Hansard, 1957-12-17

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: Resumption of debate on Question (16th December, 1957) proposed to Head 11 in the First Schedule of the Bill, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 4 therein."-[Mr R. Jumabhoy]. 10.02 a.m.

Head 11-

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this question of defence services, I think we must take a very realistic view of the whole matter. In our London talks, we agreed that defence and external affairs, excepting for trade and cultural relations, should be left to Britain. Therefore, Sir, defence is not within our province. We do realise that, for purposes of internal security, we require armed support, but to expend a total of $13,926,370, which forms 5 per cent of our total revenue, is, I think, unrealistic. I have heard that the Government is going to hand over the Navy to the Federation of Malaya. If it is to be handed over in the near future, I do not see why we should expend such a large sum as $5 million odd for its development. Perhaps it may be said that this expenditure is recurrent but I think that all development, anything requiring more money to bring the Navy up to a greater standard, should be stopped. I have said during the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill that it is not a fighting navy that we want but a merchant navy. It is not fighting men who would be required to protect Singapore, but men of the merchant marine, people who would be able to help us in supplying service to the world and developing our own shipping lines. In this age, it is ridiculous to develop a navy. Today the world has developed weapons of war to such a high standard that it is impossible for a navy, consisting of so many minesweepers and probably no destroyers, to go against big powers. What we depend on for our safety would be collective security. We will have to depend on friendly nations, on being friendly to everybody, and on the justice of the world to keep this island safe. The second point is expenditure on the army. This comes up to $3 million odd with another $2.8 million making it $5 million odd again. I would say that we require a regiment or two to assist our police but I would suggest that the money expended in this direction should not just be spent in maintaining fighting men, but in teaching a trade to the youths who are out of school and are unemployed. They should join the armed forces, just as the British army does, and when these servicemen come out, they are skilled tradesmen. If the army is run on this basis, we will not be wasting our army; we will be using the army as a sort of school to help our young people be useful to society when they come out. In this matter, I think that voluntary services should be encouraged, and that any money expended should only be a bare minimum to maintain the fighting forces, the rest being devoted to ways of training the young servicemen of Singapore. As to the air force, there is nothing much to talk about. We have spent a lot of money on it but have only produced a few people holding private licences. Here again, we should look forward not to producing a fighting force, but a force of young people able to help us man our own air lines should we require them later. We can take a line from the big nations, Sir, especially Britain. In time of war, when we do really require armed forces, we usually find that there is an insufficiency of personnel in the regular forces. In such cases, those in the merchant navy can be asked to serve the country in transportation, shipping and other work, and those in the commercial air lines to do likewise. If we develop our armed forces in this way, I think it will help Singapore. The Government would probably wonder about the fact that we have no airline, merchant navy and so on. The point is that we must start somewhere. If we have the personnel, then it would be possible to see these things take shape. At least those who want to start shipping lines or air lines would be able to find skilled men to operate them. Sir, I think that this defence expenditure, which forms about 5 per cent of our total revenue, is a bit unrealistic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to lay further stress in addition to what I said yesterday. Britain has taken upon itself the defence of the Colony. The Hongkong naval base is being abolished and Britain is definitely going to retain the naval base here. Therefore I must stress that our workers in that area should not fear at all about unemployment. What they have to see is that the climate will be favourable for the base to remain here, that it is not removed somewhere else. Well, that is politics; it is left to their votes to decide. I talked about the present advancing age of sputniks and missiles. Singapore is a small place and can in no case defend itself. I will quote three examples. Korea was attacked or there was trouble there. There was also trouble in Indo-China; and Egypt was attacked by Britain and France. What happened? The United Nations came to their help and brought peace. Such big countries have to depend on other nations to put things right if they are attacked. How big is Singapore after all? Should we then spend so much money on such services? What is needed, I stress again, are internal security forces to help the police, and a strong marine police with speed-boats to prevent smuggling of contraband. This is very essential but it does not mean that we should spend millions on the capital and other cost of a Royal Malayan Navy. I shall come to it later. Sir, we do need to train pilots, and an auxiliary air force may be maintained on a limited scale. The Flying Club could be helped. But it is very unnecessary to keep these at the expense of the taxpayer. Besides, we may be supporting imperial designs, letting our boys become fodder for some imperial design. We should prevent that. 10.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the expenditure on defence services represents, as the hon. Member for Serangoon says, about 5 per cent of the total expenditure including that on development. By almost any standard, I suggest that this is a low proportion and is not, as the hon. Member says, unrealistic. Sir, the attitude that in this age of sputniks, we on a small island like Singapore should drop all plans for defence, would appear to be a negative one. There are still conventional forms of warfare and aggression. True, Sir, Singapore does not maintain defence services to attack anyone, but we do need these services to have our own local forces and build them up for good reasons, especially to safeguard internal security, to help the police in the maintenance of law and order should the necessity arise. I would also submit, Sir, that if Singapore looks forward to merger with the Federation of Malaya, it would reasonably be expected to contribute towards the common defence. Defence forces cannot be built up overnight. Sir, with regard to the Royal Malayan Navy, the Pan-Malayan background of the building up of this force by Singapore was ably given by Sir William Goode when he was Chief Secretary in last year's Assembly debate on the 1957 Estimates. I would refer the hon. Members for Telok Ayer and Serangoon to columns 862 to 866 of the Official Report, Volume 2, No. 12, of 21st November, 1956. The future of the R.M.N., Sir, is still under discussion with the Federation, and I am sure Members will not expect me to give too much detailed information about it, when these negotiations are still being carried on. Some members said that external defence is a matter for the British Government. In the case of the navy, strategic defence would certainly be a matter for the United Kingdom Government, but we would surely have to see to our own inshore defences, to keep our waters clear, because Singapore is a port. The navy would have a peacetime role also to maintain. The R.M.N. also has Emergency duties to perform; and one of the lighter roles which it has recently played is, for instance, to convey citizenship registration teams to Christmas Island. The R.M.N. has a peacetime role. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations with the Federation, we would require to have some ships. With regard to the armed forces, that is the regular Battalion and the other military forces, I think Members will agree that the expenditure on them is not at all large, if we take into consideration the necessity - which this Assembly has approved - of raising an infantry Battalion and providing also for a part-time battalion of the Singapore military forces supported by ancillary units. The role which these Singapore military forces can play in supporting the police in internal security is certainly very important, and I think any expenditure in that direction is justified. I think it was the Member for Telok Ayer who mentioned about the army, sea and air cadet corps. With more than half of the population of Singapore under 21 years of age, it cannot be doubted that money spent on these cadet corps, which are really a form of youth movement and extra-mural activity in schools, is money well spent. Although the corps are provided for under the head "Defence", the emphasis is more on corporate discipline, comradeship and self-reliance than on purely- Mr R. Jumabhoy rose -

Is it a point of order?

Of explanation, Sir

The Hon. the Chief Secretary has not given way.

- military matters. Sir, with regard to the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force, the policy is to shift the emphasis from the flying side to the fighter control unit, which has a real part to play in the defence of Malaya as a whole, it being their job to man radar reporting stations in an emergency. We hope that the Singapore section of the M.A.A.F. will one day be part of a pan-Malayan air force. As Members perhaps are already aware, the Federation is developing a regular air force and we hope that one day our section of the Singapore M.A.A.F. will contribute to that air force. Other items under Head 11, Defence Services, were not raised, and I presume that these have met with the approval of Members. I would say that we wish nothing but peace to all but we must have local forces to safeguard our internal security and support the police in maintaining law and order within our borders which, by virtue of the fact that we are an island, include large tracts of sea.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I never said that we should prevent our youths being trained as cadets on a voluntary basis. I was hitting at the expenditure on the Royal Malayan Navy costing $5,082,000, as appearing on page 98 of the Estimates, and the arguments put by the Hon. the Chief Secretary are very, very lame indeed. To help in the registration of citizens on Christmas Island - how many citizens are there on that island? Could lie not manage by chartering a small boat? Do you want $5 million to spend on that?

Please address the Chair.

Then, Sir, the argument was, 'Oh, we have to think about our neighbour.' Well, what about thinking about our own taxpayers? Have we not to think about those who have to foot the bill? I know the Government is incapable of taking things into its own hands and that it is just following a policy already laid down by the Colonial Office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, such a cold day and at such an early time, yet the debate is already getting heated up! The Royal Malayan Navy was brought into force years and years ago, as explained last year, as part of the defence strategy for the whole of Malaya-Singapore to put up a navy, the Federation of Malaya an army. The navy has been with us and I am sure it is not suggested that it should be scrapped.

Scrap it!

Ah, not so simple! That is what we are trying to do and what we hope to achieve is that the navy could be transferred to the Federation of Malaya. There have been negotiations between us and the Federation as to when and how this navy should be transferred. So far, the attack on the defence services has come from the Liberal-Socialist Party. We have one Member who criticised us violently and said that there should be no defence services, whereas we have the leader of that Party saying, 'Let us tackle the subject in its right perspective.' He would like to see more regiments; he would like to see an army but not a navy. But he went to the extern of saying that the 5 per cent of the total revenue of Singapore to be spent on defence services is much too much and out of all proportion when we face the facts. But he did urge that there should be more regiments. At the present time, we only have one battalion. A second battalion is awaiting the result of the transfer of the Royal Malayan Navy to the Federation. If we are going to have more than one battalion, I would like the hon. Member to take note that the 5 per cent criticised by him may be 7 per cent in due course!

Sir, I think I would like one or two points of clarification. We have an army and a navy, to be built up from the revenues of Singapore. How much control have we got over this navy and army? If I understand it rightly, they should be under the control of the British Commander-in-Chief. We have heard that the army and the navy have rendered useful service, at ceremonies and so on. I am sure we do not deny the Chief Minister the opportunity of inspecting the navy and army - these are more pleasant jobs. But the real role of the army, as I said, is assisting our police for purposes of internal security, and if there is such a need to do so, would it be under the command of the Chief Minister or the British C-in-C? That is what I would like to be clear about. On expenditure, I would say that if we have just sufficient armed forces to assist the police on internal security, we need not spend so much money. I would like the Chief Minister to understand that my view, as far as the Royal Malayan Navy is concerned, is to stop everything that will incur more expenditure. Wait for the day you hand over the whole thing to the Federation of Malaya. Probably the navy, as I understand, may be performing one or two duties but we would very much like to see one or two of our ships stationed within our own territorial waters so that when neighbours come along with gunboats and pinch our boats, then our navy could stand up with their water-pistols and say, "Here, we have a water-pistol against your cannon." I would very much like to see some realistic work done if we think about building up an army, air force, radar network and so on. If we do not expend enough to have a big fighter force and a big army, then we may only be able to plot the places where the bombs will fall and not be in a position to stop them falling. 10.30 a.m. All this work is very good, very well explained and so on, but I think every cent that we put up on these defence services means a cent saved by the United Kingdom. I would like the Government to know that defence is still in the hands of Britain. The less we spend on it, the more the U.K. will have to spend; the more we spend on it, the more the U.K. will be able to direct our own army, navy and so-called air force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. The defence forces of Singapore are controlled by the local Government. It is only for the purpose of discipline that they come under the British Commander-in-Chief. The hon. Member said that if we have local defence forces of that nature, the Chief Minister can have a pleasant job inspecting them. I consider that it is not only a pleasant job but a proud moment of my life when I can inspect local people answering the call and standing up saying, "This is our country. We are here to defend it!" Those would be the proudest moments of my life. The Member says that defence is still in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. It is external defence and not internal security. It has been explained to hon. Members that our local defence forces are primarily for internal security. Apart from that, I am sure the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should be content with our new Constitution and rest content with just self-government. How are we going to demand independence if we do not start building defence forces of our own? How are we going to seek a merger with the Federation of Malaya when the Federation has defence forces of its own and we have nothing to contribute towards the common defence?

Just a word in edgewise, Sir, and that is that perhaps the hon. Member for Serangoon forgets that if we do not have detachments of the local forces, then the Liberal-Socialists in the City Council cannot be sure of getting a march-past for the President to take the salute, which is none of the functions of the City Council Or perhaps they are not interested because in any case they do not hope to capture the City Council?

Sir, I would like a point of clarification. If we want to merge with the Federation of Malaya, we do not have to go in with our guns at the ready; we go in with a friendly attitude. There is no need to have an army in order to capture the Federation. In fact if the Federation feels like it, it could send in an army and we would be finished. We can contribute towards the Federation. If we want to be independent, I think, as the Chief Minister has realised long ago, it can only be through a merger with the Federation. If the Federation has all the forces ready, there is no need for us to build up forces ourselves in order to merge with it. Whilst we are not yet merged with the Federation, Britain will have to protect us. It is its duty, it has agreed to take on our external defence. When we are independent and join up with the Federation, our whole revenue can then be added to that of the Federation, which has already been developing an army, navy and air force. On the question of local youths, I do not want what I have said to be twisted. We want our local men to be useful and I said right at the outset this morning that we should convert all these forces into institutions producing useful people instead of just fighting men.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as one of the Independent Members, I wonder at the debate this morning on the defence services. The Hon. the Chief Minister has said that we must have local defence forces of our own; why then are we negotiating to surrender our Royal Malayan Navy to the Federation of Malaya? We are now spending 5 per cent of our expenditure per year on these forces. We know that in time to come we will be an independent country like the Federation or Indonesia. We must therefore have our own defence forces now, just as a precaution against any attack. Sir, the point is this, that we should have our own Singapore Regiment and other defence forces; we cannot surrender our navy to the Federation. Another thing is that training of the recruits has gone on for quite a long time. If we surrender the navy, all its personnel may become unemployed unless they will be allowed to cross the Causeway and become Federation citizens. If not, we should not transfer the navy. This is a matter which we must think of before we decide.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move my amendment I would like some information from the Hon. the Chief Secretary. A provision of $5,500 was made for lockers this year, for the purchase of lockers. Now we are asked to provide another $2,750 to purchase lockers for next year. I would like to know whether there is an increase in the strength of personnel, how many lockers were purchased for what number of ratings, and how many lockers will be purchased next year out of the $2,750.

Sir, this subhead provides $2,750 for lockers in which volunteers keep their clothing and valuables. The Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve originally in 1956 asked for $12,000 for the purpose. This sum was reduced in the 1957 Estimates to $5,500 and the provision of $2,750 in the 1958 Estimates represents the balance of the sum required to provide lockers for some 650 ratings. The lockers are likely to be made of wood and metal. The Member for Queenstown would probably like to know - or he probably knows already - that volunteers mostly come straight from their offices to, and change in, the ships. That is the reason why we would like to get this sum to complete the provision of lockers for 650 ratings.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Hon. the Chief Secretary has not answered my point, which is whether the strength of ratings has so far been increased. He has not answered that. I also asked for the number of lockers purchased this year. What he said is that the sum is required to purchase lockers for 650 ratings. Is that the full strength of the navy, or are there extra men? Rather than delay the debate, I think I will move my amendment to reduce the figure. I now formally move, Sir, That the sum to be allotted for Head II be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 66 therein. The question is this, Sir, that although a sum of $12,000 was asked for in 1956, the Government thought fit to reduce it to $5,500. If the Government at the time thought that it should be reduced and the reduced sum was quite adequate for 1957, there should not be any reason why a further $2,750 should be voted for lockers next year. Another point is that the Chief Secretary said $12,000 was required and $2,750 is needed to complete the amount. I wonder at the mathematics of the Chief Secretary, that $5,500 plus $2,750 can make $12,000.

Sir, I said that this was the balance that we require to complete providing lockers for volunteers in the M.R.N.V.R. You will notice in the Estimates also, Sir, there are a few new deckhands, and probably there has been an increase also in the number of ratings, which has now reached a maximum of 650.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $13,926,370 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 12 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead I therein. Sir, I believe that the Government has, as I will outline, turned a blind eye to film censorship, or is sheer lazy in this matter. The law that Government applies is a British Military Administration Proclamation; and up to now it has not been revised. Do we want to carry on with a law fixed by proclamation? Today we have an elected government and we should remove all these old laws made at the whim and fancy of single individuals. Government should look into the matter, repeal the B.M.A. Proclamation and introduce a new Bill in the Legislative Assembly. One peculiar thing about that B.M.A. Proclamation is that it seems to give - and Government seems to uphold it - protection to British films. There is a quota of 10 per cent for British films. A cinema can show whatever films it likes but 10 per cent of them must be British films. We in Singapore think that protection of this kind should be done away with, and that whoever wants to sell or exhibit films here should compete on the basis of merit and not on favouritism. 10.45 a.m. I am bringing up this matter, too, because the law does not even allow the 10 per cent to be included for our own industry. I thought that this matter should have been brought up by the Labour Front but as I am a Singaporean, and want to protect local industries, I am voicing this for the local people. We have our own local film industry producing Malay pictures and probably others in the vernacular. Since we have our local industry coming up, with so many people aspiring to be "stars" (at least for Singapore, if not for East Asia), what protection is Government giving to it? Are we going to fix a quota for it, as we protect the British industry? Or are we going to allow it to compete with foreign producers and allow foreign exchange to be taken out of this country? If Government is serious about promoting anything local, it should consider very seriously ways and means of helping the local industry. At this point, I want to voice my opinion about the quality of many of the imported films, from whatever source. Many of them are of very low standard and I would urge the film censor to be a bit more free with the scissors, to cut out items which may teach the young people of Singapore to be more efficient in crime, to steal and rob, or to murder, and also items showing the other side of life which is more Western, showing customs and people in the West exhibiting themselves in a way that would be abominable according to Eastern standards. And if the film censor's scissors are a bit freer, I think we can have a cleaner Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to be able to help the hon. Member for Serangoon by giving him the exact date on which the Legislature of the Colony, the local Legislature, enacted the Film Censorship Ordinance. It was some years ago.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Serangoon speaks of a 10 per cent quota for British films and, according to my notes, said that this 10 per cent is to be included for our local industry. English is indeed a difficult language and I am finding great difficulty in understanding what that means. Does he mean the 10 per cent to be included in the local industry, or really that films made locally should be included in the 10 per cent British quota?

On a point of explanation, Sir, 10 per cent of films shown have to be British, 90 per cent anything else. If you show a locally-produced film, that film is not included in that 10 per cent British quota but outside it. I mean that 10 per cent is for British films and nothing else, and I am asking what sort of protection our local films will get.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now understand what he meant although I found great difficulty in doing so from his original speech. In regard to this 10 per cent British quota, I would give the hon. Member the assurance that the Government would look into this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the last point which the hon. Member for Serangoon made, on the question of the film censor using the scissors more, this question was also raised in the debate last year on the Estimates. It was then pointed out that film censorship is a somewhat difficult subject but that the censors are doing the best they can. I am sure that whatever remarks were made last year have been taken note of and not lost on those responsible for taking the difficult decisions as to which films to allow in and how far it is possible to make cuts in them without doing any damage.

Mr Speaker, speaking in support of the hon. Member for Serangoon regarding the low standard of the pictures shown here, I would comment on the peculiar way films are censored in Singapore. I have noticed on many occasions that a film banned in Singapore is, in a matter of a few weeks, heavily advertised and shown in Johore. I think this is due to lack of co-ordination between the censors here and in the Federation of Malaya. One censor thinks that a film should be banned whereas the other thinks that it should be shown in the interests of the public. I cannot see, Sir, why a picture should be banned in Singapore when it can be seen easily in Johore. The distance between Johore and Singapore is only a matter of 17 miles, and anyone can drive his car to Johore and see the banned picture. I would suggest that there should be more co-ordination between the two censors, that if a film is banned in Singapore it should be banned in Johore as well. I would not mind if it goes right up to Kuala Lumpur or Penang, because there is a great distance to Kuala Lumpur and Penang, but what is the difference between Singapore and Johore, that is until such time as the Prime Minister of the Federation introduces a causeway block? Until such a block is introduced, there is freedom of movement between Johore and Singapore. So I think that the people of Singapore do feel that it is funny for a picture to be banned in Singapore but be shown in Johore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Queenstown has completely misunderstood the position. There is one Board of Film Censors for both Singapore and the Federation of Malaya comprised of a Chairman, a Chinese member, a Malay member and an Indian member, together with an assistant censor. What the Member has not appreciated is that there are two Committees of Appeal, one for Singapore and the other for the Federation. Appeals from a decision of the censor to the Singapore Committee are in respect of films to be shown here in Singapore, whereas appeals in the Federation go to the Federation Committee of Appeal. There are two different Committees of Appeal but only one Censor, against whose decision people can appeal to the relevant Committee of Appeal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it from the Chief Secretary that there is a Board of Film Censors comprising representatives from the Federation and Singapore. In the case of appeals, there are separate Committees for the Federation and Singapore. The Film Censors Board has representatives of the two states and is more or less a pan-Malayan department; I see that of the vote of $209,930, part is recoverable from the Federation. As it is more or less a pan-Malayan Board, when films are shown to it and not to the Appeals Committees, it should take into consideration whether a film should or should not be shown in Johore, rather than allow that film to go straight to the Film Appeals Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown fails to understand the point put forward by the Hon. the Chief Secretary. Any film that is banned by the Board of Film Censors is subject to appeal to an Appeals Committee, and there are two such appeals committees, one for Singapore and one for the Federation. Surely it is not suggested that the Singapore Appeals Committee should have control in the Federation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the funniest things I have ever heard is how the Governments have co-operation and co-ordination in the matter of reviewing films only the first time. After that, you have two Appeals Committees. If you can have co-ordination and co-operation in the first instance, how is it that you cannot have it in the second, i.e. in the matter of appeals? I fail to see it. What has the Singapore Government been doing? This is one of the funniest bits of information I have ever heard - you can co-operate in one instance but cannot in another. I would like very much to have an explanation on that.

Sir, the ignorance of the hon. Member is providing me with some pleasant moments. In regard to the Board of Film Censors, it is Pan Malayan just for the sake of administrative feasibility. All films are imported into Singapore for the censor to view here, instead of being censored here and then being sent to the Federation to be censored again, which will cost the exhibitor double charges.

Why do you worry?

And in regard to the Appeals Committee, we operate under our law while the Federation operates its own; it has its own Appeals Committee, we have ours. This is not a question of co-operation; it is the operation of respective laws. 11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this most interesting topic of film censorship, I think it is high time for our Film Censor to restrict the screening of certain undesirable films. Much blame for our delinquents, gangsters, smugglers and all sorts of vices can be thrown on those films, especially those from Hollywood. Sir, firstly, I wish to suggest that we should restrict the importation of certain quality of United States films through the control of our foreign exchange, thus saving our hard earned American dollars. Secondly, we should form a special committee consisting of educationalists to serve as a consulting body to the Board of Film Censors. I have always had the fullest respect for its present members and I have no doubt of their integrity and ability but I still feel that more civic-minded people should take a keener interest in the censorship of films. A special committee serving as a consulting body to the Film Censor could advise and give guidance as to the types of films we should import and allow to show here. I would like to point out that I have read the report of the Board of Film Censors. It seems that we have to censor more films. Incidentally, I happen to be a member of the Film Appeal Committee and I am only too pleased to serve on such a committee, as I have suggested. The Film Appeal Committee does not even sit once a month and usually we have nothing to do at all. Therefore. I appeal to the Board of Film Censors to give the Film Appeal Committee more work to do; in other words, to censor more films and let the film companies to appeal more. I hope that this suggestion will be fully considered by Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the hon. Member is speaking for the exhibitors of films. He suggests that the Board of Film Censors should ban more films so that they can go before the Film Appeal Committee for either approval or rejection. Surely, the hon. Member knows the psychology of things. A picture that is banned and is released later by the Appeal Committee, irrespective of what type of picture it is, is going to be box office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I expected a more constructive answer from the Hon. the Chief Minister but he picked on a small point of mine which he misunderstood. I say that that because in the report of the 1956 Film Censors which is in a pamphlet form, there is a column which states that they feel that they have not passed a big number of films for the Appeal Committee to consider. My wish is that the Film Censor should send more films to the Film Appeal Committee to consider. It does not mean that the Film Appeal Committee will over-rule the decisions of the Board of Film Censors in every case.

Sir, to a certain extent, I support the last speaker. I think that the censorship of pictures on gangsterism must be done strictly. I feel very strongly that gangsterism which exists in Singapore is largely due to the pictures exhibited here showing how it is done in America and elsewhere, and the sooner the censors ban such films the better for Singapore.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $209,930 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 13 - The sum of $581,190 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I formally move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper under this head, That the sum to be allotted for Head 14 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. Again, Sir, I have chosen this amendment today to initiate a discussion. Now, Sir, only yesterday I said that we are maintaining a white elephant in the Broadcasting Department and that the department instead of producing revenue is a liability to Singapore. This is another department, Sir, which costs us $908,440 annually, and there is a revenue of $2,700. Now, Sir, for a small place like Singapore with a population of less than I million people, do we require the Department of Information Services to the extent of costing the taxpayers $900,000 annually? I think that this sum could be greatly reduced. I said yesterday that many Ministers of different countries do pass through Singapore to the Federation which is an independent territory and what they generally do is taking pictures and publicising them with which we should not be very much concerned. Information could be imparted through the Broadcasting Department. I do not say that the Department of Information Services should be scrapped. What I say is that the expenditure should be greatly reduced. Another thing, Sir, is that this department used to serve as a sort of post office for the United Kingdom on its propaganda work. Like any other government, we do not mind if the United Kingdom does spread its own information in this territory (especially when it is a colony under it) but it should be done by its own department as what any other Commonwealth country is doing and the local taxpayer should not be taxed to provide a sort of post office for it. I think that a Member of this Assembly drew attention to this last year. I do not know whether this is still happening, but if it is still happening it should be stopped. The expenses of the department as a whole should be reduced and Singapore taxpayers should not suffer to the tune of nearly $1 million for this department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my motion which follows that of the Member for Telok Ayer requires the Governor's recommendation or consent. As I have neither the Governor's recommendation nor consent, I shall take advantage of the motion moved by the Member for Telok Ayer to make some remarks not only on the Information Services as a whole but on the upgrading of the post of the Director from Grade F to Grade E. It is common knowledge that this is one of the posts recommended to be Malayanised. It seems that no suitable applicant came forward and for no apparent reason the grade for this particular post has been pushed up from F to E. Now, Sir, we know that the Government has in the past been rigging up the establishments in any way it finds convenient, but surely there must be some sense of decorum with which these things are done. It should not appear that either the officer concerned was a favourite with some powerful man in the Government, or had applied pressure by threatening to withdraw his services, or some such disreputable method of getting what he wanted. There is no reason at all why this post should have been upgraded and we strenuously oppose this. I cannot agree, however, with the Member for Telok Ayer that the Information Services is not an important department of the state. With the newspapers in Singapore all controlled by either wealthy combines or wealthy individuals, it is of the utmost importance, if the Government is to get its point of view across, to see that it has a machine that can make sure that its point of view is presented vividly and clearly. My criticism is that a lot of this money is not being utilised to its maximum, partly because the personnel in the department are not effective enough, and partly because many of them do not understand the need of pressing a point home vividly and constantly. By way of illustration, everybody knows that the Catholics are against the grant for family planning and every Member in this Assembly who has taken a stand or voted for family planning has been showered by a mass of literature. Twenty chops on one pamphlet, personal letters from some dear old friend who feels very strongly that alt this is against the health and comfort of human beings, and so on. Personally, I am immune to this sort of practice but I am quite sure that there must be many other people who somehow yield from their original position as a result of this constant pressure. Now the stuff that the Information Services has been pushing out showing pictures of Governors, Ministers opening - they used to open petrol kiosks, I do not know what they open these days - schools, dance-halls or cinemas is not the stuff that will excite the imagination of the people. That is the sort of stuff that makes people angry. It has reached the point now where my two kids at home have great fun when the postman arrives every morning because they know by now that this is for them. They can make paper boats, paper aeroplanes and paper hats out of it because it has reached a point where you have developed an immunity and say, "All that is rubbish. Don't waste my time." There must be some people with some imagination and with some drive to put these ideas over. 11.15 a.m. Now, Sir, with $250 million at its disposal every year, if the Government cannot get across to the people the few good things that are done, then God help them. We the P.A.P. have not got a press apart from a fortnightly. We do not own any newspapers, nor do we have any friendly proprietors. We only have the mass meeting and the occasional radio broadcast when we coerce the Government into giving in. But we can get our ideas over because we are prepared constantly to press the ideas until they get over to the people. This year we fought several issues and got across the fact that the constitution was not a mistake, at the cost of the former Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall). We got other ideas over and we are getting a lot of ideas over in this coming election itself. The Government and its leadership cannot just squat on their haunches and expect George Thomson or Roy Ferroa or Pereira to go and build its prestige and to put its ideas over. These are your instruments; you have got to drive them, sharpen them if you will, throw away the blunt ones and buy new ones if you must. If we were the Government, this is a department which will receive top priority. You may do all the good things in the world, but if the people believe that you did not do them, you have lost the battle. The Government, not itself alone perhaps not of its own free volition- passed the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance to the benefit of the shop assistants. But by manipulation of human minds and public opinion, the public say, "Ah, useless chaps. They were coerced into passing it. Anyway, it is not being enforced." Why is the Information Services not putting this idea across: "These are your rights. We the Labour Front Government fought for them. We shall see that they are enforced. We shall prevent you from being exploited and oppressed." But no, they put pictures in circles with all the little squiggles that used to accompany the old colonial programmes about Governors inspecting the troops, Ministers wanting to put a gate over a dam and suddenly finding it has all gone wrong. If the Government wants to win the battle of the minds, it has got to be three times as active and ten times more imaginative.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the remarks made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I would first of all like to refer to the grading of the post of the Director. The original Grade F was put in at the time when the head of the Information Services was the Public Relations Officer. But now with the new structure of the Information Services, the responsibilities attached to this post are more. If we look at the salary grades of other hands of departments, we will find that they are all in Grade E. With the new responsibilities and the reorganisation of the department, it is thought necessary that the correct grading for this post would be Grade E. That is the explanation, Sir, for upgrading the post from F to E. With regard to the suggestion made by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy), that he considers the Information Services a white elephant in the same way as he thought of the Broadcasting Department, I completely disagree with him in this, Sir, I do not think for a moment that this department is a liability and I think that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has very clearly defended the existence of the Information Services and the active work which it is doing. Sir, in the year 1958, the Government can assure the people and the Members in this House that this department will be very, very active. It is only recently that we have had a big increase in the stat?. We have a research section now and we also have a centralised translation bureau. Now, all these officers are going to carry out the jobs entrusted to them and the Information Services will be very active in 1958. Hitherto, we have been handicapped because of the shortage of staff but all the defects will be remedied in the year 1958. Sir, I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that there is room for more improvement. We have in the past published very many pamphlets in connection with the various Ordinances that are approved by the Assembly. We had the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, the Labour Ordinance and various other Ordinances and we have published pamphlets regarding them for the information of the people. These pamphlets were produced in the various vernacular languages in the hope that more people would understand these Ordinances more clearly. Sir, in the year 1958, we will also see the expansion of various other activities in view of the decision of multilingualism in the City Council and in the Legislative Assembly, and we are quite capable, with the existing staff, to deal with all the matters which come within the purview of this department. We can assure this House that more active efforts will be taken by this department in the year 1958.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather glad that the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary has given an assurance to this House that this department will improve next year. Now, the explanation regarding the upgrading of this appointment from Grade F to Grade E is very, very unsatisfactory. I cannot see much difference in the duties of the old Public Relations Officer and the new Director of Information Services. The present functions, from what I can see, are exactly the same as those of the old Public Relations Officer. The responsibilities are the same and the work is the same. So why then should there be an upgrading in the appointment of the Director? Apart from the upgrading, Sir, I do understand that the period of the present holder of the appointment is being extended for another two years. There is no reason given for this extension. It appears to me that there is no local Asian officer who is able to take up this appointment. If that is so, Sir, then what is the Government doing? Has the Government thought of placing an understudy, someone to learn the work, so that, after the two-year period when the present officer retires, there is some local officer who can take over his job at once, rather than to leave it at that? I refer to my Question on this subject as to whether the appointment of the Assistant Director would be advertised and the answer given to me by the Hon. the Chief Secretary was, "No." Now, if we have no local Asian officer to take over the appointment as Director of Information Services, why then, Sir, can we not advertise the appointment of a local man for the post of Assistant Director so that, when he is appointed, he will be able to be an understudy to the Director with a view to taking over the latter's appointment? On the question of pamphlets, I do appreciate that the Government publishes in the vernacular languages for the information of the public, but what is lacking, Sir, is the question of films in the vernacular languages. Now, this department is supposed to screen films of educational value to the public. Every time I see a film of the department, it is in English. How much can one expect the man-in-the-street to understand English films? Why not produce more vernacular films so that the public would be able to understand such films rather than have them all in English? Still on this question of films, I have also been to many community centres and attended the screening of films and, at almost every centre, I see the same films. I believe that these films are quite a number of years old. Can the Government not produce more films for the benefit of the public? Let us produce some new ones rather than the old, old ones again. What benefit or educational value would anyone get if he sees the same film day in and day out? Now, coming to the question of posters of this department, I wonder whether this department is acting as an agent of the Federation of Malaya. I find that out of ten posters on pillar boxes in Singapore, seven are Federation posters. You can only find three which are really Singapore posters. Why are we acting as an agent to publicise the activities of the Federation? How much is the Federation paying us to do this job? This department is paid by the Singapore Government and it should publicise the activities of Singapore instead of the activities of the Federation. As one Member said last year, and I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar again reminded the House, pictures are published showing a Minister opening a petrol pump, a Minister doing this, or a Minister doing that. Of what public benefit to the people would it be to know that a Minister is doing this or that? Let us have some pictures of educational value, and let us have a department giving a real information service to the public.

Like Ministers going to Japan!

Sir, with regard to the Director's post, we have kept strictly to the recommendations of the Malayanisation Commission and this post was advertised. It was found that there was no local candidate suitable to fill this post and, as a result, the term of the office of the Director has been extended. It is wrong to say, Sir, that we have no Asian as a deputy to the Director. We have an Assistant Director who is an Asian and if only the hon. Member (Mr Lee Choon Eng) took the trouble of seeing me or writing to me, I would have furnished him with the necessary information. The question of vernacular films was brought up by the Member for Queenstown. Last year, of course, we had no vote for making films. Now, we have provided some funds and we will see what improvements we can make during 1958 with regard to producing vernacular films. On the question of posters, I do not know what the hon. Member (Mr Lee Choon Eng) is driving at, Sir. We do not think that we have acted as agents for the Federation. It is wrong to say that. The Information Services Department exhibits posters not only those of Singapore but those of the Federation too and I do not think that it is right to call us agents for the Federation.

Seven posters out of ten!

I think it is right and proper that we do fix a few posters of the Federation so that the people of Singapore may be able to know what is taking place in the Federation. I think it is a very healthy sign.

Sir, I replied to the Member for Queenstown last time concerning the post of Assistant Director of Information Services that it was an administrative post and is filled by an officer of the administrative service. The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary has pointed out that the Director's post was advertised but that we had no suitable candidates as a result of that advertisement. I would suggest, Sir, that perhaps one of the failures to attract suitable local officers to the post in its present grading is that the present salary is not adequate. I understand that no local journalist of quality would accept appointment of this post in its present grading. I would like to dispel any suggestion that the new grading is in any way intended to upgrade the present incumbent because of the renewal, of the contract of the present officer. As the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary said, his contract has been extended for a further two years on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission because we could not find a suitable officer. I wish to stress, Sir, that it has nothing to do with the present incumbent. We feel-

He should get more!

-that the present salary attached to the post - which, as I just pointed out, is not even attractive to local journalists of quality - should be upgraded and the more so because of the new structure and wider responsibilities as a result of the expansion of the staff of this department. I think that if the Member for Queenstown will read the Estimates properly, he will see that this department is being expanded to a very great extent and we hope next year that it will try to accomplish, for instance, as much of the wishes and suggestions of the Member for Tanjong Pagar as possible, but I would like again, Sir, to repeat that the upgrading of the post has nothing to do with the present incumbent. We feel that the post should be upgraded because of its wider responsibilities and the expansion of the staff and also to bring it up to the same grading of the various heads of departments who are also of Grade E status.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 11.30 a.m.

The second amendment* standing in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew needs the Governor's recommendation or consent to be signified. There being no signification, we pass on to the next. *The following is Mr Lee Kuan Yew's amendment: That the sum to be allotted for Head 14 be reduced by $600 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 14 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (18) of subhead 1 therein. Sir, in the remarks column of item (18), it says, "Title changed from Press Officer." It leaves the reader to deduce from looking at the figures that the Information Officer (Press) has also been promoted and got a bump up in the salary and that it is not just the title that has been changed. If we look at item (20), Sir, "Press Officers, two. . . New posts; Conference Secretary. . . Abolished against creation of one post of Press Officer shown under item (20)," what has happened is that this Conference Secretary becomes Information Officer (Press) and he gets a tremendous boost in salary. His post of Conference Secretary is abolished and two Press Officers are created. Whether they will be filled or not nobody knows but to justify the "bump up", two Press Officers are put in. Now, Sir, we all know that the would-be incumbent is a man who wanted to get up to this particular point in the hierarchy and failed when the Staff Side in the Whitley Council objected strenuously to the grading of that post. Now, by this circuitous route he is going to get there. Sir, we do not mind giving more people, more money all the time but there must be some principle by which a man's job is evaluated and by which a man's suitability for a job is measured. From the examples I cited yesterday and this morning, one has the uncomfortable feeling that all this is just kawan kawan: "You my friend, I bump you up; you not my friend, you stay put." That is not the way to run a government service. That is not the way to keep the bureaucracy efficient, contented and happy. Some time or other - unless of course they put this Order in Council through, and nobody can do anything about these things - the whole of the Government service will have to receive a really good pruning. Something has to be done to put everybody in his place and the right man in the right job and to make everybody more efficient so that the whole administrative bureaucracy becomes alive, and a vibrant machine, not the sluggish, matter-of-fact, unimaginative and habitual bureaucracy that it is at present.

Sir, the hon. Member is misinformed

Always misinformed.

There is only a slight increase in the salary as a result of the change in the title from Press Officer, but the salary scale has not changed. Sir, this change in the title is as a result of the reorganisation of the Information Services and this new title has now been changed to Information Officer (Press) which is in the higher executive salary scale. Regarding the two Press Officers, we now have one Press Officer under item (20). Sir, at the moment, this officer is over-worked. We intend to recruit one more officer to be attached to various Ministries so that he can put over information about Government's activities to the public. This officer also attends the monthly meetings of the Rural District Committee and takes notes of the proceedings which he then gives to the Press. He also attends the various meetings organised by the Information Services; he is also in charge of editing and publishing the Rural News. We find that one officer is inadequate to do this work. Therefore, we intend to have one additional Press Officer. I do not think, Sir, that we have made any drastic change. We have not gone beyond what we actually need and I think that the salary scale of the Information Officer (Press) is justified and that the additional appointment of a Press Officer is also justified. This is a very straightforward issue, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my next motion is in respect of Head 14, item (47), and I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 14 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (47) of subhead 1 therein. Sir, I have not moved this motion in order to condemn the creation of this post. All I would like to do is to initiate a debate on this particular point, namely, what is the job of this Information Officer (Civics)? What is the scope of his duties? What are the aims that the Government hopes to achieve by the creation of this post? Now, Sir, civics covers a multitude of uninteresting things like what is the vote, how you vote, why you vote, what does the Rural Board do, what does it not do, why you should condemn your Member of the Legislative Assembly, why you should praise your local Liberal-Socialist Party opponent, why you should condemn the Governor, and so on, But we would like to have a clear line of demarcation of the duties of the officer, whether civics goes over into the field of politics.

Sir, I welcome this question because ever since we started civic courses in Singapore, very many people have not understood the real intentions of such courses. There is still some misapprehension and I am indeed very glad that the hon. Member has brought up this question. Sir, the duties of the civics organiser and his staff are to organise civic courses and film shows. He is also in charge of the public address system, the maintenance of community listening sets and the interpretation of speeches in the rural areas. Sir, the project of civic courses was first approved last year and $14,040 was voted to provide for meals and transport. It was agreed that this officer in charge should be seconded on an experimental basis. These courses, Sir, have proved very successful so much so that the post of Information Officer (Civics) has been created and two new public address units are proposed as a permanent feature. The justification for this expansion is the increase of the electorate in the number of vernacular-speaking people. Moreover, with the establishment of the rural District Councils, it will be important to establish a link with the people of the rural areas, and it is proposed that one unit would work full time in each rural district area and two units would be for use in the city area and for general purposes. Sir, recently, we have had quite a number of civic courses attended by farmers, factory workers, teachers and people from all walks of life and they have been given the opportunity of understand how Government works and a first-hand knowledge of the Government machinery. The people generally welcome the civic courses. Sir, with regard to the part played by the civic organiser and his staff in connection with politics, they and the whole of the Information Services will not, as a matter of policy and principle, indulge in any party politics. They are not in the rural areas or in any part of the city to champion the cause of any political party and they are given strict instructions as to how they should interpret the various Government policies to the people. In all their activities, translations and interpretations of these things, they have adhered to this principle. It may be argued that some of the interpretations may not be quite accurate but we have from time to time increased the efficiency of the translators and interpreters and we are now in a position to say that the interpretations going out to the people are really accurate. We do feel, Sir, that with the encouragement that Members of the Assembly give to the civic courses, we will be able to make considerable progress in these civic courses and ultimately we hope that more people will be informed of how the Government is run and how they should make use of the Government machinery for their own benefits. 11.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise to say that I welcome the creation of new posts in what is called the Field Division. Last year, I recollect that I spoke on this same subject of Information Services and I asked that the Government should fully utilise all the facilities they possess not only to inform the people but at the same time to educate them. We must acknowledge the significant work performed by the Information Services since it took over from the Public Relations Office. There have been great improvements, one of them being the introduction of civic courses as pointed out by the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary, but I wonder whether the Government is prepared to enlarge the activities not only of the civic courses -

Order. I would like to remind hon. Members that the time fixed for the disposal of this particular item is five minutes past twelve and it is just now twelve minutes to twelve and if the hon. Member will confine his remarks more to the civics section, then perhaps we will get on a little faster.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir,I will confine myself to that. I welcome the creation of these new posts but I wish to suggest that additional work should be undertaken. I wonder whether the Field Division can undertake the responsibility of organising more public forums, especially political forums before or after any important Bill has been debated in the Assembly. I feel that elected Assemblymen should not be the only persons to debate the state of affairs of this country but that every member of the public should be encouraged to take a keener interest in the state of affairs of this country on public forums as well as political forums to debate any important Bill or measure before or after it has been debated in this Assembly. Another point is that the Government has boasted about the industrialisation of this country but how much work has been done in the form of propaganda by the Information Services? Like the question of fisheries, we take a keen interest in it but how many pamphlets have been published on the subject and how much information has been given to the public on the subject of industrialisation, and so on?

Order. I think the hon. Member is embarking on a debate on the general policy of the whole department. He will have the opportunity for that, if there is time, when I propose the question on the main head. I must remind the hon. Member that there are two more amendments to be debated.

Thank you, Sir.I just have two things to suggest. The new Field Division should: (1) undertake the responsibility of sponsoring public forums and (2) propagandise the importance of industrialisation in this country and the maintenance of law and order for the stability of this country.

Just to make myself clear on one point, I think the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary did not differentiate between party political leanings and political leanings. The whole purpose of these civic courses is to explain why the democratic system is good and why we want to make it work. That is politics. But what we must avoid is party politics: that this party is more suitable or more able to make the system work better than the other. That is a matter for competing political parties to do. There is no such thing as no politics in civics. The whole basis of our society at the moment is the democratic system and you have to tell the people why this system is to their advantage and will improve conditions for them. Why it is that one vote at election time can bring about a change in the leadership and policy of a government. Why it is, that with other forms of government - totalitarian governments - the leadership perpetuates itself, whether it be the Fascist type of government where a dictator appoints his successor or the central democratic variety where one party perpetuates itself, and not even a revolution, as in Hungary, can remove it from power. These are political matters. They have got to be put across to the people forcibly and vividly. What I wanted was an assurance from the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary on this question of political bias between competing democratic parties. That must be avoided: the fact, for instance, the Labour Front is a modest, moderate and mildly socialist Party, whereas the P.A.P. according to some quarters is an extremist, immoderate Party. That sort of thing must be abjured. But the idea of the democratic system as a system which is suitable and can be worked provided there is a leadership and a vigilant electorate must be pushed vigorously. That is what I intended to convey.

My reference to politics was in fact to party leaning but, of course, hon. Members are aware that the Information Services Department takes part from time to time in exhibitions to show the people how a democratic system functions: for example, we will be having an exhibition very soon in the Victoria Memorial Hall. Those aspects of politics are undertaken but as I said, earlier, Sir, there is no leaning to any particular party.

Sir, I beg to withdraw this amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 14 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 8 therein. Sir, in moving this motion, I seek more information regarding subhead 8, item (2) - Film Production - where there is allotted $30,000 required, according to the footnote (iii) at the bottom of page 109, "to film particular events for newsreel and television". Now, the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary, a few moments ago, has contradicted this by saying that he will see what can be done under this head to provide the Queenstown community centre and other community centres with more entertainment. I only wish to point this out that the tourist film entitled "Singapore, Lion City", which runs for about 16 to 18 minutes and was produced by the Government last year, cost approximately $24,000. That was the production and negative cost of this film without the supply of any positive prints for exhibition round the world. In other words, $30,000 is not going to get you very far as far as film production is concerned, and the production of newsreels. If Singapore is to be advertised to the world or if the Government is to advertise its achievements to Singapore, you are not going to do very much in 20 minutes or 25 minutes of film. This seems to me to be neither here nor there. Either you should allocate more money or you should not allocate any at all.

Sir, it is important that films should be made in 1958. The film, for instance, which we showed on Singapore's social welfare services was made in 1955 and it shows the plans for the Kandang Kerbau maternity hospital, the extension to which have been completed now for many months. We wish to bring such films up to date. We would like to make a film about the new education policy approved by the Assembly. We would like to produce newsreel films of events of public interest which may subsequently be utilised either by international newsreel companies or by overseas T.V. services. For this reason, it is imperative, Sir, that funds should be available for the Information Services to undertake this film production and we hope to produce some better newsreels depicting events of public interest and advertising Singapore overseas,

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the principle of making these films and I wonder whether the Hon. the Chief Secretary has any idea of what he can produce with $30,000. My submission is that very little can be done with that sort of sum. If you are going to do the thing properly, you will need a very much larger allocation. If you are just going to play with $30,000, you will get nowhere.

Sir, we feel that with this amount, we can produce quite a number of newsreels and other films in connection with the activities in Singapore, but I am very glad to note that the Member for Tanglin is all in favour of providing more money for this project, and I would like to take this opportunity to say, on the strength of his support, that if we require any more money, we will come for an A.S.V.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 14 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12 therein. Sir, again I seek information. There is now a grant of $300,000 for tourist promotion under Head 30-Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Why has this amount of $20,000 been left under this head and not been transferred to Head 30? Are we going to have two Ministries running the tourist industry with the Director of Information Services going in one direction and the Tourist Advisory Committee, acting under the Minister for Commerce and Industry, in another? 12.00 noon.

Sir, it may appear anomalous that this should appear in my department's vote when $300,000 has already been voted to the Department of Commerce and Industry for tourist promotion, but this $300,000, Sir, will not be made available immediately in the new year. We have to wait for the appointment of the Director of Tourism and meanwhile there are commitments for advertisements, tourist leaflets and propaganda and I can give the assurance that as soon as the expenditure is drawn on the $300,000, the remaining vote with this department will be frozen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that does not still explain why tourist promotion is to be conducted by two Ministries. There may be need for advertisement in the early part of the year but I see no reason why this should still remain under the portfolio of the Chief Secretary. It seems to me to be somewhat anomalous. Nor do I understand why the sum of $300,000 allotted under Head 30 cannot be touched until a Director of Tourism exists.

Sir, when I made a statement on tourist promotion, I mentioned that the sum of $300,000 will be allocated for tourist promotion work but that the money will be available only when the Director of Tourism has been appointed. Now that, Sir, is necessary because until the Director of Tourism is appointed, you cannot have co-ordinated action in the field of promotion of tourist work and it is only after you have the Director appointed that you can have co-ordinated action in the field of propaganda and other facilities and services offered to tourists, and so on. In the meanwhile, Sir, in order that tourist promotion work should not stop until the Director is recruited, this sum is provided, and this sum, though it is allocated under the Department of Information Services vote, could be utilised by my Ministry for the carrying out of propaganda work. The Tourist Advisory Committee now feels a bit frustrated because they say that they cannot do anything until the Director is appointed. This sum will then be available for that purpose so that they can go ahead with the propaganda, leaflets, and so on, and when the Director is appointed, they can have access to the main vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the obvious moral is to appoint your Director of Tourism. I would remind the House that the announcement made by the Minister for Commerce and Industry was in June of this year. He has had six months in which to make this appointment.

I do not remember the month, Sir, but it was a few months ago that I made the announcement. It is not an easy matter to get an expert from overseas. At the moment, I can tell the House that the Tourist Advisory Committee have scanned all the applications that have come in and have written back to a few applicants asking for further information before they recommend a name for appointment. It is no use appointing a man without first finding out whether he is capable, what experience he has, and so on, and therefore it takes a bit of time.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $908,440 for Head 14 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, time is running short and I will try to go fast. Firstly, I would like to raise this point again. The Government failed to answer me whether they support my suggestion that with the creation of new posts in the Field Division, the Information Services could sponsor public forums in any public centre for purposes of a public debate before or after the carrying out of any important policy by the Government. Secondly, the public should be well informed that the Government is prepared to accept the All-Party agreement in this House that we must merge with the Federation of Malaya politically and economically.

Sir, I do not think that the Government can meet the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Why?

I do not think that it is a good practice to have a public forum before or after the implementation of Government policies sponsored by the Information Services because the job of the Information Services of course, is, to pass on to the people the facts of the policies accepted by Government and any discussion about the rights and wrongs of these policies should be debated in voluntary organisations which are not lacking in Singapore. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of a very large number of debating societies now existing in Singapore and various other voluntary organisations which are usually sponsoring these public forums.

Order. Time has elapsed. The sum of $908,440 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. Sir, today, Singapore seems to be going backward in the matter of security. Everybody in the street is asking, "Is it safe?" We find that this question of security is not only confined to people who have money but also to the ordinary folks in the streets. You read many reports in the papers about the increase in crime. Every day, you find that there are robbery and gang fights and it seems that it is quite unsafe for people who are not armed to move about anywhere. A child's necklace may be pinched and a woman may be robbed. We find that with the people who have money, there is kidnapping going on; their problem has become so serious that one important organisation held a meeting and expressed dissatisfaction with the inertness of Government in providing security for the people. All these seem to point out that something must be done or something that should have been done has not been done by the Government. We want an explanation on this. We want to have a Singapore safe for everybody to live in, rich and poor alike. We want to have a Singapore in which you can have your strolls anywhere you like without being troubled by anybody. Sir, I know that the time is very short - only half an hour is allotted for this head - and I will run quickly over the other points. In Singapore, gambling is rife. I have heard that the gambling suppression department is abolished and its personnel transferred elsewhere. An hon. Member: No.

I understand that the Government cannot do anything about gambling on the character basis. I want to have clarification on that. Is it or is it not true? This is an evil which should be eradicated. The next point, Sir, is that I would like the Government to say what it is doing in the matter of helping the young people of Singapore. Today you have gang fights in Tanjong Pagar, Boon Teck Road and many other places. You find gang fights everywhere involving young people. I know that this is due mainly to the fault of the Government in not providing useful work for these young people who have been rendered unemployed. What is Government's policy on this matter? When can we help these young people so that we may have less trouble and more useful citizens brought up?

Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said about anti-corruption and corruption in this country. How can we stamp out corruption when we have here an item called the C.P.I.B. which stands for Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau? This Bureau is entirely staffed by police officers. It is entirely wrong that this Bureau should be run or supervised by senior police officers. Why I say this is that because it has come to my notice when I have myself forwarded many complaints to this department. What have they done? They have investigated into the affairs, made reports and they have submitted them to the Attorney-General. Nothing further has been done and the reason is that junior police officers went to make investigations. How can you blame these junior police officers? Can they make investigations and bring up charges against the senior police officers or senior officials of the Government? They dare not do that because they are junior officers and some have only been appointed for a few months in that department. They would be transferred or kicked out from the police force at any time if they were to offend any senior official. Why can we not have an independent body with executive powers? Give it such powers and I am quite sure that even members of the public will come forward with information. Take, for instance, the question of the rice stockpile. I put forward some information but what has been done? If the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau were to make an investigation regarding the stockpile, there is evidence that corruption is existing but what has happened so far? Comparing with past records, there has been no increase in arrests; only the small fry like office peons, constables who are lowly paid were nabbed, but what about the big fry? Further, I understand that a recommendation has been forwarded to the Attorney-General to amend the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. What has happened to the report? Why has no action been taken? It is a shame that this is happening in an elected Government in Singapore today. We must show our firm stand, We must eliminate and kill corruption in this country. Sir, I am very unhappy to learn that even police officers and detectives are at the beck and call of the secret societies in Singapore. There are secret societies, yes. These secret societies are actually being backed by detectives who have been in a certain department for many years. You can see that most of the detectives themselves are former secret society gangsters. A detective who once belonged to the 18 Group will naturally make arrests of or give trouble to the rival groups.

Which is the rival group.

It may be Gang 24 or 08; there are so many other gangs. This should be stopped. Furthermore, the Police Training School is sending out probationary inspectors who are young and green. They rely on the information of the detectives so much so that they are all entirely in the power or in the hands of these same detectives. Why can we not stop this thing? There has been an increase in the number of gang fights, kidnapping cases and street-fights. What has the Government done? It is no use talking about law and order. You can see every night 11 and 12-year old schoolboys, wearing the Tony Curtis hairstyle and T-shirts and trousers, being taken in by the detectives who do not like their faces, under section 12(1) of the Secret Societies Ordinance which is non-bailable. Why can we not arrest those confirmed or hardcore criminals instead of putting young fellows in a police station and sending them to the C.I.D. the next morning for screening and releasing them after 24 hours of detention, after lingering in the police station lockup for 24 hours-

Police station.

- in a police station? Just imagine this! This is no good. Why can we not take action against the real criminals? Why must we help these detectives or police officers to make money? We must be firm. We want a first-class police force in this country.

Order. Perhaps it is an appropriate time to suspend. It is a quarter past twelve. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The sitting is suspended I will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m. until 2.30 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of debate on Question, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.-(Mr Lim Choon Mong). 2.31 p.m. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most dangerous things in Singapore today is an insidious tendency to pass on and multiply irresponsible allegations of corruption. If, instead of passing on what he is told to the police or to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru or any other citizen will take his informant or his informant's informant along, then perhaps there will emerge some evidence, and on evidence the police will and do act. But gossip hearsay and rumour - that lying jade - are worse than useless. One sometimes sees three little figures grouped together which, between them, profess to "see, hear and speak no evil". Perhaps one day man may learn from monkeys. But, seriously, whether it is corruption, gangsterism, robbery or any other crime or wrong-doing, it is only on evidence that one should act, and, before acting. may I suggest that a critical appraisal is highly desirable? The police do investigate rumours and when what appears to be information is given by apparently responsible persons - Members of this House and others - the police investigate. But sometimes it transpires, as I know well from papers I have seen, that the information is rumour and I have known occasions when a critical appraisal of a rumour resulted in the person who gave the information realising that he was merely wasting time. The criticism of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has been that the junior officers are transferred if they offend their seniors. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not so. I have, in the course of my duties, had a good deal to do with the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. I have seen some of their successes and I have seen many of their failures, or what are judged to be failures. Not always were they placid about it. I am satisfied that the present arrangement, whereby the Bureau is kept separate from the main police force and whereby its staff are specially chosen from the resources of the police force, works well. There is no danger in that Bureau of a junior officer failing in his duty because what he has to enquire into concerns some senior officers. It is, thank God, only on evidence that we administer the criminal law of this colony, and if that were remembered, it would help. Whether the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru has ever seen a gang fight, I do not know, but I do not recall his having given evidence. It is people who are able to give evidence in court who should go and report to the police, and if those people will report to the police, then the police will produce the results that the critics are asking for. It is very easy to criticise, but it is not always easy to get results, and if the people who are capable of producing those results will come forward, then the present wave of gangsterism will cease. Corruption and gangsterism go together. Loose talk about either is extremely dangerous. Only evidence is valid. There is no cause, in my opinion, to interfere with the estimates of the police so far as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is affected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my hon. colleague has taken out of my mouth some of the words which I wish to say in connection with the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and with the question of evidence and information to be given to the police. In the circumstances, I would only like to reiterate what I said last Friday, Sir, that the word of the police in combating crime and gangsterism can be much more effective if they receive an increasing measure of support, information and co-operation from the public. The Government is also giving active consideration to other measures to meet the situation. I would also like to refute a statement made by the Member for Serangoon when he said that the Gambling Sub-branch has closed down. It is still functioning, Sir, and working as hard as ever. I must also deny the sweeping allegation that police officers and detectives are at the beck and call of secret societies. If the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru is aware of such individual cases, perhaps he would let me or the Commissioner of Police have the information. I would also like to say, in reply to the Member for Tiong Bahru, that the police do not lock up persons of tender age who have been detained for questioning. None of the boys of such tender age - I think the Member for Tiong Bahru did mention some boys of 11 or 12 years of age - if they are detained, are locked up. They are only brought to the station if they are seen to have committed an offence or if they are found apparently to be in need of care and attention, and they are left in the charge of a police officer in the police station until their parents have been traced or they can be lodged in the Social Welfare Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Hon. the Chief Secretary has misunderstood me when he says that teenagers have been locked up in police stations. I said the police made use of section 12 of the Ordinance to arrest these young people and they were detained in the police station. But there have been cases where children from the age of 18 and above had been detained in the police station for 24 hours. The next morning these people were brought to the C.I.D. for screening, and I wish to point out that most of them were innocent. Many of them had been brutally assaulted by the police. Furthermore the Hon. the Chief Secretary says that he wants co-operation from members of the public. How? There are many instances where members of the public went to see the police about certain things that were happening in their area. These same people were called up by the police again and again and they were questioned and questioned and questioned. If that is the treatment meted out to such informants, who will come forward to give evidence, particularly in the courts? unless Government is prepared to set up an independent body which will collect information from members of the public, then no one will come forward with information they have. For example there are gang fights all over the city. You have read in the papers, Sir, that so many people have witnessed these fights, and yet when the police come out to investigate, no one steps forward to give evidence. Why? Because they do not have faith in the police. As I earlier said today, Sir, unless we have an Anti-Corruption Bureau managed and staffed by an independent body of people with executive powers, no member of the public will voluntarily and gladly step forward to give evidence so that steps can be taken to stamp out such practices. In the police force there are certain senior police officers. Their subordinates profess to have senior officers in the police department as godfathers. These people, in turn, protect the gangsters, the secret societies and other criminals because they know some one is behind them. That is why they are so brave. If we have an independent Anti-Corruption Bureau which will take steps to stamp out such misdeeds, then I am sure members of the public will come forward not only in hundreds but in thousands to give evidence. 2.45 p.m.

Sir, I totally deny that the people have been brutally assaulted by the police in the police stations. I would also like to ask the Member for Tiong Bahru whether he thinks that youths of over 18 years of age can be termed children of tender age.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew:- That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (48) of subhead I therein. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Time is running short, Sir, and with the permission of the House, I should like to take my three amendments together - i.e., amendment (iii): That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (53) of subhead 1 therein; amendment (iv): That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (54) of subhead 1 therein; and amendment (v): That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 35 therein. All these three amendments refer to testers in the police force. Item (53) reads: Senior Testers, two [$600] and item (54) reads: Testers, twelve [$445-15A-550]. I find there is an increase of two testers compared to last year's estimate and not only that, I also find that the salary scale for the testers is also increased. The maximum salary of the testers in last year's estimate was $500. This year the maximum is increased to $550. Sir, the difference in the maximum salary between a senior tester and a tester is only $50 this year, whereas last year it was $100. Sir, a tester or a senior tester is chosen for his integrity before he is appointed, because the appointment is open to corruption and bribery, and unless a man of high integrity is appointed, he will be open to corruption and be tempted to accept bribery. If a tester is not adequately paid, or if a senior tester is not fully paid, definitely he will find ways and means of accepting bribery. A gap of $50 in the maximum salary between a senior tester and a tester is really, may I say, irrelevant because, as the senior tester, he will experience heart-burning to see that his junior receives only $50 less than what he actually receives at the maximum. How would we like to have a junior man who has just come up to a certain stage where his salary is only a few dollars less - in this case it is a difference of $50'? Now on the question of temporary testers, we are going to have 12. I wonder how many applications for driving licences are outstanding so far? The reason given for recruiting these 12 temporary testers is that they are "Required to clear a backlog of applications for driving tests." I said last year that the present system of dealing with applications for driving tests was most unsatisfactory. I suggested a system whereby such tests could be carried out at a much faster rate than with the present system. But during all these 12 months, Government has not taken the trouble to consider my suggestion to improve the present system of testing. Now we have a backlog and we are committed to another $82,800 by having to recruit 12 temporary testers. It is just a waste of money. If Government had taken my suggestion into consideration, this money would have been saved.

The Question is "That the sum to be allotted for Head 15 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (53) of subhead 1 therein." Discussion may range over the next two amendments, i.e. amendments (iv) and (v). The Chief Secretary has half a minute to reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since you say I have half a minute, I would like to point out that the two new posts of testers have been provided for the testing of drivers of public service vehicles which from 1958 onwards will be the responsibility of the police and not the City Council. The 12 temporary testers are appointed on similar salaries to those of the established staff and provision is made for an increase of six temporary testers. They are meant to cope with the waiting list of applicants desirous of taking driving tests, and they run into thousands. Sir. These people include those who have not had a test and those who have failed in a previous test and who wish to take another one. The very heavy traffic congestion on Singapore roads makes it imperative that the high standard of testing will not be dropped irrespective of the percentage of failures.

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $25,909,380 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16 -

I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 16 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13 therein. In this subhead I find that we are asked to provide $44,000 for "Miscellaneous Fittings for Machinery". Sir, the word "Miscellaneous" is such a vague term that we do not know what in fact it means.

Order. The notice of amendment is in respect of subhead 13 of Head 16, which is for "Miscellaneous Fittings for Machinery - $5,000".

I beg your pardon, Sir. Yes, it is $5,000 and not $44,000. Sir, the word "Miscellaneous" is a wide and vague term and unless details are given, I wonder how we could be asked to approve a vote of $5,000 for the purchase of miscellaneous fittings for machinery. Unless the Financial Secretary can qualify the word "Miscellaneous", I think it is rather serious to pass a block vote. I call it a block vote in this case rather than an actual individual vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, certain of the printing machines in the Government Printing Office were purchased at a time when the automatic spacing of type was impossible and the spacing of every line had to be done by hand. Equipment is now available to enable the spacing to be done automatically, and one of the main machines in the Printing Department has not yet been converted by the addition of this equipment. This fitting of automatic spacing equipment will very considerably increase the speed of printing operation and will enable this machine to increase its output considerably. Again at that time no equipment was available in the Printing Office for the automatic typesetting of the French language, or indeed of any language which involves the printing of accents above the letters. Equipment is available now to add to existing machinery which would enable this operation to be done automatically. The Member for Queens-town will be wondering why we want to have automatic typesetting in the French language. The reason is that the Government Printer is being called upon to produce printed matter in French, as a result of certain international conferences which are held from time to time in Singapore, for example, U.N.E.S.C.O.. W.H.O. and so forth. These proceedings are reported in French as well as in English. It is therefore desirable that automatic setting in French should be possible. The Member for Queenstown will also see that in the Estimates this subhead has against it the remark "Subject to Treasury sanction", and the Government Printer will therefore be required to satisfy the Treasury that any proposed purchase of equipment will be of an economical nature.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I move. That the sum to be allotted for Head 16 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 19 therein. Sir, in subhead 19 we are asked to provide 73 typewriters at a cost of $28,110. I wonder if the Chief Secretary can tell us what has happened to the old typewriters. The explanation given at the footnote says: "Replacement of typewriters for the following departments:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to refer the Member for Queenstown to the explanation given in page 448 of the Estimates in connection with this subhead. The explanation given there is quite clear. I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown has seen it or not.

It is too much for him!

Order.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $1,841,960 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12 therein. The footnote to this item says: "Increase required for emergency stocks." Now no reason was given in last year's estimate that we should carry emergency stocks. I wonder why this year, particularly where rations are concerned, we should carry emergency stocks. Is there an emergency on? Or is there a war on that the Prison Department should carry emergency stocks as reserve in case they will not be able to purchase rations anywhere? If not, why should we have to vote another $5,000 extra compared to last year's estimate for emergency stocks?

Mr Speaker, Sir, an increase of $5,000 is asked for rations in order that the Superintendent may purchase a reserve of iron rations. At the present time rations are brought daily to the prison and, in the event of any emergency, such as, for example, transport strikes, there would be no food in the prison. The amount asked for would be sufficient to supply approximately 48 hours' rations for the normal inmate population and would ensure that the prisoners would not go short of food in an emergency. 3.00 p.m.

Sir, would it be in order if I were to ask the Chief Secretary what type of rations are supplied to political prisoners and what is the treatment they receive?

The hon. Member is in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rations for detainees are considerably better than those for convicted prisoners. For convicted persons I cannot give offhand the details of their rations. In addition, the detainees are allowed to purchase food through the Superintendent, or they can get additional food from their relatives. This privilege is not extended to ordinary convicted persons. Perhaps the Member for Telok Ayer already knows that there are seven types of diet in the prison - Chinese, Malay, Tamil, Brahim, Pathan, European and detainees' diet.

The Chief Secretary says that he anticipates a transport strike and that is why the provision of $5,000 is required to purchase emergency rations. Is it the Government's policy to anticipate strikes all the time? If so, why only on this particular item of rations, and not on others? If the Government does anticipate strikes of this nature or that nature, then let it provide emergency rations for all items rather than one particular item only?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 52 therein. Subhead 52 (1) concerns City Services. Last year I criticised very strongly the extravagance of the Government in the matter of city services. These services, I understand, are for electricity consumed by this department. What I see now is an increase of $23,000 a year for electrical consumption. This works out roughly at slightly less than $2,000 a month. Is the department going to consume slightly less than $2,000 of electricity a month, which works out again roughly at 10,000 units? In most other departments they do not require so much electricity under the head of City Services, and I have not attacked any of those, but I wish to draw attention to this particular case because it is too big an increase. Normally the increases range between $3,000 and $5,000 or $1,000 and $2,000. But in this particular case, it is $23,000. This is rather a substantial figure. It is no wonder that we have the Budget Estimates showing a deficit every year!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the demand for city services certainly does not cover only electricity services. There are also other city services. However, in connection with city services of electricity, Sir, modernisation has been carried out this year in the laundry and carpentry shops at Changi Prison and new and more efficient machinery has been installed, with the result that there has been an increase in output and an increase in the amount of electricity required for the operation of this machinery. The laundry shop at Changi Prison undertakes laundering for Kandang Kerbau and Tan Tock Seng Hospitals and for government bungalows at Changi, in addition to the laundering of uniforms of the prison staff. May I also refer to the next amendment of the Member for Queenstown which I think is related- That the sum to be allotted for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 73 therein?

Yes.

Item (2) of subhead 73 also refers to laundries, Sir. The prison laundry undertakes the laundering of all hospital linen, with the exception of staff uniforms, and the uniforms of all government staff, with the exception of the police. It also undertakes the laundering of Government House linen. In fact, Sir, the revenue derived by the Prison Department from this laundering aspect of the prison industry, in so far as government services are concerned, amounts to, I think, more than $200,000 a year.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Chief Secretary has already dealt with my next amendment, that is, That the sum to be allotted for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 73 therein. may I have the permission of the House to withdraw it?

No permission is required if the hon. Member does not move. Question proposed, "That the sum of $3,524,450 for Head 17 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to discuss the policy of this head of Prisons. We have just heard our Hon. the Chief Secretary say that they have seven types of food for the prisoners. I wonder whether they allow Chinese prisoners to choose a European diet. I have been approached by a prisoner, a Chinese. He suffered from a certain stomach ailment and he asked me to approach the prison authorities to see if they would allow him to have a European diet, They said however, that unless he had the doctor's recommendation, his request would be rejected. The doctor refused to consider his request and said, "No, you are a Chinese, so you must take Chinese food." I wish to raise this question, Sir, because I learn there are different rates of expenditure for the various diets. Since the Government supply different kinds of food, I wish to know whether they will consider having the same rate of expenditure for them all. At present European food costs more than any other food. Secondly, I wish to touch on the treatment of political banishers. I understand that they have been treated as criminals and are given convicts' food. Also they have to mix with the convicts and they are always bullied by them. I wish the Chief Secretary will investigate their cases. The third point I wish to touch upon is the Opium Treatment Centre. If the Government are of the opinion that this Centre has produced wonderful results by effecting many cures, cannot they separate it from the Prison Authority and make it an independent body? Because the Opium Treatment Centre is under the control of the Prison Authority, many opium addicts do not volunteer to get admitted into it to undergo a cure. They feel a certain stigma is attached to the fact that they are inmates of this Centre, and people will say, "Oh, you are a prisoner" Many hon. Members made an inspection of the Opium Treatment Centre about a year ago and I am sure most of them were impressed with the way it is run and the results achieved by it. Therefore I wish to put forward two suggestions: one, that the Government consider separating the Centre from tile Prisons Authority; two, this centre be open to members of the public, even though they are not convicted of opium smoking, to receive free treatment.

Sir, with regard to the first point raised by the Member for Changi, the present procedure is that, if a Chinese prisoner is to state a preference for a European diet, an officer of the Social Welfare Department is sent to the prisoner's house to see whether he does, in fact, take European food; and if he does, he will get European food. But if he does not, he will get Chinese food unless, as the Member for Changi says, he is, on medical advice, to be given European food. On the second point, Sir, I can say straightaway - it might satisfy the Member for Changi - that political banishers do get the same sort of food as detainees. With regard to the Opium Treatment Centre, Sir, this serves a very useful purpose and there is general agreement, which is supported by the World Health Organisation, the Narcotics Commission of the United Nations, visiting justices and other distinguished visitors, that this centre does serve a very useful purpose and the success which it has achieved would be a justification for its continued existence. Government is now giving active consideration to the question whether it should continue in existence for another year or whether it is to become a permanent department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the matter of food, prisoners should be allowed to ask for any food they like. I am a Chinese but I like food with plenty of chillies in it! 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just a point of information. The banishers at present detained in the Outram Road Prison complain that they receive a different type of food from the detainees and now the Chief Secretary confirms that they receive the same type. Will you please help me to investigate their cases?

The hon. Member is asking the Speaker to get into prison? The hon. Member was using the second person. I just remarked that the Speaker would like to keep away from prison!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $3,524,450 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18 - The sum of $34,760 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 19 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8 therein. Sir, in moving this amendment I am trying to get some information from the Chief Secretary. I find an increase of $9,500 has been provided for printing and stationery, and the reason given is: "Increase required to cover tuition fees for five officers studying languages." Sir, for just five officers studying languages, you require another $9,500 for stationery alone.

Order.

Oh, no, I am sorry, Sir.

Order. I think the lighting must be ineffective in that part of the Assembly where the hon. Member is sitting. What I see is note (iii) reading "increase estimated from 1956/57 expenditure." Am I right?

You are right, Sir.

I tender my apologies again, Sir. I will not blame the lighting. I should blame my spectacles - it is bifocal. Sir, the note says the increase is estimated from 1956/57 expenditure. Even then, I say that $9,500 is too big an increase for stationery and printing alone. What I want is an explanation from the Chief Secretary giving details of the printing and stationery required.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the figure covers all printing done for the Statistics Department by the Government Printer and this increase is due to the publication for the first time in 1957 of separate lists of trade statistics for Singapore, and continuation of this publication in 1958 will require the increase asked for. It has in fact been estimated by the Government Printer himself.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,567,510 for Head 19 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday morning the Government had been receiving attack after attack from the Opposition. In this particular case I am going to offer a bouquet to this Department, Sir, especially where the statistics are concerned. Had it not been for the efficiency of this Department, I am afraid we would not be able to have our City Council election this month. I believe the Department has been working under heavy pressure to bring the electoral rolls into being in order that we will be able to have the City Council election this month. Sir, if the electoral rolls had not been ready, then the life of the City Council would have to be extended. I have already heard much criticism in this House regarding the extension of the term of office of the City Councillors. I am now happy that there is no mole extension and that the term of office of the City Councillors will last only three more days. So good luck to the City Council!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,567,510 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20- The sum of $322,090 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21- The sum of $337,690 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- The sum of $23,877,060 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 23- The sum of $6,480,000 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24- The sum of $14,939,800 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25 - The following amendments stood in the name of

- That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10,000 in respect of subhead 2 therein. That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8 therein. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendments were not proceeded with.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 24 therein. Sir, in moving this amendment, I am not in fact against the vote itself. What I see now is a very substantial increase of $336,000 for the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association. In fact, I think the bigger the increase the better it is, because we are trying to eradicate T.B. in Singapore. But what I am most surprised is this - that the Government has anticipated this increase in the vote, so it does anticipate that there will be a higher rate of T.B. cases next year. If this is not so, then why should there be an increase in the vote? If the Government really anticipates a higher rate of T.B. cases next year, then what has it done about this disease which is a very dangerous one? Has it done anything to prevent the spread of this disease, or is it just doing nothing but anticipating that there will be more cases and more money therefore is required?

The increased provision is required because the cost of treatment by the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association has increased. Hitherto we have paid the Association $27 per head per month in respect of all acute cases and $9 in respect of all chronic cases treated by the Association. Representations have been made by the Association, Sir, to the effect that the cost of treatment has gone up and that, in view of the advances which have been made in medical science, it is no longer possible to differentiate between the treatment for acute cases and the treatment for chronic cases. We have therefore budgeted for an allowance in 1958 of $30 per head per month for all patients. Further provision has been made for the rehabilitation of certain T.B. patients by S.A.T.A. The breakdown in figures, Sir, is that S.A.T.A. will treat on our behalf 1,400 patients per month and rehabilitate 50 patients. I would repeat, Sir, that the increase is necessitated by an increase in treatment fees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said earlier, I am not against this vote; neither am I against the increase in the provision. What I want is information and since an explanation has now been given, may I have the permission of the House to withdraw my amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $12,700 in respect of subhead 32 therein. Sir, I am all in favour of charity. But our procedure is laid down in such a way that in order to initiate discussion I have to choose certain items and ask for a deletion or a reduction in their votes, and I find that for my discussion this seems to be the appropriate subhead. I understand from you, Sir, that we cannot ask for a new grant, according to the procedure laid down. The only thing for a Member of the Assembly therefore to do is this: to voice his feelings against the unfairness of Government in not giving grants to certain deserving cases. Sir, I have chosen for discussion subhead 32-Ecclesiastical Grants. I do not know what it means. I think an explanation was given last year, but I forgot what it was all about and I will be happy if the Hon. the Financial Secretary will kindly explain again what is the meaning of "Ecclesiastical Grants". However, even before hearing his explanation, I think it refers to a grant to a particular religion. Sir, Singapore has no acknowledged State religion. The people may have their own religion, but the State of Singapore has no religion of its own. That was confirmed in the last Budget. But I still see at the Cenotaph services that many heads of religion are called to say prayers. Even at the installation of our new Governor the other day, prayers were read by a priest of a certain Christian denomination. Sir, I do not know what "Ecclesiastical Grants" means. When you are making this grant of $12,700, why do you not give grants to various other bodies which are more deserving? Why deny them? You are spending millions of dollars on defence. You are just spending money on behalf of one section and not on Singapore's own use, and that has been passed by the Government with the aid of the Nominated Members and ex-officios. The Press reports that every vote is passed. But how? With whose votes? It is not the majority of elected Members who have passed it. Sir, I come to my subject - the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association. They have asked for help from the Government but I do not see even a mention of any grant to them. Sir, the Chinese form 80 per cent of the population of Singapore. I believe religion is very necessary for every human being. If a body such as the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association has spent so much money to give recreation and to show the right path to youngsters, does it not deserve such help? 3.30 p.m. Sir, in last years Budget, when we were granting a dollar for a dollar towards the building of the Young Women's Christian Association, I raised this point. I was not against it. What I said was "If you are making grants, please do the same for other causes which may come before you." The Young Men's Christian Association have spent much money. The opening ceremony of the building was performed by the last Governor, His Excellency Sir Robert Black. They are now short of $350,000. A deaf ear has been turned to their request. Why? Sir, whatever may be said about my present amendment to this vote, it will be passed. It is a tragic affair. Sir, an equally good cause is the Ramakrishna Mission. I raised this point last year and I understood the reply was that consideration would be given. I do not see any grant to them. Sir, I would like to point out that grants had been given from year to year to this body. This was removed by the present Coalition Government. Sir, the Ramakrishna Mission is established to do social work without any discrimination of caste and creed. No grant has been made to them this year. Sir, there is another cause, the Sultan Mosque, the only big mosque of the Muslims in this City. It is also historical. The Sultan Mosque required money. They approached the Government, but I do not think any grant has been given to them. Sir, to the Muslims, their mosque is very important, just as the temple or church is to others. If one cause is given preferential treatment, I do not think we should tolerate that. Sir, about the Young Men's Muslim Association, if they put up a building, to give a grant of a dollar for a dollar. I have not heard about this project and I have nothing to say at present about it. Sir, when you are spending, as I have said, so many millions of dollars on useless projects - I include also broadcasting to a certain extent because it should be a productive project but it is not help should also be given to worthwhile causes which help to keep our children on the right path - give them recreation, keep their minds occupied, and prevent them from going into wrong hands - and yet Government has turned an utterly deaf ear to their appeals. Therefore, Sir, I move this amendment, not that I am against this grant but I think it is not fair that this one particular religion should be selected for this grant and others are not. I should like to hear more about what this item means.

The hon. Member for Telok Ayer has raised a number of questions. The first question refers to the grant amounting to $12,700 which is paid to St. Andrew's Cathedral. Singapore was founded in 1819. It may well be that the Colonial Estimates supported a chaplain before 1834, but 1834 is the earliest record where I can find of the appearance of a Colonial Chaplain on the establishment of the colony. From that date until 1929 the post of Colonial Chaplain remained on the colonial establishment. In the early days, the Government employed a Chaplain of its own. Latterly however the Archdeacon of Singapore officiated as Colonial Chaplain. Provision was also made in the estimates for recurrent expenditure in connection with the duties of the Colonial Chaplain. A grant was also made towards the Bishopric Endowment Fund. In 1930 it was decided to abolish the post of Colonial Chaplain and to pay to the St. Andrew's Cathedral the sum of $12,700 of which $4,300 was in respect of a contribution to the Bishopric Endowment Fund and the balance was in respect of the salary of the Archdeacon. I have given careful thought to the matter but I confess that I can see no real reason why the grant should be discontinued now. At the same time, I can see no reason - there may well be reasons, but I can see none - why we should discontinue the present practice of not making direct financial contributions to other religious organisations of which there are very many in the colony. It is incorrect to say that we do not give them assistance. Through the Social Welfare Department vote for assistance to Voluntary Institutions for Children. we make substantial contributions to various organisations, one of which is the Ramakrishna Mission. With regard to the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association, Sir, we have received an application for financial assistance. They appeared to have proceeded with the construction of their new premises without ascertaining what funds were likely to be available beforehand, and they are now overdrawn to the extent of $320,000. Their application for assistance is under consideration at the present moment. The Young Women's Christian Association was mentioned, Sir, as having been the recipient of a dollar for dollar grant last year. The case of this particular association raised special problems which Government considered to require special consideration. In the end a grant was made. As far as I am aware, no application has been received from the Ramakrishna Mission, nor from the Sultan Mosque, nor from the Young Men's Muslim Association for any capital assistance.

Sir, the Hon. The Financial Secretary has explained that the application for financial assistance of the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association is under consideration. It is now nearly a year and they have been paying interest which could have been very easily saved if Government had given their application earlier consideration. I hope that it will be treated on the same basis as that of the Young Women's Christian Association and that the decision will be favourable. Sir, I think not all the applications for grants have come to the notice of the Financial Secretary. A letter was sent to him by the Trustees of the Sultan Mosque, and I received a copy. If the Financial Secretary has not seen it, I will try and produce a copy tomorrow. The letter may have escaped his attention and gone into a pigeonhole. I hope, by raising this enquiry, he will take action with his department and have the letter placed before him. As for the Ramakrishna Mission, Sir, if my memory serves, I think they have also written to the Government and I have received a copy, and I cannot understand why the head of a department does not get the letters when they are addressed to him. There is something wrong with the department. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to trace those letters. If he likes, I will try and produce copies to him. The Financial Secretary spoke about the Ecclesiastical Grants and that they dated back to such and such a year. We are not at all concerned with how long they were dated back. Why should they be continued if we are not giving the same type of grants to others? Either he stops them or he gives grants to others on the same basis. Sir, may I ask: Are you spending any money yearly on the repair of St. Andrew's Cathedral? If so, where is the vote put down? St. Andrew's Cathedral is not a public building for public use, but I understand definitely that money is being spent on it. If so, why has no money been granted to the Sultan Mosque? It is of equal importance to others. I do not say that you should not spend money on religious organisations, but do not discriminate one against the other.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to the Ramakrishna Mission, they made an application to the Social Welfare Department for an annual grant of $20,000. The Director of Social Welfare has written to the Mission and has asked for further information, but so far it has not been supplied.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $120,000 in respect of subhead 33 therein. 3.45 p.m. Sir, I have chosen this subhead because certain grants have not been made. Sir, Members on this side of the House - I do not know whether the Government side have received it - have received a letter signed by various Christian organisations, maybe they are Catholic bodies-that it is against their conscience that a grant to the Family Planning Association should be made from the revenue of the Colony of which they are the taxpayers. Sir, if I may be permitted to mention it, we have received the Seventh Annual Report of the F.P.A. and also a letter with statistics attached to it. Sir, in the past I have always abstained from voting on this vexed question of giving a grant to the F.P.A. On the one hand, we have the argument from some organisations that they are paying taxes, and why should their money be spent on certain projects which are against their religion and their conscience? And they have approached us and told us that, as Assemblymen, we should respect their feelings. Sir, these organisations definitely state that it is against their faith that artificial means be applied to prevent birth. Sir, the Muslim religion, too, lays down that their followers should not adopt any means which are against their religion to prevent birth; but it does lay down that it is necessary, in order to safeguard the life of a woman, to seek medical advice and take steps to save. Coming to the Family Planning Organisation, there are many countries where this kind of association is run on a voluntary basis without a government grant. I have personally no hard and fast views about it. I have here a Report of the F.P.A. dated 31st December, 1956. The grant to be given by the Government is $120,000 compared to $100,000 last year. Sir, I see plenty of names on the front page of this Report - patrons, vice-patrons and committee members and so on. The subscription collected is only $1,118. Their expenditure has been $149,000. On the other hand, we gave $100,000 last year. In other words, this Association is run on a government grant. If that is so, I would like to find out why the Government should not run it themselves. Sir, as I said, if various bodies are not given grants then they should be given a grant. I wonder why a grant to the F.P.A. should be given at all. I want to hear the arguments on this vote.

The Question is "That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $120,000 in respect of subhead 33 therein." Hon. Members will have noticed that there is a similar amendment in the name of Mr Goh Tong Liang.

Sir, I do not want to speak at length on the pros and cons of the work of the Family Planning Association, or whether, from the religious viewpoint, the F.P.A. is the right course of approach. But the Member for Telok Ayer has raised a point of principle - that taxes paid by certain sections of the people should not be spent on anything that is against the principles of their religion. If we stretch that principle, Sir, we could stretch it to immense limits. Muslims could object to expenditure incurred by Ministers on supplying drinks to their guests. There is a certain sect called Jains in India. They walk barefooted in order not to crush ants. Sir, these people could object to the provision of two dog shooters in the Veterinary Department estimates, because that is wilfully destroying dogs. Also, of course, there will be objection to the eradication of malaria-breeding mosquitoes because you kill millions of mosquitoes. So I think that is a dangerous principle for the House to accept. Of course, the other arguments are matters for Members to consider.

Mr Speaker, before the debate on this subject gets into its full stride, I would like to announce that, as in previous years, the Government side is given a free vote. This is a matter of conscience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year we spent several hours discussing this subject. I hope Members will take the opportunity, between the adjournment in the next few minutes and tomorrow's sitting, to look through what was said last year and do not try to repeat their arguments, because time is valuable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this large volume which I have brought in with me from the library of the Assembly, there is shown the approximate population in the world from the years 1650 to 1953. In 1650 the total world population, as estimated and running to the nearest million, was 550 million people. However, that was a long time ago. We jump forward to 1900 and find the population then was 1,600 million, that is, 57 years ago. We jump forward to 1939-39 years later - and find the population then was 2,240 million; an increase of 640 million, which is a very considerable jump in 39 years. When we look from 1939 to 1953, a further 14 years, the population then was 2,620 million, or a further increase of 380 million, more than half the increase in the previous 39 years. Now that increase has taken place very largely in Asian countries. They are of course estimates of population, because in most of these countries there is no sufficient standard for them to say precisely what the population is or was at a particular time because they have no civil service to do a census. Nevertheless, on the basis of these figures, the population of Asia, excluding the Soviet Union parts of Asia, was only 905 million in 1900 and has now gone up to 1,437 million - an up of over 500 million - which is an enormous increase, and a very large lump of the total world increase over that period. I do not believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in present terms family planning as it is practised now has any very significant effect on the total output of babies. It has perhaps a significant effect on upper and middle class families where there are some arguments to show that those in the car-owning class, from one car to five or six cars, do, in fact, limit their families and keep the population down - whether by family planning or whether because they are too busy making money to divert themselves in this way, I cannot say. But as far as the general mass of the population is concerned, I do not think it is very significant from the point of view of population increase at present. What I think is this: that we must fully accept the principle of family planning because the time may come when techniques which are of mass application may be devised and then they can be used to stop the terrifying pressure on resources which is taking place in the world today and which is shown by the figures I have quoted. For those reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do feel that we must support this vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Deputy Speaker that we should not repeat what was said last year. So we did not have a lengthy speech from our schoolmaster, Mr Francis Thomas. But I could not agree with his argument on the population increase figure. One thing, Sir, - we should be confident of the future. This is the age of Sputniks. [Interruption.] We are going to conquer space! If I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has said that we can expect to extract power from the sea. We do not have to rely only on petrol and coal, because now we live in an age of scientific advancement. Therefore I wish hon. Members to have confidence in our future-

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 on the Appropriation Bill and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Tomorrow it will be.

Resolved, "That the Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock.