the last two years, when we reciprocated, we paid for it front the entertainment vote. The Accountant-General queried this and said that this was not a proper vote for the reciprocity of gifts. Therefore, a modest sum has been entered for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and for myself. It is more for myself because out of this vote come the gifts for all Ministers. That is the reason for the $1,500 for me as against the $500 for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

The Chairman: The amendment is also in the name of Inche Mohd. Ali.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, can the Prime Minister please clarify how many gifts have been received that need to be reciprocated officially? Could the Minister indicate what emblems were used on the gifts that were reciprocated?

The Prime Minister: In Malay, Sir.

The Chairman: Yes.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter is not an easy one for me to explain, because the gifts received from Ministers from other States are those that we cannot really evaluate because some of them are antiques and are very costly. Indeed, like the gift from the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of Algeria, it was a scimitar. We left that at Sri Temasek because many people go there and they would like to know whose gift it was. So it is difficult for us to evaluate the gifts. But because ours is a small State, when we reciprocate, the gifts are, if possible, those made in Malaya. They are produced by the Malay Arts and Crafts of Kuala Lumpur. I feel proud that we share the pride of Malaya in the achievements of their arts and crafts, especially those produced by the craftsmen in Trengganu and Kelantan. We hope that in future or in ten years' time, we wilt be able to give our own gifts in return is the form of art mementoes from the State of Singapore.

The Chairman: The amendment to subhead 4 of Head 1 can be taken together with that to subhead 7 of Head 7 at page 74. Tun Lim and Inche Ahmad Jabri have also given notice of amendments to the Prime Minister's vote. Do they wish to speak? When we come to that item, there will be no motion moved. I am talking about the question of gifts. No further comment on that?

Mr Rajah: Just one comment. The Prime Minister has indicated that some of these objects are objects of art, and perhaps they are not able to be valued. In those circumstances, would the Government consider donating them to the National Museum? Where it is possible to evaluate them in terms of money, I take it there will be some Treasury control over the sale. Will the Minister for Finance assure the House that there is a corresponding entry in the income column for these sales?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Usually these gifts are collected and auctioned in public once a year. The proceeds appear somewhere in an item of revenue. I am not quite sure where.

The Prime Minister: May I say this? From time to time we do receive gifts. I do not want it to be indicated that it is not appreciated. I hope the debate will not take that line. But there are times when the gifts cannot be suitably displayed either in the Istana or the reception rooms of Ministers and Sri Temasek and so on. Then there is a surplus. But we do not want to give people the impression that we do not appreciate the thought behind the gifts.

Mr Rajah: In view of the explanation, Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8.

This item is in respect of a vote for a motor car for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I would like to know what kind of motor car it is intended to purchase with this vote of $12,350 and for what use. Also, how many cars are there at present in the Istana Negara.

The Prime Minister: The sum of $12,350 is for the purchase of a Rover car to replace the Rover car at present in use, which is approximately nine years old. As I understand it, the cars at the disposal of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his guests consist of one Rover car and one Number Pullman. There is no suitable alternative to the Humber Pullman, and the cast of maintenance is mounting year by year. I hope by next year we might be able to find a suitable alternative to replace the Humber Pullman.

The Chairman: The Speaker's car is a Humber Pullman!

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am told, that the garage has been complaining about the cost of maintenance. So it is in the case of Ministers and so on. There are two kinds of cars, as I understand it. One is for utility purposes and the other is where one has to go and present oneself for the occasion. I hope, Sir, when there is a suitable replacement for the Humber Pullman and the House feels in a sufficiently generous mood, we shall look after the Speaker also.

The Chairman: Tun Lim. I am sorry for the interjection. It has taken half a minute.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $224,670 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

3.15 p.m.

Head 2 -

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I move that all the three amendments* in respect of Head 2 be taken together.

*The amendments reads as follows:

(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (12) of subhead 1.

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (59) of subhead 1.

(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (60) of subhead 1.

Mr Speaker, if we study the Estimates, we find that under item (12) of subhead 1, there are two Interpreters (Malay). There are Chinese and Indian Senior Interpreters, but no Malay Senior Interpreter. I hope the Government will clarify why there are no Malay Senior Interpreters.

In items (59) and (60) there are only Chinese and Indian Interpreters in the Civil District Courts, but no Malay Interpreter. I ask this question because I feel it is important as it concerns justice or fair play. A defendant in court must be given a proper hearing. I think it is not fair, Mr Speaker, if the defendant in court happens to be a Malay. It may be that his views are not correctly represented and this will be very bad for him.

I would like to see that the defendants in court will not be unjustly fined.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (12) of subhead 1."

The debate may range over items (59) and (60) of the same subhead, which appear in page 54.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I answer it in Malay? (In Malay): As to this matter, the position, to my mind, is this. As regards the Supreme Court interpreters and the District Court interpreters, the reason for there being more Indian or Chinese interpreters is not for the purpose of increasing their number. This matter concerns people who are witnesses and whose evidence requires interpretation. There are not many Malay witnesses and, therefore, there are not as many Malay interpreters as there are Chinese or Indian interpreters.

The population of Singapore comprises 70 per cent Chinese; therefore more Chinese interpreters are required. For that reason, the Indian interpreters are in a better position. Since the Malays are a peace loving people, therefore the position of the Malay interpreters is a little unsatisfactory from the point of view. I think in the other courts there are not many cases involving Malays. I am not quite clear as to why there is no Senior Malay Interpreter. I hope the Member for the Southern Islands will be satisfied and allow me to investigate further into the matter.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): I do not wish to debate the explanation given by the Prime Minister. This is a matter of fair play or justice. Although there are few Malays involved in quarrels or fights, and taken to court, however, in the name of justice, it is only proper that this matter should be given consideration. An assurance has been given by the Prime Minister that he will investigate the matter further. I have not yet received a reply from the Prime Minister with regard to the lower courts, is the position there the same? In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendments (2)* and (3)* are not being moved.

*The amendments reads as follows:

(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (12) of subhead 1.

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (59) of subhead 1.

(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (60) of subhead 1.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

On page 57 of the Estimates - Legal Assistance in Assize Court and in the Court of Criminal Appeal - I understand that the vote has been reduced from $14,500 (1961) to $12,000 (1962) mainly because the amounts that have been voted in 1961 have not been used up. Sir, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he would reconsider the question of the quantum. You know the position, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is a panel and on this panel go the names of lawyers who wish to participate in this. Normally, those who put their names on the panel are junior members of the Bar, more often then not members of the Bar who are just beginning their practice. All this arises out of cases assigned to' those on the roster in respect of capital charges. Cases are assigned to these young lawyers as their names appear on this roster, and the fees paid to them, to my mind anyway, are not commensurate with the work which they have to undertake. They have to do a fair amount of "getting-up" in these things. They work very hard and the getting-up fee allowed by the Registrar (it is not his fault, Mr Speaker, Sir; it has been a time-honoured custom and I think these fees have remained for some time without change) is, in my opinion anyway, not commensurate with the work which the young lawyer has to undertake. I ask the hon. Prime Minister whether he would, in the light of the present day cost of living, give consideration to a review of the fees payable to young lawyers who put their names on this roster. After all, Mr Speaker, Sir, they are doing a public service.

The other point I wish to address the House on, and I ask the Prime Minister to consider it, is this. At the moment, Sir, this legal aid is only available to persons who are charged with capital offences. I wonder whether the State would consider extending this assistance to persons who are charged with offences which involve imprisonment for life.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am quite prepared to consider any representation from the Bar. This is the first time I have heard that young lawyers are dissatisfied. As a matter of fact, I was thinking that with the exodus of 20, 30, 40 - in progressive numbers - of lawyers from the University of Malaya, it may well be that the roster may swell to beyond all manageable proportions. But if a case could be made out for an increase - and the increase is to be correlated with the seniority of the lawyer, not necessarily commensurate with the market value of the lawyer, but as a token of recognition that the lawyer is, after all, more than 7 years' standing and has had considerable practice at the Bar - I am quite prepared to put the matter up for the consideration of the State Advocate-General who will no doubt advise the Minister for Law and myself as to the propriety of it.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish for a vote?

Mr Rajah: No, Sir.

The Chairman: Does he wish to withdraw his amendment?

Mr Rajah: No, Sir. May I ask a further question? Are we getting near time, Sir?

The Chairman: Yes. Only four minutes for Mr Marshall.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I did ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider extending this aid to persons involved in cases where the punishment is life imprisonment.

The Prime Minister: I think this is a matter on which we would consider any representation from the Bar Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to he allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $100.

It is a curious procedure, Sir, that I have to seek to reduce it in order to say that I want it increased. We have had the Minister for Finance informing us that changes in the remuneration of Judges are being considered. But in so far as I can ascertain, Sir, there is a completely inadequate comprehension of the status of a Judge in this territory. Unfortunately, they have been drawn from the civil service and there is an attitude that they are civil servants and that their pay should be in some fashion - how shall I say it? - in conformity with civil service scales. It is inadequately appreciated, Sir, that they are the very cornerstone of democracy. Without the Judges in this territory, there could be no democracy. I say we ought to give them a status compatible with the work that we seek of them with the position that they, in fact, hold in this territory. We also expect a great deal from them, Sir,It is not that we can buy integrity with money. I am not saying that we could get better integrity - it is not possible. I am not asking for more remuneration from the point of view of integrity. But I do say that we should be fair to them. We ask a great deal from them, not only from the point of view of responsibility, but we also ask them to maintain a very high social standard which entails considerable expense. In my view, Sir, we must cast off our previous prejudices about the salary scales of Judges and we must recognise that the Chief Justice of a territory has an equal status with the Prime Minister, and that the Judges have an equal status with the Ministers, and we should go from there. I know, Sir, that we are very much tied up at present with thoughts of a merger with the Federation and the possibility of the amalgamation of the two services, and consequently the need to keep the two concepts of remuneration in both territories equal. I say, Sir, we should give a lead now and I do plead with the Prime Minister to give an assurance not only in respect of the Judges of the High Court, but do you know, Sir, that a District Judge earns less than two clerks in my office and he can sentence a person to 7 years' imprisonment? It is completely farcical that a clerk should get more than a District Judge. The entire remuneration of the legal service and the judicial service should be reconsidered.

3.30 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am in full sympathy with the remarks made by the Member for Anson. On more than one occasion I have expressed my own views to the Chief Justice and his brother Judges. But the problem I am faced with is not only how to bring them out of the salary scales which are tied up with so many other salary scales in the past. Even if we succeed in doing that without upsetting the Speaker, the Ministers, the Parliamentary Secretaries, the Permanent Secretaries, and so on, there is a very serious problem.

I agree that if you want to maintain a strong judiciary, the time has come when you have to recruit not only from within the service but from without the service.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: To do that - as the Member for Anson well knows - one can only hope that there are a sufficient number of able and senior counsel who feel that they have done their sweat at the Bar, put something by, and are prepared to spend the rest of their active years on the Bench. I have discussed this matter incidentally also with passing judicial dignitaries from the United Kingdom. The explanation I have been given of how the practice works in London is that the Judges there do not have to retired at 62. They sometimes go on the Bench at well near 60, and they do another eight or nine years. It is the expectation of a fairly handsome pension which makes them do it.

The Chairman: Order. The time has expired. Does the hon. Member wish for a vote?

Mr David Marshall: No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,934,860 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 4 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this concerns our Simultaneous Interpreters. I believe there are three of them - one Chinese, one Malay and one Tamil. What will happen if one of them were to fall sick? I think we must have two interpreters for each language so that there will be six interpreters in all.

The Chairman: It is a matter for the House Committee, unless the Prime Minister wishes to say anything.

The Prime Minister: As you have pointed out that this is a matter for the House Committee, I can only add, for the benefit of the Member for the Southern Islands, that there are part, time interpreters. If anybody should fall ill, then the part-time interpreter is called upon. So far, there has been no occasion when interpretation was not possible because there was either no permanent or no part-time interpreter present. But if the House Committee wants to make its representation, then it is a matter entirely out of my hands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to he allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of subhead 1.

This concerns the Reporters. I think there are many Malays who wish to read the proceedings of the Assembly but they lack a knowledge of English. I think the proceedings should also be taken down in Malay, as is done in the Federation, to enable the Malays to read them. Malay reporting should be encouraged. We know there is Malay shorthand. This opportunity is just good for those qualified in Malay shorthand.

The Chairman: The Official Report, of course, under the Constitution is in the English language. I think it is a question of expense as to whether we can produce a Malay Report as well. Perhaps the House Committee can look into that as well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 4 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (20) of subhead 1.

Sir, the point I would like to raise is about the Assembly servants who are now serving the Assembly and Members of the Assembly.

The two Assembly servants and the caretaker were appointed, I think, way back in 1955 when there were only 32 Assemblymen. Today, the number of Assemblymen has increased to 51 and yet we still have the same number of servants to look after the comfort of Assemblymen. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister would increase the number of Assembly servants to four so that there will be a rotation in their hours of duty, as I think they are not being given fair treatment. For instance. I do know that they check in at about 7.30 in the morning and on any normal sitting day they do not leave the Assembly till after 9.30 in the evening, which means 14 hours' work a day invariably. We do have night sitting up to 12 o'clock midnight or 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and that would mean up to about 17 or 18 hours' work a day.

So I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it is about time that we increased the number of Assembly servants, if not on a permanent basis then at least on a temporary basis.

The Chairman: Here again, it is a matter which the House Committee could deal with and make recommendations.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out that there were a number of recommendations made by the House Committee last year but they were thrown out by the Minister for Finance? Every time we went to him, he said there was no money.

The Chairman: The answer to that is that if a recommendation is thrown out, a substantive motion can be moved in the Assembly.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the Member for Geylang Serai that there is a case for an increase in the number of servants, not only because of the increase in the number of Members but also because of the increase in the number of guests that Members now bring to the C.P.A. Room during sitting hours. By the very nature of things, we have a hectic one or two weeks and then a lapse for two or three weeks, and again another hectic one or two weeks. Because of the fluctuation in their duties, I would suggest that the answer is for the House Committee to consider ways and means whereby temporary staff are engaged as and when the House is in session; as otherwise when the House is not in session, you will just have an overflow of people doing nothing in the Assembly.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is not true of the Assembly servants. I am told that even if the House is not in session, they have to work almost every day to about 6 p.m. cleaning the windows, the lavatories, etc, of the Assembly House - and sometimes during Committee meetings. On the last occasion when we had a sitting till 12 midnight, although I was not approached by the servants themselves, I understand they did not have time to go home. We left the House at 12 midnight and they finished their work at about 3 a.m. So what they did was to sleep in the Assembly House itself without having a bath or a wash and a change of clothes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has been going on for a number of years and I think the only solution is to have temporary staff - one servant perhaps when the Assembly is not in session; three or four when the Assembly is in session, when Members want them to buy food, serve beer and run a lot of errands. For all the work that they have to do, ranging from 10 to 20 hours a day, I understand they are only paid $142 a month inclusive of allowance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe it is time for the Government to take some action.

The Chairman: Perhaps it is time the House Committee should look very, very deeply into this matter in the first instance, and if the recommendations of the House Committee are not accepted by the Government, then that is the time Members could move a motion. I do not think it is proper now to blame the Government because we have a House Committee that looks into these matters.

The Prime Minister: What I am trying to point out is simply this. If we start talking about the hardship of Assembly servants and of Assemblymen and of those without motor cars having to go home by taxi and being waylaid and so on, there will be no end to it. Everybody has a hard life. This is not the place where we start spinning hardship yarns. This is the place where we debate very important matters - not these servants of the Assembly. It is not because we do not care for them. There is a House Committee to consider their case. But if we start spinning yarns and striking a pose, Sir, everybody can do likewise and we will soon reduce the proceedings of this Chamber to quite a comic operation.

With great respect to the Member for Hong Lim - he is an experienced man in politics and we are not altogether new in these matters - we do not want to get involved in these hardship stories - the sob line. I suggest that in future all such matters, before they come here, go to the House Committee, get the proper ventilation and be brought up through the proper channels; otherwise we might have difficulty in getting the attention of the Assembly servants. It depends on who gives them more voice in this debate - he can then catch their eye. Things get very complicated.

The Chairman: Order. I think we are getting away from the point. I have already indicated the procedure to be followed. If, as I say, a recommendation by the House Committee is not accepted, or even if the House Committee by a slim majority does not agree with the minority, the minority will be at liberty to file notice of a motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I must make this clear. Members of the United People's Party have never been given preferential treatment by these two Assembly servants. On no occasion have I been approached by them -

The Prime Minister: No, I never suggested that.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - nor have I been lobbied to speak on their behalf. Neither have they complained to me.

The Chairman: Order. I think everybody understands that.

Inche Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of your assurance and the assurance of the Minister for Finance- he has just winked at me - I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving amendments (4)* and (5)+. The matter raised in amendment (4) can be taken up in the House Committee.

• Amendment (4) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 2.

• Amendment (5) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of subhead 2.

3.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Mr Rajah.

Mr Rajah: I move,

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

++The same amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Sir, I have on a previous occasion, that is last year, touched upon the same subject. The Prime Minister knows the arguments which I advanced to the House in his presence on that occasion, and I do not wish to take up time as time is pressing on.

The main reason why I wanted this ventilated again, Sir, is this, it is not very of ten that any Parliament is blessed with having all the Chief Ministers and the present Prime Minister in the same House on one given occasion. The Member for Anson was the first Chief Minister, succeeded by the Member for Cairnhill, and now the Prime Minister. Perhaps the three of them could tell us why, although it is a desirable objective, it is not yet achieved. This matter has been discussed for a long time; I understand, during the time of the Member for Anson when he was Chief Minister, and later when -

The Chairman: The Member has not mentioned what he is talking about - the independence of the Assembly?

Mr Rajah: I am sorry. I beg your pardon. I thought I had made that clear. It is a question of the independence of the staff of the Assembly, a matter which I have ventilated in previous years. As the Member for Anson has indicated, just as the judiciary are the pillars of democracy, I think the Assembly staff also in their own way are pillars of democracy, in the sense that where conflicting interest between the Government and the Opposition are concerned, members of the Assembly staff have to keep a strictly neutral attitude; and not only a neutral attitude but also a stiff upper lip, which is sometimes very difficult to do. And I think any sort of system or procedure that will ensure a respectful stiff upper lip should be encouraged.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Farrer Park has said was actually what I wanted to say when I gave notice of this amendment. The independence of the Legislative Assembly staff is very, very desirable if we all really believe in parliamentary democracy.

The Member for Farrer Park has asked the question - why was this not done at the time when I was Chief Minister? I have a very simple explanation. I was working under the Rendel Constitution, and the civil services was in the hands of a colonial official, the Chief Secretary. Much as I wanted to do it, I could make no headway because the Chief Secretary was in full control of the civil service.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just Wish to bring up two points under this head.

The Chairman: Is it on the question of independence of the Assembly staff?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: No.

The Chairman: Can we deal with that first?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes.

The Chairman: Order. I was just wondering whether the Member for Hong Lim was dealing with the question of independence of the Assembly staff. If he is not, perhaps we can deal with that topic first.

The Prime Minister: Sir, my recollection of the reasons for the arrangements made in the Constitution is not that of the Member for Cairnhill. The Member for Cairnhill now finds a convenient answer for all the ills of the past. Every time it is the absent colonial official who is now responsible for his unhappiness in the past. I think the world was responsible for some of his grievous problems then. But certainly not this one because he was the Chief Minister when he led the All-Party Delegation to London. You were then making representations about setting up a certain independent post, and he was in complete agreement with the colonial officials. And he got the rest of the All-Party Delegation in complete agreement with him - that the opportunities for advancement in the Legislative Assembly are so small that it is very unlikely that we will get people coming into the service as such. As I have said the last time - and I repeat the argument this year as I did last year and the year before - if the Assembly staff say, "All right. I want to stay in the Assembly and I don't want ever to be posted out. I want to be in a separate service, and I lose my opportunities for promotion in the Government." - well, let them make the representation. We have not received the representation yet. For the very simple reason that if they make that representation, then avenues for promotion in the Assembly stop and there are no other avenues for promotion. If you have young, reasonably healthy First Clerk, Second Clerk, Third Clerk, Chief Reporter, Deputy Chief Reporter, and you join the Assembly staff as a separate and independent service and you grow old together with the Chief and, worse still, you pre-decease him, then you might end up your careers as, say, the unknown Fifth Clerk; never heard of ever since. Whereas if you are part of the Government service, you might be more fortunate. If avenues are not readily open in the Assembly, then you transfer out to the medical services or the Legal Department or some other Ministry of the Government. The problem is as simple as that. As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are certain specialist jobs. In the case of those officials, they are not posted out unless they give their consent.

If there is to be a radical alteration in the terms and conditions of service, I say it comes from them. If they want their avenues of promotion blocked, well, so be it. But they cannot have it, as the Speaker has suggested once, both ways - that they can post themselves out but whilst they are here they are independent. That is not possible. They are either part of the service and they take their chances like everybody else in the service to go up the ladder, which includes the Assembly, or they stay in the Assembly. And if they stay in the Assembly, then they forgo the opportunities for advancement elsewhere. They cannot have it both ways. We have argued it out with logic and reason in Establishment practice. If they are an independent service, then they have nothing to do with the Government. And if there is an opening for promotion in the Government, well, it is not open to them any more. It has been suggested that whilst they are in the Assembly, they are out of the Government. But the moment they hear there is an opening, they say, "I come back," and then "I move off." That is not possible. The Establishment would not have it. And I think the Finance Minister is quite right in backing up his Establishment on that.

Mr Rajah: The problem is a sufficiently important one, Mr Speaker, Sir. The difficulty arises because the Assembly here is such a small Assembly and the staff are so small. But in most other countries, perhaps it could be an independent service having prospects of advancement within itself. But because we cannot here conform to Establishment practice and rules outside Singapore, we must not therefore deny that there is not a problem here.

I do not want to take up much time because I hear the Member for Hong Lirn wants to speak also. But could the Hon, the Prime Minister agree to a Committee of this House going into this problem and making recommendations? And Government, as well as the Opposition, making an inquiry into the whole problem and reporting to the whole House? If he agrees to that, I am quite happy.

The Prime Minister: Sir, if it is just an assurance that a Committee making recommendations will make the Member for Farrer Park happy, I am completely all in favour of making him happy. But provided he understands that the position of the Establishment, which we support, is that a man is either in or outside the Government service. That is the basic principle from which we analyse or view any proposal. If the Member for Farrer Park understands that and at the same time he wants a Committee to try and find a way to fit in that principle, I say, by all means. The problem has been viewed from almost every conceivable angle, not least of all by you, Mr Speaker, Sir, because you are the person most closely connected with it and the person upon whom the problem is always pressing. But unless there is a novel proposition which is like the Gordian knot and a knife cuts through it all, I do not see how we can get out of a very simple proposition. If you want an Assembly service, then you are out of the Government service. You cannot be in the Government service and out of the Government service at the same time. That, I think, is a simple proposition which nobody can get out of. What we are saying is this, by all means leave the Government service if you want and be a separate Assembly service, but you cannot have it both ways.

Mr Rajah: I think there could be a solution, Mr Speaker, Sir, if only the Prime Minister would agree to it. I think the Minister for Finance should sit on that Committee, representing the Government. It is not only the Government, Sir, but the Establishment Branch of the Administrative side. I can understand the Prime Minister's concern - that Government servants do not like this sort of thing. I appreciate that. But on the other hand, I think, Govermnent servants themselves should appreciate the difficulties of the Assembly. Perhaps, Sir, if we could get across each other's points of view, some solution could be found. I would be quite content, Sir, if the Prime Minister would agree to such a Committee with the Minister for Finance sitting on it as a member.

The Chairman: Can I just draw attention to section 46 subsection (6) - the Minister for Finance has just remembered section 46 (6) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council where there is, in fact, a Commission to advise the Assembly on the terms of service of the staff of the Assembly -

'...consisting of the following persons, that is to say: -

(a) the Speaker, as Chairman;

(b) not more than three Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister, of whom one shall be the Minister responsible for finance; and

(c) a member of the Public Service Commission.'

The Prime Minister: The Minister has indicated to me, Sir, that he is quite ready to go through with the motion. But whichever way we go, we come back to the original starting point, and there must be a solution to that. You are either in or out of the Government service. You cannot be in the service and out of it at the same time. That is the simple proposition.

Mr Rajah: I am quite content to held the Minister for Finance. He is an eminently reasonable person. He likes logic. He says so. He is always telling the members of Barisan, "You do not know anything about logic," and that is why he disagrees with them, and quite rightly. But illogical arguments could be advanced, I think he will be convinced. If only the Prime Minister would agree to that, I am quite sure we can advance sufficiently logical arguments to the Minister for Finance to get him off the present difficult position he is in.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not been talking about the issue raised just now by other Members. It is because to talk about independence at this juncture to the Government Benchers would be just like playing a violin to a cow.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Playing what?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, we come to more immediate problem to he solved. For instance, the two Assembly servants, who are overworked. And there are others who are overworked. Mr Speaker, I wish to mention in particular the Reporters of the Assembly.

The Chairman: Order. We have already dealt with those two items, the Assembly servants and the Reporters. This is a motion which reduces the whole Head by $100, and therefore there should be a debate on the general policy of the Government in the Legislature, and not on the items, in detail.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I am just frying to acquaint you with what will happen in the future. There will be a lot of these long sessions and, as such I think we must bring the attention of the Government to the fact that we must create a pool of more part-time Simultaneous interpreters, a pool of part-time Reporters, and perhaps a pool of part-time servants and watchmen to meet the changing circumstances.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I only want to comment on what was said by the Member for Farrer Park. He said that I am in some difficulty over this matter. Actually I am in no difficulty at all. I am not quite sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, how this issue was raised and why it was raised.

4.00 p.m.

There is a presumption in somebody's mind that the Government is putting pressure to bear on the staff of the Assembly. Otherwise, how does the question of independence arise? "Either you cut this report and put in this thing." There is not the slightest basis for anyone to suspect that improper pressure is being brought to bear on the staff of the Assembly.

Mr Rajah: I think the Finance Minister is really now suffering from the ill effects of our continuous sittings. There has been no suggestion that there is any pressure from anybody on anybody. What I am interested in is this, that the checks and balances should be such that there would not even be a suspicion of doubt in the minds of the Assembly staff that somebody could bring pressure to hear on them. The system should be such that nobody from any side of the House could bring pressure to bear on the Assembly staff. That is the point I wish to make. Surely the Minister for Finance can understand that the present position is such that if there were an unreasonable Minister for Finance, such as somebody not like our present Minister, it could become difficult. That is the point I am trying to make. The Minister for Finance must accept that position.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise really to endorse the point made by the Minister for Finance. I do not think the survival of parliamentary democracy in Malaya is really in Malaya or Malaysia. Either parliamentary democracy survives or it is changed to some other form of government. It does not depend upon the question of whether some 15 or 20 persons in the Singapore Legislative Assembly are in the Government service or in the Legislative Assembly service. I mean these are forms and trappings which are desirable if they fit the actual conditions. More important than that, I am sure the Member for Farrer Park is genuinely and sincerely interested in seeing that the form of government is not changed for the worse. I say we could better spend our time ensuring that by seeing that the organs of the State are not undermined and altogether gone. Then you will have a Legislature here and everybody will say "Ah, yes, that is the edict from the Legislature." But where is the where-withal to carry out the edicts of the Legislature?

There are many more important factors which will decide whether or not the democratic free will of the people expressed at regular intervals during elections can continue. One of them depends really not so much upon the formalism, the ritual or the constitutional guarantees. I am not saying that constitutional guarantees are not important and that things should not be under-written as hard as they can be. But what I would like to remind the House is that it is more important not only the people in this Chamber, the representatives of the people play according to the rules of the Chamber, but that political forces outside are not allowed to get out of hand to prevent the free inter-play in a free democratic exchange. That is really the reality of the power. We are here concerned with the facade. Not unnaturally when the Member for Cairnhill was in charge, he was not interested in the facade, but he was interested in the reality. And the reality is not in this Chamber - the nice and sweet things that are done. If you want to prevent the system from taking a turn for the worse, then other things have to be done. One of the first things we should do in this Chamber to maintain a semblance of democracy is to see that there is no abuse of the privileges of Members: that there is none of the distortion and malicious lying of the intentions of this House and so on. That is more important - the prestige of the Chamber; more than whether the Clerk, the Second Clerk or the Reporters are in the Government service or in the Legislative Assembly service. That is a triviality. If, in fact, people outside come to the conclusion that this is a mad House - quite frankly, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis (particularly the Member for Upper Serangoon) told me this, that the last time when we raised' the. question of privilege in connection with the Member for Hong Lim, who properly resigned when the crucial moment came. Outside amongst the Chinese, they said that the Assembly is a very strange place - "How is it that you can, tell lies there and nothing happens? A very curious thing!" I think that is more important, that you do not come here and reduce the value of this forum by slowly denigrating ourselves by a process of systematic disregard of the rules of decency, systematic distortion of the motivation of things that are done here.

Everybody in town knows that a, debate went on for 12 to 13 days. Once the Member for Cairnhill had to call for a quorum. When it was counted there were less than 13. I am sorry, Sir, to have mentioned forum. It is uppermost in my mind, because there is one due to be recorded tomorrow, I am told. The Member for Queenstown said he was not given a chance to speak in the Chamber. He wants to speak here first. We have now invited him to speak to millions of Malayans and Malaysians, over to Borneo on the short-wave. But we were told that this is a mockery of democracy. In the name of Western parliamentary democracy, they say this, that and the other. It is all in the Standing Orders, adopted unanimously in this Assembly by them. We played according to the rules. They said, "No" to our motion on Thursday last. There was no protest. It was, their right to say no. General assent was not given. We could not debate the parents' appeal for police protection. We lost two days - Friday and Monday. The pickets disappeared on Tuesday after the motion was passed, because so far, in the minds of the people, a motion carried in this House does have certain political consequences. Therefore, things were done. But they held it up for two days. They said, "No" on Thursday. We could not debate it on Friday. We had to wait till Monday. We passed it on Monday. Then on Tuesday the pickets disappeared. But what did they say? When we worked according to the rules, to which they agreed, and which were unanimously adopted - says the Standing Order, "... with effect pursuant to a resolution of the Legislative Assembly on 29th December, 1959" - they said it was undemocratic and they walked out. It was with a sense of foreboding that the Member for Cairnhill called for a quorum.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Forum?

The Prime Minister: Quorum. Their own Barisan Sosialis Members were bored to tears. They left this Chamber. They could not stand it themselves. Papers coming in; the typewriter working over-time; more papers being fed. You were a little lenient, Sir, and so were we. People were reading speeches. I mean words and phrases in Mandarin polished and glittering like a beautiful sapphire -

The Chairman: One minute left.

The Prime Minister: Indeed, Sir, I cannot play tribute to the flowery eloquence of some of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They suddenly become literary geniuses. But we allowed this to pass. But what did they say when we said they could talk for 19 hours? They could not talk relevantly for 19 hours.

The Chairman: I think the Member for Farrer Park wishes to say something. One minute more.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Two seconds, Sir, just to make one last point. I say that is more important about parliamentary democracy - whether it survives or not in the minds of the people - than all the constitutional guarantees or establishment of guarantees and whether their pensions are paid by the Assembly or by the Government.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has referred to my calling a quorum. When I called the quorum, it was a Member of the Government who was then speaking and there were only four Members on the Government side left.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I deeply admire the Prime Minister. When he is in a fix, he is a complete adept at swinging the debate away from the point. I watched him with admiration and saw how neatly he got out of the fix in regard to the word "consultation" where the Member for Nee Soon was concerned. Now he is trying it on me!

Really Mr Speaker, Sir, these things are important. The Prime Minister himself knows it. It is the "trappings" of democracy that saved him about three or four days ago. Let him not forget that.

An hon. Member: How is that?

Mr Rajah: Well, the motion from this Assembly protecting the rights of an Assemblyman got him out of the educational difficulties. Let the Prime Minister not forget that.

The Prime Minister: Thank you.

Mr Rajah: He used it to purpose. And why not? Therefore, Mi. Speaker, Sir, let us not talk about the trivialities of the democratic system. There is nothing trivial about the democratic system. Every little thing is important. It has its place. It falls into place and builds up the whole system. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister not to retract from the statement which he made in thi5 House that he is willing to consider having a Committee to look into the matter.

The Prime Minister: Yes, yes. Nothing will be retracted.

Mr Rajah: I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $635,970 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 5 -

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

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

*The same amendment stood in the names of Inche Mohamed Ali bin Alwi and Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Mr Speaker, I wish to touch upon the question of not only the independence of the Public Service Commission, but the impression that the public of Singapore should have, that the Public Service Commission is, in fact, independent; that the members composing the Public Service Commission, their political associations and affiliations, their personal connections with Ministers are such that an impression will not be created in the minds of the people that the Public Service Commission is one with the Government and that it has become an instrument of Government policy rather than an independent body established for establishment purposes with the intent and purpose that this arm - this democratic arm, if I may bore the Prime Minister with that phrase - should serve the public services as such, and not adumbrate the policy of the Government with regard to what the Government think the Public Service should do or sold not do. In that respect. Mr Speaker, it is important that the members who form this Commission should, like Caesar's wife, be above reproach.

Sir, at the recent inquiry where the Member for Hong Lim was before the Chua Commission, a number of persons from the Public Service Commission gave evidence, of whom one was Mr Lim Kim San. The question was asked of Mr Lim Kim San whether he was a member of the People's Action Party. The answer was yes. A further question following on that was whether he had made any contribution to the People's Action Party. The answer was yes. But the question which should have followed on it was never asked. I do not know why. But it was never asked. The question that should have been asked was, "How much?" That is a question which is exercising the minds of the public, lithe answer had been $10, perhaps it might have been nothing. But if the answer had been $100,000 or $10,000, surely. Mr Speaker, Sir, it places Mr Lim Kim San vis-a-vis the Public Service Commission in an unhappy position.

4.15 p.m.

It is a great pity that question was not asked, and that no statement was made on it. The result is that it is felt that certain members of the Public Service Commission are intimately connected with the People's Action Party. Therefore, following on, that premise, the suggestion is that people who are inclined to the P.A.P. way of thinking, irrespective of how good or how bad they might be as civil servants, get preferential treatment before the Commission. I am not shooting a line on this, Mr Speaker, Sir. I can assure the Prime Minister of this, because people are talking like that and the civil servants are talking and thinking in those terms. It is therefore important for the Government 10 declare that this is not so and to clear all the members of the Public Service Commission on the question of whether they are sympathetic to the P.A.P. way of political thinking or whether they were appointed merely because the Government thought it was merely an extension of the arm of Government for appointment purposes and not for political purposes. It is important because if the public services as a whole got the impression that promotions were being effected not on service merits hut on other merits totally unconnected with and unrelated to service conditions and service merits, then the whole of the civil service surely must deteriorate. Therefore, it is of public importance to have a complete, fair and open statement from the Government as to whether these suspicions which are now being voiced and talked about have any foundation at all. I think the name of Mr Lim Kim San should, in fairness to him, he cleared. He has been given honourable mention by the Minister for Finance as somebody who is doing a great service to the public. Mr Speaker, I myself know Mr Lim Kim San as a very able gentleman. I have nothing against him, but I think he is holding a public appointment of some importance, and therefore it is necessary and vital that his name and his connection with the People's Action Party should he cleared in order that the good name of the Public Service Commission be maintained so that it might effectively carry out the purposes for which it was appointed.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I only want to speak about a number of difficulties and questions on the Public Service Commission because we feel, as it should be, that the independence of this Assembly should be enforced by the Public Service Commission. What I would like to know is this - would it be possible to get an explanation of the resignation of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission? Apart from that, who is the prospective Chairman? In my opinion, Mr Speaker, it is better to have - as in the P.A.P. today there are so many communities - in this Public Service Commission members of different races and communities, like Malays, Indians and so on. It is not because I am not satisfied with the services but because, Mr Speaker, outside this Assembly people are talking about it. If you do not believe me, you can ask members of the Police, immigration officials and customs about appointments to higher ranks. They are not satisfied though they have served for a long time and have qualified in the national language. But because of several factors regarding qualifications, graduates of Nanyang University have been appointed to higher posts. Because of the hope of independence for this country, members of other races should also hold such posts. I would like to have a reply, because this has been discussed in U.M.N.O., especially in the East Division, and I have been given the duty to communicate this to this Assembly. On the appointments to higher posts based on special privileges to the Malays, as mentioned in my questions to the Minister for Finance, out of four of them, they took only one, Inche Anwar Ibrahim, who is now in the Ministry of Education. He has been appointed to a higher post. But as for the three others, Mr Speaker, it appears to me that they are not appointed to higher posts, but get by way of salaries appointments in name only. The appointment to higher posts is exaggerated in the newspapers. I hope I could get a clearer explanation from the Minister for Education. I just communicate to the Assembly what I have been told to do.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice under Head 5 - Public Service Commission, there is one Chairman, one Deputy Chairman and three members. That makes five. I believe none of the five is a woman. Sir, every year more and more girls pass their School Certificate examination, their Chinese Middle III or their pre-university II examination, and more and more are graduating from the University of Singapore and Nanyang University. There are also more and more of them graduating as teachers from the Teachers' Training College in the English. Chinese, Malay and Indian sections. Most of these women, Sir, are absorbed into Government service. I had a chat with the Minister for Education and I asked him whether it was true that more and more women were being absorbed into the Government service. His reply was, "Of course, otherwise our society would not be progressing." Sir, I was just wondering whether it would not be a sign of progress in our society to have one or two women in the Public Service Commission. When the Public Service Commission was first appointed some years ago, there was a comparatively smaller number of women entering the Government service. Now that the number is rapidly swelling, is it not logical and fair to have at least one woman as a member of the Public Service Commission? Sir, I am not suggesting that the Government should increase their expenditure by enlarging the Commission. Neither am I suggesting that one unfortunate male member should be replaced by a woman. But I do ask the Government, if on future occasions they have to make more appointments, whether they would keep this in mind. Because it is not only for my sake or for the sake of women in Singapore, but for the sake of all women throughout the world who are interested in raising the status of women. I am not trying to be a feminist - it seems to be quite a joke, I hear - and neither must this question be treated as unimportant, as is every other question concerning women. Whenever such a question comes up, it is greeted with laughter and treated as if it is unimportant. It is important enough, Sir, to find a place in the U.N. Charter on Human Rights where they ask for equal privileges and equal treatment for women. The P.A.P. has also advocated the same principle. That is why I am appealing to the Government to give this a thought in making future appointments.

The Prime Minister: Sir, for one moment I thought we were in the United Nations! However, we endeavour to look after, as best we can, human rights, women's rights, Assemblymen's rights, Malay rights -

Mr Rajah: You have given her ideas!

The Prime Minister: - and we try to make everybody happy, Sir,In the process of making everybody happy, we have also to keep the machinery of the State going. One of the parts of the State machinery is the Public Service Commission. Both the Member for Cairnhill and his predecessor, the Member for Anson, will know that this was one of the items that was acrimoniously debated in the course of our constitutional conferences in London. First, the Member for Anson led the delegation - he led two subsequent ones. On both occasions there was acrimonious debate on whether or not should inherit the former P.S.C. It was generally agreed, after a bit of acrimony, that it was the right of the Government to nominate the P.S.C. there are valid, cogent reasons for that conclusion which the Member for Cairnhill, as Chief Minister then, pressed and the Secretary of State for the Colonies agreed with him. For the benefit of his colleague the Member for Farrer Park, who was not present at the conferences, may I enumerate some of the reasons advanced jointly? I think the Member for Geylang Serai will bear witness with me. Firstly, the Government that comes into office will be inheriting a State machine which had been built up largely by expatriate officers in the past. Therefore, it was necessary that the men who were to decide on a large number of promotions which were going to take place as Malayanisation progressed should reflect the political thinking of the new generation of rulers who would take the place of the British administrators. The men who were appointed by former Governors reflected the thinking of one era. The men who have taken their places must reflect the thinking of the new age. Secondly, it is impossible for the Government to be at variance with the background, the thinking and the philosophy of members of the P.S.C. for long without there being serious acrimony. Behind all this facade of independence of the judiciary, the independence of the Legislature - when I used the word "facade" I used it in a very liberal sense, in the sense that behind the constitutional guarantees, the outward symbols of separateness, there must be the reality of effective government. If you have a P.S.C. that keeps on promoting or recruiting people whom the Government feels it has no confidence in, then a point is reached where things come to a break. The Member for Farrer Park is not altogether unaware of the affairs of government. He has been in local government for years. You face the same problem there. If you are to inherit a machine manned in key positions by people on whom you place no reliance, then how does the machine work? It is as simple as that. Therefore, written into the Constitution as a safeguard against variance of opinion of the P.S.C. and the Ministers, the Permanent Secretary appointments are to be made by the Prime Minister from a list given by the P.S.C. If the Prime Minister does not like it, he sends back the list and asks for another list. The office of State Advocate-General is an appointment of the Prime Minister. The office of Chief Justice is an appointment of the Prime Minister. The office of the Chairman of the Arbitration Court is an appointment of the Prime Minister. The office of the Speaker, Sir, is an appointment of the Government Party.

4.30 p.m.

Behind all the theories of separation of power, behind all the niceties of the independence of action, judgment, decision, the checks and balances of the democratic system, there must be the reality of effective cohesiveness. We have appointed five men on the P.S.C. - six so far; the present Yang di-Pertuan Negara was our first appointment; he vacated his post on the P.S.C. when he became the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. They were men unconnected with the P.A.P. in the sense that they were politically involved. The rules of the Constitution were observed. But let me tell the Member for Farrer Park this. Obviously we would never appoint anybody in whom we have no confidence to the P.S.C. or to any board on which we have the right of appointment. The first thing we must have is confidence in the man's judgment. How do you get that confidence? Because you know him. If you do not know him, how do you know you can rely on his judgment?

I want to clear Mr Lim Kim San. First of all, I think the Member for Farrer Park was wrong when he said that Mr Lim Kim San said that he was a member of the P.A.P. He never was. He never said in the Commission of Inquiry that he was a member of the P.A.P. He said that he was not a member of the P.A.P. He was asked whether he gave a donation to the P.A.P. After he was appointed, he was approached by the Treasurer of the Party who came to know him because he was appointed the Chairman of the Housing Board and the Housing Board and Allocation Committees to help him in awarding points and so on. The Treasurer of the Party, my Political Secretary (Mr Jek Yuen Thong), got to know him and got a contribution from him. He is doing the job for nothing in the Housing Board. The Member for Farrer Park knew that we offered that appointment on the Housing Board to a friend of his. It was a tough job because the Minister then was the Member for Hong Lim and we needed another tough man to do the job properly so that the checks and balances could work. But the reality of power is this - you have a tough Minister - whatever you do, the balance of authority is finally decided by who has to carry the can, for he who carries the responsibility must ipso facto have the right to decide. Without the slightest compunction, I say that I would not, nor would any of my colleagues, appoint anybody to the P.S.C. or to any other authority if we did not have confidence in him. We only appoint people in whom we have confidence.

Sir, I think Mr Lim Kim San has been unjustly mentioned in this context - probably unintentionally. But I say this, that it was because of his performance in the P.S.C. and in the Polytechnic Board of Management, where the Deputy Prime Minister was and is the Chairman, that we asked him to become a member of the Housing Board. He is a man of considerable ability and of no mean stature. He is doing these things for nothing and I hate to believe -

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown) rose -

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Can I have one or two minutes on this amendment, Sir?

The Chairman: I do not see that the Member for Queenstown gave notice of any amendment. So I think the Prime Minister is entitled to carry on.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I want to make this point, that Mr Lim Kim San is not there because he is going to promote P.A.P. men. I am quite prepared to have a public inquiry on any aspect of it. In the course of the inquiry into the allegations made by the Member for Hong Lim, I myself gave evidence as to how the P.S.C. worked and operated in certain circumstances. It is utterly ridiculous to make these allegations. Mr Lirn Kim San is there because I rely on his judgment. If the Member for Farrer Park really feels that there is this feeling that you have to be a P.A.P. member before you get promotion, then I say let us have a public inquiry. Let us review every promotion made. To my mind, it is utterly nonsensical to suggest it, because there is no member of the civil service who is a member of the P.A.P.

An hon. Member: No member of the civil service?

The Prime Minister: Of the civil service, nor of the P.S.C. To my knowledge, no member of the civil service in Division I is a member of the P.A.P. Apart from the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, I know of no other Division I officers because civil service officers usually like to be unconnected with these matters. I am sorry this allegation has been made -

An hon. Member: Goh Sin Tub.

The Prime Minister: - and I say it it is persisted in -

An hon. Member: Goh Sin Tub.

The Chairman: Order. It is 4.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister: A member of the civil service - Mr Goh Sin Tub - has been mentioned. He applied but he was not accepted. That is a fact. He applied to he a member of the P.A.P. but he was not accepted. He got no promotion on account of either being or not being in the P.A.P. I say, have a public inquiry at any time. But I must tell the Member for Farrer Park this - that he has to get the facts and he has to present them at the inquiry, and I think it is necessary.

Lastly, may I just deal with the Member for Kampong Kembangan? I will give another opportunity to the Member for Farrer Park at some other time. We can then review this matter. I speak with sonic heat because I have to defend the institution, particularly when its members cannot be here to defend themselves. I have just gone to the phone to check my facts about this business of Mr Lim Kim San being a member of the P.A.P. Mr Lin1 Eng Bee resigned because he was in bad health. He was advised by Prof. Monterio to consult a specialist in London. Thereafter he probably has to convalesce for about six months. The post will have to be filled substantively at some time or other unless he can come back and take on the job. It was partly the nature of the duties and so on which has contributed to his being unwell.

I understand the Member for Kampong Kembangan asked who is to be successor. There is an acting Chairman al the moment. It is not easy to ask a man to take this duty. Singapore is in a peculiar situation. If you are in a settled and established society, you have a lot of retired professional men.

The Chairman: Order. The time is up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $184,490 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 7 -

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

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

We know that the salary of the Prime Minister has been increased by $450 a month. He has other allowances for being in Government, and also transport facilities. In addition, he has an allowance for learning languages. Why must his salary be increased by such a big sum? Does the Prime Minister know that our poor people get only a few dollars in public assistance every year?

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir,I must insist that there is no reading from prepared scripts. The Member has a right to put his question, but we have a long tirade from a prepared script, particularly as the Mandarin to my ear, Sir, does not sound the same as what I usually hear from him. I must ask him to refrain from reading from prepared scripts.

The Chairman: Yes. I think in Committee of Supply we must not have any prepared scripts, or if there are prepared scripts they can be considered as notes. There should not be obvious reading of a prepared script. This is the Committee of Supply.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this note was drafted by myself.

During the general election the P.A.P. promised to improve the livelihood of the people. But today the Prime Minister has improved himself. I do not know how he can explain this way.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first I wish to tell the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education that the salary of the Prime Minister was originally $3,500 a month. It was the Member for Anson, when he was Chief Minister, who fixed this salary. The second Chief Minister, namely, the Member for Cairnhill, also received $3,500 a month as his salary. I am very disappointed in the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. He knew that we reduced the allowances of our public servants because we wanted to economise on Government expenditure. That was why in July 1959 we reduced the allowances of our public servants. At the same time, we reduced the salaries of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary himself drew a salary of $1,500 a month, but later on it was reduced to $1,250 a month. We made progress in the Government partly because of the support and help of the people who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. We did this so that the economy of our State would be more stable. But when our economy improved and things turned out for the better, we decided to restore the allowances in full. I regret very much to have heard the arguments he raised just now. If he had not been manipulated by others, he would still have been receiving $1,500 a month now. [Interruption] Perhaps he does not understand the interjection of the Member for Farrer Park.

4.45 p.m.

I was saying that if the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education had continued to be Parliamentary Secretary, he would have been receiving the same amount of salary. But his dream is now shattered, and there is another person assisting the Minister to take charge of education problems. How weak is the memory of our ex-Parliamentary Secretary!

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps it would be convenient for me to take items (2) and (3) together. Item (2) deals with Parliamentary Secretary, and item (3) Personal Secretary (Political).

The Chairman: Order. I think perhaps item (2) could be taken together with item (1) because it deals with the same principle of increase. But item (3), I think there are other aspects that may be debated.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): I agree to that, Mr Speaker. I believe my ex-Parliamentary Secretary and the other Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen will agree that the values of the Member for Anson and the Member for Cairnhill are not far off the values of our Ministers in respect of the work they can contribute. They do not mind at all if they themselves can enjoy such a salary. But we are drawing this salary because we work for the interests of the people and not for ourselves. This has to be understood clearly.

Ministers, of course, must be put on a higher status than that of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. And since Parliamentary Secretaries have had their salaries and allowances restored, then, of course, Ministers must also have their salaries and allowances restored. That is simple reasoning.

Just now the Member also mentioned allowances in respect of transport, and other fees. I cannot remember what it is. Would he please mention it again? [Interruption] Oh, yes, he mentioned the learning of languages. That is to help our communication and conversation with our ex-Parliamentary Secretary. That is why we had to spend time learning languages in spite of the fact that we had much work to do. When he was Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Education, I used to encourage him to learn languages. Perhaps he has given up learning languages due to pressure of work and time. But how is it that as an Assemblyman he could draw an allowance for learning languages and I could not? I should also have the same facilities.

He also mentioned just now another kind of allowance. What was that? I cannot remember.

The Chairman: Order. The Speaker fortunately is at an advantage in respect of these interjections. He hears them but they do not reach the hearing of the interpreters. I ask hon. Members on the other side, as far as they can, not to interject. They have an opportunity, of course, of speaking.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): I want to make the whole position clear. After the Hong Lim by-election in May this year, our Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries decided to resign and hand over our responsibilities to the people. But it was the Assemblymen opposite who insisted on our carrying on. At the same time, they were calculating on becoming Acting Prime Minister and Acting Deputy Prime Minister. The Member for Nee Soon told the present Minister for Labour that they had already drafted out their plan. How nice! They wanted to -

The Chairman: Order. The Hon. The Prime Minister wanders so far away from the actual topic under discussion that there will not be much time left for the other Members who have given notices of amendments.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very closely related to the question before us. They have accused us of having self-interest to such an extent that we have restored our salaries. When we assumed office, we had cut our salaries. Now we have fully restored our salaries. Is it reasonable for a Minister to receive a salary lower than that of a Parliamentary Secretary? Another reason: they wanted to be Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries - perhaps four Ministers and five Parliamentary Secretaries. They calculated that if the Ministers would not carry on with their duties and resigned, then there was a golden opportunity to take over. That is why they have already planned their future shadow Cabinet.

The Chairman: Order. I do not know how all that statement ties up with the complaint which the Member for Serangoon Gardens has made - that the salary of the Prime Minister has increased.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): On this question of restoration of salaries of Parliamentary Secretaries, the Assemblymen opposite have given notices of amendments in respect of Ministers' salaries and so on. I suggest we debate all these amendments together as otherwise we will be debating over a length of time without end. Would you agree to that, Mr Speaker?

The Chairman: Yes. The debate should now range over not only the increase of salary of the Prime Minister but also the increase made in the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, item (2) of subhead 1. I suggest the debate should also range over the increases made in the salaries of all Ministers and all Parliamentary Secretaries, so that we can deal with that topic now.

Perhaps the Member for Serangoon Gardens would like to add to his statement in regard to Parliamentary Secretaries.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on this question, I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretaries have had a full restoration of their salaries because the public servants have had their salaries and allowances restored. Is it so?

We know the livelihood of the people was the same three years ago. Why should these so-called representatives of the people receive such high salaries? Is it possible to allocate the allowances paid to them to better use, such as public assistance?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): I have clearly stated that this is only meant to restore the salaries as they were in July 1959. I think the purpose underlying the question of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen is this. They have a motive because they have asked why certain pub1ic assistance has not been increased whereas the Ministers' salaries have been raised. I would say that the Member for Thomson, who is a friend of Mr Rajendra and who is in the same front as he is, had suggested restoration from July 1959. I think it is because they are in the same front as the Communists. He understands it well himself. Mr Rajendra understands it very well. He said it was unreasonable and explained why it could not be done.

The Chairman: I do want to impress upon the Prime Minister that the time now is Opposition time. If he continues in that strain, there will not be any opportunity for other Members who have to move their amendments and speak.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Lastly, I wish to ask them: if they sympathise with the people in their sufferings, then I would suggest that they have their own allowances cut. That would be a very fair thing to do. We all contribute something to the aid of the poor. If the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen accept this, then we will also agree to the cut in our allowances too, so that they will have a chance too of proving their words in deeds. Otherwise people will say that they are phoney.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): I think the Prime Minister is talking through his hat. He is suggesting that Assemblymen should cut their allowances. He knows that there are lots of Assemblymen who do not have money -

The Prime Minister: What?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and everybody is unlike a lawyer who has an office, plenty of money, big cars

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I believe, Sir, - I cannot quote offhand - the Prime Minister himself at one time advanced the suggestion that Assemblymen should he paid more, because -

The Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the allowance of Assemblymen, but only in so far as there has been a suggestion to cut their allowance. The hon. Member, I think, has made his point - that it would be perhaps a burden on some Assemblymen if their allowance were cut.

The Prime Minister: May I, on a point of order, just point out - and I do not want this to be misinterpreted - that we are against the Member for Queenstown's proposal that Assemblymen's allowances should be increased.

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. I think the amendment has been sufficiently debated. Does the hon. Member wish for a vote?

Mr Leong Keng Seng: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Item (2)* has been dealt with, and I think it is time to suspend.

*Amendment standing in the name of Mr Leong Keng Seng:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

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

Mr Speaker: Order, order. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

5.31 p.m.

The Chairman: Head 7 - Prime Minister. Third amendment. Tun Lim.

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

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

+The same amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Inche Mohamed Ali bin Alwi, Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mr Leong Keng Seng.

Sir, before I go into this, I would beg of you to see to it that the debate under this Head is not unnecessarily long. During the debate on the first two amendments, we took 25 minutes. The Prime Minister, I think, took 20 minutes just to explain that it was a restoration of self-imposed pay cuts. In fact, as I pointed out in this Assembly before, it was nothing but the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. We do not want that to happen, particularly in this Budget debate, which has a very tight schedule. There is also a guillotine on the time allotted for matters of this kind. Out of 22 amendments, Sir, I have 16 under my name. As a result of too much time spent on the first two amendments, we have to rush through the other amendments under the Head of Prime Minister.

I would like the Prime Minister to explain why it is that in the case of Political Secretaries, an increase of $250 is suggested. There is no such thing as a restoration of pay cut, because there was no pay cut imposed on Political Secretaries. I would like it to be understood here, Sir, that I have nothing against the Political Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office. I know him personally. But I am raising this as a matter of principle. The Political Secretary, Sir, according to the Government, is there to tell the Minister concerned about the pulse of the people. The political Secretary in question, Sir, contested the by-election in Hong Lim. He went to Hong Lim as the defender of the P.A.P. and lost. He was, therefore, rejected by the electorate of Hong Lim. If Members will remember, when the P.A.P. Government came into power, they made short shrift of all candidates who lost in the general elections, so much so that those in the Opposition who had been active in community centres and other voluntary organisations were shoo'd off by the then Minister for Labour and Law on the grounds that they were unwanted by the people. They were rejected by the electorate of the division they stood for. Therefore, they should not be given the chance to serve the people in any capacity whatsoever. Here we have the case of a Political Secretary who had been rejected by the electorate of Hong Lim. Yet he is the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. Sir, I think, as a result of that, it is not out of place to ask the Prime Minister whether or not this Political Secretary drew any salary during the time of the by-election campaign.

The Chairman: Inche Mohd. Ali, not speaking? Dr Lee Siew Choh.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will not take very much time, Sir. We were told that the past Political Secretaries like Fong Swee Suan, Lim Ching Siong, and S. Woodhull were made Political Secretaries because they were to serve as a bridge between the Government and the people.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. That is an utterly incorrect statement to inform the House of.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister will be able to correct that later on. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, as far as I understand, Sir, they served as Political Secretaries because the Prime Minister insisted -

The Prime Minister: Come on!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - that if they wanted to show that they were loyal to the P.A.P., they had to shoulder the responsibility of Government policy. The Minister for Finance defended Lim Ching Siong. The Prime Minister also defended all of them. But we know what the real purpose was. The real purpose, Sir, was to use the names of these persons as a cover for anything which the Government thought was unpopular so that they could enlist the support of workers in whatever policies they wanted to implement. But what happens to the present Political Secretaries? I do not want to be personal, Sir. I know them personally myself. But of what use are they now?

The Prime Minister: You will be surprised!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Are they serving as bridges between the Party in power and the people? Or are they mere translators? You will remember, Sir, in the first Session that the Prime Minister himself said that but for the fact that they had a Malay translator who could translate the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it was possible that the real speech would have been misunderstood. As far as we know, all translators are only given a certain salary and never as high as it is put down. Since the coffers of the P.A.P. are also depleted and are not so easily replenished, I wonder whether they need more contributions from the Political Secretaries and other people like them. We have nothing personal against the Political Secretaries, Sir. If they really want to serve their purpose, they must be sent back to the people. They must not stay in air-conditioned offices and just translate speeches and writings of certain people. Such jobs can easily be delegated to civil servants.

Since the Member for Cairnhill has asked a question about the pay of the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister during the by-election, I must mention that we know that the then acting Political Secretary never received a single cent. All the money which that Political Secretary was supposed to have received went to the coffers of the P.A.P. instead. If this is not political corruption, then we do not know what is.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on this question, my colleague has said quite a lot. I just want to ask why the salary of all these Personal Secretaries (Political) is increased?

The Chairman: To channel the debate. There seem to be three heads. One is the principle of whether or not Political Secretaries should be paid. That has been raised by the Member for Queenstown. The second point is the increase of $250. I take it that it is an increase to all Political Secretaries. We can deal with that. Thirdly, I think possibly the question will arise in each particular Ministry whether a Political Secretary should be engaged. What use they are. I would suggest then that we deal with the two heads.

An hon. Member: All three would be convenient.

The Chairman: There may be an opinion that in one Ministry there should not be a Political Secretary. But I will make it quite clear that the debate now should range, first, over the principle as to whether a Political Secretary is necessary at all; and, secondly, the reason why there is an increase of $250. Those two heads must be debated now and cannot be reopened when we come to the other supplementary issue.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of your ruling, Sir, would it be possible for the guillotine to be extended? 7.10 p.m. would therefore be too short.

The Chairman: No, I cannot do that. When I settled the time, I did take into consideration all these eventualities. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: First, on the principle, Sir. The only people who have any right to question the principle of Political Secretaries are the Members from the S.P.A. They questioned it on the first occasion or the second occasion. We, together with the help of the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen and the three Members of the U.P.P., defended it. I need hardly say, Sir, that people who changed their minds so quickly in the course of four months leaves others in doubt as to whether they are stable, apart from financial matters, Sir,Instability in financial matters is one thing, particularly when one considers the loss of earnings. But general instability - questioning basic principles which they supported and voted for - is another thing.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mental instability!

The Prime Minister: Oh, mental instability. I do not want to delve into the medical side of these things. But I am told, Sir, that people who talk about the poor workers and social welfare benefits and so on -

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Prime Minister should talk with an eye on the clock.

The Prime Minister: I will, Sir - more than that. Apart from keeping an eye on the clock, I have to watch the effect of what has been said on the Members of the Opposition, because it either shortens or prolongs the debate. If obviously a gleam of light filters through, then time is saved. The point I want to make is that if a person keeps four Alsatian dogs and feeds them, how can he, in the name of democracy - Western style parliamentary democracy - say that we are ill treating the people and so on? It is very complicated. Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister is talking about himself.

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has no Alsatian dogs, Sir.

Mr Rajah: The Prime Minister is the Alsatian dog!

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the Member for Farrer Park. But I am the non-biting kind! I think it is an utter waste of time to debate the question of principle with the Members of the Barisan Sosialis or the U.P.P. They were the people who defended and supported it. They know full well the effectiveness of the Political Secretaries, especially the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. He had his present Secretary-General there. He must know what a useful man he was. To the Member for Cairnhill, may I say this? He knows very well how extremely valuable my Political Secretary is, and how extremely valuable the Political Secretary to the Minister for Culture is. I am sorry the Member for Queenstown believes that they only translate.

5.45 p.m.

You can translate, and translate many things, Sir. You can translate words. You can translate ideas. What is most important is that there has been some good translation of ideas into action, much to the discomfiture of the Member for Queenstown, in particular, the discomfiture of his own colleague, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. He had a chat with my Parliamentary Secretary over the predecessor. Strangely enough, he has only asked a very simple question of principle about the increase, which I now propose to answer. Obviously my Political Secretary is a man of very few words and the few words he spoke sank home. Why the increase? When the salary was fixed at $1,100, their position vis-a-vis the Parliamentary Secretary was taken into consideration. In any organisation there is a certain amount of formality, protocol; who gives whom orders; whose authority over-rides whom. The salary of Parliamentary Secretary was fixed at $1,500; that of Political Secretary was fixed at $1,350. Parliamentary Secretaries were brought down to $1,250. Well, the adjustment was already made before the appointment - just like the P.S.C., and if I may mention it, the Speaker's emolument - it already contained the variable allowance. When we fixed the Political Secretary's salary, it was already after the pay cuts; so we fixed it at $1,100. When we restored the pay cut, we restored it all round. May I say this, Sir? If we wanted just to give largesse around, we could fill up all nine appointments, because we had nine appointments right from the word 'go'. We never did. We have never appointed more than five or six Politica1 Secretaries. Mr Devan Nair resigned for his own personal reasons, and not because he disagreed with the Government: because he would have been accused of being a stooge of the Government. He knew the fight was coming, and if he was in receipt of pay as Political Secretary, they would say he did it because he was a Political Secretary. So he resigned, went back to teaching, and waited for the scrap which he knew was coming. Because once he knew Mr Lim Ching Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan were going to play the Communist game, then the fight was inevitable. He prepared himself from possible smear by resigning his job and going back to teaching so that -

An hon. Member: How much did he get in all?

The Prime Minister: He only gets his salary as a teacher. He has insured himself against any jibe by any ignorant, illiterate or mischievous people by making sure that he is not open to damage. He has given no hostage to fortune. We have not filled up the appointments because there are no candidates available. Before Mr Jek contested the by-election, he resigned formally. After the election, when he was not returned, I reappointed him. I am the man, Sir, who knows whether or not he is of valuable help to the Government. Up till now we have not been able to find the people we want. We could appoint anybody and fill up all the jobs. As for the acting Political Secretary, when Mr Jek was at Hong Lim canvassing and campaigning, I appointed our editor of Petir to be my acting Political Secretary. He is in receipt of a party salary. Everybody, including Ministers and Assemblymen - and this is known to all Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P.- pays his whole salary to the Party and the Party then pays out to each Assemblyman and each Parliamentary Secretary and each Minister. We do not depend on anybody to help the Party. We fought and built the Party on our own and we are doing so now. And the man who was in receipt of a salary is the editor of Petir. I gave him certain extra duties -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As Political Secretary?

The Prime Minister: Yes. To do what Mr Jek was doing for me.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And received Government salary?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. collected for him?

The Prime Minister: Surely.

The Chairman: Order.

The Prime Minister: And now to his discomfiture, he went and joined the Barisan Sosialis and lost his job with the P.A.P. That is the pity of it all, Sir. I congratulate the chaps who manipulated the 13 Assemblymen into making them believe that they were going to be Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and draw big salaries. In the end they lost money. They all look thinner and hungrier now. They were extremely unhappy at the thought of reducing the Assemblymen's allowances. The Member for Queenstown suggested increasing it. Be that as it may, I ask each Member this very simple question - which the public will ask. If we are throwing public money away, why have we never filled up the jobs yet? There are nine jobs to give away. We filled up six because six men were available, and we filled them up for good reasons. One resigned to go back to teaching because he anticipated the day when we would part company and they would smear him. He did not want that. He did not want to give a hostage to fortune. We knew two had already gone the other way and were waiting for the open conflict. Mr Woodhull in the Ministry of Health was not with the other two, Sir, until very recently. He has decided to join the band-wagon only recently. Well, he takes the consequences. We had two fortunately - my own Political Secretary and the Political Secretary to the Minister for Culture - who we knew were stout-hearted men. They went into the valley in the shadow of death and came out as firm of conviction as when they went through the worst of it all. They did not believe they were going to get more salary when they stuck with us. Everybody expected us to go down. But they have conviction and courage, which is more than what I can say for some of the others. It is certainly more than what I can say for the 13 gentlemen sitting opposite, honourable though they may be by being in this Assembly, because we fought for them on our symbol, P.A.P., and on our programme.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Prime Minister that it was a readjustment of salary. Sir, in the case of the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, I accept the statement because those salaries were drawn by Ministers and Assistant Ministers of the previous Government. In the case of a Parliamentary Secretary, this was a new appointment. Then to prove my contention that the statement of the Prime Minister is wrong, let me refer him to page 427, Head 49. Ministry of Culture. Head 49 carries with it two political appointments - Personal Secretary (Political), i.e.. Political Secretary, and Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political), that is, Sir. item (3) of subhead 1. When we queried the salary fixed for the Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) at $1,400 - when Political Secretaries were paid $1,100 - it was pointed out to us in this Assembly (and I have the Hansard to prove it) that the Publicity Liaison Secretary was being paid $1,400 because of his greater responsibilities. Therefore, there was already a relationship between the salary scale of the Political Secretary and that of the Publicity Liaison Secretary. Now, it will be seen from Head 49, item (3) of subhead 1, that the salary of Publicity Liaison Secretary still remains at $1,400. Therefore, as a result of that, I contend that that was the salary fixed for the job - Publicity Liaison Secretary $1,400 and Political Secretary $1,100. Therefore, to increase an extra $250 for the Political Secretaries now is just to give extra money to people who support the Party in power:.

Now, coming to the other explanation given by the Prime Minister in regard to his Political Secretary during the time of the Hong Lim by-election, he disclosed a very scandalous state of affairs. He said that at that time his Political Secretary resigned. If he had resigned, let it be. But what did he do? The Prime Minister filled up the post with the editor of his paper.

The Prime Minister: Why not?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Fill it up and then take the money for his Party.

The Prime Minister: Why not?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That was what he did. This is the state of affairs the people of Singapore should take note of. The Government is making use of votes in this Assembly to enrich its own Party.

The Prime Minister: Come on.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In other words, the editor of Petir, doing the job of Political Secretary, was not qualified to receive the whole amount since he was already paid by the Party to be the editor of the Petir. Therefore, whatever money comes in is just political largesse distributed by the Government at the expense of the people of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: Why do we not distribute to the other seven? Tell me?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I will answer that. Why did he not fill up all the nine posts? Because he did not have enough Communist comrades to fill up all the posts.

The Prime Minister: Come on.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He dare not now -

The Prime Minister rose -

The Chairman: Point of order?

The Prime Minister: Point of order, is he making a serious allegation that Mr Rahim Ishak, a Political Secretary, is a Communist comrade? Because if he is, I think Mr Rahim Ishak -

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity of speaking.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It is indeed regrettable that the Prime Minister, who has been here for so many years, does not even know parliamentary procedure and starts talking on a point of order when it is not a point of order. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I am not suggesting who is a Communist and who is not a Communist. What I do suggest is this. The fact that the Political Secretaries who have now resigned have been labelled by him in his awful disclosures in 12 broadcasts as Communists, fellow-travellers, Communist front men. Those are the words used by the Prime Minister. So the reason why there were some posts not filled is that he had not enough Communist comrades there to contain. He need not have to use the posts, but he puts them in so that in case there are some Communist fellows whom he wants to contain, he will contain them.

The Prime Minister: Sir, there are logical questions which I think the Member for Cairnhill should answer if he makes this scandalous allegation, if we want to fill our party coffers, Sir, there are other simple ways of doing it. The power of patronage of a government under this Constitution is 10 times the power of patronage of a government under his. We can account for every single cent the Party has received and spent, which is more than I can say for some other Parties, which he knows about. We get nothing from America, as did the Labour Front Party. Nor do we fill our coffers in the way suggested by the Member for Cairnhill - disreputable and dishonourable. These men work for their money. So did every one of the Ministers, every one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, and every one of us who contributes to keep the Party going as a machine-not to get together a few chaps at election time to fight the elections. If we want to make the money for nothing, we could have filled up the nine posts. We have lots of Party workers - editors, assistant editors, organising secretaries. We could have filled up every one of the nine posts. But the people must be worth something before we put them there. It is as simple as that. When I got the editor of Petir to take over, I had to have one in my Ministry for various reasons. Because in my capacity, I have charge of the Government, the City Council, and the Party. I had to have somebody there who could be on tab. When Mr Jek was running around fighting the Hong Lim by-election, I had to get the editor of Petir to look after Mr Jek's duties. That is all, and there is nothing wrong with it. Mr Jek's money was paid into the Party, and so was this gentleman's money paid into the Party, and they were both paid out of the Party. And so is my money paid into the Party and paid out to me every month, less than what I receive from the Government. That is how we run our Party. I do not want to be mischievous, Sir, because I think the past should be forgotten, particularly by those whose past cannot bear looking into. The Member for Tanglin suggests a Commission of Inquiry. I think he did not consult some of his chaps. I could have a Commission and reopen the whole of the Chew Swee Kee case, although he has run away to Ipoh and will not come back here. But I could do a lot of unpleasant things to the chaps. We are a clean Party. We will stay that way. We receive nothing from the Americans. We receive nothing illegal and improper. We do not even appoint people when we have the power to do that.

6.00 p.m.

Is it really suggested that we are misusing our power of patronage just to fill up the party coffers? For what? To ruin the reputation of our Party? Half the strength of the Party lies in the fact that people know it is an honest Party. One may or may not agree with the Party, but nobody believes that we are hanging on - I for $3,000 and my colleagues for $2,500. Surely we are made of a little bit of sterner stuff than that.

Lastly, I ask the Member for Cairnhill not to be carried away by this. I do not want to hurt people unnecessarily. I heard an allegation against a very good friend of mine, Mr Lim Kim San, and I defended him with heat.

Sir, my Political Secretary went through a lot with me. I would trust him implicitly. On 20th July, whilst the Member for Farrer Park thought we were just enacting a little bit of party politics here, we were literally going through life and death, because had they undermined and convinced others that they were going to win and stampeded others, a very serious position would have arisen. He played a very important role in stabilising it. I say, I will stand by him any time, any place, as a gentleman of some character and some worth. He went to prison for his beliefs. The former Chief Minister put him there. He came out, and he told the former Chief Minister that he was joining the P.A.P. and not joining the Labour Front. And I say, credit to the Chief Minister for letting him out knowing that he was joining the P.A.P. He went through with us and we will stand by him. The Member for Serangoon Gardens knows the quality of Mr Jek Yuen Thong and very wisely says very little. I advise him to say very little on this because I do not want unnecessarily to praise Mr Jek Yuen Thong's virtues vis-a-vis the Member for Upper Serangoon but I am quite prepared to wade in.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the fact that the money that was to have been paid to the acting Political Secretary was paid into the coffers of the P.A.P. was disclosed by the Prime Minister. I did not make any allegation, but I do say that it was not right to this extent. The Political Secretary went on leave to contest the by-election. His post could not be left for a month. It had to be filled by the editor of their own Party organ. His salary was taken into the Party, and the Party paid him what his salary was as an editor. That was what the Prime Minister said. But in his five-minute speech just now, he did not make another attempt to explain away the increase of $250. It was not normal, because if it was normal, then the salary of the Publicity Liaison Secretary in the Ministry of Culture fixed at $1,400 is therefore not correct.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir,It was an oversight. The reason why the $1,400 was not increased is that that post was never filled. There is no holder of that post since it was left vacant. May I say this? These are all patronage positions. We could make more - and we have more - in statutory boards and various other bodies. If patronage is how a Party enriches itself, we could do it easily. The post has not been filled because there has been no man suitable for it. The men who fill these jobs have to satisfy our needs first. The only reason why the salary of that post has not been increased, like the others, is that the post is still vacant. So when the restoration of the allowances took place, that post was vacant and it never took effect.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has said that if they wanted to give these posts of patronage because of what they have done for the Party, they would have filled the other posts. The truth of the matter is this. I think this is what took place. There were a number of persons on the scene whom they wanted to appoint to these posts. There were five or six of them to whom they wanted to give appointments. Now they wanted to put these into the Budget under the various Ministries. So they had to build up a facade - the word was used by the Prime Minister himself - that everything was all right, so that if they made only six appointments in six Ministries, the question would be asked, "Why do you not do it for all the Ministries?" To put up a facade before this Assembly, they put all these posts in all the Ministries. I am convinced that I am correct in this, Mr Speaker, Sir. There has been a Political Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs ever since the concept of a Political Secretary was brought into this House. But that post has never been filled and it will never be filled. If I remember rightly, there was no post of Political Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, was there?

An hon. Member: Oh, yes.

Mr Rajah: It was only recently created. Was it created at the same time with the rest on their initial creation?

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Rajah: In any case, that post was also never filled until Mr Fong Swee Suan had to leave the Minister. He was then transferred to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now if there had been no differences of opinion between Mr Fong Swee Suan and the Government on matters of policy then the Deputy Prime Minister would have always been without a Political Secretary. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not put something across. Let us not really try and bluff the whole time. The Prime Minister has succeeded in bluffing his way through up till now. Let him not try and bluff all the time. You can bluff some of the people some of the time but not all the time. If he thinks it is a fair statement to say that he wants these Political Secretaries to help the Party, I accept it. But do not try to pull the wool over our eyes all the time. My quarrel with all these appointments now, Sir, is this. Purely from the budgetary point of view - and I think the Minister for Finance should take an active interest in this - the intention of the Government is not to fill any of these posts now. Why should they be carried in the Budget? The Minister for Finance is very particular about appointments. He always queries the departments, "Do you want this post?" If they do want the post and it has not been filled for two years, a query goes out. It is a normal query in any financial department, "These posts have not been filled for two years. Why do you want them now?" That is the normal query for the Minister for Finance to put up. Has he done it? No. Why not? Because it is a political appointment, and the facade must be carried right through to the bitter end?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Maybe I can help the House as to why there was an increase in this salary. The Government know that they are only 26. Time is running short. The writing is on the wall, and they are on the way out. This is legal looting because -

The Chairman: Order. I will not allow the expression "legal looting" in this House. That is completely unparliamentary if it is said of Members of this House - and it is said of Members of this House.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw that phrase. Anyway, the increase in salary will help to maintain the coffers of the P.A.P. because it can be easily found out how much these Political Secretaries receive. That will tell us exactly what is happening to Government money.

The Prime Minister: Sir, one logical point which the Member for Farrer Park has not been able to answer is this. If we wanted to loot, why did we bother to put nine posts in the Budget? A dishonest government can loot so quietly and effectively that the country will be plundered. Let us be honest about these things. The powers vested in the Ministers now by the new Constitution and the integration of the City Council into Government are those of the former Government - the Chief Secretary and the Mayor. The Ministers collectively exercise now all the powers of patronage of the Governor, the Mayor and the Chief Secretary. We can stash away a lot of things without having to go through this Budget. I have made this point before and I think the Member for Farrer Park has tried to exercise his mind to find out the reason. He says it is a facade. That is not true. I will tell him why we put in nine posts. To begin with, I had to have a Political Secretary and I had made up my mind before the elections that Mr Jek was to be my Political Secretary. I have been with him for a long time, Sir, and I trust him. He is an extremely able man. He could have been in this Assembly because he could have taken any seat and people knew that the P.A.P. was going to win. But he did not want a seat. He went out to Hong Lim to fight when he knew it was a tough fight and lost. He was prepared for it. I could give hint patronage in a thousand and one different ways. If that is what is required. I could appoint him to so many boards and stash away money for him. But we openly put it through this vote in the Assembly because he has to be my open political aide. Similarly. Inche Rahim Ishak helping the Minister for Culture. As for the others, let me explain what the position was in June 1959. If the former Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill, had read his files

• I do not know whether complete files were sent to him as Chief Minister, but I am quite sure fairly reasonable summaries must have been sent to him - he knew the position. He knew the distinction between Mr Fong Swee Suan's and Mr Lim Ching Siong's position. That Mr Fong Swee Suan was no longer a Communist in June l959 but that Mr Lim Ching Siong was still a Communist supporter. He knew that Mr Woodhull and Mr Devan Nair were not Communists. That Mr Devan Nair had broken with the Party and that Mr Woodhull who was always only fellow-travelling was finished with the Communists. That was the position in June 1959. The Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister right up to 2nd June. How can he deny it? He knows that that is true. Why does he make up all this froth? When we appointed them - as I said before and I said it in my broadcasts - it was a calculated risk. We knew we had four on our side - Devan Nair, Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan and James Puthucheary - and Mr Lim Ching Siong was against us. But he said openly that he was on our side. He signed the documents. Privately, we doubted his sincerity. We had to take a chance to see whether the four could convince the one. The tragedy of the thing is that the one convinced the three and only one had enough guts to fight through - win or lose - for his beliefs. I say this for the two Political Secretaries who went through with us. If they were just time-servers, they would have gone over to the other side. But they were not. They decided to dig their toes in, stand up for what they believed in, and fight with us - win or lose. It now happens that the Barisan Sosialis are going to lose, but that is another matter. They thought they were going to win.

An hon. Member: You hope!

The Prime Minister: I know, not I hope. I know. I looked up this horoscope man and he read the stars. He looked most carefully at the red star of the Barisan Sosialis, and the blue circle suddenly crushed the red star. It splintered to smithereens. The question is, have those various parts of the red star enough red corpuscles to go through with it to the bitter end, as we have?

An hon. Member: You will see.

The Prime Minister: Well, we will see. I do not know, but my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, told me that just before the purge in 1957 the Member for Havelock disappeared upcountry. Very useful! But this time disappearing upcountry will not help because it is Pan-Malayan. Even going to Borneo may not help. It is Pan-Malaysian. The same police force, the same security outfit.

An hon. Member: Do not intimidate!

The Prime Minister: These are calculations which I made for them. I counted it slowly on the fingers of two hands and I said to them -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Four hands.

The Prime Minister: Four hands? Maybe he was doing some counting as well.

The Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Members on the Opposition side realise that by interjecting they are losing time.

Mr Rajah: I was going to ask you, Sir, when the Prime Minister was going back to the point.

The Chairman: In this particular case, I do not think we can blame the Prime Minister for wandering away because of the interjections. If there were no interjections, then of course I would be justified in calling him to order.

The Prime Minister: We had already made up our minds. We took a calculated risk. We appointed six because there were six valuable aides. We knew there were five valuable aides. One we knew was a risk, but we had to carry that risk because -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We?

The Prime Minister: Yes. And that risk was given to the stoutest-hearted of all my colleagues to carry. He knew he was carrying it and he gave the person concerned a lot of statistics to read every day, hoping thereby that he would become scholarly. Unfortunately, that was not the case, Sir. [Interruption].

6.15 p.m.

No, it would not be about the air-conditioning. I think it was about some other matter. But whatever it was, the Member for Cairnhill knew the position. He was in authority. He was fully informed, and he knew the position. It is no use saying he did not know the position. I do not want to disclose my conversation with the Member for Geylang Serai - he is a very well informed person on these matters. In fact, one week he gave them a curry lunch before they were put away in Changi camp.

The Chairman: Order. I think I must ask the Prime Minister now to come back and wind up.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to to make is this. We had decided to appoint five because we had five available men. We had whistled up all because we did not know where to transfer them. And as and when men were available, we would appoint them. But they had to be worth their salt. In the end we lost three back to them. Well, it cannot be helped. Perhaps that is our bad luck. But the battle is a continuing and continuous one. There will be other rounds. I have a feeling that those who start changing sides two or three times will become finally battered and smashed to smithereens. One force comes in and captures. The next force comes in and captures. Three or four times, and the place is ruined.

The Chairman: Order. Let us come back to the particular motion. Has the Prime Minister completed?

The Prime Minister: No, I just want to wind up. The point is that four vacancies have been created. One person resigned for political reasons. I have explained this. He did not want to be a hostage to fortune. One was - anyway we knew it - against us. Two had political amnesia and went over to the other side. One of them, I think, is already sorry because he told me to buy a glass of beer for old time's sake, and I did, in the C.P.A. Room, Sir.

The Chairman: That took about three seconds! I take it that a vote is required.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

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

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

Sir, according to the note against this item in page 71 of this Estimates, the post is "Regarded". I would like to submit that this is not, in actual fact, a regarding but rather an upgrading. The post has been upgraded from Secretary to Principal Assistant Secretary. Hence as a result of that upgrading, an annual increase of $5,130 takes place, that is to say, about $430 a month. The post of Secretary carries with it a salary code of I-II, which is a salary scale of $680 by stages up to a maximum of $1,420. Whereas the salary code for Principal Assistant Secretary is given as l-7, which carries with it a salary scale of $1,300-40A-1,420. That is to say, although the maximum of the scale the same, yet the difference in the initial entry is $620. I would ask the Minister, Sir, whether it would not be more correct to call it upgrading than regarding.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the man gets more money, the Member for Cairnhill is correct in saying that it is upgraded. But what it actually is is this - supposing we say upgraded. May I explain, Sir, that this particular change is not confined to the Prime Minister's Office? There was carried out early this year a general regarding of posts in the administrative service. This is an exercise carried out after a detailed study by officials of the Treasury and the Organisation and Methods Branch. There was a general feeling that the former hierarchy of posts was a bit top-heavy. It was inadequate in the sense that certain posts which carried more responsibility than others were not adequately regarded and vice versa. So a Committee of officials of the Treasury and Organisation and Methods went into the details of all the posts in the Establishment and Administrative service, and made their recommendations which were considered valid objectives and accepted with some amendments. It would say this is an exercise to rationalise the administration.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Does this mean that the holder of the post of Secretary automatically becomes the Principal Assistant Secretary? He has to make it clear.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, that is by no means the case. Some posts were downgraded and others upgraded. In general. I think there was more downgrading than upgrading to get the proper balance in the hierarchy.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Since this post was upgraded, will the normal civil service procedure be observed - that there will be advertisements and perhaps the appointments will go through the P.S.C.? And the Secretary, of course, will have a better claim of being promoted.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned before, this is purely a civil service Establishment and Organisation and Methods exercise, and all the formalities are being rigidly adhered to.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With the explanation given, Sir, may I withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of subhead 1.*

*The same amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohamed Ali bin Alwi.

Here there is the question of one regarding, but I am not going to question that because of the explanation given by the Minister for Finance in regard to item (7).

But I do want to ask whether it is really necessary for the Prime Minister to have so many Secretaries and then to have another post of Assistant Secretary, making in all three Assistant Secretaries. Is it so vitally necessary?

If one looks at this page, one sees "Parliamentary Secretary", "Personal Secretary (Political)", "Permanent Secretary", "Deputy Secretary", "Principal Assistant Secretary", and now he wants another post, "Assistant Secretary". Is it necessary for another Assistant Secretary to help the Prime Minister in carrying out his work, which would be much lessened when merger takes place, as the Government thinks would take place by June 1963?

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: I am not speaking.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I wish my duties were less and decreasing. But, unfortunately, they neither increase nor decrease in this particular case. In the case of the two Assistant Secretaries, one is in an acting capacity as my Secretary, and the other is the Secretary for External Affairs. The increase is really an Establishment transfer - I do not know what the correct word is - but the Chairman of the Rural Board has now been upgraded into the Administrative service, and the holder will now appear as "Assistant Secretary". So far as staff are concerned, they are exactly the same. It is just that this post has been upgraded to an administrative post.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: According to the note appearing against this item, it says "One new post." So it must be a new post.

The Prime Minister: The post is created, but the man is already there doing the job. He is one of the Malay officers who was upgraded from the Executive service into the Administrative service. The officer concerned was acting as Chairman of the Rural Board, and he was upgraded into the Administrative service. He continued to do the job, and instead of just drawing an acting allowance, he now gets a substantive salary as Assistant Secretary.

Mr Rajah: Do I understand the Hon. the Prime Minister to say that the post of Chairman, Rural Board, has lapsed?

The Prime Minister: No. The officer concerned was doing the job but he was not satisfied with the scale. The post does not lapse, Sir. What happened was that the man - I think he was in the Executive service - was doing the work of Chairman of the Rural Board in an acting capacity. The Rural Board was transferred from the Ministry of National Development to my Ministry, and the man was promoted from the Executive Service to the Administrative Service. Therefore, one more post of Assistant Secretary has been created.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 1.

Item (14) is in respect of stenographers. According to last year's Estimates, there were two stenographers. But now, this year's Estimates show "4". This means that there has 'been an increase during the course of 1961, and what is asked for is another increase - from two stenographers in 1961, the Prime Minister wants four for 1962. I hope the additional stenographers wanted by the Prime Minister are not meant to take down his series of awful disclosures because that would be a waste of public funds.

The Prime Minister: The one new stenographer is now Personal Assistant to my Parliamentary Secretary. In fact, the post was created when my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Upper Serangoon, asked for a P.A. (Personal Assistant) to help him in his duties of filing and attending to his correspondence.

The other stenographer has been taken over from the City Council. I have only two stenographers, Sir. They are both hard-working and I hope one of them will get a promotion for having helped me. Going up to Kuala Lumpur and coming down, he worked very hard. He did a lot of typing in Kuala Lumpur, in the aeroplane, and getting the White Paper ready in time for this Assembly.

6.30 p.m.

As for the jibe about the twelve broadcasts, may I just make a passing reference? I thank the Member for Cairnhill for admitting that I write my own broadcasts.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I withdraw, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

Sir, item (20) is in respect of chauffeurs. Last year there was a question about the number of chauffeurs attached to the Prime Minister's Office. At that time, there were five chauffeurs. Now there is a request for an increase of one chauffeur. But I cannot see anywhere in these Estimates an increase in the number of cars, although later on there is a vote asking for two new cars to be bought for replacement. There is no extra car. Why should there be an extra chauffeur?

The Prime Minister: I have to repeat my explanation last year. There are six cars. As I explained last year to the Member for Farrer Park, what happened was that one was a City Council driver who used to drive the Mayor's car. I explained to the Member for Farrer Park that the salary of this City Council driver was higher than that of the Government syces and there was some difficulty about absorbing him as a chauffeur. He has now gone back to the City Council and is retaining his old salary. We have recruited a new one to take his place.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I withdraw, Sir?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (22) of subhead 1.

Sir, I would ask the Prime Minister to explain this allowance to the Secretary.

The Prime Minister: I think the men to explain this really are the first Chief Minister and the second Chief Minister. They had the Secretaries. Their Secretaries drew an allowance of $200 for the honour of doing the extra duty of becoming the Secretary to the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I explain to the Prime Minister, Sir, that during the time of the two Chief Ministers, there was a Secretary? According to the vote now, there is no longer a Secretary. So to whom is the vote to be paid? The post of Secretary has been upgraded to that of Principal Assistant Secretary, on a higher salary scale. Therefore, according to this vote, if it is an allowance to the Secretary to the Prime Minister, there is no post of Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office any more.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the position is quite simple. A timescale officer fills this job. If he fills this job, he gets an allowance of $200. That is all there is to it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in view of his very important duty, the post of Secretary has now been upgraded to Principal Assistant Secretary, carrying with it an increase of more than $300.

The Prime Minister: That is part of the Establishment upgrading that the Minister for Finance has explained. It has nothing to do with my giving anybody any promotion, it is part of the whole Establishment machinery. I was not consulted. I know nothing about it. These are part of the esoteric movements of the Civil Service. From time to time, a commission or a committee goes round and upgrades or downgrades a post. So it has been going on.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, if this vote is passed, there is no Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office to receive this vote. If he wants that money to go to the Principal Assistant Secretary, may I suggest that a correction be made that this is an allowance to the Principal Assistant Secretary and not to the Secretary, when there is no longer any more Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office.

The Prime Minister: If the Member for Cairnhill is right and my Secretary allows this to pass, then it will serve him right if he does not receive the money.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I hope the Secretary will receive this allowance. But I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head 7 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (23) of subhead 1.

I want to ask, to whom is this allowance given and for what purpose?

The Prime Minister: The sum set out there is expatriation pay for two expatriate jobs. One is my Deputy Secretary, Mr Meadows, and the other is the Chief Planner attached to the post of Chief Planner which is now being filled in an acting capacity by a local man. Each of them draws $250 per month. Whilst the post of Chief Planner is held by a local man, the expatriation allowance is not paid.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): May I ask, when will this allowance be abolished? Does it mean there are no capable people to fill these posts now held by these expatriate officers?

The Prime Minister: It is not the question of not enough people with talent. There are not enough trained people with talent. That is the trouble. We have some talented people running around. We tried to train them. But they came unstuck and they are still running around with a lot of talent going to waste. What we are interested in, as far as the civil service is concerned, is tamed administrative and technical talent.

I have defended Mr Meadows against the Member for Hong Lim. I will defend him against anybody. He is a useful digit in the civil service. He gets things done. If I did not have Mr Meadows, perhaps the refuse outside the house of the Member for Serangoon Gardens might not have been collected during the strike. He arranged a temporary scheme to look after these matters so that health and sanitation services could go on for the benefit of people like the Member for Serangoon Gardens. That is all. He is a very useful man. $250, I think, is a very reasonable sum. If we do not want him, he will go. But I want him because he is a very useful man, incidentally the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Nee Soon know that Mr Meadows never wrote my speeches.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Does the Prime Minister mean that there is no other person who can do the job of directing refuse to be collected?

The Prime Minister: I never said that. There are some valuable local civil servants to do it. There are not enough of them. There is Mr Woon Wah Siang who gives valuable help in the administrative side. There are several other able men who helped to settle the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. But there are unfortunately not enough of them. People who know this best of all defended this. The Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Queenstown defended this against the absurd suggestions of the Member for Hong Lim. But now they want to join him. How mad can we all become, Sir! They were defending and explaining to the Assemblymen. The Member for Nee Soon was the Secretary. We always appointed him Secretary. He was a useful man. He kept notes studiously and was good at explanations. He explained to all Assemblymen, including the Member for Queenstown, how important it was not to start monkeying around with the technical expatriates and so on, otherwise the sewers may come up the wrong way. He remembers that. It is all entered in the minute book. Unfortunately, the minute book is now missing, although it is the property of the P.A.P.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): In view of the explanation of the Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment. [Interruption].

The Chairman: The Prime Minister must realise that I have to wait to get the interpretation. Perhaps the Prime Minister said, "Thank you." I do not know.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.

Sir, this is a vote for expense in connection with visits of distinguished visitors. For 1961, the vote asked for was $1,000. For 1962, what is asked is $4,000. It is four times as much. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why there should be this four-fold increase. What kind of and how many distinguished visitors are expected to visit an extinguishing government? [Laughter].

The Chairman: Order.

The Prime Minister: I do not intend to congratulate the Member for Cairnhill, Sir. I was brought up in a school where we expect finesse in wit. We must thank the Airport for its efficiency in bringing about a situation where, from time to time, we are honoured by more V.I.P.s who stay here for two or three days. Whether the P.A.P. Government is extinguished or whether it is distinguished, there will be people who will come to Singapore because this is one of the most important halting places in the Far East. And it behoves a courteous government to offer the hospitality.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, since the Prime Minister did not challenge the fact that the P.A.P. Government is extinguishing, may I beg leave to withdraw?

The Chairman: The Prime Minister does not give in?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I never -

Mr Rajah: By default!

The Prime Minister: I never lose by default. It is one of those things which I learned very early in this little game with the former Chief Minister - deny him seriatim and deny him specifically whenever he mentions it again. So by implication all that is not admitted is denied. And if he still raises it, I deny it absolutely and specifically. I will say this. If in the unfortunate event the P.A.P. is extinguished and if he reads Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, he will see that lots of other things are also extinguished with it. So it is in his interest to see that the Barisan star does not burn up Singapore. And the people who will see that the Barisan star does not burn up Singapore is the P.A.P. Government.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I beg leave to withdraw.

The Chairman: It is too late. The hon. Member asked for leave to withdraw, but he excited the Prime Minister into making a short speech. Therefore, the request for leave to withdraw is not granted. A vote must be taken. That is how Opposition Members lose time.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Amendment (11)* has been dealt with. Amendment (12).

*Amendment (11), standing in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Tun Lim Yew Hock, Inche Mohamed Ali bin Alwi and Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib, reads as follows:

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

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

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

Two cars for replacement. For 1961, i.e., for this year, there was a vote for two cars for replacement. It seems that in 1962 there are two more cars for replacement. But for this replacement, the sum asked for is $47,030, which is almost double the cost of the car which is asked for for 1962 for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I do not wish to suggest, Sir, that the Prime Minister is doing himself quite well as against the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

6.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to waste the time of the House, but if the Member for Cairnhill goes on in this way, then he brings this about. I will rattle off the mileage. The Humber Pullman S1 has in its 9 years done 120,000 miles. The Humber Pullman S2, which used to be the Mayor's car (S7 changed to S5000) has done 150,000 miles. There is, of course, SB 1, Sir, but that has not done 150,000 miles and is in very good condition compared to S1 and S2. We want to dispose of these two cars for the simple reason that although they look handsome - they are enormous cars - they cost a tremendous amount to run. I am told it is somewhere around 9 miles per gallon and the maintenance is getting heavier and heavier, because the parts are more and more difficult to get. These two cars are to replace S1 and S2. May I say, Sir, that I do not use all these cars? I use only one car. These are all pool cars and are drawn on by Ministers when they have formal functions. [Interruption] I beg your pardon?

The Chairman: Order.

The Prime Minister: An interjection, Sir, -

The Chairman: Well, I am not worried about interjections, please, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: As I have said, they are all pool cars, used by V.I.P.s and Ministers who have to attend functions and so on. The sum asked for is, in fact, to buy one medium-sized car like the Rover which is being bought for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I would like to mention this, that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara inherited a Rolls Royce, and the Prime Minister was not as fortunate as that. He inherited a Humber Pullman, a very modest one.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): Air conditioned and all that?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I air conditioned my own private car. I might inform the Member for Nee Soon that it helps in clear thinking. One keeps cooler at traffic lights; a few more moments for quiet contemplation; and more accurate decisions are made. In the long run, it is a very suitable investment. I would advise him that perhaps if he had invested in these things, instead of running around in the heat of the day carting Organising Secretaries who are trying to loot Branches of the P.A.P., he might have been in a happier position today.

An hon. Member: In some people's cars.

The Chairman: Order. Even the Government benches are trying to lose time.

The Prime Minister: Whatever it is, may I say there are two different things - the man in his individual capacity and the man in his official capacity? There are occasions when you just cannot arrive by taxi and you cannot even arrive by your own car, because it is not called for. There are certain ceremonial occasions, and somebody has to drive you up to the front door because everybody drives up to the front door and a little bit of ceremony is necessary. I am quite sure the Member for Nee Soon somewhat regrets the fact that he has opted out of these things because he used to enjoy riding in these cars with me, and he was looking forward to the Daimler. In fact, the adviser to his Party, Mr James Puthucheary, congratulated me on my quite good taste in acquiring the Daimler. He is a connoisseur in the arts of life. He wanted to take up golf. He wanted the Minister for Finance to pay far golf and so on. And there you are.

The Chairman: Order. That is irrelevant. Mr Rajah.

Mr Rajah: Sir, this is my complaint about the Prime Minister. When he is in a difficult situation, he always talks about something else. He has given the House an adequate explanation of why he wants replacements for two cars, but I think he has not answered the further question why he wants $47,000 for two cars. Could he please answer that one?

The Prime Minister: I think the estimate is some $12,000 odd for the Rover and some $30,000 for a Mercedes.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Wah, Mercedes? I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 20.

Subhead 20 is in respect of furnishings for Temasek, Kuala Lumpur. May I ask the Prime Minister where Temasek is? How many rooms there are, and how often it is used that an expenditure of $30,000 is necessary to furnish the place?

The Chairman: I thought Temasek was in Changi, Singapore.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is Temasek, Kuala Lumpur. The House is in Kuala Lumpur and my only regret is that it is not yet ready for our visiting Assemblymen and the other V.I.P.s in Kuala Lumpur who from time to time honour us. The house, which is in Circular Road, is in a state of disrepair. It has, I think, four bedrooms. Perhaps when it is fully and nicely done and decorated, we might put it on a Christmas card and send it to the Member for Cairnhill next year. It will not be ready before Christmas, so it will have to be next year. I would like to mention this. Sir, we sent up some officials who drew up the estimates. I was told it will be a little bit too modest because an oil company has a better house next door. But nevertheless, as an indication of a frugal and thrifty Government, there is Temasek which I hope will be reasonably furnished and the decor should be suitable in order that we shall keep the flag flying in Kuala Lumpur. The State flag should fly quite often in Kuala Lumpur because from time to time there will be meetings there and I hope we shall have the honour of entertaining all those who are successful in turning up there because they are wanted by the people to represent Singapore in Parliament.

Mr Rajah: The 15 Members can use it.

The Prime Minister: Not necessarily, Sir. All 15 will not be able to use it. We might have some difficulty in getting 15 into it. It is not a hostel. Of course, if the Member for Cairnhill or the Member for Farrer Park wants to suggest a vote to the Finance Minister for a hostel, we will think about it.

Mr Rajah: We do not want hostels.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I am afraid the Prime Minister has not even answered my question. He has only said there are four rooms. I ask, what are the furnishings for? He just tells me there are four rooms. I know nothing.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not know the furnishings. It is all left to the P.W.D. It goes to a Tenders Board. Somebody buys chairs and cutlery and hangs up pictures, and I do not know what else. We hope at the end of it all you will go into a reasonable house and get a reasonable dinner. That is all.

Mr Rajah: I take it the Hon. the Minister for Finance has his eagle eye on this vote. If he will only assure the House that nothing out of the way will be allowed, we will be satisfied.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the trouble is that national prestige comes into play. Much as I like to see economy exercised in this particular item, I think one can go too far.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

Here again, Sir, perhaps the Prime Minister will also have difficulty in explaining. Can he tell me what the $5,000 vote asked for is, for what kind of furniture and equipment for the State Guest House; and how often it has been used?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I must confess I have not gone into the details of the $5,000, and I make very little apology for it, because if I start bothering myself with what furniture is being moved about or changed, or repaired or replaced, or what carpet or curtains have to be done, I think very little time will be left to me to attend to the other somewhat more urgent matters of my Ministry. All I can assure the Member for Cairnhill is that this is a State Guest House and it has to be maintained up to certain standards. All Ministers do their entertainment there. Members from the Barisan Sosialis who have no vested interest in it now can bear witness that when we entertain, Sir, we do it hospitably and well, and we hope that we shall always be able to maintain reasonable standards of hospitality.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Prime Minister says he does not waste his time in trying to find out the number of chairs and what not. I would also therefore ask him not to waste his time in trying to find out that Members of the Opposition travel in small cars carrying 17 passengers. That would also be a waste of time. I would like the Prime Minister to say, if he can, how many times the State Guest House is to be used a year. He has not said that.

The Prime Minister: If that is the information required, I am quite sure my secretary will supply him with the list of the occasions when the house is in use. I myself am unable to keep track of these matters. All I know is that only one Minister can entertain at any one time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I seek your permission to move amendments (15)* and (16)+ at the same time because they are related?

• The amendment reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 23.

The Chairman: Yes. If it is convenient.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you, Sir. I beg to move,

• That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (10) of subhead 23.

And I will touch on item (14) at the same time. Sir, it seems that there is a very high increase in the rents proposed. But on item (14), Sir, a vote is asked for "Purchase of Houses for the Senior Trade and Cultural Representative to Indonesia No amount is given, just a token vote of $10. Surely, Sir, the Minister knows how many houses are to be bought and what types of houses they are. I am sure he must know the size and the number of rooms, otherwise he could not have agreed to a vote of $3,300 in the next item, which is item (15), for repairs, re-decorations, alterations and electrical installation. He must know the number of houses and the size of the houses. But there is another point on which I would like to talk, particularly on item (14). Sir, external relations are to be left in the hands of the Central Government when merger takes place. The Central Government has an Embassy in Indonesia. Is it necessary now for Singapore to incur this expenditure of buying houses for the Senior Trade and Cultural Representative? The representation will be taken away from us. We will be represented by the Central Government. I would like to know, Sir, in respect of item (10), why this sudden increase in rents of $15,000 a year?

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (10) of subhead 23", the debate to range over amendment (16), although I have not seen the connection yet.

The Prime Minister: Sir, this increase of rents is a very embarrassing explanation. I am told that in Djakarta rents and the cost of living are quite variable, and from time to time we have to make adjustments as to what we send our representative there. The explanation I have received from the officials in charge of the Djakarta Office is that the rents have just gone up and nothing can be done about it.

On item (14) I think Members might be interested to know it is only a three-room flat. It is most unfortunate that we have not been able to find a suitable house yet. Hence, only a token vote of $10. But there must be a vote in order to justify action to purchase a house immediately a suitable one comes along.

7.00 p.m.

The point has been appropriately made by the Member for Cairnhill that after merger the office of Trade Representative will merge with the Embassy of the Central Government in Djakarta. But if you look at Cmd. 33 of 1961, paragraph 5, on trade and cultural representation, you will see that provision has been made for the Singapore State Government to incorporate its trade representation in important places as part of the Malayan Embassy. Whilst the Trade Representative there will no longer be representing Singapore as such and he becomes part of the Malayan delegation, his duties will be just simply to look after the trade side of Singapore. He will still be there and he will still require a house. But this is one of the votes which will appear in the Central Government's Budget as from merger.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (16)* is not to be moved.

• See footnote at cols. 1714-5.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I beg to move,

+That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 24.

+The same amendment also stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Subhead 24 reads "State of Singapore Honours and Decorations". This is a new vote, Mr Speaker, Sir. Could we have some explanation as to what all this means?

The Prime Minister: Shortly after our coming into office, it was found necessary to get a Committee to consider the question of local State honours, because from time to time those who serve the State either voluntarily or in their official capacity as civil servants will have to receive recognition for their services. The Committee has been some time in drafting the rules and conditions for the award of honours, and some further time has been spent in getting the necessary medals and medallions designed and ordered. This is to enable the Treasury to put an order for the first batch. When it is ready, we will formally move a motion in this Assembly to incorporate all these honours as State honours. Speaking from memory, there are now about six classes of State honours. I think the House will want the State from time to time to give recognition to outstanding service either in a voluntary or in an official capacity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 25.

I would like the Prime Minister, Sir, to answer this: who is the present Trade Commissioner in the United Kingdom, and what salary and allowances are paid to him?

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Trade Commissioner in London is a former financial officer here. He draws a salary of $8,570 per annum. The increase asked for is because one new post of Clerical Officer (Accounts) has been created.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, this subject was brought up by me last year and it was thought at that time that a suitable local man could be found to fill this post permanently. It would appear that a man who has drawn his Malayanisation compensation has been given the job in London for a long time now.

The Prime Minister: Sir, no suitable appointee has been available. In fact, if there is one, the man will be retained. In all probability, he will be retained because he will be required, as the financial officer, to make readjustments in the payment of pensions and other transactions with regard to former expatriate officers to whom we owe certain financial obligations. Because the Crown Agents had increased their charges, we decided that we would henceforth handle the payment of all these financial obligations ourselves. So this work has been transferred to the Trade Commissioner's Office and the savings made thereby more than offset this officer's salary.

I might add also that after merger, the Office will become part of the Malayan High Commissioner's Office in London. But here again there will be a special trade section for Singapore to look after the interest of Singapore's entrepot matters.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) (vii) of subhead 26.

This is an item for rent for 1962 for the Office of the Singapore Government Representative in Kuala Lumpur.

Sir, in the 1961 Estimates, there was a vote of $250 for office and residential accommodation in Kuala Lumpur. Has the office and residential accommodation been found? In view of the fact that there is now a Singapore House (Temasek) in Circular Road, Kuala Lumpur, I would suggest that we could save a lot of money if part of the house could be turned into an office for the Singapore Government Representative. This would save a lot of money because the house (Temasek) in Kuala Lumpur will not be used constantly.

The Prime Minister: Sir, there are reasons of prestige, apart from reasons of convenience, which require the office to be in town and not in Circular Road, which is a residential area. May I say that the vote has become all the more necessary now because with merger - and particularly in the first few years of merger - we will have a considerable amount of clearance to do with the Central Government, and the office will be for more than just purely decorative purposes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (20)* Mr Ong Eng Guan? He is not here. Amendment (21)+. Inche Ahmad Jabri.

• Amendment (20) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 26.

• Amendment (22) standing in the names of Mr David Marshall, Dr Lee Siew Choh and Dr Thio Chan Bee, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $100.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 27.+

• Amendment (22) standing in the names of Mr David Marshall, Dr Lee Siew Choh and Dr Thio Chan Bee, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $100.

This is in connection with Islands and Settlements - Temporary Staff, $12,300. This is a new item for salaries and allowances. Are these appointments to continue to be temporary for work in respect of the Islands and Settlements?

The Chairman: The reply can be very brief. It can, of course, be sent.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not think a brief reply will meet the requirements of the Member for the Southern Islands. Perhaps if he will just tell me what particular aspect he is interested in, I will reply now, and I will later give him a full written statement on what he is interested in. Time is running out.

The Chairman: Time has expired. If there is no opportunity of giving a brief statement, perhaps the Prime Minister will send a written reply to the Member.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will, Sir.

The Chairman: Time has expired. Does the Member wish to withdraw his amendment?

Inche Ahmad Jabri: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: There is no time for amendment (22)+.

• Amendment (22) standing in the names of Mr David Marshall, Dr Lee Siew Choh and Dr Thio Chan Bee, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $1,356,540 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 8 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Sir, it would appear that the post of Principal Collector of Land Revenue, Class III, on a Salary Code of 1-14 is now upgraded to Principal Assistant Secretary on a Salary Code of 1-7. In view of this upgrading, I would like to ask the Minister whether the present Collector of Land Revenue has been automatically promoted to be the Principal Assistant Secretary.

The Prime Minister: My information from the file is yes. The post is being held substantively by a former Secretary to the Chief Minister.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am asking whether the present Principal Assistant Secretary was the Principal Collector of Land Revenue, Class III, before. If the answer from the Prime Minister is, "Yes, he is the holder," then I will ask whether civil service procedure has been observed.

The Prime Minister: That is so. There will be upgrading and regrading, as the Minister for Finance was discussing just now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (13) of subhead 1.

Sir, on a point of information. I know that this vote was in the 1961 Estimates, hut it entirely escaped my attention. I wonder how Lady Housing Visitors come in in the Land Office. There used to be Lady Housing Visitors from the Singapore Improvement Trust and their offices were dispensed with by the then Minister.

The Prime Minister: Sir, there are four Lady Housing Visitors. They are engaged on checking on census details and other particulars in respect of Crown reverted properties. Most of these properties are 99-year leases administered by the Land Office, pending clearance for redevelopment by the Housing Board

7.15 p.m.

It is necessary to control occupation of these premises to ensure that additional families do not enter into occupation without authority and add to the problem of compensation and rehousing at the time when the Housing Board requires the use of the premises.

The reason why women or lady officers are used is that most of the checking has to be done during office hours when the menfolk are not at home, and it is more convenient to have women officers to deal with the womenfolk who are at home.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (3)* Dr Lee is not here. Mr Low.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, although this amendment is to be moved by me, can I just pass it on to my colleague, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, to move and speak on it?

The Chairman: I think the Member must make a speech and formally move first, no matter what he says.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

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

*Amendment (3) stood in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Low Por Tuck and Dr Thio Chan Bee.

The Chairman: Dr Thio now has the Floor.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if the Prime Minister could give us a statement of Government policy on unauthorised houses on Crown land and private land.

Sir, there has been a lot of misunderstanding leading to a great deal of suffering among people who are seeking homes, because they see unauthorised houses standing undisturbed in certain areas. They therefore ventured and built unauthorised houses with the result that some of these houses were demolished. Sir, some of the unauthorised houses on Crown land have been standing there for perhaps a decade.

Recently some tenants of authorised houses on Government land were asked to pay arrears of up to nearly a thousand dollars. In one case, Sir, a man with a large family and earning only about $120 a month was asked to pay that huge sum. Naturally he felt desperate as he wanted to respect the law. He felt that under the circumstances he did not have the means to pay the arrears demanded.

Sir, I feel that something has gone wrong somewhere, that those at the very top are perhaps unaware that people who went to the Land Office were told that this was based on a Cabinet decision and, therefore, civil servants had no right to make an alteration. Sir, I would like to know whether the Prime Minister could give us a statement and that it be given publicity, so that people do not make mistakes, and whether the decision was really a Cabinet decision and therefore top officials of the Government service could not make any adjustment.

For instance, Sir, to demand arrears for the previous 22 months seems to be unreasonable. Why were the arrears not collected earlier? In the days when Singapore was still a colony, I remember this happened. I went to see the Commissioner for Lands and pointed out that if the arrears were not collected for a period of something like 20 months, then it was partly the fault of the Land Office for allowing these arrears to accumulate. I am glad to say that he agreed and waived practically all the arrears except for the last few months.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not think this is the time for me to make an authoritative statement, speaking off the cuff. All I can assure the Member for Tanglin is that any unauthorised house found on Government land will be smacked down immediately it is found. He knows that we have just had trouble with some 20 unauthorised houses at the junction of Whitley Road and Mount Pleasant Road, because the officer concerned was dilatory - he is under a disciplinary charge now - for there does not seem to be any obvious reason why action was not taken earlier when a senior officer had, in fact, instructed that action be taken. And the inference is that for some reason or other he delayed action in order to allow the building to continue and occupation to take place, so that the position in regard to demolition would become more difficult.

Speaking from memory, we considered all cases of unauthorised houses on Crown land, and after careful consideration decided as from a certain date - I think it was sometime last year - to number and give Temporary Occupation Licences to all those already built. As from that date, a warning was issued that any house built on Crown land without authority would be smacked down immediately. I think the House will recall that we moved an amendment to I cannot remember the exact Ordinance. I think it was in conjunction with the Local Government Ordinance. It empowered the City Council and the local authority to smack down houses without asking for a Court order, and to smack them down immediately even if they were in the process of building. Since then there has been very little trouble except where, for various reasons which are now under investigation, 20 houses are allowed to be put up in Whitley Road. The senior officer had given instructions that they should be immediately smacked down. It was not until families had moved in.

I do not think one can minimise the problem of the housing shortage. One sympathises. As a government, it is our duty to provide housing. I think we are doing our very best, and we have done better than ever before. But I do not think we can expect to catch up with the backlog of housing for a very long time, perhaps never. It is an unending process. But that is no excuse for allowing illegal builders to build and buyers to move in within a matter of hours of the last nail going in; in some cases even before the last nail is driven in. The buyer buys the house knowing that he is buying it at a risk. And the risk is: can he move in fast enough before the police get to know of it, or the land bailiff gets to know of it, and squat there with his wife and children, and say, "Well, here I am. I would rather die then be moved out." Now that is the risk he took. We have shown in Malcolm Road that if you buy a house on that basis, you might lose a few hundred dollars. The builder takes the risk in putting it up. If the buyer does not move in quickly enough, the builder has lost his money and his labour. He will take his planks, attap and zinc away. But if he builds fast enough before the land bailiff gets to know of it - it is like a game, Sir, who beats whom in finding out. If the house is completed before the police or the land bailiffs are on the spot, the tenant is already there and he says, "Move me if you dare, over my dead body." And we show in Malcolm Road that if you know you carry the risk at the time you bought it and you are trying to beat the Government, so to speak, well then, the law has to be enforced. And I cannot emphasise too strongly the fact that we intend to see that these vacant spaces which are meant for schools, hospitals, clinics - it is only a matter of time and programming before they are built on - are built on. They are not vacant for nothing. They are vacant for schools, hospitals and other public institutions. And if you allow buildings on them, the Member for Farrer Park can vouch from his own experience in the S.I.T., you may never get them cleared. There are large sections of open garden, valuable property, which will never be built on by the Housing Board. Because it is so heavily and so densely built upon now by squatters that short of a fire of the dimensions of Bukit Ho Swee, you will never build on it. So we would rather face 20 unpleasant families who I believe picketed the Assembly on the first day of this Session before they were moved away. We have just got to face this unpleasantness. That is all there is to it. It is one of those unfortunate things that have to be done. Where did they live before they went there? They had a few hundred dollars. They bought the house and they took the risk. That is why they moved in so quickly; sometimes in the very middle of the night they moved in. By the very act of moving in in the middle of the night or in the early hours of the morning, they knew very well that they agreed to something which they hoped the police would not find in time. And the fact that they were successful in inducing the land bailiff to ignore his responsibility for a few hours in order to let them move in cannot alter the rights and wrongs of it. We just have to move in in the public interest. Schools have to go up. Hospitals have to go up. And we say, "Sorry. We do what we can. But you have got to get out."

As for the arrears, it is not a question of allowing them to accumulate. When we assumed office as a government, we found a certain number of houses already built on Crown land. In the two months before we got down to our job, the number had increased and we then had to decide whether we smacked the whole lot down or allowed the whole lot to get T.O.L.s. We spent some time deliberating with Members of the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Choa Chu Kang also helped in the deliberations. The decision was made that they should all be licensed and that they should all be charged according to the size of the building.

The Member for Tanglin is too educated a man to take the line of the others - just repeating a rumour. By repeating a rumour, you lend credence to it. A principal of a secondary school, a man of some maturity and standing, he comes here and says, "Land Office officials are told that this is a Cabinet decision to charge so much for each house." Does he believe that the Cabinet of nine Ministers who have to look after the Housing Board and the City Council, and what was done before by the City Council and Mayor and also by the Government, will spend time in allocating and fixing rents? All we did was to say, "Charge according to the size of the building." If the building is of a handsome size, there are procedures and methods of valuing it. From the size of the building, you can know the quality of the timber and the cement on the floor and how much was spent on them. And the more they spent, the more the rent.

About the arrears of rent. It is not because we did not want to collect rent. What we wanted to do was to smack the building's down, but for various humanitarian reasons we sanctioned the whole lot. Therefore, the rents went back to six months - I am speaking from memory now. I am sorry the Member for Tanglin did not give notice of the exact nature of the issue he wanted to raise. If he had done so, I would have given him full particulars.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that most of the land in Singapore is put under the control of the Land Office because the Government is going to let all the long-term leases come under the control of the Land Office.

7.30 p.m.

Therefore, the number of farmers and squatters will increase. At present residents in squatter areas have many problems which have to be resolved by the Government. Government must consider some ways to help them. Many of the squatters who live in the rural areas know that most of their land belong to the Land Office. Very often they put up a blue-print for houses which they intend to build but the Land Office would delay their applications for a very long time. The Land Office do not investigate their applications. As a result, many residents in the rural areas have had to go to the Land Office in the City Council several times to appeal to the officers concerned to go to their land and investigate their cases. In the end, these rural people have had to waste much time and energy before they can get any reply from the Land Office. Under these circumstances, the farmers have to waste much time and money. At the same time, they incur much inconvenience. Therefore, I think the Government must think of some ways to improve the procedure in dealing with applications for building houses. Only then will they be able to carry out the building programme as contained in their blueprint.

The second point I want to raise is that those who stay on land belonging to the Land Office are not allowed by the Government to make extensions to their houses. In other words, if they have five members occupying the house and they now wish to apply for an extension to the house which they are occupying, the Land Office will usually not approve their application. This is especially so in the case of those who are staying on Land belonging to the Land Office. The Government must consider this point. The population is increasing all the time. This is only natural. The members of a family will keep on increasing very fast. We must not think that there are only five members in the family. But that was a few years ago. Now when they want to apply for an extension to their house, the Government will not approve their application. This policy is very wrong. The Government should not compare the present situation with the past, if any member of the household is going to bet married, how can the couple stay in the same house if the Government will not approve their application for an extension to their house! If they are to build a new house, the Land Office will refuse their application. Therefore, the Land Office must try and approve any reasonable application made by the dwellers if they wish to extend their houses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government know that most of the people occupying land belonging to the Land Office are poor farmers. Their livelihood depends on farming and animal husbandry. Unfortunately, the Government place strict restrictions on applications to build pig-sties and chicken sheds. I do riot say they should not make any application. What I am complaining about is that there is too much red tape. There are unnecessary procedures which the applicants must comply with in order to get their applications approved. Perhaps the motive of the Government is to prevent certain clever people from building houses on these lands and letting them out to other people. But we must know that in the rural areas, houses on such lands cannot be let out to others. Moreover, the pig-sties and chicken sheds cannot be used by the farmers as human habitation. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to remove the unnecessary procedures and red tape in the Land Office. This will facilitate the farmers in their application for an extension of their house or to build pig-sties and chicken sheds. This will help them to increase their business and to improve their livelihood.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the sitting of 17th November, 1961, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development replied to Question No. 36.* The Member for Serangoon Gardens mentioned the question of Compensation paid by the Government to squatters who had been asked by the Government to remove. I have also received a report given to me on 11th November, which was presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development to the Clerk of the Assembly. As far as I know, this report was handed to the Director of Land Office on 16th February, 1956. The report gives details of compensation rates payable to squatters who are asked to remove. At the sitting held on the 17th of November, the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the Government had already altered these compensation rates. I have spent much time in checking whether the Government has, in fact, amended these rates. I have found out that this revised table is just the same as that which was enforced in 1956. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government should not use or apply the compensation rates which were enforceable in 1959. The Government should not now tell us that they have already amended the compensation table. Mr Speaker -

• Question No 36 reads as follows:

Mr Leong Keng Seng: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) when will the link road between Serangoon Garden Estate and Braddell Road be completed: (b) how many squatters will be affected by the construction of this road; and (c) what are the terms of compensation given to such squatters.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member wishes for a reply, there are now only four minutes left.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the limited time, I will mention these things when I come to the Address of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. But I hope the Government will not in future try to fool us about this amendment to the compensation rates.

The Prime Minister: I was going out to attend to some other business because it was the Member for Choa Chu Kang who was speaking. Sir, whatever he said I could put it right back on his doorstep, because I left a great deal of Land Office matters to him. He was the Assemblyman attached to my Ministry. We left all rural matters to him and to my former Parliamentary Secretary. So I could have said he had sold us out. Let him say anything he likes, and I will come back and say, look, he was in charge to get things altered. The instructions to the officials were that unless official policy was contradicted, their representation should be implemented. The Member for Choa Chu Kang was given a free hand. My Parliamentary Secretary, with whom he worked in close conjunction, gave him a free hand. And they come and say that we cheated them; we never altered the rates of compensation! According to the notes taken by the Leader of the House and my assistants, he talked about the inefficiency of the Land Office; that no replies were made to applicants; that no investigations were made; and that applicants spent a lot of time and money. Sir, all these sobs - we have been through all that. Coming from -

Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

The Chairman: Point of order?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Point of clarification.

The Prime Minister: Surely.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in February 1959, I wrote a memorandum to the Prime Minister on this question.

The Prime Minister: That is so, and I discussed the matter with him. I told him to take it up with the Parliamentary Secretary. I said, get things going. That was what he was there for. What was he posted to my Ministry for? He was given certain specific duties. He, representing a rural constituency, was given the task of sorting out the problems of the rural constituencies, particularly the farmers. And for him to come back now and say this was not done and that was not done I say, if it was not done, it was because of his shortcomings and inefficiency, because nobody expects the Minister to do everything. Authority has to be delegated within certain specified limits. And it was. It was because of his own in, eptitude and his own inadequacy in getting things moving, through the Parliamentary Secretary, and now he comes back and puts it at my doorstep. Sir, when all is said and done, I am more and more convinced that so long as we work parliamentary democracy within the rather loose confines of this Chamber - one can do something outside, then come here and spout something; it is quite safe to reproduce it because it is all privileged; never mind the truth and the accuracy of it. The newspapers come out with their speech.

7.45 p.m.

One disavows and throws the responsibility for what one was formerly responsible on to somebody else. Well then, I say it just will not work. If anything is amiss, then I say the Member for Choa Chua Kang is to blame for it.

The Chairman: Time has expired. Mr Low, are you taking a vote on your amendment?

Mr Low Por Tuck: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $596,790 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 9-

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in resoect of item (1) of subhead 1.

We all know this post of Chief Planner has been vacant for two years. I wonder when this vacancy can be filled. Does it mean there is no suitable person from local sources to fill this post?

There is another point I want to raise, i.e., the post of Acting Chief Planner. I want to ask whether the present Acting Chief Planner has the qualifications to hold such a post?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Personally I feel it is very strange that the Member for Serangoon Gardens should all of a sudden change to one who is opposed to expatriate officers. Originally he was a very reasonable man. Now -

Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr Low Por Tuck: On a point of order. Is this relevant in replying to the Member?

The Chairman: I was just wondering whether the Acting Chief Planner is an expatriate. I do not know. If he is an expatriate then perhaps it is relevant.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since you have ruled that I can use only one language at a time and cannot change to another, I have therefore to obey you. It is a pity that the Member for Havelock has only one idea, i.e., if somebody says something against him, he will stand up to say something.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens has suddenly changed from being a reasonable man to one who is against an expatriate officer. Sir, we want to solve this problem. When he was a member of the Government, the difficulty then was not whether we had any suitable local man to take up this post. The question is this - we do not have a properly trained person to take up this post. Yes, many people are very clever and talented, but the question is whether they are well trained enough to take up such a post. Now, this post of Chief Planner is not an easy one to fill. It is not any Tom, Dick and Harry who can fill such a post. My original intention was to say that this post of Chief Planner is a new vote. The question is how to ensure that the beautiful scenery in the big city and the convenience of the public in general could be looked after. The present Acting Chief Planner is no friend of mine. So if we listen to what the Member for Serangoon Gardens has said, then we must give the job to him. In 1957 I went to London for talks with colonial officers. At that time he was still undergoing training at Liverpool University. That was four years ago. Now, of course, he has made some progress. But this is in the interest of all the people of Singapore. It is not a question of any personal interest.

Dato Abdul Hamid: On a point of order. Could the Prime Minister speak a little less because I have only three minutes to speak. I have an amendment to move.

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

The Prime Minister: (In Mandarin): I am very sorry, Mr Speaker. Sir. But I must tell the Member concerned that he is not like our Member for Hong Lim. Even if he wants to learn from him, he will not be successful. What we do is only in the interests of the people and we can say so publicly. Therefore, I request him to raise questions based on facts, otherwise it will be a waste of time. Because he has said something, I have to reply, and the time of Members in this House is wasted.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. We must not waste time. But what we want is information which is factual. I want to know that, but the Prime Minister is trying to drag on from one question to another. That is a waste of time. So I hope he will not indulge in such things again.

The Prime Minister: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members in the Opposition are trying deliberately to waste time, and that is why they have raised unnecessary questions. Therefore, I have to waste more time to answer them. This question was originally raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. I now stand up to reply that the post of Chief Planner is a very important one. If we do not have a suitably trained person available locally, then we must go abroad to get somebody to fill the post. That is obvious. We want to have industrialisation. Well, if we do not have a suitable person, we may have Russian people to come and help us. But we do not want to have Russian people because we want to have merger with the Federation, so we must go to other countries to get help in this respect.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as to what the Prime Minister has said, is it according to the Standing Orders of this House that the Opposition cannot raise question? When the Prime Minister says that we have raised unnecessary questions, does he mean that we have no right to ask questions of the Government?

The Chairman: It is the Speaker who will decide whether the question is relevant or irrelevant. I might say definitely that there is every right for any Member in the Opposition to raise any question in the Committee of Supply. Anyway, time has expired. Does the Member for Serangoon Gardens wish to take a vote?

Mr Leong Keng Seng indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 9 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat and Dr Thio Chan Bee, were not proceeded with:

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat:

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

Dr Thio Chan Bee:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $802,100 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 11 -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must register a protest and would urge the P.A.P. and the Bansan Sosialis to remember that if they want to carry on their warfare in this Assembly they must not do so at the expense of other Opposition Members. As a result of the time wasted by both of them, two amendments proposed to he moved by Members of the Alliance -

The Prime Minister: You are wasting our time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - are guillotined. Now, Sir, this is a simple matter. This is to allow the Prime Minister enough time to answer this simple question.

I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1.

I would ask the Prime Minister to explain whether such a big increase of $200 a month is a normal increase, or has there been a change of holder of the post of Executive Officer? It is simple.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the post of Executive Officer is in Division II, salary scale $225-15A-255/295-15A-385/425-20A-505/555-25A-655. There has been a change in the incumbent, and the present incumbent is drawing the maximum salary of $655. Hence the increase. And the P.A.P. gets nothing out of it! [Laughter]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: If you give a direct answer, we get on with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $902,860 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: Order.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates and ask leave to sit again tomorrow, the 9th of December.

Mr Speaker: So be it.