ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1967

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply Bill [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.44 p.m.

The Chairman: Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the year 1967 contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1966. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the last column of the Abstract of Estimated Expenditure on pages 53 and 54 of the Paper.

Dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement No. 16 -

Head 0103 -

Mr Tang See Chim (Choa Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0103 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 2001.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a cosy air-conditioned library, a charming and helpful Librarian, but alas no books - hardly any books. I was trying to do some research the other day on the Finance Minister's Budget Speech and I found that there was only one title on public finance. There are no books on economics at all, none on sociology, a handful on the parliamentary system, hardly any on the comparative system of government and practically none on politics. There is not even a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica or a set of encyclopaedia on the social sciences.

2.45 p.m.

I noticed from the Suggestion Book in the Library that in 1961 a Member did suggest that the Library acquire a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica, but this suggestion was turned down by the then House Committee, by a majority, but without giving any reasons. Possibly the then House Committee consisted of Members who had no use for reference books!

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will agree with me that the present stock of books in the Library is hardly adequate. This lack of reference material hampers the work of hon. Members, and this year's estimate of a miserable sum of $800 is hardly sufficient to meet the situation. From a cursory look into the estimates on the book votes for other departments, most of the departments, however minor, appear to have a larger vote for books than Parliament. I will just give a few examples: the book vote for Postal Services, $920; for Civil Aviation, $2,000; for the Trade Division, $1,250 and for the Foreign Ministry, $6,000. This small vote for books for Parliament is surely an unnecessary handicap to Members and I strongly urge the Minister for Finance to remedy it.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself am in sympathy with the Member for Choa Chu Kang when he found that our Library is inadequate for his own needs.

We are happy indeed to have an active Member like him who will possibly make suggestions to the House Committee on the types of books which he thinks Members of Parliament ought to read to improve the standard of their debate and the amount of information which they ought to acquire. However, I would like to point out that the Librarian is always at the service of Members of Parliament, and if there are Members who wish to obtain books for their reading which are not available in the Library here, she would be only too happy to secure them from the National Library. We must, however, remember that we do not wish to duplicate the National Library in Parliament House and, therefore, the Library in Parliament House is a specialised one. The books which we find in our Library are those relating to constitutional law, Keesing's Contemporary Archives which give you an up-to-date account of current events, and there are many other forms of literature which I am quite sure will be very useful to all those Members who wish to extract information to help them.

As far as books on economics, commerce, maybe accountancy too or the social sciences are concerned, I myself have felt that we are lacking in these, and I hope the House Committee can put forward suggestions and make recommendations to the Ministry of Finance. I am quite sure the Minister for Finance will be sympathetic and grant the House Committee a supplementary vote next year if it is found that the vote in this Budget is inadequate. As far as the encyclopaedias --- Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encyclopaedia of social sciences or any type - are concerned, I am in agreement with the Member for Choa Chu Kang that we could very well do with these books as they are very useful sources of information.

To end, I only hope that all Members of Parliament will put forward their suggestions to the House Committee on how the Library position can be improved and we will look at them with sympathy.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed a pleasant surprise that the Member for Choa Chu Kang has complained that although the Library is housed in an air-conditioned room, there is insufficient supply of books for Members to read.

But I have received information that the Prime Minister's Department has purchased a Rolls Royce car. If we do not have money to furnish the Library, how is that the Prime Minister's Department has purchased a Rolls Royce car?

I would like the Prime Minister to inform the House when, where and how this Rolls Royce car was acquired by the Government.

The Chairman: Mr Ho, I am afraid I cannot allow a debate on the line you have started to proceed. If such a purchase as described by you has taken place, it will appear under some other vote and that will be the proper place to debate it.

Is there any other Member who wishes to speak on this vote for Newspapers, Periodicals and Books in Parliament?

Mr Tang, do you wish to proceed with your amendment in the light of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said?

Mr Tang See Chim: I am glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House say that he is very sympathetic to us on this point, and no doubt as Leader of the House, he will be able to influence the Finance Minister and get us a supplementary vote on books next year.

In the light of this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $681,210 for Head 0103 ordered to stand part of the Estimates

Head 0104 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 2004.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): I am not moving.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2005*.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): Sir, I am not moving amendment (2) *.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2009.

Sir, may I know what are these President's Scholarships, for whom and why are they under the name of the President?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, in former days there used to be scholarships open to candidates on the basis of competitive examinations, and the winners of these scholarships were given sufficient funds to travel to almost any university where they wished to receive training. We decided, as from 1966, to reinstitute these scholarships which were previously known as Queen's Scholarships. These scholarships, which were highly prized by successive generations of students, were instrumental in getting a small corps of able and highly-trained men into several of the professions then open. With the establishment of the University of Singapore, these scholarships were transferred to the University to be used by way of post-graduate courses. However, my colleagues and I have for some time been rather concerned with the problems which have not altogether been resolved in the University, in throwing up people who not only have the academic training and intellectual discipline, but also qualities of leadership and an interest in matters outside their particular field of discipline. We have therefore reinstituted this scholarship at the Higher School Certificate level and all winners of the scholarship, of which there are nine this year, can choose to go to any university to which they can get admission, and their expenses will be met by the Government. They are known as President's Scholars to denote that they are people who have won signal distinction for themselves to merit special privileges for further education. As a rule, the President's Scholar is usually able to get some other scholarship. In fact, what happens is that he gets all his fees and expenses met by some other scholarship which he has won, and in the end is granted an allowance of £50 sterling per annum in addition to the other allowances that he gets. In this way, it is hoped to continue a supply of men not only well qualified and competent in their own fields of study but with all the social and other graces which make for the difficult to define quality called leadership.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I put the question which I have put earlier to the Prime Minister regarding the Rolls Royce?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly touch on that, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I come to the next item in the Estimates, namely, my own Office expenditure. I have no intention of dodging that question.

Mr Lingam: Sir, may I know from the Prime Minister whether these scholarships under the President are also given to citizens other than Singapore citizens?

3.00 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I expect all Members of this House to know the rules - and the rules are being applied with greater and greater diligence - that all these privileges are only open to members of our society and some membership card must be produced. The membership card here is the red identity card. If the pupil cannot produce that card, then he does not come within the scope of people on whom the privileges would be showered.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): I would like to ask, what is the position regarding children of citizens of Singapore who were born outside Singapore?

The Prime Minister: If my reading of the report is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to that has already been given by the Minister for Law in his statement on the Modification of Laws (Constitution of Singapore) Order, 1966. As a result of Singapore coming apart from Malaysia, it is now necessary for any child born outside Singapore to a Singapore citizen to decide within one year of attaining the age of 21 whether or not to opt for citizenship. If he wishes to be a Singapore citizen, then he must take the oath of allegiance, as was required under the law before we joined Malaysia.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I want to ask just one question. Just now our Prime Minister has mentioned that there is a grant of £50 sterling per annum attached to these President's Scholars; for example, those who won other scholarships besides winning the President's scholarship. I think £50 per annum would be round about $425 Singapore currency. So in my view, to win the President's scholarship is, in fact, a high honour to a brilliant student. I was wondering how this £50 per annum would help towards maintaining a student in the pursuit of his studies in a university.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am afraid I may not have made myself sufficiently clear. There are nine scholarships open to the nine best students from the H.S.C. classes of all language streams. The winners of these scholarships can choose to go to any university anywhere in the world to which they can gain admission. If they do not gain any other scholarship, then the Government will pay their passage to that university, their tuition fees, and their subsistence cost. But the students who win these scholarships usually also win other scholarships, and when they do that, as a mark of distinction over and above the other students who have won similar scholarships, they get an additional £50 per annum.

I am not suggesting that any student anywhere in the world can survive on £50 per annum, but the £50 is only given to the student who has, before he gets the President's scholarship, already qualified for some other scholarship. Then, by virtue of his getting the President's scholarship, he gets an extra £50.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr S. V. Lingam and Mr P. Govindaswamy -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2010.

Mr Lingam: I am not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy.

There being no response -

The Chairman: Mr Tang See Chim, amendment No. (5) .

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2012.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that Singapore students are still allowed to stay in Malaysia Hall in London and that the Government is still continuing to contribute towards its running expenses. I have very vivid memories of my stay in Malaysia Hall. It was then called Malaya Hall. This is a place where students from both Singapore and West Malaysia - the whole of Malaysia, in fact - can meet in an atmosphere of goodwill and discuss the problems confronting them in their studies as well as their other problems. It would be a matter for regret, Mr Speaker, Sir, if Singapore students and Malaysian students so far away are being separated. The decision to separate them, however, may not be within the control of our Government. But as I have said, I am glad that the Government is continuing to support the running of the Hall, and I do urge the Government that, as long as it could do so, it should continue to support it.

The Prime Minister: This is a subject which has drawn considerable comment from other political leaders in other countries, and I would like to state just the bare facts. The Singapore Government paid for one-third of the capital cost in acquiring the premises of Malaysia Hall, and we have since then paid one-third of the recurrent expenditure annually for its upkeep. We shall be prepared to do this till the end of time, perhaps until such time as the building needs rebuilding. But whatever it is, we are in equity - owners of one-third of Malaysia Hall. I believe it used to be three separate buildings which are now joined into one, and we pay for one-third of its annual recurrent expenditure.

Mr Tang See Chim: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2013.*

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam.)

Mr Speaker, Sir, our children who attend Primary One classes and complete their studies after taking their Malaysian Certificate of Education or Cambridge examinations increase year by year. Likewise the number of industries also increases and needs workers of high calibre. If the Government wants Malay children to have high qualifications in order that they can compete with non-Malays, whether in education or other fields, and also wants an increasing number of Malays to receive higher education, then it should increase the vote for 1967. Instead, it has been reduced. Could the Prime Minister explain the reason for the reduction in the vote for 1967 as compared with 1966?

Mr Lingam: I am not speaking, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the short and direct answer to the query posed by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is that a number of bursaries to certain Nanyang University students have been cancelled. We provide bursaries to our students in order that they will make a contribution to higher learning, higher discipline, and ultimately a higher level of economic activity in our country. But when students take advantage of these facilities not in order to promote the welfare of the community but to bring into disrepute the institutions of higher learning to which they gain admission, then I think it is the duty of the Government to terminate these bursaries.

First, I want to point out to Members generally that there is a distinction between a scholarship and a bursary. I have pointed out that the best of all the scholarships which we give are now known as the President's scholarships. A scholarship is awarded on the basis of merit regardless of the financial standing of the parents of the student. But if all students can get assistance only on the basis of higher academic performance, then a large body of very good but less than brilliant students would be denied this opportunity. Therefore, a large number of students are given assistance by what are known as bursaries. For the award of a bursary, other considerations, besides just academic competence, are taken into consideration. First, the financial capacity of the parents of the student; second, the subject which the student wishes to pursue. If the subject is one which is likely to make a contribution to our society, then a bursary will be more readily forthcoming. The amount of the bursary given to the student will depend upon the financial resources of his parents. The wealthier the parent or the more he can afford, the less the State will assist.

As for Malay students, I would like to point out that we are continuing our policy of giving free education from primary school to university to all Singapore citizens who are Malays and can obtain admission to these institutions of learning. The reduction in the sum in no way affects the number of pupils who will be getting scholarships or bursaries from Malay secondary schools to higher institutions of learning.

3.15 p.m.

By way of giving the House some idea of the spread of these bursaries and scholarships, may I just briefly give the round total figures for the various institutions for this year: 146 awards to the University of Singapore, making a total of 472; 3 awards to the University of Malaya, making a total of 23; 77 awards to the Polytechnic, making a total of 186; 97 awards to Nanyang University, making a total of 235; 10 to Ngee Ann College, making a total of 119; 40 to the Singapore Vocational Institute, making a total of 59; 20 to the Teachers' Training College, making a total of 20 - there had been no previous awards to the Teachers' Training College. This is the sum total of bursary awards for the year 1966.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tang See Chim -

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $100.

The Chairman: Mr Tang?

Mr Tang See Chim: I am not moving.

The sum of $2,150,810 for Head 0104 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0105 -

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1051.

Mr Speaker, needless to say, this vote is designed to curb corruption in our Republic. It is a cause for regret that this vote has failed to achieve its desired object. It is known that recently applications were invited for the post of a driver. The vacancy was circulated to the Transport Centre and District Offices. Amongst the applications was a casual labourer from Katong District. He was interviewed and he succeeded in getting the job. On Sunday, 27th November, 1966, he performed his normal duties as a labourer in Lorong Melayu. A mandore handed him a note requesting him to see the senior cleansing inspector, Mr B. D. Raj, to get his appointment letter as a driver. He complied with the request. On Monday, 28th November, 1966, at 6.20 am., he was informed by his mandore, Inche Sukri, to meet Mr Raj and Mr Victor Ee Ah Soo at the coffee shop next to Jalan Eunos market. Both Mr Raj and Mr Soo demanded a deposit or an advance payment of $100 in order to get his appointment as a driver confirmed.

The Prime Minister: I do not wish in any way to curb or restrict Members of this House from having their say during Budget time, but I must ask the Member who has raised this particular head for discussion to confine himself to the policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers. I have followed with considerable interest the details of this particular driver, but I would like to know from the Member how this affects the policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers. If he will let me know how this affects it, then I will follow his story with even greater interest and more understanding.

The Chairman: I was waiting for the Member to develop his speech a little further before drawing his attention to this point. But I assume he is trying to relate this to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

The Prime Minister: He should have raised this question then.

The Chairman: Could the Member try to relate his speech to this particular head of expenditure?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to prove how this particular head will be spent, because this is an important vote and I do not wish to see corrupt practices being perpetuated in our Republic. Nonetheless, I am prepared to shorten my speech. This is not the only instance. If we cannot improve the C.P.I.B., I believe corrupt practices will be perpetuated. I am quite sure the object of this vote is to prevent or curb any corrupt practices.

In addition, Mr Speaker, I also wish to quote many other instances. There was the case of a store watchman who paid an illegal gratification of $400 for the job of mandore, and a painter who paid $300 to the same officer. A transport overseer was deprived of his overtime work simply because he refused to pay $100 to the officer concerned. That is what I want to say in Parliament so that the vote for 1967 will be fully used.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Raj used the Ministry's driver and labourer for his own ends to paint his house for the Christmas season. I feel that we should delete this vote if it is not used properly. This will help to put an end to corrupt practices. That is all I have to say. If this vote is approved by Parliament, I hope it will be used to curb corrupt practices. As I mentioned during the debate on the 1966 Budget Speech on the subject of the Police Co-operative Society, it is at present functioning smoothly.

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as you will have probably noticed, my colleague, the Minister for Law, was not quite himself yesterday, being sort of disabled with his left foot in a plaster, and he has been advised not to repeat his performance in the Chamber today, and so I am replying on his behalf.

I would like to answer the Member for Kampong Kapor that one of the difficulties which face the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is that there are always rumours, statements which are not followed up with the reporting and placing of such information before the C.P.I.B. The Member has given enough information in this House of allegations of corruption which appears to be within my Ministry. I shall be very pleased if he will go further and place this information before the C.P.I.B., so that we could then follow up with the necessary action once the investigation is completed. I must say that I have always encouraged members of the public, whenever they have complaints to the effect that there is corruption amongst our public officials, to do so not verbally but in writing, which information we could then pass on to the C.P.I.B. I can assure the Member for Kampong Kapor that we have had cases of such written complaints being followed up, sometimes with success but sometimes without as much success as I would have wished. Once the C.P.I.B. report recommends disciplinary action to be taken, even though it is dismissal, the Ministry of Health has always accepted the advice and the official concerned has been dismissed from the service ignominiously. So I would seek the co-operation of the Member for Kampong Kapor and ask him to supply all the necessary information so that the C.P.I.B. could follow up. I can assure him that I will be very interested in this particular report.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): As explained by the Minister for Health just now, I will be prepared to supply further information. I wanted to elaborate in detail, but I was pulled up by the Prime Minister. This happened to one of the voters in Kampong Kapor. The address is 27 Upper Weld Road. On the assurance of the Minister, I am prepared to report the matter fully.

The Chairman: May I point out that it was I who pulled you up and not the Prime Minister?

Inche Mahmud Awang: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.30 p.m.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2054.

Sir, this is just for information only. Could the Minister explain to this House what is meant by "Special Services"?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that the Member for Aljunied is a man who is very curious about certain items in our Estimates. This item of "Special Services" which appears under the vote for the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is considered not quite in the public interest to be discussed on the advice of the Solicitor-General. But since it has appeared in print. I think I will go as far as I can without endangering security. This is a sum meant to meet contingencies, such as the payment for information to agents and informers, and for other items which are incidental to the efficient performance of the functions of the C.P.I.B. I hope he will be prepared to accept it as far as I have gone.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by $100.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points I wish to raise on the general policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers. The first point relates to the appointment of newly-qualified persons to the Bench. We all know, Sir, that a newly-qualified person -

The Chairman: Mr Tang, if you are speaking of appointments to the Bench, I am afraid I will have to rule you out of order, because that does not come under this head.

Mr Tang See Chim: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think the appointment of newly-qualified persons as Magistrates and District Court Judges comes under the Attorney-General's Chambers and not under the Judiciary.

The Chairman: Certainly not, Mr Tang. It comes under the Judiciary. Under the Attorney-General's Chambers, you find Senior State Counsel, State Counsel, Legal Assistant and so on, but not Magistrates or District Court Judges.

Mr Tang See Chim: I abide by your ruling, Sir.

The Chairman: Was that the only matter in respect of which you sought to speak under this head?

Mr Tang See Chim: It relates to such appointments, Sir, because my criticism is that they are being left in one department for a very long time, and when they come up for consideration for promotion before the Legal Service Commission, the Commission would just say that they have not had enough experience.

The Chairman: If you can relate your remarks to "State Counsel", I think you will be in order.

Mr Tang See Chim: As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think I will now go on to the other point that I have got to make, and that is the policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers to leave an officer in one post for a considerable length of time without giving him the benefit of a transfer to other posts in order to gain experience. And then when he comes up before the Legal Service Commission for consideration for promotion, he would be faced with the difficulty that he has not gained enough experience in other departments. Such a handicap is not of his own making, and consequently I think the Attorney-General's Chambers may do well to consider amendments to this particular procedure.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, what has been stated by the Member for Choa Chu Kang is readily accepted, that is to say, it is not considered advisable to leave any particular officer in one position for too long a time. I think that is really what the Legal Service Commission would not like to do in regard to the posting of officers. But the usual reason is, because of the exigencies of service, a particular officer is left in the said post much longer than is considered desirable. I should have said that it is the Attorney-General who is responsible for the postings of legal officers and not the Legal Service Commission. I hope the Member for Choa Chu Kang appreciates the fact that I am trying to act for another Minister at a moment's notice, and therefore I may not be au fait with all the procedure. The postings and transfers of legal officers in the Legal Service are jointly the responsibility of the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice as Heads of the Legal and Judicial Branches respectively. I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that if a particular legal officer has been kept in a position much longer than is necessary, when it comes to the question of promotion, this will not be held against him because it was not within his control, and therefore adequate compensation will be made. Wherever possible, it is the view of the Attorney-General's Chambers to move officers around in order to give them a well-rounded experience to assist them in their future work.

Mr Tang See Chim: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $916,090 for Head 0105 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0107 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak on amendments (1)* and (2)+ together since they are of the same nature?

• Amendment No.(2), standing in the name of Mr. Ng Yeow Chong, reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1022.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

• That the sum to be allocated for Head 0107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1021.

Sir, please allow me to pay tribute to the Court interpreters for their honesty and sincerity in performing their duties and for the useful role played by them in the judicial system. Unfortunately, there are still some Court interpreters, particularly in the Criminal and Traffic Courts, who are discharging their duties in a manner that was prevalent in the colonial days. More often than not, suspects and accused persons who are brought up before the Magistrates either for criminal or traffic offences, often find great difficulty in expressing themselves properly and confidently. This is partly due to some of the Court interpreters who speak in aggressive and harsh tones, thus putting fear and confusion into the hearts and minds of the witnesses in the dock. This is considered highly improper and unsatisfactory, especially now that we are a Socialist Government, and we should in no circumstances let the public think that there are still some civil servants who think highly of themselves and act as if they are rulers. Suspects and accused persons who are brought to court on trial should be allowed to speak freely for themselves through the Court interpreters and let the law take its own course. In fact, these Court interpreters should feel that they are in the Courts to interpret and serve the public and not to persecute them. We leave this to the D.P.P. In this manner, the public will appreciate that they are well assisted by the interpreters.

Sir, may the Minister in charge consider setting up a re-orientation course for all the Court interpreters so that they may give better service and be able to discharge their duties more efficiently to the public and in a manner more befitting our Socialist society.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Member for Mountbatten has started off by paying a tribute to the Court interpreters for their honesty and sincerity in the performance of their duties. His long complaint is in respect of perhaps some interpreters who may be rude and discourteous to the public. I think it may be said that ever since 1959 - seven years ago - there has been a great improvement in the conduct and behaviour of our officials in Government service. With the establishment of a Central Complaints Bureau, it is possible, if members of the public have any complaints about rude behaviour or discourtesy of public officials, for such cases to be investigated into. And also the fact that Members of Parliament have been dutifully holding their Meet-the-people sessions where members of the public could lodge their complaints personally with either Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers. Sir, if a member of the public really feels that he has been unfairly treated, it will be necessary for such complaints to be lodged not just verbally but in writing. As in the case of corrupt practices, there has always been the difficulty that members of the public will just make verbal complaints and expect things to be followed up.

3.45 p.m.

Therefore, I would like to answer the Member for Mountbatten that if there are any particular cases of rudeness and misbehaviour by public officials, such allegations should be made in writing and, if necessary, the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned would be good enough to report these cases directly to the Minister for Finance who is, after all, in charge of all Government officials throughout the State, or the Public Service Commission. The matter could then be taken up and, after due investigation, if an official is really found guilty, then disciplinary action will be taken. I do not think it is necessary to undergo what is known as a re-orientation course as suggested by the Member for Mountbatten.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: I shall report any complaints made to me during my next Meet-the-people session. Of course, complaints of this nature are usually beyond the ability of Members of Parliament to deal with, apart from bringing them to the notice of the Central Complaints Bureau.

I must thank the Minister concerned for his advice and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, may I pay a compliment to the Member for Mountbatten where, in one respect, he did come across a case of a hawker passing on a bribe to a hawker inspector. I took action and had the latter sacked.

Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1022. *

The Chairman: Mr Ng, I take it that you are not moving the second amendment in your name?

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: No, Sir.

The sum of $2,228,750 for Head 0107 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0201 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2004.

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy? Mr Ng Yeow Chong.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2007.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to seek clarification of the provision of $43,200 for the maintenance of Temasek, Kuala Lumpur, for the year 1967.

May this House be informed whether the domestic staff at Temasek, Kuala Lumpur, are Singapore citizens or Malaysian citizens? If they are Malaysian citizens, I do not see any reason why they should benefit from this sum when Singapore citizens should, by every right, be entitled to benefit from the sum provided.

In fact, our citizens could easily replace the alien domestic staff. May I know whether there is any condition or agreement whatsoever with regard to the employment of Malaysian citizens in Temasek, Kuala Lumpur?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it so happens that the staff employed by Temasek, Kuala Lumpur, are Malaysian citizens because they had been employed there for several years even before we were in Malaysia. It was found more convenient to employ people who were already, so to speak, at hand, if there should be further expansion in the domestic staff of our High Commission there, we shall bear in mind what has been said by the Member for Mountbatten and perhaps some of our own citizens can be posted for duty there. But I think it would serve very little purpose in making painful adjustments now by getting rid of satisfactory domestic staff just because they happen to be Malaysian citizens.

Whilst I am on this subject, I might also add for the benefit of the Member for Bras Basah, that the Rolls Royce he mentioned as having been acquired by the Prime Minister's Office was, in fact, acquired by the former High Commissioner for Singapore in Kuala Lumpur. It was part of his own purchases, and when he passed away, his executors, who, I think, include his wife, decided that they had no use for it and they have donated it to the Government for the use of the Ministers. It is in the motor car pool.

I would like to assure the Member for Bras Basah - I. know what he has in his mind, that if we have money for Rolls Royces, then surely we can give a dollar a day more to all the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Unions Federation - that we have not got money to throw around on Rolls Royces, that we do not intend to throw money around on Rolls Royces, and, in fact, even if we did, it would not impress anybody in Singapore at all. But it so happens that in this particular case, our former High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur thought it might be in keeping with his duties there if he had a Rolls Royce. But by an unfortunate turn of events, it is now of no value to the family and it has landed in the pool for cars for official use.

I may just add, in case there is any lingering doubt in the mind of the Member for Bras Basah, that there is no money to give away at $1 per day to the Public Daily-Rated Employees or anybody else in this country.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: I hope the House will agree with me that every opportunity for work must be given to our citizens since we are trying to reduce unemployment.

In view of the assurance and information given by our respected Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $611,780 for Head 0201 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0301 -

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $100.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to criticise the Government for its lack of courage and initiative in not having a clear policy on the operation and development of the public road passenger transport system.

An hon. Member: Nationalise it.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Sir, from time to time, we hear statements from the Government on an ad hoc basis in an endeavour to improve the road transport system for the travelling public.

The unsatisfactory and inefficient road transport system goes back to 1955 when a Commission of Inquiry into the public passenger transport system of Singapore sat and made recommendations. Nothing was done to implement seriously the Report of this Commission for various obvious reasons. I can understand that at that time, because of the labour situation, the then David Marshall Government and the Lim Yew Hock Government did not dare pursue the recommendations of this Commission. But I myself do not feel that the leaders of the P.A.P. lack courage or initiative.

Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister was present at the general meeting of the Singapore Traction Company Employees' Union. He made a very good suggestion to the workers that it is our policy to give confidence to the company, otherwise it may operate somewhere else. I assume that the Prime Minister was asking the workers not to ask for a bonus and not to give trouble so that the company may have confidence and stable conditions to operate its buses. But I feel that this confidence is not sufficient, because a greater part of the confidence should come from the Government by its making a clear policy on the future development of the road transport system; otherwise no organisations will put in any capital for future development.

At the meeting of the Singapore Traction Company Employees' Union, the Prime Minister also dwelt on the unification of the road transport system. He said that we could unify the road transport system in ten years, but that we could not do it now, and that we must do it step by step. I fully agree with his statement. But where do we start from? Which step shall we take? If we take positive measures now to participate in the running of the road transport system, we may achieve that target within five to ten years.

4.00 p.m.

It was some 10 years ago that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Passenger Transport System made certain recommendations, and unless we take some positive measures, I do not feel that in 10 years we can rectify our transport system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, early this year the Managing Director of the Singapore Traction Company made a statement in the Straits Times of 21st February, drawing our attention to the threat to Singapore's transport system. One of the reasons he put forward was that public transport was not functioning well because of pirate taxis. He urged the Government to take firm action and introduce legislation to rectify the situation. I would say, Sir, that the bus companies themselves have a lot to be blamed for this state of affairs. During the good old days when they were making money, some of the independent bus companies, instead of ploughing their profits back into their road transport system to improve it, have diverted their profits into building and development investments. As a result, when times are not so good and the population expands, we find that our road transport is inadequate. Pirate taxis thrive on this situation because the bus companies are unable to satisfy the public's requirements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that there is in operation an efficient and economical transport system. I feel it is its duty to participate in this public utility which, I believe, is the only utility still left, except for licensing, in the hands of private enterprise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Managing Director of the Singapore Traction Company raised his complaints in the Straits Times, the then Permanent Secretary attached to the Deputy Prime Minister's Office, Mr S. T. Stewart, replied in the Straits Tunes of 24th February to the complaints. He suggested a pooling arrangement, as practised by the airlines, for the bus companies. I believe a meeting was initiated by the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department in the Ministry of Law's Conference Room on 11th March, 1966.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, under Standing Order 43 you have about two minutes more.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: I think the House would like to know from the Minister of State what happened subsequent to that meeting. As time is running out, Sir, I will only say this. Yesterday, the Member for Choa Chu Kang was advocating nationalising the transport industry. I am not supporting his suggestion, but I would call upon the Government to participate in the running of the road transport system, because without its participation, it is not possible to get the independent bus companies together. I would suggest that the nucleus of this participation should come from the Traction Company.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Member for River Valley on the subject. Not only that, Mr Speaker, the Registrar of Vehicles should ensure that adequate buses be supplied for any new route granted to a bus company in Singapore. Some of these bus companies, after having been granted a new route, cannot provide adequate buses to meet the requirements of the Registrar. As an example, Mr Speaker, the Registrar issued a licence to Route Service No. 12 and Route Service No. 12A. The company which was granted the licence took away some of the buses from Route No. 12 and placed them on Route No. 12A. Naturally the bus service on Route No. 12 becomes inadequate. This will encourage members of the public to make use of pirate taxis.

If a bus company has an adequate fleet of buses at its disposal, complaints by it against pirate taxis will not arise. If it cannot offer an adequate bus service there will be a long waiting interval for passengers who will naturally complain about it. So they will make use of any kind of transport. If there are pirate taxis, they will use them. I hope, Mr Speaker, that there will be ways and means to regulate the issue of bus routes to bus companies and ensure that such companies will be able to supply adequate buses.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the hon. Member for River Valley does not support my idea of nationalising the public transport system. He wants the Government to participate financially, I suppose. But I wonder what his ideas are about participation. Is he thinking that Government should just go in and have a financial share in the bus companies without achieving a major degree of shareholding so as to control the policy of bus companies and also their general running?

The Member for River Valley has also said that the public bus transport system is, in fact, one of the public utilities. If he is of that opinion, why should he be so afraid of the idea of Government taking over the running of the system altogether? To have a rational traffic system, I think the whole question of roads and transport system must be looked at as a whole. We cannot just resolve the traffic problem today without looking into the whole system of public transport vis-a-vis private cars. For example, our roads are now chock-full of private cars and the number of cars is on the increase day by day. We are now doing our utmost to solve this road traffic problem, but I feel that the attempts are somewhat ad hoc and piecemeal and there is no overall planning to solve it. I think that the public transport system and the traffic problem must be looked at as a whole. In order to solve the traffic problem, we may have to have a more rational public transport system.

4.15 p.m.

I wonder whether what I am going to say is far too bold for the liking of the Government. For example, possibly we can exclude private vehicles from the city centre. But this cannot be done without our having an efficient and rational public transport system, because if private cars are excluded from the city centre, there must be some other means of transport to convey workers to work and back to their homes. I, therefore, recommend to the Government that while the public transport system at present is a problem, they should not look at it in isolation but should consider it in connection with the whole system of vehicular transport in the island.

The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I wish to thank hon. Members of Parliament for showing an interest in the problem of public transport in our State. We admit that it is a complicated one. Several things have happened since this Department was put under the charge of the Central Government over a period of two years. After one year of independence, several transport problems have emerged. For that reason, we have set up a committee, headed by Mr Milton Tan, to tackle the transport problem. Unfortunately, we did not see Members appearing to give representation.

The Member for Paya Lebar drew my attention to the S.T.C. and other bus companies. I feel that this is a complicated matter, because it involves legislation and also finance.

With regard to uniform legislation, there are at present two main sets of legislation governing the operation of bus companies. One is the Singapore Traction Company Ordinance, and the other is the Road Traffic Ordinance, under which the other 10 bus companies operate. Hence, a committee has been set up to consider proposals for uniform legislation for the bus companies in Singapore. As I have said earlier on, the implications involve legal and financial problems. Therefore, it will necessarily take some time before any concrete proposals can be put forward.

With regard to the pooling of the bus services referred to just now by the Member for River Valley - I am referring to the pooling of services of the S.T.C. and other bus companies which has been requested - tentative proposals have been submitted. A committee has been set up by the bus companies. These proposals for the pooling of services are being studied by the Omnibus Licensing Authority and the Registrar of Vehicles. It means, in effect, that my Ministry is taking active steps to resolve this complicated problem of our public transport system. I wish to be frank with hon. Members who have an interest in this matter. My Ministry is prepared to receive constructive criticisms, as a result of which we will be in a better position to resolve this problem. I welcome at any time constructive suggestions and criticisms from Members who are familiar with the transport system.

Mr Tang See Chim: I just want to say that the Minister of State has not touched upon the Traffic Unit that has been set up in the Ministry of National Development to look into the question of traffic in Singapore as a whole. He has not replied to my general question, that is, Government should not consider the problem of public transport in isolation, but should consider the question of vehicular traffic in the island as a whole. At present, it would appear that this Traffic Unit that has been set up is bogged down with details and that it is just tinkering with a little bit of diversion here and an overhead bridge there without going into the whole problem of a rationalised system of vehicular traffic in the island as a whole. I see that they are cutting away half of Orchard Road Circus - in fact, cutting down all the greens now. This may be able to relieve the traffic along Orchard Road, but it does not solve the basic problem of vehicular traffic in Singapore as a whole. I would urge the Government to look into this problem.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, may I supplement what the Minister of State has said in reply to the Members who have raised the question of the desirability of nationalising bus transport? The Member for River Valley thought that the Government should be courageous enough to embark upon such a venture. I would only say that in embarking upon a new enterprise, it is not courage that is wanted. I would say it is wisdom that is necessary in considering this problem, and where wisdom is lacking, courage becomes foolhardiness.

The Minister for Finance has stated very clearly indeed that civil servants are incapable of running a business enterprise, much less a bus company - whether it be a statutory company or an organisation directly run by the Government. I fully share the misgivings of the Minister for Finance that in nationalising bus organisations, far from bringing in more revenue for the coffers of the Treasury, the Minister for Finance instead would have to subsidise bus transport on the island. However, I do not consider that by having a unified bus service there is going to be a rationalisation of transport. No one can say that the bus transport service in Singapore is adequate or efficient. Although we have 15 bus companies, I do not see how, by having only one bus company in the future, it will make the bus service more efficient. It may well be that it would be desirable for users of buses to have perhaps integrated bus routes which can be operated by fewer bus companies. Instead of having 15 bus companies now, we can perhaps persuade some of the smaller bus companies to amalgamate and thereby assist the Road Licensing Authority, which is responsible for allocating bus routes to the companies. This will, therefore, make it easier for anyone who wishes to travel from one part of the island to the other without having to change buses.

We are at present making a study of a new Bus Licensing Bill which will apply not only to the S.T.C. but also to the Chinese bus companies. It is true there are today two separate Ordinances governing the operation of the S.T.C. and the other bus companies. We have in our studies come across problems which involve matters of finance- not only finance in terms of royalties and taxation which affect the Treasury, but also the financial operations of the companies themselves. It will take some time before we receive a final draft of this new Bill. But when it happens, we also propose that some of the smaller companies should amalgamate, as this will help the Road Licensing Authority to allocate routes which will be more to the convenience of the travelling public than to the bus companies.

In my discussions with bus officials, I have explained to them the necessity of expanding their services and ploughing their profits back into the operation. Some of the bus companies, far from using their profits to improve their bus operations, have used them in building houses, investing in real estate, or delving into other types of business. While we do not prevent bus companies from participating in other business ventures, we must at the same time impress upon them that their first responsibility surely must be to have a more efficient organisation of their bus operations. More recently, the Singapore Traction Company have notified us that they plan to purchase 100 new buses for operation on the routes, and we have encouraged them to do so. I see no purpose in allowing a company to run an inefficient bus service along the routes which have been allocated to it. It must be prepared to expand and improve its organisation.

4.30 p.m.

This is a point which the Road Licensing Authority will be looking into. We would like to remind all bus companies of the rule that all licences to operate routes hold good only for one year. All these licences must be renewed, and if we should come across complaints or come across in our own investigations that certain companies are not operating certain routes as efficiently as they ought to, then the Road Licensing Authority will be asked to repeal these licences and give them to some other bus companies which are prepared to expand their organisation.

With regard to the suggestion by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that perhaps the central area of the city be forbidden to all private car owners, I would like to say that all car owners, in the first instance, do not travel in buses. The fact that you have so many cars in Singapore is surely a reflection on the affluence of the people and that the population is fast becoming a middle-class population. It is not only the car owners who would rather prefer to travel by themselves rather than going in buses, but there are also those who use motor scooters and motor cycles who would rather use their own vehicles than buses.

Nevertheless, I agree that a long-term approach to the problem of public transport is very necessary. The Hill Report, which has been mentioned by the Member for River Valley, is to a certain extent out of date. Briefly, it recommends that the Government should take over all public transportation. But we have to compromise between what is practical and what is wanted. If the economics warrant it, then I would say the other best form of transport we can have is an underground subway system, such as you have in the big capitals of the world. This certainly will remove congestion from the streets. More people will go underground and there will be no necessity to take your car from your house to the centre of the city when you go to work. But, at the same time, subways or underground trains can supplement overhead traffic. If the Minister for Finance is prepared to put money into such a venture, I am only too happy to go around looking for people who will want to co-operate with the Government in building an underground system. Perhaps we could do it on a 49-51 per cent basis, or whatever other percentage basis is preferred. It finally boils down to the simple fact whether the Treasury can stand the load of investing very heavily in a new venture which is not certain to bring profit or revenue to its coffers.

The Traffic Unit which the Member for Choa Chu Kang has mentioned is located in the Public Works Department. Its primary job really is to study the flow of traffic in the main roads of Singapore and thereby help plan how such roads can be widened or new roads can be built so that the flow of traffic can be evenly distributed throughout the streets of Singapore rather than that all traffic be concentrated along a few major roads.

The Chairman: Dr Toh, we are approaching the guillotine time.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes. Just to sum up, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will only say that it is our hope that the bus workers will understand that unification or rationalisation of bus transport simply by nationalisation does not solve the problem of public transport at all. It is up to the workers in bus companies to ensure that their companies remain financially viable, because if a company keeps on losing a million dollars every year, then there is no alternative but for it to close down. That, of course, will not be to the benefit of the bus workers themselves. I can also add a note of warning, that if a company were to close down, the Government would not just step in and say. "We will take over the bus company." So please understand that however much the bus workers' unions want the Government to take over bus transport, we cannot promise them that we are going to do so. Therefore, it is in their own interest to make the bus companies in which they are working a going concern.

4.35 p.m.

The Chairman: The time for the discussion of this item has lapsed. Mr Lim, do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Can I make a point of clarification before I withdraw the amendment, Sir?

The Chairman: Yes, very briefly.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Yes, Sir. Just a point of clarification. I did not advocate nationalising the public transport system and neither did I say that the Government lacked courage in embarking on foolhardy schemes. What I did say was that the Government lacked courage in making a clear-cut policy on the development of the road transport system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $335,360 for Head 0301 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0302 -

The following amendments stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1055.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1059.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1060.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1082.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2006.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: I am not moving my amendments, Sir.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by 510 in respect of subhead 2017.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to know from the Deputy Prime Minister who uses this ferry service?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, the simple answer is that those who use this ferry service are the officials in the course of their duties between Singapore and St. John's island and Pulau Brani, their families, and school children who are living in these islands and have to come to school in Singapore to study.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: May I just clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir, not only for the Member but also for the public about the new arrangements which are being made to transport officials, their families and other members of the public between Singapore and St.. John's Island and Pulau Brani? There will be a new organisation called the Southern Islands Tours Organisation which has contracted with Government to provide six services a day between 5.45 a.m. and 8.40 p.m. on week days, two trips on Sundays and public holidays. The contractor will transport the persons I have already mentioned between St. John's Island and Singapore and Pulau Brani and Singapore. One of the launches used by the contractor, the Jaya Manis, was launched recently and it will soon be put to use. Any claims which the Government may make against the company will be indemnified by the company, if necessary. The contract with the organisation is for a five-year period at a sum of $9,750 per month.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $100*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Tang See Chim.)

Sir, we are now entering an era of the space age and the world is shrinking in size. Our jet planes are able to travel beyond the speed of sound - at supersonic speed. This is especially important to Singapore which is situated at the hub of South-East Asia and the cross-roads of Asia and Europe. Therefore, the system of transportation should attain international standards. Our Paya Lebar Airport, compared with airport facilities in other Asian countries, is quite up to the standard. But if it is compared with airports in advanced countries such as America and other countries, it is still backward. To substantiate my argument, let me quote from the Far Eastern Economic Review, the title of which is "Whether the Airports in the Far East are safe?"

The Chairman: Mr Teong, the head we are discussing is 0302 - Marine - and I think the discussion on airports is out of order under this head.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, let me see where I am. Perhaps I was mistaken.

The Chairman: Mr Teong, while you consider what you want to say, I will ask Mr Tang to address the House. He has an amendment in identical terms with yours. I will call you again.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Yes.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to he allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $100.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two very short points I wish to take up on this Head. The first is the stranglehold on the economy of Singapore that is being exercised by the Shipping Freight Conference. I am glad that this point was answered by the Finance Minister in the Budget debate yesterday. He fully realised this problem and is, in fact, taking positive steps to alleviate the situation.

The second point that I wish to raise is this. I shall frame what I want to say in the form of a question, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to ask the Minister in charge of Marine whether he has any proposal to replace the present expatriate personnel by Singapore citizens.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $100."

Mr Teong, is there anything you wish to say on this Head?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I have no more views to air on this Head.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On the matter of freight rates under the control of Conference Lines, I will only say that this is a matter which is dealt with by the Department of Trade. It does not come under my Ministry. Nevertheless, I personally do take a keen interest in this matter. I think it is inappropriate indeed to discuss Conference rates under this Head 0302 --- Marine, which is solely responsible for running the motor launches and the lighthouses in Singapore waters.

On the second point raised by the Member for Choa Chu Kang as to whether or not the expatriate posts in the Marine Department will be Singaporeanised, I say that if we can find local citizens with the necessary qualifications, we will be only too happy to employ them when the expatriates retire. The hon. Member should realise that to obtain a Foreign-going Master's Certificate requires a lengthy period of training and sitting for examinations which take almost as long as six years. Since 1959, we have made positive efforts to encourage local officers to take this higher sea-going examination. In fact, there are two local citizens who are officers in the Marine Department. I presume that in the course of time, when the contracts of the expatriates expire, these officers will take over the duties which are now being performed by expatriate personnel. However, until I am assured that we have enough local people with such qualifications who can fill the places, I think the best policy is to utilise the services of expatriates wherever we can get them.

I do not believe in Singaporeanisation simply for the sake of Singaporeanisation, because in our experience we have found sometimes - it is sad to say - that Singaporeanisation has not brought about more efficient or improved services and administration. Experience sometimes is lacking and, therefore, we have to approach the problem rather conservatively, particularly in technical departments which find it very difficult indeed to recruit local citizens with the essential technical qualifications.

The Polytechnic Nautical Department has started pre-sea training courses and is arranging opportunities for students who finish this course to work on board ship so that eventually they will be able to work towards a Mate Certificate, and ultimately a Foreign-going Master's Certificate. But all this training takes time, and it does not mean that a man who has recently acquired any certificate should therefore be the head of a department. It will indeed be a very foolish and short-sighted policy to believe that the mere acquisition of a certificate alone entitles any local citizen to be the head of a department. He still has to work his way up in the department, acquire the necessary experience administratively or otherwise, and hope eventually in the course of time to be promoted when a vacancy occurs. Up to today, I am satisfied that the policy of gradually replacing expatriate personnel in the Marine Department is working according to schedule, although I must publicly say I regret very much indeed that local citizens who may possess the necessary qualifications have been very slow in coming forward or reluctant to work in the Marine Department. On the other hand, they prefer to work on board ship as Masters of vessels simply because they can earn a better salary than they can in Government service. This is the problem we face. I do not think any local personnel in the department in my Ministry grudge the presence of any expatriates we have now.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Deputy Prime Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,609,230 for Head 0302 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0304 -

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1187.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention, if he is not aware of it, to the growing dissatisfaction and low morale of the police constables at the Airport Security Section. I believe this affects the discipline of the force in security work in an area like the Airport.

The reason for their dissatisfaction was brought about by the difference in the salary scales which the regular force of the Polis Republik Singapura enjoy and the salary scale which the Airport security constables receive. Before Malaysia, the police constables at the Airport and the Regular Police Force were on the same salary scales. They were recruited with the same qualifications and they performed similar duties. The change in the salary scales during the Malaysia days was the result of representations made by the regular police force to the Salaries Commission then in Kuala Lumpur. However, when the recommendations were made, the Airport police force was omitted from enjoying the same scheme. I understand that the position now is that a fresh submission has been made to the Salaries Commission which is now sitting in Singapore. The point I wish to make is that the police constables at the Singapore Airport should not suffer through the negligence of some officials. The case for the police constables at the Singapore Airport was not submitted. I would ask the Minister concerned to look into this matter.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest three points on the subject of Civil Aviation. May I do so?

The Chairman: This particular subhead is actually on constables and their conditions of work. Are your remarks related to this subhead?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): In that case, I would not like to speak on it.

5.00 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Establishment Branch of the Treasury is looking into the position and since the Salaries Commission is now sitting to revise salaries for all grades of the public service, I am quite sure that the problem of whether or not the Airport constables will be paid at the same rates as constables in the Regular Police Force will be discussed and considered by the Commission.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2010.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2012.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2084.

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy is not present.

The sum of $5,907,960 for Head 0304 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: I will take the suspension now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: I will suspend the sitting now and resume at Forty minutes after Five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.02 p.m. until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head 0305 -

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to have your permission to move amendments (1)* and (2)+ together.

• Amendment (2) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1004.

The Chairman: Could you move amendment (1) ? You can then address your remarks on the other amendment as well.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.*

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two points to raise here. First, I wish to know from the Minister who is the present Controller of Immigration. Is he an, expatriate officer? If so, when will his contract expire? The second point is on the people who come here on social visits. They are being asked to pay a deposit of $500. There are cases where sponsors arrange for the visits of their relatives or friends, and they usually get a return ticket. Since that is the position, Sir, why should an additional deposit be asked for from these people?

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the bulk of the citizens of this Republic are made up of immigrants from China and India, who have been here for many generations.

Sir, the Republic has now taken measures to distinguish between those who are citizens and those who are non-citizens. The rightful citizen of this country is a citizen by birth, descent or naturalisation, and he is issued with a plastic red identity card. The non-citizen is issued with a blue card. Although the Government has tightened up its Citizenship Rules, in 1957 all immigrants and Commonwealth citizens who wanted to take up Singapore citizenship were given the opportunity to do so. Some progressive-minded people, through long residence and association with this country, were quite ready to identify themselves with the destiny of this country and have taken up Singapore citizenship. These people now possess the red identity cards. Some Singapore citizens of this category, and if I may be a bit personal, some Indian immigrants of this category, for reasons best known to themselves, were not able to associate with their families for more than five years at any one time. It may be that before that period or after, they had got their citizenship. The Immigration Department has now promulgated a rule that any Singapore citizen who is separated from his family for more than five years cannot bring his family into Singapore. In other words, an entry permit will not be given to such families. So in certain cases the families of such persons were allowed to come to Singapore on visit passes for a six-month period. I understand that even this is now being denied them by the Immigration Department.

5.45 p.m.

I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that if these families could not be permitted to come to Singapore on a permanent basis, then at least facilities should be made to allow them to come to Singapore on visit passes.

Another point which my colleagues spoke on was deposits. Singapore citizens applying for visit passes either for their wives, children or parents are required to pay a security deposit of $500, in addition to producing a receipt for the return ticket which has been booked with a shipping company. I wish to suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that once the proper receipt for a booking return ticket with a shipping company is produced, the security deposit of $500 may be waived.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a case also with regard to immigration. He is a voter who stays in my constituency. By occupation, he is a pilot employed by the Port of Singapore Authority. He has an aged mother who lives in Cambodia. This pilot was about to get married. According to Chinese tradition and custom, parents always like to witness the wedding of their children. In this case, this man had applied to the Immigration Department for some months, not to get this old lady to come here and stay, but just to witness the occasion of his wedding. I do not know why his application was rejected. He came and saw me and I then explained his case to the official concerned but still this official refused to agree. Finally - I do not know through whose help or assistance - his mother was allowed to come to Singapore after the wedding was over. But the son who sponsored her entry into Singapore was asked to pay a deposit of $2,000 in spite of the fact that the return passage and everything else was provided for. I feel that in the case of social visits by parents, particularly to witness their children's weddings as the case may be, the authorities should be more sympathetic. I bring this matter before the Deputy Prime Minister and shall be very grateful if he will investigate it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: To answer the first query whether the Controller of Immigration is an expatriate. Mr Speaker, to my recollection, I believe that he is a local citizen and he is not under contract. I have not bothered to look into the antecedents of civil servants in my Ministry. But this is the first time that I have been queried whether the Controller of Immigration is an expatriate. However, I shall return and check the facts, but I believe he is not. [Interruption] No. I think you had better make it quite clear. I was asked whether he is an expatriate or not. My answer is that he is not an expatriate.

On the general question of applications for a visit to Singapore, I want to make it quite clear that Members of the House should be able to distinguish between those who wish to come to Singapore to settle down, and those who wish to come to Singapore on a social visit pass. As far as those who propose to settle down in Singapore are concerned, the rule is that citizens of Singapore should not be separated from their wives or their husbands for more than five years. Otherwise, the proof that the man or the woman still has an interest in the other half does not exist. In the case of children, everyone knows that children who it is proposed are to be brought into Singapore should not be above six years old, and for aged parents they should not be more than 65 years old. So I do not want the question of admission into Singapore to be mixed up with applications for social visits.

As far as applications for permanent entry into Singapore are concerned, they deal with the immediate relatives of the applicant. You cannot say just because you are a Singapore citizen, you want to apply for the permanent entry into Singapore of your uncle, your brother, or your auntie or your sister-in-law. This is the present regulation which we intend to continue.

With regard to the question of whether or not a deposit is necessary from those who come to Singapore on a social visit pass, I am in favour that a deposit should be asked for, because the money is not retained by the Singapore Government but is returned to the visitor when he leaves the island. The sum of money is to ensure that if the man over-stays his visit, and he might be kept by the Government, then this sum of money can be used. Or in other cases, the money would be used to repatriate those persons who have come to Singapore for a period longer than was intended. However, what we can do is to adjust the quantum of the deposit. This is the first time it has come to my knowledge that a deposit of $2,000 had been asked for from this particular lady from Cambodia. I can recollect very faintly that I did receive a letter from somebody about the application by this lady for a social visit pass, and it was I who agreed that she should be allowed to come to Singapore. But I did not know that the Controller of immigration had asked as much as $2,000 for a deposit. If that is so, then I think perhaps he has not been so judicious in his decision. This is a matter which I hope I will be able to take up with the Immigration officials.

However, Members will understand that the question of immigration is a general problem. It is very difficult indeed for the Immigration Department to keep track of all those who come to Singapore. There is no preventive branch of the Immigration Department to visit the addresses given by those who have entered Singapore and ascertain whether they have overstayed the period allowed to them, or whether they have disappeared. In the experience of the Immigration Department, some Singapore citizens have successfully applied for social visit passes for their friends and relatives and, in many cases, the Department has not been able to find out whether such persons have left the island or not. On investigation sometimes it has been found that such people have conveniently disappeared. If we are in earnest to contain the growth of population in Singapore, we must also be determined to prevent an uncontrollable influx of foreign immigrants. Some come in illegally. Some come in legally. But whatever way they choose to come in, we must ensure that those who come in are those who are going to bring economic benefits to Singapore. Also our citizens should comprehend that the limitations of the State itself do not warrant an unrestricted flow of visitors, whether it be for three or six months, for this flow cannot be fully controlled. However, when the Immigration Department is transferred to the Ministry of the Interior and Defence as from 1st January next year, we hope that with the collaboration of the police, the Immigration Department would be able to develop more effective measures to ascertain whether visitors to Singapore, be it on a professional visit pass or social visit pass, or an employment pass, do not overstay the periods that they have been given, and so there is some check on the population growth in Singapore. Members of this House, of course, will sympathise with the Immigration Department on the problem, but if there are specific instances where they believe that their constituents have not been given justice, then they could write to me until the end of the year, or they could write to the Minister of the Interior and Defence from next year onwards and give him specific instances where they can truthfully support the applications for a social visit pass or permanent entry.

But I would like Members of the House to know clearly that applications for permanent entry are applicable only to certain categories of persons - wives, children, parents. All others who wish to visit Singapore must do so on a social visit pass, unless, of course, there are special circumstances which warrant the permanent entry of such persons. As I have indicated, persons who can help our plans for industrialisation or who can bring economic benefits to Singapore or who can bring in expertise or technical skill one way or the other, such persons surely can be considered for permanent entry. But I do not think we can allow any other person to come freely into Singapore.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.00 p.m.

The following amendments stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1004.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1015.

Mr Lingam: I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2005.

Mr Speaker, if we have experience of going abroad, then we will know that whenever we go to a place - it may be quite near by, Sarawak, for example - the entry permit issued to us will have certain conditions attached thereto so that we will not be allowed to work or seek employment there. In the case of Singapore, in so far as entry permits are concerned, I think there should be certain regulations to restrict unskilled persons from coming here too easily. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, the immigration authorities in their administration seem to have approved the permanent stay of one expatriate person, and allowed him to work here. This is the case of a person who has come from the other side of the world. He is an unskilled person but he has been allowed to stay here permanently to work in Pan-American Airways. Under the circumstances, if we review the position, there may be many other departments involved, not just the Immigration Department alone. But it is the immigration authorities which first opened the door to this foreigner to come in. As a result, the situation is beyond redemption. Sir, we must pay attention to cases like this as we march forward.

In so far as foreign affairs are concerned, we are non-aligned and neutral. If in our administration we have certain defects which can be exploited by anti-nationals to accuse us of not strictly implementing our non-aligned policy, then the situation will be rather bad, particularly in the case of non-skilled persons coming here. We must consider that there are more than 60,000 persons registered with the Employment Exchange here. If these people see unskilled persons coming here and seeking employment at their expense, then they will be looking at the foreigners with much distress in their eyes. Sir, if this problem is not properly treated and handled, then I am afraid that the people at large may not have much confidence in our immigration policy, or our non-aligned policy. There may be some possible misunderstanding in this respect. So unless there is a satisfactory explanation, I would say that since the Immigration authorities made a mistake by opening the door to a foreigner to come in, then it should be their responsibility to send him back to where he came from. I think we must make good use of the repatriation vote in this case. But I doubt whether the Immigration authorities will be able to make good use of this sum of $14,880, because it is a vote for repatriation and other expenses. I have no confidence in the way in which they are making use of this vote. So I would like to reduce it by $10 so that we do not waste public funds.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how is it that, in spite of the fact that the Immigration Department is asking for a deposit in respect of all people who come in on visit passes - in fact, in a particular case, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the Controller had been injudicious in asking for too huge an amount - we still have to make provision to the tune of $14,000 in respect of Maintenance, Removal and Repatriation Expenses? Is this item of expenditure confined mainly to the repatriation of illegal immigrants?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, the person referred to by the Member for Bukit Merah is a catering officer employed by Pan American Airways and apparently the Controller of Immigration referred the application for this man's visit to the Director of Civil Aviation who supported the application, and on this ground a professional visit pass for 12 months was given. However, I will investigate the details of the case and find out whether this catering officer possesses a skill that is not available locally and, therefore, Pan American Airways had to bring in their own man. If we wish Singapore to develop economically, we must be generous at times and realise that Singapore today is what it is on account of an immigrant population and also on account of expertise which has come from overseas. While we are proud that we are independent and would like very much to rely on our own ability and our own strength, nevertheless, we should also recognise our own weaknesses and deficiencies. And if we adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude while we are still not in a position to improve our own technical skill, then I am afraid Singapore will take a very long time to develop. It is on these grounds that we have adopted a liberal policy vis-a-vis applications by industrialists, technologists, professional men and other experts who come here to help in some way or other our commerce and industry for a short period. These persons are not going to stay in Singapore permanently. In most cases a period of 12 months' stay is granted to them. In the case of this particular catering officer, I myself am not quite sure about the circumstances for supporting his application, but I will investigate it when I return to the office tomorrow.

With regard to the sum of $14,880 under the subhead of Maintenance Removal and Repatriation Expenses, I would like to explain to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that this money is used to feed illegal immigrants in our detention gaol when they are caught out, and also the cost of repatriating them will be borne by this sum of money. We have from time to time unwelcome visitors from neighbouring islands, and when they are caught out, they have to be kept here until we can find a boat or an aeroplane to pack them back. This is quite apart from the deposit which is required from all those who apply for a visit pass.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $100*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Messrs.Teong Eng Siong, Tang See Chim and S.V. Lingam.)

Mr Speaker, Sir, those people in Singapore with red identity cards have been accepted as citizens of Singapore and the facilities made available to them are the same, for example, social welfare relief, etc. But as far as the Immigration Department is concerned, I have received several complaints that those people in Singapore who possess red identity cards but who do not have citizenship papers or birth certificates have been rejected when applying for passports to go abroad. Can the Immigration Department and other departments concerned do anything? These people have received facilities which are the same as those for citizens of Singapore who have birth certificates and citizenship registration certificates. Unfortunately, these people do not receive the facilities as given by other departments. May I know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether this is one of the requirements of the Immigration Department, to demand that all applicants for passports to go abroad must show their citizenship certificates or their birth certificates?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I fully appreciate that in recent years we have been rather restrictive in our immigration policy in order to control the immigration of foreigners into Singapore. This, of course, is due to the fact that we are a small island State with hardly any natural resources and we cannot afford to have an over-populated population. That is why we must have a restrictive immigration policy which is quite different from that of 1948 when the policy was rather lax. At that time we had only about a million population, but now we have double that figure, i.e., about two million. As our Deputy Prime Minister is aware, there are many citizens in Singapore who have parents in India or China.

6.15 p.m.

Because of the difficulties of earning a livelihood in these two countries and also because of their advanced age, these parents of our local citizens are rather helpless in their country of birth. So they have written repeatedly to their children here, who are Singapore citizens, asking them to apply for permits for them to enter Singapore. As a matter of fact, we have approved a few hundred such applications and allowed many people to come in every year. But there are still many whose applications have been rejected on the ground of their age. The stipulated age limit is now 65 years, but the applicants may be 62 or 63 years old and they are therefore not eligible to come here.

There may be another set of grounds for disqualification. The applicants may have relatives in China to depend on. For example, in my constituency, there is a voter who complained to me that he had made an application for his-mother to come to Singapore, but because he has a nephew in China his application was rejected. But according to this voter, his nephew was sent away from his parents in China to Manchuria, so that he is not in a position to look after his mother in China. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration and approve the applications of the cases which I have mentioned so that these aged parents will be allowed to come here and reunite with their children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another type of applicants. Some people were born here about ten years ago. According to our immigration regulations, any person who leaves Singapore for a period of more than five years will be treated as an alien and he is not allowed to re-enter Singapore. I have received several complaints on this matter. For example, in one case, the applicant was born in Singapore. He left Singapore for a period of five years and a few months. His parents applied for an entry permit for him, but their application was rejected on the ground that he had been away from Singapore for a period of more than five years. In the past, some people went to China under emotional circumstances or for other reasons. In so far as their birth-place is concerned, they should be considered as Singapore citizens by birth. Although they left Singapore on impulse, they have now realised that the circumstances in some countries are not so good and they find it necessary to come back here. They have relatives here. They are helpless in a foreign country. So we should sympathise with them.

There is one other point, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have received another complaint which has been brought up by other Members of this House. This relates to applications for visit passes which require that there must be some guarantors to pay some kind of deposit. Some of these visitors would like to extend the period of their stay in Singapore for a further three or six months. In such circumstances, the Immigration authorities would ask them to put down some more deposit. But in my view, as they have already put down a deposit once and may have a return ticket as well, it is not necessary for them to put down a second deposit to extend their period of stay here because it is a very troublesome and redundant procedure.

Finally. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister certain complaints regarding the attitude of some officers in the Immigration Department. I do not know whether this is true, but I would like him to look into the matter.

The Chairman: As we are nearing the guillotine time, I call upon the Deputy Prime Minister at this stage. I will call upon any Members who want to speak after the Deputy Prime Minister if there is further time.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to inform Members of the House that passports are not given to citizens as a matter of right. Nobody can say that just because he is a citizen he must be given a passport. According to the Ordinance, passports are issued at the discretion of the Minister in charge of Immigration. Sometimes there are cases which come up before the Department where it is questionable whether passports should be given to such people, particularly when information has been received from the Security Branch of the Ministry of the Interior and Defence that such and such a person proposes to travel abroad for some illegal purpose to further his clandestine activities, or to make contact with smugglers or make other types of undesirable contacts. When it comes to our knowledge that the passports in such cases will be abused, then, of course, it is up to the Minister to decide whether or not such applications should be considered. I think we would be very foolish if, knowing full well from information received that these persons are going to do this country no good by their travel overseas, we were to give them passports so that they can carry out their objectives. There is no difference between a citizen born in Singapore and a citizen by registration. In most cases -- I would say in 99.9 per cent of cases - passports are given and it is only in the 0.1 per cent of cases where doubts are very strong indeed that these are undesirable characters who are going to subvert the security of the State, or who are going to make contact with the underworld, the smugglers, that passports are not given.

In answer to the Member for Sembawang, those who leave Singapore without a re-entry permit surely must be considered as persons who do not wish to retain Singapore citizenship, and we assume that such persons are enjoying the rights and privileges of the countries they have gone to. If this is so, then they will not be carrying Singapore passports; neither will they have re-entry permits. Therefore, technically, whether they are born here or not, they have no right to be re-admitted to Singapore. It is only in bona fide cases where they carry passports and have been given the right of re-entry that they will be allowed to return. I would consider persons who have run off illegally as mere opportunists who hope to improve their own prospects outside this country, but when they find that things are not going too well for them they become disillusioned and want to return here. I do not believe that sympathy should be given to such persons. Frankly, if such opportunists are allowed to return, I do not believe they will contribute anything to the welfare - politically or otherwise - of this country.

I am very sorry indeed that applications from parents who are 62 years old have been rejected. But we must draw the line somewhere. The line is 65 years old. If a person is 62 years old, it is regrettable indeed that his application will not be considered. The best that can happen is for him to wait until he or she is 65 years old. We cannot one day say, "Well, the line is 65 years old. But, never mind, because you are my special friend, I will make it 62 years old." And having made it 62 years old, somebody comes along and says, "I have a mother or a father who is 61 years old or 60 years old." And so we go along a policy which is neither fixed nor determined, and in the end we will end up quite confused as to whether immigration has or does not have a policy. I must reiterate to all Members that we are very sympathetic to our citizens whose parents are living in those countries where times are hard, be it in India or in China. But I am quite sure that these parents have other relatives, other children, uncles, brothers or sisters with whom they are living. It must be so, otherwise they would have applied for admission to Singapore long, long ago. This is a policy we have kept all these years and we propose to carry on with it, that parents must be 65 years old and above before their applications can be considered. Besides, there must be adequate proof that they rely solely on their children in Singapore for their maintenance.

As for the complaint about discourtesy by immigration officials, I myself have put on the carpet officials of the Immigration Department, and I hope that irresponsible officials will learn a lesson. If they do not and I continue to receive further complaints about discourtesy or lack of public relations, then there will be no alternative but to submit them to a departmental inquiry and, if necessary, have them removed, transferred, or have them retired in the public interest. I have time and again told all the officials in departments of my Ministry that all of them - from R.O.V, to Immigration - every day for six days of the week that they come into contact with the public -

The Chairman: Dr Toh, we are approaching the guillotine time.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: May I end my sentence, Mr Speaker? It is necessary for them to impress upon the public that civil servants are here not to throw their weight around, not to repress the public and not to appear as a bureaucratic organisation, otherwise the confidence and the belief of the public in our system of government will not prevail. I have given a warning to all that if matters do not improve, then the axe will fall. It must be so this way if we wish to make a success of the system of government which we have now.

6.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Time has lapsed.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,516,040 for Head 0305 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0307 -

The Chairman: Head 0307, Postal Services. Amendments* (1) and (2) - Mr Govindaswamy is not present. Amendment (3) , Mr Lim Guan Hoo.

• Amendents (1) and (2), standing in the name of Mr. P. Govindaswamy, read as follows:-

(1)That the sum to be allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1011.

(2)That the sum to be allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1022.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead 3002.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, Members of this House have requested the Government to build more post offices in various areas, but most of these requests have not been considered. Now that this vote is not yet approved, we would like the Government to consider providing us with more branch post offices or, failing which, more postal vehicles or postal boxes. We are sorry to talk about postal services in the areas, because there are many defects in these services there and I have found that people in the rural areas often do not receive their letters.

Let us now talk about the postal services in the urban areas and see what the situation is like, especially in the housing estates.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, time for the guillotine is

6.40 p.m, and we still have one more amendment to dispose of.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: I will shorten my speech. (In Mandarin) In our housing estates there are very few posting boxes. The facilities there are very poor, as the authority concerned has not planned sufficiently for the postal services. From the Budget we see that only $600 is provided for these services next year. If we do not carefully plan now, then in future the postmen will not even go up to the flats to deliver the letters. If our Minister were to go to Bukit Timah Hill and build a house there, then he would not be able to receive his letters.

The development of our society must be a balanced one. As we have built so many houses, the postal services must be adequate to cope with the needs. If we do not do this well, the whole Government machinery will be lopsided; it will be like a car losing one of its four wheels. There will be uneven development, with the result that although more houses are built, there are not enough postal services provided, resulting in chaos and confusion. We hope that the Minister will pay careful consideration to this item. Therefore, I move that this item be reduced by $10.

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, actually the subhead touched on by the Member for Bukit Merah has got nothing to do with what he has discussed. This is in respect of the red post boxes for the public to post their letters. This has nothing to do with postal agencies. Furthermore, this is a general question and I cannot reply to it directly. I cannot say which postal districts are lacking in postal services. There are postal agencies, mobile post offices, etc.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: Are you prepared to give way, Tuan Haji Yaacob?

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): There is not much time left, Mr Speaker. The vote of $600 is in respect of four post boxes to be installed at Toa Payoh New Town, Kallang Basin New Town, Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire Site, and the Urban Renewal S.I. (former Outram Road Prison Site). These post boxes have no relation to the matter raised by the Member for Bukit Merah.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: Before I withdraw my amendment, may I clarify a point?

The Chairman: No. I am afraid you must give Madam Chan a chance to move her amendment.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Madam Chan, you have got only three minutes.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Judging from the time left, it appears that my time will be up even before I can say all that I want to say. So is it possible for me to have a few more minutes to speak on this item?

The Chairman: I am afraid my hands are bound by Standing Orders.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3003.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this item of Stamps - New Issues - I would like to know why the provision for 1967 is to be increased so much compared with that for 1966. What I mean to say is that we should, whenever possible, make our stamps reflect our way of life and the various cultural and other characteristics of our people so that they can be representative of the various features of our people. Stamps can be very useful in this respect. For instance, if a person has contributed greatly to our country's welfare, then we may have certain stamps depicting his image to commemorate his contribution to the country. This will serve as an encouragement to our people to emulate his example. On the other hand, stamps should also reflect our society in which the four races are living harmoniously together, because the mails will be sent throughout the world, and foreigners will be able to understand our social background and our livelihood. So these stamps will serve as useful ambassadors of Singapore in these countries.

6.40 p.m.

The Chairman: I am afraid time has lapsed.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, just one more minute. I would not say that in the past our stamps were not beautiful, but they contained only a fish or a bird or perhaps a centipede. Perhaps they were not too significant, and if they were posted abroad, the people who received them would not understand what these pictures represented. The stamps of the Republic of Communist China, for instance, reflect and commemorate what their people have done for their country; images of national heroes are depicted. So I hope that we can also emulate their example and that the Minister can tell us why there is such a big increase in the vote for next year.

The Chairman: Madam Chan, I am afraid I have to put your amendment to the vote, unless you ask for leave to withdraw it.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: The Minister has not replied to my points, so how can I beg leave to withdraw my amendment?

The Chairman: Time for discussion of this head is up and the Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3003."

I must end the debate when we get to the guillotine time. If Members are serious about wanting an answer, they must stop in sufficient time to give the Minister a chance to reply. If they keep going right to the end of guillotine time, they will have to go without a reply; this is unsatisfactory both to the Minister and to the Member.

Now, if Madam Chan will not withdraw her amendment. I will have to put it to the vote.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): In that case, I will put it to the vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $15,403,550 for Head 0307 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0309 -

The Chairman: Amendment No. (1)*. Mr Govindaswamy is not present. Amendment No. (2) , Mr Sim.

• Amendment No (1), standing in the name of Mr. P. Govindaswamy, reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0309 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0309 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1016+.

(+ The same amendment also stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong.)

Sir, under this subhead I notice that there are only 18 driving testers and 2 senior driving testers to deal with hundreds of people who are due for their driving tests every day. If there are no absentees from driving testers due to illness or otherwise, an approximate number of 160 people will be tested every day.

Apart from these 160 people, there are about 120 people who are present there every morning trying their luck in the ballot to have their driving test, and only three to five people will be lucky enough to have their test, leaving the others disappointed. Even these three to five people are confronted with difficulties. If they are Mandarin-speaking, they are likely to be turned away. The reason given is that there are no Mandarin-speaking testers. Sir, from what I know, there are about eight to nine Mandarin-speaking testers in the Driving Testing Department. Why cannot the administrative side allot the testing fairly just to avoid disappointing the people who wish to be tested?

Another point I wish to bring to the Minister of State's attention is that there is really an acute shortage of testers nowadays. A person who has failed in his first test will have to wait for three months for a retest. Therefore, I strongly urge the Minister to increase the number of testers to cope with the situation. Sir, there is another point. I think all Government departments start work at 9.00 o'clock in the morning. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. I have made personal investigations into the time of driving testing and, to my surprise, the first car to move out for testing is always after 10.00 a.m. This sort of attitude should be corrected at once.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you know that the number of vehicles is increasing. It means that it is becoming too easy for people to get driving licences. Because of the ease with which they get driving licences, this will affect and endanger our road safety. A few days ago the Vice-Chairman of the Safety First Council was involved in a collision with a police officer's car. If the Vice-Chairman of the Safety First Council could be so unsafe, how do you expect members of the public to be safe on the road? The reason may well be that perhaps these two persons were trying to give way to other drivers who were lacking in driving experience and who had got their driving licences recently. If that is the case with most of the applicants for driving licences, then it would be a great hazard to road safety. Therefore, I hope that the testers will pay greater attention to and exercise more stringent care in the issue of driving licences to people undergoing a driving test. Otherwise, even if we have more Safety First Councils, we may not be able to maintain safety on the road.

In connection with the provision of 18 testers, I hope all of them will be more stringent in testing applicants and maintain a good standard before driving licences are issued to these applicants in order to safeguard road safety.

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Changi has mentioned about testers who do not know Mandarin. Actually nine out of the 14 testers do know Mandarin. So this question does not arise. There will be more opportunities. If the person speaks Mandarin, the tester will be a Mandarin-speaking tester. If he is a Malay, a Malay-speaking tester. This is what has been carried out so far.

He says other departments begin work at 9.00 o'clock but this department begins work at 10.00 o'clock. This is not true. Actually the department starts work at 9.00 o'clock, but because arrangements have to be made, it is only within the hour that they can find out whether the people to be tested are present or not. It is because of this that the first car comes out at 10.00 o'clock.

Regarding the shortage of testers, I would like to state here that in 1961 there were only 14 testers. It was increased by two in 1962 and then two more in 1965. Next year we will reconsider the position. However that may be, everyone who takes out a provisional licence can be tested after three and a half months from the date of application, so that he can learn to drive well.

With regard to the point brought up by the Member for Delta. I would like to say that the testers will be given instructions to be very careful in their testing. Few people are passed by the testers. This is in the interest of road safety in the State.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only interested in giving the public convenience in their testing. I have the opinion that you have strict but fair testers. I see the Minister is hitting at me that I am irresponsible.

The Chairman: I do not think anyone regards you as irresponsible, Mr Sim. Do you wish to withdraw this amendment?

Mr Sim Boon Woo: In view of the explanation, and as the Minister himself is scared that reckless drivers will finish him off, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the names of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi, Mr Teong Eng Siong, and Inche Mahmud Awang -

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0309 be reduced by $100.

The Chairman: Inche Mohd. Ariff is not present. Mr Teong. We have got five minutes for your speech and the Minister's reply.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0309 be reduced by $100.

The Registry of Vehicles is one of the busiest Government departments, because there are 250,000 motor vehicles as well as other types of vehicles. Under the old Government this department was the object of attack by members of the public, because when they went into the department to pay their road taxes and do other business, they had to wait for at least two hours to half a day. Since the P.A.P. Government came into office in 1959, there has been a great change and improvement in this department. Members of the public are generally satisfied with it. But I would like the Minister to pay attention to this point. It is necessary to make the officials of this department more efficient in order to meet the expectations of members of the public. They should not take the view that, because of the present satisfactory situation, they could relax their efficiency.

In September this year we issued 300 taxi licences so that about 600 taxi drivers would have jobs. But according to what I have gathered, there are many people who are still waiting to have taxis to drive to make a living. So the number of taxi-driving licences issued is too small. According to what I have learnt, there are about five to six thousand people applying for licences to drive taxis to carry school children. I hope this kind of licences will be issued as soon as possible in order to give them an early opportunity to make a living.

There is another point, and this is about parking places for taxis. I have learnt from the taxi drivers, and this is their complaint, that they are receiving summonses very often, sometimes up to ten summonses per month. I hope the authorities concerned will not inconvenience them too much and will be more flexible in dealing with their cases, because they have a great burden in maintaining their families' livelihood. I hope the Minister will consider this matter.

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need for me to reply. It seems that the Member has paid tribute to the Registry of Vehicles. The request that we should not be complacent has been noted. We will continue to make further improvements to the Registry of Vehicles.

On the question of issuing licences for taxis to carry school children, at this stage the Registrar of Vehicles has received 650 applications and 180 vehicles have been registered to carry school children. School children are on holiday at the moment, and it is hoped that when the schools reopen this matter will be finalised.

On the subject of parking places for taxis, I wish to inform the hon. Member that it is not under my Ministry. It is under the charge of the Ministry of National Development. There is no necessity for me to reply except that I thank the hon. Member for paying tribute to the Registry of Vehicles.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -

The Chairman: Mr Teong, I take it that you are standing up to ask for leave to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to withdraw. But before I do it, can I clarify certain points in view of the Minister of State's answer? Can I ask him to tell us whether he has any plans to issue more taxi licences?

The Chairman: I think the Minister's answer was that this matter does not come within his Ministry. Is that correct, Tuan Haji Yaacob?

Tuan Haji Yaacob: (In Malay): The issue of more taxi licences cannot be considered. So far we have issued more than is necessary.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): I thank the Minister of State for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,146,300 for Head 0309 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0401 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1301.

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy is not here. Mr Lingam, amendment No. (2).*

• Amendment No. (2) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1684.

Mr Lingam: I am not moving.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1687.

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy is not here. Mr Lingam, amendment No. (4) .

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2009.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are very happy that the Government has launched a campaign to recruit members for the Vigilante Corps. But there is one question I would like to ask the Minister. The campaign is aimed at calling men to join but there is no campaign to recruit women. Could the Minister consider at the same time whether any women, if they wish to join, can do so?

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the suggestion made by the Member for Aljunied that the people today should be allowed to shoulder the responsibility to defend the country and that we should not be discriminatory against women. But I do not understand why in the present campaign to recruit Vigilante Corps members, the Minister of Defence is recruiting only men, and women are excluded. I understand there are certain community centres which have registered some voluntary women applicants and their performance is better than the men's. I do not know why the Minister does not take women into the Vigilante Corps. I would like him to give me an answer to this.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of the hon. Member for Delta, in my community centre we have women Vigilante Corps members. This House will agree with me that members of the Singapore Vigilante Corps are playing a major part in helping the police force to preserve peace and order in our country. The general public is certainly grateful to them for their voluntary services. But the welfare of the Vigilante Corps up to now has not been well looked after by the Government. Their members are now getting drinks, coffee and sugar from the People's Association and cigarettes contributed by the well-wishers from the public. As we all know, they often encounter great difficulties while performing their duties. They are unarmed and, in the course of their duties, may injure themselves or even lose their lives.

For instance, there were two members from my constituency who were injured while on duty. One was hurt during coastal patrol duties at Kampong Amber, and the other sustained injuries when he met a gang of fighters at Tanjong Rhu. Sir, I took up the cases of these two unfortunate members with the proper authorities, the People's Association, for compensation about a year ago, but to date no news has been received. As we all appreciate their voluntary services, we must provide them with compensation and adequate cover in order to safeguard their lives. I vaguely remember there was a scheme for compensation for V.C. members known as the Singapore Vigilante Corps Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1965. May I request the Minister to inform the House whether the scheme for compensation under these Regulations for V.C. members has actually been implemented or not? Sir, a scheme for compensation or gratuity is very essential, especially as we are now campaigning for more members to join the Vigilante Corps, and their welfare should be looked after, as we cannot afford to lose their services.

There is another aspect of welfare which Government can look after, i.e., their travelling allowances. Sir, in the People's Defence Force, when we go for parade training we get parade allowances. But V.C. members get no travelling allowances. In some constituencies, especially the well-to-do ones, the Vigilante Corps is often supported by local communities or well-wishers. When I went to Tampines last week, I saw that the organisation there was very poor. I believe their financial support is not very strong. Perhaps that is the reason why the V.C. members are not active enough in that constituency. So it is my hope that the Government will give serious thought to granting travelling allowances and compensation for V.C. members when they are injured.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, as regards a women's Vigilante Corps, some community centres have already formed their own women's Vigilante Corps and I see no harm in other community centres doing the same. But for the time being, so far as the training programme goes, we are concentrating on the men first. Maybe in a year or two when we have sufficient activities organised for the men, we may make a properly-organised effort to raise a women's Vigilante Corps. So the answer, in brief, is that if the management committees of community centres want to invite women members to join the Vigilante Corps, they can do so. The expenses and training must be borne by these management committees.

The Member for Mountbatten has raised a number of points. As regards compensation, the compensation rules are in force. If the two cases which he has referred to the People's Association have been stuck, I think the fault may rest with these two applicants. In the first instance, they should not have submitted their applications to the People's Association. They should address their applications to the Vigilante Corps Headquarters. If the Member will give me further details, I will try to see what has gone wrong in this instance. It could be, of course, that they do not qualify for any compensation if the injuries sustained are very trivial in character.

The other point is travelling allowances. I see no case for giving them travelling allowances. Vigilante Corps service is intended to be a voluntary service given by patriotic young men and women to the community. There is no case for travelling allowances because the duties of the Vigilante Corps are carried out very close to their homes, and all they have to do is to walk to their place of work.

As regards poor activity in Tampines, I do not think the reason is the absence of travelling allowances, because we have very active Vigilante Corps units in other places where travelling allowances are not paid. It could be that there is poor leadership in this unit. What should be done is to replace the leadership rather than to pay travelling allowances.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: The Minister has not answered whether the Singapore Vigilante Corps Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1965, have been implemented or not.

The Chairman: I think the Minister's first answer to your point was that the rules are in force.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Yes.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam -

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2011.

(6) That the sum to be 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2013.

(7) That the sum to be 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2014.

The Chairman: Mr Lingam, amendment No. (5) .

Mr Lingam: Sir, I am not moving amendments Nos. (5) , (6) and (7) .

The Chairman: Amendment No. (8) *, Mr Lingam.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2018. *

Sir, we celebrated National Day on a very grand scale. All Government offices, except one, and other commercial firms decorated their buildings for that day. In fact, there were two buildings which were not decorated. One - of course, we cannot blame them - was the Malaysian High Commission Office. But the building next to that - the General Post Office - was not decorated at all. I will be happier if this will not happen next year.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I can give no assurances that it will not happen next year. In fact, I think it will happen next year. I see no merit in decorating the General Post Office building. It is not a singularly outstanding piece of architecture. The policy at the last National Day parade was to move away from the decoration of Government offices to the decoration of the town as a whole, particularly Chinatown both north and south of the river. So with a given sum of money and a fixed budget to operate on, we have to decide whether we want to brighten up the city, particularly the slum areas, North and South Bridge Roads, or whether we want to spend money on brightening up Government offices. Previous to the last National Day, the practice had been to spend large sums of money on decorating buildings with bunting, coloured bulbs, and so on. That was so even in the old colonial days. But I confess I cannot see any merit in that. I think it is better to brighten up the main streets and the main thoroughfares of the city where people live, so that everyone will be made more conscious of the importance of the occasion. After all, National Day is a holiday and people do not go to Government offices on that day because they are all closed.

7.15 p.m.

The General Post Office was not the only Government building that was not decorated. All the Government buildings along Empress Place were not decorated. The reason for making this decision is that these places are not along the route of the march which took place on National Day.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2133.

Mr Lingam: I am not moving.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3157.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is in regard to teachers' allowances. I believe that recruitment into the police force is on the increase. The persons recruited are from the four streams of education with Secondary II education. I believe they are required to learn the national language. Recently the Singapore Police Force took an active part in the national language campaign.

I note that the vote for 1967 is less than that for 1966. Can the Minister explain why teachers' allowances have been reduced for 1967 whilst the intake is on the increase?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The hon. Member is quite wrong about his facts. The police intake is not on the increase, it has greatly decreased this year.

Soon after we left Malaysia, there was a very substantial recruitment drive for the police force. In fact, the first intake after we became independent was the largest in history. Something like nearly 800 recruits were taken in in one draft. But since then, most of the police vacancies have been filled. The next intake for January will be just over 100.

These teachers' allowances are not paid merely to people teaching the national language. They are also to provide instruction in various promotion tests, examinations for corporals, inspectors, sergeants and so on. One reason why the provision for next year is less than that for this year is that the sum allocated for this year has not been spent fully. We find that many policemen prefer to attend adult education classes rather than classes provided at the Police Training School. So as the demand is less, the supply will have to be accordingly adjusted.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, if many members of the police force prefer to attend Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa classes, is it not better that all those police personnel who wish to continue with their studies should be encouraged to attend classes conducted by the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa rather than for the police to hold their own classes at the Police Training Centre or in other offices?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is the point. So there will be less classes at the Police Training School.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $100.*

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Tang See Chim.)

Mr Speaker, Sir, in an independent country, defence and internal security are very great responsibilities to be shouldered, although at the present moment, we still have the British base to assist us in our defence. But, as a matter of fact, this is only a temporary measure. There will come a day when we will have to rely on only ourselves for defence and internal security.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past year, the Ministry of the Interior and Defence took steps to expand the police and the army and great achievements were made in this field. There has been a tremendous response from various quarters to join the Police Defence Force. So I must congratulate the Minister on his achievements.

The sum allocated is $78,894,020, which is more than the estimate for last year. The increase is due to the necessity of buying more military vehicles and for other expansion purposes. It also shows that the Minister has made careful and long-term planning for the future. This is a very appropriate move indeed. But I would like to offer certain points for his consideration so that the expansion scheme in the Interior and Defence field will have more objectives of an idealistic nature.

Firstly, on the training of members of the Police Defence Force, we must not only train them in the use of arms but we must also have, at the same time, a national curriculum to instil in them a spirit of patriotism and national consciousness.

Secondly, I hope that the plans for civil servants to undergo military training will be implemented as early as possible, and it can be undertaken on a part-time or off-time basis in the early stage.

Thirdly, I hope that the authorities concerned will take more effective measures to carry out the work of defence and security so that the lives and property of our people will be better protected.

Fourthly, I would like the Ministry to stop children from playing poker and other games on five-foot ways. In some cases, hawkers operate tikam-tikam on five-foot ways. A child picks out a number and, if he is lucky, he will get 30 cents or some other prize; otherwise he loses his stake of five cents. This kind of tikam-tikam game is very detrimental to our school children.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member has said, particularly as regards the cultivation of national consciousness. This has to be done not only in the Defence Forces but I think throughout the entire population. So far as the Defence Forces are concerned, my Ministry is establishing an educational corps which will consist of officers and N.C.O.s whose duty would be to do just this kind of thing, to tell soldiers how to conduct themselves and what their duties and responsibilities are, so that they can fulfil their functions more effectively.

On the implementation of the plan for civil service officials to do P.D.F. and army duties, this will be carried out as announced, that is, next year. All new employees in Government and statutory bodies will be called up to do this service.

On children gambling, I do not know what the Member has in mind. Does he want the police to arrest them when they are found gambling? The police have been arresting children when they are engaged in gambling in public, as this is against the law. But I think the main responsibility lies with the parents to see that their children are brought up properly, that they do not gamble in public or, for that matter, anywhere else. The best deterrent is to whack the child on his bottom. I think leaders of opinion and Members of Parliament have a responsibility to help bring about this state of discipline among children.

About hawkers' tikam-tikam, I do not know. When I was in school, I remember an ice-cream man doing this sort of thing. But you always get something. You do not lose. You either get a big portion or a small portion. So if hawkers are doing that, I do not know whether that is against the law. But, of course, if they give nothing away, I agree that it is quite deplorable. If the Member has any concrete information, I suggest that he lay a complaint before the police so that the culprits can be apprehended and dealt with.

7.30 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to bring forward two other points in reply to the Minister. I agree that it is probably the responsibility of the parents to see that their children do not gamble. But if the police can give a warning to such children, I think that will serve them well and help to check this gambling in public.

Concerning this tikam-tikam business, Mr Speaker, if it is merely a matter of winning a small or a big prize, then I agree it is quite all right. If you put down a 5-cent stake, you may win or lose 5 cents. If you win, you may sometimes have a prize of 20 or 30 cents. But often the draws result in blanks - no prize. That is quite a different experience from that of the Minister in his childhood -when he was quite sure of getting something in the tikam-tikam which he himself indulged.

The Chairman: Is there any other Member wishing to speak? No. Mr Teong.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $78,894,020 for Head 0401 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0501 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $100.*

(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Chow Chiok Hock and Mr Tang See Chim.)

Mr Speaker, ever since we attained independence on the 9th of August last year, our Minister has announced that we will adopt a non-aligned foreign policy in order to establish friendly relations with various countries in the world. This is indeed a very commendable, farsighted, praiseworthy, and judicious policy. Our achievements in the field of foreign affairs are really encouraging indeed. In the first place, we have smoothly gained admission to the United Nations. We have also been admitted to various other international organisations, such as ECAFE and the Asian Development Bank.

In the establishment of diplomatic relations with various countries in the world, we have also made achievements. We have set up diplomatic relations with many countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. We have even sent diplomatic missions to India, Cambodia and other countries. Indonesia, too, has resumed trade relations with us. On the European continent, Italy, West Germany and other countries have also become friends with us. Both Canada and America have established relationships with us. Bulgaria, Hungary and Russia have signed trade pacts and are doing business with us so that our trade and economic income will increase.

Mr Speaker, we are a small country, and according to a saying, a small country could have no diplomacy. But in the present context, this saying is no longer applicable, because in the United Nations, which has 120 members, there are many countries which are very small in size and population - about 70 per cent. And it is this 70 per cent (the small countries) which have the majority vote. So although our country is small, our voice for justice and righteousness can and must be transmitted all over the world.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair]

7.35 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Our love of peace must also be transmitted. We cannot be swayed in our stand in this regard. For example, our chief representative in the United Nations, Mr Coomaraswamy, recently spoke in support of the admission of China to the United Nations. He said that the policy to shut out China is improper and unreasonable. The Prime Minister has also condemned the minority regime in Southern Rhodesia. This is representative of our sense of justice.

On the vote to be allocated to the Foreign Ministry for next year, I note that the sum is slightly increased. But I think the increase is insufficient. So I would like the Minister for Finance to consider a further increase in the vote for this Ministry. At the present moment, the number of foreign missions set up is inadequate. The money to be spent on foreign missions is not wasted at all, because if we have closer diplomatic relations with other countries, it will mean that our trade relations also will be improved or further strengthened. That means that there will be economic returns for us. In other words, we will be able to earn more foreign exchange.

Another point that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister is that in recruiting staff for diplomatic missions at present, it seems that the English-educated have some kind of supremacy, because the common language officially used so far is English. We must also realise that Malay is our national language. Although in the diplomatic field, English is the more common language, we must have officers with a knowledge of Malay, because some people may not want to speak to you in English but in Malay. So if our own diplomats cannot speak our national language when addressed in that language, it will be a big joke indeed. So I would like the Minister to pay attention to this matter.

Another point is that protocol officers are insufficient in number. I have heard about representatives from foreign lands visiting Singapore. If one foreign visitor comes for one day then our protocol officers will be able to bring him round. But if we have two or three foreign visitors in one day, then our protocol officers will be short-handed and they will be unable to bring them round our country. If this news spreads overseas, then it is not a great credit to us. It is far from complimentary. So I hope the Minister will increase the number of protocol officers in order that our distinguished visitors will be better treated.

Mr Chow Chiok Hock (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, personally I would like to bring up only one point under this Head, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that is in selecting the heads of diplomatic missions. We all know that when a country is independent, it must set up friendly relationships with other countries. It is no exception for Singapore. Singapore is an international port and so it has a special position to consider. Our commercial activities have been closely linked for a long time with many other countries in the world, so invariably this is reflected in our diplomatic officers, such as High Commissioners and Ambassadors, who include dignitaries from the commercial field. This is no surprise, of course. But I feel that diplomatic officers are experts themselves. They are professional people, they must receive special training, and they must be persons highly qualified academically, because they are quite different from the ordinary civil servants and the ordinary people in our own country. Their activities abroad are supposed to be representative of our own country, and they serve as a bridge between our country and other countries in the world.

So on a long-term basis those who represent us abroad in foreign missions must be people who have expert knowledge, like professors and other very knowledgeable persons, comparatively speaking, so that they will be more suitable for this purpose. I do not, for a moment, try to speak ill of the capacity and status of some commercial people. I just want to bring this fact to the attention of the Minister - that if these people from the commercial field have some dealings in business relating to our trade at the same time, I do not know whether there may be a conflict of interests between the two. So I would like to tell you, Mr Speaker, that in future the selection of diplomatic heads of missions must be from professional and well-trained people, so that they will be able to shoulder their responsibilities in a better manner.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): I would like the Member for Sembawang to clarify this point. He says there is an insufficient vote for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Then why does he want to ask for a reduction of the vote by $100? He should ask for an increase in the vote and not cut it down by $100!

Mr Rajoo: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the budget allocation for the Foreign Ministry for 1967, an increase of $1,424,580 is voted over the 1966 budget. This House is given to understand that this increase is to facilitate the setting-up of new embassies in other countries, including India and the United Arab Republic.

I propose that additional funds should be allocated to the Foreign Ministry. The Member for Bukit Merah has asked why we should speak on a motion to cut down the vote when we want to increase it. I understand that the parliamentary procedure is that we are not allowed to speak on any item in the estimates unless we move a motion to reduce the vote for that item.

Sir, I propose that additional funds be given to the Foreign Ministry so that more embassies could be established in East European countries like Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Rumania and Poland. I am wondering why the foreign Ministry has not made any provision for opening up embassies in these countries - at least a regional embassy - since many of these countries have established trade relations with us. We know our Government's neutral policy in the world power bloc conflict. Our neutral and non-aligned policy is wise and timely. It is no exaggeration to say that our neutral policy has gained more support and more friends in the world comity of nations.

While suggesting that we open up an embassy in one of the East European countries, like Poland, I do not seriously intend to impede our non-alignment policy or advocate that we should identify ourselves more with the Communist bloc countries. For that matter, I feel that by setting up embassies in the United Kingdom, Bangkok, Australia and New Zealand, we should not in any way be regarded as being pro-West. My suggestion is that by opening up such embassies, we could more effectively communicate with more countries in the East European bloc. I have no doubt this will be practical and even more beneficial to our Republic. In this respect, I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by my colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan, in yesterday's Budget debate. He correctly said that a trade mission should be set up in the People's Republic of China in view of its market possibilities, in spite of the Finance Minister's statement on the imbalance of trade between Singapore and China.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

7.47 p.m.

Mr Rajoo: But Members will agree that the setting up of a trade mission could well bring about a compromise that this will even up the trade. So our geographical and environmental circumstances will make us aware of who are our friends and who are our enemies. We are at the cross-roads of the East and West, a metaphor used and acknowledged by both the Communists and the Western bloc countries. If we could play host to the East and West and if we could provide a neutral meeting ground for these countries, I should say that our neutral policy will be more fruitful and beneficial, not only to our two million people but also to the 2,000 million people of the world. In short, Singapore can be the Geneva of the East. Sir, I envisage that my suggestion in opening up an embassy in one of the East European countries will expand our scope in trade and new markets for our industrial products. I request the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give consideration to this matter. I support this amendment.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only one point to bring up. I would like to say that undoubtedly our foreign policy, particularly the recent despatch of a delegation to the United Nations, has enhanced our reputation all over the world. This, of course, is a success of our foreign policy. But, on the other hand, I do not know whether the Minister has noted that in certain respects, we have spoken our minds on justice and righteousness. Some businessmen outside have the suspicion that a country which stresses non-alignment may be swayed from the middle to the left. If that is the case, then Singapore, which is stressing the great importance of industrial development, must take steps to clear up this suspicion. If it still exists, then that will deter some foreign investors from coming to Singapore and make them hesitant in undertaking any enterprise. I do not know whether the Minister has noted this or whether he has heard anything of this nature. That is my point on which I would like some clarification.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, it is always very encouraging to find Members of this Assembly pleading for more funds, an allocation of more funds -

An hon. Member: Members of Parliament.

Mr Rajaratnam: Members of Parliament, sorry.

The Chairman: Assembly with a small "a".

Mr Rajaratnam: Small "a", yes. Thank you very much for getting me out of the predicament. But it is always helpful to get pleas for an increased allocation of funds. But I think, to be fair to the Finance Minister, the funds have been accorded to suit the work that the Ministry will do for the year 1967. If I had more work, more duties involved, I am quite sure he would have given it his reasonable consideration. As you know, Sir, we have already indicated that for the next year we will operate only some nine to ten missions abroad. There are reasons for this. We can open up missions all over the place for prestige reasons, for political reasons. But in Singapore we have decided that the only reason for opening up a mission anywhere is that we must get some advantage out of it. We do not have a showpiece either in Europe or America or anywhere. Wherever we open up a mission, we must be able to justify that we get some benefit from it. So for the time being, the size and number of missions are determined purely by these considerations. That would probably answer the observations made also by the Member for Farrer Park.

Apart from deciding what advantage Singapore would have in setting up a mission, we must find the finance to set it up. Missions are very expensive outfits to maintain, especially in countries where the standard of living is considerably higher. So we cannot disburse funds just because it is good to have a mission in country A or B until I can satisfy myself, and quite definitely satisfy the Finance Minister, that if we spend $2 million in such and such a country, we can expect to get trade worth $4 million or $5 million. Then there is justification for it. Or some political advantage.

Apart from that, there is the question of staff. One point we must understand about Singapore in its long history is that none of us has ever given consideration to the possibility that an independent Singapore would have to train diplomatic personnel. It is only a year since we became independent, and it takes a long time to train Foreign Office staff, or find people who are prepared to head missions, to be diplomats or ambassadors in foreign countries, it is not only the question of finding the money to justify the setting-up of a mission, but the question of finding the men to staff it. Being non-aligned, we are naturally prepared to set up missions in Eastern Europe. Western Europe, Northern Europe or Southern Europe. But it must pass the criteria I have indicated. What benefit will Singapore get, whether it is economic or political! If there is no benefit, then we can carry on the relationship in some other way. As trade and other relationships increase sufficiently, the moment we find enough staff to man the missions, we will give serious attention to the setting-up of missions abroad. At the moment, we have some trade missions from Eastern European countries.

The other point by the Member for Sembawang is that we do not have enough protocol officers. True, we have a small number of protocol officers. That being so, we always arrange things in such a way that not more than one or two V.I.P.s visit Singapore at any given time. If a third V.I.P. intends and presses very hard to come to Singapore, we either politely tell him that maybe we will be able to receive him the next month or the month after that. So I think we can get by for the time being with the number of protocol officers we have. But obviously as we get more experience, as Singapore becomes more popular with V.I.P.s, it may be necessary to consider increasing the number of protocol officers.

As for the choice of diplomats, we have not only chosen commercial men - in fact, I think we have deployed the talents of Singapore in a rather representative way. We have commercial men, we have professors, we have professional men, ex-civil servants, a former Speaker, representing practically members of all races and all classes. So I think there is nothing wrong in appointing commercial men or businessmen as diplomats, especially since Singapore lives on commerce and trade. It may be necessary in certain areas, in certain countries, to have men with trading knowledge. The work of a diplomat is not only to have diplomacy but to give us information - information on economics and other information. So in certain countries it may be necessary to have men experienced in trade, banking, business and so on.

As regards the final point made by the Member for Sembawang that we should not discriminate against, so to speak, Malay. In fact, our hope is that people coming into the Foreign Office not only speak English and Malay, but they should be able to speak French or Russian - if we should set up a mission in Russia. Definitely we must be able to use the international languages. True, Malay is a good language, but it is spoken at the most by about 110 million people. I am quite sure that if you try to converse with a Belgian or a German in Malay, you will not get very far. So we will impress on people, especially in the foreign service, which is not set up for a national outlook, that it is not our national language that is important, but the language which is useful for a member of the foreign service to have - one of the international languages. If Malay becomes an international language, maybe then a knowledge of Malay will be one of the essentials of an employee of the Foreign Ministry. But we have people who speak Malay. If the Member for Sembawang will come to my Ministry, he will find recruits who are Malays who speak Malay. There are recruits who are not Malays who speak Malay. There are also Malays who speak English and so on. So there is no particular discrimination against any language group. All that we are interested in is that the particular person can discharge efficiently the functions and responsibilities that go with the Ministry.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $5,587,330 for Head 0501 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

8.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for 1967, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.