Hansard, 1956-11-21

asked the Chief Minister whether he is in a position to give the House information about a fixed date for the commencement of the Merdeka Talks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no definite date has been finalised, but, on present indication, the talks will be resumed probably towards the end of February.

asked the Financial Secretary to give -

Sir, the number of private limited companies registered in Singapore at the end of 1955 was 1,344. The number of public limited companies registered in Singapore at the end of 1955 was 127. Private limited companies are not required to submit accounts and balance sheets to the Registrar of Companies and no information is available as to the profits which these companies made in 1955. Public limited companies are required to submit accounts and balance sheets to the Registrar of Companies. I regret, however, that shortage of time and preoccupation with other urgent matters has made it impossible for me to collect and digest the information which the hon. Member requires about these companies. If he wishes to pursue the matter, perhaps the hon. Member may care to obtain the information from the Registrar of Companies himself.

Sir, the question is one of public importance. I would ask if the Financial Secretary would consider giving the answers for the record of this House, obtaining for the private companies their profits from the Income Tax Department, and for the public companies their profits from the Registrar of Companies, and making them part of the record for the next sitting in December.

As regards private companies, Sir, I regret I can give no such assurance. Private companies do submit information as to their profits to the Comptroller of Income Tax, but under section 6 of the Ordinance, the consent of the Governor is required before that information can be divulged. With regard to the profits of public companies, I will endeavour to provide the hon. Member with the information which he requires by the 5th of December.

If it please you, Sir, the Income Tax Ordinance precludes the divulgence of information about individual returns. The public are entitled to information on a global scale which would not pinpoint individual firms. I would ask if the Financial Secretary would reconsider his reply and give us an assurance that he will look into the question of giving us the information about the profits of private companies on the 5th of December?

I must have notice of that question, Sir.

asked the Financial Secretary whether he is aware of the long delays caused to passenger trains travelling between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur due to customs examination at Johore Bahru; and whether he will arrange with the Federation authorities for Federation customs officers to board trains at Singapore Railway Station so that the examination can be carried out en route.

The hon. Member will be interested to know that the two Governments have already agreed in principle that Federal customs officers should board trains in Singapore and make customs examinations en route to Johore Bahru. A Bill which, amongst other things, will authorise this to be done is at present in draft and will be introduced as soon as possible.

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

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Schedules of the Bill are to be dealt with before the clauses. Will hon. Members direct their attention to the First Schedule? First Schedule Head 1- Question proposed, "That the sum of $386,330 for Head 1 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, just a small point of clarification. On page 28, sub-head 7, replacement of an unserviceable tape recorder, there is no indication that Treasury sanction is necessary in this case; but whilst going through other items in the Estimates where replacements are concerned, Treasury sanction is necessary. Can I know the difference, Sir?

Sir, there are no considerations in this matter which would require prior Treasury approval before the money is spent. It is a simple matter of merely replacing a tape recorder which has become unserviceable.

On a matter of clarification, Sir, do I understand that the Governor will be going along for the Merdeka talks in London next year and is it probably Government's intention to do away with the Governor under Head 1 and replace him with a Governor-General?

The point does not arise in the Estimates.

Mr Chairman, this is another matter of clarification. On page 28, sub-head 1 (21) , I notice an increase of $600 in the allowance to the Officer Administering the Government. There has apparently been a change in the title. Could the Financial Secretary explain whether this increase from $1,200 to $1,800 has been made purely to suit this change of title?

The increase in the allowance is merely due to the fact that we estimate that in 1957 we will have to pay rather more in the matter of an allowance to the Governor's Deputy than we had to pay in 1956.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $386,330 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 2-

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 10 (1) , Administration-City Services, on page 33 of the Estimates. Sir, I feel that an increase of $24,000 for City Services is rather fantastic. There is no such thing as an increase of $24,000, equivalent to $2,000 a month, for electrical current consumption and I wonder how many units will be consumed in relation to this amount.

I am not quite certain whether the hon. Member is talking about economy. Is he making the point that he wishes that certain economies should be effected in this vote?

Sir, if I can get a clear explanation from the Financial Secretary and if I am satisfied with his explanation, I may withdraw my amendment. It is not a question of economy. The question is how this figure - an increase of $24,000 - is arrived at.

It occurs to me then that there was no necessity for the hon. Member to file a motion on the amendment because Standing Order 69 (11) says: "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...". Therefore, if the hon. Member wished to debate the policy of the service for which the money is required, then, of course, his duty was to file a motion in the way of an amendment, but if it was just to get information, then the proper procedure would have been to wait until the Main Question was proposed and then questions could have been asked, as have, in fact, been asked under Head 1. If the hon. Member will indicate whether or not he is attacking the policy, then, of course, he can continue.

I am much obliged, Mr Chairman. If the explanation from the Financial Secretary is satisfactory, then I will withdraw my amendment, as you have indicated that there is no question of filing a motion; but if the explanation is not satisfactory, and I am not satisfied with the amount that is involved, then I will, as an indication of my protest, move an amendment to reduce that figure.

Under the Standing Order, I cannot accept the amendment on those lines. The hon. Member will, of course, be given the opportunity of asking the same question when I propose the Main Question on the main Head. Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,891,870 for Head 2 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, can I now have an explanation from the Financial Secretary as to how the figure of $24,000 is arrived at?

The explanation, Sir, is given in the footnote. The extra funds are required to meet the cost of the current required to air-condition the Courts. The hon. Member will no doubt remember that in the course of this year we took a supplementary provision to meet the increased cost of current consumption arising from the air-conditioning of these Courts. It has worked out at $2,000 a month, and the total required in 1957 is therefore estimated at $24,000. The extra $3,600 is required for other City Services. 10.16 a.m.

If it please you, Sir, this Assembly has notice of a question by Mr Sutherland regarding the appointment of further Judges. Sir, the question of the appointment of additional Judges has been a matter of urgency for some months. In fact, this goes back to the beginning of this year, and it is only the reluctance to appoint Malayans who are qualified, available, seasoned, experienced people as Judges that is holding up these appointments. Sir, in the inter-Party talks for the purposes of the constitutional conference in London, it was apparent that there was a division of views as to the propriety of Malayanisation of the judiciary. I would like to say for myself and for my Party that we are deeply convinced that it is a matter of vital importance that the security of tenure of the Judges should in no way be broached. Sir, we may prefer to have our own men who understand our ways as Judges, but we do recognise that for decades the expatriate officials who have acted as Judges have maintained a tradition and an integrity which have been an inspiration not only to members of the Bench in the lower Courts, not only to the Bar, but to the whole population who respect and admire this administration of justice. In the circumstances, if only as an expression of our gratitude for the evolution and maintenance of this very high tradition, we should not in any way interfere with the security of tenure which they enjoy. But I must add this, Sir: that if this colonial reluctance to the appointment of local men as Judges is pursued by forcing upon the country further expatriate Judges, then the position may well be endangered and I, for one, would deeply regret it. I would plead with the Chief Minister to use his influence with the Governor to see that the harmony which exists between the people and the judiciary should in no way be upset by unwise appointments which go contrary to the feelings of the people. Our people are a decent people, Sir, and their attitude is a simple one, namely, that what has been done has been done. The officials appointed have done a good job of `work. Let us not interfere with them, but do not appoint more expatriates. It is time we were given a chance. If you appoint more expatriate officials with the possibility that this country will have for the next 15 or 20 years expatriate Judges, then the question of Malayanisation must become an acute, a topical and a necessary one. Sir, I would plead that the Governor be informed of the view that I believe the people of Singapore hold - that it would be inappropriate at this juncture of our development to ignore the experienced, seasoned legal men we have who could be appointed to the posts of honour and responsibility of Judges, and that it would be wrong to appoint further expatriates as Judges, not only because it would go contrary to our wishes, which may or may not matter to the Governor, but it would go contrary to the interests of the judiciary who are now in existence. This, I have no doubt, is a matter of considerable importance to the Governor. I would plead that a practical and sensible approach to the people's wishes be considered and that colonial powers should lot be exercised to ride roughshod not only over our interests but over the permanent interests of the judiciary themselves.

Sir, everyone will agree with the expression of views given by the Member for Cairnhill, but he has forgotten to do one thing. He has forgotten to put down a token vote of $10 in the Estimates for the appointment of a local Judge. Sir, I move that.

Sir, I have to get the Governor's permission.

The Member for Cairnhill can do it now.

Order.

Mr Chairman, Sir, during the conference in London our Party also stood firm on the question of the judiciary, that Judges should be accorded the respect which they have enjoyed all these years and that they should be independent of every political Party. We are convinced that no politics should be allowed to influence any appointment to the judiciary because in the Judges are entrusted the security and the future of a country. So far we can say with pride that our Judges have always won our admiration, and for their work we are grateful, and we should all give support to see that there should be permanency of tenure for those who are already on the Bench. But I do agree that the public at large and the Bar are very much concerned about the delay in appointing additional Judges. I am told that some of the civil cases in Court have to wait for as long as six to eight months before they can be heard. This state of affairs cannot be tolerated and I would urge the Governor and the Government to consider the appointment of additional Judges without further delay. Among our local serving officers in the legal service there are a number of very able men who have proved themselves to be above temptation and fit to carry out the work of High Court Judges. I would urge that consideration be given for the appointment of our local legal officers as Judges.

Mr Chairman, there is a saying that "Justice should not only be done but justice should also be shown to be done." Following this wise statement, Sir, I would like to suggest that the salaries of Judges be taken out of the annual Estimates and be a charge on the revenue.

Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar referred to alleged delays which take place in the High Court. I am sure he will have noted with satisfaction that in the Estimates which are now before us there is provision for the appointment of an additional Judge in order to bring the courts up to date with their work; and previously this Assembly approved additional appointments of Court reporters so that the reporting side of the Courts could also keep pace with the volume of work. I understand, Sir, that there has been a considerable improvement in the pace with which the Courts are keeping up with the cases presented to them, but there is still a further backlog to be made up. I hope that if we get a new judge appointed early in the new year there will no longer be cause for dissatisfaction with the speed with which justice can be obtained in Singapore.

Mr Chairman, Sir, at the present time Judges are appointed by Her Majesty by Letters Patent under the Public Seal issued in pursuance of instructions from Her Majesty through the Secretary of State. The Member for Cairnhill knows that the question of the judiciary was a matter for discussion with the Secretary of State during the last talks. I can assure him that this is still a matter which will be discussed when the constitutional talks are resumed in London next year. The suggestion put forward by the hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim has been taken note of, Sir, and this, too, will be brought up during the talks in London.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,891,870 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 3- Question proposed, "That the sum of $167,290 for Head 3 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, I see on page 36, sub-head 2 (5) , that an amount of $48,000 is provided for the Council of Ministers for telegrams alone. This works out to be $4,000 a month for telegrams. This estimate of $48,000 to be spent on telegrams alone is either fantastic or an extravagance on the part of the Government. I wonder if this amount could be reduced. Sir, $30,000 was provided for this year and with this amount we were able to cope with telegrams for the Merdeka talks between Singapore, the United Kingdom and the rest of the other places. Sir, the delegation for next year's Merdeka talks will be a very small one and will not be equivalent to the size of the delegation which went to London this year. I wonder why there should be an increase of $18,000 on telegrams.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I must confess, as the former Chief Minister, I am more than astonished at the figure of $48,000 for telegrams. I do not believe I spent even a thousand dollars in more than a year. I am told that we spent $38,000 for telegrams for the Merdeka mission. I was shocked to the core when I read that in a newspaper cutting which I received in Japan. Let me assure you, Sir, that as far as I was concerned, I did not spend $100 on telegrams for the Merdeka talks, and I can only assume that these were telegrams sent by the Public Relations Officer to the Colonial Secretary and to the Governor - long screeds and reports of what was appearing in newspaper editorials in this territory which could well be condensed. The Chief Minister received copies of those telegrams which were sent to the Colonial Secretary and to the Governor. But this is an extravagance, I completely agree, and I do agree that this $48,000 could be almost completely axed.

Sir, I think the Member for Queenstown has forgotten that we took a Supplementary Vote for this service last year. Perhaps, to refresh his memory, I may be allowed to read from col. 178 in Hansard of the 7th of September: "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, $l2,000; 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." Expenditure at the present time is running to the order of $4,850 a month and, on that basis, it would be necessary to ask for $48,000 for the coming year. There will be increased communication in connection with the Merdeka talks which will take place in February and no doubt afterwards there will be further need to communicate by telegram. Every possible effort is made to send communications to the Colonial Office and by the Colonial Office to this Government by seamail, but in many cases time is saved and the business of the Government is discharged much more efficiently if telegrams are used. I regret that I have no notice of the remarks which the Member for Cairnhill made about the cost of telegrams in connection with the last Merdeka talks. A considerable sum of money was spent by the Public Relations Officer in sending precis of the news items which appeared in the local Press to the Chief Minister. My understanding of the matter was that they were sent specifically by the Public Relations Officer to enable the Chief Minister to be fully aware of the reactions of the public in Singapore to the progress of the talks.

The Chief Minister received copies.

Order.

That is probably true because no doubt numerous copies were made and copies were sent to every Member of the delegation.

May I raise one small point, Sir? The Hon. the Financial Secretary said just now that sea-mail takes a lot of time, but may I draw his attention to the fact that today's air services take only 48 hours? Telegrams take about 6 hours and delayed telegrams about 12 hours. Would it not be wise, in the case of not very urgent business, that airmail be used so that money will be saved?

No, Sir. I do apologise. When I said "seamail", I meant to include airmail as well. Bags do go to the Colonial Office by courier and all communications which we can send by airmail are sent in these bags; but the fact of the matter is that telegrams can arrive in the Colonial Office in a very few hours after despatch from here. If communications are sent by airmail, perhaps three or four days may elapse before they arrive.

Sir, it is a real pity that my motion to reduce this vote was not received in time for today's debate, and I cannot move an amendment to reduce this amount. But I would urge the Government or the Council of Ministers to bear in mind that where telegrams are concerned, they should be as concise as possible. It is not like writing an article or a story in the newspaper. As far as telegrams are concerned, I do hope that the Government or the Council of Ministers will keep them as short as possible.

I cannot allow this to continue. It is becoming a debate on a detail which is not under the "purview" of this Committee of Supply. I have allowed the item to be ventilated - that is quite proper - and I have no doubt that, having been ventilated, the item will be looked into by the Estimates Committee in due course.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $167,290 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 4- The sum of $422,890 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 5- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (1) , Chairman, on page 39 of the Estimates. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. Question proposed, "That the sum of $147,100 for Head 5 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, the Public Services Commission is one of the most important branches of the public service in Singapore. When we think of the present system of party government, it is the most important section of the public service. Up to today, Sir, the Public Services Commission has only been advisory in character. We included as an item the Public Services Commission for discussion during the last Merdeka talks, and I would like to ask the Government to include the same item again in the coming talks and, if there is any possibility, to give this Commission the power it should get even before the talks. This Commission is set up to ensure that the civil service will be appointed in a fair manner irrespective of party favours. Sir, I commend this to the attention of the Government.

Sir, on page 39, sub-head 1 (5) Office Superintendent, why has the salary of this post been increased, since it will be the same officer doing the same work?

This post has been upgraded, Sir, because the volume of work which the officer concerned has to deal with has greatly increased in view of the increasing activities of the Public Services Commission. The matter has been gone into with great care both in the Personnel Branch and the Treasury and there is no doubt in my mind that the upgrading is justified.

Sir, in reply to the Member for Serangoon on the point which he raised in regard to the Public Services Commission, I would like to tell him that the Government hopes to be able to present a Bill, incorporating the terms of compensation to be paid to expatriate officers, on the 5th of December and carry it through all its stages. It is hoped to bring into effect the Malayanisation scheme as from the 1st of January, 1957. In line with this, an executive Public Services Commission will be brought into being on the same day.

On a point of information, Sir. Do I understand that so important a Bill is going to be produced on one day and passed through all its stages on the same day without advance information to Members of the House as to its contents?

Sir, advance copies of the Bill will be sent to hon. Members a few days before the sitting. As I said, Sir, the Government is at present considering the draft Bill and it has not yet been finalised, but it is hoped to be able to table the Bill on the 5th of December in order to bring the operative date - the 1st of January, 1957 - into being.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $147,100 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 6- The sum of $579,390 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 7- The sum of $188,090 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (37) , Director of Personnel, on page 51 of the Estimates. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, 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. Sir, there is no explanation given as to how the figure of $1,600,000 is being spent and on whom. Are these passages by air or by sea; how many are air passages and how many are by sea; how many of these are for Europeans and how many for Asians? I think this is a colossal sum. I think at least $200,000 or $300,000 could be saved if the heaven- born go by sea instead of by air. Sir, because money is insufficient, we are to be taxed heavily, and the Press reports that the Government carries the day without mentioning with the help of official and nominated votes when it comes to voting on any item. With whose votes does it carry the day, Sir? With the three ex-officios and four nominated Members, of course. What I am asking here, Sir, is: Why cannot these people go by sea instead of by air so that a lot of money can be saved? Question proposed.

Sir, this figure under "Passages" is a very large figure indeed and I am not surprised that it has provoked comment from hon. Members opposite. I am afraid I cannot give him a detailed breakdown between the heaven-born, the lower-born and the medium-born, but I can give him two or three points which may help to explain the figure. First, it is not only to provide passages for European officers whose passages are, of course, provided as part of their conditions of service and, speaking for the majority of those officers, I do not think they have any wish to be made to travel by air. I think they all prefer to have the longer holiday and travel by sea, perhaps even more so in present circumstances. But the hard fact is that the demands of the public service very frequently make it necessary that an officer, who would prefer to have a leisurely three weeks' voyage by sea, be asked to travel by air so that he may return to his duty earlier. Another point of information that I would like to make is that this sum is not exclusively spent on expatriate officers enjoying their generous conditions of service. A very substantial part of this money goes to meet the cost of sending officers and others from Singapore to attend conferences and other occasions overseas. I think hon. Members will be aware that in the last year - in fact, in recent years - we have more and more taken the opportunity of sending our officers, particularly our local officers, overseas to attend conferences and international meetings where we hope that not only will they profit by attending these meetings but that they may be able to contribute to them. If the hon. Member would like a more detailed breakdown, I will endeavour to get it and provide it for him.

Mr Chairman, Sir, it is a popular misunderstanding that to travel by sea, in the case of officers going on home leave, is cheaper than by air. I remember this question was thrashed out years back in the City Council. Sir, what actually happens is that air passages in many cases nowadays are much cheaper than first-class sea passages. Secondly, Sir, when you send an officer by sea, he takes, say, 25 days to reach the United Kingdom and the same period to come back, and during all that time - 50 days in all - he is being paid a salary and he does not have to do any work. In fact, I think he likes to go by sea. But if you pay a hundred dollars or so extra to get him to travel by air, then you will be able to get work out of him for the number of days that are saved by his travelling by air.

Sir, the Hon. the Chief Secretary has just told me that he will be glad to give me a detailed breakdown of the figure of $1,600,000. If I remember correctly, Sir, in past Legislatures I have been informed that air travel by officers going on leave cost over $150,000 more than travel by sea. I would like, however, to go into the details at leisure with the Hon. the Chief Secretary. In the meantime, my amendment stands.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $7,475,320 for Head 8 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, here is another example of extravagance. On page 53, sub-head 12, I see that $12,000 is provided for telephones for the Chief Secretary's Office. I say "Office" and not "Ministry", because this $12,000 is required for telephones within that little building in Empress Place. At $135 for a business line, it works out roughly to about 90 direct lines for that small building. It is really surprising that such a little building should require 90 direct lines. I wonder how many of the officers working in that building have a separate line for themselves, a line from the Exchange to that building whose telephone number is 2403, and how many more lines there are in their residences. I am quite sure that this figure of $12,000 covers the telephones required for the residences as well. I would like the Chief Secretary to inform us how many direct lines there are to that building, how many outside lines there are to that exchange of 2403, how many internal lines from that exchange of 2403, and how many telephones are provided for officers in that building.

Sir, the hon. Member wants a great mass of detailed information which I am afraid I cannot give him, but I am fully prepared to accept his figure that there are possibly 90 direct lines inside the Empress Place building, and I would also assure him that there is a vast number of officers inside that building! In fact, that is one of the reasons why later on you will find that we are asking for further office accommodation. The vote does, of course, include the cost of providing telephones for officers' quarters. The vote is divided between the cost of paying the subscriptions for the telephones both in the offices and in the quarters, and for the cost of making trunk calls; and I myself am quite unrepentant about the size of this vote. In fact, my difficulty usually is to persuade the Treasury to allow me to have more money for telephones, because personally I am a firm believer in making the utmost possible use of the modern methods of doing business. It may have been all very well many years ago if you wanted to communicate with somebody you called up a messenger who walked quietly across and waited for a couple of hours and then brought back an answer. In these days, when we have a more advanced form of constitution, my experience is that answers are wanted a great deal more quickly; and I have no doubt at all that it does lead to increased efficiency and speed of public business if a telephone is used, and the more use is made of the telephone, the quicker the business is despatched. Nor am I in the least bit apologetic for having telephones in officers' quarters. My experience during the last year or two has been that office hours mean little indeed and that it is vitally important to be able to get hold of all senior officers at all times of the day and, I am sorry to say, on several occasions at night, and having a telephone in their quarters has been absolutely necessary. For those officers who do not have telephones in their quarters, my view is that they should have telephones. So I fully support this vote, Sir, and I am not in the least bit apologetic about it.

Sir, on page 52, sub-head 1 (60)-Allowance to (Stenographer and Office Boy) Examiners-I see that an increase of $250 is being asked for to pay for the examination of Office Boys. Sir, is the examination so difficult that Government officers must be paid $250 for marking their papers?

It is our view, Sir, that the officers who in their spare time do this work should be given some reward, and I think, if the hon. Member who makes the criticism was aware of the status of the officers concerned, perhaps he would not be quite so ready to make it.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $7,475,320 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9- Question proposed, "That the sum of $3,591,100 for Head 9 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, I brought up this question at an informal meeting and I was told that I could not move an amendment to scrap the Department of Broadcasting unless I had permission to move from His Excellency the Governor. I know that His Excellency will follow the advice of the Council of Ministers and so I did not try to get his permission to move an amendment. I think I can, Sir, with your permission, speak generally on the subject.

I think the hon. Member should not assume things.

Coming to my topic, Sir, the Department of Broadcasting is a white elephant, being maintained by the Government for its own use. They have the Public Relations Office to publicise their viewpoint. Sir, in 1952 I moved a motion on Malayanisation which was passed, and if note had been taken of this and if the Government had any wish to malayanise the Department of Broadcasting, they could have then and there selected a few local born officers for training. But they have completely ignored my motion on Malayanisation. This Department today is full of expatriates. I understand only one Asian has been appointed to an administrative post, and that too he is only acting. Besides, Sir, this Department of Broadcasting in some Commonwealth countries - I name Ceylon and India - is run on a commercial basis as a corporation and it makes money. I would suggest that we have an expert to run our Department of Broadcasting so that it can make money. Today we are spending on this Department over $3,000,000 and we get back as revenue, in the form of Broadcast Listeners' Licence fees, only $1,115,000. We may be getting a portion of money from the Federation, but, on the whole, we are losing a lot. Why should we lose at all? The argument of the Government is that it should come under Government control, otherwise it might do something which might harm Government. If it is conceded Government can put in as one of the conditions, that if the Department is run as a corporation by a commercial concern, as is done in other countries, then the Government should have a nominee on the Board of Directors in deciding policy and other matters. Even the Government can use it by paying fees, which may be very little because matters of public importance will be definitely broadcast. So it is a farce to run this Department on money paid by the taxpayers who have no voice in running it.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I quite agree with the remarks put forward by my friend the Member for Telok Ayer. A special committee should be set up to investigate the possibility of turning Radio Malaya into a public corporation along the same lines as the British Broadcasting Corporation in the United Kingdom. Sir, with your permission, I would like to quote you some figures. In 1955 we imported 101,670 sets of radio receivers and exported 15,000 sets - a difference of 86,670 sets. From January to August 1956 we imported 89,551 sets and exported 8,462 sets - a difference of 81,089 sets. The total of these sets comes to 167,759 sets and yet the Broadcast Listeners' Licence fees collected in 1955 was $895,000, and in 1956 the fees collected came to $1,000,000. There is a difference of $105,000 in licence fees collected, which is equivalent - at $12 per annum for a set - to 8,750 sets. That is nonsense. This Department is inefficiently controlled, and it is a sham and should be scrapped.

Is the hon. Member aware that the collection of fees for broadcasting is not the work of the Department of Broadcasting?

No.

If it please you, Sir, I feel that we have been a little harsh with this broadcasting organisation. It is true that had Government been sincere about Malayanisation, the staffing problem would have been different; but you cannot blame Radio Malaya for the insincerity of colonial officials' assertions, that they are desirous of the welfare of the colonial people and desirous of assisting loyally in Malayanisation. That is no fault of Radio Malaya and the blame should not be put at the door of those who, though expatriates, are seeking to do a good job in that particular Department. The Member for Telok Ayer made a sweeping dramatic statement about the white elephant for Government to ride on. Sir, I would respectfully suggest to hon. Members that if they knew the broadcasts made from the political point of view, they must recognise that there is a very conscious effort at impartiality. There is no question whatsoever but that the Chief Secretary has control over what goes out over Radio Malaya that may have a political aspect and I have no doubt that there are certain directions in this matter; but I do not think that, by and large, we can say that there is any grave abuse of that power. I am not conscious of such abuse at all. It is true that we may be in a happier position to have an organisation with such tremendous influence over the public as a radio under impartial control and not under control that might at times take a political party aspect. Sir, that is a question that should be studied and it may well be a question for a motion before the Assembly; but to suggest that we scrap Radio Malaya because it is filled with expatriates or because it is being used for political party or government propaganda is, I think, to exaggerate, beyond the realms of the practical, defects that might be inherent in any government organisation.

Mr Chairman, Sir, when I said "scrap the Department of Broadcasting", I did not mean that there should be no broadcasting at all. What I suggested was that it should be taken out of government control as a Government Department and be made into a corporation or a commercial concern so that there will be no drain on the revenues of the colony and will be self-supporting.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am unable to understand the purpose of the remarks made by the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry. The excuse that he gave for the shortage of the collection of licence fees gave me the impression that it was due to the collection not being done by the broadcasting station. [Interruption.]

Order.

Somebody has got to be blamed. Somebody must assume the blame and that illustrates the point that broadcasting should be in the hands of a public corporation, because no public corporation would allow the collector of licence fees to be so negligent. If he is negligent, he will be sacked. In this case broadcasting is in the hands of a Government department.

Sir, rather hard things have been said about Radio Malaya. However, on second thoughts, the Member for Telok Ayer felt he does not want to scrap it after all. He merely wants to alter the constitution which, no doubt, will be very much more satisfactory for those who are interested in the radio business. Could I, first of all, deal with this question of licence fees, Sir? It seems to have been blindly assumed that there is a grave shortfall in the licensing of radio sets, and my impression is that the House has been led into that belief by the figures which were produced by the Member for Tiong Bahru; but those figures were not, if I may say so, very sound. He gave figures of the radio business showing imports and exports and led us to believe that the difference between those figures represented unlicensed radio sets in Singapore. That is certainly the impression he gave me. I hope hon. Members will appreciate that a great number of radio sets which remain in Malaya go to the Federation, and the licence fees for the Federation are not, of course, shown in our revenues. I do not accept for one minute that there is this vast discrepancy between the number of radio sets in use and the number of licence fees. I would not maintain that the collection of revenue is anything like 100 per cent, but it certainly is a great deal better than it was. I certainly do not think that we need look around for some scapegoat who needs to be sacked, if I may quote the words of another hon. Member. I should then like to refer to the accusation that this Department is full of expatriate officers who are there because of the insincerity of colonial officials' assertions. I do not accept either of those statements, Sir. The Department is not full of expatriate officers. If you look at the Department, if you look at the Report of the Malayanisation Commission, and if you will consider the figures for Malayanisation which this Government will shortly put before you, you will, I hope, agree that those criticisms are not justified. A very large number of officers from the Broadcasting Department have been sent on scholarships for training over the past few years and the fruits of those scholarships and that training are now being reaped by this Government. It is quite true that there is a high percentage of expatriate officers in the Engineering Branch of Radio Malaya. It is a highly technical electrical engineering Branch and it is not easy to find local persons with the necessary qualifications. Again, we have sent local officers for training. It takes a very long time to produce radio engineers of sufficient experience and calibre to replace our existing expatriate officers. If I may, Sir, I should like now to deal with what I think is the main question raised, and that is, whether it is right that Radio Malaya in Singapore should remain a Government department. I am very grateful to the Member for Cairnhill for his tribute to the efforts which are made by those in charge of the News Room to present an impartial account of the news. They have been criticised, and no doubt they do from time to time make mistakes, but I do assure the House that the officials responsible for producing the news on Radio Malaya do try to maintain an impartial and factual approach. I think this is very important, because once your radio loses the reputation for being factually correct, then people will not listen to its news and they will listen to radios from outside which will probably be far more partial. Coming, if I may, briefly to the main question, which is, should it remain a department, hon. Members will recall that in the Address at the opening of this session, the Government stated, as a matter of policy, that we were considering this very problem of the future of Radio Malaya. We do not, at the moment, feel that it is necessary to set up a committee. It is a matter on which we have to consult the Federation, and that we are now doing. It is not altogether a simple problem. There is, first of all, the question as to whether or not we should continue to have a joint department serving both territories. Secondly, the question - if it is to remain a common organisation (there are clearly economic advantages in that) - then can we have a statutory corporation serving both territories? And there is the connected question on which I have spoken before in this House, and that is the question of television. Can we integrate a television organisation with an organisation for Radio Malaya? As we have said in the Address, Sir, this is a problem to which the Government is giving consideration, and we are about to have discussions with our colleagues from the Federation; and I hope it will not be too long a time before we are able to produce a paper setting out our conclusions as to what is the right policy. But I must, of course, emphasise that it is not a matter which we control alone. It is a matter in which we have to work in step and in harmony with the Government of the Federation.

Sir, I am not convinced by the answer given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary. He did not explain why, for the years 1955 and 1956, out of a total of 167,759 sets, only 8,462 sets were licensed. In other words, licences were granted for 8,462 sets. The answer of the Chief Secretary to this is that a portion of these licences were issued in the Federation. But, Sir, this is a huge difference. We are short of money, and the Government should make an attempt to catch these evaders who have not paid licence fees. Revenue should be collected. In this connection, what about the revenue collected in 1952, 1953 and 1954? And yet, Sir, year in and year out, the revenue collected remains at the figure of $1,000,000. That is nonsense.

I am sure that, with this great co-operation from the Member for Tiong Bahru, we shall be able to tighten up still more the collection of our revenue, but I would not like him to think that I see any immediate prospect of the cost of our broadcasting service being balanced by the collection of licence fees. This is one of the factors which we have to take into account. I think, even if we set up a corporation, the revenue from licence fees would still not meet the cost, though we will, of course, endeavour to do our utmost with the hon. Member's kind assistance to step up the efficiency of our collection.

Sir, the Hon. the Chief Secretary said that the expatriates are on technical jobs. May I ask -

On a point of explanation, Sir.

Yes, if the hon. Member gives way. Mr R. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

I think the hon. Member must certainly admit, Sir, that I do not think that I said that there were no expatriates except in the Engineering Branch. I said the bulk of the expatriates were in the Engineering section.

What I said, Sir, was that the bulk were in the top positions.

Mr Chairman. Sir, there is a great deal to be said for the Department of Broadcasting to be changed into a public corporation.I think, if it is a public corporation, it would do its very best to attract people to make use of its services. It has just occurred to me that there is a parallel service rendered by Rediffusion Limited, and I am certain that Rediffusion is not running at a loss. It is not producing programme inferior to those of the Department of Broadcasting.

You listen to Rediffusion?

I listen to everything, Sir! Furthermore, Sir, I am certain that more people make use of Rediffusion than they do of the Department of Broadcasting. [Interruption.]

Order. If hon. Members wish to intervene, please do so in the proper manner.

I am very glad, Sir, that a stop is put to this rowdyism! Coming back to what I have just said, Sir, I think, from that point of view, there is good reason for a change, and a change for the better. In everything that we do, Sir, we will only put our best foot forward if there is competition. In the present case, whether a good job is done or a not so good job is done, the fact remains that there is always security for the worker. But if the Broadcasting Department becomes a public corporation, then the people there must use their energies. They have to think of how to improve things in order that they can get better conditions. Of course, Sir, when Radio Malaya becomes a public corporation, everybody will have a fair chance of making use of it and not just the Government, as it is at present. An hon. Member: No.

I remember that last year we had an agreement that the Government side would have a certain amount of time allotted to it over the air on Radio Malaya and that some time would also be given to the Opposition Parties for the same purpose. We have not had that opportunity yet, Sir.

If it please you, Sir, may I remind the hon. Member that there was, in fact, no agreement, though the Government tried very hard to allocate proportionate time for both the Government and the Opposition Parties to go on the air on Radio Malaya, and because no agreement could be reached, no political Party has had access to Radio Malaya at all, apart from election time.

May I elaborate, Sir? I had a letter from the Government Whip on this matter agreeing to all that, and if there had been any change, I should have been informed.

A short memory!

Mr Chairman, Sir, as I understand the Member for Serangoon, his grouse is not on the question whether the Department of Broadcasting should become a public corporation or should remain under Government control, but because the Opposition was not given enough time. Sir, the same inconsistency came up yesterday when I asked him whether he wanted to scrap the pan-Malayan structure and he said the Government should have consulted the Opposition. So the whole grouse was because the Opposition had not been consulted, otherwise everything would have been all right.

Absolutely!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $3,591,100 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 10- The sum of $376,180 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $298,960 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12-

Mr Chairman, Sir, I understand from the Hon. the Chief Secretary that I have the Governor's consent to move this amendment standing in my name, namely, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 57 (52) , Singapore Battalion - Pay and Allowances, on page 77 of the Estimates.

Can I have the Chief Secretary to signify that?

Yes, I signify that I do have the Governor's consent for the hon. Member to move his amendment.

Please proceed, Mr Ede.

Sir, when speaking on the subject of the Singapore Battalion on the Second Reading, I had hoped to obtain a reply regarding Government policy from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but none was forthcoming. I hope today that they will be a little more explicit. The fact is that in April last year we were promised by the Chief Minister of the day that the first Singapore Battalion would be in operational existence by April 1957. To-date, recruitment has not even begun. As I stated on Monday, only $2,500,000 has been allowed for under various heads in the Estimates to train, equip and officer the 800 men. My object, Sir, in moving this amendment is not to complain that the sum under this head is too much, but rather to query whether it is sufficient, if the Government is in earnest to have a battalion with its full complement under training at the earliest possible moment; what rates of pay are to be offered; how many men are to be recruited and at what age; what are their terms of service and prospects; and when will recruitment begin? I therefore ask this question to which the House has the right to a full answer. Question proposed.

Sir, I can at once give the hon. Member the assurance which I think he seeks, and that is, that the Government does firmly intend to proceed with raising this Singapore Battalion, and we are still hoping to achieve that in the very near future. I think his disquiet partly arises from the figures in the Estimates, and the explanation is this: that we were advised by the military experts that we should probably need a sum of the order of $3.6 million for the pay, maintenance and equipment of the battalion, but it is quite evident that the battalion cannot be at full battalion strength at the very beginning of this coming year, and we have therefore entered the figures which appear in the Estimates - it is a million dollars under the head which we are now discussing, I think, and $500,000 under another head, and there is a million dollars further back in the Defence Estimates. Those figures, Sir, do not purport to be the full cost, but they purport to be as reasonable an estimate as we can make of what we expect to spend. The Treasury, financially, I am sure Members would agree, did not wish to include in the Estimates a figure which there was little prospect of spending, thereby upsetting the balance of the Estimates. It is our intention to raise a battalion and we have put in the money which we hope to spend. If events move faster, and we would welcome them to move faster, and we need more funds, we shall, of course, come here for more funds.

If it please you, Sir, I would like to touch upon the most expensive toy Navy in history - the Royal Malayan Navy.

Is the hon. Member speaking on the amendment?

Sir, I beg your pardon, no.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would just like to say that I consider that a very disappointing answer. If, as I understand it, it is going to cost $3.6 million to make the battalion operational and only $2� million is provided for, that means that there will be no Singapore battalion in operation until 1958 - or more than a year after what was promised us last April.

Sir, much depends on the meaning of the word "operational". If by "operational" we mean by the end of the coming year we can have a regular battalion fully trained in all the arts of an infantry soldier, then, of course, the answer must be no. That would not be possible. I think it would probably take at least two or three years to get a battalion up to the full standard of infantry training. But if by "operational" we only mean that by the end of the year we should have had our battalion well established - we hope up to strength - and completed their basic training, and therefore a formed and disciplined body of men making good progress, then I think there is still a prospect. In that sense we might be operational. I say "prospect" advisedly.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $11,168,390 for Head 12 stand part of the Schedule."

If it please you, Sir, the Imperial Government has insisted during the last constitutional talks, and well before - in fact, it was conceded freely before the constitutional talks - that it should have complete control of the defence of Singapore. This was necessary, not for the purposes of Singapore, Sir, but for the purposes of the international defence commitments of the United Kingdom. That being the case, Sir, it seems to me wholly inappropriate to call upon the people of Singapore to pay for imperial expenditure and imperial defence services, since those defence services are not primarily intended for the welfare of the people of Singapore. Sir, we have been spending, and we are promised that we shall spend, fantastic millions on a toy Navy which has no relationship to our needs and which has never been utilised for our welfare. I have sought, by a question, to elicit information as to the policy of the Imperial Government, necessarily not of this Government, with reference to these matters - a policy which could have been indicated by the Chief Secretary - and the Financial Secretary has avoided the point, the question being directed to him on financial aspects. I have sought to obtain information as to the policy which would govern expenditure for the next five years, since I see that we are down for $15 million for, I believe, four minesweepers - and not tin minesweepers. They have nothing to do with any productive effort and nothing to do with any topical aspect of the welfare of the people of Singapore. I, for one, Sir, as a citizen of this territory, deplore the horrible waste of considerable sums of money on this toy Navy, and I call upon the Chief Secretary to give this country a full explanation of the intentions of the Imperial Government, in so far as this Government knows them, as concern our expenditure on matters which do not concern Singapore but concern external defence which the United Kingdom insists on retaining, and will continue to insist on retaining, and in fact retains.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully agree with the Member for Cairnhill who has just spoken on the Royal Malayan Navy. It has been admitted many times in this House, Sir, that Singapore is still a British colony. As such, matters of external defence should be borne by Her Majesty's Government. I see no justification that salaries and allowances for officers on loan from the Royal Navy to the Singapore Government should be met by the Singapore Government and not by the British Admiralty. 11.36 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am somewhat surprised! I thought I should get much more of a thrashing from the Member for Cairnhill over the Singapore Battalion than over the Royal Malayan Navy. Life is full of surprises! The hon. Member used some hard words about the Royal Malayan Navy, calling it "a toy Navy" and a waste of fantastic millions, suggesting that it is never utilised for our welfare, and that he deplored its horrible waste. Sir, it can well be said that all expenditure on military forces is a horrible waste, but unfortunately we still live in times when it is necessary to spend money on those forces. While, of course, they are unproductive, they do add something, I think, to the sum of human values; and that is, when you create an organisation such as the Royal Malayan Navy and in this interest a number of young men, you do produce something that goes beyond the men, goes beyond the buildings, and goes beyond the weapons or the ships they may use. And the Royal Malayan Navy, in its short life, has already produced something for which alone much of the expenditure would have been worthwhile. That is a sense of service and a sense of belonging to an organisation in which you can have pride and in which I hope your country can have pride. Now, Sir, I am asked by the Member or Cairnhill to state the intentions of he Imperial Government. I have no brief, Sir, to speak on behalf of the Imperial Government, nor indeed do I think that the intentions of the Imperial government really come into this issue at all. At the risk of taking up some of your time, I should like to put the Royal Malayan Navy into its proper historical background, and I will start, Sir, with the time in 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 when war was very close to Singapore but not yet upon us, and when our friends were far away and heavily committed and could do little for us. At that time, Sir, the waters of this great seaport were kept safe for the ships of the world to come and go, for our life-blood to continue to flow, by a comparatively small number of young men from Singapore and the Federation who were prepared to man small ships, referred to scathingly as "toy ships", "tin-ships". They were not very big ships. But those men performed a very vital function here in sweeping the mines and ensuring that, regardless of what happened on the main battlefields of the global war, Singapore's life could still go on. It was very much on the tradition of that Singapore Naval Volunteer Force that a small Malayan naval unit was formed during the war by a number of people who had succeeded in making their escape and who also served throughout the whole of the rest of the war while many of us were prevented by circumstances from doing anything; and on that tradition, on that small nucleus, the Royal Malayan Navy has been built up to what it is today. The background of building up the Royal Malayan Navy was the background of an agreed policy between the two Governments - the Federation (or the Malayan Union, as it may have been) and Singapore. While it is quite true - I will anticipate the point which will be made - that in those days the Government was run by the colonial officials who decided precisely what these two Governments would do, (that is a criticism that people can make), I do not think it holds any water at all because, in fact, moneys for these services had to be voted through the Legislative Councils; and the colonial officials, however much they might want to "oppress" the people of Singapore, could not do it unless they were able to persuade the unofficial majority to vote the moneys through. Anyway, it was decided, as a matter of pan-Malayan defence organisation, that these two territories would do something to contribute towards their own defence. It was also decided, with the full concurrence and agreement of the then representatives of the people - some of them elected - that the most practical and efficient way of doing that was for Singapore, which, as I say, had already this very fine tradition of a Navy and which had on the island the big resources of the Royal Naval Base, to shoulder the task of providing a Royal Malayan Navy - not a Singapore Navy, but a Royal Malayan Navy - for the whole of Malaya. At the same time, the Federation Government undertook to develop the Army side. There again that seems to me to have been a very sensible decision. The Federation had this wonderful tradition of the Malay Regiment, two battalions of which took part in the fighting against the Japanese, and the First Battalion, I think, distinguished itself then as highly as any other battalion during the Malayan campaign. So the Federation had the tradition of the Malay Regiment. They had the manpower, and they said they would undertake to build up the infantry forces. And it was on that basis that the plans were made and moneys were voted by the two Councils over a period of years which led to the creation of very considerable military forces by the Federation, and of this very fine little Royal Malayan Navy which was supported by Singapore. The whole basis of that was the pooling of interests, a joint effort for the common good, and it was not suggested that the functions and the size of the Royal Malayan Navy should be limited only by the area of water around Singapore, or that the military forces raised in the Federation should be limited purely to Federation needs. Sir, we have now, of course, moved into a different set of circumstances where the Federation Government is rapidly moving towards full independence and we in Singapore are moving towards an interim stage. So the question now is whether, under the new constitutional circumstances which will exist next year, these plans and these arrangements are still sound. That is a matter which we are discussing with the Federation Government, and I think I can say at this stage that the indications are that while we in Singapore have already decided that we must build up some military force - at least one battalion, and possibly two battalions of soldiers here - similarly the Federation Government have come to the conclusion that they must build up a naval force and not leave it entirely to Singapore. It would seem, therefore, at first sight that the two Governments are moving on lines which will complement each other in that the Federation Government, I think, wish to accept responsibility for the naval force, and to the extent that they do that, we shall be relieved of that part of the pan Malayan share. We, on the other hand, are wishing to put our money rather into a battalion of troops than into ships. What decisions we shall finally reach I cannot yet say, but I hope that the conversations which we are to have in the near future will enable us to reach agreement on broad policy; and in the light of that, we shall be able to consider in Singapore what to do for our future naval commitments. It is because this problem is still under discussion and because we have not yet reached firm conclusions that I am not able, unfortunately, to give the Member for Cairnhill what he would like - which is a firm statement of what we propose to do for the naval force of Singapore and what we propose to spend on it. I would like to add, I think, one last point, and that is that in putting our minds to the problem of building up a military force, do not let us altogether overlook the fact that Singapore is one of the major seaports of the world, that our life does depend on the freedom of ships coming and going, and that in time of war, when people drop mines, it is only by having some small ships which would keep your sealanes clear that you will get your ships in and out. I think there is a certain minimum commitment for Singapore to safeguard its own front door, as it were, which should not be overlooked, viewing the Royal Malayan Navy through pan-Malayan eyes. I am sorry that I cannot give a firm assurance as to what we are going to do and I have no doubt that this question will come up again when we are dealing with a development head for capital expenditure, and I think I will not say any more on that till we come to it.

Mr Chairman, I am sure both sides of the House have been greatly impressed by the strong nationalist feeling shown by the Member for Cairnhill in connection with the Royal Malayan Navy. We have also to express our appreciation of the detailed explanation from the Hon. the Chief Secretary on the Royal Malayan Navy. But, Sir, one main question which both sides of this House have not touched is whether there is a possibility of any enemy invading this country. Therefore, we must be prepared to spend a certain amount of money on defence expenditure. Sir, at this juncture, I must pay a tribute to the Hon. the Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya when he decided that the Federation of Malaya will definitely not join the S.E.A.T.O. pact. Sir, although it looks as if many people have overlooked it, yet to me this decision of the Federation Chief Minister carries a very important significance of an independent administrative policy as regards the future of this territory. We have to bear in mind the spirit that has been brought about by the Asian-African Conference, and the circumstances of the world today when, at this juncture, we debate on whether or not to spend our hard earned money on building up a Navy - as the Chief Secretary has explained, a minesweeper that will protect this territory or render certain conveniences to our great seaport

Four minesweepers.

But, Sir, I am reminded that although our Malayan coast was protected by two great fighting ships - the Prince of Wales and the Repulse - during the last war, yet this territory fell into enemy hands. Even though Singapore and the Federation of Malaya may pool their revenue, I wonder whether they can afford to build many battleships. I am sure hon. Members in this House will agree with me that we cannot afford to build even one. Therefore, to build up a Malayan Navy to defend this coast is, to me, not only unnecessary but a mockery. Another point which strikes me and all political Parties in this colony is that the supreme power in this territory still lies with the British Government. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the constitutions of Singapore and the Federation are in the hands of the British Government, we agree that external defence should rest solely with the British Government. Therefore, at this juncture, I do not think it is any use talking about building a Royal Malayan Navy. Sir, I wish to put an alternative suggestion to the Chief Secretary for his consideration, and that is, whether it is possible to hold up this issue until Singapore becomes a State and not still a colony.

Order. The time allotted for this Head has expired.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $11,168,390 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 13- Question proposed, "That the sum of $201,040 for Head 13 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, on this question of film censorship, I have just one or two comments to make. I want to draw the attention of the Government to the type of films which are shown in the colony. On the whole, they do not tend to make people work in the direction of obeying law and order or of getting them to work harder at their jobs. Rather these films work in the wrong direction in that they incite people to commit crime where they did not know how to do it before! I am aware of a number of films which show techniques employed by gangsters and robbers. These techniques hitherto have not been known to the people of Singapore, although probably they are known in Chicago. I would recommend that the Board of Film Censors take note of such things so that any film, which tends to lower the morals of the people of Singapore or gives them a better idea of how to commit crimes and get away with them, should be censored to a greater extent. Furthermore, we have our local film industry coming up and it should receive more encouragement, bearing in mind also the film import tax in the Federation of Malaya.

I very much share the views expressed by the Member for Serangoon, Sir, that the general standard of the films shown is not all that could be desired. The question is how far by censorship we can improve it. Censorship is a somewhat difficult subject. The position in the Film Censor's Office, as the hon. Member knows, is that we have two or three persons who view the films and decide whether or not they can be passed. Then there is an Appeal Board which consists of a number of, I hope, representative citizens of Singapore. If we ask the Film Censor to tighten up a great deal on the ordinary run of films that come in, I think you will find that there will be a great many appeals before the Appeal Board, and I am not sure how far the Appeal Board would be able to sustain the Film Censor. But I am sure the remarks which have been made will not be lost on those who are responsible for taking these very difficult decisions as to what films to allow in and how far it is possible to make cuts in the film without completely ruining it.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $20l,040 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14- The sum of $546,780 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (1) , Director of Information Services, Grade F, on page 94 of the Estimates. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, namely, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 11, Tourist Promotion, on page 96 of the Estimates. Sir, since I spoke on the subject of tourist promotion this time last year, I am glad that the Government has made some progress in this matter in the past 12 months. A Working Party was set up to go into the problem of starting a tourist bureau in Singapore, and one of its recommendations was that an expert in tourism be invited to come to Singapore and make an examination of the possibilities. An expert from New Zealand is now here, I believe, and he has made his report. It is to be hoped that the Government will now take another step forward and follow through with his recommendations in so far as they prove suitable and to use his advice, while he is here, to get the bureau started. Sir, I would ask Members of this House to realise that, when talking about tourism, you are talking of an industry - the tourist industry - and Singapore is not so rich as to be able to afford to neglect any form of industry which will be of economic benefit. Countries like Japan and Hawaii have benefited enormously. Japan last year earned $45,400,000 from tourists; Hawaii $16 million; and there is no reason why we should not do something of the same sort. Our attractions, to mention some of the more obvious ones which our visitors comment on, are our multiracial friendliness and colourfulness, our variety of foods, our tropical fruits and fish and orchids, our housing schemes and our clinics. Our people must be educated to be tourist-conscious so that they are more aware of the benefits which it can bring and so that visitors can be persuaded to stay on for a longer period. We have much in Singapore to be proud of and much to show those who stay here, and I am not sure that we always realise this fact. I repeat, Sir, Singapore has so few indigenous industries that the Government must go all out to develop the tourist industry and to enlist the co-operation of the commercial concerns such as the shipping lines and the airlines and so on. I hope that the small amount done in last year will be largely increased in the coming year, and my object in moving this amendment is to draw attention to the fact that the amount of $20,000 under this head, although double the amount allotted last year, is not too much but too little, and from the explanatory note, it appears that the money is to be spent on literature and not on the tourist bureau, where the tourists start. The literature put up by the Public Relations Office, to my mind, is not particularly attractive. I would say that the visitor is more likely to be attracted to Singapore and the Federation by the Straits Times Annual than by the Businessman's Guide. The reason is no doubt that the Public Relations Office is not best suited to provide this type of thing and that a tourist expert is needed to carry out this kind of work. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell us what plans are being made for the future and will give us the assurance that the Government intends to take the tourist industry very seriously so as to improve and increase our national income. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I agree with every word of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tanglin has said. I always say that we have no natural resources and we have to develop something which can give us more revenue. The tourist industry is one of the best forms to get revenue in the sense that Singapore is the centre of South- East Asia. It is a very important port of call for steamers, aeroplanes and other means of communication. The tourist industry is an idea which we got from E.C.A.F.E. many years ago, but unfortunately it has not been developed. Although Singapore is a small city, we can, if we publicise it well, keep the tourists' stay here longer. So can the Federation if it does the same. And the more days we can keep the tourists here, the more money will Singapore earn. Sir, I heartily support this amendment.

Sir, this is one occasion where I agree entirely with the Member for Tanglin. He is right in what he has said but, of course, since his amendment proposes a reduction in the vote although he would like to have it increased. I cannot support it.

It is a conventional amendment, Mr Minister.

I know, Sir. The hon. Member raised the point that we should try to encourage the tourist industry. In fact, Sir, I remember that the Member for Cairnhill himself gave a lot of attention to this matter and we are now awaiting the report from the expert. If Singapore is well advertised, Sir, we may be able to draw a lot of tourists here. But, Sir, may I draw the attention of a certain section of this House to the fact the Singapore is being well advertised in another way - by the riots and the troubles that we have had? That kind of advertisement, Sir, is not to our credit.

If it please you, Sir, it is a delightful if somewhat foreign feeling to be able to say that I agree with everything that everybody has said! I do, Sir, and I would only like to add this as a contribution to the debate: One of the main obstacles to the development of Singapore as a tourist centre is the limited and expensive hotel accommodation. Sir, compared to any other city in any other country, it is extraordinary that in this territory we cannot get hotel accommodation of a character demanded by the tourists, but at a reasonable figure. We have hotels for the very rich and we have hotels for the lower income groups, but we have no hotels for the type of tourists who would like to visit Singapore - for instance, a school teacher or a clerk from the territories around us. I was looking forward to Merdeka Bridge and Merdeka Highway, because I was hoping that a site would then be made available - and a site is now available, a wonderful site for a hotel. A large hotel can be built on this site to accommodate 300 to 500 people on the seaside. This is an unusual request, Sir, but since we failed to interest local capital and foreign capital (an American group) in putting up a hotel at a moderate price, I would ask whether the Government would consider the question of putting up a building which it could then lease out to be managed as a hotel at very reasonable rates per day. That would, in my opinion, go a very long way towards helping Singapore became a tourist centre.

Sir I have just one comment to make in reply to the very interesting suggestion put forward by the Member for Cairnhill. The Nicoll Highway and Merdeka Bridge area is not suitable for very large buildings unless you are prepared to put in very long piles and sink a great deal of money in the foundations. We had 160-foot piles under parts of the bridge. Well, that adds enormously to your capital investment, and consequently a hotel with that length of pile underneath it would require a very high tariff from those people who make use of it and would be very much of a luxury hotel. That is a matter for very careful thought. To put up a middle-class or a lower-middle-class hotel, I think your site would have to be elsewhere.

Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore has a warm climate which is very attractive to people in Europe. We also have palm trees and blue skies, but all these things can also be found in Hawaii and Ceylon and Djakarta and elsewhere. But there are some things that Singapore can boast of which other places cannot, and these are the many races living here and the many cultures flourishing around us. In effect, Sir, I am suggesting that if we are to ask our Information Services to publicise Singapore, we must have materials for them to publicise. We must build up some sort of speciality, which will be a real attraction for tourists. In Singapore we have quite a lot of religious and traditional ceremonies. These emanated from India and other places many years ago but are now no more followed in those lands. They are however still practised here. We have also music of many varieties - Indian, Chinese, Malay, etc. All these things need encouragement. It is not just the work of the Information Services. They have also to work with the police, so that the latter can issue them with the necessary permits to carry out these things. We will then have something for the Information Services who will be able to make Singapore attractive to the tourists.

Sir, naturally I am gratified to find on both sides of the House so much support for further expenditure on the promotion of a tourist industry in Singapore. I would just like to say that we have not received the final report from the Colombo Plan expert who visited us, but I am told the report will be ready very shortly. I am also told that it will make recommendations for considerably increased expenditure on the tourist industry. I cannot yet say for what aspects the money will be required, but I shall have considerable confidence, if I have to come back to this Assembly for further funds in order to carry out those recommendations, of getting support.

Question, "That the sum of $679,310 for Head 15 stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I shall take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head 15-

(Continued).

I wish to cure an omission. Hon. Members will remember that we were on Information Services before the suspension of the sitting and we were, in fact, hearing a debate on an amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). I regret that the Question on his amendment was not put but I understand from the hon. Member that it was his desire to ask for leave to withdraw the amendment. Is that correct?

That is correct, Sir.

Of course, before an amendment can be withdrawn, the leave of the House will have to be obtained and I would like to know whether it is the pleasure of the Assembly that that amendment should have been withdrawn. Hon. Members: Aye.

In that case, it will be so recorded. Thank you. Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi) rose -

Yes, Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not know whether you will permit me to say something on the subject of Information Services and whether the amendment is still before the House.

I could, of course, take the view that, as the business had not been completed, the vote on the Head is, in fact, invalidated and I think, in view of the hon. Member's request, I must hold then that the vote which was taken on the main Head was invalidated and therefore the whole Question is now reopened. My recollection is, I think, that we have another 15 minutes on that Head. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think both sides of the House are aware that although the Information Services seems to be a new department, it is, in fact, a change in name only from the Public Relations Office, and therefore we can trace the amount of work between the Government and the people, especially on the information side. I wish to point out to the House that I, for one, am very unhappy about the duties performed by the then Public Relations Office I have no doubt that many officers in that Office have tried their best to perform an efficient service but there is still a tendency for this Office to neglect its duty of informing the public. In particular, the non-English-speaking public are not provided with the information to which they are entitled. I think this is the right and proper time for Government to adopt a new approach towards our people, most of whom are illiterate and not civic-minded. As one of the functions of the Information Services, many hundreds of pictures of Ministers performing opening ceremonies or delivering speeches have been circulated. Sir, I am not opposing this function of the Information Services to inform the public that such and such a Minister is working very hard or that he has visited such and such a place with pictures of him circulated; but there are many more important functions which the Information Services can perform. One of them is to inform the public of the current state of affairs in Singapore of which I am sure the public are ill-informed. I take this opportunity to remind the Government to utilise fully the facilities which they possess in the Information Services, and not only give information but, at the same time, educate the people properly. The debate now is on taxation but I wonder how many citizens in Singapore realise that taxation is necessary if every citizen wants to benefit socially. Last month's rioting, a most regrettable incident, will, I hope, wake the Government up to the fact that the public have been misinformed in many, many things. It is very important that the Government should bear the responsibility of not only informing the public, if possible, of every detail that passes but also of educating our people and making sure that the Information Services will not be an instrument merely to serve the Government and not the people. 2.39 p.m.

Sir, I do not think that any of us on this side of the House would profess to be satisfied with the extent to which our Information Services succeed in reaching the population of Singapore. We are fully conscious, Sir, of the need to do a great deal more and, in particular, of this difficulty of reaching the non-English speaking sections of the population and the sections of the population which have had less advantage of education. The Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall), speaking a few days ago, rightly pointed out that one of the basic problems that has to be solved here is to draw the two sections of the population together - those who can speak and understand English and those who cannot. I do accept - and I am sure my colleagues would wish me to accept - the criticism made by the hon. Member that we are not doing enough. We are trying to do what we can. Perhaps I could say as a slight token of what has been done that we have strengthened during the past year what I now call the Chinese-speaking staff in the what was then the Public Relations Office. We were, unfortunately, through other demands, short of staff in the Public Relations Office through most of this year. I hope that we shall be able to bring that staff back up to full strength and we are fully conscious of the importance of strengthening those who can speak and read Chinese and who will know how to so present material that it will reach home to those sections of our population. One last thing I would add, Sir, and that is that we do, at this very moment, have under consideration proposals for strengthening and enlarging this department now to be called the Department of Information Services. It is my regret that those proposals were not completed in time to be included in the Estimates now before the Assembly but it is my very earnest hope that in a sitting - perhaps our next sitting, if not then, certainly the first sitting in February - I hope to come to this Assembly for an increase in the provision for the Information Services to strengthen us and to do a little more than we are doing now to meet the criticism which, quite rightly, has been expressed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $679,310 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- Question proposed, "That the sum of $25,373,140 for Head 16 stand part of the Schedule." 2.43 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, whenever the word "Police" is mentioned to the Public, it gives them a picture of a force that is not friendly and finds fault with the people, and of a force that seems always to look at things the wrong way. I am certain, Sir, that this is due mainly to the arrangement of the police in stations. As a matter of fact, we find that in police stations, the business that is transacted is not only confined to crime but also related to such things as registration of births and deaths, the obtaining of a permit for a procession, and so on. However, whenever a person goes to register his child's birth, he is usually being given a treat also, to other aspects of police work. I would say that that aspect of the business does not help him to appreciate the work of the police too much. Lately, I have seen some improvements in this direction and I have seen that in police stations, they have tried to separate the two things - crime from the ordinary business of the day - instead of having everything done on a long counter. But it has not been done sufficiently. I think that the separation should be complete so that the people who go along on their lawful business should feel confident of walking into a police station and having their work done in a cordial manner and in an atmosphere that is almost like an office. One suggestion I would like to make, Sir, is that, instead of having a policeman in uniform, he might very well be in mufti to deal with non-criminal matters. That would probably help the people, who would be less reluctant to go into a police station. One more point, of course, Sir, is that the trouble today would have been less if everybody could treat the policeman as a friend and walk up to him and ask him to solve their difficulties. Then probably, you will find that there will be less hatred. This, of course, cannot be achieved in a day or in a few months. It will probably take one or two years but I am certain that if the Government puts up a scheme whereby every policeman is given a course in which he is instructed how to help the public, how to be courteous to them and how, sometimes, to go out of their way to help them in little matters, it will help tremendously. Another point concerning this Head, Sir, is regarding the policemen themselves. It seems to me, Sir, that police personnel are being provided with quarters for which a percentage of their pay is deducted. However, let us take the case, Sir, of a policeman who is in Grade III. He should live in Grade III quarters, but if he should be given Grade IV quarters, he would still have to pay at the Grade III rate. I would be obliged if an explanation could be given in this matter. I know also, Sir, that if, a Grade III officer were to live in Grade II quarters, he would have to pay at the Grade II rate. I shall be glad, Sir, to have an explanation for this. 2.48 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support every word of what the Member for Serangoon has just said. Despite the efficiency of our police force, we must admit that there is still misunderstanding between the police and the people of Singapore. The non-English-speaking and non-Malay group especially do not feel that the police are their servants or friends or protectors of law and order. They merely treat a policeman as somebody unapproachable. We have witnessed many changes and improvements, as mentioned by the hon. Member just now. We do not want to look on a police station as a fearful place but as a place where we can sit down comfortably to do our business. The people in a police station only deal with those who can speak English or Malay. But what about those who cannot converse in those languages? Therefore, I suggest that the Hon. the Chief Secretary consider having a Chinese-speaking officer in every police station on a 24-hour service. I also wish to point out to the Hon. the Chief Secretary that we have, in Singapore, many Chinese plainclothes officers and detectives and a few Chinese constables in uniforms.

They will not join.

Why? The Government should go all out to try and get them to join. Maybe it is a question of pay or accommodation, and we must overcome this problem. Look at the Hongkong Police; they are all Chinese. I think there is very little difference between the Hongkong Chinese and the Singapore Chinese as regards their traditions and mentality. How is it that the Hongkong Government manages to have so many Chinese constables in uniform? We must therefore try to encourage more Chinese to join our police force even to the extent of spending more money. 2.51 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am sorry that hon. Members should feel it necessary to stress, after recent events, any attitude of hostility between the police force and police stations and members of the public. At the same time, I am glad to hear that the Member for Serangoon did think that there had been some improvement and I think that the Member for Changi really put his finger on the basic difficulty and it is a difficulty of language. The arrangements that we have at the moment are that we always try to have one Chinese-speaking officer in every police station but that does not mean that there is always a man available when two or three people go in one after the other. So we just cannot invariably have a Chinese-speaking officer available and the answer, I am sure, is that we must somehow persuade more of our Chinese citizens to join the force. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the rates of pay. I think it is that, for many generations, it has been accepted that the police force is recruited from a certain section of the community and the other section has not yet developed a tradition of joining it -

Overcome it.

- but the fault, I think, Sir, is not only on one side. It is on both sides and both must co-operate to solve it.

I would like to have some information from the Hon. the Chief Secretary on the item "Pandit" appearing on page 98 of the draft Estimates. Who is he and what are his functions? He is generally supposed to be a Brahmin but I do not know what it means here.

Sir, I am sure that he is a lowly paid expert.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $25,373,140 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17- The sum of $1,621,560 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18- The sum of $3,298,460 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19- Question proposed, "That the sum of $31,910 for Head 19 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, I should like to know whether it is not possible to have better accommodation for the Registry of Marriages. At present, it is in a small corner of the Supreme Court building on the ground floor.

The answer to that question, Sir, will depend very much on the fate of items which come later in this year's Estimates.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $31,910 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20-

Mr Chairman. Sir, I move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (2) , Statisticians, on page 125 of the Estimates. Sir, I move this motion in order to find out exactly what the work of these statisticians will be and what assistance they will give to Singapore as a whole. In fact. I move this because I could not understand why there was such a need for a large number of statisticians at this time when not too many were appointed last year and the year before. Question proposed 2.58 p.m.

I have a fairly detailed brief on the work of these statisticians and I am not sure whether I shall be able to give it all to hon. Members in the very short time available. Previously, we had four statisticians and they dealt with the following rough spheres of work. One dealt with routine statistics for trade, transport, production, stocks and wholesale prices. The second one dealt with estimates of national income, capital formation, bonds, payments, banking, insurance, and so on. The third one dealt with retail prices, budget, resurveys, sampling. The fourth one dealt with vital statistics, that is, births, deaths, population, employment, immigration. They are now asking for two more statisticians and the first one will be primarily required to expand the gap in the national income statistics. Now these are very badly needed and the Economic Adviser has told us that we must have better statistics of our income, businesses, profits, C.I.F. prices, turnovers, and so on. The last sixth one we require primarily for the census problem to help us through the census next year and we want to keep a nucleus of the census organisation running through the years so that local censuses of, shall we say, agriculture, production and fisheries can be undertaken from time to time. I am afraid I am going very rapidly but I am very short of time.

The time allotted has expired.

I am satisfied with the explanation of the Hon. the Chief Secretary and I therefore withdraw my motion.

Is it the pleasure of the Assembly that this amendment should be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,670,510 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21- Question proposed, "That the sum of $365,370 for Head 21 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, I am not touching on this department particularly. I missed the opportunity because there was no time during the discussion on the last Head for me to put a question. When I turn the pages of the Estimates, in every Head, it strikes me that expatriation pay, variable allowances, hotel allowances -

Is the hon. Member on Head - Legal?

Yes, page 133, items (16) and (17). Item (16) is Expatriation Pay and item (17) is Variable Allowance and Standstill Allowance and on another item I found Hotel Allowance. I am not particularly asking about this department but can I ask the hon. the Financial Secretary at this stage - if it is possible, Sir, with your permission - or, at a later stage, to give me a total estimate of expatriation pay, variable allowances, hotel allowances and standstill allowances?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

But, Sir, have I the time to put that question in writing?

The hon. Member can put down a question for the sitting of 5th December.

And not before that?

Mr Chairman, Sir, that is already published and is not subject to questions. It is shown in the Estimates already.

I have asked the hon. Member to put down a question -

We do not have any statisticians!

Order, please. I have asked the hon. Member to put down a question, and when that is done, I will decide whether it is in order.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $365,370 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- Question proposed, "That the sum of $360,160 for Head 22 stand part of the Schedule."

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to enquire whether the Government would consider introducing legislation to have more effective control over the administration of charities or charitable bequests by deceased persons through the Public Trustee. At the present moment, the position is this, Sir. A man dies and out of the goodness of his heart, he makes considerable donations - considerable or otherwise but considerable in many instances - and asks his trustees to administer these bequests but a great deal depends on the integrity and the willingness of his trustees. Those who are affected cannot appeal, in any way, to view the accounts except through the Attorney-General and his, as you have already often heard, Sir, is a very much overworked department which really is not suited to go into accounts of private trustees and advise the Cestui Qui trusts as to their position. I think, Sir, the time has come for Government to consider seriously the introduction of legal provisions which would give the Public Trustee wide supervisory powers over all public charitable bequests of private individuals. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, on the point which has been raised by the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall), I do not think that I can say anything which will help him very much at this stage but I would say that I should be very glad indeed to consider any more detailed proposals which he would care to communicate to me and I would be very glad to discuss the position with him. I have not, up to this moment, been aware of any unsatisfactory situation - the sort of unsatisfactory situation which he has suggested - existing in relation to the administration of charitable trusts and, of course, if there were any unsatisfactory situation with regard to a particular charitable trust, it would be my function, if it were brought to my notice as Attorney-General, to take the matter up. The hon. Member has indicated that he thinks that we are too busy in my department to deal with this type of matter but, in fact, I am, from time to time, represented in the Courts on matters affecting charities and I would, at all times, be very glad and indeed anxious to hear from any Member who is not satisfied with regard to the administration of any charitable trust. However, I think that is all I can say at this stage, Sir. I am sorry I cannot say more with regard to proposals for legislation. I think they would require further consideration and I shall make it my business to look into the matter and to get in touch with the hon. Member.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $360,160 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 23-

Sir, I move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4, Commissions, Conferences and Visits of Advisers, on page 140 of the Estimates. The provision for last year was $40,000 and for 1957, $100,000 is asked for. It has not come to our knowledge of any special commissions, conferences and visits of advisers and unless we are told of some special conference, I think the amount asked for is much too high. Last year, we had the Colombo Plan Conference here and a special vote was asked for and approved by this Assembly. I therefore seek to reduce this sum, Sir, unless we can get some very good information about these forthcoming visits.

May I remind the hon. Member again, as I have reminded another hon. Member, that we are now debating the policy of the services for which money is to be provided? The point raised by the hon. Member is a point which can be looked into with advantage by the Estimates Committee of which, I think, the hon. Member is a Member. If he can develop an argument or a debate on the policy for which the money is to be provided, then, of course, he is in order.

Sir, as I understand it, you can only speak on policy by comparing the amounts asked for. What is the use of having estimates like these unless I am allowed to point out the exorbitant amounts that are asked for?

I am not stopping the hon. Member from drawing the attention of the House to any particular item. That can always be done but what I am trying to indicate is that there cannot be a debate on details. The debate must be confined to policy and the hon. Member can always draw the attention of the Assembly to specific items when the main Question is proposed; but when a motion is moved on an amendment, that, of course, presupposes a debate and if there is to be a debate, then, under Standing Orders, the debate is to be on policy only.

Well, Sir, I seek to ask information on this point.

We will do that then when we come to the main Question. I am not proposing the amendment because I think it is out of order on those lines. There is also a notice of another amendment by the hon. Member.

Yes, Sir, the same point arises and I only seek information.

Thank you. Question proposed, "That the sum of $23,867,060 for Head 23 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, I would like to speak generally now. I do suggest, Sir, that in one item, there is a large sum asked for which is two and a half times that of last year and the other item is a new item altogether. The new item is No. 18 under Head 23. Unless we have specific reasons for these items and we have knowledge of the proposed visits, then we will have to vote against these items.

Singapore is such a small place and I think such conferences and visits by other nations coming over here could well be handed over to our brothers in the Federation and the colony can thus save money. An hon. Member: Shame!

It is a small contribution to this point. These visits do bear an aspect partly especially if you have the Colombo Plan or E.C.A.F.E. or tourist trade and though we may provide some finance for it, you undoubtedly would benefit backwards from it. Another very small point which hon. Members might note is that Singapore is a small territory and consequently does sometimes need to go outside for advice which you cannot recruit from the very limited skilled and expert population which you have here. 3.13 p.m.

Sir, in answer to the two questions raised by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), firstly, on the vote, item 4, "Commissions, Conferences and Visits of Advisers", the provision in 1956 was indeed $40,000 but the hon. Member will recall that in April this year, under Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1956, we obtained a supplement of $100,000. That was to meet the cost, first of all, of the Malayanisation Commission and, secondly, experts who visited Singapore in connection with land titles, labour relations, cost of living statistics and certain education matters. The actual expenditure under this vote in 1955 was $95,000 and the expenditure up to October of this year was $121,000. What we pay from the vote are the fees of commissioners who are appointed locally as in the case of the Malayanisation Commission, hotel charges, passages, subsistence allowances and other expenses of the people who are invited from other territories to come and advise us here. The provision in 1957 is $100,000 and takes into account the probability that we will have to employ for the whole year an adviser own transport. I can think of no other commitments against the vote other than that one at the present time but I think it is prudent to have $100,000 in the Estimates to meet all possible contingencies. With regard to the second vote, item 18. "United Nations Experts, Local Costs", this vote is provided to meet the local costs of experts sent here by the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agricultural Organisation and the United Nations Economic Social and Cultural Organisation. When experts from these organisations come and serve in Singapore, their basic salaries are paid by the organisations but we are responsible for, what they call, local costs, that is, subsistence allowance and travelling allowances. The sum required or estimated by the various organisations to be required in any particular area is given to us and we make arrangements on request for a sum to be paid into the account of the particular organisation in a local bank. In 1956, we had a number of sister tutors from the World Health Organisation: five in number altogether, and two from the International Labour Organisation who were here for a short period. The local costs of these people are estimated to come to about $9,500 but we have not yet had a request from the World Health Organisation to pay that amount into their bank and consequently we are making provision in this vote next year for the amount of money due this year. Again in respect of 1957, we do intend to ask for and receive one senior sister tutor and three normal sister tutors for the Medical Department and it is estimated that their local charges will come to about $9,000. Hence we have $20,000 in the Estimates.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $23,867,060 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24- The sum of $6,480,000 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- The sum of $11,021,150 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26-

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $100,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 3, Family Planning Association, on page 144 of the Estimates. Sir, last year, I objected to this sort of contribution for reasons which I believe hon. Members on the other side of the House still remember.

Very well.

I need not recapitulate them. Now, I am going to add some more reasons, other than moral, why this contribution should not be allowed. Briefly, the Government itself is hard up. Taxation has been increased to cover the deficit for 1957 -

In order to help family planning.

Order. I trust that hon. Members will allow the hon. Member to continue.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Chairman, Sir, how can a beggar give charity? In view of Government's poverty, I do not know how it is going to justify that generosity for a service which does not benefit - if I may use the word "benefit" - all. For instance, we the male species cannot avail ourselves of this service. Not only that, Sir, but only a very small percentage of women seek family planning and even then by way of experimenting. The number of babies born every week is not decreasing. Even during the recent week of rioting, the women could not postpone giving birth. Sir, there are more pressing needs like housing for which Government has not the money to pay and yet it sees fit to spend on an objectionable service which is not approved by a majority of the population.

Not true.

Sir, may I invite the Member for Cairnhill to hold a Gallup poll?

If you will pay for it.

Order, please.

A poor woman may get the best of treatment in the family planning clinic but this is negatived by the horrible condition of the cubicle in which she is living. She stops giving birth no doubt but contracts tuberculosis and other dreadful diseases. I ask, Sir, is limiting the size of a family more necessary or advisable than giving her accommodation for her to live with her children and be happy? Now, we are going to have a battalion of soldiers for internal security. Government does not seem to realise that family planning is going to jeopardise the safety of the country for lack of manpower. If one must spend, Sir, he must spend wisely. In my opinion, the $100,000 could be better used for allowances to children as other countries have been doing. I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.24 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I can but regret that the Member for Bukit Panjang should seek to bring about a further debate. He did his duty last year and he was defeated 17 to 11. It is true that the arguments he then put forward were somewhat poor. I will read them to you, Sir. Very fortunately, the jewels that fall from the mouths of hon. Members are preserved in the archives of this House. He said: "Mr Chairman, Sir, my grand-parents were Roman Catholics. My parents were Roman Catholics, I am a Roman Catholic." Sir, I should have hoped that he would have loyally accepted the verdict of this House and not sought to agonise us again by a debate on matters on which I do appreciate that many people hold strong views; but there was a majority decision. It is still the same people in the Assembly though there are a few empty seats. He has caused anxiety to dedicated women who are doing wonderful public service, that should be the duty of the Government to perform. I do not have the temerity to make that remark on my own experience, Sir, since I speak as a bachelor but I would, with your permission, quote a very responsible authority. I have here a paragraph from the Report published in 1949 by the British Royal Commission on Population. Paragraph 558 reads: "The giving of advice on contraception to married persons who want it should be accepted as a duty by the National Health Service." All we seek to do is to give a little assistance to a voluntary charitable organisation which in its own words seeks and is concerned only with making available to the poorer people of Singapore the knowledge and facilities which are readily available to any who cannot afford to pay for them. Sir, if you will permit me, I can do no better in presenting this matter to the House than to draw its attention to some paragraphs of a letter I received from this organisation in clarification of its principles and the procedure it adopts in its work. The paragraphs read: "The aim of the Association is to make available to married people (I repeat married people) who require knowledge of the principles of family planning and facilities for its practice and to encourage (not the lack of manpower for Singapore battalions) the production of healthy, happy children. The Association does not seek to influence people who do not accept these principles." And that is why the Member for Bukit Panjang has received no assistance from the clinics in question. It is concerned only with making available to the poorer people of Singapore the knowledge and facilities which are readily available to the rich. In advising on family planning its work is twofold. It shows couples how to space their children so as to allow the mother to recover her strength fully between births, protecting her own health and that of her children and how to have as many children as they want. "It is important to recognise clearly the distinction between birth control and contraception. Control of birth may be achieved as it had been for centuries in many Eastern countries by infanticide and abortion." So the answer to the hon. Member when he says, "That activities of these clinics have not reduced the birth-rate", is to their credit. That is not the intention. But I will ask him, "How many abortions have their activities prevented?" Would he rather than having family planning to have a flourishing abortion trade? Abortion is even today resorted to by patients who have come to the Family Planning Association clinic admitting that they have had at least one and some seven in Singapore. "Contraception however is the control of birth by prevention of conception. This may be achieved by the scientific method we normally advocate provided there are no religious scruples. Alternatively and less reliably, there is a method known as the 'safe period' in which we instruct patients whose religions forbid them the use of the more scientific method." And, Sir, this comes appropriate in view of the reason given by the Member for Bukit Panjang in the last debate of November, 1955, "We endeavour to respect the religion of our patients, Catholic and non-Catholic alike." The Pope in his discourse to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives on 29th October, 1951 declared in respect of marital relations: "Serious reasons often put forward on medical, eugenic, economic and social grounds can exempt from that obligatory service (marital relations) even for a considerable period of time, even for the entire duration of the marriage. It follows from this that the use of the infertile period can be lawful from the moral point of view and, in the circumstances which have been mentioned, it is indeed lawful." That, Sir, comes from the head of the Catholic Church. The other aspect of family planning is to assist those who are infertile. I have said before and, unfortunately, there are no new arguments - there can be none - in respect of basic human problems. This is a service to the mass of the people who cannot afford to seek assistance from expensive doctors. The Association does not go out of its way to force its advice on anybody nor does it advise single persons. It only advises married couples who come for assistance and some of them are advised according to Catholic precepts in respect of the infertile period. The hon. Member has spoken of the poverty of Government and its generosity in giving $100,000. I have not heard one peek out of him when it came to giving more than $4 million for the recurrent annual expenditure on the "toy" navy of Singapore. I say, Sir, let us recognise the fact that the very reason for taxation is service to the people and this is one of the valid reasons for taxation. This $100,000 is perhaps the finest use of money that this Budget can show because it helps large numbers of very poor bewildered people who need assistance in respect of acute personal family problems. I do plead with the hon. Member not to pursue this motion and put this House to a further agonising debate.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I support the Member for Cairnhill who said that this matter was fully debated last year and was carried by a majority and I do not see why the Member for Bukit Panjang should bring in this motion this year. As the Member for Cairnhill has said, he should have accepted the verdict of this House which was carried by a majority last year. This subject is, in fact, controversial and I am not going to speak on the merits or demerits of the case itself but I am concerned with the waste of our time. An hon. Member: $500 salary!

It is not the $500. There are more important issues than this subject and once a verdict has been taken last year, let us accept that verdict and not waste our time. What I see now is that the Member for Bukit Panjang is flogging a dead horse, coming in year after year on the same issue. I do hope that Members of this House will refrain from talking too much on this subject so that we can proceed with the actual business of the day rather than to repeat what was said last year. This is more a matter of religion and I understand that this is an open vote for this House. No one is being whipped to vote either way and I think everyone should vote according to his own conscience.

Mr Chairman, Sir, just a little while ago I was trying to control myself from losing my temper when I heard the Member for Queenstown say that, because he receives $500 a month as allowance for an Assemblyman, he must come here and talk and talk. There is one important thing which I should point out, and that is that the figure of $85,000 as grant for the Family Planning Association last year has been raised to $100,000 this year. The Member for Queenstown should have the patience to hear what another Member may have to say in support of the amendment. I entirely disagree with the Member for Queenstown when he said that this is a religious subject. Although I am a Roman Catholic, I am going to support the amendment. I support this amendment because of political reasons. We argued yesterday about income tax being based on a pan-Malayan structure. We have many existing Government departments on a pan-Malayan basis too. All Parties, including even those in the Federation of Malaya, have promised that Singapore and the Federation will merge very soon. Therefore why should we argue all the time on the basis of this small island with a population of just over one million people? We should have the confidence to hope that very soon, despite all the duties and tariffs imposed on us by the Federation Government, our brothers across the Straits of Johore will force us to merge with them. Therefore we must always think on the basis that Singapore will very soon merge with the Federation of Malaya and we will then be a bigger family. We are very lucky to have a first-class highway from Johore Bahru to Kedah and you can see how many rubber estates, palm estates -

Order. I was just wondering whether the merger of the Federation and Singapore has anything to do with family planning.

Mr Chairman, it is very important, because we are politically bankrupt. We have no confidence that there will be a merger with the Federation of Malaya and a critical situation is facing us today. Our local industries cannot survive if tariffs are placed on our products. We must merge with the Federation of Malaya. Therefore we will need more manpower to develop our economy on a pan-Malayan basis - and not for battalions, as the Member for Bukit Panjang said. From the political point of view, this is the time for us to show our confidence in the future for a merger with the Federation of Malaya, which is potentially very rich in agriculture and industry and is only awaiting development. We need more manpower but we must not import labour from India or China. We also need technicians and specialists to help us. So let us admit that we need more manpower. Secondly, we are morally bankrupt. If family planning is to be discouraged -

Not you!

- I wonder why the poor husbands cannot follow our former Chief Minister by remaining bachelors for a long time!

Not healthy!

That is just a matter of control and it is very simple to do it. If you cannot afford to have more children, stop it. An hon. Member: Stop what?

We must have courage if we decide to get married. We must increase our income and be prepared to have a family. It is the same with a country. If we have confidence in the future of this country, we will have the confidence to build more schools and hospitals to provide for the increase in our population. Sir, I wish to raise an important point which I am sure influences quite a number of hon. Members. It is that just because China and India believe in birth control, so, too, must this country. Sir, I think that is entirely wrong. We want political independence but, at the same time, we must have ideological independence. We cannot say that if Mao Tse-tung supports family planning, we must therefore support it.

Is he supporting it?

He is supporting it. In conclusion, I would say that if the Family Planning Association is really organised and run by an ordinary citizen or a wage-earner, and if our local medical services have not extended any assistance at all towards those people who intend to give advice on birth control, I will give up my support. Now, there are two questions facing us. Firstly, I understand from the Minister for Health that all his hospitals and clinics are prepared to give every assistance and advice to whoever approaches a Government medical officer or a nurse for such assistance and advice. Secondly, all officers of the Family Planning Association - I am sure the letter from which the Member for Cairnhill was reading looks like it came from this Association - are rich, distinguished and noble, and belong to the first class of people in this country. If they are really public-spirit minded, they should not ask their husbands to buy diamond rings and beautiful bracelets for them. If each one could contribute one diamond ring and one beautiful bracelet to the Association, the $100,000 would be there. Therefore, to prove that the officers of the Family Planning Association are really public-spirited, they should be on their own, as is the case in the United States and England, and raise donations from those persons who support family planning: but they should not come to this Assembly every year to ask for money, as the Member for Queenstown said. We should not waste time on this controversial subject. I sincerely appeal to the officers of the Family Planning Association to run the Association on their own efforts and not to disturb this House. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we have heard quite a number of soap-box orations in this Assembly this morning -

Order. [Interruption.] I think hon. Members are inclined to get out of hand. "Soap-box orations" is, of course, unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

I am sorry if I have used unparliamentary language, Mr Chairman, but I was very much tempted to do so by the surprising remarks that I have heard from both sides of this House; more surprising still from the Member for Queenstown who said that a further debate on this subject was a waste of time. First, I would like to remind him of what he said some time ago in this House that he was paid his $500 to talk and that is why he does so.

On a point of order, Sir. I meant to talk on important issues and not on issues of this nature.

It is not a point of order.

It is a point of clarification, Sir.

I think all hon. Members of this House will agree that this is a very important matter; so important, that the Government last year left it to an open vote in order to allow each person to speak and vote according to his conscience. This Government has again this year for that very reason, because it is highly controversial, allowed the matter to go before the Assembly so that each person could vote again according to his conscience.

Do we have changing consciences?

The last speaker has the most changing conscience that I have ever known of. Mr Chairman, Sir, the question of whether Government should contribute public money towards the advancement of the Family Planning Association is, as has already been pointed out, a highly controversial one and for that very reason, I have said, this Government has allowed it to be put again to an open vote so that each Member can speak and vote according to his beliefs and his conscience. That policy is adopted this year for the very same reason and I hope that whatever Government is in power, it will always allow this controversial matter which affects the deep-rooted convictions of certain communities to be put to an open vote. Members of this Assembly may come and go but whoever are elected and sit in this Assembly must speak for the communities who put them into power. I would like, at this stage, to reply to a few remarks made by the Member for Cairnhill. He spoke against the views which were put by the Member for Bukit Panjang last year. That hon. Member spoke from his heart as a Roman Catholic and he should never have been condemned for that reason. The Member for Cairnhill said that it was the duty of Government to perform what this House is being asked to conribute to. I say that if any woman who, for health reasons, wishes to consult any of our doctors in our hospitals, she can always get free advice. He also said - as I understand it, subject to correction - that all the workers in the Family Planning Association are voluntary workers. Subject to correction, I am informed otherwise. There are some who are paid workers there and paid with monies which this House is asked to contribute. Then the same hon. Member read a portion of a letter he received, saying that these people give assistance to the poor people. Our domiciliary nurses and nurses also give assistance to the poor people. I would like to remind the Member for Cairnhill and everyone in this House that this is not a vote for or against family planning. I have the greatest respect for the voluntary workers who devote their time to what they think is a sincere service and one which in their opinion is of public good. The main question before this House is: should the $100,000 contributed by the members of the public be used for that purpose? The Member for Cairnhill also read a very short portion of the discourse which His Holiness the Pope gave to midwives in respect of the "safe period". It is only in very extreme cases, he has told midwives, that use or knowledge of the "safe period" can be put to practice. Why did not the hon. Member read further? I have the whole discourse of His Holiness the Pope -

Why do you not read it?

- and he will see from that that the whole discourse was against the use of contraceptives. My attitude in this question is well known and that attitude will never change. I say now and I will keep on repeating that public funds which are contributed by people of all races and creeds in this colony should not be used for any purpose which is contrary to the very tenets of certain religious bodies and beliefs of any particular community. Governments past and present have always respected the religious tenets and beliefs of the various religions in our community. For example, Government has never enforced cremations although it is highly desirable to conserve land in this country. Land is very useful for development but large plots of land are allotted for burial grounds for those whose religious beliefs are against cremation. Imagine the uproar if cremations were forced upon the Muslims -

Who is forcing family planning?

You are forcing us to pay the money for it.

Order. Hon. Members are forgetting that we are in Committee and if any hon. Member wishes to make a point, he will have the opportunity to do so later on. Let us not have so many interventions.

Thank you, Sir. I am surprised at the levity with which certain hon. Members take on this very serious subject. Government has also built abbatoirs for people professing the Muslim faith who can have their animals slaughtered in accordance with Muslim rites. Also for that very reason, this House has sent the Muslims Bill to a Select Committee with the directive that they consider the introduction into the Bill of clause 47 which provides that every Muslim when making his will must distribute his property in accordance with Muslim law and not in accordance with the laws of the land. Now, why have we done this? It is because each Member of this House rightly respects the wishes of the minority particularly when their wishes strike at the very fundamental beliefs and tenets of their religion. I would ask the Muslim Members of this House to please remember that. But again, I repeat that this is not a religious issue. I made it clear last year and I repeat this year that the only issue before this House is not whether the Family Planning Association be permitted to exist but whether public funds should be used to subsidise this association. I have no doubt, as I have said just now, that decent public-spirited people of Singapore are voluntarily helping the association. I do not say to them "discontinue your work". This association, whatever good it claims to do, should, in my opinion, be run by a voluntary organisation as it is in the United Kingdom, United States, in all civilised countries except in Japan and India (I have a few comments to make about India in a moment) and in a very few other countries where token votes are made. Now, it is interesting to note that even in India where family planning is supposed to be sponsored by the Government, it is very doubtful whether this is accepted by all provincial governments. It has been reported in the Indian Press that early last month the Bombay Legislature was informed by a Minister there that his government did not accept family planning, and they were against the use of contraceptives and that the Minister had informed the central Government in New Delhi that he did not want to accept the monetary grant offered by the central Government to Bombay for family planning work in the state. I have ascertained the views of several members of various communities, (apart from Roman Catholics) to whom I have spoken, and a large number of them are against the principle of their money being used for this purpose. They are from the Muslim community although there are some Muslims who have accepted the ruling that it is not against their religion, but there is a large number of them who are very much against it. The Buddhists and the Jews - yes, I repeat even the Jews whom I have spoken to - and Christians strongly object to their money being used for this purpose. An hon. Member: Not all of them.

I said the Christians with whom I have spoken. There is also a strong body of University students who have expressed one single united view against this grant. [Interruption]. Levity again, Mr Chairman, Sir, from those I am surprised to see! As I have said before, there is a great maldistribution of wealth in society and, in my opinion, those who wish to cloak the evils of colonialism and capitalism will support this grant. With your permission, Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to read just one portion of what I have said last year which bears repetition. I said that alongside with wealth, there was quite a lot of squalor in this country. I went on to say: "In these areas people suffer squalor and poverty but, please note, not because as, normal human beings they desire children, and once they have them they can only support them with difficulty. The reason is because, before our time, no attempt was made to see that the people were properly housed and paid proper wages, and because colonial economy did not allow for normal industrialisation. This is the problem now. This is our heritage from the period fortunately now over, when nominated and official individuals played at politics and thought that so-called family planning could be disguised as a radical social reform." It would be, in my opinion, a disgrace to this country to spend this colossal sum of $100,000 of public money on such a project when the country can ill-afford wastage of funds and when the Government finds it imperative to impose high taxes to meet deficits. Much of this money could be utilised in paying salaries and in the maintenance of staff. I have caused to be built, since I assumed the office of Minister for Health, a number of maternity and child health clinics and outdoor dispensaries and I propose to build many more, which are put on top priority, for the benefit of the people of Singapore and to bring medical services closer to their homes. I also sought to economise in the construction of buildings such as the Nurses Training School and the Nurses Hostel and helped to save, comparing them with the figures that were estimated by previous governments, nearly $1� million.

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.