Hansard, 1955-08-25

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of Standing Orders, it seems necessary, as I believe we will probably finish the proceedings this morning, that I should move at this stage that, at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, the 21st of September, 1955, at 10 a.m.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to the 21st of September, 1955.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question - [24th August]: That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (3) of section 3 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (No. 17 of 1948), as amended by the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 39 of 1948), and the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1951 (No. 9 of 1951), adopts the Proclamation made by the Governor in Council on the 16th day of July, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 199 in the Gazette Supplement No. 58 of 22nd July, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1955, prolonging for a further period of three months commencing the 22nd day of July, 1955, the period specified in the Proclamation of Emergency made on the 21st day of April, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 113 in the Gazette Supplement No. 30 of 21st April, 1955. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having had the advantage of 12 hours to think over what the Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode) did say, and what the Hon. the Chief Minister did not say, we, the People's Action Party, do not think that anything useful can be served at this moment by saying anything on this matter. We shall reserve our judgment until such time as we have studied the improvements and other advantages which this new legislation will introduce. We cannot, of course, go so far with the Chief Secretary as to vote for his motion. On the other hand, we would not wish to appear unnecessarily obstructive. We shall therefore abstain until we see what he proposes to do.

Still cannot make up their minds! Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (3) of section 3 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (No. 17 of 1948), as amended by the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 39 of 1948), and the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1951 (No. 9 of 1951), adopts the Proclamation made by the Governor in Council on the 16th day of July, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 199 in the Gazette Supplement No. 58 of 22nd July, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1955, prolonging for a further period of three months commencing the 22nd day of July, 1955, the period specified in the Proclamation of Emergency made on the 21st day of April, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 113 in the Gazette Supplement No. 30 of 21st April, 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion that stands in my name seeks the appointment of a Select Committee with you as Chairman to consider the question of staffing, both as regards personnel and conditions of service, for this Assembly. I cannot do better, Sir, than use your own words, when discussing this matter with me, when you said, "It is essential and desirable that the fact that the Assembly staff is independent of the Government should be widely known and should be absolutely obvious." I could not agree more, Sir. Although we, on this Bench, have the privilege and the honour today of being the Government, we are also Members of this Assembly, and we are acutely conscious of the necessity of this Assembly being absolutely independent of the Government of the day, being able to control its own staff and provide the necessities that it deems requisite for its existence and its proceedings. At present, Sir, there is no friction at all. No one can vouch for the future. At present all the staff are appointed by Government and are subject to General Orders. The motion that stands in my name seeks the appointment of a Committee which will itself recommend the appointment of staff as regards personnel, and which it is hoped will produce a scheme, to be approved by this House, of salaries, remuneration and conditions of service, so that this House will have employees, who are paid through Government agency with its approval, absolutely independent of Government control. I beg to move, Sir, the motion that stands in my name, namely, That Standing Order 62 be suspended to enable the following motions to be made: (a) That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into, report upon, and make recommendations in respect of the staff at all levels in the employment of the Assembly, the methods of their appointment, their salaries and terms of service, and generally all matters relevant to the Assembly staff; and (b) That the Select Committee do consist of the Speaker as Chairman and five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

I rise to second.

Question, "That Standing Order 62 be suspended to enable the other motions to be made." put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider that this motion is a very timely one. Having had the privilege of serving in the last Legislative Council. I have observed very closely the volume of work that the staff of the then Council had to undertake. After the general elections, of course, the volume of that work has considerably increased, and I have also known the extent of the stress and strain that the staff has to undergo in the discharge of their functions. I fully associate with whatever the Chief Minister has expressed regarding the independence of the staff, and I endorse his motion very whole-heartedly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can doubt that this is a very important step forward. It is not only important because it creates a completely independent institution separate and distinct from the Government, but it also marks a break from the past, when the Colonial Secretary directed how things should be done by his minions in this House. He seconded someone from his office and appointed him Clerk of Councils, and this person had to do the bidding of the then Colonial Secretary! We welcome this move as the first step. It does not go all the way to an independent Parliament, but we shall be here pushing it until we have gone the whole distance.

You did not push this!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this step, and I think it is one in the right direction and should have been done very much earlier. Indeed it has our support because the Assembly staff should all the time be neutral and should all the time be serving the Assemblymen in this House. Question, (a) That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into, report upon, and make recommendations in respect of the staff at all levels in the employment of the Assembly, the methods of their appointment, their salaries and terms of service, and generally all matters relevant to the Assembly staff; and (b) That the Select Committee do consist of the Speaker as Chairman and five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, put, and agreed to. Resolved, (a) That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into, report upon, and make recommendations in respect of the staff at all levels in the employment of the Assembly, the methods of their appointment, their salaries and terms of service, and generally all matters relevant to the Assembly staff; and (b) That the Select Committee do consist of the Speaker as Chairman and five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, namely, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Transfer of Powers and interpretation Ordinance, 1949 (No. 9 of 1949), resolves that the Singapore Essential (Amendment) Regulations, 1955, published as Notification No. S 216 in the Gazette Supplement No. 65 of 13th August, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 26 of 1955, be approved. Sir, the Essential Regulations originally passed in 1945 have been kept alive for the purpose of enabling the determination of a very substantial claim for compensation by the major oil companies arising out of the requisition of stocks of oil by the British reoccupying authorities. The claim is being heard by the Compensation Board set up under those Regulations, and the President of the Board, who is a Judge of the Supreme Court, has made representations to Government that Regulation 54, which refers to appeals from decisions of the Board, should be clarified so as to ensure that there is no doubt whatever as to the right of appeal by either party to the dispute from the decision of the Board. Very complicated issues of law, both international and municipal, are involved, as well as a considerable sum of money, running into millions of dollars, and the dispute will probably be taken all the way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The amendments which the Regulations make are based on those provisions relating to appeals from the Income Tax Board of Review. They have had the approval of the President of the Compensation Board and the agreement of counsel on both sides. In these circumstances, Sir, I would ask that this Assembly approves of the Regulations.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Transfer of Powers and Interpretation Ordinance, 1949 (No. 9 of 1949), resolves that the Singapore Essential (Amendment) Regulations, 1955 published as Notification No. S 216 in the Gazette Supplement No. 65 of 13th August, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 26 of 1955, be approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,017,658 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 13 of 1955. Sir, in order to obviate the need for an introductory speech and to save the time of the Assembly, a brief explanation of each item is given in the Sessional Paper. Hon. Members will also note that a full description has been given of revotes. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to second.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,017,658 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 13 of 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion which stands in my name, namely, That this House deplores the continued detention without trial of Mr Fong Swee Suan, Secretary of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union, and Mr Yong Kok Kim, President of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, and considers that the Government should either release them or give them an opportunity to answer the Government's allegations against them in open court, is unique in that it has achieved its purpose before it has come to be debated! It is therefore my singular pleasure with the leave of the House, to ask permission to withdraw this motion - unless, of course, the Chief Minister wishes us to debate the matter still?

I am at your disposal.

Do I have the permission of the House, Sir?

The hon. Member need not have the leave of the House to withdraw his motion.

I then formally withdraw the motion. Motion withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over a month ago the Press published an item on a move by the Chief Minister to appoint more Assistant Ministers. This immediately drew a great deal of adverse criticism from the public. I have met hundreds of people since then, and every time I put the question to them they return the answer 'No'. I put it to the businessmen, and they are also of that opinion. I have talked it over with office workers, clerks and all, and they also come forward with the same answer. I have even heard from people in the streets - hawkers and labourers - people who congregate in their usual haunts, say coffee shops, and the conclusion they have ever come to is always 'No'. That is the strong feeling of the people about the appointment of Assistant Ministers. From the other section, we have the Press. They are also fully aware of the opinion of the people, and I think everybody in this House knows it. They criticise this move of the Chief Minister, and they support the opinion of the people. In this one case, we can say that opinion in Singapore is unanimous. They are all opposed to this question of the appointment of more Assistant Ministers. From their accounts and from the views they have aired, the people of Singapore have indicated that this question is one of public interest and, such being the case, should deserve the attention of the Assembly. However, as a Member of this House, I have received no official indication of this matter until after the release of the correspondence between His Excellency the Governor and the Chief Minister. I voice this because in a matter which the people of Singapore believe to be of great interest, their representatives in this Assembly should, at the very least, be given first-hand information. Now we come on to another aspect of the question. If public opinion had been taken into consideration - and rightly so - then this question of Assistant Ministers would not have plunged us into a constitutional crisis. An hon. Member: What a pity that would have been!

The Chief Minister during the debate on 18th August informed us that the appointment of Assistant Ministers is a very minor issue, that matters concerning the constitution are of the first importance. I agree with that and I think it should remain so. Now the constitutional crisis is over. We have got the answer from His Excellency the Governor, and we have had the answer to the first three parts of the Resolution concerning the interpretation of the constitution given us. If this matter of appointment of Assistant Ministers were to be pushed, it would seem then that the Government side was using that as a lever to get what it wanted. You will note in my motion that we do not say that you must not, you cannot, appoint Assistant Ministers. We say that at the present time it is undesirable, because it will give the people of Singapore a thoroughly wrong impression, and it will put a thing that is of first importance in not too good a light. We would also like to draw the attention of hon. Members of this House to the very small number of elected representatives. We have only 25 elected Members, and this small number is divided between those sitting on the Government side and those on the Opposition side. That leaves us a Coalition Government with a total of 13 elected Members, two nominated and three official Members. We have on the Government side nine Ministers, one Assistant Minister, and one Deputy Speaker. That leaves us with only seven Government Back-benchers. If another four Members were to be appointed as Assistant Ministers, then we would have a sorry state of affairs where the Government has even less followers than leaders.

Is that not the case?

Should the threat of the appointment of an Assistant Minister to every Ministry be carried out, then we would have the ludicrous situation of the Government having to persuade at least one Member of the Opposition to join them and be made an Assistant Minister. My sincere hope is that such a situation should never happen and that Singapore should not be made an object of ridicule to the world at large. It is ridiculous. Again let us remember that of the nine Ministers we have on the Government Benches, five of them are always in the forefront of public opinion. They are in the forefront of public opinion by virtue of the fact that they were elected by the people. In the eyes of our neighbours, they are the people who are in charge of the affairs of Singapore for the very first time. We do agree that their responsibilities are great, perhaps greater than the official Members, but let it be said that they are responsible people, that they are not afraid of hard work, that they are not afraid of great, or even greater work and responsibilities. Let it be said that they can discharge their responsibilities ably and efficiently. Any attempt to add Assistant Ministers to these Ministries without extremely good reasons will create an impression that may not be favourable to us, the people who have a say in the affairs of Singapore. Now since the subject of the appointment of Assistant Ministers was broached - and it was a short while back - we remember that the Chief Minister in an address first said that it was one of necessity. Later on we had another Press release saying that it was one of training. Now we agree that our local people must be trained, but we must also remember that Assistant Ministers are not going to be our permanent civil servants. They may not remain in the service for a long time. After receiving their training, they may not come back again. There are too many uncertainties. But let us be generous about it - they may not want to contest any more elections; they may want to withdraw voluntarily. Or the people may get tired of all this play and no work, and they may not be returned again. There are too many uncertainties. Public money must be spent wisely. All the same, the cost of training will be very high. It will cost the taxpayer $1,500 per month for every Assistant Minister - $18,000 per annum. Four Assistant Ministers, if appointed, will cost us $72,000 per annum. This figure will exceed $160,000 per annum if we have all the nine Assistant Ministers appointed. I am thinking about this because the Chief Minister, during the elections, did promise the electorate that he would keep the cost of government down. That was not very long ago. How is he going to reconcile this with his electorate? This is a matter between him and his constituency. I would rather leave it at that! Suppose we even agree to the appointment of more Assistant Ministers - and we say that it is a matter of training - it must be admitted that most of us here are new to this business of government. We are all learners. If you put an Assistant Minister to be guided by another one as fresh as the one appointed, it would appear to me like putting a person, who is learning how to drive a car, under the care and direction of another learner. Now all these things do indicate to us that it is not desirable at this very moment to appoint Assistant Ministers. Perhaps after we have gained a little bit more experience and we have an enlarged House, this question may be brought up again. So, Sir, on these grounds, I move, That this House is of opinion that the appointment of more Assistant Ministers at the present time is undesirable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. The issue before us is a perfectly simple one even if recent events have tended to cloud it over. It is whether or not the appointment of more Assistant or Junior Ministers, or Parliamentary Secretaries, will be conducive to better and more efficient government within the context of the present constitution with its Assembly of 32 Members. The constitutional question does not enter into this motion. It is purely a question of whether the present administration will be improved or not by such appointments. As I suggested in this House previously, can it really be desirable that in a Government of 18 Members, there should be 14 posts - four additional Assistant Ministers being the original issue - and if you like to include the unpaid posts of Government Whip and Deputy Speaker, 16 or half this House; and would this be desirable even if the Chief Minister could call on all the talent in Singapore to pick from? We are not convinced on this point, nor are we convinced - and this is the real issue - that it will result in really efficient government. What are the proper functions of Ministers? Surely these do not and need not go beyond the dictation of policy, the control of policy and the issuing of directives to see that their policy is carried out by the departments through the Permanent Secretaries? I will grant that it may take three months, or even six months, for a new Minister to find this out and find his feet, but after that, he should be on top of his job. The fact of the matter is that there are now two men at the top - the Minister and the Permanent Secretary - to drive the machinery of the department, instead of one as before. Assistant Ministers would make it three instead of one, and anyone who knows anything about administration surely knows that too many men at the top mean bottlenecks and delay, or contradictions and confusion. But what are the Assistant Ministers functions to be? They cannot take full charge of a department, as they must always refer to the Minister, who is responsible to the Council of Ministers for the policy laid down by him. If they are to be understudies, then they are to gain experience from those who themselves are still learning. We have, however, a clue, and a very disturbing clue, in a statement the Chief Minister made to the Press sometime ago stating his reasons for wanting Assistant Ministers. His third reason apparently was to strengthen his hold over the non-domiciled civil service to ensure that his new policies are carried out. Now the Press may have misquoted him, and I am sure my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that to mean, firstly, that expatriate officers are not loyally carrying out the policies of the Government, and secondly, the Assistant Ministers are intended to be bearers from the Chief Minister of directives on policy in departments in which the Chief Minister has no direct control. The first is a very serious allegation to make. Even if it were true, have the officers, in fact, been given any policy to carry out? We on this side of the House have seen no signs that the Government has a policy in very many matters, in matters of great importance -

Such as?

The second, -

Such as?

Order, please.

- if true, is hardly flattering to the Chief Minister's own fellow-Ministers. If interference is at the root of the matter, then it is better that the Ministers should be left free to get on with their jobs rather than have expensive recourse to Assistant Ministers with their salaries, plus the extra expense of their offices, office staff, Permanent Secretaries, and the rest of it. So far I have only referred to the Ministries which were mentioned in the official correspondence between the Governor and the Chief Minister, that is to say, those four Ministries to which it was originally intended to attach Assistant Ministers. But it may be that finding that this was not a popular move in more quarters than one that the Government has been looking for a way out, and it has been re-reading the Rendel Report with its reference to the fact that an Assistant Minister might be appointed to understudy the Financial Secretary, with its logical extension to the other ex-officio portfolios. Now if the Rendel Report is to be our Bible - and it seems to be very much less of a Bible than it was a few weeks ago when this motion was first tabled - there might be something in this argument, on two conditions: firstly, that there are men of the highest qualifications on the Government side today available to understudy one or more of these onerous portfolios; secondly, that they would, in fact, he trained with a view to their taking over these portfolios in the near future. I do not think that these conditions can be fulfilled at the present time. The issue before us, therefore, is this: Will the Assistant Ministers' appointments produce a more efficient administration? If hon. Members think that they will not - I have given reasons to show that they are ill-conceived - then they must vote in favour of this motion. If the Chief Minister is still seriously considering the appointments of Assistant Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, whichever you like to call them, I would ask him to ponder once more in all seriousness: Will the Government, which is almost all Front Bench with no Back-benchers, be a satisfactory democratic government? Will it not suffer from a lack of self-criticism? Will it not be rather too subservient to the policies of the Chief Minister, resulting in autocratic and not democratic methods, a tendency which we of the Progressive Party have criticised in the past with real concern?

When you were in power?

If the ways of democracy are to be established on this island, they must not only flourish, but be seen to flourish. The next nine months, which must be months of calm and good sense if full confidence is to be restored, are the testing time. I speak with the greatest sincerity when I say that we, in this part of the House, would be the more inspired to make the fullest contribution to that calm and good sense in the coming months if the Chief Minister will be, as we think it, far-sighted enough to eschew making appointments which, I am convinced, in the unbalance of the Government Benches they would cause, may do untold harm to the democratic institutions which it should be our first concern at this stage to foster. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House. Singapore is a small island of only about 230 square miles -

All man-made.

- not 90 square miles as the Chief Minister yesterday by mistake - [Interruption.]

Order, please.

- said. It has only a population of 1,200,000, one-thirtieth part of Calcutta, our nearest city. Up to the time of the election, the cost of running the government was 53 to 55 per cent, which is indeed very, very high. Now, Sir, after the election, you have Ministers with their salaries, their staff with their salaries, with their entertainment plus the expenses of cameramen to give them publicity! Sir, this all adds to the cost from the revenue. How is it to be met? I have said on many occasions that we have got no natural resources. To meet the cost, we will have to find a way to increase the revenue, which will be a burden not only to the rich, but also to the poor. Sir, before this Government came into power, or before the election, we had hon. Members of the Legislative Council who did the work of legislation and also ran the Government departments. Those gentlemen are now the Permanent Secretaries, and they are very efficient men. They are not to do any legislative work now, but their whole time is to be devoted to carrying out the policies laid down by the Ministers. When you have got such efficient men at the helm to carry out the policies of the Ministers, where is the necessity of having further Assistant Ministers? Sir, in the Labour Front we have ten elected Members. Out of them, four are Ministers and one is an Assistant Minister. I do not count the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) because he is a nominated Member. He is sitting there at the pleasure of the Government. If the Government falls, he also falls too; so I do not count him at all. So, five elected Labour Front Members have got, should I say, jobs, or should I say, Ministerial posts, then only five are left. Out of them, two are recommended to be Assistant Ministers, according to the correspondence between the Chief Minister and His Excellency which has been circulated to us - one to be drawn from the Opposition and one from the Alliance. In other words, out of ten, seven Labour Front elected Members will have Ministerial posts if they are nominated. This is very ridiculous - out of ten, seven getting jobs, three as Back-benchers. Why is this being done? Sir, we have here the Progressive Party, very long and well established. Here you have got another very big Party called the P.A.P. - a regular Party. Then you have got the U.M.N.O. Alliance. They are all regular Parties, having a paying membership, having regular monthly or yearly meetings, and having their own offices. In other words, these Parties are run on proper party lines. Now take the Labour Front Party. What is it? Is it a Party? If I may be allowed to quote, a Press digest dated 16th July, 1955, of a vernacular newspaper - it is the Tamil Murasu, a Tamil paper, Sir. I quote: "The Chief Minister of Singapore has explained and given his reasons for attempting to appoint four Assistant Ministers, but none of these reasons seems to be satisfactory to anyone. The argument that the administration of Singapore could be carried on effectively only with six Ministers and five Assistant Ministers is not an appropriate one. Differences of opinion existed within the Labour Front, even the Ministers chosen for the Council of Ministers. The Chief Minister may deny this, and say that all is well with the Labour Front, but those who are aware of the condition of the Labour Front would not accept this. Even the work of the Labour Front was a complicated affair. The leaders of the Party have no opportunity to do the things which would establish the Party in a proper manner. Even they could not answer the question whether or not the Party has developed and taken its full shape." Now, Sir, this is the position: here is the Labour Front Party in coalition with the Alliance running the government, and in order to keep the Party members together - if this is an insinuation, Sir, I am willing to withdraw it.

Is the hon. Member imputing improper motives?

I will tell a few home truths about him!

I will be very happy -

Order, please.

Now, Sir, it is, I think, not very wise to keep the Party together -

I object to that, Sir.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I ask that he immediately withdraw it and that an apology be made in public -

I withdraw it, Sir.

- and that I be given the right to reply to the filthy and malicious things that this gentleman across the floor has been indulging in in respect of my Party in the past.

Can I have your point of order, Mr Chief Minister? I take it your point of order is that you are objecting to the Member for Telok Ayer imputing improper motives?

Malicious imputations, and I ask for a full apology - not a withdrawal, but an apology - or that I be given the right to -

Can I just proceed, Mr Chief Minister? The point of order is whether or not the Member for Telok Ayer has been imputing improper motives. As I indicated, I did anticipate that he was coming very near the bar and he, in fact, did over-step the bar. I ask him to withdraw his statement unqualifiedly.

Sir, I bow to the Chair's decision. Yes, Mr Thomas, any point of order? [Interruption.]

Sir, I cannot help recollecting -

Is it a point of order, Mr Thomas?

Yes, Mr Speaker. This infringement by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) has been repeated and deliberate. It is not accidental. You can see that he was going to make insinuations, as he has done continually in the past. I do not know what point, Mr Speaker, you are -

It is hardly a point of order, Mr Thomas. It is just drawing my attention to the conduct of a Member. Will the Member for Telok Ayer please withdraw his statement and refrain from imputing improper -

Sir, apart from -

Will the hon. Member please sit down? I have not finished! I would like some order in this House. When I am standing, no Member should stand. That is quite clear under Standing Orders. I was saying, will the hon. Member undertake not to continue imputing improper motives to any Member of this House in connection with this motion?

Sir, I bow to the Chair's wish. Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not impute any bad motives against a person. Rather I was attacking a Party, but still, if you think, Sir, that it was improper, I do withdraw without any qualification. Now, Sir, this is the state of the Party position in this House: that out of ten elected Members, five are already there, excluding the hon. Mr Thomas, and if two more posts are created -

Order. Will the hon. Member take a seat? He is, in fact, forgetting his Standing Orders. No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.

Sir, he is a nominated Member. I would request you to clarify it.

Oh, I beg the hon. Member's pardon! Yes, he is a nominated Member.

Sir, it is not in the interests of good government, this idea of one or more Assistant Ministers to be appointed. I, as a taxpayer, would say it is highway robbery of the public purse. Now, Sir, coming to the question, if a vote is taken, I am sure the interested persons should not be allowed to vote whose names are already mentioned in the correspondence between the Chief Minister and His Excellency. Also I hope the three official Ministers, that is the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Attorney-General, will abstain from voting. Sir, continuing further on this subject, Singapore before the war was controlled by one Governor, whose jurisdiction included the territory of the Federated States of Malaya, Penang and Malacca. We had Pan-Malayan departments with less officers and our cost was less.

The population was less.

The population might have increased, say, by about 300,000 to 400,000, but it suited Whitehall, for reasons best known to them, to divide this territory into two with separate departments and with separate staffs. This is a burden on the taxpayer. Now, Sir, under the Rendel Constitution, nine Ministers and three officials have been mentioned, but is there any necessity for a small city like Singapore to have nine Ministers to administer this Colony, with a population of only 1,200,000? It could very well be done by three or five Ministers instead of nine, but we cannot change the Rendel Constitution at present; but those who say they work for the Colony, or for the voters, or for the people of Singapore, should not add to the cost. They should look at other countries. There they have Ministers who have their own income or who live in a very modest way. They draw no salary; or even if they draw a salary, they give it back to the revenue. Now, this is the position: if Singapore is to develop in a proper way, I think an example should be set by the Ministers or the Government in power that they do not further draw on the purse of Singapore.

Sir, there is one surprising misunderstanding - I see the Member for Telok Paku is running away -!

On a point of order, Sir. It is very surprising that a Minister cannot and does not remember what one particular ward one represents; It is not Telok Paku - revise your geography!

It is not a point of order.

I do apologise to the Member for Telok Ayer - water, not a nail! As a businessman or as any organiser, he must be aware that the size of an organisation is not necessarily related to the number of people it serves. Take a simple example which occurs to me as a schoolmaster. If you have only one student, he cannot learn unless you have a teacher. Even one student would need a teacher, although that same teacher can teach 10 students or 20 or 30: in Singapore, I regret to say 40, which is too many; but the fact remains that if you are going to have any teaching at all, you have got to have a teacher, and if your school is going to have several teachers, you have got to have a principal in charge of them. You will seek, no doubt, to have an appropriate number of pupils per teacher, but if you are going to have teachers, you must have them and you cannot run the school without them. In the same way, the fact that Singapore has a small population does not mean that, therefore, you have not got to see to the work that has got to be done. The office work remains substantially the same without regard to the actual size of the territory. The suggestion was made by one speaker from the Opposition that the Permanent Secretaries could do most of the work and the Ministers confine themselves to thinking out present plans of policy and then saying, 'Permanent Secretary, will you please carry this out for me?' and then I suppose go home for a cup of tea! It does not work like that at all. It is not in the least a matter of merely saying, 'We would like you to know this is our policy and will you now carry it out for us?' That would not be a democratic process at all. There is a very great deal of office work. I cannot possibly describe it to you in detail, but I would suggest you come and look at my office sometime and see the number of files that I have to pass across my desk. Apart from the formulation of policy, there is an enormous bulk of routine work that has to go across the Minister's desk because he is finally responsible. It is perfectly impossible to say, 'I will sign everything that the Permanent Secretary puts before me, without reading it.' Take an example in my own Ministry. Air Navigation Orders have to be revised. What you see at the end is a sheet or so of Gazette Notification, but what, in fact, have passed across my desk are four or five bulky files dating back to pre-war and recording massive memoranda from the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the interpretations adopted elsewhere. A tremendous bulk of stuff has to be studied which has very little to do with the formulation of policy but is merely routine work. The more the routine work fills the time of the Minister, the less time he obviously has to devote to, what you very rightly say, is his basic duty, the formulation of policy which is based on discussions, investigations and study at very considerable length. I should like to refer also to a misunderstanding by another Member of the Opposition who seems to have been trying to conduct a sort of Gallup Poll at cocktail parties and in the coffee-shops of Singapore. He comes back with a statement that hundreds of people have all agreed with him. Now, that calls for comment indeed, considering the people he has selected to speak to, where everyone agrees with him. I am going to say that a Gallup Poll is not a thing which you can conduct on the basis of cocktail parties and coffee-shops, or even going round labourers' lines. It is a scientifically conducted survey which must be done by people who are known to be impartial and who take a proper segment of the population on a scientific basis of selection. No weight whatever can be attached to going round talking to your friends and finding that they agree with you - they would not be your friends if they did not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot see my way clear to support the motion before this House. It is unrealistic. To me, the motion savours of betrayal of the true intentions of the Progressive Party and should not have been tabled at all. The motion states that it is undesirable to appoint more Assistant Ministers at the present time. I repeat these words 'at the present time'. May I ask the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), when will it be desirable to appoint more Assistant Ministers?

When the Progressives are in power!

He will perhaps say, 'When the Progressive Party is in power, of course.'[Interruption.]

Order, please.

On this issue, my Party's position has always been that the Labour Front Coalition Government as yet has not presented its case to the people and to the Assembly as to the necessity of more Assistant Ministers. Furthermore, the people and the Assembly would also like to know more about the qualifications, probity, etc, of the persons proposed for the position of Assistant Ministers. It is surely not enough to ask us to accept any proposed appointments only on such ground, that it is for the purpose of giving the men experience - experience at the taxpayers' expense? Surely, a better case can still be put forward? At this juncture, Sir, I would remind Government to safeguard the interests of the people at all times, as far as possible, in regard to the question of spending public money. I would suggest that, if necessary, an All-Party Committee should be set up to review and consider the question of the appointment of Assistant Ministers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate on this motion is an anti-climax. Sir, one month back it sparked off an extremely unhappy situation, and it is a real pleasure to be able to come this morning and talk lightly on these things because the Hon. the Chief Minister is a man who never takes anything lightly, not even the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy)! Sir, this Assembly gets curiouser and curiouser day by day -

And you know it!

Sir, when the election results were first known, we, in the People's Action Party, stretched ourselves and said: "Ah! Ten Labour Fronters of doubtful cohesive qualities, 3 U.M.N.O.-M.C.A.-Malay Union Alliance, 4 Progressives, 2 Democrats, 3 P.A.P., 3 Independents. What a magnificent combination! All the magnificent ingredients for a French Chamber!" By the time this Assembly has run its full life, every Member will have become Chief Minister! Everyone of us will have had the privilege of wearing a bush-jacket! Sir, if no great harm would come to Singapore or to Malaya, we, the People's Action Party, would be only too glad to assist the personal ambitions and aspirations of succeeding Members of this House to occupy the comfortable seat of Chief Minister. He is now occupying an office with note-paper! There was no note-paper before. If you get in an even more virile and vigorous Chief Minister, he will have, his note-paper embossed with the Arms of Singapore! Sir, the only trouble is that it does matter to the people of Singapore. It does matter to them that this democratic process should not fail, because, as one gentleman put it to me, "We are playing for keeps." If we could just have fun and games for four years and go back again to where we were and again start with zest, enthusiasm, and robust speeches under apple-trees, then no harm would come of it. But time never goes back, and at the end of the four years ... if this Assembly lasts four years - but nobody knows how long it will last. Not even the Chief Minister, because one of the things on which the Governor need not take his advice is whether he should dissolve or prorogue this Assembly. So, our Chief Minister is at this disadvantage in that he cannot determine the end of this Assembly. From the election point of view, that is a matter of no small importance. But, as I said, this debate is really an anti-climax. When the history of Singapore comes to be written in some leisurely and scholarly university, where there are men fed and clothed and intelligent enough to look up the archives of some dusty journal called the M.M. Magazine, they will find out how it was that the personal ambitions and political aspirations of four curious gentlemen sparked off a constitutional crisis and ended up with an advancement - a small one - but, nevertheless, a real advancement towards self-government. Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) does not accept the Member for Serangoon's finding or his analysis of public opinion, his Gallup Poll. I am glad he mentioned cocktail parties and coffee-shops because -

I do not have cocktails too often!

Obviously, Mr Speaker, Sir, our friend the Member for Serangoon selects his cocktail parties with great care! I can assure the Chief Minister and his colleagues that, whilst we all want him to get on with the job, we feel that perhaps a little more thought should be given to whom he should choose to get on with the job. As my friend the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) has said, it is advisable that we should have a thorough investigation into the - what was it? An hon. Member: Probity.

- probity - I would not like to choose another word -

On a point of order, Sir. Is an hon. Member entitled to make allegations and insinuations about the probity of a Member of this House? If he is, I should like to return the compliment!

I was just on the point of saying that I would not go beyond what my friend said because my friend was in order, and I do not like to be out of order, Perhaps the Chief Minister may not like the inflection of my voice in the microphone. Be that as it may, what I am saying is this: If we want to get on with this job of government, it is important that we should have men who will get on with the job. On this question of the - shall we use a neutral word? - it is so very difficult to use a neutral word when one is not neutral in these matters, but if one could say - suitability of the applicants for Assistant Ministerships, if they are men with drive, with initiative and with imagination, then we, on this side of the House, would say, "Good for the Chief Minister and good for his Government! Now let us see what can be done." But we share the hesitations and doubts not only of the coffee-shops and the cocktail-parties. We can assure the Chief Minister and his friend the hon. Mr Francis Thomas - that, perhaps, experience in attap dwellings does not make a Housing Minister? - that a more substantial understanding, grasp and capacity for work are necessary to make a good Assistant Minister. If one of the gentlemen who has been named is appointed, then an even more curious situation will develop. As I see it now, it is a symmetrical row of two seats of eighteen Members elected or otherwise on the Government side. It is proposed to remove one Member from our side of the House and put him on the Government side of the House -

Order. I think the hon. Member is perhaps going away from the motion itself. It just says "That this House is of opinion that the appointment of more Assistant Ministers at the present time is undesirable." The motion does not say that Mr So and So should be appointed. It is a question of the appointment of more Assistant Ministers at the present time, whoever they may be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply obliged to you for reminding me of the words of the motion. In so far as it is possible to discuss this question of four Assistant Ministers, divorced from the context in which it was presented to this House. I shall scrupulously avoid any indication of persons and personnel. We all know, however, what reception this proposal of the four Assistant Ministers got, not because the appointment of four Assistant Ministers was wrong but because it is not advisable to do what the Chief Minister wanted to do at that time. Now, Sir, having said that, in case it is misunderstood that I am in any way supporting my friend the Member for Serangoon, let me go on to say what the Chief Minister now should feel happier to hear: if he feels that it is essential, whatever the reasons - Party unity or some other frivolous reasons - that have been put forward by the Member for Telok Ayer, if it is going to make his Government function and deliver the goods, then let him do it. We do not wish to prejudge his requirements. We are not in a position to know as intimately as he does the difficulties -

Very nice!

Sir, we are not altogether unreasonable men at all times. The Chief Minister must understand - I always hope that one day he will - that the fact that we disagree with him does not mean that we disagree with him all the time on all the issues - but only some of the time on some of the issues on which he is quite wrong. Sir, if 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9 Assistant Ministers would make his experiment in working and revising the Rendel Constitution succeed and not collapse, then let it cost $72,000 per annum, let it even cost $200,000 per annum. Does it matter, if we can make this Government produce results? And it is results that the Chief Minister has to produce, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of two years, or three years, or four years. They have then to go back to the people and say - on our side, of course, we are in a happier position of saying, "Ah, but we told you so!" But we will be fair to him; and when he goes back (if not to Cairnhill, perhaps to some other part of the island) and tells them that, as Chief Minister, not only has he advertised the suitability of the bush-jacket, but he has also produced 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 more housing units; that he has put up five new hospitals in five districts; that he has built 5,000 miles more roads, by-lanes and all the other things; that he has put up more standpipes; that he has laid out all those amenities that make life worth living; if all that can be done by paying another $72,000 per annum, what does this little sum of money matter? We must get these things in perspective. We must understand why some Members in this Assembly have objected, some Members have abstained, and some Members have supported Assistant Ministerships but are at the same time, critical. Unless we understand that, then this Assembly is going to become more and more an Alice in Wonderland -

Hello, Alice!

Sir, I would have thought that if there was anything facetious at all about it, it would have been that the Hon. the Chief Minister acknowledges that he is in Wonderland! May I remind him, after everything is said and done, that he himself, not so very long ago, had a few qualms? He came to this House and said, "If I get this constitutional crisis resolved - and it is a question of principle on which I am fighting - I am quite prepared to forego this question. The minor point of the four Assistant Ministers - "

On a point of information, Sir, I never said that. I said: "If I get the principle acceded to, I will reconsider - not forego." There is a distinction there, which should be obvious particularly to a legal mind.

Sir, may I say this: that in the context and in the circumstances in which those words were said, 'reconsider' could only mean reconsider and arrive at some decision other than the one he had already arrived at. It is important that, on this issue, he should not misjudge popular feeling. We would saw that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, there is nothing wrong in getting on even with nine Assistant Ministers if that will make the Government succeed. The fact that this House is so small, as we have been reminded by the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede), was because of the doings of his friends who arranged that this House should be small. At the time it was done, we all said that it was foolish and impractical, but in those days there were men in power steeped in a different tradition. They were only in favour of self-government or any political advance in so far as it suited their personal ends. So far as they could see, their personal ends would have been advanced suitably in a little Assembly where they were all friends together and where they all got on well together. They quarrelled about the little things and they agreed on all the big things, such as helping each other get on in life. But the position has now changed. It is no longer a question of a political Party gaining the ascendancy for party kudos and for personal advancement. We are confronted - the People's Action Party is proud of having played a part in creating this new condition - with a real challenge: you either make democracy work or you perish! It is because we want to make democracy work that we tell the Chief Minister today, "If he feels he needs these men, we wish him well, let him have them." But it is also because we want him to succeed that we ask him to reconsider, at this moment - I use my words advisedly - "the advisability of proceeding with something which, rightly or wrongly may be misconstrued by a large section of the population". But he is the best judge of his own needs. There is no question of principle involved. We shall definitely not support this motion and, in case it is misconstrued, we shall also not oppose it. But that does not mean we have not made up our minds. If any part of this House knows what is happening, what is going on, where we are going, and how we have made our minds up, it is my colleagues and I on this side of the House. I hope the Chief Minister - I always keep on hoping - will become more circumspect and more -

The only place I know you are going is outside!

- but let him decide carefully. If he wants it, let him have it, but it must succeed. That is the acid test.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one is always kept wondering in this House with the Member for Tanjong Pagar. One does not know what attitude he is going to take -

Because one has not got original principles - that is why!

However, Sir, it is indeed very sad that some people are incapable of thinking straight. They would like us to believe that, with every move of the Government, there is something sinister behind it. Sir, Press cuttings have been read out to us this morning -

It is all in the family!

- that would seem to indicate that the Labour Front and the Coalition Government are going to fall apart. Sir, in fact, it is even possible that some people may be having too much of wishful thinking and may come to believe that that is the truth, but I am sorry for them. They are in for a very rude shock. We are not going to oblige them by falling apart. Sir, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) has pleaded with us on the ground that Singapore will be ridiculed in the eyes of the world. Sir, Singapore was very nearly ridiculed last week when the Opposition walked out of this Assembly and failed to carry out their duties as honourable representatives of the public in the debate before the House. "Opinion in Singapore is unanimous against the appointment of Assistant Ministers", says the Member for Serangoon, and he goes on to say that public opinion should have been taken into consideration. Who is and what is public opinion, Sir? Who tells the Member of public opinion? Sir, I contend that we, who sit here in this House, represent public opinion, and public opinion is reflected through us in this Assembly -

Just you wait till the next election!

Order, please.

- unless, of course, when he talks of public opinion, he means backseat opinion. Sir, the Member for Serangoon has lamented the fact as to how we can produce in such a small House the requisite number of Assistant Ministers. Sir, we have to thank him and his Party for the size of this House. The Rendel Constitution was tailored by them to suit their own needs. Probably they thought that they could not produce enough talent to fill more seats, and so they kept it to a very low figure; as the Member for Tanjong Pagar said - a cosy gathering that would quarrel amongst themselves but still get along. Then again, the Member for Serangoon says that the Press has been against it and that the Press are fully aware of the opinion of the people. That is wrong. The Press are not aware of the opinion of the people. If they were, they would be sitting in this House in your seats, The Press do guide public opinion according to what their backseat drivers want them to. Some sections of the Press have always been interested parties. Sir, one cannot help feeling that no real argument has been advanced against the appointment of more Assistant Ministers. The Member for Serangoon mentioned training and he dwelt at length on public money being spent on training when one never knows whether these Ministers will be returned in the next election. I say, Sir, that the more people you train, the more chances there are that at least some of them will be returned. Probably he does not want that - I think he does not. Anyhow, Sir, as I see it, no valid argument has been put before this house against the appointment of Assistant Ministers except the wishful thinking that there should be no more Ministers,

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very much involved in this, but I am now speaking as an elected Member of this Assembly without fear or favour. I feel, Sir that we have wasted much time in debating this motion. We all have our own work as representatives in our own divisions, and if I had been relieved half an hour ago, I feel that I would have done a good job by helping my constituency in some measure. In the first instance, I feel that this motion is quite unparliamentary because it is an anticipated one. Normally, people who understand party government will wait for the Government to bring in a motion, or bring in a financial vote, for the appointment of the Assistant Ministers and their salaries. Members opposite would naturally take that opportunity to attack the Government on the measures against it. We would then all have a greater opportunity of hearing from the Chief Minister his valid arguments for the appointment of these Ministers. As such, Sir, I believe that this motion is a very hasty one and it has spoilt all the taste of a very interesting debate yet to come. Actually, Sir, the mover has put the cart before the horse. Sir, during the debate, I listened to an hon. Member who said that, in the past, some departments were carrying out their work very efficiently but that Member has forgotten the fact that, in the past, it was not democracy in Singapore. It was absolute bureaucracy, and in an elected Assembly like this, where the majority Party runs the government, it is no use saying that all work can be carried out by the previous heads of departments who are now acting as Permanent Secretaries. This is a transitional period when many of the old laws, regulations and policies need revision to suit the policies of the new Government and which will also have an effect on the lives of the people and as such, I believe that the new Government may require a few more hands to assist them in their duties. That is not unnatural. Probably Singapore is the only territory in the whole world where there exist no Parliamentary Secretaries in the so-called Cabinet system. If any hon. Member of this House can point out to me one country where there is a Cabinet Government without Parliamentary Secretaries, I will bow to him. That is the position today and I think, Sir, that a matter like this must be very carefully debated without attaching unnecessary prejudices not only to the functions of the Government but also to the individuals concerned. We also have to remember that we must have a complete knowledge of the functions of a government which deal with the various aspects of public affairs. But, on the other hand, Sir, if we regard government affairs as a minor matter, then we will be advancing reasons not only of the type that we heard from the mover, but also very many other reasons which probably some of those people who may understand these problems will not agree. Sir, I believe that the Chief Minister of any elected government is a man who is more capable of understanding the functions of the government and the volume of work it has to undertake, and I am in no position to express any strong views on this matter. I think the next opportunity that I would take to express my views would be when the Chief Minister brings in an appropriate motion for the approval of this House. In conclusion, Sir, I must remind this Assembly that I am perfectly satisfied to serve my constituency and the people of Singapore in my present position. I have not indulged in canvassing for any personal ambition, and my only ambition is to serve the people and as long as I get that opportunity, I am satisfied but, on the other hand, if any member of the public of Singapore misunderstands my attitude in this matter, I can only say he will realise it when the time comes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while the main issue in this debate is whether or not at the present time it is desirable to appoint Assistant Ministers, with the underlying criticism of the Chief Minister's selection some weeks ago, and is a matter which this House should decide and on which I, as an ex-officio Member of the House, should probably not express any view; but there are two points which have been raised in the debate on which I should like to express my view. The first was a phrase used by the hon. Member who moved this motion, in which he suggested that Ministers of the Government should devote themselves to hard work rather than to play. Now, I am quite sure that the hon. Member, in using that phrase, spoke from far less knowledge of the activities of Ministers than I myself have, and I do welcome this opportunity, Sir, of assuring him and all hon. Members of this House that the Ministers of this Government have devoted themselves quite untiringly to the tasks which have fallen to them. The House will, I am sure, appreciate that it is no easy task for Ministers to take over the government in the way that our present Ministers have had to do. The task of familiarising themselves with the organisation of the government machinery: the task of forming their policies and relating them to what can be done: that alone was enormous. In addition to that, the Government has had to face at least two very severe tests, tests which would have challenged any government with many years of experience. So I do assure Members of this House that, as far as the appointed Ministers are concerned, their life during the last three months has been far more all work and no play than any suggestion of play before work. The second point that I should like to make, Sir, is to try to clear up what I think is some misunderstanding about the relationship between the civil service, the permanent civil servants and the Ministers. It is easy to suggest that the phrases, used some time ago by the Chief Minister in which he referred to the necessity for Ministers keeping a close control on the civil service, were a reflection on the integrity and the loyalty of the civil service. But I think those who make that reflection have not fully appreciated the basic position of the Government today. We have made a fundamental change in the whole system of government. We now have an elected Government of the people deciding its policy and passing those decisions to the permanent civil service to carry out. Both the civil service and the Ministers are newcomers to this system. The Government that has been elected is a Government which differs radically from previous Governments. It is inevitable, therefore, that its policies and its approach to problems, including minor problems, will be radically different from the approach of previous Governments. It is therefore inevitable that the permanent members of the civil service do require much more detailed and day-to-day direction on policy than they required in the past, when they could assume the general direction in which the Government was moving. The fact that the Chief Minister has stated - in my view quite rightly - that it is necessary for Ministers to exercise a close control over the service is not, in my view, any reflection at all on the integrity and the devotion to duty of the members of that service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a story is told of a man who used to refer to his wife as Pegasus, and when somebody asked him, "Why Pegasus?", he said, "Oh, you know, the immortal horse, the eternal nag." Now, Sir, hon. Members of the Opposition, particularly the Progressive Party, seem to consider that it is their role to be the eternal nags and that was put into words by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) yesterday when he said it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. The Opposition has no such duty. I may say, with respect - as I understand it and, as I hope, they will one day grow up to understand it - the duty of the Opposition is to support all measures that are for the welfare of the territory, to criticise where criticism seems justified -

And to oppose where opposition is justified!

That is included in the criticism. Sir, we have had today a remarkable demonstration of the lack of understanding of the constitutional process because this House - though technically it can do anything, including calling a man a woman - in fact, has no proper right to interfere in the Chief Minister's choice of his team, and that, I was astonished to learn, was appreciated by the learned Member for Tanjong Pagar. Though appreciating it, he, nevertheless, took advantage of this opportunity to ramble along the highways and byways of criticism, to the huge amusement of his own self at his own eloquence. Sir, I am indebted to my friend and colleague the Chief Secretary for setting right a malicious interpretation of a perfectly legitimate comment. I do not impute malice in the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) because I have no doubt he is merely carrying into this Assembly what he and I have heard outside. It seems, Sir, it is impossible to say anything, even "Thank you", without being maliciously misinterpreted, but there was never any question in my mind, then or now, to suggest lack of integrity or loyalty on the part of the civil service when I drew attention to the vital necessity of proper control and direction in the Ministries; and I repeat, there exists a vital necessity there. We are going through a period of revolution, bloodless and peaceful, but revolution nevertheless. We are changing the whole tradition. We are reorientating policies and we need men to keep the pulse on what is happening, to understand the procedures, to understand the details of the problems, and to pass the information on for policy as well as they themselves acting as an additional arm of policy. Sir, much has been made of the question of public opinion, and I will face these unpleasant, improper and unfair imputations and insinuations that have been smilingly made and directed to Back-benchers on my side of the House as well as to the Member sitting on the opposite Bench. "Where is the proof of that probity?", asks the leader of the Democratic Party (Mr William Tan). I would remind the leader of the Democratic Party, if I may, that they, who are here as the elected of the people, are as good, as fine men as any that sit opposite and, in fact, Sir, when I look at the Benches opposite, I thank heaven for my colleagues. Let me hold up the mirror to these gentlemen who never see themselves - who need 24 hours to say "Thank you"; their excuse being "We cannot think as fast as the gentlemen on the Government Benches" -

We think before we speak!

You never think at all. Walkouts, Sir, in the true fashion of mobs when they have the democratic process of voting, refraining from voting, or voting against, but they prefer the ways of the mob - walkouts. They want one Select Committee after another in order to shelve vital legislation and yet simultaneously -

On a point of order, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr Chief Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Chief Minister speaking on the motion or on something which has passed already? If he is making these remarks, we should be allowed to talk on the subject.

As I understand it, Mr R. Jumabhoy, the Chief Minister is answering certain allegations which have been allowed on the floor of the House by me, and if he will confine himself to that, I think he is in perfect order.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask you, Sir, to consider for a moment the nightmare possibility that we would have to form a government from the opposite Benches. Think for a moment, Sir, and look around you and then look at my Benches, Sir, and you can understand how grateful I am to Providence for having provided me with the colleagues that I have -

For forming a government you were never prepared to form!

Order, please.

Laughter - simulated laughter - will not hide the basic truth of what I am saying, and I say that the people who are on my Backbenches, Sir, and whom I have in mind for these posts, are as good as and better than anyone that I can see opposite -

You must change your glasses!

It is suggested that as we have a House of 32, we are too small for a large Front Bench. That is a cogent argument, Sir, whose validity I have never denied and it is one of the basic reasons why I have been striving, and will continue to strive, to increase the membership of this House in order to make available not only the appropriate material but the necessary quality, but the fact that we are in this restricted space does not prevent us from having to do an efficient job of work. The same work is there, Sir, whether we are 25, or whether we are 50, and there is far greater necessity today for Assistant Ministers than there will be in four years -

Yes -

Order, please, let us not have interruptions.

- and the reason simply is this, Sir, that this is a period of basic reorientation, of drastic reorientation, whose equal I cannot imagine unless there is to be chaos and disaster in any future time. We are, today laying the foundation-stone and doing the spade work on which the future is going to be built. It has been suggested that we should work more and not be afraid of hard work. If I may be permitted, Sir, I have to remind the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) that the windows of the Assembly House look upon High Street and when he has finished playing his games or going to his cinemas, he can look me up and come in for a cup of coffee and he will find me still at work. We have never shirked work, but I shall say no more about that. On one other basis, Sir, this argument has been presented - a plausible one - pressed by the Progressives and their soul-mate, the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy). It has been suggested that there will be an expenditure of $18,000 per annum per Assistant Minister, and the Member for Telok Ayer even went so far as to say - Mr R. Jumabhoy rose -

Is it a point of order, Mr R. Jumabhoy?

I want to tell you, Sir, he is misquoting me.

Well, in that case, the hon. Member must wait until the Chief Minister gives way.

And it has been suggested, Sir, by the Member for Telok Ayer that, if we were real patriots, we would give our salaries to the people. I have not heard of his giving his salary to the people, Sir, although he has other means of livelihood. What I would like to point out, on the question of economy, to the Member for Serangoon is that in anticipation of his Party coming into power, there has been -

Order, please. I think the Chief Minister is very near beginning to impute improper motives to a Member -

No, Sir -

- in anticipation of his Party coming into power.

Not what he did, Sir -

Order, please.

- but what, in fact, their officials did, if you will permit me, and then decide on it, Sir; I would say, in anticipation of his Party coming into power, it was already on the stocks that the Chief Minister should have a car, a liveried chauffeur, a $700,000 house, liveried servants -

Good show!

There is no imputation against him, Sir -

What about a wine cellar?

Well, Sir, I have -

Order, Mr Chief Minister. Now, this debate is really getting perhaps a little out of hand. I have allowed interruptions because I think there should be an atmosphere of friendly discussion in this House. I am not quite certain whether the Chief Minister was relevant when he brought in what he has just brought in in this debate. Let us try to confine ourselves to the motion before the House - that is whether or not at the present moment Assistant Ministers are advisable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I always bow to your ruling, but having accepted the criticism that it would cost a certain amount of money to appoint Assistant Ministers, it is surely valid for me to point out to what extent this Government has economised in the expenditure of public money by refusing these trappings of office. I have no other purpose than that and I trust you will permit it to remain on the record. There is a curious conception on the part of the Opposition that they can control every single movement of mine in Government, and the leader of the Democratic Party, in fact, went so far as to suggest that there should be a Committee appointed to teach me how to suck eggs - if you will forgive that schoolboy expression, but it is no more than that - a Committee to be appointed to consider what Assistant Ministers I should have - the height of impudence -! An hon. Member: That is what it is!

- and that is what I will always think, and what every reasonable person who knows anything about parliamentary procedure must think. It is suggested, Sir, that the appointment of a large number of persons to be Ministers and Assistant Ministers will destroy the democratic process. That is not fully accurate because we have, in any event - as Parties opposite are fully conscious - a Whip. Parties opposite themselves have used it to considerable effect - detrimental perhaps - when they walked out of this Assembly only last week, but there is a Whip. Government can control Backbenchers by using the Whip without any question of appointing them as Assistant Ministers. There has been a remark made by the Member for Tanglin to which I take strong exception, and I challenge him to clarify it unless, Sir, it is made in the normal traditional course which has been indicated by that Party in the past. He says that Government has indicated that it has no policy on a large number of matters of grave importance. I challenge him and I challenge his leader to name one -

Better make it three -

Order, please.

- just one, or withdraw it. Sir, I am conscious that regarding the persons I seek or have in mind to appoint as Assistant Ministers. I would like to say this: that when I did indicate I would reconsider the position, I meant it; and depending upon this debate and depending upon the voting - because if the voting goes against me, quite naturally, Sir, however improper I might think it is, I would accept the direction of this House - but depending upon this debate and what has transpired during these proceedings, as well as what has transpired in the intervening period since the exchange of correspondence with His Excellency on the subject, it is my intention to reconsider the whole question of the appointment of Assistant Ministers. I am conscious that we have no Angel Gabriels on our side of the House. I do not know if the Opposition pretend to have any. I do not pretend to be an Attlee or a Nehru, Sir. We have to use the tools we have. If our ancestors who lived in caves waited for the crane and the pneumatic drill, they would still live in caves. We cannot wait for perfection and the perfect Minister in order to fill appointments which are essential for our daily work. We have men as able as any to be found anywhere. That they are perfect, I will never pretend but that they are capable and adequate, I believe and, to that extent, Sir, they will be of service to the people. That I believe, because I will never, at any time, consider the question of appointment or the question of utilisation of any of my powers otherwise than for the welfare of the people of this territory. There has been one further suggestion made - by implication - by the Member for Telok Ayer, and it is that I seek to appoint Assistant Ministers for the purpose of unifying my Back-benchers. It is difficult to follow the logic, Sir, because to the normally intelligent person, it must immediately be appreciated that the suggestion that a Member of the Opposition - not so much Opposition - but the suggestion that an Independent should be chosen for the post of Assistant Minister must instantly and quite naturally rouse antagonism amongst my own Back-benchers, and if that is considered a unifying force, I find it a little bit difficult to understand. I repeat, Sir, what has already been made abundantly clear. This Government, at the present moment, needs not so much more power as more men.

We heard a different story a short while ago!

We need more men in the civil service. We need more men who can, as Assistant Ministers, assist in the reorientation of past policies, clarification and enforcement of new policies. The question of training, Sir, goes much further. I am more anxious about immediate results, but the question of training cannot be ignored. There are three ex-officio Ministries to which I am very anxious to appoint Assistant Ministers and frankly - [Interruption.] - as I see things at the present moment, Mr Speaker - you will forgive, I trust, the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) who only loves hearing his own voice, and I have been somewhat long on my own feet - but I was suggesting, Sir, that the type of persons we want to put in as Assistant Ministers in the ex-officio Ministries must be men of the very first calibre and it is my intention - I do not know whether it will be possible, but as soon as some Assistant Ministers have proved in my view to be adequate to take over Ministries - to ask the existing Ministers to allow themselves to be, at least, technically demoted in order to serve in the ex-officio Ministries, because to me it is vital to have able men in those Ministries very soon and that. Sir, is part of my training scheme. The Member for Tanjong Pagar seems to be wanting to talk all the time. In the circumstances, I think I will refrain from further addressing the House and, no doubt, he will shortly have an adjournment and a completely empty House to which he can talk to his heart's content.

On a point of information, Sir. The Chief Minister has indicated that he would abide by the decision of this House. Of course, he must. He has the Party Whip and he could easily make the voting go his way. Do I understand by his remark that the Party Whip is withdrawn and that there will be a free vote?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we started the debate today on a friendly basis. We intended to carry on on that basis and I, for my part, am very sorry that it has descended to a much lower level. I have been deploring, during the last few weeks, the manner in which debates have been carried on in this House, which I consider in my mind to be a mad House. Simply because we were courageous enough, shall we say, to put suggestions in the House about the Land Acquisition Bill and to criticise -

Order, please. Can the hon. Member please confine himself to the motion?

Sir, I find it very hard to confine myself when so much abuse has been heaped upon us during the two hours allowed to the debate. We have been called nags. Surely, I am entitled to explain that simply because we dare to make some suggestions, we have been called nags, and we do resent such things. Apparently, whenever anybody thinks in a different way from the Hon. the Chief Minister, he is a nag. It has caused me great surprise to learn that the Chief Minister has changed his opinion of his Backbenchers so greatly within the space of a very short time. He now thanks heaven that he has not got us instead. The only reason I can think of is that he is quite certain in his mind that we shall not follow him blindly, whatever he wants to do. The Member for Stamford (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) said that the Government, or his Party, now represents the public opinion of Singapore. To that, I must point out to him, again, that less than 30 per cent of the electorate voted them into power. The Governor in - Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Is it a point of order?

No, Sir, point of information. I did not say that my Party only represents, but I said 'We in this House'.

His Excellency the Governor in his letter of the 9th of July to the Chief Minister sees the position clearly when he says that the Government would certainly be subjected -

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order.

There are Standing Orders, Sir, which forbid this House from referring to the Governor or utilising his name for the purpose of influencing the Assembly, and unless there is a substantive motion to suspend that Standing Order, Sir, I would respectfully suggest that he cannot be allowed to continue.

The point, of course, is that you have interrupted, I think, a bit too soon. I do not know what is being said.

He said the Governor's letter.

The Governor's letter has been before the House, and I think it will be quite proper for any Member to refer to any letter which has been before the House.

This illustrates the point that we are not allowed to have any free thinking in this House. The Governor said: "... the Government would certainly be subjected to the criticism of providing additional places for supporters and that the good name of the Government might be seriously jeopardised. I was not satisfied that the addition to the Ministries of Assemblymen who, so far, have had no experience of Government administration, would strengthen the particular Ministries...". Well, Sir, that is a very objective view and I think that represents the view of a big majority of the people in Singapore. May I refer to the words of the Chief Minister, reported in the Official Debates of the 26th of April, 1955? There it says: "Sir, a short acquaintance, a very short acquaintance, with Government, does seem to indicate that we are apt in many spheres to live on a somewhat extravagant scale, and we intend to take action shortly to bring about a realisation by the various Departments of the important need for economy." I can see no more truthful words than these - the serious need for economy in all what we do. I am viewing with concern the expansion in the Government departments. To a certain extent, as explained by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, that is necessary, but we must bear in mind that we have not yet provided for all the social services that are in the mind of the Government today, and only yesterday or the day before we were informed that the cost of education alone might be trebled in the next year or two. Now, I can understand the position of the Government at the present moment. They are overworked because they are trying to take over some new duties which they are not accustomed to, and if it is impossible for the Ministers to carry on their duties, is it not better to engage temporary Secretaries, men who have been in Government service, versed in the administration of a particular Ministry? These posts can always be scrapped whenever their services are no longer required, and no further expense will be incurred by the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate on the first five motions took only 25 minutes, but the sixth motion has taken us nearly two hours. The Chief Minister has spoken on the various points raised by the mover and the supporters of the motion. I find it necessary to speak on one point that he has not touched upon, and that is the stand as claimed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew - the stand of the P.A.P. -

Order, Mr Lim.

- the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir. That shows how tiresome a long debate can be, and I am sorry. I mean the stand of the P.A.P. as expressed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He said that "We, the P.A.P., know our stand. We, the P.A.P., know in which direction we are going", and yet he told the Hon. the Chief Minister that "We are with you if you need those Assistant Ministers. We will not support the motion." Yet he turned round to the mover of the motion and said, "But we will not oppose it too." This brings to my mind the cartoon in Saturday's Straits Times - "The Tempestuous Honeymoon" - the honeymoon of the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar since July up till the 18th of August, when he was just being taken into the bridal chamber and, on the threshold, the bride escaped and ran into the arms of the Member for Serangoon. Now he believes, "Well, it is better to have both rooms, if I can." So he says, "Let me have a share of that bed and, please," to the new bridegroom, "I want to share your bed too. That is why I say we do not oppose nor do we support."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to answer a few points raised. This is a democratic country. We have to feel the pulse of the people. The people have elected us into this Assembly, probably on our own manifestoes, or on our ability to convince them under any apple-tree, but it was their opinion at that time that sent everyone of us into this Assembly. However, I am not too sure that when we come into this Assembly, we will always be expressing what the people want us to do, unless you are a diviner, and, if you want to divine anything, you have to go out and find out. I will say in any one matter where you need a snap decision, we make that decision, but, in a matter where it is the talk of the town, you cannot help listening to it. It is poured into your ears everywhere. You say that your opinion, which suits your own purpose, should be called the opinion of the public. I must differ from that. Of course, when we started this debate, as my friend has said, we expected it to be not as stormy and not as lengthy as all this; but somebody must bring in some other things not connected with the debate, and talk about tailors making suits which should have been discarded, or probably somebody else cannot wear them. But they are very happy to wear them today, and they make use of his good services without thanking him. Then there is the point raised by the Hon. the Chief Secretary about the work of the Ministries. I understand it; I know it. I have said that the work that the Ministers are doing is not easy. I say they have great responsibilities but I only say that local men are never afraid of responsibilities. Question put, That this House is of opinion that the appointment of more Assistant Ministers at the present time is undesirable.

Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it proper at this stage to answer the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) to indicate that there will be no Whip used?

Oh, yes, certainly.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Chief Minister understand that if there is no Whip, it is not a motion of confidence before this House?

I do not think that is a proper question. The House divided: Ayes, 5; Noes, 16; Abstentions, 9. Ayes. Noes. Ede, John. Abdul Hamid Bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Jumabhoy, R. Braga, A. J. Lim Choon Mong. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Koon Teck. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Abstentions. Marshall, D. S. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Mohamed Sidik Bin Davies, E. J. Haji Abdul Hamid. Goh Chew Chua. Nair, M. P. D. Goode, W. A. C. Seah Peng Chuan. Hart, T. M. Tan Theng Chiang. Lee Kuan Yew. Thomas, Francis. Lim Cher Kheng. Wong Foo Nam. Lim Ching Siong. Tan, William. Absent. Ong Piah Teng. Sutherland, G. A. P. Motion accordingly negatived.

I move, That this Assembly do adjourn to the 21st of September, 1955.

I second it.

Question, "That this Assembly do now adjourn," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at 12.25 p.m. to the 21st of September, 1955.