Hansard, 1960-12-12

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (10th December, 1960), "That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (59) of sub-head 1."-(Mrs Seow Peck Leng).

32 p.m. MAIN ESTIMATES, 1961 (Cont.) Head 28-

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (59) of sub-head 1." Hon. Members will recollect that it has been agreed that the debate may range over sub-head 63. It is also on the Political Study Centre. Dr Goh Keng Swee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just about to reply to the three questions raised by the Member for Mountbatten when the recording system unfortunately broke down. If I may recapitulate, first, she wanted to know for whom the Political Study Centre is meant; second, what type of instruction goes on; and third, what benefit is derived by the students and the State from these activities. On the first question, the Political Study Centre is meant for civil servants, not only those in the Administrative services but also Government employees in Division II posts who perform duties relating to administrative work of one kind or another. The Centre has also run a series of classes for principals of English primary schools, and some time next year we hope to run similar classes of political instruction for principals of Chinese language schools. As regards the content of the courses, as the title suggests, the courses are designed to impart knowledge of political theory, political institutions in general, and Asian political developments in particular. Thirdly, as to whether these courses have benefited the students and the State, I would say undoubtedly they have.

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister for Finance would be kind enough to tell us in what way the courses have benefited the students?

The answer is to ask the students!

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. When we formed the Government, one of the difficulties that faced us was that we inherited a civil service which, by and large, was incapable of making political judgment. Our local civil service, though technically competent, had always been under the illusion that because they should be non- political in character they must avoid all interest in political affairs to the extent of even being ignorant of political issues. For instance, the opinion has always been expressed that, as civil servants, they must not indulge or dabble in politics, as if politics is a kind of parlour game intended for the amusement or diversion of people. The way we look at it is that political affairs is not a parlour game. On the contrary, it may be a matter of life and death whether or not we can build up a democratic system of sufficient strength to withstand the stresses that our country has to meet. This is not such a simple matter as some Members of the Opposition may think. It is not sufficient just to say that the civil servants are there to carry out the policies and instructions of Ministers. When they carry out policies, they necessarily must have a wide sphere of discretion. It is not possible for Ministers to give directives in detail to enable the civil servant to meet any possible eventuality. If the role of the civil service were just to carry out instructions in a mechanical way, that is, to be guided purely by the letter of the General Orders or by such circulars and directives as may be issued, you can be sure that the Government would not be able to make any impact upon the people. This lack of experience or lack of involvement or lack of thinking on the part of the civil servants on political issues has been detrimental to themselves, because they have not been able to see how they have been separated from the masses, why that is a bad thing and why it is necessary for them to know what the masses think about political affairs, their hopes and aspirations, so that the execution of Government policy can be made more effective. As regards the school principals, it is obvious, Sir, that they have a vital role to perform in the task of nation-building. They are the key persons who will mould the form and content of the thinking of the younger generation. And like the civil servants, the school principals have not given any thought to the political issues of the day, nor have they made any effort to understand the general political background not only, in respect of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya but also the general resurgence of nationalism in Asia in the post-war years. These are matters they must appreciate, and it is the purpose of the Political Study Centre to run courses of instruction for these groups of Government employees. As I have said, the effect on them has been very marked and immediate. I myself have gone to the Political Study Centre after sessions and held informal discussions with civil servants and school principals on what they thought of these courses; and apart from a few diehards who cannot understand what it is all about or who cannot appreciate the necessity for re-thinking of the basic issues, the general effect has been, one might almost say, the reconversion to a new point of view of which they were completely unaware previously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I entirely agree with the Minister that civil servants who have to carry out instructions cannot do so effectively unless they know the background to these instructions and the policies on which they are based. I would like to ask the Minister a question in connection with the studies and courses held in the Political Study Centre. I agree that the students attending these courses have become more knowledgeable men, but would the Minister state categorically that the knowledge they have gained have made them more efficient civil servants, and that the civil service has become a more efficient service?

I would say without a doubt that the answer is yes for this reason, quite apart from the content of the political instructions. The senior officers who went through these courses - many of them for the first time - understand now why Government policy is what it is, and they are therefore able to exercise their own initiative in promoting our policies instead of being jogged along by their Ministers. But I would be the last person to claim that what we have done is all that is necessary. 2.45 p.m. While the Political Study Centre has run courses for all Divisions I and II officers and a large number of school principals, we will in the next stage go through the other remaining principals of English schools and part of the Chinese school principals. We also intend to run more advanced courses for selected officers in Division I. As I have said, this is a continuing process, and I would say that the results we have achieved have justified our efforts in starting it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak on the content of the courses that are made available at the Political Study Centre? While agreeing with the Minister for Finance that it is a good thing for our civil servants to know what is going on around them, not only in Singapore but throughout the world, particularly in South-east Asia and Asia, and that it is good to educate them politically, the question that arises is this: whether the P.A.P. in power, while seeking to educate them, should itself, in the course of that political education, seek to gain an advantage. If the Party in power while politically educating the civil servants does not itself seek an advantage, I can see no objection to that. But I understand that some of the lecturers, tutors or whoever they may be, perhaps without the knowledge of the Minister, do adopt a line which quite blatantly praises the Party in power and quite openly runs down the other political Parties in Singapore. I wonder if the Minister for Finance knows this. If he knows this and he disagrees with it, will he stop it and give the Opposition an assurance that this will not continue to occur? Political education is a good thing, but to so educate the civil servants as to make them think that the P.A.P. is the only Party worth supporting, whether that is a thing to be done out of public funds is yet another matter. The other point, Sir, which I indicated to you could conveniently be dealt with this, is sub-head 63 on page 273 of the Estimates. Could the Minister for Finance tell the House what exactly would the Service Manual contain?

As regards the statement that we might be taking party political advantage of this institution, I can assure the Member that that is very far from our intention. In fact, if we had attempted to make it, shall we say, an arm of the Party, then we would not have achieved the success that we did. Surely the civil servants could have seen through this. It could be, mind you, that in the process of discussing the particular issues the policy of the Government might have been examined, and it might have been demonstrated very convincingly to the students that that was the correct and only policy that could be followed. In that instance, I would say that the lecturers were explaining the policy of the Government, as distinct from praising the excellence of the Party leadership. I know there is a subtle difference, but nevertheless it is there. As for running down the Opposition, if the Member for Farrer Park could give me details as to when that happened and who did it, I will assure him that steps will be taken to stop it. But I rather suspect that the Member for Farrer Park was either speaking with his tongue in his cheek, or he was badly misinformed. On the second point, that is, the Manual, it is nothing more than a booklet setting out the attractions of a career in the Civil Service. The previous Government published one in, I think, 1956. It is now out of date. We are revising this Manual, so that copies of it can be distributed to schools, colleges, and so on-places where we want to recruit civil servants.

Sir, while I entirely agree with the Minister for Finance that the line is very difficult to draw, he will also agree with me that there are certain instances where one cannot but help think that that line is being taken. There could be cases where a line is difficult to draw. Yet there are other instances where one knows quite well that a certain line is being taken, not to put across a theory to the students, but merely to run down some previous Minister or ex-Minister, or something like that. If, in the course of putting across a theory, a discussion entailed the merits of a policy followed by a former Chief Minister and the present Prime Minister, that is all right. But where gratuitous insults are hurled at ex-Ministers or ex-Chief Ministers, then I think that is going a bit too far. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not raising this with my tongue in my cheek, but I have had it seriously mentioned to me that this was going on. And in fairness to the Minister, I felt I had to raise it.

I am obliged to the Member for drawing my attention to it, and I shall certainly see to it that if this thing had indeed occurred, it will not take place in future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us whether these courses are voluntary, or are civil servants told that they have to attend?

The courses for school principals are voluntary. The courses for civil servants are compulsory; they have to attend.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am one of the many Ministers who go to the Political Study Centre to give lectures, and to be lectured to. It is quite true that, by and large, we drew up the courses and we took great care to see that they were not primarily intended to put forward a party point of view, because that would have destroyed the purpose of the courses. For example, last Wednesday. I think, I had to go there and one of the questions often asked was: "Is it true that the P.A.P. is anti-English educated?" In reply to a question like that, I asked, "Why do you say so?" Then they quoted speeches made by certain political Parties. Naturally when we replied to such thing we said that that was a very stupid statement. I do not know whether that is taken as putting forward propaganda detrimental to a particular political Party. Very often we were asked, "Is it true that the P.A.P. is run by Communists?" And we replied. "Who said so?", and certain Members of the Opposition were quoted. And we said that that was a very stupid remark, in that sense, it could be. But by and large the purpose of these courses, apart from imparting instruction in political theories and so on, is to provide the Ministers with an opportunity to get ordinary members of the civil servants to be critical. Very often they are very critical of Government policy. They ask questions like "Why was it done this way?" or they say that they disagree with a particular policy, and we try to explain why we do these things. To that extent, I think these courses serve a broader purpose apart from imparting political knowledge - they give civil servants an opportunity to discuss things with their Ministers; not only people at higher levels but in the intermediate levels as well. Therefore, they would then feel that they are not just dummies carrying out instructions by the Government. They feel they have a sense of participation; that their advice is listened to, and in a number of cases they have put forward very fruitful suggestions about how political problems should be approached, and so on. To that extent, these courses are of mutual advantage not only to the people who go there but also to the Ministers concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I saw the Minister for Culture speaking there, I seemed to see the face of Professor Enright! Why I bring it up is this: this is the Political Study Centre to inject political thought into the civil servants. The Government says that such political activities cannot be indulged in by aliens. Yet the Director of this Political Study Centre is not a Singapore citizen. How does that reconcile with Government's policy?

The answer surely is very simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Director is an officer of the Government and he has duties and functions to perform in carrying out the policies of the Government.

Sir, I think it is indeed very simple. So long as an alien plays the line of the P.A.P., it is simple. If he does not play the line of the P.A.P., it is no longer simple; he is brought to book.

Sir, that remark is as foolish as it is offensive. There is no similarity at all between the role of an officer of the Government performing his functions in the office of the Government, and an academic man holding forth in public on matters of public policy. The work of the Director of the Political Study Centre is within the closed walls of the Civil Service.

Professor Enright's lecture-

Order. I do not think we need bring in Professor Enright in this connection at all.

This is just to show, Sir, that so long as any alien is prepared to play the line of the P.A.P., it is quite all right to the Government.

Order. I think that question has been answered. It is becoming a little tedious.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. the Minister for Finance whether this teacher who is teaching political science in the Political Study Centre is allowed to use his own discretion and participate in it? If he has ideas that are adverse to Government policy, will he still be employed? Will he be brought to book if he teaches what is fact in the history of politics, and in certain Government policies he happens to disagree with them and condemn them?

That question, I think, is out of order because it is purely hypothetical.

I think the Minister should leave it to the Chair to decide what is or what is not out of order. In the Committee of Supply, arguments are always hypothetical, or most of them are. Is the Member for Mountbatten asking for a vote on this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 10*. *The same admendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mrs Seow Peck Leng. Sub-head 10, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in connection with expenses in connection with travelling on Government duty. In this year's Estimates, there is a sum of $100,000, and in next year's Estimates, it is intended to double it - more than double, I am reminded. Could the Minister please explain whether Government is going to travel twice as much as it has done this year?

The Government expects to travel as much next year as this year.

In that case, the vote should not exceed $100,000. That was the point of my objection. As the vote now is $100,000, and it is intended to be increased to $206,000 for next year, have the fares gone up twice as much then for the same amount of travel?

Mr Speaker, Sir, actually the vote of $100 000 for this year has now been exhausted, and it has been necessary to replenish it by transfers from other heads. I do not know whether we are going to embark upon a long argument about travelling abroad. But it became quite obvious in the course of this year that we had many conferences and meetings to attend abroad. As far as possible, it is the practice of this Government to send officials and unofficials on conferences overseas. I have before me a figure of nearly 90 persons who have travelled abroad on various Government conferences and meetings. Of these 90 persons, only five are Ministers. I do hope that by providing this explanation the Opposition will not waste the time of the House in irrelevant debate.

Order -

I mean in unnecessary debate.

The Minister appears to be taking unto himself the functions of the Chair.

Sir, one can understand the feelings of the Minister when an embarrassing question is asked. It is indeed a very embarrassing question, Sir, particularly as we know that, with regard to this travelling overseas, it has been the practice of P.A.P. Ministers and P.A.P. supporters and Assemblymen to go round telling these unofficial people, who are being allowed to travel overseas, that if they will just join the P.A.P., they could have a trip overseas. If the Minister will just give the names of the 90 persons who have gone overseas, I can assure this House that 90 per cent of them are P.A.P. members.

I am afraid the Member for Cairnhill is acquiring some of the bad habits of the Member for Hong Lim. The facts are quite the reverse. The majority of the persons who have gone abroad are officials.

Unless the Member wishes to debate on the principle of Government travelling, these details, as I have suggested before, could well be looked into by the Estimates Committee; and if the Estimates Committee finds that the expenses are too extravagant, it will probably report back to the Assembly. If the Member wishes to attack the principle, by all means do so.

With respect. Sir, it is on the question of principle. Public Funds are being spent to send P.A.P. members overseas. If the Hon, the Minister will give the names of those persons, apart from officials and Ministers, the public will surely have their eyes opened as to who have been travelling on public funds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is really being quite tiresome about this. I would say straightaway that the number of Ministers who have gone abroad - and I am the one who has gone more than any of my colleagues - is much less than that under his Government. It is quite untrue to say that any public funds have been wasted by sending members of the People's Action Party abroad. When a Party is in government, it is natural that the Ministers and some of the Parliamentary Secretaries would be sent abroad to conferences as representatives of the Government. May I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the debate is getting quite tedious unnecessarily, and that the procedure would be for the Estimates Committee to satisfy itself whether there has been any gross abuse of public funds in this year's expenditure?

The Minister, as I have remarked before, would like to be in this Chair himself! I can assure him that I am watching the point very carefully. There seems to be a difficulty in drawing the line between principles and details in this particular matter. But perhaps we could deal with the matter with less excitement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Minister is evading the issue. I have said "unofficials". By "unofficials" I mean pot Government servants, not P.A.P. Ministers and not P.A.P. Assemblymen, but those who are not in this Assembly and those who are not in the service of the Government. If the Minister will not give us a list of those names, I can now understand why he is evading the issue.

Sir, if that is the question he asks, then I say that no member of the P.A.P. has been sent abroad at Government expense as a member of the P.A.P.

May I beg leave to withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 18. "Refund of Previous Years' Revenue - $30,000". Mr Speaker, Sir, this is purely on a point of information. I see that a similar item appears at page 287, under Customs and Excise, sub-head 15 - "Refund of Previous Years' Revenue". Could the Minister please explain whether it is for accounting purposes that the refund is made? I take it that these were revenues which were intended to be collected in the year 1960, but will be collected in 1961, and, therefore, are refundable to the 1960 account. Is that the position?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this vote is necessary because, in some instances, taxpayers are overcharged in error, and these were detected rather late in the day. So this is to make restitution for it.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 49. Mr Speaker, Sir, this sum of $2,000,000 appears as a charge against the Consolidated Fund, whereas, in point of fact, it is, I take it, an advance to the City Engineer's Department to enable them to make purchases of materials, stores, spares, etc. As this $2 million has the effect of creating a deficit or adding to the expenditure of Government, could I ask the Minister whether there is a corresponding entry somewhere on the revenue side in respect of this $2 million?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is one of the tricky operations we have to go through on account of the integration of the City Council into the Government. Perhaps I should explain how the Advance Account works. The Member for Farrer Park probably has some knowledge of this subject. The City Council accounts are operated on an accrual basis, that is, an income and expenditure basis, so that debits and credits are made into the votes as and when the operation takes place. For instance, in the case of the City Engineer's Department, they buy stocks of sand, granite, tyres, petrol and so on, and the costs of these things are charged to an advance account. As and when particular departments want these materials, be it the Sewerage Department or the City Transport Centre, these materials are supplied by the City Engineer and the vote of the department using these materials is debited. In the case of the Government, of course, it is different, because it works on a cash basis. The whole of the costs of any purchases would be debited against the vote of the buying department. The reason why we have decided to continue this Advance Account is that a change of procedure in the book-keeping involved would be a fairly formidable undertaking, and this is one of the compromises referred to in my speech and in the memorandum whereby the accounting procedures of the City Council have been maintained, at least for this year. By next year we hope that the accounting system would be on the Government basis. I hope this explanation is clear to the Member for Farrer Park.

As I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is because of budgeting purposes and is really an artificial deficit to the extent of $2 million. On that basis, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 50. Sir, I take it that this is an item of expenditure which the Singapore Government is incurring in respect of trainees coming into Singapore and whom we are assisting in training under the Colombo Plan. May I also deal with sub-head 52, Sir? I think it would be convenient if it were to be dealt with at the same time.

Yes.

Sub-head 52 is Colombo Plan Technical Assistance, Local Costs. How is that related then to sub-head 50?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 50." The debate may range over sub-head 52.

Sub-head 50, Mr Speaker, is as the Member for Farrer Park has indicated. That is, we have made offers to all Colombo Plan countries for training facilities in very extensive fields in Singapore ranging from courses in engineering, architecture, accountancy at the Polytechnic, to health visitors' and public health inspectors' courses by the Ministry of Health, practical training in low-cost housing by the Housing Board, training in port management by the Singapore Harbour Board, and courses in telecommunications, civil aviation and so on and so forth. This vote is to provide for the cost of allowances as scholarships for the trainees in Singapore as well as for transport allowances, books, equipment and tuition fees where applicable. The other one, that is the Colombo Plan Technical Assistance, Local Costs, is to pay for experts sent to Singapore under the Colombo Plan. Under the scheme, the donor countries will pay the cost of the salaries and passages of these experts, but we will have to meet the local costs, such as the cost of board and lodging if they are staying for a short while, or a fixed allowance of $600 per month plus a transport allowance of $7.50 if they are staying longer. We have now some 20 Colombo Plan experts assisting the Government at the present moment.

In view of that explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah: - *That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 52. +That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 63.

Amendment (5)* is not being moved?

It is not being moved, Sir.

We have dealt with amendment (6)+, sub-head 63. It is not being moved?

No.

Amendment (7) on sub-head 68-Singapore Industrial Promotion Board. Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 68. Sub-head 68 is Singapore Industrial Promotion Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the Estimates for the year 1960, I had occasion to refer to this particular item and I did suggest to the Minister then that perhaps no useful purpose could be served by this. Over the year I have waited to see what this Industrial Promotion Board is doing to Singapore. It may be doing something on paper, but the people certainly do not know of it. So far as the actual achievements of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board are concerned, Singapore has not seen any concrete results yet. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the Board has achieved during the current year and what it hopes to achieve in the forthcoming year, particularly when I see that he has allocated a sum of $20 million to the Economic Development vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say last year that the Industrial Promotion Board is in the process of being wound up. Indeed, for all practical purposes, so far as the position of assets and liabilities is concerned, that process is practically completed. But the staff engaged by the Board have been doing other work, such as considering applications for pioneer industries, preparation of the Government's development plans, and generally to give assistance to various industrialists making inquiries in Singapore as to what investment opportunities exist. I suggest that if the Member for Farrer Park agrees, then we shall go into this in more detail when we discuss the Development Estimates, particularly the item under the Economic Development Board, because these are inter-related matters.

I am just wondering, Mr Speaker, whether that particular item has a motion on it. If it has, Sir, I think it could be conveniently discussed under that.

There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Farrer Park++. ++The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1.

Yes. Sir, I thought I had.

Is the Member withdrawing his amendment in respect of sub-head 68?

Yes, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $38,848,310 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 31- The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib- *That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3.

Inche Ahmad Jabri.

I am not moving, Sir.

Amendment (1)* is not being moved. Amendment (2)+ is Singapore Children's Society. Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, + That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 18. Mr Speaker Sir, this is merely to elicit information and, while dealing with sub-head 18. might I also speak on sub-head 27 in respect of which I have given notice of an amendmentØ?

Yes, it would be convenient.

Sir, it would appear that the Singapore Children's Society is going to get an allocation of over $32,000. Why is it necessary to split it, one under the Ministry of Health and the other under the Ministry of Labour and Law?

Sub-head 18 is a maintenance grant towards the running of the Singapore Children's Society Convalescent Home, while sub-head 27 is a grant towards case-work done by the Society. The vote under sub-head 18 that is, the maintenance grant for the Children's Convalescent Home, is supervised by the Minister for Health. This, home is to provide convalescence to children who have suffered from T.B., meningitis, rheumatism and other types of disease for a period of three to six months. The other sub-head deals with case-work for the prevention of cruelty to children and the promotion of welfare of children in Singapore. This is an important part of the work of the Protector under the Children and Young Persons' Ordinance, and the expenditure is supervised by the Social Welfare Department of the Ministry of Labour and Law.

I accept that statement, Sir. But if the Minister will be good enough to look at sub-head 12, that is, the Children's Society Convalescent Home, $1,310 - is that the Children's Society Convalescent Home which he has mentioned in connection with sub head 18? If so, it seems to get another allocation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the item in respect of sub-head 12 is a contribution towards the supply of full-cream powdered milk to children of the Home, whereas the item in sub-head 18 is in relation to the Government subsidy given to that hospital. The Singapore children's Society runs a 24-bed convalescent home on the basis of 50-50 between the Government and the Society itself. Sub-head 18 is in relation to the dollar-for-dollar maintenance for the home, whereas sub-head 12 is for the supply of milk powder.

Sir, in view of the explanation given, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah- That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 27.

Amendment (3) ++ is not being moved? ++The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 27.

No, Sir. The sum of $3,546,120 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 32-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand corrected, but according to the Telephone Directory issued by the Government, I seem to see no expatriate on the list-

Is the hon. Member moving?

I beg your pardon. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (18) of sub-head 1. As I have said, Sir, I do not seem to see from those names anyone that could have been an expatriate. I am under the impression - as I have said, I am open to correction - that hotel allowances are for expatriates who come to Singapore and have not been given accommodation yet. So if we have no expatriates in the Accountant-General's Office, that is, if I am correct, then will the hotel allowances still be necessary?

This vote is to pay for the hotel allowances of expatriate officers in the whole of the civil service and not merely in the Accountant-General's Office. When they come back from leave, they have to spend a few days in a hotel before moving into their quarters. The allowances are paid out of this vote.

In view of the explanation, may I have leave to withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,275,890 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 3.30 p.m. Head 33-

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (19) of sub-head 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, the estimated emoluments in 1960 for 337 Revenue Officers is $973,580. Thirty of these posts have been abolished probably in view of an economy drive. Could I have clarification on this matter from the Minister for Finance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has a rather long history. In 1954, the Organisations and Methods consultants employed by the Government recommended a change in the staffing of the Customs Department. They thought that it would be an advantage to the efficiency of revenue collection if revenue officers were replaced by customs officers with higher qualifications at the rate of three revenue officers for one customs officer. This has been going on for some time. Eventually it is aimed to reach a total strength of 304 revenue officers so that 105 revenue officers will be replaced by 34 customs officers. The strength, at that time, of revenue officers was more than 400. The present strength is 325 as a result of the abolition of these posts, which is taking place gradually as the incumbents retire, or are promoted, or are transferred, or resign or die. The exercise is continuing in next year's Estimates, and it looks as if we are soon approaching the figure recommended by the Organisations and Methods consultants.

(In Malay): Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 9. On a point of information, Sir, I see that this grant to the Senior Officers' Mess appears under Head 33; and if the Minister will be good enough to turn to page 279 of the Estimates, he will see a grant to Police Officers' Mess under Head 31- Contributions and Charitable Allowances. Is there any particular reason why this should appear here and not in the other?

There is a reason, Sir, In the case of the grant to the Police Officers' Mess, it is paid outright, but in the case of the customs officers, it is made on a dollar-for-dollar contribution, and we thought it best that the Customs Department administer this vote.

In view of that explanation, Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,015,520 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 36-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (42) of sub-head 1. I wish to enquire from the Minister for Finance as to the respective functions of the Deputy Commissioner and of the Chief Assessor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the integration of the City Council with Government, local rates will have to be replaced by central Government tax. To this end, the Property Tax Bill has been introduced and the property tax will be administered by a branch of the Inland Revenue Department. The branch will be known as the Assessment Branch and it will be under the administrative control of the Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Grade G. The Deputy Commissioner will have a Chief Assessor and six Assessors to help him on the technical side. The setup of this organisation is based on the recommendations made by a team of experts on local government sent to Singapore by the Canadian Government, and takes into account the acute shortage of valuers and assessors in Singapore today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am still not clear about the duties to be discharged by these two persons. Most of the technical departments in Singapore are headed by experts in the field: for instance, the P.W.D. is headed by an engineer; the Accountant-General's Department is headed by an accountant; the Planning Department is headed by a qualified planner; and the Survey Department is headed by a qualified surveyor; and so it goes on. I cannot understand the principle which underlies this appointment. Why is it necessary to have a person who is to be the administrative head of the department under a person who is to be the technical head of the department?

I think I could best elucidate by reading some extracts from the Report of the Working Party on the integration of the City Assessment Office into the Government. This Working Party consisted of the following officers: The Permanent Secretary (Treasury), as the Chairman The Comptroller of Income Tax The Acting City Assessor The Government Valuer and Assessor, and The head of the Organisations and Methods Branch of the Ministry of Finance. It says here: `It is proposed that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Grade D, should be in charge of two branches. In the Income Tax, Estate and Stamp Duties Branch, he will continue to have a Deputy Commissioner who will be in charge of the Income Tax Office and an Assistant Commissioner to be in charge of both the Estate Duty and the Stamp Office. In the other Valuation Branch, there should also be a Deputy Commissioner, Grade G. This grade is suggested so that there would be parity in the deputyship of the two branches. The duties of this post have been carefully considered by the Committee and it is considered that his requirements should be administrative ability and experience since he would be assisted in technical matters by both the Chief Valuer and the Chief Assessor. While it is desirable that he should have some knowledge relating to valuation and assessment, it is however thought that it would not be necessary to have a professionally qualified man for this purpose. It is considered by the Committee that both the posts of Chief Valuer and Chief Assessor should be on the upper time-scale so as to be in line with their counterparts in the other branch. These posts are technical posts and require a high standard of qualification and experience and on that account there are difficulties envisaged as these officers fetch a special price in the circumstances existing in Singapore. It would therefore be necessary to consider special terms that can be offered to attract suitable candidates to carry on the duties for the next few years.' The Report goes on to describe salary scales, and so on, which are quite irrelevant here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to put it to the Minister that many of these recommendations - which I have read myself - are meant for the purpose of fixing up certain things. However, let us assume that the recommendations are acceptable. Could the Minister inform the House whether there is any person to fill this post and, if there is, whether he is in an acting capacity or in a substantive appointment - that is, whether he is holding a post on a temporary or a permanent basis - and also whether such an appointment has passed through the Public Service Commission?

The post of Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue Department, Grade G, was circularised to all Government departments and advertised in the Press in July. The applications were submitted in the usual manner through the official channels to the Public Service Commission which has made a substantive appointment to this post. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am enlightened to hear that the post was circularised and advertised in July. But from a look at the Establishment list dated 1st June, 1960, I notice that this person was appointed to that particular post on the 24th May, 1960. I wonder if there has been any printing error.

Mr Speaker, it could have been that he was acting in that post. But since I have not had sight of that particular document, I am not able to say so for certain. But the date of the circular calling for applications was 1st July, 1960.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we now come to the principle that I have been trying to drive at. Many posts were first filled in a temporary capacity for a certain period of time in order to by-pass the findings of the Public Service Commission. This is -

Order. I am just wondering whether that principle arises on this particular item. The principle, I imagine, would apply to several appointments in several Ministries. I am just wondering whether the hon. Member for Hong Lim could satisfy me that that principle arises particularly in this item.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to the principle in general applied to all Ministries, and this, in particular, is one of the applications of that principle. I understand that prior to being transferred to this position, this particular officer was paid a basic salary of $995. According to the Budget in front of us, this present holder; if appointed, will be paid a salary of $1,520, which means an increase of a basic salary of $525. Mr Speaker, Sir, this particular officer was previously in the Land Service scheme. And the reason why he was not promoted there is something which I do not understand. In my opinion, there is nothing, as far as I know, to merit this transfer other than the fact that he is the brother- in-law of the Prime Minister.

Order. The hon. Member for Hong Lim has been informed in no uncertain terms [Interruption] - Order. The hon. Member has been informed in no uncertain terms that I am against any personalities in this particular debate. That final remark is completely irrelevant to the issue, and ought not to have been mentioned by any Member in view of my ruling.

May I rise on a point of clarification? I am obliged to you for that ruling, Sir. But, of course, as you know, I have explained that the purpose of making that remark in a privileged Chamber is to get it published in the Press, as it has already been said. I have called the Member a lot of names, and I am going to call him a lot more names outside. And I say this: if he has not got the courage to say that outside, then, Sir, at the next sitting of this Assembly I shall move a motion against his personal conduct. When that time comes, let me assure him that my public conduct bears looking into - that is why I am here - including also the appointment of this officer who was removed from the Land Office because he was not promoted by the Public Service Commission. But the Member's private conduct, on a personal motion against him, does not bear looking into - a multiplicity of wives and nefarious conduct-

Order. I think the Prime Minister has made his point. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance would like to reply to the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have said enough in the course of this debate to show that this appointment was made on principles recommended by experts, who were sent from Canada at some expense. Bearing in mind the circumstances in the staff recruiting position, that was their recommendation. The actual appointment was made strictly according to the Constitution governing appointments to the public service. Sir, if the Member for Hong Lim had any decency, he would repeat that last phrase of his outside this Chamber where he does not enjoy immunity from the laws of libel and slander. If he does not-

Order. Let us not pursue that line of thought. I should imagine as much of the question asked by the Member for Hong Lim as is relevant has been answered, that is, the appointment was made by the Public Service Commission. If the hon. Member was dissatisfied with that appointment, he should have attacked the Public Service Commission, and nothing more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that such appointments must first be advertised before being considered by the Public Service Commission. I am not going into the personal capacity of the Prime Minister. I am only touching on official functions.

You got the blue funk!

Order.

The Prime Minister has touched on my personal morals. I say that all that he has said is not true, and -

I would like him to repeat that outside!

Order.

-we are here cleaner that most of the persons on the Government Benches.

Order. I am not interested in the Member for Hong Lim's opinion in that matter. The Prime Minister has already indicated that he will bring that matter up, if necessary, in the proper manner under the Standing Orders. We are now at the moment on item (42) of sub-head I of Head 36. If there is any other Member who wishes to speak on the principle of that item, he may do so.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the, name of Mr A. P. Rajah- That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 22.

I am not moving, Mr Speaker, Sir. Perhaps I should explain why I am not moving.

Strictly, that is against Standing Orders. Perhaps the Member will move and then withdraw.

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 22. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I gave notice of this amendment, I had not sighted the Property Tax Bill. Under the Property Tax Bill, allowances are payable to Members of the Assessment Appeals Committee. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 22." Has the Minister anything to say?

Nothing. Sir.

May I now beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,652,040 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 40- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr C. H. Koh - That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 1.

Mr Koh is not here. The next amendment is amendment No. (2)*. This is "Personal Secretary (Political)". I might remind hon. Members that the principle has already been debated. This amendment is in particular reference to this incumbent, I take it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Budget debate last year, we criticised the appointment of Political Secretaries in a number of Ministries, including the Ministry of Labour and Law. One year has now passed, and the Minister therefore will be able to tell us from his experience what usefulness he has derived from the appointment of an officer to this post. During the debate -

The Member has not moved.

I am sorry. Sir, I beg to move, * That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1. Sir, I would not like to repeat what I said just now, and I hope that will be on record. I would ask the Minister to tell us in what way he has found the usefulness of such a post in his Ministry. He has had more than one year of experience of having such an officer in his Ministry. In the debate during the past few days, Sir, the Prime Minister has defended his Political Secretary, and yesterday the Minister for Finance made an attempt to defend his Political Secretary, although he admitted that he did not see eye to eye with his Political Secretary. He did not deny that he never saw his Political Secretary face to face. Would the Minister for Labour and Law please inform this House whether the expenditure on that post has been of use to him and to the country?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can confirm to this House that Fong Swee Suan has been of more use in the Ministry of Labour and Law in the one and a half years that I have been the Minister than the ex-Member for Havelock when he was-

Order. The Minister comes straight up against my ruling which I have just made touching on personalities. May I also enquire whether there has not already been a full debate on the gentleman named Mr Fong Swee Suan? I understand there is another incumbent - I am not quite certain.

With respect, Sir, you will recall that in the debate on the principle, when it was first moved by the Member for Mountbatten, I informed this House, and I had earlier informed the Prime Minister, that I had a lot to say about this particular officer. That being the case, I did not take part in that debate. understood the debate on this particular gentleman was quite lengthy. I was unaware of the fact that the Member for Cairnhill was not present.

I am sorry, Sir, but I was present then. But I did give notice to reserve my time.

In that event, can we have a speech on Mr Fong Swee Suan? 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not like to have said anything on this matter, but in view of the personal attack that has been made against a friend and a colleague, I think it is my duty now to state in this House that Mr Fong Swee Suan has been of great service to me in the Ministry for the period that he has been with me. He has helped me and the Ministry a great deal in the conciliation work that has had to be done in the Ministry. Through his efforts we have been able to get a number of very difficult disputes settled. I am indeed very grateful to him for the services that he has rendered to the Ministry. It is unfortunate, however, that we struck a discordant note. We disagreed on certain points. I do not propose to touch on that here in this House. All that was the subject of correspondence between him and the Prime Minister, and that correspondence has already been published. Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret that the Members of the Opposition have found it fit in this House to thumb their way through the Estimates and to try and ridicule both Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan. They have tried to suggest that it is beyond the capacity of both Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan to understand the workings of the Government and the technical work that is done in the technical departments which are within the portfolios of the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not within the competence of any administrative officer or any political person in charge of Ministries to be concerned with the technical work that goes on in the various departments that are attached to the various Ministries. Government does employ technical experts to advise it as far as the work of these technical departments is concerned.

Order. May I try and channel this debate, otherwise we might be going back over the ground that has already been covered? At the moment, the motion is in respect of an incumbent of this particular post, namely, Mr Fong Swee Suan, and the question asked, I think, of the Minister is whether that particular incumbent was of any use to him. I think the Minister has answered that point very fully. Let us not go back to the debate that took place on Saturday as to the requirement of technical qualifications and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to answer only one point. In trying to ridicule my colleague, the Opposition Members have tried to suggest that he is of no use whatsoever in the Ministry of the Deputy Prime Minister, and that he serves no useful function there.

Order. My recollection of the debate is that, I think, that matter was touched on very fully in the original debate which arose out of the motion by the Member for Mountbatten. I do not think it is proper to go back to that aspect of the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, then the short answer to the question that has been asked by the Member for Cairnhill is that Mr Fong Swee Suan had been of great service to me whilst he was in my Ministry.

Sir, to suggest that I levelled a personal attack just now is not right. I did not. I was just asking the Minister for his view as to whether or not the man who was his Political Secretary had been of use to him. He has replied, but unfortunately. Sir, what he says in his reply does not bear out the reply of the Prime Minister when this particular Political Secretary was debated in this House as a Political Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry.

I had not intended to enter into this debate. But since the Minister for Labour and Law has said that disparaging remarks were made about the two gentlemen, and since I was one of the Opposition Members who took part in this debate, let me make my position quite clear. Mr Speaker, I intended no insult or disrespect to these two officers In fact, I made it quite clear that in their field in Singapore there were none better. I made that point quite clear when I started. The only question I raised was whether they could be of any particular use to the particular Ministries to which they were going; I asked the Deputy Prime Minister those questions to which I thought, Sir, I got no satisfactory reply. So far as these two gentlemen are concerned, no disrespect to them was intended by me. In their field I can say that there is none better in Singapore. But surely the Minister will also concede that outside their field they cannot be of any particular use. The other point that arises on this post is this. Now that the gentleman who held this post has been transferred, does the Minister intend to appoint somebody else to this post?

Mr Speaker, Sir, remarks have been made that were derogatory and disparaging to my colleagues. I have had occasion to discuss with Mr Lim Chin Siong a very tricky question involving income tax, and its effects on the contributions made to the Central Provident Fund. Through his association in the Ministry, I could see that he had picked up quite a lot of the work, and he made a very intelligent contribution to the discussions. So it does not follow that, because a man is a trade unionist and because he has not had the advantages that Mr A. P. Rajah has, he has not a good brain.

The Member for Farrer Park.

Yes. The Member for Farrer Park. If they are given the opportunity, they are able to study the work in Government departments, to appreciate the problems that arise in the course of the work, and to make a contribution. It would be quite unfair to suggest, as the Opposition has suggested, that because these men are good in the trade union field, they are not necessarily good elsewhere. I mean, events have shown-

Order. I have allowed the Minister to carry on up to a point. But it appears to me that he is going back on the debate. I would ask him now to come straight to the point, which is really the post now vacant. The question that has been asked is whether the post is to be filled. If it amounts to leading to the supposition that one of these gentlemen will come back to the Hon. Minister's Ministry, then perhaps it is relevant. I do not know. I leave it to the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, efforts will be made to have this appointment filled in the course of next year.

Sir, I now come to the memorandum that the Minister for Finance sent to the T.U.C. It is a memorandum sent to the workers' organisation to seek their views. The Minister for Labour and Law had, at that time, a Political Secretary who is, shall we say, a senior trade unionist. I would like to ask him whether this senior trade unionist, this Political Secretary of his, had been consulted, or whether his Ministry had been consulted, before such a memorandum was sent out to the T.U.C. My point is this, Sir, If the Government has appointed a number of Political Secretaries who are excellent trade unionists and who are also Assistant Secretaries in the T.U.C., then they, as Political Secretaries, could have advised the Government first, without their having to go to the T.U.C. and reply to the Government on the memorandum on which they should, in the first instance, have been consulted.

Order. Is not the Member for Cairnhill then going back to the general debate? I think the Member should assist the Chair by trying to confine himself to this particular office, because the general principles relating to Political Secretaries, I think, have been sufficiently debated. My difficulty is to draw a line somewhere. I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill can relate his remarks to this particular post and to this particular individual.

Sir, I think I can, but I would not like to do it here because I am now beginning to think that what the Prime Minister said was quite right. It is better to leave a lot of things unsaid. But I would like to say this, Sir. The stand taken by the Minister for Labour and Law in regard to this particular appointment is totally not the same as the stand taken by the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is completely untrue. I have been asked questions about Mr Fong Swee Suan. I have been asked to say whether I have found him to be of any service during the year and a half that he had been with me, and I say that definitely he had been of great service to me. On the other question as to why it was necessary for the exchange of letters between the Government and the T.U.C., it must be remembered that there is a permanent secretariat of the T.U.C., and there are a lot of unions associated with the T.U.C. Government found it necessary to bring this subject of wages into the open, and the only way we could do it was by an exchange of letters between the permanent secretariat and the Government. There are so many unions which are involved, and the T.U.C. has to consult the views of these unions. That is one way by which we could bring this whole question into the open. That is why we resorted to that procedure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have said so much and yet have not said enough. May I leave the rest unsaid, and beg leave to withdraw the motion? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub-head 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it intended to have only one Industrial Liaison Officer or more for the year 1961, and whether any Industrial Liaison Officer has now been appointed?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of my work. I have found that because I am not conversant with Mandarin, it is very necessary for me to be assisted by someone who is good in Mandarin and who is also well acquainted with industrial matters. For that reason, as a matter of urgency, I have asked that the services of a suitable person be engaged to assist me in this work. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is proposed that one post should be created for next year, and it depends on the amount of work that is to be done. If the pressure is increased, it would be necessary for us to seek provision for an additional post. That is absolutely necessary. But meanwhile it is proposed to enter provision for one such appointment in the Estimates for next year. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very important that the person who fills this post is acceptable to the Minister and can get on with the Minister, particularly in this type of work. It is for that reason that we have looked around and have found somebody to do this work. He has been assisting me for sometime, and he is being paid from some other vote in the meanwhile. It is proposed to regularise the whole position by entering a provision for this post in the Estimates for next year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear from the Minister's reply that this Industrial Liaison Officer is another kind of political appointment, and that it has not gone through the P.S.C. Am I right?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not intended that it should be a political appointment in the same way as the post of Political Secretary would be. It is intended that the officer should be a civil servant. But it is necessary that he does have considerable experience in this type of work. It is for that reason that, at the time - when there was a lot of work to be done and we were not able to do without an officer, we had to look around and get an officer to fill this post. 4.15 p.m.

Sir, the Minister now says that it is going to be a civil servant. If so, he has not disclosed whether he has gone through the P.S.C.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is permitted under the constitution for any person to be recruited to a post in a temporary capacity. In this case, however, there was no post. It is possible later to put the application for this appointment to the Public Service Commission, and ask the Public Service Commission to support the action taken.

But the answer given to me by the Minister for Finance when I touched on the Public Service Commission was that even temporary appointments went through the Public Service Commission. It is now disclosed that one such temporary appointment has not gone through the Public Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is perfectly permissible under the present practice for an officer to be recruited and placed in a temporary appointment until the whole matter has been considered by the Public Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing in the Estimates here to indicate that this post is a temporary post. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will look at page 320 of the Budget, i.e. under Industrial Arbitration Court - Temporary Staff: - President, the Estimates most categorically say that the President is temporary staff. This other one gives one the impression that it is permanent staff. I think the Minister would like to think up something else.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think wherever posts are shown with an asterisk they are temporary. I think that is the practice with regard to the preparation of the Estimates. Mr Speaker. Sir, after page 32, in the notes on Expenditure, it is stated: `The printing of an appointment in ordinary type generally indicates pensionable status, but must not be regarded as conveying authority for its pensionable status. Non-pensionable appointments are shown in Italics.'. That is the procedure with regard to the preparation of the Estimates. It is not intended that this should be a pensionable and permanent post.

Sir, am I to understand then that any post that is not pensionable is a temporary post? The Minister gave me to understand that because this is in italics it is not pensionable and therefore, I think, he asked me to infer that is was temporary.

No. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the preparation of the Estimates, even if there are posts which are non-pensionable, it is possible for officers to be recruited to them in a temporary capacity. That can always be done. It a post is shown in the Estimates under personal emoluments, it is always permissible for a person to be recruited against that provision in a temporary capacity before the appointment is put to the Public Service Commission. That has been the practice for quite a long time, as far as I know.

Sir, should not the job of industrial relations be one of the first duties of a Political Secretary? To have a Political Secretary and an Industrial Relations Officer is just spending public funds without getting value for money. A Political Secretary should, of course, be able to advise the Minister on industrial relations. There is no need to create an appointment to do a job which should be done by the Political Secretary, unless, of course, the Minister now feels that there is no chance or desire on his part to fill the post of Political Secretary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that the work of an Industrial Liaison Officer would be in a more limited field than that of a Political Secretary. He would actually be required to assist the Minister in the work of conciliation in the Ministry. In the Industrial Relations Ordinance it is provided that there are various stages of conciliation. The parties get together; they cannot agree; they go to the Commissioner; from the Commissioner to the Parliamentary Secretary, and then to the Minister. It is the function of this Officer to assist the Minister in this work.

Sir, as I understand the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there are a number of officers created there called Industrial Relations Officers, who are statutory officers. On page 320, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will find in item (7) of sub-head 24, Fees for Industrial Relations Officers, on which I have raised a motion, and I will deal with it at a later stage. These men are the statutory officers. An Industrial Relations Officer is not a statutory officer under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, but, I take it, some officer has been created by the Minister in order to liaise between himself and either the disputants in trade disputes or some such thing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no Industrial Relations Officers but we have conciliation officers in the Ministry. They are provided for in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. They have functions to perform. They get the parties together and try to conciliate. If they fail, they pass the parties over to the Commissioner for Labour. We have different stages in this work of conciliation. The parties go through these various stages until they reach the Minister. So this Industrial Liaison Officer will come in at the stage where the matters have reached the Minister. The conciliation officers we employ are the people who meet the parties early in the dispute. This particular official will only come in when the dispute has reached the final stage, Sir.

Sir, from my personal experience of how a Budget is made up, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, if the Industrial Liaison Officer is not to be a political appointment, then it should not have been put immediately after the. Political Secretary. It should have been classed either as a Division I officer or a Division II officer after the Permanent Secretary. The fact that he has put it immediately after the Political Secretary and in this particular grouping gives us the impression that it is going to be a political appointment.

Sir, this is how the Treasury has put it. However, there is a need for an official to fulfil these functions, and it has been put in this way because he works very closely to the Minister. In fact, he shares the same room as the Minister.

Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill has raised a really valid point. As I understand the Budget throughout, all political appointments come under the Minister for Labour and Law, and all the civil service appointments come under the Permanent Secretary- An hon. Member: After.

-come after the Permanent Secretary. When I said "under" I meant after, Sir. So on the face of it. Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that the Industrial Liaison Officer is a political appointment in the sense that the. Minister is, the Parliamentary Secretary is, and the Personal Secretary (Political) is. Now the Minister tells us that it is a civil service appointment. The post has been created and an appointment has been made. He also tells the House that it is proposed to seek the permission of the Public Service Commission - did the Minister say to confirm or to appoint?

To appoint.

Now, if it is to appoint, then I take it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the normal methods of appointment will be followed in this case with an advertisement and that sort of thing. So we again come to this basic point of temporary appointments which is now involved in this appointment where a person has been recruited to the post without advertisement or circulation, and has worked with the Minister for some time; and when the Minister certifies that he is a good officer, capable of carrying out the duties of the post, what then is the position of the Public Service Commission?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no such post and the provision for this post has been entered in these Estimates. There was a need for this service. There was a need to get somebody suitable to do this work, to help out in a time of real need, and we have been able to get somebody to assist me. For that reason, this post has been created. The usual routine will be gone through, and the post circularized in the usual way. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no desire to try and keep this post within the grouping of the Ministerial set-up of my Ministry. I would have no objection actually to this post being shown after the Permanent Secretary.

It is a matter which the Estimates Committee could possibly look into as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hesitated to add further clarification to this until I had confirmation from the Minister for Finance. I think the Establishment's reason for putting it under that particular heading immediately after the Minister is because this post is newly created. Whether it will become a permanent feature of the Establishment has yet to be decided, if it becomes a permanent feature of the Establishment, then it will go below all the other permanent officials underneath the Permanent Secretary. This is a new post and not a political appointment. How it works out will depend upon very much the usefulness of the man appointed to the Minister. If the post becomes an establishment post, then it moves below the Permanent Secretary.

Sir, I would like to point out that in the case of other appointments which are not political (new appointments created which have not been classified by the Government as posts that should remain on the Establishment), they have been classified elsewhere as Other Charges Special Expenditure. The fact that the post of Industrial Liaison Officer comes in here gives one the impression that it is going to be a political post. But since a lot of explanation has been given, we accept, the explanation and the assurance given by the Minister that this post will go to the P.S.C. But I cannot help expressing my view, Sir, as to what the Minister said just now. He said that he had got a man to do the job and that was why this post had to be created. I would like to point out that you do not create a post for a man, but you create a post and find a man.

That is what was done. The need did arise, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained before. We had to get somebody to do this work. There was a job to be done. We had to seek somebody to do that job. That is how we do things. We do things intelligently, Sir.

We shall see whether we can be intelligent about this one. The Minister for Labour and Law informed the House - I only mention it, Sir, in order that I might use that in this argument which I am now going to advance - that the function which Mr Fong Swee Suan performed for him was very useful. It was to intervene in and settle strikes. That was what the Minister informed the House. It seems to me that the purpose for the Industrial Relations Officer is also some such purpose - to settle industrial disputes.

It is Industrial Liaison Officer.

The Minister said that when the matter could not be settled and a trade dispute was about to arise, then the Liaison Officer came into the picture and assisted him in settling it or bringing it to some conclusion. That was what I understood the Minister to say. If that is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself can see no difference between the functions of an Industrial Liaison Officer and those of the Persona Secretary (Political) as set out by the Minister for Labour and Law himself. In view of the circumstances, would the Minister say that if he has one of these posts he will be satisfied? 4.30 p.m.

Sir, it is quite easy to know that the functions of a Political Secretary are entirely different from those of an Industrial Liaison Officer. It is intended that this Industrial Liaison Officer will provide a service which is provided by the civil service. The functions of a Political Secretary have been explained to this House by the Prime Minister, and I do not propose to add to what he has already said on so many occasions. It is intended that this officer should assist the Minister when a dispute reaches its final stage before it goes to the Industrial Arbitration Court.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Member for Cairnhill is not here. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, *That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (30) of sub-head 1. I wish to enquire from the Minister whether this particular appointment did pass through the Public Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not really aware of it, but I believe that it has passed through the Public Service Commission. I think the Minister for Finance would be able to confirm if he was here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I filed this amendment just to seek information. I would like to know what type of work the Work Brigade does. Is it just that we have people unemployed, we give them work and we pay them a living wage? Or is it that we recruit them into the Work Brigade to train them for a vocation in order to help them in their future lives?

It would appear perhaps that this item is connected with amendment (7)+ which is an amendment in the names of the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park. I do not know whether the Member for Farrer Park would agree that the debate could range over sub-head 27 "Work Brigade Projects ... $3,000,000". +The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 27.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said this so often in this Assembly that I find it very difficult to believe that it will be necessary for me to keep repeating myself in this way.

I am glad you did it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Work Bridge is working on national construction projects. As a matter of fact, we have five camps that are fully operational now. There is a camp at Pasir Ris from which the members of the Bridge are operating at the present time. They are also working on a scheme to build a new channel for Sungei Api Api. It is a big drainage scheme which will help to alleviate the difficulties of the farmers who have to put up with floods here, and also to drain the area that flows into the Serangoon River. There is the project at Jurong, 13½ milestone, where the Brigade is now assisting - in building a link road between Jurong and Lim Chu Kang and Choa Chu Kang Roads. There is the project at Sembawang at Andrew's Avenue where they are levelling the area so that it could be used as a resettlement area for Malays. There is a drainage scheme that is now operational from Kaki Bukit and from Paya Lebar Airport. In those projects, the Brigade will be building agricultural roads in that area and they will be draining the area as well and also extending the settlement at Kaki Bukit. There is the project at the l5½ milestone, Jurong, and that is the area just immediately behind the Jurong Fort scheme. That project is also connected with agricultural development and rural resettlement. There is also another camp at Queenstown 4.42 p.m.

-and from that camp, the members of the Brigade are building a link road between the new estate at, Queenstown and Holland Road. In short, it will be correct to say that they are working on national construction schemes and, at the same time, we are training them in useful trades. We have been in contact with the Polytechnic and, with its assistance, we will be establishing next year training schemes in various trades for all members of the Brigade who are interested. Those training schemes will be based at Kolam Ayer. I hope, Sir, I have given the information which the Member for Mountbatten has asked for.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague the Minister for Labour and Law has asked me whether I can confirm that the appointment of the Director, Work Brigade, was made by the P.S.C. I so confirm.

Sir, the Work Brigade started as a sort of scheme to provide relief work for the unemployed. That was started by the previous Government when the workers in the Brigade were paid at the rate of $3 a day with free sugar and rice. But now they are paid only $2 a day with food, and they sleep outside where they have extra activities at night. What the Minister for Labour has told us just now clearly shows that these people are used on specific projects of the Government, and if they are specific projects and not relief works, surely they must be paid a more decent wage. This is not the way to get cheap labour, if it is relief work, I agree to giving them some money and asking them to till the ground. But when they are actually put on projects of the Government, such as the ones outlined by the Minister, I submit that a wage of $2 a day with food is lower than what is paid outside, and the Government should not make use of these people who join the Work Brigade to form a sort of slave labour camp.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is utter balderdash.

Order. The word "balderdash" is unparliamentary, and the Minister ought to withdraw it.

It is with great regret that I have to withdraw it because it is unparliamentary. It is well deserved. The Member for Cairnhill knows that we do not go in for organising slave labour camps. Have you ever been to our camp? At any time if the Opposition Members wish to come with me to see any of these "slave labour camps", they will see that the workers live under excellent conditions and in excellent surroundings. Camps costing a lot of money have been built and the workers are accommodated there under conditions which many of them do not have in their own homes. Everything is well disciplined and well organised. The food is good. The accommodation is good. The workers are paid an allowance of $2 a day. A directive has been issued by the Minister for Finance that all those who are in future recruited to posts in Division IV of the Government service or equivalent jobs in quasi-Government bodies will be recruited from the Work Brigade. We are not like the previous Government. They employed a work force and I had to wind it up. The only thing that the workers had to do - it was soul- destroying - was to changkol a hill. There is nothing more soul-destroying than that. Very little work was done. They were paid public money for doing such work. It was started just as a gimmick for the last election. It was my duty to wind up that work force, and with the co-operation of the people we were able to set up the Work Brigade. It is completely untrue to say that they are slave labour camps. Come round with me any time, and I will show you that they are not slave labour camps.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, it would appear that what I have said has got under the skin of the Minister. I did not say that they are slaves. The fact that they are paid $2 for definite projects is nothing but slave labour, and I repeat it, it is nothing but slave labour. No man is paid $2 for doing definite work on a project useful to the country. Sir, the Minister has thought it fit to touch upon the relief workers who came into being during my time of Government, but I can assure this House that I never asked those workers to go to the Airport to cheer when I returned from Tokyo!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, no members of the Brigade were asked to go to the Airport to cheer me when I returned from Tokyo. I was completely surprised to see them there. Nobody was asked to, and I do not know how they came. But a reference to this occasion does not get around what was said about the Work Brigade. I can assure you, Sir, that they work under good conditions and that the allowance that they get is adequate. Most of them are very young people. They are being trained in useful trades. They are given good conditions until such time when they will be able to get permanent jobs elsewhere, either in Government service or in quasi-Government bodies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is absolute rubbish - The Chairman (Mr Kandasamy): Order. The Minister is well aware that that word ought not to be used here. Will he withdraw it?

I so withdraw it. It is sheer nonsense to say that there is any resemblance between the Work Brigade camp and a slave camp. In the case of a slave camp, you go there not out of choice but because you are packed there and you are retained there under guard. In the case of the Work Brigade, people go there out of a free choice. In fact, we have more applications to join the Brigade than we have the capacity to admit them at the moment. My colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, in drawing a comparison between our Work Brigade today and the former relief force forgot to mention two deficiencies of the former Chief Minister's relief force. The first was that a large number of them were secret society gangsters. An hon. Member: Shame!

The second was that more than 40 per cent of the monies spent on those projects went into the pockets of contractors who supplied transport to cart the workers from town to Paya Lebar. 4.45 p.m.

It is indeed a wonderful disclosure; and the Hon. the Minister was at that time working in my Ministry on this particular project!

I beg your pardon, Mr Kandasamy. I had nothing to do with this ridiculous scheme. Indeed, if I had, I would have pointed out the folly of the operation of the former Chief Minister. In fact, it was his Permanent Secretary who ran the whole show, and I had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mr Kandasamy, this seems to be a matter for disciplinary action. It appears to me that if the Minister, when he was a civil servant, did not have regard for public funds, then I think it is a very serious matter indeed, as the Ministers are dependent on the civil servants. Sir, I was the one who gave notice of this amendment, but it seems to have taken the line I did not intend to take. What I wanted to raise on this matter is that a sum of $3 million had been provided under sub-head 27 "Work Brigade Projects". What I would like te know from the Minister is whether there has been careful budgeting. I mean whether the costs have been worked out in detail, both in regard to labour costs and material costs, and the sum which has arisen thereby; or whether this $3 million is a cock-shy, put in there to see if it is enough. If it is not enough, we will ask some more; or if it is more than enough, it does not matter, there will be a surplus. Is the sum worked out on some calculated basis, or is it just put in there for the sake of a vote?

It is carefully calculated, Mr Kandasamy. Originally we intended to build it up to a work force of some 5,000, but experience has shown that the bottleneck here would be the number of engineering staff that you can employ. That rather sets the limit to the total strength of the Brigade. The Organisation and Methods Branch of my Ministry have gone through the organisation of the Brigade with great care, and they have in the last few months made far-reaching proposals for strengthening the organisation and the procedures of this Brigade. I am satisfied that the money allotted to them will be properly spent and properly accounted for.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, the projects outlined by the Minister for Labour and Law are projects for which votes are being asked under the Development Estimates. Are they different from the projects that he has made? If they are different, why should it be? Could not the projects in the Development Estimates be usefully employed for this Work Brigade?

They are essentially different projects, but in some cases you do require extra money. For instance, for special construction work which cannot be done by the Brigade, or if you are digging an irrigation canal, then you want a floodgate, which controls the flow of the tide. That part of the work is rather skilled, and it is necessary that such work be done in the normal way by the P.W.D., i.e. drawing designs, handing out tenders for construction by contractors, and so forth.

The first question is: would it be possible for the Minister to tell us how much of this $3 million is for the cost of maintaining the Work Brigade throughout the year 1961? The second question is: if the present enrolment of the Work Brigade is going to be maintained at this level throughout 1961, is this sum of money sufficient to keep them occupied throughout the whole year?

This money will pay for the daily allowances, food, clothing, purchase of building materials to construct camps, purchase of simple tools for making roads, and so on and so forth. It does not include, as I said, money for more complicated structures which have to be built in the usual way. By far the largest part will go in the way of allowances and payment of food.

Sir, do I understand the Minister to say that this is mainly a welfare project and that the work is subsidiary to the welfare project? I ask this question. Sir, because if that is not so and if the intention of the Government is to provide a number of facilities to the State of Singapore and to carry out certain projects, then I would submit to the Government that these projects should be built as economically as possible. The question, therefore, that arises is this: if the accent is on the projects, then I think the accent should be on getting the job done as economically as possible. From what the Minister has said, it seems to me that if this $3 million takes into account capital expenditure like constructing and maintaining camps and all the subsidiary expenditure which is necessary to keep the workers beyond the $2 - housing, beds and clothes - the question then arises whether these projects are being done as economically as they might be.

I am advised by my technicians, the engineers. Mr Kandasamy, that the use of labour intensive methods - and that is basically the scheme under which the Work Brigade was conceived-will be more expensive than by the normal commercial methods which use bulldozers and mechanised methods with a minimum of labour force. So this is partly training for the young-building a sense of discipline, good living, and nation-building - and partly to create new works useful to the State. It is a combination of both.

Sir, the Minister has said that recruitment to Division IV of the Government service is through membership of the Work Brigade. Arising out of this, the question which I wish to raise is this: could the Minister tell us how recruitment to the Work Brigade is made? Frankly, Mr Kandasamy, there is a feeling in town that unless you are a member of the People's Action Party and you go round and say that you are willing to join the Party, you will never get employment in the Work Brigade. Could the Minister disabuse the fear of the people in town?

That is quite untrue, Mr Speaker, Sir. As far as the Work Brigade is concerned, we had the duty, first of all, of absorbing the Special Squad into the Brigade. That is the time when my Ministry took over the whole force. I have no responsibility for the recruitment of the Special Squad, and I really do not know how they did come in. We had to offer them opportunities of transfer to the Brigade, and many of them did go into the Work Brigade; some left saying they did not wish to be in the Brigade. As far as I have been concerned, everyone who joined after my Ministry became responsible for it, was taken through the Employment Exchange. That is how we did it. I received many letters from young people saying that they were unemployed and that they wanted jobs. And I sent them to the Employment Exchange where they were registered, and they were then employed in the Work Brigade. The present strength is 1,500. So it is not true to say that one must be a member of the P.A.P. before one can get employment in the Brigade.

I am glad of the assurance of the Minister for Labour and Law, and I hope that the Minister's assurance will get across to the people of Singapore, because there really is a genuine fear that unless you are a P.A.P. member or were prepared to say that you were going to join the Party, you could not get into the Brigade. That becomes doubly important, Mr Kandasamy, when the present ruling is that unless you are a member of the Brigade you cannot get admission for employment. The other point I wish to raise is this. I remember reading in the Press somewhere that P.A.P. Assemblymen are intimately connected with the Work Brigade. I would like the assurance of the Minister that that report is incorrect. And if that report is correct, then I would like his assurance that he will go into the matter and see that this Work Brigade, which is being maintained on public funds, is not in any way controlled by any Assemblyman, be he a P.A.P. Assemblyman or not.

There were some officers in the Brigade, but they have since resigned. Mr Kandasamy, Sir, the responsibility for the Work Brigade will come under the Ministry of National Development. For the information of the Opposition, the Minister for Finance appointed a committee to look into the whole organisation of the Brigade, and the persons who looked into its organisation are members of the Organisation and Methods Branch of the Treasury. They have advised Government on the way in which the whole Brigade ought to be reorganised so that there is a single chain of command. For the Brigade we have a ministerial committee of three, which is in overall control, and we have the Director and his staff who are responsible to the ministerial committee for the organisation and administration of the Brigade. It has been necessary to recruit a full-time Director for the purpose. He is an engineer. Hitherto we had been using the services of the former Commissioner for Civil Defence. The Organisation and Methods Branch's recommendation is that the whole of this work force be placed under the control of a competent engineer. This engineer has since been engaged. I believe, Mr Kandasamy, Sir, that the Brigade is now in very good hands.

(In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, Sir, in regard to what the Minister for Labour and Law explained just now about the Work Brigade at Kaki Bukit and which has relation to the electoral constituents of whom I am the representative, how long will the Work Brigade remain there? If they are stationed there permanently, will allocations be made to applications for sites in the Malay settlements?

They are working at Kaki Bukit on levelling a hill and filling up some very low land. The intention is to make that low land part and parcel of the Kaki Bukit Resettlement Scheme. It is a continuation of that scheme. I really do not know how long the Work Brigade will be working here. No decision has been made on how the apportionment of the land is to be made until the land is levelled and the houses actually built. That is a resettlement scheme, and it would be within the portfolio of the Minister for National Development.

Sir, the Minister said just now that there were three Assemblymen who were attached to the Work Brigade, or who were in some way connected with it, and that they have now resigned. But the Minister let the matter drop there. Could the House have his assurance that in future the Work Brigade will come under the control of the civil servants, and that there will be no interposing factors - either P.A.P. Assemblymen or some other Assemblymen - between the civil servants and the Work Brigade?

Mr Kandasamy, that was the point made in the report - that the Brigade was to be fully operational under a single command. That is why we have the post of Director of the Work Brigade so that there will be a single chain of command from the ministerial committee through the Director and through the various camp leaders, i.e. the camp commandants. Otherwise it would never be possible for the Brigade to operate if there are so many people in command. It is necessary to have one chain of command. The Chairman (Mr Kandasamy): It is five o'clock. Order. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this sitting now until 5.30 p.m. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of Debate on Question, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (30) of sub-head 1."

Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister for Labour and Law might have answered the question which I raised by implication, but I have not understood him to have answered directly. He has told the House that there were three P.A.P. Assemblymen who were connected with the Work Brigade, and he has informed the House that they had subsequently resigned. I sought an assurance from him that they would not be re-appointed to the Work Brigade and that the civil service would look after the Work Brigade in the future. Further than quoting a report, the Minister himself has not said whether in future no such appointments will be made. Could the House be assured that in future no such appointments will be made?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Work Brigade is in the process of being reorganised and is being placed under the direct charge of the Director of the Work Brigade who will be responsible to the Ministerial Committee. That being so, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot see how the Member for Farrer Park can have any fears that Assemblymen will in future be in control of the work of the Work Brigade.

I have heard it said, Mr Speaker, Sir - and I am going to follow it up - that members of the Work Brigade were, in fact, commanded - I use the word expressly "commanded" - by certain Assemblymen. If that is correct, then it is a highly undesirable state of affairs. The Minister has said that they had subsequently resigned. All I ask the Minister to say is this - that in future no Assemblymen, be they P.A.P., S.P.A. or U.M.N.O., be appointed to the positions that these three Assemblymen had been appointed in the Brigade. I have also heard it said that it was these three Assemblymen who were commanding the Brigade, and not the civil servants. In fact, they were getting in the way of the civil service to the extent that the whole thing was about to collapse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, they were referred to in the Press as "Supremo". But their work was, in fact, the work of liaison officers. Mr Speaker, Sir, the former Commissioner for Civil Defence was not a Chinese-speaking officer. The present Director of the Work Brigade is fully qualified in Chinese. It was necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir, at that time to have proper liaison established between the Director and the camp commanders, and that liaison was established through Assemblymen who were associated with the Work Brigade. Now that the Brigade has been placed on a proper organisational footing, with a Director who is able in every respect to command it, there is no reason why camp liaison officers should continue.

I am not satisfied, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 24. Industrial Arbitration Court - Temporary staff. Sir, the point I wish to raise here is similar to the point that I have raised on a previous occasion with regard to temporary staff. The Industrial Arbitration Court has come to stay with us. It is part of our system of government and way of life. In view of that, should the staff who have now been employed there be temporary? I am not quite sure about the President - it is a permanent post - and an officer may be held against it temporarily. That is another matter. Should they all be classed under "temporary staff", like the Registrar? As I understand it, the Registrar who has been appointed is a member of the Singapore judicial service, and possibly already a member of Government service. In view of all that, is it right that the staff should be termed temporary? Or is there a special signifance in the use of the phrase "Temporary staff" in connection with this particular subject?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that the Industrial Arbitration Court should be a permanent court, but the Treasury has really had no time to sort things out. But I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that all this will be sorted out in next year's Estimates. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, this vote has been placed in the wrong head in the Estimates. As this Court is an independent tribunal, I think it should go in the earlier heads of these Estimates, that is, next after the head for "Judicial". All that will be sorted out in next year's Estimates.

In view of the explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of sub-head 24. Mr Speaker, item (7) - Fees for Industrial Relations Officers. As I understand it, Industrial Relations Officers are statutory officers. Are the fees payable under the Industrial Arbitration Court, or are the Industrial Relations Officers paid salaries by the Government? Why should they appear as fees?

Sir, when the Industrial Relations Bill was before this Assembly, I mentioned to the Members of the House that it was the intention of Government to appoint, in addition to conciliation officers who were permanent civil servants, Industrial Relations Officers to handle the disputes when they reach the arbitration stage, that is, when the disputes are actually before the Court. And it has been so provided in the Industrial Relations Ordinance that the Minister has the power to appoint, in addition to conciliation officers, Industrial Relations Officers. The functions of the Industrial Relations Officers are set out in this legislation. They are the officers who will appear before the Court and represent the interest of the unions before the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not intended that such persons should be career civil servants. Government hopes to recruit these officers from practising trade unionists who are interested in this type of work, and who can adequately represent the interests of trade unions before the Industrial Arbitration Court. We have provided this sum in the Estimates to enable us to engage the services of such persons for this type of work. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a precedent for this method of payment to be found in the head of Estimates dealing with the Public Service Commission itself, where you will see that the members of the Commission are not civil servants. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission is paid a salary, and he is not allowed, if he is in any profession, to practise that profession so long as he is Chairman of the P.S.C. The other members of the Commission are permitted to engage in their usual activities, and they receive a retainer, plus a fee. Mr Speaker, Sir, on that analogy, it is proposed that when the services of Industrial Relations Officers are required, then those services will be paid for by fees. There is a provision in the Ordinance itself which says that the Minister has the power to appoint persons to be Industrial Relations Officers. These Industrial Relations Officers are public officers. Mr Speaker, Sir, this difficulty could be overcome by representing Government's proposal to the Public Service Commission, and it is possible for the Commission to appoint people, who are interested in this work, temporarily for this type of work. If the occasion does arise in the future where officers who have done this work prove that they are in every respect equal to it and are interested in this type of work, then we may create a post in the civil service for this type of work. But we are not quite sure at this stage. We feel that at this stage it would be premature to enter provisions for posts of Industrial Relations Officers.

Sir, the Minister sought to draw an analogy between this case and the case that exists for payment of fees in the Public Service Commission. In the case of the Public Service Commission, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission works permanently and full-time, and he is paid a salary. The members of the Commission who assist him are five or six in number, and they get a fee. The point there, Mr Speaker, is that they are doing a job for the State, and the State pays them fees. That is the position as I understand it in the Public Service Commission. The position here, as I understand it, is that the Industrial Relations Officers per, form services only for trade unions who are involved in a trade dispute, and as a result of the dispute have to present their case before the Industrial Arbitration Court. As I understand it, these officers are not available to the employer. Now, the position we reach then, Mr Speaker, is that in a dispute between an employer and an employee, in which the State must hold the balance equally between the two, the State is providing money for services to the unions, it could have been a solicitor; he may not be a solicitor; now he is an Industrial Relations Officer. So the State, which is supposed to maintain a balance, and which is supposed to be impartial, is providing money in order that the trade unions might argue their case against the employer. The question then arises, is that a desirable position for the State to take? 5.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Industrial Relations Bill was under consideration by this Assembly, it was pointed out then that it was well within the competence and the capacity of employers to engage lawyers, who are not practising lawyers, to represent their interest before the Arbitration Court. That is not possible as far as the trade unions are concerned. They have to employ their own officials and they are not able to pay for the services of practising lawyers. It must be remembered that the legislation itself does not allow practising lawyers to appear before the Arbitration Court. It was for that reason that Government proposed that Industrial Relations Officers (they will be recruited from the trade unions and are people in the trade unions who are interested and who have the ability to do this type of work before the Arbitration Court) should be made available to such unions who do not have their own paid officials to do this type of work. I do not think that it is in any way unfair to the employers to so provide. They are able to afford the services of trained legal brains, who are not in practice, to assist them in the presentation of their cases. It is nothing but fair that Government should make available to the unions persons who are trained in these matters and who come from the unions themselves to assist in cases where the unions have not got the officials to represent them before the Industrial Arbitration Court.

Sir, the principle that was debated on this Bill was whether Government should employ public servants who would give of their services to the trade unions exclusively. That was the principle that was debated. Perhaps the Minister made out a case; I did not accept it. But perhaps he made out a case that in the existing circumstances in which the trade unions found themselves, some of them needed advice and help, and therefore in the development stage it was essential that a good Government should provide them with assistance. That was a point worthy of consideration. But where the service is not being provided by a public servant and where, in each dispute, a particular individual can be appointed and paid for, it is quite a different matter altogether. Mr X might be appointed in a certain dispute. We might find that the same Mr X is being appointed in all trade disputes. This is going to become a profession for Mr X to appear in all cases of trade union disputes. I know three or four people who are not lawyers in Singapore who do trade union cases very well indeed. It could possibly be that this $15,360 could be earned by one man and not by several persons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have myself known of trade unionists who are in employment outside. They have given their services gratis before tribunals dealing with labour problems. They have had to take leave of absence on no pay to enable them to do this work. There must be some way by which we can remunerate such persons to enable them to do this work. Of course, all this is still in the experimental stage. We have to wait and see how it develops, but if the need should arise, the Government would be quite prepared to seek the creation of posts of Industrial Relations Officers. But we have to wait and see how things develop.

Can I say a few words, Sir? The Member for Farrer Park states that a new principle is involved because State funds could be spent in the payment for services of persons. But I do not think any new principle is being created by this vote, because in the case of the Legal Aid Bureau, money is set aside for payment for the services of lawyers; for instance, in the case of the Ministry of Health, some sums are available for payment of services to private doctors on the basis of sessional fees. There is no difference as far as I can see.

So far as legal aid is concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a means test, and unless you satisfy that means test, you do not get legal aid assistance. The principle involved here is this, Sir. The Opposition takes the view that the State is an impartial observer. If there is a dispute between an employer and an employee, it is for the two parties to get together and settle their differences. If they cannot, then the State says, "We provide you with quasi judicial machinery which will enable you to get justice." We, as the State, should keep well outside it." If the trade unions had been financially strong, the State would have said to the employees, "No. You pay for your own appearances in Court; just as the employers do." Or if the finances of the union had been strong, but proper personnel was not available to the union, again there might have been a case for the State employing that personnel and getting on with the job. So there seemed to be a case in the first instance when the Bill was debated. So far as the Opposition is concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no objection at this stage if the Government would engage one or two Industrial Relations Officers who would be officers of the State. But we rather object to these fees being provided in this way, which will enable the Minister to pick and choose whoever he likes, to represent a particular union. That, I think, is objectionable.

I think the Member is shifting his ground. In the first instance, he said that he was afraid that the whole of this amount of $15,000 might be paid to an individual. Then one would have thought that his objection really is that public money is spent on fees payable to an individual. Then when he rose in reply he said that he had another fear, namely, that trade unions which are relatively well off will be able to enjoy this free service. That is another issue. On that, I think the Minister for Labour and Law is capable of exercising discretion. But I will leave it to my colleague to answer that point. But, as I have said, on his first ground, I think there are precedents in Government practice for the payment of fees to persons for services performed.

Sir, I will have to follow on what the Prime Minister has said, by pointing out that in the legislation itself, it is provided that the right to representation in this case belongs, in the first instance, to the secretary or a paid official of the union. It is only when such persons are not available that the union can select some other persons who are in the union field to represent them before the Arbitration Court. When that sort of representation is sought, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only then that the question of fees arises. I have known from experience that many trade unionists who are in employment have to take leave of absence to appear before a tribunal, whether it is a court of inquiry or an industrial court, on a no-pay basis. They are not paid whilst they represent the interests of the unions before the tribunal. It is to compensate such cases that we are providing for these fees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to labour the point. The point I tried to make, briefly, was this. There are two issues involved in this. The first is the question of principle - whether money should be utilised by the State for payment to particular persons in order to present the workers' case. There is a principle, and that is an accepted right. The House has accepted that principle and that is agreed. Then a further question arises. The principle having been accepted, the question is: how is that money which is to be voted going to be spent? The Assembly, in the first instance, understood that these monies were going to be spent on a permanent civil servant. That was what the Assembly understood then. The debate might have taken an entirely different turn, Mr Speaker, Sir, had not the Minister assured the House that these officers would be officers of the Government. But now there is a slight twist to this when I asked the Minister whether he would assure the House that under the Industrial Relations Ordinance there is authority for him to pay in the way of fees to Industrial Relations Officers. As I read the Ordinance, Industrial Relations Officers were statutory officers and, as such, could be employed and paid out of public funds. But if they are not going to be public officers, has the Government authority to pay these fees under the existing law? Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that under the Property Tax Ordinance, a special provision is made for fees to be paid for the members on that panel. But I cannot remember any sanction in the Industrial Relations Ordinance which will enable the Minister to pay fees to an outsider who is not a member of the Government service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you do not need legislative sanction to do that. I have just pointed out that we have a Public Service Commission Ordinance. We have a Chairman on the Commission who is engaged full-time and who is paid a salary out of public funds. As I have pointed out, the other members of the Commission are not civil servants, and they are paid retainers and fees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to the Minister, that is provided for in that particular Ordinance.

No. Mr Speaker, Sir, when this Bill was before the Assembly, I did point out to the Assembly why these Industrial Relations Officers were required. The work of conciliation can involve officials in full-time work. We have four conciliation officers working full-time every day in the Ministry on conciliation work. This sort of work arises only when there are disputes before the Arbitration Court and only when the unions want it. In very many cases, Sir, the unions appoint their own secretaries to represent them before the Arbitration Court. I think it will be a waste of public money, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we were to create posts now for Industrial Relations Officers when we really do not know what the future requirements will be. As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are putting it to the test now, and we are experimenting. If in the future we find that there is a volume of work required to be done, the Government will be the first to propose that posts of Industrial Relations Officers are created.

Sir, in this debate it would appear that my colleague has lost sight of the overall picture. It is definitely the intention of the Government to buy up the trade unions as much as possible. That is why they have offered them a Trade Union House. Surely, trade unions in this country, if they have that feeling of pride, will be able to provide a house of their own. Now here the Government is going to provide fees for Industrial Relations Officers who are chosen to represent a union if the union itself does not have men of that calibre in its pay, or as a full officer. The Minister suggests that the people who are appointed or chosen as Industrial Relations Officers have sometimes to forfeit their pay because of their being absent from work. Let us tackle the problem in its correct perspective, Sir. How much would that amount to even if the person concerned were to be quite a senior man in the job? It might only amount to $30 a day. To suggest that a trade union is not able by itself to find $30, to be free from obligations to the Government, to pay for its own Industrial Relations Officer is to say that that union is very poor and is in need of charity from the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it shows how much out of touch the Member for Cairnhill is with the trade unions generally. There are trade unions who cannot afford to pay for these services. Take it from me that this is true. Of course, there are other larger organisations which can afford to employ well-qualified persons to do this type of work. 6.00 p.m. But, by and large, I do not think that the unions at present can afford to pay for such services if they do not have their own officials to do this type of work. There is the other question of Government providing a Trade Union House for the workers. This is a workers' Government and before we became the Government, we did publish in the Party manifesto that if we became the Government we would provide a Trade Union House for the trade union movement. I see nothing wrong in that.

Sir, I do not wish to depart from the principle of this particular amendment, but surely the Government, in view of its present policy of weeding out unions of small membership, has not seen to it that the unions which remain in existence today are unions of at least some good membership. Surely, the Minister is not going to suggest that a member of a union cannot afford to pay a dollar towards meeting the cost of an Industrial Relations Officer. He cannot suggest that. To say that they are a workers' Government and therefore they must do all they can for the workers, I would suggest that the way to do it is not to give them a sugar-coated pill - to give them a T.U.C. House and tell them to shut up and not to go on strike.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for lack of any further arguments, the Member for Cairnhill just indulges his whims here. I have seen the annual returns of many unions, but the membership claimed and the subscriptions received bear no relation to one another. There are unions which really cannot afford such a service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law mentioned that these fees were being provided because the persons who would represent them were already in employment and had to give up their employment, and that therefore some provision has to be made for the loss of their services in their own employment. Could the Minister indicate to the House what he intends to pay such an Industrial Relations Officer should he appear for a trade union, say, before the Industrial Relations Court on a dispute which lasts four days?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already provided in the regulations that, in so far as the panel is concerned, they will be paid at the rate of $30 a day, that is, if they are employed a full day. If they are employed half a day, they will be paid half that amount - $15 a day. That is quite a good guide.

Sir, $15,360 is provided for fees for Industrial Relations Officers, and it they are to be paid at the rate of $30 a day, it would mean that there is going to be a number of trade disputes in Singapore for next year!

I have no doubt that the Member for Farrer Park will look into that item very carefully in the Estimates Committee.

We have been warned by the Opposition that they will never vote us any money unless we make our requirements known well in advance and all expenditure must be reasonably foreseen. For that purpose, this sum has been entered in the Estimates. An hon. Member: Over-estimated!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Amendment (7)* has been dealt with. *Amendment (7) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 27.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Ministry of Labour and Law was formed when the Government came into power, I had misgivings whether the Minster for Law should have with him other departments under his portfolio. I was not quite sure whether that principle was one which should be kept intact all the time and whether there might not be exceptions to that principle. The present Government saw fit to join the Ministries of "Law" and "Labour" together. Sir, it is my submission that it is highly desirable to keep the Ministry of Law as a separate Ministry and not to have with it other departments of the Government. The Minister for Law must give the impression to the State of Singapore and to everybody who is interested in the maintenance and upholding of the prestige of the law, that he is an independent and fearless Minister who will uphold the law, whatever the consequences may be. If that is the correct principle on which the democratic system, which believes in the rule of law, should be administered, then I think that principle will be considerably weakened if the Minister for Law takes other departments of the Government under his portfolio in which he would tend to get more interest, which might give him greater political kudos, and therefore would engage him in greater public attention. We have seen that the Minister for Labour and Law in his capacity as Minister for Law has got himself involved in a number of controversial situations where he has forfeited the confidence of certain sections of the public. Whether the actions of the Minister deserve that is quite another matter, but the factual position is that his pronouncements and his behaviour on certain occasions have operated towards a loss of confidence in certain sect ions of the public in Singapore. The whole of Singapore, whatever their sectional, political and economic interests may be, are all interested in the law, the dignity of the law and the upholding of the law. They want to see that not only justice must be done but seem to be done, and that the Minister himself must personify the unassailable principle of the law on which democratic institutions are founded. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not blame the Minister for Labour and Law for the present situation. It is unfortunate that he has been given a most contentious Ministry - the Ministry of Labour - which has been coupled with a Ministry which should maintain dignity, calm and poise. As the Minister for Labour, sometimes he tends to lose that poise, calm and dignity. Perhaps it is not his fault. It is the occasion that makes us behave in the manner we sometimes behave, and perhaps the Minister for Labour finds himself obliged to behave in that way. That is a matter which only he himself can say, but I think he will appreciate that, as the Minister for Law, that kind of attitude or pose is not suitable. Therefore, I would, in all earnestness, suggest to the Government that they give very careful consideration to separating the Ministry of "Labour" and "Law". I certainly appreciate that the Ministry of Labour is a very, very important Ministry. In fact, the future of Singapore depends upon how successful the Minister for Labour is in handling labour matters.

Coupled with law.

And the Minister will also appreciate how important it is that the dignity of the law should be maintained. If the Minister finds that in being a good Minister for Labour he cannot be a good Minister for Law, I think we have reached the position where the two Ministries must be separated. Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to my suggestion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I never expected to be called upon to pass judgment on myself in this House. But I would say that the functions of the Labour and the Law sides in my Ministry are quite separate. Although the Department of Law and the Department of Labour and Welfare are housed in the same Ministry building, the functions of these Departments are entirely separate. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is provided for in the Constitution itself that the control over all public prosecutions remains with the State Advocate-General and as far as I have been concerned, I have scrupulously adhered to the principle that as far as public prosecutions are concerned - the legal side of the Ministry - that is left entirely within the control of the State Advocate-General. Sir, a number of imputations have been made against my Ministry and I would refer particularly to the imputations that have been made quite unjustifiably by the Member for Farrer Park when the House was debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech. On that occasion he pilloried the Ministry. He suggested that things were getting quite out of control and out of hand in the Ministry. He mentioned three cases. A case where a worker was accused of pilfering ice-cream, that there was ministerial intervention, and that although the charge was substantiated, the man was reinstated in his employment when the Minister knew very well that be ought to be sacked. Mr Speaker, Sir, that allegation is completely untrue. This particular man was accused of having wasted his employer's material in the preparation of ice-cream. There was no question of theft at all and he was dismissed for that reason. On due and proper inquiry by the Commissioner, the employer was not able to establish that, and the employer himself willingly paid him severance pay. As regards the other case of the bakery in Sembawang, the Member for Farrer Park said that he represented the employer. He said that there was a strike, that there were pickets outside the employer's premises and that when the employer and his wife insisted on going back to their homes, the wife of the employer was walloped by a big brute of a trade unionist. He went to see the Commissioner for Labour and nothing could be done. He went to see the Parliamentary Secretary who hung down his head in shame. These were his words. Mr Speaker, Sir, the courts of law are open in Singapore. Nobody stops anybody from going to make a complaint to a magistrate. Why bring this lady around to the Ministry, to the Commissioner, and to the Parliamentary Secretary? The Member for Farrer Park is a practising lawyer. If there is a case of assault, all he has to do is to walk down with his client to South Bridge Road to the Police Court, make a complaint and apply for a summons. That is all he has to do. Then he mentioned the case of the Stamford Cafe. He alleged then that the workers got out of hand, that the employer's children were threatened with a knife, that the Minister took it away from the man's hand, that the man was still in employment, and that nothing happened. In fact, three days before the hon. Member spoke in this Assembly, the worker was prosecuted at the instance of the wife of the proprietor of that cafe and he was fined. These are the facts, Mr Speaker, Sir. A few days after he spoke in this Assembly, the Member for Farrer Park himself had a complaint when he was representing an employer. He had seen the Commissioner and did not get satisfaction. He came to see me and we spent two long sessions together. 6.15 p.m. He made certain criticisms against a union. He said the workers were unreasonable in their demands. They were insisting that the course of commercial practice should be interfered with, should be changed - much to his dislike. We went into that fully. A Labour Inspector was sent down to make a full investigation into the truth of that matter. The Member for Farrer Park will himself agree that there was no foundation that he made them. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the sort of situation that happens in Singapore. As soon as there is a strike, Mr Speaker, Sir, the employer wants to have a go at his workers. He wants to get everybody involved, the Police involved against the workers - everybody, including the Ministry. "Lock them up." The Commissioner for Labour receives telephone calls. "We want them all locked up." They try to involve the Police in these disputes. The Minister for Home Affairs has a duty to discharge. He has to build up respect for our Police Force. It would not do for us to get them involved in these matters in that way. That is all, Mr Speaker, Sir. And once the matter has been settled, I get letters saying, "Use pressure on the State Advocate-General. Ask him to withdraw these prosecutions." Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what happens in Singapore regularly. I can mention cases, but I do not wish to waste the time of this Assembly. Only a few days ago I received a letter in regard to the C. K. Tang dispute. There were complaints that the Police were not discharging their duties; everything had gone mad; there was the Labour Ministry sitting around doing nothing and everybody was getting berserk, and so on. "Why not arrest these people and bring them under control?", and so on.. A, few persons did go before the Police Court and applied for summonses and summonses were issued. The moment the dispute was settled, we received letters from the employers. Here is one: `C. K. Tang Ltd. - in Voluntary Liquidation.' I will not mention the name of' the Liquidator who is involved, but this is the letter which he wrote: `With reference to my telephone conversation of this morning, I confirm that the relationship between the strikers and non-strikers of this Company so far has been good, and therefore it is the desire of both parties to continue keeping this good relationship for their mutual benefit. I therefore respectfully suggest that it would be most difficult to expect them now to stand before the Court facing each other as accused and witness. In view of the above explanation, the shareholders and all employees of the above Company would be most grateful if you would kindly exercise your good offices to intercede on their behalf with the State Advocate-General to drop the above pending proceedings, which have been put down to be heard before the Fifth Magistrate's Court on the 9th and 12th December, 1960. This act of kindness and sympathy would, be much appreciated by all concerned. If it is the wish of the State Advocate-General that I should call on him, I shall be glad to do so at any time convenient to him.' I conveyed this to the State Advocate-General telling him that this matter was within his sole discretion. And he sent him a reply, Mr Speaker, Sir: `With reference to your letter on the above matter dated 6th December addressed to the Minister for Labour and Law which has been forwarded to me for reply, I have to inform you that, after giving full consideration to the points raised by you and to the facts of the case, I have decided that the prosecution against the above-mentioned accused persons should be proceeded with.' Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I have been the Minister for Labour and Law, I have been very, very careful to distinguish between the legal functions of my Ministry and the Labour and Welfare functions. I can assure the House that I am aware of my responsibilities in these matters, and that I have left all legal matters affecting my Ministry in the competent hands of the State Advocate-General, so that there is no danger of any conflict arising. As to my general deportment and behaviour as a Labour Minister and whether that should or should not be the correct attitude of a Minister for Law, all of us are entitled to our own opinion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the difficulty in which the Minister for Labour and Law finds himself when I asked that he should split himself and his Ministry into two, and he is not in a position to reply. It is a pity that the Hon. the Prime Minister is not present, because he might have been able to reply on the Minister's behalf. But I do not want to be side-tracked into issues which I did not raise on this particular case. The issue which I raised was that in the particular circumstances in which Singapore finds itself now, I am suggesting to the Government that it will be highly desirable to keep the Ministry of Labour and Law apart. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the State Advocate-General's post was discussed in this Assembly on the first occasion, you may remember I fought the point that the State Advocate-General should not be given an appointment for two years, but that he should be given the full five-year period as the Constitution allows, for the simple reason that I believed then, and I do believe now, that the State Advocate-General should be completely independent, as the Director of Audit is, and that although he is a Government officer he should have his full term of employment so that he can carry out his duties fearlessly, sometimes advising the Minister and even against what the Minister wants him to advise him on. I now understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law has resigned, and that the State Advocate-General is being made to act in the position where he will have to deal with matters connected with the Ministry of Labour. That again, Mr Speaker, is a highly undesirable position. The State Advocate-General should be the State Advocate-General. He should not become the Permanent Secretary to any Ministry. What is his position if he has to advise the Minister for Labour on a particular point involving Labour? Is he going to split his allegiance into two or three different ways? And which way is he going to act? These are principles in which the Minister for Labour and Law has got himself involved merely because he heads one Ministry. I would suggest that even if the Ministry of Labour and Law is not split, the State Advocate-General should not have any administrative control or any administrative say in matters connected with the Ministry of Labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the retirement of the former Permanent Secretary took place when I was away in Tokyo. The State Advocate-General has been, in addition to being State Advocate-General, the Permanent Secretary on the Law side of the Ministry. He is also acting Permanent Secretary for all administrative functions relating to the Labour and Welfare side. This is a very temporary arrangement. It will take time for a suitable officer of the administrative service to be selected and appointed by the Public Service Commission as a replacement for the last holder of the post of Permanent Secretary on the Labour side of the Ministry. It is not an arrangement that is intended to be permanent at all. The other point that was raised by the Member for Farrer Park is that he felt that because the State Advocate-General's appointment was, in the first instance, for two years only, he was not independent and free. I cannot understand how he can believe that to be so. The State Advocate-General is completely free in the legal side of the work of the Ministry. Does the Member for Farrer Park suggest that he is being pressured? And if he is being pressured, is he being pressured by the Minister for Labour and Law?

I am not suggesting that at all, Sir. Let the Minister not misunderstand me, please. I am not suggesting that the present Minister is pressuring the State Advocate-General. What I am saying. Mr Speaker, is that when we set up democratic institutions which are nicely balanced, then it becomes important that a proper sense of values should be attached to each post. Now, a Supreme Court Judge, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an important man in the State. Not only must he administer justly, he must seem to administer justly. It is a very important principle of the law which we must maintain in this State - that not only must justice be done, but that it must seem to be done. Therefore, what is the principle involved when the Director of Audit is given a five-year appointment under the Constitution? The principle is that the Director of Audit is in a position to criticise the Government and its Ministers. Therefore, he must be in a position from which he will be able to do it fearlessly. Now, could the Government contemplate the position where the Director of Audit is appointed from year to year? What confidence could the public of Singapore have in the Director of Audit's Report, if his appointment is at the pleasure of the Minister from year to year? I think the Minister will appreciate that. If he will translate that to the State Advocate-General who must advise each Minister fearlessly according to the law and not according to what the Minister wants him to advise, then, I do not say that that is happening now, but the situation now is such that everybody might believe that that is what can happen. The position will be that if he has a two-year appointment, there will be many people who will say, "Oh! it is a two-year appointment, and surely if he wants another three-year appointment, he is not going to say everything he thinks should be said." That does not mean to say that in this particular instance, Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Advocate-General is not doing his duty fearlessly. I do not say that at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that was all discussed when the question of the appointment of the State Advocate-General was raised in this House. It was then pointed out that the Government have the power under the Constitution to appoint the State Advocate-General for a stated period, and that after this initial period it would be up to the Government to confirm him in the appointment. There is no question that, because these arrangements were followed, the State Advocate-General is not free in the discharge of his functions. He gives advice not only to me but to all the other Ministers. And he has been very scrupulously careful to give us what he considers to be his own advice. There has been no pressure ever exercised either by myself or by any other Minister on the State Advocate-General. I think that it was very unfair of the Member for Farrer Park to leave the Assembly with the impression that because the State Advocate-General has been appointed for an initial period of two years, he is tempted to take the line of least resistance and fall in with the wishes of the Ministers in order to secure confirmation of his appointment. I think that was a very unfair imputation to make and I think it was most improper.

I want to make the position quite clear. There is no personal imputation against the present State Advocate-General. I am sure he is carrying out his duties to the best of his ability, which any State Advocate-General would do. I want to get on with the question of the State Advocate-General acting as Permanent Secretary to another Ministry. The Minister said that it is only temporary-excuse me, it is only temporary. I am suggesting to the Minister that this is such an important principle that it should not even be only temporary. When that official resigned, I think the Government should have come up with some other appointment, making some other person to act. The State Advocate-General, Mr Speaker, Sir, is one of the most hard-worked officers in Singapore. The way he produces these Bills is like nobody's business! 6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the House could just recollect the word used: it was "excuse". There is no excuse. Nobody is trying to talk himself out of any difficult situation at all. There is no such thing as an excuse in this matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I arrived from Tokyo I heard that the Permanent Secretary had retired, and I came to know the next day that the State Advocate-General was acting as the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law. It takes time for the Public Service Commission to review the claims of the various officers according to their seniority and merit for appointment as a replacement to the Permanent Secretary. All that takes time. Meanwhile the work has got to be done. This I can assure the House is a very temporary arrangement. As soon as a suitable officer is found, he will be appointed to the post of Permanent Secretary on the Labour and Welfare side of the Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I only raise this question in order to bring to Government's notice certain principles involved in this business. I have done so, Mr Speaker, and may I be given leave to withdraw my motion? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,720,060 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 41-.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5. Expenditure for Industrial Courts Ordinance - $6,000. Sir, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what expenditure this is, particularly when the Industrial Courts have been provided for under other heads of expenditure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Member for Farrer Park for questioning this item of expenditure. The reference is really to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Industrial Courts Ordinance has been repealed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I would like an amendment made to replace the words "Industrial Courts Ordinance" with the words "Industrial Relations Ordinance". The Industrial Relations Ordinance provides for the appointment of Boards of Inquiry to look into disputes which are not properly covered by collective agreements or awards. These Boards of inquiry are similar to the Boards of Inquiry appointed under the former Industrial Courts Ordinance. The legislation itself provides for the payment of fees to witnesses, and this is the provision that enables payments to be made for these services when Boards of Inquiry are appointed.

May I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $861,070 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 45-

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (28) of sub-head 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this amendment in order to seek clarification from the Government concerning what has appeared to be a question mark by the members of the Muslim community. After this Assembly had made amendments to the Muslims Ordinance in Singapore to bring about better and more satisfactory conditions in connection with Muslim marriages and divorces, more powers had been conferred by these amendments on the Chief Kathi. I would like to know whether the Minister for Labour and Law is aware of a recent incident when a marriage took place in Singapore. The man came to Singapore and lived here temporarily. But he was already married and had children in Indonesia. If I am not mistaken, according to the Muslims Ordinance, the necessary investigation is required to be made to the satisfaction of both parties before the marriage could be solemnised. Because the marriage took place rather suddenly, I seek clarification from the Minister whether the marriage was solemnised according to the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance. I would like to stress in this Assembly that in promulgating laws, it is also the responsibility of this House to see that the provisions of the Ordinance are carried out by the civil servants to the letter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for the Southern Islands is referring, I think, to the case of Syed Alwi Jamaludin. This man is a religious lecturer resident and domiciled in Indonesia. He has already a wife - and, according to some reports, two wives - in Indonesia. Yet his marriage in Singapore was solemnised by the Chief Kathi. Inquiries in Singapore disclosed that no proper investigation was made, and that the Chief Kathi only acted on the statement of the man that he was able to maintain a wife. No details of his income and standing were recorded. Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Advocate-General has received a number of complaints regarding the way in which the Chief Kathi has performed his duties. He has ascertained, Sir, that whilst the Chief Kathi keeps to the letter of the Muslim law, he has in some cases not been very careful or thorough in his inquiries. All complaints received have been investigated and, where necessary, explanations have been asked from the Chief Kathi and instructions given to him. The Chief Kathi is 65 years old and appears to be very settled in his ways. As a result of a number of complaints that we have received, consideration is now being given to his retirement from the public service. The Chief Kathi was appointed, I think, in October 1959, on temporary terms, i.e. on a month-to- month basis. In view of these complaints, action is being taken to have his services terminated.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the explanation submitted by the Minister for Labour and Law is completely satisfactory to me. But there is one thing I would like to remind him. Whoever he may be who implements the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, the question of age does not concern us. But it should be remembered that no fun should be poked at the provisions of the Ordinance. If this recurs again in the future, it would be a source of uneasiness to the Muslim community. With this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $521,080 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 47- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr C. H. Koh - That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of sub-head 1.

Mr Koh is not here. Mr Thio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1* *The same amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah and Mrs Seow Peck Leng. Sir, the post in the Estimates is a highly paid one, more highly paid than that of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Personal Secretary (Political). May we know the special qualifications and the present duties of this Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) to justify the retention of the post?

Does the Member for Mountbatten wish to add to that?

Yes.

I am sure the Minister would prefer it that way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to this Publicity Liaison Officer, I wonder if the Minister for Culture will tell us whether this post is still vacant. 6.45 p.m. It is not indicated in the Estimates, but it is indicated in the telephone directory issued by the Government that this post is vacant. So I wonder whether he can give us confirmation whether it is vacant or not.

Yes. Sir, the Member for Mountbatten is correct. The post has been vacant since October 1959, and it has remained vacant since then simply because we have not found a suitable person to fill it. The other query by the Member for Tanglin would entail my repeating the statement made in the Assembly on 2nd September, 1959, in Hansard, Vol. 11. No. 9, column 538, where the case for a Political Liaison Secretary was made. The incumbent left in October 1959, and until such time as we can get somebody to discharge these functions, obviously this post must remain vacant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Hansard that the Minister for Culture quoted, which is 2nd September, 1959. Vol. 11, No. 9, it seems to me that this is a very special post. First and foremost, it draws a salary of $1,400 as against $1,100 of the Political Secretary. In that debate, the Minister pointed out the special qualifications needed. In column 540, he gave the two qualifications: `Therefore, one of these posts requires someone with a knowledge not only of the Chinese language but also of Chinese trends, thought and reactions and also a knowledge of (on the purely technical side) publicity methods and organisation.'. Evidently, Sir, the Minister has not found these two qualities in one man. Very probably, there are many who have the first quality, but who have not the second, and vice versa. From what I see, Sir, 1 think it is 15 months now and the Minister has not been able to find a man who has these combined qualities. If I may put in my humble observation, it is not likely that he will find one in the foreseeable future, because the knowledge of not only the Chinese language but also Chinese trends, thought and reactions, (meaning the Chinese way of living, minds and culture), is something that cannot be acquired overnight. If a man who has the technical knowledge cannot acquire that overnight and he is going to take years, then it is true the other way round also. A person who has all the first qualities cannot get technical knowledge overnight. He will take years. That is why I feel that it will take years before a man with the first quality could be trained in the second quality and vice versa. It is not, of course, like the shortage of doctors. If we cannot find enough doctors in Singapore, well, let us publicise it throughout the world and see which country can send us experts. This is not so in this case. The Minister has made it very clear in the Hansard that this is something very, very special. This person must be someone who must have lived in Singapore and must have the feel of the way of life in Singapore, its culture and its trends of thought. That is a quality which we cannot get in a technical expert from overseas. I would like to point out that the Minister, in winding up his speech, said: `I am quite sure that if, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, the previous Government had a little bit more foresight in this matter and not felt its own pulse and mistaken it for the pulse of public opinion, it would not be where it is today.'. It looks as if the Minister may not be able to find such a person within the span of the present Government's life. If they are unable to find that person, I am just wondering whether they would be where we are today.

Mr Speaker, when the Member for Mountbatten spoke, she hoped that we would not be able to find one. But I can assure her that we have found, not one, but quite a few who have the requisite qualifications. They are journalists of long standing, but unfortunately, for one reason or another, we could not induce them to take the job. In fact, I can assure the Member for Mountbatten that there are quite a number of people who are capable of doing this job. When I say "special qualifications", it does not mean a special type of people or some rare being. All that we require is somebody with enough political acumen and a knowledge of Chinese. This is not because it is a Chinese post but because in my Ministry I have a Political Secretary who is well-versed in Malay and, therefore, we need somebody to balance the other side to help us keep in contact with Chinese opinion and organise the publicity services. The co-ordination of them does not require all that great skill. If you are a journalist or a publicity man, you could discharge the job. But unfortunately, as I have said, although we did find a number of people, they were not prepared, for one reason or another, to take up the job.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if for the last 15 months it has not been found necessary to fill this vacancy and the Ministry of Culture has gone on quite actively in its programmes, I see no reason why this post should be continued in the Estimates. My opinion, Sir, is that the present Parliamentary Secretary is the one who has almost all the qualifications required for the present post. In view of the fact that the Government is pursuing a policy of economy, it does seem strange that Government should still want to continue with this post and be looking for some applicant when it has been able to carry on so far without this post being filled. I suggest that, in the interests of economy, the post be deleted.

Sir, this Assembly has gone on at least five years without the Member for Tanglin being present in the Assembly, but it does not mean that, therefore, we should dispense with the constituency for Tanglin. There are many posts in Government departments which have not been filled for many years, but, nevertheless, people carry on. Similarly, with the case of this Publicity Liaison Secretary, we have carried on precisely by distributing the work among a number of people like the Parliamentary Secretary, the Political Secretary, myself and other officers of the Ministry. To an extent, it was a makeshift arrangement and the work involved hindered these people from carrying on the other jobs which they have had to do. As I have said before, it means co-ordinating the radio, information services, posters, films, publications, field units, special campaigns organised by various Ministries and so on. Perhaps in the near future it will include television and other activities. For example, in a very recent case, we had the family planning campaign. This involved the printing of a large number of posters, booklets and so on. But what happened was that there was nobody else to co-ordinate this work so that our Ministry had committed itself to producing pamphlets and booklets for some other Ministry without quite realising that we could not discharge these duties. There is a little bit of bad blood between the various Ministries. They feel that the Ministry of Culture is discriminating in favour of one Ministry or the other. This is just an instance of how, if we had an officer like this, it would at least ensure that the publicity services speak as far as possible with one voice consistently, unlike, I think, in the previous regime where you occasionally had three and four voices emerging from the same outfit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given, I think the Ministry should be called the Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. But if it is a Ministry of Culture, I do not think the post should be there.

Sir, if this post was not a political appointment, if it were a civil service appointment and if I were sitting on a committee going into the staffing position in the Ministry of Culture, one of the questions I would ask the Ministry would be, "How long has this post been vacant?" If the answer is, "For a considerable time," I would ask, "Have you been able to get along without this post?" and if the answer is, "Yes, as well as we could," I think the result of that investigation might well be, Mr Speaker, that the post would be deleted. This being a political post, of course, the yardstick which is applied to the civil service cannot be applied to this particular post. But the point remains that we are all of us using a lot of words to hide something which we do not want to say. Is this not the truth of the situation: that this post was created for a particular person, and that was why it was fixed at $1,400 and not at $1,100, because he would not accept the appointment at $1,100, because he felt he was superior to all the other Political Secretaries? Now that that person has left, there is no possibility of this post being filled. I do not think the Government intends to fill this post, so why have the post on the list?

If the argument of the Member for Farrer Park depends on that post not being filled and if in the next few months I do manage to fill this post, would he then say that therefore this post is justified? Fortunately, this Government is not going to fill a post just to satisfy the Opposition. There is necessity for the post because we consider this post is essential to us. We therefore want to look around for an individual who can help us discharge this function. If we cannot find that individual, then we will leave it vacant for as long as it is necessary and we will carry on as best we can. But the argument that the Member for Farrer Park has put forward seems to be that, "If you can fill this post, then we will have nothing to say."

Sir, what I am saying frankly and simply is this. This post is created at this salary to take in a particular gentleman. I think the Minister for Culture knows whom I refer to. As a result of certain differences of opinion in the Ministry, he has now left. He was certainly a very versatile man. Versatility was his metier. Now that he is gone, they cannot find anyone else, Mr Speaker, Sir. They cannot find anyone else who will fit in with their way of thinking and their way of doing things, and I do not blame them, Sir,It is difficult to find these individuals. They do not grow on trees. The point we are making is, "If you thought there was a need for it then, you voted him $1,400, that was all right as far as it went. But you are not going to get such a creature again. Even if you do get him, why pay him $1,400? How is he going to be any better than the other Political Secretaries?" I understand that the present Political Secretary in the Ministry of Culture is an excellent individual doing work that nobody else can do. The Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions.

Quite so.

If that is correct, I cannot see how you can get better than the best?

This, of course, is another item which the Estimates Committee could well look into if the Member for Farrer Park thinks so. Mr Rajaratnam? 7.00 p.m.

Sir, I think the argument advanced is not that this post is not necessary. The criticism really springs from the chronic antipathy that the Members opposite have against Political Secretaries in general. As indicated in one way or another, they are afraid that if we get good political advice, the situation perhaps in another four or five years will be improved, with perhaps a few more reductions in the number of Members on the other side. So their objection is not that this post is not unnecessary as it has not been filled, but that they object to the appointment of Political Secretaries in principle. We cannot stop them from doing that. It is quite true that the post was held by a previous individual who was a very versatile man with great talent. He was not only purely performing the functions of a Political Secretary but, in addition, he was responsible for co-ordinating a the publicity services. When he left the post, we tried to fill it. In fact, as I said earlier, we found a number of people who could fill the job. But one of the reasons for their turning down the post, if I may say so, was that they felt that the Opposition might consider it a very highly paid post, or that perhaps, among other things, the salary was not attractive enough. Unfortunately, to prevent further questions being asked by the Member for Farrer Park and his colleagues, we decided to leave the post at $1,400. As I say, if we do find a gentleman to fill the post, then I hope the Members opposite will congratulate the Government for being assiduous in its search and having got a person quite capable of ensuring that this Government carries out its work correctly and properly. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub- head 1." 7.05 p.m.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 23; Absent, 21. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Baharuddin bin Mohamed Jumat. Ariff. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Kandasamy, G. Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Lim Yew Hock. Lee Teck Him. Mohamed Ali bin Aiwi. Leong Keng Seng. Rajah, A. P. Lin You Eng. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Lingam, S. V. Thio Chan Bee. Low Por Tuck. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Abstention. M. Ismail Rahim. Nil. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Pang Boon. Absent. Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ramaswamy, S. Bani, S. T. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Buang bin Omar Junid. Madam. Byrne, K. M. Tan Kia Gan. Chan Chee Seng. Tee Kim Leng. Chan Choy Siong, Miss. Teo Hock Guan. Chan Sun Wing. Toh Chin Chye. Chor Yeok Eng. Wee Toon Boon. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Wong Soon Fong. Goh Chew Chua. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Goh Keng Swee. Yong Nyuk Lin. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Koh, C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Ong Chang Sam Ong Eng Guan. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

I take it that amendment (3)* is not being moved? *Amendment (3) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of sub- head 1.

No. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (23) of sub-head 1. Sir, the object of this amendment is to get information. I notice that apart from item (23), items (92), (106), (118), (140) and (141) are all on "Expatriation Pay". I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many expatriates there are still in his Ministry and when they are due for Malayanisation.

Sir, this expatriation pay is the actual amount payable to the Supernumerary Officer (Broadcasting), who until quite recently was the Director of Broadcasting and is now attached to the headquarters of the Minister. He is an expatriate officer and is therefore entitled to expatriation pay. At the time the Estimates were framed, it was not known that this expatriate officer would want to retire before the end of 1961 and therefore full provision was made for the year 1961 in the sum of $3,000. It is now known, however, that the officer will go on leave prior to retirement at the end of this year and he has quite a lot of vacation leave due to him. Part of this provision will be utilised as expatriation pay. As for the number of expatriates still in the Ministry, apart from this individual, I think there are two more: one is in the Engineering Section and one in the Programme Section. 1 am not sure when their terms expire. But these are the two remaining expatriates left.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand rightly, the Minister says that altogether there are three expatriates. One will be going away, and there will be only two left. But as I have said, "Expatriation Pay" appears under several items -

Order. I think if the hon. Member wishes to query those items, she should have given notice. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to answer on these items. Could the hon. Member give those items so that we could have a record of them? The Minister might then be able to follow them. 7.15 p.m.

Item (92) at page 360.

"Expatriation Pay" - there appears to be an entry of $3,000 for 1960, and nothing for 1961.

And item (106).

That is at page 361, "Expatriation Pay - $3,000".

Item (118) at page 362, and item (151) at page 361.

If the hon. Lady wished to bring forward those items, she should have given notice of amendments in regard to them. If the Minister is not in a position to answer, he might be able to supply the information direct to the Member later on.

As regards the last item mentioned, i.e. under "Museum Division" and not under "Broadcasting", I thought the hon. Lady was referring to Broadcasting. In the Ministry of Culture, Museum Division, there is one expatriate. I cannot say offhand, but so far as I can recollect, there are only two expatriates still left in Broadcasting. The one she is specifically interested in, i.e., the Director of Broadcasting, will be leaving at the end of the year. If she wants any further information, I can find out and let her know.

I shall be glad if the Minister can supply the information. In view of that promise, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, *That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 br reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 7. *The same amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng Under this sub-head, $45,000 will be spent for National Day celebrations. During the office of the present Government, two National Day celebrations have been held. This House had also approved expenditure to the amount of $52,000 last September, of which $41,320.80 was spent for National Day celebrations. This was explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture in Hansard of 21st September, 1960, Vol. 13, No. 9, col. 631. But what I would like to say, Mr Speaker, is in regard to the policy of celebrating National Day. I do not wish to raise any question, but I would like to talk about the expenditure side. The benefits derived from the sums expended will be commensurate with the value derived by the State. The Government cannot deny that the Opposition could not take part in the National Day celebrations. Therefore, celebrations were not conducted as they should have been conducted - by all the people of Singapore. What is objectionable to the Opposition, Mr Speaker, and also to political Parties outside this Chamber is the method adopted by the Government in celebrating National Day. And I dare say in this Chamber, Mr Speaker, that in the National Day celebrations we observed that the decorations were done on Government buildings, but what is regretted is that the commercial buildings paid no heed to celebrate National Day except maybe if they felt that they were under pressure to put up bunting or to hoist the National Flag. The celebrations were very different from the celebrations that we used to see in the past. I feel, Mr Speaker, there must be something beneath it which resulted in many people refusing to take an, active part in National Day celebrations. I would like to know, Mr Speaker, whether the proposals for National Day celebrations for 1961 will be the same as had been made by the Government during the past two years.

I am sorry, Sir, that the Member for the Southern islands seeks to revive a controversy which we hoped had been forgotten because, on the part of Government, it has at least tried not to discuss the matter. On two occasions not only the Opposition Parties but various other organisations and groups were invited to participate in the celebrations. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to themselves, the Opposition Parties decided to make an issue out of it on both occasions. The last time, if I remember correctly, a large group of people came up to say that this National Day celebration was not an affair of one particular Party or of the Government; we wanted everybody to participate in it, because, for us at least, this was one day in the year when we could demonstrate to ourselves that regardless of different creeds, different political Parties, or any other differences that you might have, on this one day we could come together to celebrate it as a national group. Unfortunately, the Opposition said that this was a political stunt by the Government, that it was really a P.A.P. affair, and the reason, they said, was, "Well, you are having this procession and P.A.P. members are going to participate and they are going to fly their flag." We took the view that on National Day P.A.P. members too should celebrate. Though there were different groups, they should celebrate together to the extent of showing their identity. Just as other cultural organisations and trade unions which belonged to different unions showed their identity. The idea was that, although we were all different, that though we belonged to different trade unions, to different cultural groups, to different political Parties, on this occasion we were marching together as one united group. Unfortunately, the Opposition decided to say, "No. We say: Celebrate this without showing our identity. Let us march as a nameless group." For that reason, they left. So, when the Member for the Southern Islands said that many people refused to take an active part in it, that is no quite true. As far as I know, the only people who were invited and who did not take part were Members of the Opposition. The others, everyone of them, accepted. The people who refused to take part in it as a matter of protest, whether right or wrong, we are not interested in them. They did not take part in it because they did not want to take part in it, not because the Government refused to have them. In fact, we welcomed them. We invited them to come and take part in the discussions leading to the organisation of National Day celebrations. Therefore, I regret that on an occasion like this, they decided to make it a matter of political controversy. I had hoped that it would not be. But if there were any objections, then they should come out openly and say it. The objection they made was "The other groups should not identify themselves. Everybody should just walk in one big mass." None of the other groups objected to it. In fact, they were very glad - the Chambers of Commerce, cultural organisations - to come and show that they belonged to this or that group and they were prepared to march together. So that was the reason, Sir, and not because the Government was being unfair or the Government refused to have them. 7.30 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am confused when the Minister for Culture explained that the Opposition blindly did not wish to participate in the National Day celebrations. It has been stressed during the past two occasions that the Opposition could not see eye to eye with the methods adopted because they benefited only one side. They benefited the Party in power, Mr Speaker. We were invited for discussion merely to accept the resolutions which had already been taken by the Minister for Culture. This is not the way of working together. It is merely like expecting the Opposition to follow something which they cannot accept. The way to co-operate, when organising National Day celebrations, is to accept the views of the participants. Whether the view points are accepted by all or not should be thrashed out at the meetings. The Opposition never rejected blindly on this issue, as in the past year, when $41,320.80 was spent on decorations, and even these decorations were a failure because of the inclement weather. The expenditure was a waste.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture sought to give the impression that the Opposition Parties were not interested in participating in the National Day celebrations. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember, when the first occasion arose to vote this money, that the Opposition voted the money willingly on the basis that it was important that National Day should be celebrated. The point of difference between the Government and ourselves is in the manner in which this National Day is sought to be celebrated. We on the Opposition side feel that the Government seeks to give it a party flavour, and we have always been against the Government giving it a party flavour. It is a National Day. The Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, is present on this occasion, and in the march-past he takes the salute. We on the Opposition side feel that it is wrong that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should be placed in a position where he should be called upon to salute any party flag. The only flag which he should be called upon to salute is the State flag. That is the basic principle. The Opposition Parties say that the manner in which the Government seeks to celebrate this national occasion is not correct, if they will only give it a national flavour rather than a party flavour, they will be completely correct in this, because the State belongs to them and to us.

Sir, when they say a party flavour, what do they object to and in what way? If in the celebration you confine it to only one party and refuse the others, then it has a party flavour. But what we said was that all political parties represented in the Assembly were welcome, just as all cultural organisations were welcome. Whatever we might say of the political parties - the political parties of the Opposition as well as the political party of our side - there are hundreds of individuals who have helped and played a part in moulding this new State. Should we be ashamed of our symbol, and should we be ashamed of being associated with them? We should not. That is why we welcomed political parties of all shades, who helped to mould this new State, to come forward openly and be proud of what they had done, and to show their symbols. Just as cultural organisations and trade unions belonging to different groups came and carried their signs and symbols. Therefore, I do not, think there was any party flavour. If we had wanted a party flavour, we would have excluded all the others, and only confined it to ourselves. Then the Opposition would have been quite justified in saying that we were using the National Day celebrations to propagate, or put forward a particular party. All political parties come and join us, so that people can say, "Here are three or four political parties which on this occasion are marching together, on the same occasion, to celebrate a common ideal." The aim that they have is a National Day to symbolise the desire to be a nation despite our differences in politics; race and religion. That is the simple thing, and I do not see any objection. But the Opposition always insisted that they would come only if none of the political parties carried any symbols. We are not ashamed of our symbols. We are not ashamed of the people who have put us into power - all the political parties that have put us into power. We are prepared on that day to say, "This is the political group in power, and those are the other political parties which represent the Opposition." I do not see why we should try and boycott an occasion like this on their insistence that there should be no showing of any symbols.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard it repeatedly mentioned that we should build a new nation. If on the National Day of the new State of Singapore, we display different party symbols and party flags, we immediately divide the loyalties of those present so that the people and children begin to think in terms of, "Which party do you support?" "Which party does our father support?" On that basis, how can we produce unity? I know that some parents have asked the heads of schools whether they could keep their children at home when the schools have agreed to send certain quotas to participate in the mass drill or the mass display, because the parents of school children also belong to different political parties. For that reason, we believe very strongly that if the Government wants to instil in our children and in the people of Singapore loyalty to one nation, then there should be no discordant note on National Day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Minister for Culture that the Opposition places as much importance on National Day as the Government itself does. When the question of the National Flag was being mooted by the Government, the Government called a meeting of all political parties. After a great deal of discussion, agreement was reached. That agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, has helped to make that a truly National Flag. If the Government had over-ridden the Opposition Parties and created a flag of their own without the consent of the Opposition Partie s- and they had every legal right to do it. I suppose, because they have a majority number of votes - even if they had carried it through without the Opposition consenting, it would not have been a truly National Flag. But better opinion prevailed in the Government, and we were all able to agree on a flag which has now become a national symbol. All of us accept it loyally, and give it the reverence it should be given. Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government were trying to put forward a plan on the flag, they had their own points of view. They departed to a very large extent from those points of view, and a compromise was arrived at. The compromise has helped to make it into a National Flag. The Government have certain ideas as to how the National Day celebrations should be conducted. But National Day is not a day for the Government. It is a day for the people of Singapore, and the people of Singapore are composed of P.A.P. people, S.P.A. people, the Workers' Party, and may be even supporters of the Member for Hong Lim, and others who are independent. But those are the people of Singapore. Does it matter very much to the Government if they yield one or two points provided they can get complete unanimity with the Opposition? Would that not really become a National Day? The point of divergence, Mr Speaker, it seems to me, is whether the party flag should be carried on the shoulders and hoisted before the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. On that small issue, we are breaking down.

Sir, it is not that the Government did not invite people. The Government invited not only the Opposition parties but every cultural organisation. In fact, to a great extent, the National Day celebrations were organised and run by non-Government organisations. They were organised by cultural organisations who put up their own shows. The difference was over this one particular point. Should a political party on that day show themselves? If you are P.A.P., do you show yourselves that you are members of the P.A.P.? If you belong to a particular trade union, do you show that you belong to a particular trade union? If you belong to a particular cultural organisation, do you show that you belong to a particular cultural organisation? And everybody agreed they should. The only opposition was from the Opposition Members. None of the other cultural organisations - there were about 80 or 90 of them opposed it. Everyone else agreed. Not only the Government but other cultural organisations and bodies which were there said that it was perfectly right; that on this particular day we should show that, though we were diverse and we held all sorts of views, here we were marching together as one group. I think I know why the Opposition Members did not want to participate in it and show their party symbols, but that is not my business. Anyway, let us not try and make an issue out of this and say that it is because of the particular way in which the Government organised the National Day celebrations. As I said, there were about 80 or 90 different groups. Everyone was satisfied, except the Opposition parties. So does it mean that 80 or 90 organisations should give in on this particular issue - that everyone should show their symbols; - to what group they belonged - whether they belonged to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, the Indian Chamber of Commerce, to what religious bodies? They were probably parading their symbols and their flags, and that was the best way to show to the people that whatever diversity there might be, on this basic issue we were united. Yet the Member for Tanglin says that by the various political parties showing their colours, the children are going to say that they cannot be loyal to a particular ideal, because there is division, in which case there is no need for this Assembly, because the children can come and say, "Look, democracy means so many political parties arguing things out." But our idea is this - the fact that different groups and different political parties can argue and still have loyalty to the basic ideal bears the stamp of democracy. In a similar way, I hope that though we may say these things, whatever I might have said today, on the next National Day, the Opposition will take a much more liberal view, and that it does not matter whatever political differences there are, they will be able to participate. In fact, as far as we are concerned, we will send an invitation to them for the third time to participate in our National Day celebrations. The first time was National Loyalty Week; the second time was National Day, and I hope that the next time they will be able to participate in our celebrations, which include the Government and nearly a hundred cultural organisations and groups.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have found the secret why the Members of the Opposition would not wish to participate as political parties in the National Day celebrations, it is perhaps because of their confusion as to which symbols they should have - the Progressive Orchid-

Order. I think the Minster for Education should try and confine himself to the principles which have been laid before the Assembly with great clarity, and I think the Minister for Culture has answered on those lines. Let us not get down to personalities. 7.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the appeal made by the Minister for Culture regarding the points raised by the Opposition about National Day is a matter that has not been properly clarified. The Minister for Culture can reconsider changing the programmes or letting them remain as they were last year. Such a procedure cannot bring about a union but only misconception, misapprehension and a split-up. The Minister for Culture has said that he has invited political parties in Singapore, including cultural bodies and other associations. But what has been known in the past is that political parties outside the Assembly have not been invited to discuss the manner of holding the National Day celebrations. It appears that the Government only places importance on political parties. Yet it seems to me that political parties outside the Assembly have not been invited to discuss it, except the Opposition Parties.

Sir, the Minister for Culture sought to draw a distinction between cultural bodies and political parties. With great respect to the Minister for Culture, they are not on the same footing. Those cultural bodies are all national organisations, and the bodies that the Minister for Culture was referring to-

Not bodies, but parties.

- are national bodies in the same way that they include members of various political Parties and all national creeds. They have their particular purpose which serves the State. Maybe we are wrong. Will the Government concede that they are wrong? But this is a point of view which we sincerely believe in. If the Government can understand it, then we may be able to come to some compromise on it. But we are sincerely opposed to the exposure of party flags before the Head of State, as he will be put in such a position where he will have to salute those party flags.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the fact that National Day celebrations exist as a result of the birth of the new Constitution. I remember that when the Merdeka Mission was proceeding to London, there was no opposition then from the Government to the display of slogans, party flags and so on. All sections of people from all political parties in Singapore participated. Similarly, when the Merdeka Mission returned from London, various political parties displayed various party flags with captions such as "Welcome Home the Merdeka Mission to London". The fruit of the Merdeka Mission was not designed for the particular affection of this community. Now, we have reached the stage where we should have a feeling for the Constitution which we are now working. Why is it that when sending off and welcoming back the Merdeka Mission there were no objections raised at that time? In fact, every political party had encouraged the display of party flags and slogans. But it might be that in the National Day celebrations, some of those wishing to participate might have their party flags carried by 50 to 60 people when other political parties would be shouldering their party flag with thousands of supporters. State politics cannot be divorced from the people. Politics play an important part in a democratic State. It is proper, however, as has been said by the Hon. the Minister for Culture, that all political parties in Singapore today should during National Day demonstrate national unity, irrespective of political ideology, religion or creed. But all must aim at one ideal - a united nation in our State. I feel, Mr Speaker, we should during National Day discard all divergent views and different political ideologies, but we must show to the world that in a State governed by a political party we are democratic and the political parties play an important part in its administration. I cannot see any logical reason why the Opposition could not agree to the concept that all political parties should have the right to display their party flags during the celebration. The Member for Farrer Park said that they were surprised, suspicious or could not understand why the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should salute a political party flag. I think the Member for Farrer Park should remember that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is not saluting the flags but that, because hundreds of thousands of citizens of Singapore are giving respect to him, therefore he must return that salute of respect. I think it is only proper that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should duly return the salute of the people. All this goes to show that there is a possibility especially with S.P.A. that they are completely lacking in members -

I think the hon. Member must understand how I am trying to direct this debate. This debate should be only on principles and not on asides, which can be offensive.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to debate at length as if we are taking part in a political election. We are debating this matter with the object of achieving our true aims. We do not discuss what is the strength of a political party and its membership. But if something undesirable emerges as a result of the refusal to participate by a few sections, it would not be the fault of the Opposition. We will bring home to the people that the manner in which the Government celebrates the National Day celebrations is wrong. As stated by the Member for Farrer Park, during National Day celebrations, the State flag should have the respect of all people of Singapore and not just a few sections of the population. Mr Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development related the events leading to the welcome organised by the Government on the return of the Merdeka Mission. This showed clearly the awareness of the Government to organise such a welcome with complete unanimity because the manner in which it was organised was different from that organised by the Government today. The previous Government organised such a celebration by having a sub-committee comprised of all political parties. This Celebration Committee decided that symbols and party slogans would be permitted. It might be that there might be members in the Committee who did not agree, but on the principle of majority of votes, the decision was accepted by all those represented in the Committee. So I hope it is not going to be a big matter. But the manner in which the Government, particularly the Minister for Culture, carried out the celebrations could not be accepted by the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to answer a point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. He did say that when the victorious Merdeka Mission came back from England, political flags were carried about. Mr Speaker, Sir, that was an appropriate moment and an occasion when it should be carried about, because at that juncture the Head of State was not involved in it. The basic objection on which we on the Opposition take our Stand is, if it is National Day and if the occasion merits the hoisting of the National Flag and the presence of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, then such an occasion is an occasion where party politics should not come up. If the Government is anxious to maintain that the Parties should take part in the National Day celebrations and in the march-past, then we from the Opposition will put forward, in all seriousness, a suggestion to the Government for their sincere consideration, that the Parties by all means take part, but we ask that each of the Parties who take part carry national flags in their hands rather than party flags.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words on what has been said by the Member for Farrer Park just now. It is not surprising to us and it is not wrong if during National Day celebrations all the various political parties carry their own party slogans. If the political leaders could demonstrate their loyalty, this will give the impression to the people that they have only different views and different political ideologies but that there is no need to worry that the children will have the impression that various political party flags may mean different-

Order. And it being 8 p.m. Mr Speaker therefore left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.