1946 REHABILITATION LOAN APPROPRIATION (REPEAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.39 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. My Parliamentary Secretary will move the Second Reading.

The Parliamentary Secretary Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As hon. Members can observe from the Explanatory Statement, this Repeal Bill seeks to wind up the 1946 Rehabilitation Loan Ordinance, 1947, and to close the accounts arising from it. The principal Ordinance was introduced to sanction the expenditure of $50 million raised during 1946-47 under the provisions of the Loan Ordinance, 1946.

The $50 million was raised to meet financial expenditure arising out of the Japanese occupation of Malaya, as well as to meet the expenditure of the economic rehabilitation of Singapore. Expenditure for the said purposes has been incurred and there is, at the moment, a balance of $9,439,381. Out of the balance, it is the considered estimation of the Accountant-General, Singapore, that only about $1 million will be sufficient to meet future outstanding claims. To be exact, the estimated amount is $1,117,563. This estimated expenditure will meet outstanding claims which include arrears of pay, gratuities and pensions to volunteers and their dependants; arrears of pay to Government servants who were interned; claims for services rendered and goods supplied prior to occupation; pensions, retired allowances, gratuities, and other similar payments.

As only very small yearly expenditure for these claims is envisaged in future years, little purpose is served in keeping alive the Rehabilitation Loan Appropriation Account. I therefore move that the 1946 Rehabilitation Loan Appropriation Ordinance, 1947, be wound up by this Repeal Bill which is before the House. In winding up the principal Ordinance, however, provision has been made in the Repeal Ordinance to transfer all the unexpended balance of monies to the Development Fund and also to meet all future outstanding claims from the Consolidated Fund of the Annual Estimates.

Members of the House will note that this Repeal Bill is a relatively simple one and has received the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: Again, Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of principle and draw attention to the provisions of clause 3:

`notwithstanding the provisions of .[the principal Ordinance] ... all expenditure of moneys ... shall he deemed to have been lawfully incurred.'.

Now, why should the Government seek to shut out inquiries that may be necessitated into this expenditure? Why the need for this particular clause that "all expenditure of moneys raised under the provisions of the Loan Ordinance ..... shall be deemed to have been lawfully incurred"? I would like to inquire, Sir, what is exactly intended by this provision? Whether it is feared that there would be an inquiry into any misappropriation, or, if not, why is it necessary?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, surely my Parliamentary Secretary has fully dealt with this point, namely, that this particular loan was raised in 1947 for specific purposes, mainly in connection with the reconstruction that was necessary to rehabilitate the country after the period of the Japanese occupation. Certain amounts of money have to be set aside yearly to meet those items of expenditure listed out by my Parliamentary Secretary. No further expenditure is required other than that, and it is quite useless to set aside permanently the sum of $9 million when a sum of just over a million dollars would be sufficient. There is no question whatsoever that the money has been mis-appropriated. Certainly it was not mis-appropriated during the term of office of the present Government, but I cannot speak, of course, for the terms of office of other governments.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ramaswamy, in reply?

4.45 p.m.

Mr Ramaswamy: In order to satisfy the Member for Anson, I wish to give information about this $1 million.

The estimated outstanding financial expenditure will be $1,117,563 as I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill. The arrears in respect of pensions, retired allowances, gratuities, etc, for the period 1942 to 1945 is $109,981; the arrears of pay, gratuities and pensions to volunteers and their dependants - $150,000; the arrears of pay to Government servants who were interned - $l0,000; claims for services rendered and goods supplied prior to the Occupation - $500,000; back-pay to non-interned Government servants - $12,582; Malaya Unallocated Account - $300,000; expenses in connection with the Malaya Overseas Agency - $20,000; maintenance allowances during the Japanese Occupation for dependants of Government employees ex-Malaya - $15,000.

These are the particulars of expenditure in the outstanding claims. As the Minister has said, there is no point in keeping these accounts alive. Therefore, I beg to move that this Bill be approved.

Mr Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary need not move that the Bill be approved. The Question before the House is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ramaswamy].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

4.48 p.m.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The figure "1961" will be altered to read "1962".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked a simple question and I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary genuinely misunderstood me, but neither he nor the Minister has really answered it. I will try and spell it out very simply, Sir.

Clause 3 says that all moneys spent shall be deemed to have been lawfully spent. That is the gist of it. I have no complaints to make about the transfer to the Development Fund. It is quite proper. I am not making any complaint about the exact proposed expenditure of public moneys of which they sought to give details. I merely draw attention to this requirement of the clause, that all moneys which have been spent shall be deemed to have been lawfully spent.

Now, Sir, if they have been lawfully spent, the Government should not fear and should not require any such indemnity. If there is a suggestion that they have not been lawfully spent, we should not give this indemnity unless we have a full explanation and a full exoneration.

The Minister seeks to make it a political issue by saying, "I am not responsible for the misappropriation of other governments." Fair enough. But he is responsible for protecting the misappropriation of other governments. He himself is responsible. This is a P.A.P. measure which seeks to shut out all enquiries into past expenditure from this Fund. I am asking why? It is an unusual request - why, just why?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the form of the Bill is a standard one. In particular, where the loan raised in 1947 specified that the moneys raised under section 3 of that Ordinance should be disbursed for certain objectives in winding up the loan, I regard this as no more than the necessary step. There is no question at all that there has been any misappropriation of the moneys raised under this Ordinance or under any other Ordinance. The Constitution lays down quite clearly that the Director of Audit has full powers of investigation. Indeed it is his constant duty to see that all expenditure incurred by the Government is lawfully incurred and properly accounted for.

Mr David Marshall: If the expenditure has been lawfully incurred and properly accounted for, why do we need the protection of the law to shut out inquiries into a possible misuse of the powers of expenditure? Why do we require this section? Money has been properly spent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.