Hansard, 1961-11-16

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill) - 3lst October, 1961.

(Assents to Bills passed)

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the days stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 16th June, 1961. Advocates and Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. 17th June, 1961. Stamp (Amendment) Bill. 19th June, 1961. Certificates (Winding Up) Bill. 29th June, 1961. Road Traffic Bill.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I propose that Mr John Mammen be elected as Deputy Speaker of this Assembly.

There being only one proposal, I declare Mr John Mammen to have been elected as Deputy Speaker of this Assembly, and I invite the Deputy Speaker to take the chair allocated to him on the Front Bench. (The Deputy Speaker accordingly took the chair allocated to him).

Resolved, "That under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 10, the business motion standing in the name of Dr Toh Chin Chye* be taken before Questions."- [The Deputy Prime Minister]. *The motion reads as follows:- That, notwithstanding the standing Orders, on this day the moment of interruption shall be 4.30 p.m. and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting shall be 5.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, on this day the moment of interruption shall be 4.30 p.m. and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting shall be 5.00 p.m.

As insufficient notice was given of that motion, I require the assent of hon. Members that the motion be moved, and I am required to give my assent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

I give my assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, on this day the moment of interruption shall be 4.30 p.m. and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting shall be 5.00 p.m.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any representation from the United Kingdom Commissioner with reference to his speech made in the Assembly on 20th July, 1961, in support of his motion, "That this House expresses its confidence in the Government", and whether he will indicate its nature and contents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said in my radio broadcast of 27th September this year - and I quote my words: "The British have more experience in dealing with such delicate situations. Whatever embarrassment our exposure caused them they have said absolute]y nothing and thereby saved themselves from further embarrassment." Ever since this broadcast, I have received no representation from the United Kingdom Commissioner with reference to my speech in this Assembly on 20th July.

asked the Prime Minister (a) who appointed the Member for Geylang Serai as a delegate of Singapore to the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee which met in Jesselton in August, 1961; and (b) whether the expenses of the Member for Geylang Serai in connection with his visit to Jesselton to attend that meeting were paid out of public funds and by what authority.

The Member for Geylang Serai was appointed a delegate of Singapore to the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee which met in Jesselton in August 1961 by the Government Members of the Singapore delegation to the C.P.A. Conference in Singapore in July after discussion with Opposition Member delegates to the same Conference. His expenses amounted to $596, and so did those of the Minister for Culture who also went to the Jesselton Conference. They were paid out of the Conference vote under Head 28, sub-head 10. This vote is under the control of the Ministry of Finance.

The Prime Minister said that the Government Members consulted the Opposition Members. Did the Prime Minister realise that our Opposition Member, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, was never consulted?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if Members of the new Barisan Sosialis Party had indicated their stand on the confidence motion on 20th July. We asked them where they stood: for or against the Government. They said they were not against the Government. Therefore they could not be the Opposition. Now they complain that, in fact, they were the Opposition and that they were not consulted. So they cannot have it both ways. Now that they are clearly in the Opposition, if there is to be any consultation, we shall take in the Member for Queenstown.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to what the Prime Minister has said just now. Although I took part in the C.P.A. Conference, I was not invited to discuss the question of representatives. Therefore, the Government did not have a discussion with us regarding the choice of representatives to the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee.

I think I must make it clear that we are on supplementary questions. We are not debating this question. But if the hon. Member has a supplementary question, he can ask it.

(In Mandarin): On the 20th of July, at a sitting of this Assembly when we debated the motion of confidence in the Government, the Member for Choa Chu Kang did not indicate that he was against the Government; so we presumed that he supported it. It was only on the 31st of October that we knew he went over to the Opposition. The meeting was held in August without inviting him, because he did not seek contact with us. Therefore, we were not responsible for that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it the contention of the Prime Minister that all Assemblymen on the Government Benches will automatically agree with Government policies whether in principle or in minute details - and that without consulting them at the beginning, he can assume that they have agreed with all his policies? If that were so -

Order. I think the hon. Member is going a little too far. We are now dealing with the appointment of a representative to the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee. If he has a supplementary question on that, he may ask it, but not on the wider implications of policy and so on.

(In Mandarin): A Minister of the Government should take notice that he should hold consultations with the others.

There again I think we are perhaps entering into a debate. There does not seem to be any supplementary question to be answered.

(In Mandarin): I think our Party Whip has carried out his duty. Of course, he has to inform all Members concerned.

Did the Prime Minister inform the President of the C.P.A. about the matter?

Sir, I was on leave at that moment, and the Acting Prime Minister was the Leader of the House. I do not think he was in any way connected with the C.P.A. delegates to this Conference.

I think we have had enough of debate. If any hon. Member wishes to raise the question, he will have an opportunity either on the adjournment or in a motion.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr David Marshall - 3. To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the subject of the negotiations on the question of merger with the Federation of Malaya, and whether the Government will table a Report dealing with the said negotiations.

Having received Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961 this morning, my question is answered.

That does not prevent the Prime Minister from answering it.

May I add that I shall be moving a motion in connection with this Paper when the contents can be debated.

asked the Prime Minister (a) whether any Minister has taken leave of absence from his duties since the last sitting of the Second Session of this Assembly, giving the name of the Minister, the period of leave and the provisions under which such leave was granted; and (b) whether any Minister on leave of absence, has received or will be receiving remuneration and allowance as a Minister for the period of leave and under what provision of the law.

Since the last sitting of the Second Session of this Assembly, the following Ministers have taken leave of absence under section 33 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council:- The Prime Minister - from 25th July to 24th October. The Minister for Health - from 24th July to 22nd September. The Minister for Home Affairs - from 22nd July to 15th September. The Minister for Finance - from 3rd September to 15th September. The Minister for Culture - from 23rd September to 8th October. The Minister for National Development - from 23rd October to 29th October. When a Minister is on leave, including the Prime Minister, one of his colleagues in the Cabinet acts for him. No Minister is paid any acting allowance. All Ministers receive remuneration as Ministers for the leave period. This was also the case from the time the Member for Anson was Chief Minister of the then Singapore Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider acquiring a site and building a market for Malay stallholders in the Geylang area.

Sir, on the 7th of December, 1960, the Government approved a plan for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site in Geylang Serai for community purposes. There will be provision for a school with playgrounds, a community centre, housing, local shopping and market, and two open market areas. Land acquisition proceedings are on the way. The allocation of stalls will be by the Markets and Hawkers Department and will take into account the fact that this is largely a Malay area patronised by Malays in the Kampong Melayu and Geylang Serai areas. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the majority of stallholders are expected to be Malays.

asked the Prime Minister whether any requests have been made by the Government of the Federation of Malaya to the Singapore Government in regard to the exercise of the powers under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, in respect of any individual or group of individuals and if he will state the terms of any such requests.

Sir, there are no requests made by the Federation of Malaya Government to the Singapore Government in regard to the exercise of powers under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. All matters of internal security provided under Part VII of the Constitution are decided in the Internal Security Council.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement disclosing the full details, within his knowledge, giving names and identities, etc., of Communists and Communist subversive activities in Singapore, and his dealings with them and their activities.

Sir, I have, in my first series of broadcasts, sketched in broad outline my personal knowledge of the activities of the Communists and pro-Communists in Singapore. In some cases, I have had to name the persons involved in order that the truth may be known and not disputed. It is not my intention, however, to go on a witch-hunt and label all the Communists I know personally. However, certain organisations like S.A.T.U., Partai Rakyat, and some members of the Barisan Sosialis, have challenged me to prove that they are Communist front organisations. Sir, I am accepting their invitation and will do so in my second series of broadcasts. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

So far as is possible, I do not wish to identify publicly the persons that I have known. It is only when not to name these persons would leave a blank in the whole picture and allow the Communists to try and cast doubts on the truth and veracity of my statements that I shall name the persons who are actually performing or directing these Communist activities. All such persons named publicly will have full rights under the law to clear themselves and their reputation.

If it pleases you, Sir, in view of the fact that to be a Communist is a criminal offence in this area, will the Prime Minister not recognise that it is the duty of a citizen, even more so the Prime Minister, to make known his knowledge of all Communists in this area, at least to the police for purposes of prosecution under our laws?

Sir, I think the Member for Anson, as the first Chief Minister of Singapore, is fully alive to the tremendous difficulty that is posed by the silent intimidation of the Communists and their elimination squads of any witness who goes into open court, or even in camera. I have, therefore, given the Communists an opportunity to allow them to initiate action against the Government and against myself personally for having damaged their fair names if they say that they arc innocent. Doubtless they may also have consulted their multifarious legal advisers and advisers. Some of these advisers have only passed Parts of the Law Examination. However, they may well understand that to challenge statements made of them would be to undergo the rigours of being plaintiffs and giving evidence in person. Sir, as the Member for Anson can well vouchsafe from his law and very intimate knowledge of Court craft, an innocent man telling the truth can prove his innocence at any time, particularly since he has available to him the whole panoply of the law, the best advocates in the land. Some of them, I am sure, are prepared to do a brief for nothing in order that justice will be done. I regret to say, however, that apart from one proceeding in relation to contempt of court by some 30-odd non-Communist strikers, there has not been any action on any part of the talks that I have delivered, I would ask the Member for Anson to draw his own conclusion - 30 innocent strikers who are now under charge of obstruction are quite prepared to assert their rights if I have transgressed the law and I have to submit as if I were a private citizen. So also can all the others who say they are innocent. They have their remedies. They can consult their advisers and they can undergo the hazards of the open confrontation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could one anti-Communist hero, like our Prime Minister, get on so well with the so-called Communists in Singapore for the last six years?

Sir, that is the whole point - that I was never an anti-Communist in the sense that I was just anti the Communists. I am a firm supporter of the democratic system. In so far as the Communists were with us in the nationalist movement to destroy the colonial system, I was prepared to work with them and took my risk with them for years. And they knew it. But when their policy is no longer to destroy the colonial system in order that the democratic system can be set up. but to undermine the State in order to establish a base from which they can communize the whole of Malaya, then I say that the non-Communists and the pro-Communists must inevitably part company. Co-existence, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether it be on a domestic and national level or on the august plane of international relations, can only continue if there are no massive issues which divide them. Mr Nehru is not an anti-Communist, but that did not prevent him from standing up for what he considered to be his national rights over the borders of India against the Communists, co-existence notwithstanding. Sir, we had served notice, the day we moved the confidence motion, that we intend to see merger and an independent, democratic Malaya through. And those who want to fight us - be they Communists or whatever they may be - cannot expect us to submit passively and be pulverized. Surely, Sir, the most fundamental right a man has is that of self-defence. A non-Communist does not subscribe to self-destruction. Only fools do that. Sir, if there are still fools in Singapore or, if I may be so bold as to suggest, in this Assembly who are non-Communists and who want to go with them and be destroyed, what can we do to save them from their own folly?

Do forgive me, Sir, it is rather an important matter. I crave your indulgence. Sir, I can appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulty about prosecution. He is perfectly right. But I would suggest that it is a matter of very considerable importance to the public as a whole that the names of the persons whom he knows actually to be Communists in this territory should be disclosed. If the Prime Minister will permit me, Sir, I myself as Chairman of the Workers' Party am to some extent concerned, because it was suggested that my Party was infiltrated by Communists.

A supplementary question?

It is, Sir. I would point out, Sir, that we had sought from the Prime Minister information -

Order. If the hon. Member for Anson goes on in that strain, then I must stop him.

May I -

Will the Member resume his seat? Mr Marshall resumed his seat.

I was saying that if the hon. Member goes on in that strain then, of course, the whole matter is developing into a debate, and the Standing Orders tell me that that should not be allowed. I can only allow supplementary questions, and I leave it to the ingenuity of Members to turn their statements into supplementary questions.

Sir, will the Prime Minister consider divulging in confidence to persons legitimately interested the names of the Communists who are known to him who might affect such persons?

Sir, the Member for Anson, as the Chairman of the Workers' Party, wrote to me and asked me to disclose the Communist cadres who had been planted in the Workers' Party. I have consulted the legality of this matter. I have written to the Chairman of the Workers' Party in reply that if he, who was the first Chief Minister of Singapore in 1955, would give us an undertaking that he would not divulge this information to the Communists concerned and the details of the data we had on them, then I am prepared to ask the State Advocate-General to waive the Official Secrets Act and disclose to the Member for Anson all data in connection with Communists in his Party. The offer is made in good faith. I am confident that any undertaking given by the Member for Anson will be honoured and I think the State Advocate-General will also be confident of that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was extremely interested to hear the Prime Minister say that only fools embark on political self-destruction. If that definition is true, Sir, the corollary is also true - that anybody who embarks upon self-destruction is a fool. The clearest way of determining whether one is embarking upon self-extermination is by going to the country and letting the people decide.

Order.

Then you can see -

Order. I have indicated that only supplementary questions are allowed. I think this matter is developing into a debate. If any Member is interested, there are ways in which the whole matter could be debated in this Chamber. The matter is now closed. It is 3.00 p.m. - Committee of Supply.

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

3.01 p.m.

Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961 (Paper Cmd. 29 of 1961). Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Supplementary Estimates?

I so signify.

The summary is in the last page. Head 42, Official Assignee and Public Trustee. There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 42 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Mr Speaker. Sir, you will notice that these Supplementary Estimates are required to meet the increases under Personal Emoluments as a result of partial restoration of variable allowances from the 1st of January this year and full restoration from the 1st of September. That is not the total figure, Sir. The total figure is much greater. But the rest are offset seemingly by savings to meet the increases. Mr Speaker, Sir, since this Government took office, the issue of the variable allowances of civil servants has been made a headache - a headache for the Assembly, a headache for the people, and most of all, Sir, a headache for the civil service and particularly 6,000 of them. In moving this amendment, I am seeking to ask the Government to consolidate the variable allowances into the pay of the civil service, so that there can be no further reductions. I am not asking that they should receive one cent more of salary. All I want is to take the question of the pay of the civil servants out of politics. Sir, they are entitled to security; they are the very backbone of our administration. In fairness I think the Government will admit our civil service has been reasonably efficient. And frankly, Sir, I know of no other civil service in the whole of Asia with such a high standard of integrity. In many cases, I think the Government will frankly admit that the civil servants are radically underpaid compared to the responsibilities we place upon them. It is important that these human beings, from whom we expect so much, should at least have a sense of security free from the possibility of political intimidation. I intend to be brief, Sir, but I ask your indulgence to review shortly the history of P.A.P. dealings with the civil service on this one aspect of variable allowances. In June 1959, Sir, this Government took office through an overwhelming vote of the people of Singapore, but it was generally recognised that the English-speaking population, in all probability, did not vote for the P.A.P., particularly the civil service. Before this Government even appeared before the Assembly, one of the very first steps it took was to slash the variable allowance of the civil service. And in His Excellency's speech to this House outlining Government policy on the 1st of July, 1959, he said: `The threatened deficit of S14 million for 1959 can he and will be wiped out and the Government has not shrunk from unpleasant measures to achieve financial stability. But such sacrifices as have been imposed by way of pay cuts have fallen on those most able to hear them.' My reference, Sir, for your record is Assembly Debates, Vol. 11 No 1. Col. 6. `Those most able to bear them', Mr Speaker! How little did the Government recognise that of all our citizens, the honest civil servants are the ones who budget most carefully according to their incomes, and any radical reduction means very real hardship. In any event, Sir, as was pointed by the Leader of the S.P.A. in the debate on the Address in the following year, on the 8th August, 1960, it transpired that there was no $14 million deficit. There was not even a $1 million deficit. There was $9 million surplus. Even if it can be said, Sir, that the Finance Minister did really make so big an error as $23 million in his estimate in our inevitably small budget, why did the Government not restore the pay cuts the moment it was recognised that Singapore was not going bankrupt? That Singapore, in fact, was stable and was doing very well? In fact, there was a surplus and not a deficit. Why did they not restore the pay cuts? In fact, Sir, the leader of the S.P.A. - more credit to him - moved in this Assembly, on the 8th of August, for the restoration of the pay cuts. But the Government, using its steamroller majority, defeated that motion. Sir, it is interesting to remember that in this very Assembly, on 21st July, 1959, the Prime Minister said: `What they are bellyaching about is not the principle of negotiations. The bellyache is the pay cut.' The civil servant could not even moderately and constitutionally and legitimately complain about a pay cut without being called a "bellyacher". That was the attitude of the Government, and, in fairness. Sir, it is true to say that in those debates, as I have read them in Hansard, Government vehemently denied that the pay cuts were by way of revenge against the English-educated for not having voted for the P.A.P. But, Sir, what do we see now? From 1st January, after tremendous efforts, a partial restoration: first to those who agreed that that would be final; then ultimately to all. And then, Sir, lo and behold, a miracle happened! The pay cuts were restored in full from the 1st of September. And His Excellency, in his speech to us last month, said that with merger in prospect it is possible to relax many of the stringent measures of economy previously adopted. With "merger in prospect" also, Sir, a vast sum of money will no doubt be voted to the Federation, and we would have less money to spend. But be that as it may, Sir, merger is two and a half years ahead, if, and I hope with all my heart it does, come to merger. Why is it that the Government is in such a hurry to restore the pay cuts now? Sir, in this context, let us face another fact of life. In 1959, the Government could say, "We do not care about the English-educated. It is the Chinese industrialists who will vote us into power." And they did.

The industrial workers, not the industrialists.

Thank you. I am indebted to the Prime Minister. He recognises the P.A.P. stand so well. He has aptly and correctly corrected me. I accept it. "We do not care about the English-speaking; it is the Chinese industrial workers who will vote us into power." And they did. Today the Prime Minister and, I have no doubt, the rest of his group are all too conscious that they have lost the confidence of the Chinese industrial workers. And if they hope to survive, it is the English-educated on whom they are to rely. Sir, whatever the motivations of the Government, I would suggest that their conduct does give rise to feelings, and legitimate feelings, of fear, intimidation and insecurity on the part of the civil service. I plead, Sir, let us put an end to this. I do not want them to worry next time we have a general election, having learnt their lesson, if they vote P.A.P. and suddenly the S.P.A. come into power - and miracles do happen - may be they will get another thrashing. Let us protect the civil service, legitimate protection which an honest. decent group seeks. Many of them could earn far more in the outside world. They join the civil service sometimes out of a sense of dedication, but mostly, Sir, because of their desire for security. And I say, let us protect the civil service from a legitimate deep fear that has grown from government action of possible intimidation. I say, let us help keep the civil service out of politics. We all recognise that that is the only way in which they can serve the country best. I, therefore, move this amendment in order to urge the Government to consolidate the pay cuts, not to pay the civil service more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the motion to amend the vote under Head 42 by the Member for Anson was, in fact, related to the administration of the Office of the Official Assignee and Public Trustee. The Member for Anson, however, brought up the larger issue of variable allowances. Sir, he made a number of allegations against the Government and the Party in power in respect of the motive underlying this measure. He claimed that the reduction of variable allowances was an act of political intimidation. Sir, we know that the Member for Anson is given to oratorical pyrotechnics. But by no stretch of the imagination can this measure be called political intimidation. 3.15 p.m. In 1959, when the P.A.P. was returned to power, the prospect ahead of us was by no means easy, it is true we had a formidable majority in the House. It is also true that at that time we realised that the struggle for power in Singapore between the Communists and the non-Communists must eventually come out into the open. When and over what issue no one could at that time predict. At that time it was clear that the Government of the Federation of Malaya would not even entertain the idea of merger. Singapore, to all accounts, by all possible forecasts made by reasoned men at the time, would have to go it alone for a considerable number of sears. We are a small island with no resources, with a bursting population and a mounting unemployment problem, it is obvious that, if we were to survive as a going concern, to provide enough jobs for a growing population, there must be a tightening of the belt all round. We could do it voluntarily by deliberate Government policy, or it could be imposed through the sheer hard facts of economic processes. We decided at that time that we must lay aside as much savings as possible from current income in order that we could have the resources to mount a substantial rate of capital development to ensure that the economy expands fast enough to give jobs for the growing population. Sir, this is so elementary a principle in economics that I do not think I need labour the point. When it comes then to tightening the belt, it is only proper that those in the Government should provide leadership, in particular civil servants in the higher income bracket. Sir, the Member for Anson claims the civil service has high standards. I will not dispute that. I have already paid my compliment in public to the integrity and effectiveness, within limits, of our civil service. But he claims that, by and large, they are underpaid. Sir, this I will dispute. There are certain categories - professional men - in short supply for whom even the present rate of pay in Government service will be inadequate in comparison with what they can earn in private practice. That is conceded. But the fact that in a few occupations members can earn more in private practice than in Government service does not entitle one to generalise over the inadequacy of pay in the whole civil service. I would say that there are a priori grounds for believing that the rate of pay in civil service from the long-term point of view is too high. Sir, we all know that the pay of local civil servants has been geared to the pay of expatriate officers. The basic pay is the same and the variable allowances are the same. The expatriate officer gets some $200 to $250 more as expatriate allowance. In respect of the higher-ranking officer, the difference between the pay of a local officer and his expatriate counterpart may be about 10 per cent. Sir, one of the factors by which we can assess whether the level of pay is adequate or not is surely whether the country can afford that rate of pay. One of the criteria we can apply is the wealth of the country. How does Singapore compare with, say Great Britain, in regard to national wealth? How does our per capita national income compare with that of the British per capita national income? Sir, I can assure you that we certainly do not come anywhere near 90 per cent of the British level. Then, on those general considerations, I would say that the statement by the Member for Anson that our civil service is underpaid cannot be sustained. Sir, as to the present situation in the market for the services of civil servants, it is, of course, highly abnormal. Malayanisation has been going on for some years. There has been an abnormal and large demand for administrators, technicians and so forth to man the civil service posts that were once occupied by expatriate officers. But this is only a temporary phase. Eventually, these posts will be filled and the demand for civil servants will find its own level. It is only when we reach that stage that we can really come to a proper assessment whether or not we are overpaying or under-paying our civil servants. Therefore, until we reach that point, there is no question of consolidating the variable allowances now being paid to civil servants into the basic salary. Sir, the Member for Anson has seen fit, in the course of his remarks, to discourse on the P.A.P.'s attitude towards the English-educated. He has claimed that we have lost the support of the Chinese-speaking industrial group and that our survival depends on getting the support of the English-educated. Sir, it is obvious that the ideas of the Member for Anson on matters of political strategy are exceedingly innocent, because that is not the way you calculate things; that is not the way in which you decide your policy. The English-educated, in terms of voting strength, are unimportant. They may amount perhaps to some 15 per cent of the total electorate. Their contribution is not the manner in which they cast their votes either for one Party or one programme or the other. That is not the decisive function they fulfil. They have a role to play. This we had stated right from the beginning before we formed the Government, not merely after we formed the Government. It is certainly not after the defection of members of our Party to pro-Communist groups. We have said that the English-educated are, in a sense - and only in a sense - the prototype of the future Malayan, because he has transcended the communal barriers, whether he be a Malay, an Indian, a Chinese or a Eurasian. He has a feeling of group identity that transcends communal barriers. He has also absorbed certain values of personal liberties which are essential in the running of the democratic system. But where he has failed is that, in the course of events under colonial rule, he has occupied a position of privilege as regards job, income and career as against other groups. To that extent, he has isolated himself from the other sections of the community. We, of the P.A.P., have always been saying that the role of the English-educated is to get out of the state of isolation and provide leadership, ideas and organising ability in the movement to create a new Malaya. To say that we have reduced the variable allowance as a measure of retribution against the English-educated because they did not vote for us in the general elections is, I think, something that is too foolish to need justification.

Sir, it is pitiful to see the Minister for Finance humming and hawing, shilly-shallying, trying to defend himself -

Order. May I remind the Member for Queenstown that there are such things as parliamentary language, decorum and dignity?

It is good to see the Minister for Finance trying to enumerate the virtues of the civil service and the English-educated. Let us remind them that only two years ago the Prime Minister said this of the civil service and the English-educated, "If nothing else more catastrophic happens to the civil service than the loss of their allowance, then they should go down on their bended knees and thank the gods (or something to that effect) that their souls have been spared." These are words not of people who really respect the English-educated and the civil service. Now, when they realise that they have really lost the support of all the Chinese-educated, they are hoping to catch some votes from the English-educated. They go along to hand back the pay cuts. Everybody knows that this so-called prospect of the so-called merger has nothing to do with what is happening. Why must they bring merger in? Do you think the people can be easily fooled, that they will support that type of merger just because they get back a little bit of the pay-cut? They must go back to school again and study psychology. Why? [Interruption.] Yes, that is correct, Sir. The Minister for Finance should go to Woodbridge and take a course there. I am also interested in the fact that neutrality has been mentioned about the civil service. We are all interested in the neutrality of the civil service. The Prime Minister himself has said that the civil service should be neutral. Yet only a few days ago we heard a civil servant talking over the radio about merger. What right has he to talk about merger? 3.30 p.m.

Order. I think I have had occasion in the past to indicate to hon. Members that speaking in a loud voice - to put it very mildly - is not what one would expect in this Assembly.

My apologies to you. Sir. But anyway this is no neutrality of the civil service. Why do they make use of the civil servants to fight and speak for them over Radio Singapore? They are misusing the facilities of Radio Singapore to propagandise their own way of merger. Let us tell them that if they want to talk of the civil service or anybody, they must always respect the principle of negotiation in all their dealings. This is only one example of their arrogance. Let them learn not to be so arrogant in future. Maybe they will do better - An hon. Member: Get some votes!

- and get more votes possibly.

Sir, I had not thought of joining in this debate, but when the Minister for Finance tried to explain away that the arbitrary imposition of the pay cuts was not a political move -

Intimidation

He would prefer "political intimidation". Let me try to explain. Did not the Minister in this very House thump his chest and say, "We the P.A.P. shall never retreat." Never retreat, indeed! Brave words! Today they have retreated, because there seems to be no traffic police to stop people crossing from that side to this side. [Laughter].

Order. Mr Serjeant at Arms, I think you ought to see that order is maintained in the Gallery. Tun Lim.

When they first came in, they were all in white - pure white, like innocent lambs! Today they are in all sorts of colours - pink, red and even black.

Order. Is the clothing of Members relevant to what we are discussing? I might have an attack on my wig! I do not think that is proper.

Sir, it is relevant to this extent - that when they first came in pure white, the very first words they uttered were, "We the P.A.P. are a good, clean and honest Government." Good, clean and honest, indeed! Today, there is no more of that kind of -

Order. I think the hon. Member must at least try and understand what is in the mind of the Speaker. When he indicates that that type of language or speech is irrelevant, it is irrelevant.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but let us say that the Government had to beat a retreat in spite of the fact that they had said that they would never retreat. What did they do? They said, "All these allowances can only be paid back to those who have joined the A.U.P.E." - a P.A.P.-sponsored trade union: [Hear, hear!].

Order.

Is this not a kind of intimidation of the civil service, to join a union that is controlled by the P.A.P.? The word "intimidation", Sir, has been suggested by the Minister for Finance himself. Today when the poor, strong, good and honest P.A.P. is reduced to just 26 against 25 on this side. "Oh, semua boleh balek. You will get back everything, boys. Never mind, merger is on the way. Take everything back." Is it not a fact? Everyone knows it. Even the civil service knows it. Of course, the P.A.P. will not admit it. But certain former Members of the P.A.P. who are now on this side of the House will say, "Yes, it was meant to teach the English-educated a lesson and to show to the Chinese-educated that although the P.A.P. Government could not raise them to the level of the English-educated, they had at least brought down the English-educated to the level of the Chinese-educated." That was the intention. No words from the Government will ever convince anyone that that arbitrary move, without even consulting the trade unions who were at one time led by them, was not a political move or intimidation of a kind which can only be described as "P.A.P.-style"! The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Prime Minister.

Just a second Sir. There is one point the Member for Anson has brought up. It is very short.

Order. I must remind hon. Members that the time allotted for this topic ends at a quarter to four. I have no doubt the hon. Member will give an opportunity to the Government side to reply.

I understand, Sir, but this will only take just half a minute.

Tun Lim.

The Member for Anson has suggested that the variable allowance should be absorbed into the basic pay so that the basic pay would not be at the tender mercies of the government of the day. From the little that I know of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, may I say that the basic pay is always subject to reduction should the need arise? The protection afforded by the Constitution is in so far as the payment of pensions is concerned. It has nothing to do with the basic pay. Any government of the day can reduce, increase, or let it remain static, depending upon the financial situation.

I think when Members rise to speak on certain topics in this House, they sometimes speak only to certain sections of the community. If one were talking to the English-educated, like the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Cairnhill, then one could say, "What a wicked and tyrannical act it was to cut down the allowances and so on." One could also, like Mr Rajendra and S.A.T.U., say, "Back-date all these pay cuts. The mass of the people of Singapore will support it." An hon. Member: S.A.T.U. is genuine.

Mr Rajendra spoke on behalf of S.A.T.U. He promised to support S.A.T.U. He was a Joint Secretary. But, Sir, not a single word of that statement appeared in the Chinese Press, because the Chinese component of S.A.T.U. knows that the Chinese-educated feel that the English-educated civil servants are paid too much. Whether it is right or wrong, that is an existing feeling. If you take Singapore by itself - 75 per cent Chinese, the majority of them are Chinese-educated - then I say the relentless logic of numbers of people seeking employment - equal opportunities as the English-educated - must lead to a position where the common denominator finally prevails. If you have a cake and you divide it equally among the Chinese-educated, Malay-educated and English-educated, the man who formerly got a larger piece is likely to get a smaller piece, and vice versa. I give now, Sir, the political explanation as to why the variable allowance was restored, and I think the English-educated civil servants have enough grey matter to calculate this. I am not interested in whether they vote for or against the P.A.P. That is a triviality. [Interruption]. Sir, we have faced many a peril and we have passed through many a valley of death and survived. [Interruption] Their test is yet to come, and I hope I will see fierce men and women of courage and conviction. [Interruption].

Order.

But if you take it on a Pan-Malayan basis where Pan-Malayan opinion is different, because you have large numbers of Malays. English-educated and Tamil-educated who believe that the right way of doing things is somewhat different from the way the purely Chinese-educated think, then naturally you have to find a new denominator. It is as simple as that. As my colleague the Minister for Finance has explained, the 15 per cent English vote can make no decisive difference in any election. Their role is to ensure that the machinery of the State functions and ticks, because they are in key positions. The security of the State must be upheld. Its integrity must he protected. They know that if the Member for Queenstown had his way and he was today here in charge of the government - An hon. Member: The incoming Government.

- on behalf, not of his 13 Assemblymen, but of men more powerful and more able than himself -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Sir,I am an open leader. I have no principal behind me. I am my own principal. I am not a proxy [Interruption].

Order.

I am not a proxy for anybody. I have no Committee other than the open P.A.P. Executive Cornmittee that decides. An hon. Member: No hack-seat driver.

What the people of Singapore must understand is this - and they do understand it - it is not the Member for Thomson or the Member for Queenstown who is going to run the government - either this one or the next one. Nobody is silly enough to believe that. Anybody who can add two and two together to make four knows that these representatives of the people are also representatives who take directives from illicit groups and organisations and who fear the open confrontation of the open encounter and the open argument, because the principal is not there to set the line. The wrong line is taken in a forum. There is no time to refer back to the Committee. A remark made and admitted, a concession made in the argument sets the line on citizenship and on other matters. I think the Member for Queenstown will not relish a second encounter with the Member for Kreta Ayer.

Any place, anytime!

Order. The Member for Queenstown appears to be disregarding the authority of the Chair. I think I have had to say "Order" about three or four times. There is a Standing Order under which I could act. I could say that that was grossly disorderly. I could ask any Member who is grossly disorder to leave the Assembly Chamber. I do not wish to do that. I would like to impress upon hon. Members that the Chair becomes a hit impatient when its authority is just flouted. Mr Prime Minister.

So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, this question of making it permanent carries the matter no further. There is no finality in any constitution. The finality is the strength of the State. If that strength passes into the hands of those who want to see that state altered and who have the force to implement their will - and force means literally physical force - then no guarantee in any constitution is worth the piece of paper it is written on. Pakistan had a Constituent Assembly that deliberated on its Constitution for a decade, and brilliant lawyers they were. But the ultimate authority is the authority of the man who can implement his will. If the will is that of Singapore alone - the civil service can do their computation - then I say allowances will go down. It is logically inevitable. But if the will is that of the people of Malaya as a whole, then a different situation prevails, because the weighting is different. It is simple. Fur that reason - 3.45 p.m.

Order. The time allotted for this item has expired, hut I have no doubt that hon. Members will have enough opportunity to continue this exciting debate when debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $6,480 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961.

Heads of expenditure undisposed of. They appear in the Summary, other than Head 42. I propose to take those heads of expenditure* en bloc. * Following are the heads of expenditure:- Head Title $ 2 Judicial 53,720 4 Legislature 12,540 6 Audit 8,970 12 Deputy Prime Minister 17,140 19 Vehicles Registration 24,130 31 Contributions and Charitable Allowances 250,000 44 Social Welfare 250,000 53 Immigration and Passports 102,400

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated in the Summary of Totals contained in Paper Cmd. 29 of 1961, other than for Head 42 already disposed of, stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $725,380 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961 contained in Paper No. Cmd. 29 of 1961", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. 3.47 p.m.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution read.

Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

We are back to Questions. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

3.49 p.m.

asked the Prime Minister when will the Public Utilities Board be set up.

Sir, a Bill for the setting up of the Public Utilities Board will be introduced in this Session of the Legislative Assembly.

asked the Prime Minister when will electricity be supplied to Lam San Village and Kit Hong Village, and when will street lights be installed at these villages.

Sir, the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Member for Tam-pines, has arranged for electricity supplies to Lam San Village and Kit Hong Village by the end of this year. Street lighting for both villages will be considered by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee from the vote for 1962.

asked the the Prime Minister when is it intended to complete the installation of electricity supplies to Kampong Buona Vista.

The Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee is assessing the priorities for electricity supplies to all kampongs in Singapore. Kampong Buona Vista is amongst those under consideration for next year. Priority depends upon two things: the density of the population in that area and the easy availability of electricity supplies. So far since February 1960, 30 Kampongs have been provided with electricity under the Government's kampong lighting plan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, why is the electricity supply to Kampong Buona Vista only halved?

Sir, may I re-interpret the question? The question was: why has the lighting done for Kampong Buona Vista been only up to half? The reason is that the vote has run out. If we can find a transfer vote, virement - what they call in Establishment expertise - you transfer from one Head to the other, then we will do it this year. It not, we will do it from next year's vote. The programme has been so accelerated that the money which we provided for at the end of last year was insufficient. I hope, however, that with some ingenuity on the part of the Treasury, and perhaps assistance from officials of the City Council, we might be able to find some savings.

asked the Prime Minister when will Temporary Occupation Licences be issued to people living in Resettlement Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 24 and 39.

Sir, most of the families in resettlement areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 24 and 39 have been issued with Temporary Occupation Licences. A few who have not yet taken up their T.O.L.s. as they are called, have been asked to do so as early as possible. In resettlement area 7, 38 T.O.L.s have been issued, 37 more have been offered, and the Land Office is waiting for them to be taken up. There are some 24 remaining cases where there are disputes amongst the licensees or prospective licensees regarding their boundaries. A resurvey is therefore necessary for the allotments to be made. As soon as it is completed. T.O.L.s will be given to the persons concerned.

asked the Prime Minister whether he had any prior intimation from his advisers of the impending shortage of the water supply which commenced on 28th August, 1961, and whether he would table any available reports thereon.

Sir, as early as May this year the City Water Engineer informed the Acting C.A.O of a possible shortage of water if rainfall continued to be below the yearly average for those months of the year. The reason was that last year's rainfall was the lowest for 80 years of recorded meteorological reports. It was 61 inches as compared with the yearly average of 90 inches. As a result, our impounding reservoirs which were normally filled up during the rainy season of November, December and January were left half empty. However, the water levels in Johore were then reasonably good and no rationing was then required. As the drought continued throughout May, June, July and August, not only did the water levels of our impounding reservoirs in Singapore become perilously low, but the water levels in Johore also went down. Out of a daily consumption of some 69 million gallons of water, 59 million gallons come from Johore. Because of the drought in Singapore, the whole 69 million gallons of our daily consumption of water had to come from Johore. But when the drought hit not only Singapore but was, in fact, worse in South Johore and water levels went down, rationing had to be introduced. Up to the end of October this year, rainfall in Singapore was only 51.44 inches as against a yearly average over the last 80 years of 76.31 inches for the same ten months, January to October. I am informed by the Meteorological Office that the drought hit many parts of the Federation, and many towns there also had water rationing. The reports regarding the water situation were released to the Press on two occasions: first, by me on the 25th of June this year, when the facts were disclosed, and later on the 3rd of September by the Deputy Prime Minister who was then acting as Prime Minister. All relevant data had been disclosed in these two Press reports, and there is little to add to them in tabling them in this House.

In the light of the warning as indicated since May, would the Prime Minister inform this House whether his officials and his Department were conscious that a drought in Singapore would also necessarily mean a drought in Johore, and what plans were prepared since May to meet this possible eventuality?

Sir, there was never any danger of a complete cut-off in supplies, because there was sufficient water in the impounding reservoirs in Johore for the vital needs of the City. Had the rainfall for the months of May, June, July and August been even three-quarters of that normally obtained for that season of the year, rationing would not have been necessary. Unfortunately - although some have it that that has something to do with people exploding bombs in other parts of the world - the weather seems to have changed, and not only South Johore but I am told Indonesia also went very dry; and the moment the level reached a point where if the drought still continued, it would become perilous, then rationing would be introduced. May I add that at the moment the water levels are rising, and, in fact, if we are prepared to take a risk that November and December this year would be as wet as they normally are. then we can lift the rationing. But if we lift it and November and December are not quite so wet as they normally are and as dry as last year, then we shall be in trouble. So, for that reason, the rationing has to go on for the time being. But the moment we are sure of, and the Meteorological Office can confirm, the Northeast monsoon which has hit Kelantan and Trengganu, that it is very wet there and it is also wet in South Johore, then rationing can be lifted.

I seem to be misunderstood. All I asked, Sir, was: what plans were prepared beforehand to meet the possible eventuality?

The only plan, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to conserve what water there is and stretch it out for as long as possible. And the moment we reached the level where it became necessary to ration, then the public had to be inconvenienced. The last thing we wanted to do is that. As long as there is enough in store to carry us on to the rainy season in December, then we are quite prepared to go on without rationing. But when the level in Johore River and Tebrau went down, then we hit rock-bottom and we had to close the bars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Prime Minister tell the House, with the best possible conditions for Singapore, when he hopes to raise water rationing?

I would like to have announced today in this Chamber that we are lifting it as from 2 o'clock so that we do not have to fiddle around with pails and cans of water in the toilet. But my latest information from the Meteorological Office says, like all weather forecasters who like to remain credited and creditable oracles, that they will not predict that the monsoon, which is wet in Kelantan and Trengganu and which is coming in the next few days to South Johore and Singapore, will be wet. They say that there have been cases where it is wet in Kelantan and Trengganu, but by the time the winds come down to South Johore and Singapore, it has gone desiccated and dry. Sir, if they are unable to give me this assurance, then I will deny myself the pleasure of telling hon. Members that they can wash their hands with a degree of dignity and comfort. However, if in the course of the debate next week, I receive reports from the Meteorological Office that the North-east monsoon is also wet in South Johore, then water will he on.

asked the Prime Minister what is the estimated expenditure of the part of the Singapore Government for the development of the Scudai River Scheme.

The estimated expenditure for the development of the Scudai River scheme to provide for the collection, storage of water, treatment, pumping to quarters, site, buildings and pipelines is estimated at $11 million. But at the same time, co-related to this extension, there will have to be a 15 million gallon storage reservoir in Singapore with distribution pipelines which will cost a further $9 million.

Is the Prime Minister himself satisfied whether, in view of the fact that we are going to the Johore River for our eventual water supply, this $26 million that is going to be spent on the Scudai River will not eventually turn out to be a waste of public money?

It is $9 million, making in all $20 million to provide for 15 million gallons of storage space in Singapore for the water to be pumped in. That is one of those questions which I am unable personally to satisfy myself on, because, much as I would like to be able to, I am really unable to say from my own knowledge how these things are done. But the engineers have assured me - I have to take their advice, and I am reasonably satisfied - that the best thing we can do is to take the advice that has been tendered to proceed with this. I might add that this is a matter which is contentious between Singapore and Johore, that the moment the Johore River project is completed the Johore Government wants to buy over our best reservoirs in Pontian and Gunong Pulai, where the water is soft and sweet and the treatment costs little, as distinct from Tebrau where a considerable amount of treatment is required. So I would rather not get involved in the intricacies of the argument on both sides. All I can say is that we have been extremely fortunate in that, despite pressure from certain members of the Johore State Assembly to buck the price up, taking advantage of the drought and the negotiations going on in the course of the drought, the State Secretary and the Mentri Besar have resisted the temptation to do so. They have only insisted on the 1955 agreement. I think the Member for Farrer Park will remember this because he was in the Municipality then in 1955 when these new rates were agreed. The old rates were 25 cents per gallon. There were no royalties. Singapore supplied Johore at 25 cents, and they sold to their consumers at whatever profit they could make, and everybody was happy. Then the cost of treating the water went up, because instead of collecting water in convenient catchment areas like Kota Tinggi and Gunong Pulai, we had to tap Tebrau, and now Scudai, and later on the Johore River. It has gone up to 50 cents. In 1955, the Municipality came to an agreement - well, the Johore Government insisted that it was an agreement; our contention is that it was only a preliminary agreement - that the cost of water supplied to Johore should be brought up to date, namely, 50 cents.

Order. Would the Prime Minister think it convenient then to answer questions 14* and 15+ at the same time? The questions standing in the name of Mr David Marshall read as follows:- * 14. To ask the Prime Minister (a) what is the total payment to be made to the Johore Government for water supplied from Tebrau water works from 1955 to 30th September, 1961, at the new rates; (b) what is the estimated payment to be made to the Johore Government for the supply of water to Singapore in 1962 at the new rates; and (c) whether he is aware of any expenditure involved on the part of the Johore Government for providing such supply. + 15. To ask the Prime Minister (a) what is the estimated payment to be made by the Johore Government to Singapore for water supplied by Singapore for the year 1962 at the new rates; and the estimated cost thereof to Singapore; and (b) the reasons for increasing the rate from 25 cents to 50 cents per thousand gallons of filtered water.

Yes, that was at the back of my mind.

The Prime Minister may answer questions 14 and 15 at the same time.

Yes, 14 and 15 at the same time. And so they came to what our officials think is a dubious proposition, because one cannot calculate development, particularly with the tremendous industrial development in Singapore, or the expansion in consumption. They came to the agreement that we were to pay 3 cents royalty per thousand gallons and we charged the cost of treatment at 50 cents per thousand gallons. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, depending on which way one pitches one's hopes, the Johore Government did not yield to pressure from their State Assemblymen to scrap the agreement and ask for something more. We could not persuade the Johore Government to scrap the agreement and go back to the old one where we supplied them at 25 cents, even though we were supplying it below cost. But then we tap the rivers for what we can make up for that. However, the best that could be done is to stick to the agreement in 1955. The total payment - this is the answer to question No. 14 - to the Johore Government for water supplied from the Tebrau water works from 1st March, 1955, to 30th September, 1961, is $1.8 million. The estimated payment to be made to the Johore Government for the supply of water to Singapore in 1962 is $.57 million. Sir, I am not aware of any expenditure on the part of the Johore Government for providing this supply which we undertake and extract on our own, other than helping with a few police escorts during the time of the strike to maintain the water works. The collection, filtration, pipelines and storage are all at our expense. In fact, we also supply Johore Bahru with their requirements for water at cost. But I would like to add that the Johore Government leases the catchment area to the Singapore Government at a purely nominal rent. So we have to be thankful for our blessings. As to question No. 15+, the estimated payment to be made by the Johore Government to the Singapore Government for water supplied by Singapore in 1962 is $.625 million, of which the estimated cost to Singapore is $.562 million. As I said, the reason for increasing the rate of 25 cents to 50 cents per thousand gallons of filtered water is that the cost of supplying the water, of treating it, has increased for the Singapore Government. The charge of 25 cents per thousand gallons was below cost in the last few years, although it was the cost when it was fixed many years ago. The Singapore Government would have preferred to retain the old cost at 25 cents in the old agreement, which expired in 1948, and waive the extra cost of 25 cents per thousand gallons, provided we did not have to pay 3 cents per thousand gallons for extraction. However, as I said, the best bargain that was made in the circumstances was that the City Council and the Johore Government agreed to implement the new rates which we say was a preliminary agreement, but which they say was a final agreement in 1955 - at the time when the Member for Farrer Park was in the City Council. I think the Member for Anson was in charge of the Government then. Although several discussions were held, this is the position and the agreement will now be formally ratified.

Mr Speaker, we are spending $11 million on the Scudai River project, and the Prime Minister mentioned a lease. Are the installations and the works which we will be erecting the property of the Singapore Government on freehold; and if not, what are the terms of its ownership?

I am now speaking from memory. But I will supply the full information in a supplementary written answer. I think the last that I saw the file before I went off on leave and the Deputy Prime Minister took over was that we were pressing for a 60-or 80-year lease and they wanted a 20-year one. I am not quite sure exactly at what figure agreement has been reached. But I believe that the calculation has taken into account the amortization and the writing-off of these assets over the years of the lease. As the lease runs out, so will the capital installations be written off.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Prime Minister tell the House when he hopes to complete the Scudai River scheme and when he hopes to commence the Johore River scheme?

I am speaking now on the information supplied by the Leader of the House, as he was in charge of these negotiations which took place while I was on leave. The Scudai River scheme will be completed in two years from the time at which it was announced; and the Johore River scheme will be commenced as soon as possible. But we have not been able as yet to assess the approximate date of completion.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there are definite schemes in his ministry for commencing the Johore River scheme?

Sir, I cannot explain how valuable water is if only to keep us going in the Assembly. But I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that I have been most anxious about this situation. I have been watching the population curve and the consumption curve going up and finding out when the consumption curve is going to overtake the production curve. I have the full guarantee of the City Engineer and his assistants that the production curve will always keep ahead of the consumption curve. The Scudai River scheme will be ready in two years. Just as we are about to be overtaken, we will take another leap forward and be pumping more. Just as we are about to be overtaken, the Johore River scheme will be finished. I can only say, Sir, that I trust that they have done their calculations correctly. I am sure they have done it to the best of their ability. I only hope that the population of Singapore will not rise faster than it has been doing. They have estimated that, going on at the normal rate 4 per cent, all will be well. But if - and this is really the point - the Jurong project gets under way and industrial consumption goes up tremendously and unexpected demands are made, then it may well be that we will have to ask the Johore Government not to insist on buying out our Kota Tinggi and Gunong Pulai reservoirs. They want to buy them over because, as I have explained, the water there is the sweetest in South Johore. It almost requires no chlorination. We would like to keep it in reserve in case unexpected demands are made by industry on the use of water.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the Singapore Water Engineer is in Europe looking for water for Singapore. Could the Prime Minister please tell the House what progress the Water Engineer is making in Europe in securing water?

I have it on the authority of no less a scientist than the Leader of the House that the City Water Engineer is not in Europe seeking water. He is seeking a consultant on how to tap water faster. He is due back shortly. Perhaps if the Member for Farrer Park will raise the matter again after the City Water Engineer has come back, I will be happy to table a report setting out the success of his sojourn in Europe - I mean his success in looking for a consultant engineer.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will clarify the distinction between "Federal National" and "Federal Citizen", two phrases used in a recent broadcast by him.

Sir, in the memorandum which has been tabled as Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, the term "Federation National" has been used in preference to the term "New Federation National" so as to avoid confusion with the term "Federation Citizen", which means a citizen of the present Federation. The original English terminology for a person's association with a country is "nationality" as used in several Acts of the British Parliament and in the legislation at present in force known as the British Nationality Act of 1948. Members will note that by international practice the description of a person's association with and protection by a country is the term "nationality". This practice is followed by us in Singapore in our passport application forms and in the passport itself. We do not use the more modern term extant in some of the newer Dominions of citizenship. I leave some blank forms-not permanently on the Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, because these are valuable documents. I am not suggesting that anyone in this House wants to get away in a hurry, although I have heard that some are trying to disguise themselves by growing beards and wearing spectacles! For the scrutiny of Members of the House, I lay the application form and the passport on the Table.

Can the Prime Minister please tell us what are the rights which a national has?

Order. If I allow that question, it can open up a very wide debate on the subject. I think the question is just an inquiry as to whether the Prime Minister will clarify the distinction between "Federal National" and "Federal Citizen". I am sure the Member for Queenstown will make a note of that and say what he wishes to say when we come to debate the Prime Minister's motion, which asks the House to accept certain heads of agreement between the Federation and Singapore. Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Marshall, is it a supplementary question?

Yes, please, Mr Speaker, Sir,I ask of the Prime Minister if I am wrong in understanding that a Federal citizen is a British national by virtue of the Constitution of the Federation and section 1 of the British Nationality Act of 1948? The Prime Minister rose -

Order. Before the Prime Minister answers - he can and may answer later on if he wishes to - it occurs to me that that the Member's supplementary question under our Standing Orders, might not be in order. The Standing Order I have in mind is Standing Order 19 (1) (h). It says: 'a question shall not be asked for the purpose of obtaining an expression of opinion, the solution of an abstract legal case or the answer to a hypothetical proposition;'. Anyway, if the Prime Minister is in a position to answer, he can do so.

Sir, again I am speaking now on general principles since it is a long time since I took my examination on British Constitutional Law. The British Nationality Act introduced for the first time the concept of nationality and Commonwealth citizenship. The idea is that although Canadians, Australians and South Africans did not want Indians, Pakistanis, Ceylonese and Malayans to move in and out of their country freely, the British wanted to maintain this concept of the unity of one family of different coloured children, and so they coined this concept of the Commonwealth citizen. Everybody became a Commonwealth citizen; and as a Federal citizen is a Commonwealth citizen, he was therefore entitled to enter the United Kingdom. I do not know what has happened now about the West Indians going to the U.K. in strength. But this concept asks Commonwealth citizenship - a common term - to embrace all races in the Commonwealth, but at the same time keeping British nationality, which was introduced by the British Nationality Act of 1948, separate and distinct. I am not sure what the purport of the question is, but if the Member for Anson will give me an intimation before-hand and allow me not to be my own legal adviser, which is the last thing I think I am competent to be, I will consult the State Advocate-General. I am told. Mr Speaker, Sir, that one should never be one's own lawyer, and I often have to resist the temptation of not doing the things that I think I want to do when I am a participant and at the same time advising myself. I have done it once, with a great deal of satisfaction for myself. But I was told that normally it is better to leave these things to another man who could explain it more dispassionately -

Would that apply to the Member for Anson?

If the Member for Anson will indicate what are the parts that he requires clarification, then I will seek advice from the State Advocate-General who is competent to advise us in these matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my submission that there can be no such thing as a Federal national because -

Order. There again the Member for Anson is embarking on a debate on this particular subject. He is not entitled to do so during Question Time. If he has a supplementary question, by all means ask it.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reputed action of Portugal in Angola, consideration will be given to the question of severance of trade relations between Singapore and Portugal.

Sir, may I say that the people of Singapore and the Members of this Assembly cannot overstate our abhorrence at the atrocities perpetrated by the Portuguese colonial regime against the African people of Angola. These atrocities which the Member for Anson has kindly referred to as "reputed action" had been proved by many independent observers and documents. I am sure the House will want the Government to do whatever we can to help the people of Angola in their fight for freedom against these brutal methods of suppression. However, I am informed that the severance of trade relations between Singapore and Portugal would be of no assistance whatsoever to the people of Angola. Our imports and exports to Portugal and her dependencies is a negligible proportion of our entrepot trade. Sir, the case that I recall as having been discussed by the Government is that of South Africa. Although we as a Government wanted to ban imports, we could not ban consumption of South African goods without at the same time affecting our free port status and also preventing the transhipment in Singapore for other countries of goods from South Africa. Similarly, in the case of Portugal. If we sever trade relations and ban the imports with the purpose of banning consumption, then because we have no impounded warehousing system we will automatically also have to ban all imports even for transhipment elsewhere. For that reason, I am informed that very little will be gained by severing trade relations and sonic damage may he done to our free port status.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept the validity of the indications given by the Prime Minister for the reason of not disrupting our trade relations with Portugal, but if we are not to do that in order to show our disapprobation of the inhuman blood bath in Angola, would the Prime Minister indicate what other action it is possible for the Government to take and what action he would consider taking?

Sir, I am told the normal discourtesy in these matters, when one does not want to cut one's own nose to spite oneself, is to isolate coldly, or put into cold storage the representative of the country representing Portugal. I have not known of any ceremonial occasions to which he has been invited since Angola. I cannot speak with certainty on these matters, but I am quite sure it will give all of us some sense of satisfaction at having expressed our detestation by conveying through the representative our utter contempt for his Government in acting that way in Angola. Of course, if there are more effective methods of hurting them without hurting ourselves, I shall be very happy to receive the proposals.

Is there no method by which the public could be associated, not in private social matters but publicly, to give them the satisfaction of expressing their deep anger?

Sir, I am not saying this is international convention or practice, but I think, from time to time, what happens is that one brings effigies of the President of the country before the legation of the Embassy and symbolically burns and beats the person to death, hoping, by the process of pinpricking the idol and black magic, that some harm would befall the person some thousands of miles away. I do not know how we can do this here, and whether there is an honorary consul on whom we can work these witchcraft methods. But if there is any way to do them harm - most important, of course, is that it must not do us harm - I am all for it.

asked the Prime Minister if consideration will be given to appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the causes of the strike by employees of the People's Association.

Sir, first, there is no strike by the employees of the People's Association. Out of a total of 475 employees, 145 ceased work as from the 23rd of September. These men are led by a so-called Staff Action Committee. They are not constituted as a trade union nor as a lawful association, and their activities have, in fact, been unlawful. However, the Government has been forbearing in the hope that they can see the error of their ways. If, however, they continue in their acts of hooliganism and violence and do damage to persons and property, then it would be necessary to have a Commission of Inquiry to establish publicly these acts with the political agitation instigated by some persons on the Committee of the Barisan Sosialis and publicly prove the connection between these former workers of the People's Association with several Committee members of the Barisan Sosialis. It may also be necessary to bring these former workers to court so that they will have to pay for the damage that they have done, and continue to do, to public property.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell the House whether he did or did not give an interview to the seven members of this Action Committee on the 20th of September, 1961?

I cannot offhand remember the date, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I did see the seven members of the Action Committee. In my duties as Prime Minister and Chairman of the People's Association, I have to see a great assortment of people.

Order. If the Hon. the Prime Minister wishes to ruminate on these matters, he can carry on tomorrow. This is the moment of interruption. Dr Toh.

4.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask this House to turn its eyes for a short while on some of our sores. I want to draw attention to the plight of some of our poor. What is the definition of "poor"? In 1956 a Report on Urban Incomes and Housing was drawn up by the then Assistant Director of Social Welfare who is now our Minister for Finance. It was an excellent, a carefully prepared document - if I who am a novice on these matters may be permitted to express an opinion. It referred to the definition of "poor" (at page 113) as meaning those persons who live in conditions below the minimum physical needs to maintain health. And the Report arrived at the conclusion that in the period 1953-54, the minimum income for a husband, his wife and two children was $101.

85. This was eight years ago. The cost of living, the Minister will admit, has not gone down. It has risen. Now, Sir, another statistic from this Report is that about 30 per cent of our population lived below that minimum standard and are poor. Thirty per cent lived in poverty in 1953-54. I do not know how much the position has improved in the intervening years. I should like to believe, Sir, that they have improved in spite of our increase of population. But it is not on this very large group that I ask the House to concentrate its attention tonight. I would like hon. Members to concentrate on a small portion of this group living in poverty. I would like the House to concentrate on those who may be officially presumed to be starving - those who draw public assistance. Sir, I have sought from the Ministry of Labour information, much of which was courteously granted, but when I asked for figures which I could not find of those who were drawing public assistance, I was courteously but firmly refused that information. It is my hope that this top-secret information which the Minister is so unhappy to disclose to a Member of the House, will be disclosed to all Members of the House and we shall have the figures for 1956, 1960 and for the end of October 1961, of the number of human beings in Singapore who are living well below subsistence level. I might say. Sir, that the Minister for Finance in his Report on Urban Incomes and Housing said that one-fifth of the households of the poor was living on public assistance, but that was a long time ago and it is not proper that this House should work on statistics so old. What is public assistance, Sir? It came into being - so far as I can trace it - immediately after the occupation period when a large number of our people were in dire economic need and temporary relief measures were instituted and were later administered by the newly-formed Social Welfare Department which was formed in 1946. At that time, Sir, grants were given of $5 per man, $4 for a woman, and $2 for children per month. The neediest recipients, however, could get free meals and additional assistance. Five years later, in 1951. the public assistance scheme was established and the rates to those who were fully eligible were $15 for the head of a household, $5 for each dependant, with a maximum of $40 for each family. That is extremely low, Sir, but let us, in fairness, recognise that at the same time there was an equal amount given to those who were sick, so that the person receiving public assistance if he was sick got a double allotment. Even then it was generally recognised that the double allowance itself was well below subsistence level, particularly in respect of families with young children. Sir, in June 1953, there was a further change and all degrees of eligibility were abolished. A residential qualification of one year was introduced. The scales then established were $15 for the head of a household, $5 for the wife, and $5 for the child, with a maximum of $90. You had to have a huge family of some 12 children to get it. Sickness allowance was also paid at the same rate as public assistance, and it is to be recognised that this was very important to those who were sick. Also the wife herself, if she was sick, did not merely get a sickness allowance of $5 but she was given $15. Sir, what was the cost of this scheme which in its way indicated our awakening conscience and our awakening humanity? In 1958, Sir, the scheme cost $7 million. In 1959, it cost 7� million. Late in 1959 - the year this Government took office - public assistance rates were altered by the Government. At first it was not recognised to what extent the alteration was adverse to the most defenceless and most needy of the human beings who populate this island, for the P.A.P., with its unerring instinct for the propaganda point, increased the allowance to the head of the household by $1 and made it $16. It increased the allowance to the wife to $10 - all to the good, Sir, every little bit; I am not complaining - and the child over 16 to $8. That is good, Sir. Wherein lies the complaint? Sickness allowance which quite materially affected a large portion of the people receiving public assistance - sometimes as much as half their income - was abolished altogether, bringing about acute hardship to a group already recognisably and officially unable to work and requiring special nourishment because of their illness, let alone the minimum necessary for maintaining human health. In addition. Sir, non-citizens, no matter how long they lived in this country, were refused all public assistance. However, in fairness, let me add that to the head of the family, only if he was so sick that he could not work - and it was a grave and lengthy matter - he was given a disability allowance of $10 per month. Other cuts were made. Persons who are not married cannot receive public assistance, no matter how long they are unemployed, no matter how sick they are. Sir, let me correct that. If the unemployed single person has been sick for more than a month, then during his sickness he can get his public assistance. Non-citizens of whatever length of residence are completely ineligible, and those living in households where there is regular income are barred. You might say that that is reasonable. I put it to you. Sir, you are conscious that not only amongst the Chinese but in all races there is a strong attachment and fixed family ties; and you can appreciate that these things do happen - that a brother takes in his widowed sister with six children, but because he is a clerk who earns $150 a month, the widow and the children get nothing. There is a regular income in that household. One other matter, Sir. Tuberculosis allowance was discontinued in respect of those who are non-citizens, whatever their length of residence. Mr Speaker, Sir, at first view, this might seem a very reasonable political move. We must conserve our resources for our citizens. But what the Government has failed to recognise is that the tuberculosis allowance which is above subsistence level and assists tuberculosis patients to improve their health prevents them from becoming a continuing focus of infection. Non-citizens who have tuberculosis do not limit their infection to non-citizens, and the economy which the Government has sought to make is a false economy because, by leaving the unemployed tuberculosis patient who is a non-citizen without any resources to improve his health, the Government encourages and assists the additional spread of tuberculosis amongst our people, because these people continue to be a focus of infection to our healthy citizens. All these cuts, Mr Speaker, Sir, were presumably enforced in the name of economy, but I would suggest that the result has not apparently been no ticed. It has not been recognised, Sir, that such action increases the hardship of a major group in Singapore - those who are unable to work because of illness and where the very existence of poverty has led them to be vulnerable to illness. Mr Speaker, I will not go back to the Report of the gentleman who is now our Finance Minister, but I will give you one other statistic which I am sure he will accept as valid and which he will be prepared to respect. I am reliably informed, Sir, that the Department of Social Medicine of the University has carefully investigated and finally ascertained that the sum of $22 per month is required for the cheapest reasonable diet to maintain the minimum standard of health on the basis of scientific marketing - and this $22 per month does not take into account clothing, rent and other basic human needs. This means, Sir, that those who are recipients of public assistance in their thousands and tens of thousands are today living, in truth and in fact, at a level where their health is actually rapidly deteriorating. Every government with an eye to the long-term welfare of the people must recognise that the effect of this extreme malnutrition over a prolonged period will have a very considerable bearing on the public economy. I speak of economy, Sir, because that seems to be the important aspect. apart, it seems, from other aspects which have or seem to have a little validity to hon, gentlemen opposite, such as human values and humanity. If it is economics that the P.A.P. Government is interested, Sir, then I say it is false economy to save money from the sick and the starving. What has been the effect, Sir, of these measures introduced by Government of economy in the realm of public assistance? The Ministry has been good enough to supply me with figures, and, as I have indicated, in 1959 we spent $7,746,000; in 1960 we saved $350,000. That was the economy in 1960. In 1961, on the basis of the figures supplied up to the end of August, the total we will spend for the whole year is $6,400,000. In 1961, Sir, we will have saved $1 million from the poor and the starving as compared with 1960. Is this the type of economy that this House, being made conscious of it, would really approve? Sir, even if these human beings who are our citizens are to be deemed expendable and their death is to be welcomed as saving the State some money, from the point of view of the community, this is an unrealistic and uneconomic approach. Starvation and poverty of the nature indicated takes its toll on the whole community, not only on the women and children who immediately suffer, but on all citizens, through increases in the rate of crime, the rate of illness, and the very degrading atmosphere in which such matters can happen. Children, Sir, who have to suffer malnutrition during their tender and formative years, because their parents have only $5 to spend on their food - one-fourth of the basic minimum required - cannot be expected to grow up healthy, employable, balanced or good citizens. They must necessarily grow up distorted, sick burdens on the community. Mr Speaker, this is not and should not be a political or party matter. No citizen can be comfortable so long as there are those who starve. Sir, it is a question of money. Money must he found. Let us resolve: "In Singapore no man shall starve." And then let us set about finding the means. Sir, one more. In 1957 there was tabled in this House the Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood. I refer to two paragraphs, paragraph 203 and 204. `203. We think that the Public Assistance scheme should be put on a formal statutory basis and that the rates of allowances and categories of need covered by it should be approved by the legislature and should be subject to amendment by the legislature from time to time as occasion may demand. 204. We think that the existing rates of allowance should be increased ...' I will be through, Sir. These recommendations have been ignored - the Report shelved. There are other aspects, Sir, I would like to deal with very briefly. The delay in investigation of cases seeking public assistance has increased under this Government. It is said that more time is required in order to exclude fraud. But, Sir, a delay of three to four weeks is indefensible in emergency cases where human beings are starving.

Order. The hon. Member has exceeded his time of twenty minutes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the subject of poverty and human suffering is a touching one, and the Member for Anson has excelled himself in dealing with such a subject. May I say at once, Sir, that surely every reasonable man will agree that poverty is a bad thing and should be eliminated if that is possible? But, Sir, while it is legitimate to express discontent over the rates of public assistance that are being paid to Singapore, let us not forget that this is one of the highest in Asia, in fact the highest known to me. Let us not forget that the income earned by the average family in receipt of public assistance is about as much as what most families in other undeveloped countries of Asia earn in their full-time jobs. The question of poverty is not peculiar to us. It is a general problem of all under-developed countries of the world. Public assistance is feasible in a city trading economy like ours; because it is compact and because we have the administrative machinery to give our assistance to those who are needy. But they are only palliatives; we can only reduce the degree of destitution. But if we aim at eliminating poverty completely, as the wealthier industrialised countries in the west have substantially succeeded in doing, then it is absolutely vital that we expand our economy, increase our national income in order that we can afford to cream off surplus resources for our less fortunate brethren. Sir, I would just like to mention this before concluding. That the decision to review the rates of public assistance was to make the whole scheme more rational. It has been discovered that for many years the payment of sickness allowance was subject to grave abuse. There were no proper checks that those in receipt of such an allowance were, in fact, properly entitled to them. There were no regular medical check-ups; and in the nature of things, because of the shortage of medical personnel, it was not possible to have the number of examinations to be conducted. We have increased payment rates in other respects to compensate for the withdrawal of this allowance. Next year we shall make a further increase in the rates of public assistance. The proper way, of course, to deal with the problem is to have a contributory insurance scheme to cover the barest risks to life which overtake urban workers - the risk of unemployment, the risk of death of the wage earner, provision for a steady income after retirement. A lot of work has been done in the past years, but there are certain difficulties in carrying out this insurance scheme which I think this House can very well discuss at the appropriate time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fairness to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, since the Member for Anson has made reference to the time when he was in the civil service, I thought it only proper to give him a few minutes to reply. I think he has more or less covered some of the proposals and suggestions made by the Member for Anson, but I would like to touch on the figures which the Member claimed that he was courteously but firmly refused by perhaps an official of my Ministry. I would like to disclose these figures to him now, indeed to all Members of the Assembly. In the year 1958, the number of persons of public assistance per month is 72,604; 1959, 81,840; 1960, 89,548; for the months of August 1961, 89,244; September 1961, 89,060; October 1961, 89,432. From these, you can see. Mr Speaker, that the average amount of public assistance disbursed per month ranged from $576,867 to now $602,583.

60. On the other point raised about non-citizens, which I am sure hon. Members of this House will recall during the by election in Anson, the same question, I think, was raised by the Member for Anson. But he must at the same time understand the conditions prevailing in our State on the question of public assistance. I must say here, Mr Speaker, that the Government is spending nearly $7� million a year, on public assistance, and this figure would have increased had it not been for this qualification of non-citizens. To grant public assistance to non-citizens would encourage people from surrounding countries which have no such scheme or have a less favourable scheme to take advantage of the allowance payable here. This is a substitute for residential qualification, and most countries in the world have either a citizenship or a residential qualification for a non-contributory scheme such as that of public assistance. In the case of a social or a national insurance scheme, no such qualification is necessary, as the beneficiary has contributed towards the scheme and, subject to the satisfaction of the contributory qualifications, he has an absolute right to the payment of benefits. I must say that the rates which we are paying now are the highest payable in respect of relief allowance in this part of the world. It is proposed, as from 1st January, 1962, to increase the rate of allowance for a head of household from $16 per month to $21 per month. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the P.A.P. Review Committee. In 1959, after the P.A.P. Government took office, the head of household allowance was increased from $15 per month to $16 per month, and the wife allowance - 5.00 p.m.

Order. The time appointed for the termination of this sitting has arrived. Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock p.m.

Thursday, 16th November, 1961 Appointment to Public Bodies

asked the Prime Minister to state the number of persons appointed since 1st June, 1959, by Ministers to public bodies, the names of such persons, the offices to which they were appointed, and their political affiliations, if known.

The number of persons appointed since June, 1959, by Ministers to public bodies is 527. Their names and the offices to which they were appointed are given in the list tabled in this Assembly. Their political affiliations, if any, are of no relevance to the duties they perform. Some are known to be members, and some are publicly reputed to be members, of both the Government party and Opposition political parties in this Assembly. PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE Appendix A(Cols 0083-0090) DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE Appendix B(Cols 0091-0092) MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LAW Appendix C(Cols 0093-0102) MINISTRY OF FINANCE Appendix D(Cols 0103-0106) MINISTRY OF LABOUR Appendix E(Cols 0107-0116) MINISTRY OF CULTURE Appendix F(Cols 0117-0120) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Appendix G(Cols 0121-0130) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Appendix H(Cols 0131-0134) MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Appendix I(Cols 0135-0136) Strikes

asked the Minister for Labour how many strikes were there since 1st September, 1961.

There were 27 strikes from 1st September, 1961 to 1st November, 1961. Trade Unions: Cancellations

asked the Minister for Labour how many trade unions or Federations of trade unions have had their registrations cancelled since January 1961.

The certificates of registration of five employee trade unions had been cancelled since January 1961, but no certificate of registration of any federation of trade unions had been cancelled since January 1961. Working of the P.P.S.O.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will publish a report on the working of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, since its inception.

The Preservation of Public Security Ordinance was passed in 1955 by Mr David Marshall, then the Chief Minister of Singapore. The present Government came into office on 5th June, 1959, and therefore does not feel the necessity to publish a report on the working of an Ordinance dating back to 1955 and used by previous Governments, including that of the Member for Anson who, more than anyone else, should be well versed with the working of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. P.P.S.O.-Issue of Orders

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, were in existence on the 1st June, 1959, how many orders have been issued since then, and how many are still effective.

The information asked for is contained in the following table:- ORDERS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, 1955 ON 1-6-59 AND AFTER, AS AT 16-11-61 Communist, Communist KMT, Cancelled Sr No. Orders and other ARTIS lapsed or Total on subversives and other suspended 16-11-61 on 1-6-59 subversives after 1-6-59 since 1-6-59 Detention Orders 1. On 1st June, 1959 61 - 43 18 2. Since 1st June, 1959 - 30 26 4 Suspension Orders 3. On 1st June, 1959 24 - 23 1 4. Since 1st June, 1959 - 31 12 19 Direction Orders 5. On 1st June, 1959 - - - - 6. Since 1st June, 1959 - 16 1 15 P.P.S.O.-List of Orders

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he will a list of the persons who are still subject to orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, the history of the orders from the date of commencement of detention of such persons, and the reasons for the continuation of these orders; and (b) how many of these orders will be wholly cancelled within the next two months.

A list of the persons who are still subject to orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, and the history of the orders from the date of commencement of the orders of such persons is given in the attached enclosure. Persons subject to Orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, are made aware of the reasons for the making of such Orders and where applicable reasons for the continuation of such Orders and are also given the opportunity of making objections to such Orders. (b) Since the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Assembly on 20th July, 1961 with regard to release of detainees in batches from time to time, a total of 21 detainees have been released, 20 on Direction Orders and Suspension Orders, and one unconditionally. In addition, one person on a Direction Order and six persons on Suspension Orders made before 20th July, 1961 have had their Orders wholly cancelled. PERSONS UNDER DETENTION ORDERS(Cols 0139-0144) PERSONS UNDER SUSPENSION ORDERS(Cols 0145-0146) PERSONS UNDER DIRECTION ORDERS(Cols 0147-0148) Housing and Development Board

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what rents are being charged for the houses which have been built by the Housing and Development Board; (b) the floor space available for living purposes for the different rents; (c) how many units are there in each category; (d) how many of these were vacant as at 31st October, 1961; and (e) what are the requirements of the Board in order to qualify for the different types of houses.

The rents charged by the Housing and Development are as follows:- Locality Rent p.m. $ c. Bukit Ho Swee 1 room 20 00 Kampong Tiong Bahru, Communal Tenements 40 00 Kampong Tiong Bahru 2 room 55 00 terrace house (3 room) 68 00 Clarence Lane 2 room 60 00 3 room 90 00 Queenstown 1 room 35 00 2 room 55 00 3 room 75 00 Queenstown, Neighbourhood V 2 room 46 50 (with lift) 3 room 45 50 (without lift) 66 50 (with lift) 65 50 (without lift) MacPherson Road 2 room 46 50 (b) The floor space available varies from 178 sq. ft. to 244 sq. ft. for one room units, 370 sq. ft. to 426 sq. ft. for two room units, and 492 sq. ft. to 579 sq. ft. for three room units. (c) There are 1,340 one room units, 3,794 two room units and 553 three room units. (d) As at the 31st October, 1961, 244 one room units were vacant, 601 two room units were vacant and 34 three room units were vacant. (e) The basic requirements for all Board accomodation is as follows:- Singapore Citizen of not less than 21 years of age with a compact family of at least five including the applicant and with no member earning more than $500 p.m. and the total family income not exceeding $800 p.m. A Supplementary Register has been opened for Queenstown where untis will be available for families of four persons and conditions for registration have been relaxed as regards relationship of members of the family.