Hansard, 1955-11-23

asked the Chief Secretary (i) what is the object of the newly-formed Malayan Student Unit in England; (ii) who made the appointment of Mr W. C. S. Corrie as head of the Unit; and (iii) what are his duties.

Question No. 1.

The answer to the first part of the question is that the Unit is not, as suggested, a new organisation. It was formed in 1953 to take over the responsibilities of the Director of Colonial Scholars in the Colonial Office in respect of students from Malaya. As regards the second part of the question, Mr Corrie was appointed by the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya to take charge of the Unit temporarily, pending a more definitive appointment. The duties of the Unit include responsibility for placing students in centres of higher education, the administration of scholarships, arrangements for passages, reception, accommodation and welfare, the administration of the amenities fund, administrative duties in connection with all ranks of the Federation and Singapore military forces and the Royal Malayan Navy attending courses in the United Kingdom.

Sir, could the Chief Secretary inform us whether the Government of the Federation of Malaya had consulted the Government of Singapore at the time Mr W. C. S. Corrie was appointed?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Financial Secretary how many people in Singapore for the years 1950 to 1954 had incomes of between $1,500 and $2,500, $2,500 and $5,000, $5,000 and $10,000, $10,000 and $30,000, $30,000 and $50,000, and of more than $50,000.

Question No. 2.

I regret that the information required is not available in the precise form in which it is sought. On the other hand, the Income Tax Department Statistical Abstracts for the years 1950 to 1954 give detailed information about the number of taxpayers in the various assessed income groups which correspond closely to those specified in the question. Reference is invited to these Abstracts.

"to provide for the regulation of employment, hours of work and remuneration of persons in shops and offices and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto", presented by Mr Lim Choon Mong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th February, 1956, and to be printed.

Order for Committee of Supply read: [2nd Allotted Day]

Head 4 - The sum of $369,070 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 5 -

Mr Chairman, I move, To reduce by $2,760 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 3 (2), Principal Assistant Secretary, Grade E, on page 27 of the Estimates. Mr Chairman, Sir, the post of Principal Assistant Secretary, Grade E, is a standard one in the service. My information is that the appointment in the Commissioner-General's Office is confined solely to Europeans, and the present holder of the office is a European. Sir, may I refer the Government to page 121, sub-head 1 (4) where there is an example of such a post - "Principal Assistant Secretary to Ministry of Commerce and Industry" - which is an upper timescale post? I refer the Government also to page 216, sub-head 1 (2) "Principal Assistant Commissioner for Labour, Class II" - an upper timescale post. Sir, these officers are taken to the Commissioner-General's Office on transfer from the Singapore Government Establishment and the Malayan Establishment. There is no reason, particularly in view of the desire of the Government to keep all government expenditure, whether on personal emoluments or other unnecessary expenditure, to the barest minimum, for this post to be upgraded. No explanation has been given why it has been found necessary to make this particular Principal Assistant Secretaryship a superscale appointment when all other Principal Assistant Secretaryships are timescale appointments. If one looks at the number of senior officers in that Division, - one Assistant Commissioner - General for Colonial Affairs, Grade D, one Principal Assistant Secretary, Grade E, one Assistant Secretary, Grade U, one Assistant Secretary, Class II, and two Assistant Secretaries, Class III - we find there are six officers, and of these, three superscale appointments are sought. These are the Assistant Commissioner-General, the Principal Assistant Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, Grade G. Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not know whether you will permit me, whilst we are on the same Head, to make a reference to the next item to which I propose to move an amendment.

Yes, you can comment on it.

The arguments, Sir, are more or less the same. There is no reason why this Assistant Secretaryship should be boosted from a timescale post to a superscale post. I would like first to hear what the Government has to say before I make further remarks on this point. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, if all the rabbits that the magician from Tanjong Pagar produces out of his hat are as thin as this one, then there will not be even enough meat to make a good rabbit pie. There is no question of an upgrading of these posts. I agree that the tide of Principal Assistant Secretary is used somewhat loosely in the service. It does not necessarily indicate posts of the same grade or importance. There are other Principal Assistant Secretary jobs in the service, including one that is held by a local officer, that carry superscale rank. These two particular posts in the Commissioner-General's Office are a backlog of Ritsonisation. The Legislative Council approved the Ritsonisation of all superscale posts in Government in 1954. These two posts in the Commissioner-General's Office alone were left out of consideration, because it was necessary for both the Malayan and Borneo Governments concerned to be consulted and their agreement obtained. The Singapore Government's interest in these posts, financially, is only to the extent of 22 per cent. It took some little time to get the Ritsonisation of these two posts agreed. By the time it was done, the Legislative Council had ceased to exist. I must admit here that there has been an error in that the sanction of this Assembly to the Ritsonisation of these posts was not sought at an earlier time. Had it been sought, I should have asked you, Mr Chairman, to consider ruling this motion out of order under Standing Order 33 (1) (b) in that it would affect the emoluments already drawn by an existing officer. As it is, I can only say that there is no question of upgrading. In fact, the total pay that would have been paid had these posts been substantively occupied would have been no greater. In certain circumstances, it might even have been less than under the pre-Ritson regime. The posts have, in fact, not been substantively filled because the whole organisation of the Commissioner-General has been in a state of some uncertainty for several years past and it was felt that it would have been improper to appoint substantive officers to these superscale posts - posts that have always been superscale - and then find that they were no longer required in the Commissioner-General's Office.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am happy to hear from the Chief Secretary that he is very keen to rule out any discussion on the question of pay for European officers by invoking Standing Orders.

Order. I do not think that is a fair remark.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I was just drawing a reasonable inference from the remark by the Chief Secretary that he wished this question had received the approval of the previous Legislative Council, in which case he had hoped that no further discussion would be permissible under Standing Order 33 (1) (b).

Order. We are, as hon. Members know, bound not only by Standing Orders but also by the Order in Council. Standing Order 33 (1) (b), which has been referred to, repeats, in fact, the Order in Council, section 60 (3), and no matter how much hon. Members dislike the Order in Council, we must still consider that we cannot debate any matter which is ultra vires. Now Standing Order 33 (1) merely says: "Except with the recommendation or consent of the Governor signified thereto, the Assembly shall not proceed - ". in the relevant paragraph (b) - "upon any bill or motion, which, in the opinion of the Speaker or the Attorney-General, would affect any alteration in the salary, allowances or conditions of service... of any public officer..." That, I think, is the Standing Order to which the Chief Secretary has referred but, in fact, it does not arise in this case. It might arise in other cases, I do not know, but the point is that a motion can be made but it cannot be proceeded with under our constitution without the Governor's recommendation or consent.

As you will, Mr Chairman, Sir. I am glad the House has been reminded this morning of the limitations under which this Assembly operates. Mr Chairman, Sir, the Chief Secretary has explained to us that this was the backlog of the Ritson revision and that, in fact, the amount to which the Singapore Government is committed is only 22 per cent. But he has not explained to us why it has been thought necessary to upgrade the Principal Assistant Secretary to Grade E and the Assistant Secretary to Grade U. I understand the Chief Secretary has admitted before the Malayanisation Commission that there is no person in Malaya who can do a proper job analysis, to put these various jobs in their proper categories and give them their proper values. Up to now all we have had from the Chief Secretary is an explanation that this was the backlog of a revision which might have been made much earlier and he was sorry that it was not made earlier. But he has not given us any reason why, in the opinion of the Government, they are prepared to support to the extent of 22 per cent this upgrading of two posts.

As I have said before, and as I repeat now, there has been no upgrading.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $3,120 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 3 (3), Assistant Secretary, Grade G, on page 27 of the Estimates. There is very little I wish to add at the moment to what has been said with respect to the Principal Assistant Secretary. The Chief Secretary denies that there has been an upgrading, but I think he cannot deny that in the Remarks column those scales have been shown as being pushed up. Question proposed.

I would only comment on the last remark of the hon. and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar that the scales may appear to have been pushed up, but the total emoluments proposed have not, in fact, been increased. This is pure Ritsonisation which means consolidation of a proportion of the old cost of living allowance into the basic rates of pay. Lest there should be any further misapprehension, may I remind you, Sir, that this consolidation was, on balance, a greater benefit to the local officer than to the expatriate?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $554,030 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 6 -

Sir, I beg to move, To increase by $22,845 the sum to be allotted in respect of the following sub-heads, viz: - $ $ (i) sub-head 1 on page 29 of the 1956 Estimates - Item (6) Assitant Reporters, two. Increase number by one and the provision by 7,560 New item after item (9). Insert "Stenographer ($265-15A-295/bar/310- 15A-370 / bar / 385-15A- 445) and insert provision 3,180 Item (10) General Clerical Service, Timescale, four. Increase the number by one and the provision by 1,830 Item (11) Typist (one). Increase number by two and the provision by 3,300 Item (15) Office Boys, four. Increase number by one and the provision by 1,045 Item (20) Variable Allow- ance. In consequence of above additions, increase provision by 5,170 ------- 22,085 (ii) new sub-head after sub- head 10 on page 30, "Typewriters, two" and insert provision 760 -------- 22,845 -------- The proposal is that Head 6: Legislature should be increased by $22,845, and it is based on the First Report of the Select Committee on the Assembly Staff. I hope that this will be considered an uncontroversial measure since it concerns the service of this House as a whole, and is not a party matter at all. In brief, the proposal is to increase the staff of this Assembly by one Assistant Reporter, one stenographer, one General Clerical Service clerk, two typists and one office boy with, to make for good measure, a couple of typewriters that these people can work on. As you will see, Sir, from the Report of the Select Committee, which was tabled as Legislative Assembly Paper No. 16, the present Assembly has been served up to now by a staff in some respects less in strength than the former Legislative Council. There can be no question that the business of this House has increased and is going to increase still further, and I hope it will be agreed that these modest increases are thoroughly necessary. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Chief Secretary, have you the Governor's recommendation?

I have, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and agreed to. The sum of $407,215 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 7 - The sum of $1,757,240 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8 - The sum of $143,550 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9 - The sum of $140,320 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 10 -

Mr Chairman, I move, To reduce by $10,400 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (2), Senior Auditors, on page 39 of the Estimates. Mr Chairman, Sir, the increase is because the Government proposes to put up the number of Senior Auditors from one to two. In the Estimates for 1955, on page 34, there was provision for one Senior Auditor and two Auditors. Now it is sought to create two Senior Auditors and two Auditors. Mr Chairman, Sir, if one looks at the 1955 Establishment List, on page 16, one finds these posts, which were allowed in 1954, set out as follows: Upper timescale, one appointment, Senior Auditor; timescale, two appointments, two Auditors, one filled by an expatriate, the other vacant. In other words, there is one Senior Auditor, the appointment being filled by an expatriate; two timescale posts, one filled by an expatriate, the other vacant. The scale below that is a Div. II scale, filled by a local man, who is Senior Assistant Auditor. Mr Chairman, the Financial Secretary himself sent out a circular recently to all heads of departments in which he set out the view of the Government that there should be an absolute economy in new appointments. The Financial Secretary, in his circular of the 2nd of December, said: "Heads of departments are requested to re-examine their draft estimates in order to determine whether Estimates of Revenue cannot safely be increased and Estimates of Expenditure substantially reduced. In this connection it is appreciated that Estimates of Expenditure have been prepared with the need for economy clearly in view and have already been scrutinised in the Treasury. On the other hand, it would be appreciated that the position, as disclosed by the Draft Estimates, gives cause for much concern. The co-operation of heads of departments in an effort to close the gap is most earnestly sought." And then, in a special reference to Personal Emoluments, he said: "Heads of departments are requested to examine all proposals for new appointments with a view to determining whether they are, in fact, essential for the efficient discharge of the business of Government in 1956, and to withdraw any proposals which do not strictly conform to this requirement. Again the provision entered against any post or category of posts should be examined with great care in order to determine whether the total amount entered will, in fact, be spent..." Mr Chairman, Sir, we have here an attempt to boost up the number of Senior Auditors from one to two and to maintain the number of Auditors at two with no proportionate increase in the staff they are supposed to supervise. There is no increase anywhere. It is not shown in these Estimates. The natural result of the creation of one more post of Senior Auditor means that the expatriate holder of the post of Auditor will go up automatically because he is the next person awaiting promotion. Then there will be two vacancies in auditorship which may be filled by local men or may be filled by expatriates. It is commonly known in the Civil Service amongst local officers that this is a game of snakes and ladders. One boosts up a post there and pushes an expatriate up there. Then one brings in a local officer here. That is Malayanisation. There is not the slightest need for creating one more post of Senior Auditor. There is no increase in the work to be done by Senior Auditors, and the only justification advanced by the Financial Secretary is that it will really not cost us very much because the extra money will be made up by external audit, since this man will be going round auditing Harbour Board accounts and all other semi-government accounts. The Opposition feels very strongly that this question must be considered not only in the light of the policy of the Chief Minister to reduce all increases in emoluments to the minimum, but also in the light of the sabotage of the policy of Malayanisation to which the Government is committed. Question proposed.

Sir, the Audit Department is perhaps one of the most important departments of Government. In so far as it fulfils the same function for the Government as a firm of private accountants fulfils for companies registered under the Companies Act, it is the watchdog of Government expenditure. Now, as the expenditure of Government has increased over the years - Members of the Opposition have drawn attention to it - so has the need for the Audit Department to expand. Again, the activities of Government departments have also increased: so have the activities of the City Council, the Harbour Board, and the Singapore Improvement Trust (whose books are also audited by the Department of Audit) increased; and in future, of course, we will have the task of auditing the books of the Central Provident Fund. From the increase in Government expenditure alone over the past five years, hon. Members can see to what extent the work of the Audit Department has increased. During that period the books of the various departments have increased in size and number. The work of outside audit has increased. The junior staff has been increased, but the senior directing staff has not increased, with the result that now, in the Audit Department, there is not the necessary degree of supervision and control of audit which is required if a job is to be done efficiently. The amount of supervision which must necessarily be given by qualified and experienced officers has been lacking. Senior officers have not been able to give the necessary amount of time to train junior officers, nor have they been able to give time to considering how their methods of audit should be changed or modified or amended in the light of new accounting methods which have been introduced, not only in Government but in those other bodies whose accounts we audit. For example, in the Central Pay Office we have introduced mechanical accounting; similarly in the other bodies. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $555,260 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I had not anticipated competition to raise this point of $10,000 to be spent, if necessary, by the Chief Minister for entertainment expenses. Sir, I formally move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 5, Entertainment Expenses, on page 44 of the Estimates. This year the Director of Audit asked us to take steps to adjust the balance of his department to allow these functions to be fulfilled. He asked us to approve one Senior Auditor, one Auditor, two Assistant Auditors, two Special Grade General Clerical Service clerks, three G.C.S. clerks and two typists. The matter was considered -

Order, order. The time has elapsed. I will now put the Question. Question put.

I claim a division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 18; Abstentions, 2. Ayes. Noes. Abstentions. Ede, John. Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Goh Chew Chua. Jumat. Nair, M. P. D. Goh Tong Liang. Braga, A. J. Jumabhoy, R. Butterfield, C. H. Absent. Lee Choon Eng. Chew Swee Kee. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Kuan Yew. Hart, T. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Higham, J. D. Lim Ching Siong. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Tan, William. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Sir, the House will recall that, at the time when the Chief Minister was considering how much he could safely take as his own personal emolument, we the People's Action Party exhorted him, in fact, invited him and his Ministers to take a realistic view of the matter and not to play to the gallery, or to fear the ungenerosity of the Opposition. The Chief Minister on that occasion, in an outburst of humility in considering what is right and proper for the Ministers and the Chief Minister of this territory, strenuously put forward his new Socialist point of view that Ministers should live a life less exalted than their previous colonial administrators who had, in his opinion, set a completely false standard. Sir, before I make any comment on the sum of $10,000, I want to make it clear to the Chief Minister that we do not, in the least, question his integrity on how the $10,000 will be spent. What we do question is this hypocrisy in saying "We do not want to take $5,000. We will only take $3,500 - "

Order, order. The word "hypocrisy" has been ruled out.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I apologise for the use of that word, but that word stares us in the face so often in the 200 odd pages of the Budget Estimates. I intend to indicate to the Chief Minister that it is much more reasonable to say, "I am drawing a salary of $5,000 a month and I am living up to that standard." To break it up - and I do not blame the Chief Minister and his elected Ministers for this - is to follow the colonial tradition. They have been accustomed to come before this House and, on being asked, "How much is the Chief Secretary being paid?", would reply, "Turn it up and see what it is." To find out whether it is a reasonable and modest sum for a man in his exalted position of life, one has to turn up and find these items spread over many pages - "Expatriation pay"; "upkeep of house"; "upkeep of garden"; "transport expenses"; etc. And our elected Ministers are being made, perhaps unwillingly, perhaps unconsciously, to fit into the scheme of things. Already they are down for a very modest $150 as transport expenses and down for entertainment expenses of one sort or another. Sir, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain had difficulty over his own personal emolument, he went before the House and put matters fairly and squarely before it. There was a debate on it; the thing was properly thrashed out - how the Prime Minister of a large Empire conducts himself - rebates were made and concessions given. We have now a matter that should have been raised at the time when the Ministers came forward before this House for their salaries. They should not, after having got their salary, decide that it is not enough after all, and then sneak in entertainment expenses ranging from $10,000 to $2,000; and sneak in transport expenses. Sir, the next Budget might well show that some further unforeseen stresses and strains on the modest emoluments of Ministers have made themselves felt, and further additions may well be attempted in this manner. Our criticism is that the Chief Minister did not come forward frankly and fairly and say that he, as Chief Minister, is getting a sum of $3,500 a month, $500 as a Member of the Assembly, tax free, $10,000 a year for entertainment expenses, $150 for his transport, and so on. He should not come to the House for a vote to increase, piecemeal, the number of perquisites of his office. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support this amendment, although it has also been put in by me. I would like to add just one or two points to what has been said. We do not say that Chief Ministers must not entertain. We do understand that there must be a certain amount of entertainment, but we must always remember that whenever a Budget is presented, especially this Budget when you say that the deficit is real, then there must be some economy. Now, if there are going to be economies, we will have to refer back to previous years to find out how such expenditures came in. Previously I believe the Chief Secretary was carrying on all such work - all the work of the Ministries rolled into one - and we do find that expenditure in that direction was not as much as it is estimated today. Now that it is spread among many Ministries, I think the expenditure for each Minister should not be much more than what was previously. Another point that catches our attention is that in the past few months we have witnessed a few functions which cost Government to the tune of $4,000 in one case. Now, if functions of this nature, thrown open, shall we say, to Mr. and Mrs. Singapore, should be conducted on such a large scale, we could ask, "Where will it stop?" Inviting 50 people per elected representative was the number asked for by the Chief Minister. He could easily have asked for even more, and then expenditure would probably rise further. I consider it lavish from all points of view and, because of that, we do propose a cut.

If it please you, Sir, I am so happy to see an example so blatant of the intellectual integrity of the P.A.P., as indicated in today's debate. This House, Sir, has not so short a memory that it forgets that on Monday morning the leader of the P.A.P., the hon. and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar, in castigating me for a sterile speech, blamed me for taking seriously the petty objection of petty politicians in respect of the entertainment allowance. What was "the petty objection of petty politicians" is the objection of the P.A.P. today, and that is the position we are at. He has, Sir, suggested that this entertainment allowance should be part of our salary. That is, in fact, what was suggested officially, and in fairness to the officials there was no question of their putting it in this fashion. It was the desire of the elected Ministers who wanted no part of the entertainment allowance as part of their salary, because when you have an entertainment allowance as part of your salary - as is the case, Sir, with respect to the President of the City Council there is always a charge that you under-spend and that you profit by that allowance. I did not think it was fair, either to us or to the public, that we should have a fixed entertainment allowance as part of our salary which we could not be certain of spending precisely. I thought it was only fair to this Assembly that this allowance should not only be entirely outside our salary, but that this Assembly, through its Finance Committee, should have the right to examine in detail our expenditure and to challenge it. The Financial Secretary, as the watchdog of our Treasury, Sir, on one occasion did, I think, challenge the $10 for a basket of orchids which I sent to the wife of the Prime Minister of Pakistan! He is entitled to do that and I do not complain. It may well be beneath my dignity, Sir, and it may well be beneath the dignity of Ministers to submit themselves to this procedure. You yourself, Sir, I think, have pointed this out in so far as your Office is concerned, when it came to a question of allocating $4,800 entertainment allowance for the Speaker. But the Chief Minister and his elected colleagues are in a different position. They are subject to the malice and the abuse of political manoeuvres and they can be and are constantly misrepresented. So far as is possible, Sir, we not only want to be honest, but we want to be patently honest so that our conduct would be under the constant supervision not only of this Assembly but also of its Select Committee. There was no question of any sneaking of expenses. I know, Sir, that there are some people so evil that it is difficult for them to think that others can be honest. There is a proverb which says honi soit qui mal y pense. There are some so steeped in deception that they are quite incapable even of understanding honesty. It is natural. It is the very breath of their lives. But I would remind hon. Members that at each and every one of my functions, they were invited, most of them, and that in each and every case this Assembly, prior to this Budget, has been asked for its approval. There has never been any question of trying to sneak in extra money for the Ministers. It has been suggested, Sir, that there is hypocrisy on our part, and humility, false humility, in seeking a low salary. You have attended many functions, Sir, and with respect to those who gave them and to those functions which I gave, more often than not they are a dreadful bore, and I do not think that any person can really suggest that it is a great perquisite to be able to give or attend these functions and that they are to be considered as part of a man's emoluments, particularly when he does not touch the money at all. Sir, I have tried, with all my heart, to bring a new concept of expenditure into the Government service. It is no easy thing to change a tradition of many decades that is deeply imbued and that is part of the very way they live. The idea of having the modest salaries we sought was to give an example, but however humble we may be in seeking to live our own individual lives and the charge which we wish to make upon the public finance for our own existence, we must, when considering our duties in giving public functions, also consider the dignity of Singapore as a country. Our receptions to our foreign guests must be compatible with the dignity of Singapore and in this connection the Member for Serangoon, who complains when 4,000 people attended a function for Malcolm MacDonald at a cost of $4,400, does not, through his own Party in the City Council, complain when $8,700 was spent for the the same occasion for the same man - more than twice. That is the logic, Sir, of the Progressive Party. Now we know to what depths political manoeuvres and political jealousy can descend.

Sir, I want to speak on this subject, and I have got many other subjects to speak on. It is rather surprising that so much should have been spent by the Chief Minister and other Ministers on entertainment, transport and what not. Sir, I have since the post-war period been in the B.M.A. Council, the Advisory Council, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. I have seen functions and functions. They were held by the head of this State at that time - His Excellency the Governor. He is still doing that now. We do not grudge a reasonable amount to be paid to the Chief Minister for his entertainment, but since the last six or seven months we have had nothing but entertainment parties and dinners, and at whose expense? We, the taxpayers' expense. Why should the Government spend so much money? After all, what is Singapore? It is a small city compared with other countries of the world. It is at the crossroads. Many people pass through it, foreign guests pass through it, but it does not mean that each and every one should be entertained at our cost and at that exorbitant rate.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I was getting alarmed when the Member for Telok Ayer started speaking on the subject. One should always remember that, after all, this is not an attack on the way in which a particular Chief Minister chooses to conduct his office, but more an attack, in the case of my Party, on the form in which this item of $10,000 has been brought forward. It has never been suggested by us that $10,000 is too much. It is our view that the Chief Minister of Singapore should, as Chief Minister, live and act like one. After all, even in the most puritan of Communist countries, when the Foreign Minister of the Chinese People's Republic goes to Geneva and throws a reception, it is - I am told by those who have attended such a reception - a most sumptuous occasion, as befits the Foreign Minister of a great Republic. And as befits the Chief Minister of Singapore, a great island, all man-made - [Interruption.] Sir, it depresses me to see the Chief Minister feeling somewhat unnerved by the thought that he should, in fact, deport himself as the Chief Minister. The point he sought to make is that we said on Monday that this was a trivial matter, yet we come today to debate this as a matter of great importance. On Monday we said it was trivial. Today we say it is trivial. The only question we have raised is the form in which it was brought forward. What we do challenge is the fact that, whilst on the one hand he had said, "We are going to be modest in our living" - and we were led to assume that that included both their personal and their official lives - on the other hand, long before Budget Day we were presented with dribs and drabs of entertainment expenditure, everyone of them for a special occasion. The Rt. Hon. Malcolm MacDonald going away - the greatest man that ever lived in Malaya; Sir John Nicoll going away - the greatest Governor that ever came here. Our whole lives get wrapped around the comings and goings of great people from the Colonial Office. I do not know what to make of all this. No doubt more great people will come and go. But, after all, Chief Ministers stay on forever, and they should, in my view, be given every opportunity to represent the people in a proper way and to act in a manner befitting the dignity of that office.

There are one or two points I should like to mention, Sir. There has always been a central entertainment vote which is under my control and which is augmented from time to time as the needs of the entertainment of Government have demanded it. What has happened now is that that vote has been split up amongst the Chief Minister and the other Ministers. It is not personal entertainment votes but purely departmental votes for entertainment that have been created. The expenditure from these votes will have to be accounted for in the same way as any other votes of Government - telephones, telegrams - any other vote that you can think of. It will be subject to audit, and it will be subject to the detailed examination, I presume, of the Public Accounts Department. I merely want to make that quite clear - that these are not personal votes, they are merely Government departmental votes which are subject to all the control that any vote is subject to.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am very sorry indeed that this question of the Ministers' expenses has descended into such abusive arguments and I am afraid that the Chief Minister is partially to be blamed because he started with a torrent of abuse at the first Monday sitting. He has been accusing the Progressive Party for all the entertainment expenditure incurred by the City Council, and today he asks why we should challenge the expenditure of $4,000 when the City Council on the same sort of entertainment spent double that amount. Has he ever considered that the Progressive Party have only seven Councillors out of a total of 27? How can he say that the City Council is a Progressive Council? In the same way the Progressive Party had been abused throughout the elections because we had a few more Members in the Legislative Council than other Parties. All the Government's faults had been heaped upon us. Another point that has been forgotten is that this expenditure on public functions was sanctioned by the full meeting of the City Council, whereas in these particular cases they were done on the responsibility of the Minister or the Council of Ministers. We on this side of the House surely are entitled to ask questions on every item in this Budget without being abused?

You have got to take a risk!

To my mind that is the very function of this Budget sitting for which one whole week has been allocated, and if we do not understand the items as they are presented to us, surely we are entitled to raise questions and have them discussed in a calm manner, whether they should be left as a full sum or they should be reduced, and if satisfactory replies are given, we would withdraw our amendments.

Miracle, miracle!

Order, order.

Sir, I am getting tired of these interruptions and abuses in this Assembly and that is one of the reasons why I am now working for a change. [Interruption.]

Order, please. Let us stick to the amendment.

Sir, I am not used to being interrupted and I find it very hard to continue my train of thought. Sir, I must say that this Budget has been prepared in the old way and in the old days it used to be passed, I understand, in a few hours. I was never present then and I do not really know what happened; but here, as elected representatives of the people, we owe them a duty to look through every item in the Budget and we would welcome more explanations in the Remarks column.

Order. Is the hon. Member speaking on entertainment expenses?

Well, I have been absolutely misled by all these interruptions! I think we have made a very proper amendment for a full discussion and I now ask this Assembly to have all these items discussed in a friendly way.

Sir, I am afraid the Members who have supported the amendment have not been able to make out a case. The first point that comes to my mind is this: some of the speakers have expressed the view that they would like the amount to be reduced, whilst other Members have expressed the view that they do not mind about the amount put in the Estimate, but they differ on the manner in which this has appeared in the Budget and the timing of this attempt to seek the approval of the Assembly. May I say this, Sir? Although I am still in the Opposition, I feel the Opposition should contribute to a very healthy debate. What we have heard just now has become a very unhealthy debate. I feel that an entertainment allowance for anyone in the Assembly, whether he is a Minister or an Assemblyman, should not be added to his salary, because his salary is paid as a result of the work that he does. The entertainment allowance, which is not always static, should be quite separate from the salary. On these grounds, therefore, I feel that this item of entertainment allowance appearing in the Estimates is very fair indeed. This happens not only in Singapore but throughout the whole world. Some years ago the Indian National Congress decided that their Ministers should accept only Rupees 500 as salary. Well, had they no entertainment allowance at all? They had. Did they make an attempt to add the entertainment allowance to their salary and then say. "We are only receiving so much and, well, we will be able to please the public."? They never did that. I also feel, Sir, that we must respect the honest attitude of the Government in a situation like this. They have come here in an honest way saying that they do not like to receive more salary. They have now come here with the suggestion that they should have some entertainment allowance. To my mind, Sir, it would appear to be very fair. I trust the Opposition will not degenerate in this debate.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, -

Order, order. The time has elapsed.

But I have only just started!

I cannot help that. The time allotted for Head 11 was 30 minutes. It has elapsed, and under Standing Order 69 (4), it says: "There shall be allotted a maximum of five days for discussion of the Estimates and the Bill in the Committee of Supply. The Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker shall allot the time to be given for each head of expenditure in the schedules to the Bill and for the clauses of the Bill. If in the case of any head or clause the end of the allotted time is reached before the head or clause is disposed of, the Chairman shall put forthwith any questions necessary to dispose of that head or clause."

Mr Chairman, Sir, will you permit me to move a suspension of the Standing Order to enable the hon. Member to speak?

No, I do not think it is a proper thing to do in these matters. I did try to indicate to hon. Members that they should keep their eye on the clock and have some consideration for other Members who may want to speak on the same item, but I cannot control any hon. Members who take up all the allotted time. I am bound by Standing Orders, and until they are amended, I have to apply them strictly. The sum of $184,120 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12 -

Mr Chairman, I move, To reduce by $2,400 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (32), Entertainment Allowance, on page 49 of the Estimates. Sir, in my opinion, The Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield) rose -

Point of order?

Point of order, Sir. Mr Chairman, Sir, I feel it right that I should take this point of order now. My reference to the point of order arises out of the provisions of Standing Order 33 (1) (b) which was referred to earlier this morning and which, of course, reproduces substantially the provisions of Section 60 (3) of the Order in Council. I think I should preface the point which I am making, Sir, by enquiring whether the consent or recommendation of the Governor has been obtained in respect of this motion. I say "enquire", Sir, because it relates to an entertainment allowance which is paid to the Chief Secretary. It is not in the nature of an expense account and is part of the allowances paid to him. My point of order, therefore, arises, Sir, out of the provisions of Standing Order 33 (1) (b).

Your point being, Mr Butterfield, that these entertainment allowances come under the meaning of "allowances" in Standing Order 33 (1) (b)?

It is within the description of "allowances" in that Standing Order, Sir.

This, I think, hon. Members, is an instance where perhaps an Estimates Committee would have been very useful because in the Estimates itself it is not quite clear whether the entertainment allowance is paid to the officer as part of his allowances or emoluments. Under Standing Order 33 (1), the Assembly cannot proceed with a motion of this nature - and in my opinion it is a motion of this nature - except with the recommendation or consent of the Governor signified thereto. Therefore, unless the Member for Tiong Bahru has the recommendation or consent of the Governor signified, the motion cannot be proceeded with. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Are you rising on a point of order, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?

Mr Chairman, Sir, on a point of order, is it submitted that wherever and whenever in these Estimates any subject pertaining to an existing emolument or allowance of a public officer is concerned, all debate is barred?

Except with the recommendation -

Except with the recommendation of the Governor. If that were so, Mr Chairman, Sir, there would be no purpose in having this debate?

I did indicate to hon. Members that Standing Order 33 (1) (b) is a repetition of Section 60 (3) of the Order in Council, and I am just taking a common sense interpretation of that Standing Order which I think I had better read again: "Except with the recommendation or consent of the Governor signified thereto, the Assembly shall not proceed... upon any bill or motion, which, in the opinion of the Speaker or the Attorney-General, would affect any alteration in the salary, allowances or conditions of service... of any public officer..." My duty is merely to interpret it, and if I am shown that my interpretation is wrong, I shall, of course, allow a debate, but at the moment it seems to me that this motion, in fact, offends that Standing Order and the Order in Council. The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas) rose -

Is it a point of order, Mr Thomas?

Point of order, Sir. As I read this, Mr Chairman, I take it to mean a particular officer whom you can pin-point and say "this particular man"; and not a class of officers such as executive engineers or order clerks.

Oh, yes. That is quite clear. Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown) rose -

Mr Lee Choon Eng.

On a point of order, Sir. We have just allowed Head 10 this morning to be debated, and I am very surprised that you now give another ruling on the question of allowances. On Head 10, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) raised the question of salary for the Auditors and this also comes within the provisions of Standing Order 33 (1) (b).

I am afraid the hon. Member has not quite understood the position. When we dealt with Head 10, that was in respect of an amendment to a post that was proposed to be created. In fact, there was an increase of one post; in other words, there was no individual appointed to that post. Therefore, the point really was that the approval of the Assembly should be obtained for the post to be created. In this particular case, we have a public officer within the meaning of Standing Order 33 (1) (b) whose salary, allowances or conditions of service are being attacked. There is a distinction and that distinction must be borne in mind where there is, in fact, a public officer who is drawing a certain salary, with certain perquisites attached to his office. I am therefore quite powerless because the Standing Order says you cannot proceed with the motion, and so does the Order in Council. Mr Nair rose -

Yes, Mr Nair?

Point of order, Sir. If His Excellency the Governor's approval is required, it should have been indicated somewhere in the motion. In the absence of that, cannot the hon. Member seek the approval of the Governor? I suggest, Sir, that the sitting be suspended and the hon. Member be given an opportunity to consult the Governor and seek his approval.

Excellent! Excellent!

Save the colonial constitution!

This is the Rendel Constitution.

Order, please. On that point also, of course, Mr Nair, Standing Order 33 (2) says: "Compliance with paragraph (1) of this Order - " that is, the recommendation or consent of the Governor must be signified thereto - "shall be signified to the Assembly by a Minister and shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings." But, of course, that does not prevent any hon. Member from approaching the Governor and the Governor then contacting a Minister and the Minister signifying to the Assembly his recommendation or consent. On the point raised, however, I must always assume that hon. Members know their Standing Orders. I do not know whether the Member for Tiong Bahru did consider Standing Order 33 (1) (b) when he filed his amendment, and it is only when a point of order was raised that I intervened; but if the hon. Member had, in fact, considered that Standing Order, then perhaps he will let us know. The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to suggest for your consideration that hon. Members are all very new to the procedure and although they are assumed to know the regulations, I for one must confess that I was not conscious of this at the time it was discussed and our attention was not specifically drawn to it - I am quite sure inadvertently - so, in the circumstances, Sir, may I move - [Interruption.] Would you please keep quiet?

Order, please, order. Yes, Mr Chief Minister?

In the circumstances, Sir, I do move that we adjourn till 2.30 p.m, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity to contact the Governor so that we could have a proper debate and continue as scheduled.

I think we cannot adjourn until after 12 noon, so I think the best way is to postpone consideration of this item until after 12 o'clock and then the sitting can be suspended until 2.30 p.m. Mr John Ede.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move. To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (57), Hotel Allowance, on page 50 of the Estimates. Sir, my point in moving the amendment is to draw attention to the fact that this item - "Hotel Allowance" - remains unaltered from 1955 at $300,000. It is well known that large sums of money have been spent during the course of this year on accommodation for Government officers, and a further sum - in my opinion, rather too large a sum - has been allocated for further building in 1956. Now the whole point of building flats and houses for Government officers is to reduce year by year, so I understand it, and finally abolish this unproductive allocation of hotel allowances. I would add further that this is not the one and only item of its kind in the Estimates, but it repeats itself under various heads, in some instances the 1956 allocation showing an increase over that for 1955. Sir, I submit that this item - hotel allowance - should be going down and it is not going down, and we should like to know whether there are good and adequate reasons. Question proposed.

The answer to the question posed by the Member for Tanglin, Mr Chairman, is simple. The expenditure on these admittedly unproductive hotel allowances, which are paid in general to overseas officers for living the sort of life they do not like to live in hotels when they could be living in houses with their families, has decreased from 1953, when it was $593,000, to 1954, when it was $331,000, and the estimated expenditure this year is $300,000, which is the amount entered in the Estimates for 1956. With the increased number of houses, there will be less occasion to pay these hotel allowances.

Will the Chief Secretary inform us how many civil servants between them spend this estimated $300,000? I am sorry that the Chief Secretary did not see the point on which I seek information. I wanted to know, Mr Chairman, Sir, how many people there will be altogether to spend this $300,000?

The number in the last record that I have shows that 232 officers with their families did it in 1954.

Further information arising out of that - how many of the 232 are expatriates and how many are local?

I should think the great majority are expatriates. There may have been some local officers returning from training and scholarship courses and they have had to be accommodated in hotels. I would like to make this point in fairness - that these hotel allowances are not paid for very long periods. They are, of course, only paid until accommodation becomes vacant and as more houses are available, the period that these officers spend in hotels decreases.

Can my hon. Friend indicate whether there is likely to be a decrease in the amount spent in 1956? He has indicated that it is going down, but, nevertheless, the amount allocated for 1956 remains the same in the Estimates as for 1955. May I have an assurance that there is likely to be a decrease which one would assume with the increase in the number of houses being built for Government officers?

It was felt prudent to put the estimated amount required at $300,000. When that estimate was prepared, of course, the amount spent this year was not known. We now think it will be about $300,000. It was felt reasonable to put that amount in the 1956 Estimates. We do, of course, hope that less than that amount will be spent. I think the only new quarters for officers that are going to come into service next year is another block at Leonie Hill flats, and provided that comes into service at a reasonably early time, this should assist in alleviating this admittedly unsatisfactory hotel allowance system which nobody likes.

Sir, with the assurance given by my hon. Friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Have I the assent of the Assembly that this amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My attention has been drawn to another Standing Order on which I could act, since it is now past half-past eleven. It is Standing Order 7 (5): "Any sitting may be suspended at any time by the Speaker for a period not exceeding three hours", so that I could suspend the sitting now until 2.30 p.m, to enable hon. Members to consider the point raised just before the last amendment was moved. Has the Attorney-General traced any other item which perhaps would be met with the same objection? [Interruption.] Hon. Members must realise that this is a matter beyond their control, beyond my control, and beyond everybody else's control unless and until the constitution is changed. The constitution has its limitations, and however unpalatable to hon. Members that constitution might be, I am here not to act ultra vires, and I do not think it will be fair for hon. Members to act ultra vires. That is the position we are faced with and we are now trying to get round something which perhaps could easily be got round in the proper way. Mr Butterfield rose -

Yes, Mr Butterfield?

I want to be as helpful as I can, Mr Chairman. I would like to say, first of all, that, arising particularly out of the last remarks which were made, I took the point of order because it seemed to me right that it should be taken, having regard to the terms of the Order in Council and the Standing Order.

I have indicated that. Could the Attorney-General indicate other items?

There are a number of other items which appear to me, Sir, with respect, to come within the provisions of that Standing Order and, indeed, also of Standing Order 31. Would you, Sir, like me to indicate what those are?

Please.

The next one, Sir, is under Head 19. It is a motion, I think, in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) - Head 19, sub-head 1 (5) and sub-head 1 (6), Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents. With respect, Sir, it would appear, on the face of it, that that motion comes within the provisions of Section 60 (4) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council.

Is that the same as Standing Order 33(1) (c)?

I think that is so, Sir.

Because I think hon. Members have got their Standing Orders.

May I pass on, Sir, to the other matters?

Yes.

Perhaps I could refer to them all together because substantially the same point arises from each. Head 32, sub-head 1 (3); Head 48, sub-head 1 (3); Head 60, sub-head 1 (3) - I think that is a motion in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar - and the objection, as I understand it, would be in respect of only one of those posts. I will come to what the matter is in a moment. Head 61, sub-head 1 (33) and Head 63, sub-head 1 (3). Now, with respect to those, Sir, it would appear, by reference to Command Papers Nos. 1 and 5 of 1955, that the provisions of Standing Order 31 (3) would apply. Additionally, Sir, it would appear that, having regard to the fact that those matters have been before the Assembly on the occasion when the Command Papers in question were dealt with, Standing Order 33 (1) would apply. I hope, Sir, that I have said enough to give both you, Sir, and the Assembly the assistance which is now required.

There are, in fact, two points, I think, which have been raised. One is an objection under Standing Order 31 (3) which, of course, is an objection which when taken at the proper time could be met easily. The other, which has a real obstacle, is under Standing Order 33 (1), and the items referred to, for the benefit of hon. Members who have not heard Mr Butterfield enunciating them, are: Under Head 19: Police - there are two amendments by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Under Head 32 - the first amendment under that head is in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Under Head 48 - the amendment is in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Under Head 60 - the second amendment is in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Under Head 61 - the last amendment is in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Under Head 63 - the amendment is in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I propose that we suspend until 2.30 p.m. in order to get that point cleared.

On a point of clarification, Sir. Page 81, in the Order of the Day, under the Head: Treasury. May I have an indication from the Attorney-General if the Governor's consent is necessary in respect of my motion to reduce by $5,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of Entertainment Expenses for the Financial Secretary?

That has not been indicated.

Sir, is that item similar to Head 12 on page 80 of the Order Paper, the motion in the name of Mr William Tan?

The one on which the point of order was raised?

Yes.

To my mind, there is a distinction, Mr Lim Choon Mong. Here is an entertainment allowance which is part of the emoluments of an officer. The other one referred to by the Member for Queenstown is entertainment expenses, which is, in fact, a fund on which an officer can draw to meet actual expenses. It does not form part of his emoluments. Mr Butterfield rose -

Another point of order?

Not a point of order. Sir.

Clarification, yes.

Clarification of what I have already said. I have inadvertently overlooked two other matters in respect of which notice has been given, two matters which would attract the same points of order. It is Head 61 - both motions stand in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The first motion - Public Works - sub-head 1 (2) on page 244. The next one is sub-head 1 (18). Mr Chairman, I very much regret having to address you again on this subject. I am now instructed that the two matters to which I have referred a moment ago should not be referred to. They are not within any of the Standing Orders on which points of order might have arisen. These two motions stand in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew).

That is Head 61. The first motion stands in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The other motion also stands in his name. I now propose to suspend the sitting until 2.30 p.m. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.45 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head 12 -

I will call the amendment by Mr William Tan first, which is, To reduce by $2,400 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (32), Entertainment Allowance, on page 49 of the Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I was informed by the Hon. the Chief Secretary that permission has not been granted by His Excellency the Governor.

Shame! The Governor's consent or recommendation not having been signified, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 8, Passages and Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses, on page 53 of the Estimates. Mr Chairman, Sir, I was afraid that the Hon. the Attorney-General (Mr Butterfield) might consider this another aspect of the pay of expatriate officers which is beyond the reach of this Assembly. But I think he will agree with me that, in the form in which it has been lumped together - Passages and Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses - we can take objection to it on perfectly constitutional grounds.

Sir, I have no objection.

Indeed, Mr Chairman, Sir, I cannot understand what this enormous sum really stands for. One can guess that "Passages" means passages for expatriate officers flying to and fro between Singapore and their homeland, but "Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses" is somewhat of a mystery to the Opposition. In the 1955 Estimates on page 137 under Head 28 - Miscellaneous Services there was a sum of $1,135,000 approved for four sub-items: (1) Accidents involving Government Vehicles $5,000 (I do not know if that includes third party damages). (2) Commissions and Conferences $40,000 (3) Passages $750,000 (Presumably for expatriates). (4) Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses $340,000 What is astonishing is that we are being asked to vote this enormous sum, about $500,000 more than what was voted last year, as a complete blank cheque. No one has any control over how this sum is to be spent. One would imagine that if anybody wanted to go to conferences in Lagos, or Barbados, or Canberra, or Quebec, he could, if he were a good friend of the Government and the Hon. the Chief Secretary, get a sum allocated out of this enormous $1,600,000. We do not know what it is about. We have no control over it and we are not going to vote it. Question proposed.

Sir, I support the amendment. A blank sum without any breakdown of the cost! How can one know what it is for and how are we going to vote for it? I would like to know, Sir, for how many persons this sum is provided? How many wives are included in that sum?

And children!

And how many children? Out of this number, how many are Europeans and how many are non-Europeans? There is no breakdown to guide us there. This sum of $1,600,000 on "Passages and Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses", Sir, I think is mostly for the expatriates. It is high time that those who can go be replaced with local men. We ought to give them abolition terms.

I think it was the learned Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) who enquired how many officers were involved in this riot of festive travel.

No, the Member for Telok Ayer.

I am sorry.

I was interested in the hotels!

Possibly I can reply to the Member for Telok Ayer. The answer is approximately 200 a year. I cannot give him an exact figure at present but that is the approximate figure. I think it is not very far wrong. During the current year, $1,120,000 has been spent on passages for expatriate officers and their families under the conditions of service on which they came to this country. $130,000 has been spent on a new scheme which was introduced in 1954 - the Annual Leave Scheme - whereby certain senior officers, heads and deputy heads of departments in the main were allowed to go home annually, taking air passages instead of the normal sea passages. That was a scheme introduced in Government's interest in order to keep key men in their posts without having these very long leaves - six months and more - during which there was a lack of continuity. Under the Annual Leave Scheme, an officer does, in fact, take less time but he takes it oftener and he flies. So he forfeits not only some of the normal leave that he would earn under the ordinary leave regulations which, for an officer over 35, is, I think, five days per month for each year served plus a voyage leave either by sea or by air, but under the Annual Leave Scheme, he gets air passage and, I think, six weeks' leave a year. So he loses out on the total amount of leave that he gets, but some officers prefer to take it that way and it is certainly very much in the interests of Government if officers do take it that way, although it may become more expensive in that air passages are more expensive if they are taken oftener. Locally domiciled Division I officers with ten years' service are eligible to take leave abroad with free passages for themselves and their wives once during their service. Very few have availed themselves of this privilege during 1955 -

Good for them!

- but the number will increase as more locally domiciled officers are appointed to Division I. $25,000 has been spent on officers travelling overseas to attend conferences or courses. The House may wish to know that the terms on which overseas officers are eligible for leave are, generally speaking, that young officers are eligible after between three and four years' resident service here. Officers of over ten years' service or over the age of 35 years are eligible for leave between two and three years of resident service and normally after two and a half years. Officers with over 20 years' service or over 50 years of age are eligible for leave after between two and two and a half years. The wives are, of course, eligible to take leave with officers and children under ten years in the case of Division I officers and under 16 years in the case of Division II officers.

Mr Chairman, Sir, could the Hon. the Chief Secretary give us an indication of what proportion of basic pay would be the allowances, the expatriation pay to expatriate officers, and leave passages given to them? An expatriate officer is listed in the Establishment list as, receiving a certain scale of pay. Then we get these odd items in odd places of the Estimates: he gets expatriation allowance, he gets leave, he gets passages to and fro. All these things must be a considerable proportion of their basic pay, which is the same as that of the local officer. Could the Hon. the Financial Secretary or the Hon. the Chief Secretary give us an estimate of what is the total amount paid to expatriate officers as basic pay compared to the total amount expended on them as leave passages, expatriation pay and all other special allowances -

Order, please. Does this arise on the amendment, Mr Lee Kuan Yew? Your amendment is aimed at "Passages and Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses". Would you enlarge on them?

May I put it in the form to which you would take no objection, Mr Chairman, Sir? Would the Hon. the Chief Secretary give us an indication of what amount in proportion to basic pay goes in all these leave passages and other privileges for expatriate officers?

I am afraid I do not quite follow the question posed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar but I would say this: that we do not keep separate accounts of the pay, allowances and passages paid to expatriate officers and local officers. We treat them as a common service.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 19, Diagnostic Survey Team, on page 54 of the Estimates. There is a sum in the Estimates of $65,820 against this item. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe, Sir, the Master Plan, which was to be the achievement of this Team, was completed nearly a year ago and is due to be published some time in January next year. I seek information whether this Team is to be kept on. It seems to me that their work is completed and I would like to know why they should be kept if it is necessary to do so? Question proposed.

What is known, Sir, as a Diagnostic Survey Team was brought out to Singapore by the Singapore Government, I think, early in 1952 to take charge of the task of drawing up the Master Plan. The conditions under which they were brought to Singapore were that Government would be responsible for their pay, passages and leave salaries, and they worked on that basis until the end of 1954. By that time, the Master Plan was largely completed. There were certain other details which had to be completed at a later date but the work had largely been done. By that time, however, the Singapore Improvement Trust had come to realise that they would require the services of the Diagnostic Survey Team for an indefinite period. It was therefore decided that their salaries and passages would then become the responsibility of the Singapore Improvement Trust with effect from the 1st of January, 1955. There was, however, a continuing liability on Government to pay the leave pay and passages of the officers on the Team carried prior to the end of 1954, and the bulk of this provision in the Estimates now is for an outstanding liability up to the end of 1954. There are one or two other matters outstanding - the question of the cost of publication of the Master Plan and the cost of holding inquiries into matters arising out of the Master Plan. How these expenses will be apportioned, I cannot yet say. The latest suggestion is that Government will be responsible for the cost of publishing the Master Plan. That has been included in the Estimates. It may however be necessary, as a result of further proposals, for the Singapore Improvement Trust to bear the cost of the Master Plan, and for Government to bear the cost of publication and the cost of holding inquiries into the Master Plan. The provision in the Estimates this year is for the arrears of leave pay and passages of the officers on the Team up to the end of 1954 and for the cost of publishing the Plan this year.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am satisfied with the information and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Have I the assent of the Assembly that the amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $5,785,830 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 13 - The sum of $3,478,390 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14 - The sum of $388,160 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $282,300 for Head 15 stand part or the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, I suggested to the Government sometime in 1954 that the Chinese Secretariat should be part of the Chief Secretary's Office. I am wondering whether the Hon. the Chief Secretary is in a position to say whether any action has been taken in regard to this matter?

The Chinese Secretariat is part of the Chief Secretary's Ministry.

Sir, at that time I suggested that this Department should no longer be called the Chinese Secretariat because I pointed out that in April 1955 we would have a government elected by the people and if we were to say that this Department was the Chinese Secretariat, then there would automatically be some question as to whether we should not require an Indian Secretariat and a Malay Secretariat. I rather think that the designation of the Department should at least be removed and the Department called a branch of the Chief Secretary's Office and not, as at present, designated as the Chinese Secretariat.

The point raised by my hon. Friend has a considerable amount of sympathy from the Government. We can see the logic of that argument. It is rather illogical to have a Chinese Secretariat in a Colony that consists very largely of Chinese. My hon. Friend can rest assured that this point is very much in the mind of Government.

Mr Chairman, Sir, since the Member for Seletar sits on my side of the House, it may be assumed that we support him in this attempt to bamboozle the public. We believe it is better to call a spade a spade. If it is, in fact, a Secretariat that looks especially into Chinese affairs for reasons of good government or bad government, then let us continue to call it a Chinese Secretariat and we will, know where we all stand.

Sir, if this is a veto, then I would say that this is the beginning of racialism in Singapore.

That, Mr Chairman, Sir, is the most astonishing suggestion we have ever heard from the lips of the Member for Seletar! If the Chinese Secretariat was introduced at all, it was introduced by a colonial government many years ago. The fact that he now proposes to call it by another name does not make it cease to be what it always has been.

Sir, although it is a fact that a good amount of the work done in this Department is translation of Chinese into English, that could conveniently be taken over by a department which would be attached to another Ministry, and not as a Chinese department specifically -

Order. The time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $282,300 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $12,713,000 for Head 16 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, is it possible at all to speak on this subject?

You have three minutes to speak, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Chairman, Sir, this vote that we are asked to pass is one which, as the Hon. the Attorney-General has been keen to remind the House, lies within the reserved powers of the Governor. If we cannot challenge any particular vote, then what is the point of having any discussion on it?

You can still comment on it.

Without any right of saying no to it?

Order, please. The Standing Order we have been referring to this morning does not place out of order any motion in connection with any of these matters. The motion only becomes out of order if the Governor's recommendation or consent is not signified. That is all. The motion itself is in order up to that point, but there is nothing to prevent hon. Members from criticising any of the items in the Defence Estimates.

I am much obliged, Mr Chairman, Sir. Since we are allowed to say for a few minutes what we think of the Defence services -

Only two minutes left, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Two minutes, Mr Chairman, Sir. May we place on record our view that any realistic appraisal of the defence position in Malaya has got to be viewed in the context of an international situation? It is absurd to think in terms of a defence service for Malaya itself. But in so far as it is possible, we exhort the Hon. the Chief Minister to influence the Governor in these matters, either by threats of resignation or otherwise, to cut down as much as he possibly can any of these items which cannot possibly contribute to the welfare of the people of Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $12,713,000 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17 - The sum of $173,080 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18 - The sum of $531,290 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I see the Hon. the Chief Secretary is very anxious to inform the House that he has approached the Governor for his recommendation or consent to be signified to this House, and he has great pleasure in informing the House that the Governor's recommendation or consent, which is necessary before this item can be discussed in this Assembly, has been refused. Mr Chairman, Sir, I need not comment on this.

Order, please. Hon. Members must not forget that they can put on record that they are moving these motions and that they are ruled out because there is no recommendation or consent of the Governor. In other words, that could be recorded in our Official Report.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am indeed grateful to you for the very excellent suggestion that we should place on record our protest -

Order, please. I never suggested to hon. Members that we should put on record their protest. I suggested that they could move motions and then they would be recorded as motions having been moved but that he could not proceed with them because we have not got the Governor's recommendation or consent. That is the position.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I was going to do exactly what you suggested, but I tried to sum up what I hope would be the unanimous feeling of every elected Member in this Assembly, including those on the Government Benches. So, for the sake of posterity if they do look up the recorded proceedings of this Assembly, I move, To reduce by $12,920 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (5), Superintendents, on page 71 of the Estimates.

Have I got the Governor's recommendation or consent?

I have to inform you, Sir, that His Excellency the Governor, after giving the most careful consideration to this matter, regrets that he is unable to give his consent. The Governor's consent or recommendation not having been signified, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $14,060 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (6), Deputy Superintendents, on page 71 of the Estimates.

Have I got the Governor's recommendation or consent?

I have to inform you, Sir, that after giving the most careful consideration to this matter, His Excellency the Governor is unable to give his consent. The Governor's consent or recommendation not having been signified, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $25,233,110 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20 - The sum of $1,506,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $3,043,960 for Head 21 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, in the Prisons Service, and incidentally in the Police Service too, there is a considerable number of expatriate officers in both the first and the second Divisions of the Service, and amongst them, they share, according to my computations of the various items, half a million dollars in expatriation pay per annum. Now, Mr Chairman, Sir, we have always been reminded in the past of the shortcomings of the local population. One can only assume that the view of the Government is that the local people cannot even look after their own people when they are in gaol, that they cannot gaol their own people properly. It is my fervent hope that the Hon. the Chief Minister and his colleagues do not share that lack of confidence in themselves and their fellow-Malayans.

Mr Chairman, Sir, even a hen needs a few days to lay an egg. A woman needs a few months to give birth to a child. You do not give birth to a new state in seven months. Hon. Members opposite are fully conscious surely of the existence of a Malayanisation Commission in which most Parties are represented and which is doing, I hope, a good job. I think, Sir, that we are all looking forward very much to a report from this Commission and, arising from that report, I trust there will be a complete re-orientation of the position to which hon. Members are taking repeated objection. I have sympathy naturally with the position as indicated by hon. Members on the opposite side, but they must appreciate, Sir, that one cannot build Rome in a day.

Far be it from me to be facetious, Mr Chairman, Sir, but the Hon. the Chief Minister has indicated that a hen takes a certain number of days to lay an egg and one takes a number of months to do something else. But before those processes produce any result, I am told by medical authorities that there must be an act of conception. I am very anxious to know whether it has, in fact, taken place.

May I ask the Member for Tanjong Pagar if he thinks he is going to impregnate us?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a law-abiding citizen and I should hate to be cited as a co-respondent in any court.

Order, the time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $3,043,960 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $645,730 for Head 22 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, on some previous occasion I had opportunity to compliment the officers of the Public Relations Department on the most diligent manner in which they perform their duties towards the Government, and in particular towards the Hon. the Chief Minister. I would exhort them to emulate, if they cannot surpass, the not inept method of dissemination of political propaganda and philosophy of which we have had some evidence in the past few days from the activities of representatives of the Malayan Communist Party. Mr Chairman, Sir, I would recommend very strongly that our Public Relations officers take a leaf from the manuals of those who are engaged in disseminating a counter philosophy. Perhaps they would do much better than they have done up to now.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to refer briefly to the subject of the tourist industry. It is gratifying, Sir, that the Government has set up a working party to consider the organisation of a centralised Tourist Bureau of some kind, but under this Head the sum of $10,000 only has been set aside for tourist promotion in 1956 which is a wholly inadequate amount if the idea of a centralised Tourist Bureau is to be turned into practical achievement in the immediate future. It seems to me that, without adding to the total vote under this Head, it should be possible to cut out or reduce other items which are of minor importance and increase the amount available for tourist industry promotion. I consider further that the City Council, which stands to benefit from an increase in tourist traffic, should also be called upon to make a contribution. If we are to sell Singapore successfully to the outside world, the Government, and the City Council for that matter, should not be niggardly in its contribution to this tourist promotion. Either we should go all out in a comprehensive tourist promotion policy and spend money to bring back money, or we should leave the matter to individual agencies and other concerns.

Mr Chairman, Sir, just on a point of etiquette of the House. Is it not proper that a Member who speaks on a subject should declare his interest, if he has any, on a particular topic?

In that respect, I think hon. Members will probably be aware that that specific question does not arise until the point of voting is reached. If a Member, in fact, has an interest, it is left entirely to the Member himself to decide in his own conscience whether he should refer to it or not.

Sir, I would just like to clarify that I was talking entirely in the interests of Singapore. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar likes to make inferences of that sort, I have nothing to say.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I make no inferences but the facts sometimes need to be explained in order that the right inferences may be drawn from them.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $645,730 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 23 - The sum of $26,120 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24 - The sum of $939,350 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25 - The sum of $389,950 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26 - The sum of $359,810 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4, Commissions, Conferences and Visits of Advisers, on page 108 of the Estimates. Sir, I cannot understand how these "Commissions, Conferences and Visits of Advisers" come in under the Head: Treasury in the Estimates. Before I comment, I would first request the Hon. the Financial Secretary to let us know what is meant by "Commissions, Conferences and Visits of Advisers". Question proposed.

The vote is not a new one, Sir,It has appeared in the Estimates for the last four years. It appears under the Head: Treasury because I control the vote. It has in the immediate past covered the cost of the Malayanisation Commission, the visit of Mr Baalman in connection with the registration of land titles, of Mr Murray in connection with other land matters; and in 1956 it will cover the cost of the Malayanisation Commission, the cost of bringing over experts for the Minimum Wage Commission and other matters of a similar nature.

Sir, I am quite satisfied with the explanation given and would like to withdraw this amendment.

Does the Member have the assent of the House to withdraw the amendment? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr R. Jumabhoy and Mr Lee Choon Eng - To reduce by $5,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 7, Entertainment Expenses, on page 108 of the Estimates.

You have another amendment, Mr R. Jumabhoy, and connected to that is an amendment by Mr Lee Choon Eng.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name, To reduce by $5,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 7, Entertainment Expenses, on page 108 of the Estimates. Sir, in previous Legislatures, if I remember correctly, commerce and industry was under that Head and at that time, such Entertainment Expenses were necessary, but commerce and industry is a separate department now. I do not see how the Hon. the Financial Secretary requires $5,000 when his job is to count figures and adjust finances. On that basis, I would like to move the amendment that it should not be allowed. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to support the motion moved by the Member for Telok Ayer. When this Assembly met last Monday, we were told by the Hon. the Financial Secretary that entertainment allowances to elected Ministers are absolutely necessary in order that they could maintain their public relations with those who visit this country and public or business enterprises. I am really amazed to find that as an official Member of the Government, the Hon. the Financial Secretary himself voted the sum of $5,000 for his own Ministry because he prepared that Budget himself. This vote of $5,000 is public money and is rather a contrast to the speeches he made last Monday. He was then in favour of elected Ministers having entertainment allowances. But why should an official Member of the Government be allowed to vote the same sum of money for public entertainment? It is rather a contrast. At the same time, let us compare his figure of $5,000 with that of an elected Minister of only $2,000. Why is it that an elected Minister is only allowed $2,000 and an official Member $5,000? This is rather absurd. We are here to guard public funds and if we do not guard it properly, I am afraid we will be accused of showing a lack of responsibility. I am strongly opposed to this $5,000.

I bend under this virulent attack, Sir! As I have explained earlier today, there has always been a central Secretariat vote for entertainment. It has been $10,000; it has been supplemented as occasion required. When the present Government came into power, it was decided, as a temporary measure, that Ministers who had to entertain would continue to draw upon this vote. This arrangement has not worked very satisfactorily. Having considered the matter purely from the point of view of a Treasury official, I thought that the best means of dealing with this problem in the future would be to give Ministers votes in their own Departments which they could control themselves and, in the end, be answerable to the Audit and to the Assembly for the expenditure arising from them. At the same time, however, I realised that it would be necessary to maintain the remnants of the central vote under the Treasury control so that the demands of other departments for entertainment could be met. For example, as has happened in the past, the cost of entertaining visiting naval personnel, school children on certain occasions, and provision for other matters of a similar nature. These demands on the public purse do arise throughout the year and, for that reason, I maintain under my control in the Treasury this small vote of $5,000. I would assure my friend the Member for Telok Ayer and also the Member for Queenstown that it is not a personal vote. It is purely a central Secretariat vote which is under my control.

Sir, I fully appreciate that the money is there and will only be used when necessary, but the provision is there and if a provision is made, any Minister could just make use of that money because it has been allotted and voted for. If the Hon. the Financial Secretary is going to reserve this vote for other Ministries, I am very happy about it and I hope that he will make it clear in future cases that it is a reserved vote or a reserved fund for other Ministries which may find their votes inadequate.

I hope that my personal integrity is not being impugned by the Member for Queenstown. I have tried to make it clear that this vote is under my control for official purposes and will be used as the demands of the Government require. I cannot make the position clearer and I hope the Member now understands. I will not use this vote for entertaining my friends.

Nor your enemies, I hope!

Order, please.

Well, of course, if I could provide hemlock from the vote, perhaps I would!

Mr Chairman, Sir, on the assurance of the Hon. the Financial Secretary, I would like to withdraw this amendment.

Have I the assent of the Assembly that this amendment in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lee Choon Eng, are you moving your amendment?

Well, I think I will still move the amendment. I move, To reduce by $5,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 7, Entertainment Expenses, on page 108 of the Estimates.

I will put the question, That the sum to be allotted for Head 27 be reduced by $5,000 in respect of sub-head 7 -

Sir, when you are talking, some gentleman on the Government side keeps on interrupting and that rather disturbs us.

Is it a point of order?

The Hon. the Minister for Health (Mr Braga) -

Is it a point of order?

The point is that it is a disturbance.

Shall I start all over again?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $23,612,180 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 28 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $8,840 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (3), Accountants, Scale A, on page 109 of the Estimates. Mr Chairman, Sir, in the Remarks column of the Estimates in respect of this item, we find this note: "Scale A increase two (one approved in 1955) and Scale B decrease one." Mr Chairman, Sir, if we turn to page 200 of the 1955 Estimates, sub-head 1, item (3), we find "Accountants, Scale A, four" and in the Remarks column "Scale B - decrease one." Sir, I do not quite understand how this is. If there were five Scale A Accountants last year, how could it be said that an increase to 6 Scale A Accountants is an increase of two? I do not see any extra one being approved in the 1955 Estimates. What I do see, Mr Chairman, Sir, in the Singapore Establishment List at page 74, is four Accountants approved in 1954 - "Timescale appointments, Accountants, Scale A (Qualified)" - four expatriates listed. But it has in the head note "5 appointments". As I see the 1955 Estimates, the approval was for four Scale A Accountants. The appointments are five. But the actual number of names listed under that particular Scale A appointment is four. Then one gets "Timescale appointments, Accountants, Scale B" one appointment, but two names under it. Now, that is an irregularity which may be purely typographical, or could be explained away one way or another. But what cannot be explained away. Mr Chairman, Sir, is this: there are four Accountants now on Scale A - all are expatriates. There are two Accountants now on Scale B - both expatriates. The difference between Scale A and Scale B is that Scale A is for qualified men and Scale B is for underqualified men. There are no local men in Scale B who could possibly be promoted to Scale A. If this vote is to increase the number of Scale A appointments from four to six, then the only reasonable inference one can draw from it is that the two underqualified Scale B men would be boosted up into Scale A appointments which were meant for qualified men. I would like to hear the Hon. the Financial Secretary on that point before I make any further remarks. Question proposed.

May I borrow your 1955 Establishment List?

I should be delighted to let you have it.

Sir, in the 1955 Estimates on page 200, there were, in fact, four Accountants, Scale A, and one Accountant, Scale B. Hitherto, there had been 2 Accountants, Scale B, but one post was struck off in framing the 1955 Estimates. Does that make the point clear? Perhaps I should explain what is the difference between Scale A and Scale B. Scale A is for fully qualified Accountants. Until very recently, it covered the three main qualifications - the Scottish Chartered Accountant, the English Chartered Accountant and the Society of Incorporated Accountants. Very recently, the qualification has been widened and extended to bring in the Certified Accountant, the man who could obtain qualifications in Singapore, I think, by correspondence. So Scale A is now for qualified Accountants embracing these four main categories. Scale B is for the underqualified Accountant. Until very recently we did have two officers who were underqualified Accountants but they have now been transferred from the Department to Administrative appointments. We have now, therefore, no underqualified Accountants in the Department but we do require qualified Accountants and, from now on, the only people taken into the Accountant-General's Department in Division I will be fully qualified Accountants -

Expatriate or local?

Order, please.

I shall deal with that point later. I should say, at this stage, that when we approve appointments in the Treasury for inclusion in the Estimates, we do not pay any attention to whether the appointments are to be filled by expatriate officers or local officers. All we want are properly qualified officers. What has happened to the Estimates this year is that there is no longer any underqualified Accountant in the Department. We have upgraded one post from underqualified to qualified. As regards the point raised by my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar, we have advertised at considerable length for the past year for locally domiciled officers to join the Accountant-General's Department, but without any success. An advertisement has appeared in the papers during the last three weeks for two vacancies in the Accountant-General's Department with the qualification extended to include Certified Accountants. I hope that I have made the position clear.

Arising out of that explanation, Sir, may I enquire when these two underqualified Accountants were moved over from the Accountant-General's Department to the Administrative appointments?

I cannot tell the exact date. I know the names of the officers. I need not mention them in the Assembly and my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar also knows the names of the officers since they appear in the Establishment List. They are now both serving in the Defence Branch.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary has not explained how it is that although four Scale A Accountants were approved in 1954 for 1955, yet in the 1955 Establishment five appointments are listed, but with only four holders and no vacancy marked. And in Scale B one appointment was approved in 1954 for 1955. It is correctly denoted in the Establishment List as one appointment, but two officers are listed. Who is paying whom and out of what?

A leave reserve appointment was created - I forgot to mention that, Sir - I think in one Command Paper earlier on in 1955, as a result of the split-up of the Malayan Establishment Office. With regard to the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I think the answer is that the salary of the underqualified man, although there was not a post for him, would be paid from the salary allocated for the fully qualified post. That is the normal practice.

Mr Chairman, Sir, could the Hon. the Financial Secretary explain how it is that if there was one leave reserve appointment created since the 1955 Estimates were passed, it has not been put down?

Order, please. The time has elapsed. I hope that hon. Members do realise the value of an Estimates Committee because all these details could be enquired into by it.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $1,144,280 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29 - The sum of $3,986,660 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 30 - The sum of $142,090 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 31 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,900,950 for Head 31 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman. Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary referred to the organisation of the Income Tax collecting branch when he spoke about the impracticability of having a different rate of income tax in Singapore from that obtaining in the Federation. We shall all be indebted to him if he can explain to us how the tax is collected and why it would not be possible to collect on a different rate of tax in Singapore if ever it were found necessary to have a different rate.

Sir, I gave an explanation of the reasons why it would be impracticable to have a separate rate of tax in Singapore from that of the Federation in my Budget Address, and I do not think that I need add to it.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,900,950 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 32 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - To reduce by $600 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (3), Deputy Secretary to Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Grade E, on page 121 of the Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of Standing Orders which stand in the way of this motion being debated, I will not move.

I beg to move, To reduce by $5,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 2 (5), Transport and Travelling, on page 122 of the Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment and the one which follows, I do so because when funds are not plentiful, economy begins at home. We consider it ill advised to allocate generous travelling allowances to Ministers and their staff when so many more important items of expenditure have had to be erased through lack of funds. I must confess myself to be a little puzzled because of the disparity between the travelling allowances in different departments. For example, in the Income Tax Department, which has a staff of over 250 persons, there is a travelling allowance of $1,300; in the Statistics Department, for a staff of over 80, a travelling allowance of $1,500; while in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, with a staff of 43, there is this allowance of $5,000. Question proposed.

I might be of assistance, Mr Chairman, Sir. The expenditure for this year, in respect of this item, $6,830, arises from various sub-heads: air and rail fares; travel to Bangkok in respect of the Rice Advisory Committee; travel to Kuala Lumpur in respect of consultation with the Ministry of Economic Affairs; and all these come out of this vote. There is no question of the Minister's transport being involved there. It is a common pool for transport on official business by officers of the Ministry. It also includes, Sir, the officers' monthly mileage. As you are aware, Sir, their emoluments include pay in respect of monthly mileage on behalf of the department, and it also includes bus fares and various items. Now, Sir, in answer to our request for economy, the sum allocated this year was $6,830. My department responded with this reduction of $1,830 which, to my mind, was a good reduction and to me was acceptable. But I would like to assure the hon. Member that it is not the question of an allocation being made and therefore has to be spent. In the case of the entertainment allowance which was made in respect of this year in connection with this Ministry, far less was spent because the entertainment allowance mostly came out from the Chief Minister's vote, but that is the position as regards the travelling allowances. It is a question of payment of rail, air and monthly mileage costs of the Ministry.

Sir, in view of the explanation of my hon. Friend, I wish to with draw this amendment.

Have I the assent of the Assembly that this amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move an amendment, To reduce by $2,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4, Entertainment Expenses, on page 122 of the Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I need not add to what has already been said on this subject during this Committee of Supply except to say this. We do feel that entertainment expenses for Ministers are not entirely an essential and could form an unfortunate precedent. We hope that the Government will agree to accept this amendment, and the others which I think will follow, as an earnest of their desire to eliminate all extravagance. Question proposed.

Sir, this is no new vote. It was first created in 1951 at the request of the then Secretary for Economic Affairs because he felt that, in his capacity as Secretary for Economic Affairs, he did have to do a certain amount of entertainment of people in commerce and industry and people passing through Singapore in that connection, and the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council had no hesitation in approving him a personal allowance of $200 a month - $2,400 a year. That vote was converted last year into a departmental entertainment vote, and it has been reduced in 1956 by a further $400 a year to bring it into line with the other Ministry votes. If one can say that entertainment is more important in one Ministry than in another, I think it could fairly be said that entertainment in the Commerce and Industry Ministry, as the Member for Tanglin will well appreciate, is more important than perhaps in any other Ministry.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $375,400 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 33 - The sum of $88,180 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 34 - The sum of $115,440 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 35 - The sum of $301,010 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 36 - The sum of $577,030 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37 - The sum of $83,190 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 38 - The sum of $321,140 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39 - The sum of $1,273,140 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 40 - The sum of $243,520 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 41 - The sum of $319,680 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 42 - The sum of $109,050 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43 - The sum of $364,930 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 44 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $3,600 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 2 (3), Transport and Travelling, on page 153 of the Estimates. Sir, in my opinion, I do not consider that, in view of the adequate remunera- tion of the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, extra transport and travelling expenses are necessary. The Government must endeavour to save as much as possible of the taxpayers' money. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the sum of $3,600 not only represents the transport and travelling allowance of the Minister himself, but also includes the transport and travelling allowance of the permanent officers of the Ministry.

In view of the reply given by the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, I will withdraw the amendment.

Have I the assent of the Assembly that this amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the First Schedule, To reduce by $2,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4, Entertainment Expenses, on page 153 of the Estimates. Sir, I wish to inform hon. Members of this House that, in view of the Government's intention to curtail unnecessary expenditure, I feel there is no justification for liberal entertainment expenses for the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the lengthy debate we have had this morning over similar items for various Ministries, I do not think I can contribute much further to the debate on the Question before the House.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in drawing up any Estimates, especially about entertainment expenses, I think that the most sensible way of doing it would be to base it on what we have spent this year, say, from April until November, and if you put it on that basis, we will probably be able to arrive at a figure that will be more acceptable. Now, if I remember correctly, Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Education has informed me in one of his saner moments that up to date he has spent probably $240 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, on a point of order. Is the Member entitled to impute that the Minister for Education has insane moments?

Order, please. I must confess that I did not take it in that sense. I thought the hon. Member was perhaps speaking with his tongue in his cheek.

I said saner but I probably meant sane, but if I had done anything, I would like to apologise for that. I did not mean it. Sir, as a matter of fact, the Minister for Education has said that his entertainment allowance comes to $240 - which he has arrived at by logging. So, when I see this item of entertainment expenses put at $2,000, I think it is on the high side and I think the amendment deserves support.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I profoundly disagree with the proposal by the Member for Serangoon that one should base the entertainment allowance on the figure for April to November. After all, the Member for Serangoon must remember that it takes some time for a Minister to warm his seat and to get his entertainment really going!

Mr Chairman, Sir, an entertainment allowance is necessary as far as His Excellency the Governor or the Minister for Commerce and Industry is concerned, for our trade depends on his Ministry; but I do not see how the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing should require such a big amount for entertainment, and for whom. I cannot understand it at all. Has he to receive foreign visitors or diplomats on this subject so that he has got to entertain?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think I should clarify one or two points. This sum of $2,000 is not the entertainment allowance of the Minister himself. In other words, the Minister does not get a cent out of this. All that the Minister does with the allowance is this. Invariably you get Ministers coming from the Federation of Malaya or from Indonesia - and on one occasion I had Ministers coming from South America - so it falls upon me, as a Minister of the Government of Singapore, to entertain the visitors. When it comes to that, I naturally have to go to my good friend the Hon. the Financial Secretary and tell him that I have spent so much on entertainment and he is good enough to see to the payment. This happens all the time. The last occasion when I had to entertain was during the visit of the Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman. In other words, Sir, it does not necessarily mean that the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing should not entertain simply because he happens to be the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Then again I should also explain that the sum of $2,000 is vested in the Treasury. I am not paid monthly at so much and so much. There is therefore no point at all in putting in this amendment.

Sir, I would like just to ask this. Some of the Members on the Government Benches say that the Hon. the Financial Secretary goes through everything which is submitted to him and it is up to him whether to pass it or not to pass it. Now, my enquiry is this, Sir. If the six elected Ministers and the official Ministers decide among themselves to demand a certain amount of money, will the Hon. the Financial Secretary - Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat rose -

On a point of order?

We Ministers do not demand, Sir.

It is hardly a point of order.

I will say, if the elected and official Ministers ask or request, can the Hon. the Financial Secretary say no to them?

It seems to me, Sir, that I am going over the same course many times. I did try to explain earlier that hitherto we have had a central vote and it was agreed, when the Government came into power, that, as a temporary measure and until we saw how things worked, Ministers who had to entertain would call upon the central vote; but after I had seen that working for some months, I came to the conclusion that it was inappropriate that Ministers should have to seek authority from me for their entertainment. They should be answerable not to the Financial Secretary who, after all, is merely a colleague, but to the Legislature. So I therefore decided - it is my decision and not the Ministers; no Minister asked me, I made the decision off my own bat - that it would be much better if, in the future, each Minister had an entertainment vote of his own which he could spend as he thought desirable and necessary in the interest of Government, and in respect of which expenditure he would be answerable to the Assembly through the Public Accounts Committee. In these circumstances, therefore, I, of my own volition and not at the request of any Minister, entered in the Estimates $10,000 for the Chief Minister and $2,000 for each Minister. As I have said many times, the Ministers will have full responsibility for these votes. They are departmental votes under their Ministry and they will be accountable for the expenditure which they authorise out of it. I fixed the sum of $2,000 in each case because I thought that a reasonable figure, having regard to the possible charges which they might have to meet and having regard also to the inadvisability of coming frequently to the Assembly for small votes to supplement a very minor service.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would not grudge this amount. At the rate the other Ministers are getting, I should think that the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing should receive $3,000 because he has got three departments to manage.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $168,100 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45 - The sum of $2,477,990 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,046,870 for Head 46 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, just a matter of enquiry. Are there any local officers being trained for these jobs or are they all expatriates in the top jobs?

Order, order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have made progress in the Appropriation Bill and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Tomorrow it will be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock p.m.