ESTIMATES CONTAINING VOTE ON ACCOUNT FOR PART OF YEAR 1963

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.59 p.m.

DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES, 1963

The Chairman: For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the totals for each head as they appear in the fourth column of the summary of expenditure on page 7 of Paper Cmd. 38 of 1961.

Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

3.00 p.m.

Head D8 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

Sir, there are certain large blocks of property in a very densely populated city area which will be reverting to the Government at the end of a ninety-nine year lease. I remember at one time that a certain school was offered a piece of that property. I think some of the leases might be expiring at the end of this year or at the end of the next two or three years. Sir, this will give the Government an opportunity to remove some of the very unhealthy areas there and do some clearance work. At the same time, we realise very well the great difficulty in resettling the people affected. I remember visiting one family living in a very dingy and poorly ventilated room and the rent was $20 to $30 per room in that area. I asked them why they did not go for the Housing Board houses, where they could get similar accommodation for about $20. The answer was that they wanted to be near their work. "Besides, if we go for the Housing Board houses in Queenstown, it means more transport money, loss of time; so we would rather pay even $10 per month more than go over there." Sir, these are some of the difficulties, and we wonder whether the Minister has made plans on the development of the area and how he proposes to resettle these people.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): I do not think we can rebuild the slums of Singapore just on the basis of property reverting to the State on the expiry of the ninety-nine year lease. It is only bits of property here and there and not a continuous purchase of property that will revert to the State. But I think the Member for Tanglin has raised a very vital issue which has been exercising the minds of Government for some time. But we do not see it as something that we can do as part of the present Development Plan, because the Housing Board has enough on its hands to carry out its own housing programme which will be mainly outside the centre of the city. But obviously something must be done about the slums of Singapore. The building are old and dilapidated and are not being maintained. One possible approach which the Government has been thinking about is not only to make use of the properties which revert to their ownership at the end of the leases but also to buy up all properties in areas to be re-developed. But this is going to be a massive operation. Certainly it will cost several hundred millions of dollars, and it will perhaps take more than a decade to complete. We have asked the United Nations to send a specialist who can advice us on how to proceed with this long-term development of the city itself, how we can get rid of these slum buildings, and how in their places a proper and modern city could be built. But as I said, this is really a rather long-term problem, something perhaps for consideration in the second Five-Year Development Plan.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that in the past, when these 99-year leases expired, the Government renewed them on a similar basis with certain conditions which the Minister calls in a haphazard fashion. There are certain areas in Singapore, Sir, where a 99-year lease is granted in respect of large tracts of land on which a very great number of houses stand. Is the Government in fact, pursuing the old tradition of renewing these leases when they expire? And secondly, whether they would survey the problem, say, for the next ten years, to have an adequate understanding of the areas that would, in fact, fall due, and have an overall plan before issuing fresh leases in respect of those which already expired.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: To the best of my belief, properties which revert to the State remain with the State. They are not being leased out to new holders. As regards the long-term development plan to rebuild the city, I have explained, in reply to the question of the Member for Tanglin, that we have taken note of this problem. We have made preliminary steps towards solving it. But, as I have said, it is going to be a long-term process.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I withdraw, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,000,000 for Head D8 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D13 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 bereduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

Sir, I have tabled in all 206 amendments under the Development Estimates. Sir, they have been put in because the Standing Orders require me to give notice if I want to raise any matter on which I would like to ask questions or seek information. But in order to cut this debate short, Sir, I think it would be convenient if you would allow me to roam over the Development Estimates. If I get satisfaction, I will therefore not find it necessary to move all the other amendments standing in my name.

The Chairman: If it is convenient, certainly.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you, Sir. Sir, that being so, I would like, first of all, to say that from a close study of the Development Estimates which we have here for 1963 - it would appear that little work has been put into it. With only one exception, it is a very convenient reproduction of the 1962 Development Estimates, with different amounts estimated to be spent in 1963. Sir, the 1962 Development Estimates have at least been prepared with care, giving details of plan costs, revised plan costs, estimated expenditure up to 31st December, 1961, estimated expenditure in 1962, expenditure required to complete, and notes. The 1963 Development Estimates, Sir, just show plan costs, revised plan costs and estimated expenditure in 1963. These, therefore, do not give a complete picture. The 1963 Estimates have to be studied alongside the 1962 Estimates in order to have a clear understanding of what the 1963 Development Estimates are about. Sir, may I touch on this? From a close study of the two Development Estimates, it would appear that the 1963 Development Estimates can be divided into five classes. The first class is that under the item, a full vote has already been provided for in 1962, and yet for 1963 a token provision of $10 is asked for. I find it difficult try understand this. As far as my little knowledge goes of how budgets are drawn up, when one puts in a token vote of $10, it means that while the principle has been accepted, as in the case of the hospital at Kandang Kerbau which is to be built, the details have yet to be studied or finalised. But in this case of a token vote in 1963, it is an extra $10 that is asked for on an item for which full provision has already been provided in 1962. Therefore, I say, Sir, that these 1963 Development Estimates have been prepared with little or no work at all. It makes it difficult for the Opposition to understand and appreciate what is behind the motive in presenting as a rush matter the Development Estimates that do not coincide with the regular yearly Development Estimates, where full details are given. The Government wants a rush job of this for reasons which they have already explained. We have accepted those reasons. But they have made it more difficult for the Opposition to understand what they are driving at. That is one of it. One class is where full estimates have already been provided in 1962, and yet for 1963, a token provision is asked for. A token provision of $10, as far as we understand it, and as has been explained by the Minister in this House, it always put in where a principle has been accepted, but the details of the works have not been finalised or completed. How could it be a token provision when the work has already started, and the full amount has already been given? That is one class.

The second class is that full votes have already been provided in 1962, and yet for 1963 some more money is asked for. I think there are over a hundred items where full votes have already been provided in 1962.

3.15 p.m.

Just take a case in point, the multi-storey car park. Now, for 1962, $2 million has been provided, and the cost of that multi-storey car park is estimated to cost $2 million. Yet for 1963, $1 million is put in. Of course, I can understand, Sir, that $1 million could be a revote, because the Government does not expect that the full amount could have been paid or that the car park could have been completed in 1962. But then in 1962, in cases where it is a revote, it is clearly stated that the vote asked for is a revote. That is in 1962, where actual facts are given, it is revote. But for 1963, just "Multi-storey Car Park, Plan Cost $2 million, Revised Plan Cost $2 million, amount asked for $1 million." If we were to approve that $1 million, it could mean that the Government could use that extra million to pay for a multi-storey car park over and above the revised plan cost. Unless it is put in the notes column that it is a revote, we can have no control. Sir, it seems that the Ministers cannot be serious about it. They want the Opposition to vote a million dollars for them to put in an extra storey.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): I do not want it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, they are now trying to tell a cock-and-bull story about the way they present this Budget which-they say - what did the Minster for Finance say? He explained in page 37, paragraph 3 ["First copy" of the Hansard]:

'To settle the details of allocation of votes and revenue between State and Central Government. additional work will devolve on Treasury officials and those Ministries affected by transfers of responsibility, and it is not likely that the 1963 Budget will be ready in time. This may well expose the Government to criticism. There might even be a loss of confidence in the administration. For this reason and in fairness to the administration, I will be asking the House to approve a vote on account for the first six months of 1963. I also intend to ask approval for the Development Estimates for the whole of 1963.'

"In fairness to the administration"- May I say to the administration, in fairness to the Opposition, that they must present something that contains full details and not present something with no details at all and ask us to vote for it, as I have tried to explain in the case of this multi-storey car park. If we were to approve that vote of $1 million, although in fairness to the Government it means a revote, it means we would give the Government the authority to spend $1 million over and above the $2 million asked for in 1962. Sir, that is the second class.

The third class is this. In 1962, you will find that the revised plan cost is so much; so much will have been spent by the 31st December, 1961, and a vote is asked for in 1962, and there is still some more money required to complete. Therefore, that money required to complete would, of course, have to be found in 1963. But then in the 1963 Development Estimates, what is put in to complete the work is more than what is inserted in the 1962 Budget as required to complete. Take a simple item, Civil Aviation. [Interruption] That happens to be the first one. Sub-Head 9, Passenger Terminal Building. According to the 1962 Budget, what is required to complete this sub-head is $1,140,000. But for 1963, the vote asked for is $2,140,000, which is $1 million more. And yet there is no explanation at all in the space provided for notes. Sir, if we were just to consider the 1963 Development Estimates without bothering to check every item bit by bit with the 1962 Estimates, we would not know. It would just disclose that the cost of the Passenger Terminal Building is $4.8 million, the revised plan cost is $3.14 million, and what is asked for for 1963 is $2.14 million. It does not give the true story.

The third class is that the vote asked for in 1963 is much more than what is required to complete the work, according to the 1962 Budget.

There is another class, Sir, and this is really very funny. For 1962, $10, a lot of $10, that is to say, a token vote of $10 to say that they want to build a hospital, but the details have not yet been completed or finalised or worked out. Therefore, a token vote of $10. And our approving a token vote of $10 for 1962 will allow the Government to go ahead with the scheme and to work out plans for whatever project the token vote is for. And for 1963, yet another token vote is asked for. That shows they do not want to do any work in 1962. If they do not want to do any work in 1962, then why ask for a token vote for 1962? Why not come to us in 1963? They think it is a playing matter that they do not want to do any work for the good of the people of Singapore [Laughter]. A laughing matter when they do not care to do that work with which they are entrusted. So you have a token vote in 1962; another token vote in 1963; there may be further token votes in 1964 and 1965. I do not think it will go beyond 1963, Sir, because they will be no more by then. The P.A.P. Government will have been finish ed by then. That is class four.

Now, class 5. This is another funny thing, Sir. They have in 1962, if you make a comparison, work which started in 1960. They paid some money in 1961, They asked for money in 1962. Then is a balance to complete in 1963. And yet in 1963 they put down a token vote. Do they not know what is required to complete? Must they put down a token vote of $10? This just goes to prove, Sir, that the Ministry of Finance has done no work on this. If it had done some work, it would have presented to this Assembly a picture of the real development that is going on in the country and the development plans, instead of giving us something which is so difficult for us to understand. Sir, if we were just to take these 1963 Development Estimates, we would be thinking these are new items.

The sixth class I have no quarrel with the Government when they put in an amount which is less than the full amount to complete a job. That shows there is some work. Let us take the case where the work has been started in 1961, is to be carried on in 1962, and to be completed in 1963. An amount is given and then another amount is given here where, instead of $1 million, the amount given is about $800,000. This shows that the secretary in charge of this has at least done some work, for he thinks that for 1963, only $800,000 worth of works will be done. I do not complain about that. But if it is true that there is work to be done, and if real work had been done, there would have been a fairer picture presented to this Assembly, instead of the Finance Minister coming to us and saying, in fairness to the administration, he is putting this. I say, in fairness to the Opposition present, something that does not try to hide a lot of work that should have been done but was not done.

Those are the six classes, Sir. Can the Minister answer them? In the case of votes that have already been given, why is it that a token vote is now asked for? And is my interpretation of a token vote right? That is one. Why is it that when the full vote is already given up to 1962, another amount is asked for? If it is meant to be a revote, why not say it is a revote? If it is not so stated, it could mean that that extra money could be spent by the Government on the project. The third one is, why is it that more money is put in to complete the work than what has been stated in the 1962 Development Estimates as money required to complete the work? The fourth one is, why two token votes, one in 1962 and another in 1963? Do the Government now say that for the whole of 1962 they will have no time because they will be in, I think, the fourth round or fifth round of the fight with the Barisan Sosialis and therefore they will not be able to do any work? So that they still want a token vote for 1963. Why two token votes? Does it mean no work in 1962, or does it mean that is the convenient way of putting $10? The fifth one is, when work has already been started and some monies are required to complete. why should a token vote of $10 be put in? I do not think the Minister for Finance can satisfy us on all those points. No matter how he satisfies us, once we have approved these Development Estimates as stated in this Cmd. Paper 38, it will give the Government every right to spend an extra million dollars on a multi-storey car park or wherever such extra money is asked for. I would therefore urge the Government that, in fairness to the Opposition, the Minister should take the Development Estimates back and get his Ministry to do some real work on them, and then come back to us. There is no rush for 1963; even in July, August or even as late as November, he can present the Development Estimates, as merger in 1963 will have little or no impact on the Development Estimates. So why rush all this? I would urge the Government to withdraw these Estimates and re-present them, otherwise it shall be the duty of the Opposition to oppose them through every amendment that I have under my name - 206 of them.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Cairnhill has amendments under Head D13, D14, D16, D17, D18, D19. I stopped at Head D19 because I notice under Head D20, the Member for Tanglin also has certain amendments. I do not know whether he is dealing with his amendments on the same principle.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: On a different principle.

The Chairman: So if the Member for Cairnhill is dealing with his amendments up to Head D19 on the same principle, then I would suggest we say the time fixed for completion of consideration of these Heads up to Head D19 should be five past four, unless the hon. Member for Cairnhill wishes to move any specific amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Excuse me. Sir. I also have amendments under Heads D19 and D20 in my name.

The Chairman: I am taking Members up to Head D19, to start off with.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I see. I have nothing more to add other than that.

The Chairman: Under all those amendments?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: So it is now decided that the time at which consideration of all the amendments up to the amendments under Head D19, shall expire at five past four p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am sorry. Under Civil Aviation, I have just one question to ask of the Deputy Prime Minister, but that could be put aside until this more important question of principle has been resolved.

The Chairman: Yes. Anyway, the time will expire at five past four.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I must congratulate the Member for Cairnhill on having done his homework well.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): While you are in the boxing ring, we are working!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Honestly he has spent some time and effort on this, and I think he has raised some very pertinent points which I will try to explain to the House. First, he grumbles about the fact that the 1963 Development Estimates are a virtual reproduction of the 1962 Development Estimates. That is so, and I did explain in my statement that both in respect of the Ordinary Estimates and the Development Estimates we intend not to introduce any new items. So, I think, that comes as no surprise to the Member for Cairnhill. Now, the six classes of items - combination of items. The first one is where a full amount has been provided for in 1962, a token sum of $10 is also entered in the 1963 Estimates.

3.30 p.m.

I think we should best discuss this in terms of concrete examples, so that everyone will know why this procedure is adopted.

Let us take Head D13, subhead 14 - High Capacity Foam Tender. I do not know what a High Capacity Foam Tender is, but my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, in fact, intends to buy one in 1962. So the full cost of the High Capacity Foam Tender has been entered for 1962. Now it may just be possible that the Department of Civil Aviation might place the order and there might be some delay in delivery and, in fact, the bill might not be presented for payment in 1962, in which case payment must be made in 1963. The only reason for putting a $10 vote in 1963 is to meet such eventualities. They are not expected to happen but, on the other hand, we cannot be sure. If in the unlikely event the bill for the High Capacity Foam Tender does not arrived in time in 1962, then in 1963, we shall have to make use of this vote to pay for it - of course, through some transfers from other subheads. That disposes of the hon. Member's first point on the items in the Development Estimates.

Now the second one cited was an instance where the full amount has been provided in the 1962 Estimates and yet a substantial sum appears in the 1963 Estimates. The multi-storey car park is a good example. Of course, the explanation given by the Member for Cairnhill is correct. It is, in fact, a revote. The hon. Member asks, "Why not say a revote?" The reason is that before any item is entered in the Estimates as a revote, certain procedures will have to be complied with; that is, a progress report will he made to the Treasury - explanation for delay of payments and so on - and then it is approved as a revote and entered accordingly. But I think it is obviously too early to enter this item formally as a revote because a start has not been made on the project at all. Nor, on the other hand, can we just enter a token sum of $10 because, in this particular Head, there is not enough money under other subheads to effect a virement of transfer of funds. If you look at Head D19, you will see that there are only two subheads; one, Construction and Installation of Parking Places, a sum of $120,000 has been asked for 1963. And should the Multi-storey Car Park be not completed in 1962, then there is absolutely no money to pay for the completion of this project. Therefore, we put in a fairly substantial sum to meet this eventuality. Of course, I have had a word with the Deputy Prime Minister and urged him to get on with this project as soon as possible. I understood from him that he has already got cracking on it. That explains the second class of items.

Now the third one refers to instances where a vote is provided in 1962 - let us get this right.

Mr Rajah: More than what is required.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, the case of subhead 9 of Head D13, Passenger Terminal Building. The revised plan cost is $3,140,000; $2 million is voted for 1962 - leaving therefore $1,140,000 as a balance - whereas the amount asked for in 1963 is just $1 million more. Here again, the sum of $2,140,000 consists of two parts: one is the balance and the other is, in fact, a revote item just in the event that the progress on the Passenger Terminal Building is not as fast as one would hope it to be.

Then we come to the fourth class of items. He refers to the two $10 token votes for the consecutive years 1962 and 1963. He refers to items in the plan where either there is an order of priority for getting it off the mark where we can wait for some time and there is no urgency about the matter, or else it means that the Ministry concerned are having second thoughts on that project and they have not finally made up their minds whether they want to include it or throw it out or substitute some other project. So for the time being in case they revert back to the original plan and if they want to proceed with it in 1963, they can do so.

The fifth class is where work has started in 1961, sums have been spent in 1962, and a token sum of $10 is entered in 1963. This is really the same as the first instance where we have provided a full total for 1962 but just in case the expenditure is not completed, where the work is not completed -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Can I explain?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: What I have said is that the work has been started in 1961, is carried on in 1962, and there is a balance required to complete; and yet for 1963, instead of working out the actual amount that would be required to be spent in 1963, a convenient way has been adopted by just putting in a token vote of $10; whereas in other cases where some work has been done some amounts have been inserted. But in most cases, a mere $10 is inserted. That shows that no work has been done.

The Chairman: Could the Member give one item?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yes, in the 1962 Development Estimates on page 21, item (1) of subhead 5 of Head D25 (District Hospitals) - Second District Hospital, Works and Buildings; $12,000 is voted for 1962 and there is a balance of $4,988,000. This shows that the work will have started in 1962; and yet for 1963 there is a token vote of $10; whereas in other cases where there are big amount, some work has been done.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think, in this instance, the explanation is quite simple. When the 1962 Development Estimates were prepared, the Ministry of Health asked for this sum. I think it was for the preliminary investigations, soil-testing and so on, and then later on the Ministry decided not to proceed with this project. The whole development plan of the Ministry of Health is now under revision. But as I have said, until they can definitely tell us that that is to be scrapped and they want something else, I am leaving the thing as it is and just maintaining its existence by a token sum under this Head.

I think the Member will find that there may be a number of instances of that nature in the Ministry of Health. That is the fifth class. Now as to the sixth class.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I think you have done your work.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Well then, I think that completes the list.

The Chairman: The Member for Cairnhill is satisfied with the sixth class?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Excuse me, Sir, in certain cases where we have a double token vote, I am satisfied. It shows that the Minister wants to have second thoughts, third thoughts and fourth thoughts before he does anything. Well, I am quite happy to let the Minister have as many thoughts as he wants so long as he does not squander public funds.

I can understand the $10 token on the first one. I do not have any serious objection to that. But on the other one where a full vote has been given and a big sum is asked for for 1963 without mentioning that it is a revote, it is going to allow the Government to use the money should the revised cost exceed the actual revised cost here. There will be no control. Take the Multi-storey Car Park. The revised cost is $2 million and the plan cost is $2 million. They ask for $2 million for 1962 - it is all right. Then they ask for an extra $1 million for 1963 to the extent that it is meant to be a revote. If it were clearly stated as a revote in the Estimates, I would have no objection. But to vote that $1 million is equivalent to giving the Government the right to spend an extra $1 million so that, as they have said, if they want to put up a storey, they can do so with this $1 million if it is approved by us. They could put up another two storeys. If they suddenly think they might want to have a P.A.P. house on top, they can still put it up. So there is no reason why we should vote this extra $1 million. If it is a revote, say so. Put it in there and make it clear. I still maintain that these Development Estimates have not been properly prepared and they do not present a correct picture. I suggest that they should be taken back and a new one presented, using the 1962 basis with an extra column to read "Expected to be required in 1963".

3.45 p.m.

Then there would be no objection. But why the rush? Cannot the Minister take the Development Estimates for 1963 back and present them in a way that can be understood, in a way that will leave no ambiguity, in a way that will kill all suspicions that the extra million dollars asked for for a Multi-storey Car Park could mean that the Minister might want to put up another two storeys - one for the P.A.P. and maybe the other one for the Barisan Sosialis if they should' suddenly reconcile?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I can see that the Member for Cairnhill is really being a bit far-fetched. Use the Multi-storey Car Park as a test case, Now, if all goes well with my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, specifications will be completed and tenders will be out, say, in March, April or thereabouts next year. At that time, surely whoever is in charge of the Estimates and financial operations for this, must see that the amount tendered for does not exceed $2 million; otherwise he will be ultra vires. He would not have any money to pay for it. It is only in the event that there could be a delay either in the date in which designs are completed or projects let out to tender that the sum to be voted would be required. I have made it quite clear, Sir, that in such cases they can be identified quite easily by reference to the 1962 Estimates. The position is quite clear.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Minister says they can be easily identified. But it is the work of the Government to make it easy for the Opposition to identify, instead of which we have to go through these two books, after sitting for 23 days, to find out what kind of tricks the Government is up to now. And the Minister says that no new item has been inserted. May I point out to him that a new item has been inserted, and no mention has been made by the Minister? Sir, may I point out to him that a new item has been inserted, although he has said just now and also in his statement that no new item has been inserted: "Head D18" at page 17 - "Telecommunications Board" - not in 1962. All these things simply show that he is not making statements which are helpful to us in making a study, in an attempt to help him over his troubles and all that. He makes it more difficult. Therefore, if it gives him pleasure to give trouble to the Opposition, I will say that it is the duty of the Opposition to return that pleasure with interest.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I for one am indebted to the Member for Cairnhill for drawing the attention of the House to these grave inadequacies in the Development Estimates for 1963. I am particularly perturbed, Mr Speaker, at the second and third classes to which he has drawn the attention of the House. That is, as in the case of the car park, a full vote having been made for $2 million for 1962, we have another $1 million for a car park in 1963. And in so far as I can judge, there is nothing to prevent the Government from having a car park for a million dollars in 1963 in respect of which there is no real authorisation.

The third class, Sir, is where more money has been voted during the years 1962 and 1963 in respect of items such as the Passenger Terminal Building, the cost as indicated. This means, Sir, that within that particular Head, Government would be free, by way of virement, to utilise these additional monies for other items where they wish to expand the original scheme. I say, Mr Speaker, that the Opposition, and I trust the whole House, is indebted to the Member for Cairnhill for drawing attention to the Government's extraordinary fashion in presenting a budget and seeking a free hand in respect of public monies.

One final matter, Sir, which is rather a matter of procedure which has not the same gravity as this extraordinary confession on the part of the Minister - that he has for 1962 a $10 token vote is respect of matters on which the Ministry has not made up its mind. That is why he seeks another $10 for 1963. Mr Speaker, is it appropriate that the Government should trouble this House to make up its mind on principle in respect of matters in connection with which the Government itself has not made up its mind? What are we playing? Marbles in this House? It is even more surprising, Mr Speaker, that we have had the confession made by the Minister in respect of Head D25, item 5: that $12,000 is expected to be spent in the year 1962 in respect of works when, in so far as I can understand him, it is intended to abandon the Second District Hospital. How is it that the money has already been allocated or allocation has been sought in respect of payment for something which they do not wish to use? If the work of exploration has been done in 1961, is it not covered by the 1961 vote? If it is, why do we have to pay it in 1962?

Finally, Sir, if, in fact, that $12,000 is in respect of work which it is now intended to abandon, is it not appropriate that this House should have been so advised?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to take the Minister to task on his statement on Head D19, subhead 2, "Multi-storey Car Park". He mentioned just now, Sir, that if the planner for this car park were to start work by, say, April, and decide to build a car park that is worth more than $2 million, he would obviously be ultra vires. I submit, Sir, the planner who plans a $3 million car park in April 1962 is not ultra vires because, in so far as this House is concerned, if the two Development Estimates had been passed, we would have authorised the expenditure of $2 million in 1962 and a further $1 million in 1963, making an estimated total expenditure of $3 million for the years in 1962 and 1963. No doubt, Sir, the plan costs and the revised plan costs only permit the planner an expenditure of $2 million. But this House which has sat, considered, debated and passed the Budget, allows the planner expenditure to the extent of $3 million. I will, therefore, say here that it is a matter of grave doubt whether the planner should allow himself to be guided by the plan costs or by that exact amount of monies voted by this House. I would urge the Minister, in the same tone as the Member for Cairnhill has urged him, to bring this Development budget hack and revise it; put notes if necessary to explain that this $1 million would only be spent should the $2 million be under spent in 1962. And whatever vote that has been underspent should lapse in 1962, thereby making it necessary for this $1 million to be spent in 1963. In view of the absence of any explanatory notes, it would appear, Sir, that if the two Development budgets have been passed, any planner who has any respect for the decisions of this House would be within his right and within his power to plan a car park which is worth $3 million.

Mr Rajah: Sir, over and above the difficulties of the Member for Cairnhill as experienced, I myself have experienced another difficulty which I wish to bring to the notice of the Finance Minister. In his 1962 Development Estimates, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will be good enough to look at page 7 of Paper Cmd. 36 of 1961 being Development Estimates of the State of Singapore for the Year 1962, and previous to that page "Development Fund Account", there is a statement of Estimated Receipts and Payments. Mr Speaker, you will notice that the Balance as at 31st December, 1961, is $131 million. Then there are a number of items which set out the monies which are going to be paid into that Fund. On the right-hand side is Estimated Payments cut of that Fund for the year 1962, after which the total sum on the Receipts column is exhausted. So that on the basis of total expenditure on the Development Fund for the year 1962, the Fund will remain nil as at 31st December, 1962. If I am correct in that, then on the 1st January, 1963, we start with nothing in the kitty except for $80 million which was transferred by the Assembly - I think it was last week - from the Consolidated Fund into the Development Fund, together with the $30 million which will be transferred by the Ministry of Finance from the Consolidated Fund for the year 1962 into the Development Fund. There will then be $80 million plus $30 million, i.e. $110 millions. So that. Mr Speaker, Sir, we start off then on 1st January, 1963, with $110 million, and the Minister for Finance is asking this House to approve Development Fund expenditure up to the extent of $173 million. In other words, he is asking this House to approve expenditure payable out of the Fund, the capital of which is not sufficient to meet the expenditure he is asking us to meet. The curious thing about these 1963 Estimates, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Statement of Estimated Receipts and Payments which appears in the 1962 Development Estimates does not appear. It is conspicuously absent.

The other point I wish to ask and which is causing some confusion amongst the Opposition Members is this car park. Will the Minister assure the House that the governing factor for the expenditure of monies will be the total revised cost?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in view of the guillotine, may I say this to the Minister? There is no rush for these Estimates to be approved today. If he will just take them back and get them done in the proper way, instead of in this haphazard way, things would be much better. But if he insists on wanting us to approve the Development Estimates done up in such a haphazard way, it shall be our duty to oppose every item in every Head.

4.00 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We share the opinion of the other Opposition Members in saying that there has been absolute hurry in preparing this Budget, and so far as we know, as has already been pointed out, there has been no adequate preparation. All we in the Barisan Sosialis know is that this Budget has been put forward with the intention of befuddling the Opposition and also -

The Chairman: Order. I do net think the Member for Queenstown is proper in imputing an improper motive, I think there is a Standing Order which says that no Member should impute any improper motive. If the allegation is that the Government has introduced this Budget to befuddle the Opposition Members, I think that is an improper motive. Let us debate this soberly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we think they want to give the impression that the merger proposals are already all under way and that merger is right on our doorstep. As far as we know, they have not even held a referendum. So how can they be so sure about anything?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: May I explain this? When I was bending my mind to the problem of how to present the 1963 Estimates to the Assembly, I had two alternatives. One is to present them in a simple way, with three columns, which is fairly straightforward. The other one would be to take into account what happened in the plan cost, the revised plan cost, expenditure in 1961 and 1962, amounts required to complete amount estimated in 1963; whether there are revotes or no, and so on and so forth. That would make the matter of presentation rather complicated. If the Members opposite so desire, it is a simple matter for me to do. I am quite willing to reproduce the 1963 Estimates absolutely on the same basis, because we have all the working papers in our own files. It is only to save Members of the Opposition from trying to read columns that we have presented three columns only. If they want eight columns, so be it. I am quite happy to present to the Assembly the same stuff by the same identical method. It is not a question, as I said, of whether we have been working on them or not working on them. It is a matter of presentation. They want a more complicated presentation. If that satisfies them, I am quite happy to take these Estimates back and come back to the Assembly again next month. But I do ask Members of the Opposition to think carefully about it. Do we want to waste the time of the Assembly all over again over a set of estimates which would differ only in presentation, only in the number of columns they should have? The substance would be absolutely the same. If Members of the Opposition want it, I am quite happy with it. I have no objection at all.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, is there a way whereby the Finance Minister can withdraw? If he can, may I explain that we prefer it that way. We just raise our objection to the fact that something which is meaningless is placed before us. We want it to be in clear and unequivocal terms before we can give our vote on it.

The Chairman: I might remind the House that one of the duties of the Estimates Committee is to suggest the form in which the Estimates might be presented. So perhaps, to satisfy the Opposition, the matter should go to the Estimates Committee as to the form in which these Development Estimates should be presented. Does that satisfy?

Mr Rajah: That satisfies us. Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Chairman: Could I have an indication from the Opposition whether that would satisfy?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: That would be so.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Minister could undertake to do that.

Mr David Marshall: A matter of clarification, Sir. Do I understand that the suggestion is that it goes now to the Estimates Committee?

The Chairman: No.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry.

The Chairman: May I make myself clear? I just draw the attention of the hon. Members to paragraph (3) of Standing Order 93 which deals with the Estimates Committee, and the relevant parts read:

'It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine any of the Estimates, to report what economies consistent with the policy implied in the Estimates might be effected, and, subject to the provisions of the law, to suggest the form in which the Estimates might be presented.'

"subject to the provisions of the law, to suggest the form in which the Estimates might be presented." I draw the attention of the Minister and that of the Opposition to that provision. It might be a convenient way of satisfying the Opposition if the matter went to the Estimates Committee. But meanwhile, if the Minister is agreeable to Cmd. Paper 38 of 1961 being withdrawn, I will draft a motion for him. Is he agreeable to that?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not know what Members of the Opposition think about it. It does seem a pity if, purely on a matter of presentation, we have to go through the whole of the exercise all over again. If the Opposition is prepared to consider these Estimates now, and then get the items considered in detail in the Estimates Committee, possibly for formal tabling in this Assembly, that might save a lot of time all round.

Mr David Marshall: No.

The Chairman: Order. Let the Minister complete what he has to say.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, once the Estimates have been approved by this House, that is the end of it. The Government can do what it likes with it. Then there is no need to refer to the Estimates Committee. The reason why they should go to the Estimates Committee to consider the form in which these Estimates should be presented is that no decision has been arrived at by the House. Once the House say yes to it, there is no more question.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: But you could outline the steps that would take place if this were referred to the Estimates Committee and what happens after that.

The Chairman: If the Minister agrees that this Command paper should now be withdrawn, then a motion will have to be moved that the order for the consideration in the Committee of Supply of the Development Estimates for the State of Singapore for the year 1963 be discharged, and that Paper Cmd. 38 of 1961 be withdrawn. Once that has been agreed to. I take it the Minister will then go to the Estimates Committee and get their decision on how they require the Development Estimates for 1963 to be presented. They will then be presented in a different Command paper.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the only thing the Estimates Committee will be asked to do is to settle the form in which the Development Estimates should come back to the Assembly. But The contents to be inserted and the form to be agreed is a matter entirely for the Minister.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I might add, Sir, that once the proper form has been agreed upon, all the objection that I have will not be raised by me, because those objections will have been met.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I am quite happy, Mr Speaker, Sir. My own opinion is that it is hardly necessary to go to the Estimates Committee be, cause the points raised by the Member for Cairnhill could easily be resolved if we, as I said, put in another four or five columns with some notes of explanation. I do not know whether we should bother the Estimates Committee. If the only purpose is to say this is a revote or what amount should be carried over, and this is a token vote and so on, it is quite a simple matter to redraft the Estimates. I am trying to accommodate myself as much as possible to the Opposition.

Mr Rajah: The only reason why we suggest to the Government that it might go to the Estimates Committee was to ensure its smooth passage when it came here, so that there would not be any more trouble about the format. But if the Minister can satisfy the Opposition on the format, then the Estimates Committee need not be bothered.

The Chairman: I have indicated that there are the Standing Orders. It is up to the Minister to decide whether or not he wishes to go to the Estimates Committee. Is that agreed then?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

The Chairman: I will resume my seat in the Assembly.

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

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh Keng Swee.