Hansard, 1956-09-07

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 3rd October, 1956. The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 3rd October,1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $4,308,250 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 43 of 1956. The Schedule contains the applications for supplementary vote which have accumulated since the last sitting of the Assembly. The applications amount to a total of about $4.3 millions, making a total of supplementary votes for this year of a little over $11 millions compared to the total of $27 millions on approximately the same date last year. I mention these figures because strenuous efforts have, in fact, been made to reduce Government expenditure in general and to limit the number of applications for supplementary vote in particular, and because criticisms have been levelled at the rate of Government expenditure both in and outside the Assembly. The fact of the matter is that applications for supplementary vote are inevitable and inescapable. It is impossible to foresee future needs when the estimates are framed. Needs arise which it would be shortsighted not to meet as soon as possible. The same situation arises in every type of organisation. It is not peculiar to Government alone. All we can do is to endeavour to limit supplementary applications to essential services. I do think we are making some progress in that direction. My first task is to report that, contrary to my undertaking at an earlier sitting of the Assembly, I have authorised two applications for funds for posts in anticipation of the approval of the Assembly. The first item is No.

202. In this case, which is fully explained in the Schedule, it was represented to me by the Chief Justice through my hon. Friend the Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield) that the appointment of two additional Reporters was a matter of great urgency. In consequence, I approved the appointments with effect from the 1st of June. The second item is No. 238. In this case, it was represented to me by the Registrar of Malayan Statistics that the work of preparation for the field census tests proposed for the autumn of this year would be seriously held up if a stenographer were not appointed immediately to keep the minutes and act as Assistant Secretary to the Census Advisory Committee. After a very careful examination of the case submitted by the Registrar, I agreed to his request and authorised the creation of the post with effect from 10th July, 1956. I must also report that I have authorised a start to be made with the construction of hutted camp accommodation for the Singapore Battalion. It is desirable to raise the Battalion as soon as possible. The rate of recruitment depends to a certain extent on the availability of accommodation and it was therefore important to authorise the immediate commencement of work so that recruitment should not be held up. I am confident that it was in the interest of efficient administration that these authorities should be given. May I ask hon. Members to give covering approval? The various applications are explained in some detail in the Schedule but perhaps attention should be drawn to one or two items. A certain amount of publicity has been given to item 206, Cost of Telegrams, which, incidentally, has no direct connection with the Merdeka Mission. As means of communication develop, so one tends to use them. The habit has grown steadily over the years to communicate by telegram and radiogram. It saves much time and, I think, leads to greater efficiency and the speedier despatch of Government business. The practice is common not only in Government but also in business and other circles. Following this growing habit, Government expenditure on telegrams has tended to increase. Expenditure over the past five years has been as follows:1952, $12,000; 1953, $19,000; 1954, $23,000; 1955, $38,000; from 1st January to 9th August, 1956, $32,000. The considerable increase in 1956 over 1955 figures has been due, in the main, to increased communication on constitutional matters in the early part of this year. The original vote has now been expended and a supplement of $30,000 is asked for. This estimate was made in early June on the basis of average monthly expenditure in the first part of the year. There has been a slight falling off in expenditure since that date but the application has been kept to the same level in order to cover all possible contingencies in the future. There has been no extravagance in expenditure. Telegrams are despatched to all quarters of the globe and cover the multifarious business of government. Items 209 to 216 inclusive provide staff for the reorganisation of the Office of the Director of Personnel. This office has been seriously understaffed with the result that staff matters, staff negotiations and other similar matters have been considerably delayed. It is hoped that the reorganisation of the Branch now proposed will enable these matters to be speeded up. Item 218 seeks funds for ten Supernumerary posts to enable officers of the subordinate services to be tried out for promotion to the Administrative Service. Item 233 provides, inter alia, for a small car for a most courageous police officer who is completely paralysed from the waist down as a result of a wound incurred in a fight with a gunman. Items 220 to 232 inclusive seek provision for the initial steps required for the raising of the Singapore Battalion which is regarded as a matter of top priority. My colleagues and I shall be happy to amplify any of the explanations given in the Schedule. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule

Will hon. Members turn to page 38 where there is a summary of totals? I propose to call out the Heads and the amounts, and if any hon. Member wishes to speak on any Head, please say so. Head 2- The sum of $170,000 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 3- Question proposed, That the sum of $38,700 for Head 3 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I refer to item 195, Portrait of Sir John Nicoll. It appears from the explanation that the Friends of Singapore have sponsored this painting of Sir John Nicoll for a sum of $5,500. They have been able to collect only $2,100 and they expect or they are hoping that the City Council will bear half the balance and this Assembly will bear half the balance. Sir, we have no objections to people forming quaint societies like the Friends of Singapore amongst whose objects is the entertainment of past and present Governors and one of whose duties is to collect portraits of previous Governors. But having launched this undertaking, to come round to the Government and expect it to pay half the balance which they cannot raise is, to say the very least, just not good form. If they want kudos, as I am sure the President of the Friends of Singapore, who was once A.D.C. to the Governor, wants kudos for paying tribute to past Governors, then let them cough up and not come to this Assembly and ask for a vote.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a founder and life member of this Society. It is not a Society to entertain Governors or to give farewell parties and so on. The main object of this Society is to keep the relics of past and present Singapore. It is possible that they might have entertained Governors, though personally since the last three years I have not attended any meeting - none whatsoever. This is what I want to point out to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. As to the principle whether or not this Society should come to the Government for meeting the balance of the cost of a portrait of a Governor and whether the Government should contribute towards it, that is a matter of opinion. I am not going to express any opinion.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully endorse the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. If the Friends of Singapore as a Society sponsored this portrait, it is up to them to bear the expense for it and if they cannot find the money themselves, then let them go to the public. A portrait of the Governor should be paid for by individual contributions from the public and not through this Assembly. Let them go to the public and ask for contributions. The contributions may be ten cents, a dollar or five dollars individually. That should be the right way rather than that this Assembly should be asked to vote for meeting the balance of the cost of this portrait. I will definitely not support this.

I am very sorry indeed, Sir, that this application for supplementary provision has met with the opposition which it has and I also much regret that the Friends of Singapore have come in for so much unjustifiable criticism. When the application was received, it was realised that it could well be argued that the Friends of Singapore, having voluntarily decided to embark on this project, should be allowed to complete the matter on their own. At the same time, it was considered that this was a somewhat unsympathetic attitude to adopt to an association which has done a great deal to arouse and maintain interest in the historical associations of Singapore, which many of my colleagues and I regard as a most important matter. It is right and pro- per that Singapore should possess portraits of her distinguished citizens. It was a public-spirited move on the part of the Friends of Singapore to put in train the matter of a portrait of Sir John Nicoll, who by all standards is one of the most distinguished of Singapore's citizens. In these circumstances, it was considered that the Friends of Singapore deserved some assistance, particularly as they are finding great difficulty in raising funds. They have made public appeals and have other commitments in hand. It was therefore decided that Government would contribute half of the deficit if the City Council would contribute the other half. This, I am happy to say, the City Council has agreed to do and I now ask and I am sure I will have the support of the Assembly that this supplementary provision should be approved.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $38,700 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 4- The sum of $1,460 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 6- The sum of $20,000 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 7- The sum of $29,927 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The sum of $30,000 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9- The sum of $3,700 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $38,475 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12- Question proposed, That the sum of $450,284 for Head 12 stand part of the Schedule.

I do not know if I heard the Chairman right, Sir.I wanted to speak on Head 11.

The impression you gave me was that you wanted to speak on Head 12.

Head 11, Sir.

I have already put the question on Head 11.

Well, I thought, Mr Chairman, Sir, when you were on Head 11, I indicated that 1 wanted to speak on that Head and I was a bit astounded then when you went on to Head 12.

The decision has been taken. I am very sorry. I did try and indicate that I would read out the Heads and the totals and that if any hon. Member wished to speak on any Head, he should let me know. When I reached Head 11, I understood from the indication of the Member for Tanjong Pagar that he wished to speak on Head 12.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.

We are now on Head 12. I think it will be more satisfactory if I go item by item. Question again proposed.

Mr Chairman. Sir, I refer to item 219. We are asked to approve a supplementary vote for $59,860 for Local Government Elections. I wonder if the Hon. the Chief Secretary can inform this Assembly what has happened to the equipment for the previous elections. I think it is a waste of money if that equipment has been thrown away and for the Government to come again to this Assembly to ask for approval for the purchase of such equipment. The equipment can be retained for use for subsequent elections and I do not see why we should again approve another vote for such equipment.

Sir, the answer is a simple one. As the hon. Member will have noticed from the White Paper and other policy statements made by the Government, it is now proposed not to limit Local Government elections to the City Council but to have Local Government elections throughout the whole island of Singapore for the City Council and for four District Councils, involving a very great increase in the number of constituencies and the number of polling booths that will be required.

Am I to take it that this equipment is in addition to that for the previous elections?

Certainly.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $450,284 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- The sum of $1,213,750 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19- The sum of $12,000 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20- The sum of $3,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- The sum of $6,120 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 23- The sum of $6,030 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24- The sum of $50,970 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27- Question proposed, That the sum of $193,403 for Head 27 stand part of the Schedule.

Sir, on item 241, International Bank Mission, can I enquire from the Hon. the Financial Secretary how they worked out the percentage which was to be borne by Singapore? How was the figure 25 per cent arrived at? Further, on the actual total itself - "One-half of salaries of the Members (the other half of salaries and other expenditure being charged against the Bank itself)" - how was that division between the Malayan Governments and the International Bank Mission arrived at?

Sir, it was appreciated when negotiations were made with the Bank for an economic survey of Malaya and Singapore that there might be difficulty in apportioning expenditure on the Bank Mission and it was then agreed between the two Governments that it would be left to Sir Louis Chick, the Head of the Mission, to recommend the apportionment of expenditure between the two territories on the basis of the work done and the value to the two territories of the Report. The proposals made by Sir Louis Chick have been accepted by both Governments. As regards the second question from my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar, it is the custom of the Bank to pay all external travelling expenses of these Missions, to pay the salaries of their own employees who are posted to the Mission and half the salaries of the independent experts who are asked to join the Mission. The local Governments are responsible for all internal travelling expenses, accommodation and allowances in Malaya, and half the salaries of independent experts.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $193,403 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29- Question proposed. That the sum of $275,000 for Head 29 stand part of the Schedule.

Sir, on a point of clarification. May I ask the Hon. the Financial Secretary about the method adopted in advertising the tenders? As I see it, the cost has risen from 95 cents to $1.55.

Item?

Item No. 243, Sir.It is a terrific increase and I would like to know the method of advertisement given to these tenders.

The method adopted for advertising for tenders for toddy is the usual one: notices are published in the Gazette. The great increase in price in the tender for this year is due - I am led to believe - to the activities of a political Party in the Toddy Workers Union.

In view of this increase, wi1l the Government reconsider the whole situation of the sale of toddy and see whether toddy sales can be abolished in Singapore?

I am not certain whether the Member for Seletar would agree that we should, by stopping the sale of toddy, drive the drinkers of toddy to even more potent spirits, but we will give consideration to the point he has raised.

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I ask whether the cost includes the removal of toddy shops from the places where the working people at present stay?

No, Sir. The tender price merely covers the tenderer's expenses.

Mr Chairman, Sir, do I understand from the Hon. the Financial Secretary that toddy will be abolished very soon?

No, Sir.

Who is fighting for Indian hopes!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum ot $275,000 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39- The sum of $39,385 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43- The sum of $73,864 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45- The sum of $110,210 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52- Question proposed, That the sum of $52,940 for Head 52 stand part of the Schedule.

Will the Minister for Health explain why, within just about eight months since the Budget was debated, he is asking for three more Token Votes in items 261, 262 and 263? There was considerable debate during the Budget sittings on the question of medical expenditure being largely taken up by emoluments. He assured us then that every particular claim put forward had been carefully screened. Now within a period of eight months he is putting in three token votes.

Sir, the explanation is given under items 261 and 262. Are those the items which my hon. Friend -

Items 261, 262 and 263.

The explanations are there. Due to expansion, these posts are necessary. On item 262, the post is being filled by a Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist; and under item 263, these are filled by local medical practitioners who are necessary for the expansion of the services of that particular unit.

Mr Chairman, Sir, that is most unsatisfactory. We can all read the notes and we know that $10 (Token) is to try and get two private medical practitioners. What we want is an explanation why these things could not have been foreseen when the Budget was debated.

Sir, these specialists have been employed for some time. It was envisaged, when the Estimates were drafted, that there would be savings on vacant posts for medical officers from which these specialists could be paid, but these posts have since been filled and it is now necessary to take a vote to enable the payment of these specialists to continue. That is why we ask for the token votes. It is a simple and normal procedure. That, I think, is the explanation which I have given and it is repeated in the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, did I understand the Hon. the Financial Secretary to say that the reason why this thing was not claimed in the Budget was because, at the time, there were substantive appointments which were not filled and it was hoped that these people would be pushed into those substantive appointments?

From savings.

Paid for? I do not understand how this Budget is being run. I thought that the Assembly is asked to pay against specific items for specific duties. Now we are informed that there could be some form of shuffling without the knowledge of this Assembly and that, although we are asked a certain vote for a particular post, the person who was holding the post at the time of the Budget debate was either just acting or temporary and it was hoped that when he moved up, those persons who were already then in the service could be pushed into those posts. But how does it work? I do not understand this.

The position is briefly this, Sir. The establishment of the Medical Department allows for a certain number of posts for medical officers and provision is entered against these posts - the provision which we think we will spend. Now, in the past, when we have been short of staff, doctors from outside the service have been engaged on my authority in a purely temporary capacity to do precisely the same job as medical officers were intended to do and have been paid from the vote for medical officers. That is quite proper. I give the authority for the employment of these people on a purely temporary month-to-month basis. In some cases, as in this case, they are merely employed on payment of a fee. What happened in this particular case was that the Minister for Health, in framing his estimates, thought that there would still be sufficient posts and savings available from which these temporary specialists who had come to the assistance of Government could be paid. It has now happened that, with recruitment from the University of Malaya medical school, these posts have been filled. It is therefore necessary to create a vote to pay the specialists. That is why we ask for these token votes. Sir, I cannot explain the matter more clearly. Perhaps -

Order, please. I think possibly this is exactly the type of item which the Estimates Committee can look into in detail, but if the Member for Tanjong Pagar wishes to say something else, he can do so by all means.

If I may, Mr Chairman?

Yes, certainly.

As I understand it now, the position is this. Take, for instance, this specialist under item 262. At the time of the Budget, there was somebody who was acting. It was thought then that savings could be made and there would be some particular Head under which this person, who was acting, could be paid. But since then somebody else has been recruited to fill that particular Head, and therefore this token vote is necessary to pay the person who, it was hoped, would be pushed under that vacant Head. But, in effect, what it means is this: at the time of the Budget, it was expected that only one person would be acting in that capacity, or would fill that particular post, but now two persons are doing the job - one, the person who filled the Head would be newly recruited; and, two, this person.

I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that it would be desirable in the future if we have special provision in the Estimates for payments to specialists. I will bear that in mind in connection with the Estimates this year so that it will be clear to everybody that the honoraria or fees due to these specialists will be paid from a specific item under Personal Emoluments Subhead.

That is elementary accounting.

Order. The point I did make, I think, appears quite clearly in Standing Order 61(6) where it does state: "It shall be the duty of the (Estimates) Committee to examine any of the Estimates contained in the Schedules of Appropriation Bills and financial motions, to suggest the form in which Estimates might be presented, and to report what economies consistent with the policy implied in the Estimates might be effected." That is probably one of the items which the Estimates Committee could look into with advantage.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $52,940 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59- The sum of $16,376 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60- The sum of $10 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 61- Question proposed, That the sum of $28,950 for Head 61 stand part of the Schedule.

Sir, on item 275, I would like to have some clarification about the increase on Transport and Travelling. It is stated here "so as to enable adequate supervision of work in hand". I would like to know the reason for the increase.

It is necessary in the building of a structure that the engineer or architect concerned should go to look at it and should not leave it wholly to the Clerk of Works. I think, in his enthusiasm for economy, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pruned all items of this sort down to the barest bones possible; but, in fact, in order to supervise the building programme, it has been necessary to get out and see the buildings and ensure that adequate supervision is given and therefore they have had to spend a bit more on travelling than was originally allowed for.

In fact, this is, payment made to Government officers for travelling in the course of their duties, using their own cars to inspect Government works. It must be some fantastic rate at which they are being paid.

It is rather the fantastic rate at which we build.

Wishful thinking!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $28,950 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 63- The sum of $295,270 for Head 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The sum of $24,000 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58- The sum of $59,185 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 48- Question proposed, That the sum of $633,759 for Head D 48 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, there is going to be a school in Woodlands but that school, I think, will not be ready by next year -

Which item?

Item 302, Tiffin Sheds at 15 schools, on page 33. I was just wondering whether I can ask the Assembly to approve some more money for a temporary school in Woodlands. I had better make it quite clear, Mr Chairman, Sir. The other day, I spoke to the Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid) about providing a temporary school at the present time for the Malays in Woodlands. I was told that a public school will be ready by next year. At the present moment, there are a number of school children who have no schools to go to. [Interruption.] I thought we are going to ask money for -

Order, please. We are now dealing with supplementary estimates and it is true that hon. Members can discuss the policy of Government on any item which appears on the supplementary votes. The item which has been indicated - item 302 - deals with Tiffin Sheds and I cannot see how the new school is relevant to that item. But under item 278, I think there is provision for schools and perhaps the Member for Bukit Panjang could refer to that item and then discuss the omission to which he refers.

Yes, Mr Chairman, Sir, it should be this item, under Head D 48 Education. My intention is to ask for some more money as provision for building a temporary school, or at least to repair a shed which belongs to the Malayan Railways just now. What I want to know is whether provision can be made for a temporary school in Woodlands.

It would be uneconomical to build a school which might be completed at the end of the year and by that time we have another school. I do not understand what the Member for Bukit Panjang really wants.

Votes.

Under item 278, Subhead 1, (ii) Holy Innocents' English School, the provision is for "New Extension Buildings, Furniture and Equipment and Science Apparatus, etc.". Can the Minister for Education let us know the number of laboratories this school is intending to build and the amount that is given for science apparatus?

I am sorry I cannot give all those details now but if the hon. Member will see me in my office, I will give him the details.

Sir, I ask this question on the science apparatus because I am connected with quite a number of schools and usually the grants given under this Heading are always small and it is quite impossible sometimes for schools to cater for teaching as well as for examination purposes and that is why I put this question.

Order. I think hon. Members have probably forgotten Standing Order 69 (11) which reads: "On any question in the Committee of Supply debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided and shall not deal with the details of expenditure...", so that any details of expenditure, I think, can possibly be examined much more conveniently by either the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee.

Was I correct in extracting information, Sir?

The hon. Member was quite correct but I do not think he should pursue the question any further.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $633,759 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60- The sum of $6,504 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 63- The sum of $210,200 for Head D 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 65- Question proposed, That the sum of $168,781 for Head D 65 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Financial Secretary, I do not know whether you would like to correct what appears to be a typographical error on page 24, Head 65. Should that not read "Head D 65"?

Thank you very much. Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $168,781 for Head D 65 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52- The sum of $65,590 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 58- The sum of $50,423 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 64- The sum of $4,622 for Head D 64 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, That the sum of $4,308,250 stand part of the motion.

Sir, I am wondering whether Head 27 Treasury on page 25 has been placed before the House.

Yes, we have dealt with it.

Can I speak on this question, Sir?

The hon. Member is too late now. We have passed Head 27.

But the question of approving the whole vote has been proposed.

Yes, the hon. Member can speak on the whole motion but he cannot speak on it in detail now.

In any case, I would like to take the opportunity of speaking on the expenditure on the Colombo Plan. As I understand it, Sir, most of the equipment and structures are still in the Victoria Memorial Hall and the City Council is bound to make use of them. I am wondering if I can be informed whether there is any return for the expenditure that we have met.

Order, please. I am afraid that the hon. Member is completely out of order. That question should have been raised when we came to Head 27. We are now on the motion as a whole. In other words, the hon. Member is asked now to approve the amount of $4.3 million and if he wishes to speak in general terms on that motion, he can do so.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $4,308,250 ordered, to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $4,308,250 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 43 of 1956, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $4,308,250 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 43 of 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's permission to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,410,96 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule B contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 44 of 1956. Last year, when the Development Estimates were under discussion I said that it was unlikely that the Public Works Department would be able to spend all the money voted in the various items in the Estimates. For a variety of reasons, work on some items would be held up and funds, and Public Works capacity, would be available for reallocation. If this proved to be the case, a switch programme of work should be introduced. Events have turned out as expected. It is now clear that there will be under-expenditure on some items and that the Public Works Department will be able to utilise the funds made available on other projects of importance. Schedule A lists the projects on which under-expenditure will occur. The total estimated under-expenditure is over $5 millions. The reasons for the under-expenditure are explained in the Schedule. I use the phrase "under-expenditure" advisedly. The word "savings" in this context apparently leads to misunderstanding. In the great majority of cases, the under-expenditure is merely deferred expenditure. There are, of course, a number of cases in which the under-expenditure is true saving. It will also be noted, not only in Schedule A but also in Schedule B, that the original estimate of cost has been revised in a number of cases. It is not easy for the Public Works Department to make an accurate estimate of the cost of a new project in advance of detailed planning and investigation. Many estimates have been made on the basis of a rough guide as to requirements from a department without plans and without knowledge of the site. It is only when plans and working drawings are made and when quantities are taken and sites obtained and examined, that accurate estimates of cost can be made. Even these sometimes have to be revised. Changes of mind and ideas are not unknown. The surprising thing is not that the original estimates have to be revised but that they have to be revised so seldom and by so little. There are, however, one or two cases where the revised estimate has differed substantially from the original. One case is that of the Polytechnic. The original estimate of cost shown in the Estimates was $5.19 millions. This was based on the estimate made in the Gibson Report. It was taken as a rough guide until a more accurate estimate, based on plans, could be made. Of the $5.19 millions, $1.4 million was for equipment for the workshops, etc. No allowance was made for quarters and playing-fields. Plans were, drawn up by the architects commissioned for the job and it became clear that the sum of $3.8 millions would only go a part of the way towards meeting the cost of essential buildings. Later, these plans had to be revised in the light of advice obtained from the Advisory Council in London about the latest trends in technical college buildings. Only recently has it been possible to arrive at a reliable revised estimate of cost. This totals $11.4 millions and includes $7.5 millions for buildings and site preparation; $2½ millions for equipment and fittings; $1 million for staff quarters; and $500,000 for playing fields. The whole project has been reexamined in the light of this somewhat startling increase in cost. Plans prepared by the architects were examined with great care by the Director of Public Works and his architectural staff. The increase in cost is due in part to a substantial rise in the cost of structural steel and other building materials, and in part to changes in the plan. In the opinion of the Director of Public Works, the maximum economies have been practised in planning the buildings and there is little opportunity for further reduction. It has been decided, however, to refer the plans once more to the Advisory Committee on Building Costs to find out whether economies cannot be achieved on finishes. Again, the proposed scope of the Polytechnic has been examined with a view to seeing whether it could not be reduced, at least at the start. As hon. Members are aware, it is intended that the Polytechnic should teach engineering, commerce and general education, science, building and architecture, pure and applied art, management and, for women, dressmaking and cookery. However, the general conclusion reached is that if Singapore is to have the type of institution which it undoubtedly needs, the proposed scope will have to be maintained and buildings of the type and on the scale suggested will have to be erected. All that can be achieved in the way of saving is to cut out the proposed canteen, gymnasium and auditorium blocks for the time being. These buildings, which are estimated to cost $2 millions, are not essential for the operation of the Polytechnic. They can be deferred until a later date when their construction can be considered in the light of the then financial position. In addition, efforts will be made to reduce expenditure on quarters by the allocation of Government quarters which may become surplus in the future. No decision has yet been reached on the question of provision of playing fields. In this way, the existing commitment can be reduced to $8 millions, that is, $5.5 millions for essential buildings and $2.5 millions for equipment, part of which may, we hope, be obtained from the Colombo Plan and other sources, thus achieving a further saving. The District Hospital is another case in which the original estimate of cost has been revised upwards. In this case, the original estimate was merely a rough guess at the possible cost of a district hospital. Since then, more detailed requirements as to quarters, kitchens, theatres, hostels, etc., have been made available and it has been possible to make a further estimate. Again, site investigation has indicated that extensive and expensive piling will be required if this Kallang site is to be used. Even so, this latest estimate is still a rough one in the absence of final details about the site and of plans and working drawings. The cost of the Hospital is certain to be more than $3.2 millions as originally estimated, but the latest estimate of $6.5 millions should be regarded with considerable reserve. On the other hand, there are a number of items in which the original estimate of cost has been reduced; for example, the Mount Vernon Police project, the Teachers Training College and the Kallang Bridge - to mention only three. Schedule B contains a list of the items in which it is desired to use part of the surplus funds. These items will utilise $3.4 millions. Some of the projects are of interest. A start is to be made with a new programme of six secondary schools: that at Bukit Panjang will commence this year. A start will be made in preparing the site for the Raffles National Library. A start will also be made for a new institution for mental defectives at Woodbridge. A postal sorting office at Paya Lebar Airport should speed up the sorting and delivery of mails by 24 hours. Provision is made for the first phase of the Geylang flood prevention scheme. I shall end by saying that provision will be made in the 1957 Development Estimates for a continuation, where necessary, of the items listed in Schedule B and for a continuation of the items listed in Schedule A. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule

The summary is at page 32. Head D 19- The sum of $30 for Head D 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 29 - Question proposed, That the sum of $113,500 for Head D 29 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, on item 314 on page 16, Quarters for Preventive Staff, the original estimate was $880,000. The revised estimated cost is now double that. Can we have some explanation as to why the estimated cost is now $1,750,000?

The answer here, I think, is that it is not an increase in the cost of the buildings originally proposed but that the Customs have proposed an increase in their programme of quarters and, consequently, the revised estimate of cost covers that increased programme. On the other hand, those items in the 1957 programme which have been brought forward to 1956 were in the original programme. It is proposed to build this year 24 Class III quarters at Peck Seah Street; 6 Class III quarters and 6 Class IV quarters at Woodlands; 1 Class II quarter and 6 Class III quarters at Changi; and 1 Class II quarter at Bedok.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $113,500 for Head D 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 48- Question proposed, That the sum of $1,417,500 for Head D 48 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I listened with some interest to the explanation given by the Hon. the Financial Secretary on the savings made in respect of the Teachers Training College and the great increase that is expected in the case of the Polytechnic. Mr Chairman, there is a great deal of public disquiet about this Polytechnic, not only because they have decided now that it is going to cost $11 million. For quite some time, the public have been wondering what progress has been going on and we are told that there is a strict priority of buildings. But the public sees that buildings have gone up for quarters to house the staff while no effort is being made to launch the building itself. There is a great deal of disquiet also as to the chairmanship of this Polytechnic. There has always been a certain amount of criticism about the undue lavishness with which those connected with this Polytechnic have been spending public funds, particularly when they travel abroad. We want an assurance that the expenditure that will be incurred on this Polytechnic will be strictly scrutinised.

I am not certain whether this question of the Polytechnic arises under this particular Head, Sir.I see no mention of the Polytechnic under this Head.

Page 7, Subhead 9.

But we are dealing with Head D 48 on page 17.

Order, please. I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar has raised the point because it did arise out of the remarks made by the Hon. the Financial Secretary when he dealt with this supplementary provision. I myself was not quite certain whether or not the Hon. the Financial Secretary was in order in mentioning the Polytechnic when we, in fact, were going to deal with Schedule B. I, for one, have not found any item in Schedule B dealing with the Polytechnic but the remarks, I take it, by the Hon. the Financial Secretary were merely incidental and I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar was quite in order in commenting on those remarks.

Sir, my remarks about the Polytechnic came under the question of the revision of the estimate of cost and were applicable to both Schedules A and B, as I said in my opening speech. I feel that in all probability the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar more appropriately come under general discussion of the motion, but since he has raised them now, I would like to say that we are conscious of the accusations and criticisms of alleged lavish expenditure in connection with the Polytechnic. I have examined all these allegations with the greatest of care and find them completely unjustified.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,417,500 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 49- The sum of $49,990 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52- The sum of $1,120,926 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 56- The sum of $99,980 for Head D 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 58- The sum of $300,000 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60- Question proposed, That the sum of $16,000 for Head D 60 stands part of the Schedule.

Sir, I really cannot understand this. We have here on pages 2 to 14 certain items, particularly Postal Services, where there have been some deletions and we are now dealing with supplementary provision from page 15 onwards. Now, I have some important comments to make on the Postal Services regarding the deletions and I do not know the appropriate time to make them.

The item we are on is item 337. which deals with New Subhead-Post Office and Quarters at Pulau Semakau. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to that.

Yes, Sir, but that estimate is made arising out of certain deletions. Is it in order for me to deal with these deletions?

Will the hon. Member please continue with his submission?

Sir, under the Head, Postal Services, on page 11 it is noted that the estimated expenditure during 1956 for the Post Office in Jalan Kayu is only $25,000. I must remind this House, Sir, that the sum of $80,000 was voted for this Post Office sometime in 1954 and there have been delays. I was given to understand that there was some delay in acquiring the land but, I think, Sir, this delay of nearly two years is beyond the comprehension of anybody. The people are entirely dissatisfied and I would have thought that the Post Office could have been completed, at the latest, by 1956. No amount of explanation can convince me, Sir, because there is a standard specification for these rural post offices and only some supervision is needed by the Public Works Department. Yet we see that the Post Office is not built.

I am afraid I cannot add to the explanation given on page 11, Sir, which says: "As the site for this Post Office (Jalan Kayu) has only now been finally approved work will start later in the year than was originally expected." The site has been obtained and work will start. More than that I cannot say.

I would like to suggest that all these matters and the manner of presentation of supplementary financial requirements should be very carefully looked into by the Estimates Committee, because it does appear that hon. Members are just as puzzled as I myself have been in looking at the document which we are now dealing with, and it is my intention to see that the Estimates Committee meet at an early date.

Sir, I am most disturbed to find that you fail to follow the way that this -

We cannot have a debate on the subject now.

I am myself slightly puzzled, Mr Chairman. I have got a note here which might be of a little help. The basic trouble with the site in Jalan Kayu has been because a number of cooks have been stirring away and muddling it up and it had been very hard to get a final decision because people wanted it here or there, or there, or there, and once the site was finally decided, then we had to get the squatters off it and all the places of acquisition. It is very regrettable that we have this trouble with sites again and again. We had it with the new City Exchange and Telephone Board. We are always getting it and we shall have to go on plugging away with our land clearance and resettlement trying to get the sites quickly so that we can go on with these development jobs.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $16,000 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61- The sum of $8,000 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 63- The sum of $20,000 for Head D 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 64- Question proposed, That the sum of $265,000 for Head D 64 stands part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to refer to item 345 where we are told there will be a further expenditure of $40,000 to carry out certain works requested by the Speaker. Mr Chairman, many of us have spent over a year in this building and we are somewhat disturbed that so much money has been spent on this old building. In spite of all the replastering inside, the damp is seeping through, particularly in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association room, and every three or four months, we see carpenters and painters having to spend more public money to keep up the appearance of this building. I would like very much to know on what this $40,000 is going to be spent. Is this in connection with the stone from Westminster that was taken in here, or what is it for? As I have said, unless it is absolutely necessary, I think it is unwise to sink more money into this building.

I understand that the money is required for extensions to the seating accommodotion of the Strangers' Gallery, certain alterations outside the Chamber and the provision of extra furniture for the Assembly House. As far as I am aware, no part of this provision is for the eradication of damp or for the maintenance of the building. It is primarily for capital works.

Can we know how many more will be accommodated by these alterations? It is not a project that we are opposed to if, in fact, the money is to be spent to arrange for more seating accommodation for the public and for the comfort of those who have to work in this building, but we would like to know how many more are expected to be accommodated by these alterations.

I regret, Sir, that I cannot answer that question offhand. I suggest that since this is a matter involving measures which you yourself have put in train, if any questions arise in connection with them, they should be referred to the House Committee and they should not be the subject of a debate here.

Sir, would it not be wise to postpone the implementation of this item in view of the coming elections for 50 Members and the consequent extension of the Gallery? I think it will be wise not to spend the money at the present time. Would the Hon. the Financial Secretary consider this?

That, Sir, is a valuable suggestion which we will bear in mind before any expenditure is incurred under this vote.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $265,000 for Head D 64 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, That the sum of $3,410,926 stand part of the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $3,410,926 ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,410,926 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule B contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 44 of 1956. put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,410,926 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule B contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 44 of 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Governor's Powers Delegation Ordinance (Chapter 51), resolves that the power vested in the Governor by subsection (1) of section 5 of the Federation of Malaya Export Duties Collection Ordinance (Chapter 163) may in future be exercised by the Financial Secretary. Under the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Export Duties Collection Ordinance (Chapter 163), the Government of the Federation of Malaya has established a station within the Colony for the purpose of collecting certain export duties. Under section 5 (1) of the Ordinance, the Governor may grant to any person nominated by the Government of the Federation of Malaya power to act as Export Duties Collection Officer. It is proposed that the powers conferred by the Ordinance in this respect should be delegated to the Financial Secretary and this motion seeks approval for this proposal. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Governor's Powers Delegation Ordinance (Chapter 51), resolves that the power vested in the Governor by subsection (1) of section 5 of the Federation of Malaya Export Duties Collection Ordinance (Chapter 163) may in future be exercised by the Financial Secretary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Port Swettenham and Malacca Mercantile Marine Funds be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance. This application has been received from the Port Swettenham and Malacca Mercantile Marine Funds under section 13 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Exemption is effected by the inclusion of the name of this public body in the First Schedule to the Ordinance. The objects of the Port Swettenham and Malacca Mercantile Marine Funds are, inter alia, to establish and maintain homes or institutions for members of the Mercantile Marine, to look after their welfare generally by providing medical and surgical treatment, education in nautical subjects, and the granting of relief to members and their dependants. Each of these funds is administered by a committee appointed by the High Commissioner. Under section 467 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1952 (No. 70 of 1952) of the Federation of Malaya, all fees derived from levies in respect of working cargoes on Sundays are to be paid into the Port Swettenham and Malacca Marine Funds. The Penang Mercantile Marine Fund, which is subject to exactly the same provisions of the Ordinance as the Port Swettenham and Malacca Marine Funds, has already been included in the First Schedule. The Malayan Board of Income Tax has considered this case and has recommended that the Port Swettenham and Malacca Marine Funds may properly be included in the First Schedule to the Ordinance with effect from the 1st of January, 1956, and the Government accepts its recommendation. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Port Swettenham and Malacca Mercantile Marine Funds be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Tin Industry (Research and Development) Board be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance. This application has been received from the Tin Industry (Research and Development) Board under section 13 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Exemption is effected by the inclusion of the name of this public body in the First Schedule to the Ordinance. This Board was constituted by the Tin Industry (Research and Development) Fund Ordinance, 1953 (No. 58 of 1953) of the Federation of Malaya and consists of the Federated Malay States Chamber of Mines' representative as Chairman, three Government nominees, five other members from the Federated Malay States Chamber of Mines and representatives from the All-Malayan Chinese Mining Association. The Ordinance provides for the establishment of a fund to be used, inter alia, for expenditure on research, development and publicity for the purposes of popularising and extending the uses of tin. The revenue of the fund is derived from cesses on tin exported, the amount of these cesses being fixed by the High Commissioner in Council. The fund is divided into two parts: a publicity fund and a separate fund for research, development and general purposes. The Board is required to keep accounts and to prepare an annual report, balance sheet and a profit and loss account and to submit these to the Legislative Council through the Minister for Economic Affairs. The Board exists for much the same purpose in connection with the tin industry as does the Board of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya in connection with the rubber industry. The Institute has already been included in the First Schedule. The Malayan Board of Income Tax has considered this case and has recommended that the Tin Industry (Research and Development) Board may properly be included in the First Schedule to the Ordinance with effect from the 1st of January, 1956, and the Government accepts its recommendation. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Tin Industry (Research and Development) Board be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 30 of the Women and Gir1s' Protection Ordinance (Chapter 126), resolves that the Women and Girls' Protection (Places of Safety-Amendment) Rules. 1956, made on the 22nd day of June, 1956, and published as Notification No. S 196 in the Gazette Supplement No. 46 of the 29th June, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1956, be approved. Before I proceed with this motion, I would draw the attention of this House to the fact that the Chapter and section numbers of the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance, as published in the Sessional Paper presented, have been amended in my motion in conformity with the Revised Edition of the Laws which came into force on the 1st of July, 1956. Sir, approval of the motion now before this House will bring into existence another new place of safety under the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance, namely, the Lee Kuo Chuan Nursery Home. This Home is an institution managed by the Salvation Army authorities in Singapore with whose approval it has already been gazetted as a place of safety under the Children and Young Persons' Ordinance (Chapter 128). It is, inter alia, a residential nursery for about 100 children under the age of six, and a maternity home for about ten to fifteen women or girls who are pregnant but unmarried. The Salvation Army authorities have agreed that the Lee Kuo Chuan Nursery may be designated as a place of safety under the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance, and approval of this motion by this House will enable the Protector of Women and Girls to detain girls who are six and under and, with the facilities of the maternity section, to afford sanctuary to unmarried women and girls who are about to give birth and are in need of protection. Sir, I move that this Assembly approves the Women and Girls' Protection (Places of Safety - Amendment) Rules, 1956, laid before this House.

Sir, I second it.

Will the hon. Member please indicate under what authority he has amended his Rules?

The amendment of these Rules comes under the Revised Edition of the Laws which came into force on the 1st of July, 1956.

Perhaps it would be proper for me to draw the hon. Member's attention to Standing Order 24, which reads: If a Member desires to alter the terms of a motion standing in his name, he may do so by giving to the Clerk an amended notice of motion, provided that such alteration does not, in the opinion of the Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker, materially alter any principle embodied in the original motion or the scope thereof. The amended notice shall run from the time at which the original notice was given." The motion, of course, incorporates the Rules and it would have been correct if the hon. Member had given notice as required by Standing Order 24. Will the hon. Member first indicate what his amendments are?

I think it may be helpful if we ask the Minister for Labour and Welfare to come in and help instead of wasting time.

Order, please. I am just trying to get this straightened out. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to adjourn consideration for a few minutes? We can then proceed with the other two items on the Order Paper.

As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Certificate Partial Survey Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 224 in the Gazette Supplement No. 55 dated 17th August, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 24 of 1956, be approved.

Hon. Members will recall that, at the February sitting of this Assembly, I moved a similar motion to bring into force fees laid down for survey of parts of the machinery and equipment of ships. This motion, Sir, now seeks to enforce the Notification in the Gazette made on the 17th of August for fees laid down for partial surveys of the internal and external hulls of ships. It is anticipated that, in the near future, owners of passenger vessels registered in the United Kingdom may call upon us to survey parts of the internal hull of a ship and we also expect them to call upon us to survey parts of the external hull of ships. This is the first time that such partial surveys will be recognised by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in the United Kingdom as going towards a full survey for a Passenger Safety Certificate to be issued by the United Kingdom Government. The opportunity has also been taken to see that these fees are fixed as a fair proportion of the full prescribed fees for the complete survey of hulls. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Certificate Partial Survey Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 224 in the Gazette Supplement No. 55 dated 17th August, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 24 of 1956, be approved.

The Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Mr Tan Theng Chiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 29 of the Registration of Deeds Ordinance (Chapter 255), resolves that the Registration of Deeds (Amendment) Rules, 1956, made by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing on the 15th day of August, 1956, and published as Notification No. S 226 in the Gazette Supplement No. 55 of 17th August, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 25 of 1956, be approved. Sir, this is a straightforward matter. The Registration of Deeds (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956, which came into operation on the 20th of June, 1956, gave legal sanction to the inspection by the public of microfilm copies of deeds instead of original copies. The amendment of the Ordinance made necessary a few consequential amendments to the Registration of Deeds Rules, 1934, and the approval of this Assembly for these amendments is required under section 29 (2) of the Registration of Deeds Ordinance (Chapter 255). Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 29 of the Registration of Deeds Ordinance (Chapter 255), resolves that the Registration of Deeds (Amendment) Rules, 1956, made by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing on the 15th day of August, 1956, and published as Notification No. S 226 in the Gazette Supplement No. 55 of 17th August, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 25 of 1956, be approved.

Consideration resumed on motion. That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 30 of the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance (Chapter 126), resolves that the Women and Girls' Protection (Places of Safety - Amendment) Rules, 1956, made on the 22nd day of June, 1956, and published as Notification No. S 196 in the Gazette Supplement No. 46 of the 29th June. 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1956, be approved.- (The Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare).

Mr Speaker, Sir, the only material change in this amendment is that section 27 of the old Ordinance be substituted by section 30 of the new one which was revised on the 1st of July, 1956.

I direct hon. Members' attention then to Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1956: in the first line, for the figure "27", substitute the figure "30", so that that part then reads: "In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 30 of the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance, the Minister for Labour and Welfare hereby makes the following Rules....". Since that amendment does not materially alter any principle embodied in the original motion, that amendment is allowed. Have I a seconder for the motion? The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 30 of the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance (Chapter 126), resolves that the Women and Girls' Protection (Places of Safety - Amendment) Rules, 1956, made on the 22nd day of June, 1956, and published as Notification No. S 196 in the Gazette Supplement No. 46 of the 29th June, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1956, be approved.

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

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at forty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock a.m.