Hansard, 1961-12-11

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the House will remember that immediately before the moment of interruption at our last sitting, the Member for the Southern Islands mentioned to the House that whilst going through the Estimates (Health), he noted that the provisions under the various items of Personal Emoluments (Establishment) had been reduced and he wanted confirmation from the Ministry whether, in fact, any of the salaries of the posts in the Ministry had been reduced. Since then, all the P.E. items in the Ministry of Health Estimates under Head 25, 26, 27 and 28 have been carefully scrutinised, and I confirm that in no instance has the salary of any grade of officer been reduced. Where any decrease in the provision for any post under P.E. has been reduced, this was due to one of the following reasons. Where a post has become vacant due to retirement, death or resignation of an incumbent, provision is made at the minimum of the salary scale for the post. Secondly, where officers are transferred - in some cases, more senior officers have been promoted or transferred out of a department - they have been replaced by more junior officers. In this case, the provision is reduced. Only in one case - that of the religious sisters at the Mandalay Road Hospital - has the total provision for their salaries been reduced because they used to enjoy expatriate terms and they have been placed on terms and conditions of service applicable to local officers. The House will also remember that the Member for Cairnhill wanted to know why the provision for Matrons (Grade II) has been increased from $15,600 to $18,000 at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. He suggested that possibly they got a very big bump up in salary. That is not so, Sir.

Who said that?

In 1961, the post of Matron, Grade I, was vacant and one of the Grade II Matrons was held against that vacant Grade I post. In the provision for the two Grade II posts, the Treasury took that into account, so that in the case of the Grade II posts, provision was entered at the minimum of the salary scale, that is, $550 a month for 12 months, which is $6,600 for one Grade II post and the full salary on the maximum of the scale i.e. $750 a month for the other Grade II post, making a total provision of $15,600-$9,000 plus $6,600. In the Estimates for this year, we are making provision for these two Grade II posts at the maximum of the salary scale for Matrons (Grade II), which is $750 per month. Hence the entry for the provision of $18,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, a question was also asked why it was that the provision for the salary of the Grade II Matron at the Thomson Road Hospital remained at $7,800. The hon. Member wanted to know why this Matron did not receive any increments in salary. Mr Speaker, Sir, that post has always been vacant and when these Estimates were prepared, the post was entered at a mean salary of $650 a month. The scale for Matron (Grade II) is the scale of $550x25A-750. On the basis of this mean salary, the provision entered was $7,800. It was $7,800 for 1961 and it is also $7,800 for 1962. I hope I have explained this to the satisfaction of Members.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

2.36 p.m. MAIN ESTIMATES, 1962 (Cont.) Head 27 -

We are on Public Health Division commencing at page 276 of the Main Estimates. The first amendment is at page 290. Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (169) of subhead 1. Sir, the salary scale for three Technical Subordinates (Timescale) was $3,580 for 1961, whereas it is $7,180 for 1962. That is an increase of $100 per month for each Technical Subordinate. According to the 1961 figure of $3,580, it places the three officers on the first segment of the timescale, whereas the 1962 figure of $7,180 places the three officers in the third segment of the timescale, thereby skipping the second segment of the timescale. I would like the Minister to explain why there is this big jump.

This is a matter of change of holders. There are 46 posts of Technical Subordinates. Two are super-scale posts, six are Special Grade posts, and there are 38 timescale posts of which 32 have been filled, with six vacancies. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, when the provision was entered in the Estimates, it was in respect of the probationary segment. This year, it is expected that more senior officers will be filling these appointments. Therefore, the provision has been entered for two posts in the third segment above the second efficiency bar, and one in the probationary segment, I think that explains the difficulty of the Member for Cairnhill.

Sir, the Minister said that out of three posts, two are put on the third segment, whereas according to the figures before us, all three posts are put on the third segment. The Minister said that the third post is on the lowest one. It is not so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two posts will be at the minimum or above the minimum salary of the third segment and one will be in the probationary segment. That is how it is done.

It still cannot be so. According to the figure, all three posts are put in the third segment.

Perhaps the Estimates Committee can look into it. It is a question of arithmetic, I should imagine.

If the Minister will look into this, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have had this looked into. I am quite satisfied and am sure that two of the posts are entered in the third segment, that is, either at $220 or above. Evidently there are two officers serving in the Ministry drawing salaries of $220 and above. There is also one vacancy amongst these three posts, and for that vacancy the initial salary has been provided. There is no doubt about all this.

It is a question of arithmetic and that can be looked into privately. I do not think the Assembly's time should be wasted.

But the Minister says he is right.

I am absolutely right.

Order. As I say, it is a question of arithmetic and perhaps the hon. Member could get in a corner with the Minister and see whether the arithmetic is correct.

With respect, Sir, when one gets into a corner with a man who insists that he is right, but I can prove that he is wrong -

I can prove that you are wrong.

Order. I do not think the Assembly's time should be taken up with this matter. It is a matter of arithmetic. That is all.

I bow to your ruling and beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I now come to the officers of the Ministry of Health. I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (174) of subhead 1. Sir, the next amendment [Amendment (3)]* is related. May I submit that it is convenient to move both at the same time? *Amendment (3) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (175) of subhead 1.

If it is convenient.

Thank you, Sir. Item (174) shows two newly created posts of Senior Registrar for 1962. The vote asked for is $26,400, that is to say, $1,100 a month for each Senior Registrar. This is correct, Sir, as $1,100 a month is the first step in the salary scale. Now, item (175) shows that there are 12 Health Officers for 1961, but that there are only 10 Health Officers for 1962. From this, I take it that the missing two Health Officers are promoted to Senior Registrars - item (174). Let us take the votes for 1961 and 1962. These show a difference of $37,590. That is, roughly an increase of $3,000 per officer and this works out at $250 a month increase. Sir, as far as the two Senior Registrars are concerned (that is to say, the two Health Officers promoted to he Senior Registrars), this increase of $250 a month is accounted for. But can the Minister please explain how it is that all the remaining ten Health Officers based on the figures before us are each going to get an increase of $250 a month, whereas according to the salary scale the increase is only $35 a month?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (174) of subhead 1." The debate may range over item (175)*. * Amendment (3) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (175) of subhead 1. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter is very simply explained as follows. There are 57 Public Health medical officers, and 12 of them are in the School Health Section. Out of these 12 posts of School Health Officers, it is proposed to upgrade two of these posts to Senior Registrar level, the other 10 posts remaining at timescale. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason for this increase is that more senior officers with salaries above the second segment of the timescale have come to the School Health Section, and more junior officers have been posted out. That is why there is this increase. To simple minds, it appears rather ridiculous that there should be an increase of $37,000 when all that is done is to upgrade two posts to Senior Registrar level. In point of fact, there have been transfers out of the School Health Section of more junior officers and the bringing in of more senior officers from the public health service, who are above the efficiency bar, into the School Health Section. It is as simple as that.

May I assure the Minister that I took into account the salaries to be paid to the Senior Registrars? And in working it out, I still get a $37,000 increase. From what the Minister has explained, there are some health officers who are on the higher timescale, but according to the figures here every officer is on the higher timescale.

No Mr Speaker, Sir. The provision is for more senior officers. There are 57 medical officers in the public health section, and more senior officers are going into the School Health Section, So there is an increase.

The Minister says the provision was entered in the Budget. So it would appear that these posts were not filled in 1961, and therefore he hopes, by increasing the salary scale, to have the posts filled. That is simple.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir,If the Member studies the Estimates, he will see that the various sections of the public health division have been completely recast. A School Health Section has been provided in the Estimates and senior public health medical officers from other sections are being taken into the School Health Section where more senior men are needed. This is all rather tiresome.

Sir, the Minister says this is all very tiresome. I am sorry to see him getting so tired so early in this debate. In order not to make him more tired, I beg leave to withdraw.

I am not tired!

If the Member for Cairnhill is still not satisfied, there is always the Estimates Committee.

Yes, thank you. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (3)* is not being moved. * See footnote at Col. 1845.

Sir, amendment (4)+ deals almost with the same subject, and as I do not wish to tire the Minister any further, I will not move. + The amendment reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (176) of subhead 1.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (234) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no post of Assistant Superintendent in 1961 and this is therefore a new post for 1962. Mr Speaker, I bring up this matter of Markets and Hawkers Division because it is expected that the position of hawkers as obtaining at present could be looked into. I do not know what is the policy of the Government as regards markets and hawkers in this city. It seems that they are very much at large, without any proper regulations being enforced. Most of them put up stalls along public roads and it can be said that they are a danger to public health and traffic, to the detriment of Singapore. Though we consider the hawkers provide a means of livelihood for the people, nevertheless, a loss is caused to some business sections, especially those shops that have to pay rents and licences according to law. With these hawkers at large - they do not obey any regulations - some of the shopkeepers have had to close down because their business was overrun by these hawkers. Sir, it seems that the Government have no definite plan to carry out in respect of these hawkers. Probably they fear that the hawkers would possibly not support them. This problem, Mr Speaker, Sir, is rampant at the moment. The interests of the public should be looked into. If the P.A.P. Government were not in power today, then whichever government that replaces it would have to face this big problem. And it is a big problem indeed, because of the lack of enforcement of the regulations. Some quarters feel rather reluctant to bring up this problem to the Assembly because they fear the bad effects that might come from the hawkers. I would like to get the Government to view this matter with grave concern, and it should be done in the interest of public health and for the good of the people of Singapore.

It would appear that the item opens itself to a debate on the hawker problem. So any Member who wishes to speak on the hawker problem may do so now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot say more at this stage than to tell the Member for the Southern Islands and this House that Government proposes in the very near future to make an announcement with regard to its policy on hawkers.

(In Malay): Since a statement will be given by the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13*. *The same amendment also stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. I want to ask the Minister this: how many standpipes will the Government provide for next year? We know that in the rural areas more standpipes should be provided for the people in view of the water shortage. I also want to ask the Minister this: during the course of the water shortage this year, did the Government provide enough water wagons for the people? In applying for a standpipe, can an Assemblyman apply on behalf of the people? Because in my constituency, the residents in places like Ang Moh Kio and Clemenceau Avenue have applied for standpipes, but their applications have been turned down. I do not know whether the Minister concerned is aware of this; but what are the reasons for rejecting these applications?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have filed this amendment because I want to ask the Government to pay close attention to the supply of water to the Southern Islands, particularly Pulau Brani, where the water supply today is insufficient as it is being looked after by the military authorities. I feel that Government can take steps to increase the number of standpipes in the islands. A further problem is that the people who wish to install pipes in their homes cannot do so because the water supply is controlled by the military authorities. I hope the Government will co-operate with the military authorities to facilitate the installation of water pipes in homes. The people of Pulau Brani and Blakang Mati pay rates to the Government, and it is hoped that these facilities will be made available to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first question I was asked is: could I indicate how many standpipes would be constructed in the course of next year? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in no position to state what the number will be. But what I can tell this House is that today in the city area there are 1,222 standpipes, and in the rural area there are 1,126 standpipes. Free water is supplied to all these standpipes. In addition, free water is also supplied to mosques. Indian temples, opium treatment centres and the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital. 3.00 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, the installation of new standpipes depends on the consideration of requests from Assemblymen, the public and field officers in the various departments. These requests are submitted for the views of the relevant departments, principally the Health and Water Department. The Land Office also come into this. The requests are all considered by the Urban and Rural Services Council. If any Member feels that a standpipe should be installed in his area, he should write to the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Council, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. His application will be processed, and if the need generally arises for a standpipe, then approval will be given by the Urban and Rural Services Council for the installation of a standpipe in his particular area. As far as the Member for the Southern Islands is concerned, if he feels that there is a need to increase the number of standpipes at Pulau Brani, all that he has to do is to bring this to the attention of the Urban and Rural Services Council. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a drop in the use of water from public stand-pipes due to the rationing, and if I mention a few figures it should be of interest to the House. For instance, Mr Speaker, Sir, the cost of water for the standpipes in the city area in April this year was $92,338.

46. In the period of rationing in October that cost was reduced to $55,309.63.

Mr Speaker, I believe the translation of the speech made by the Member for Serangoon Gardens just now says - while he was requesting the Minister to put up more standpipes - that during a period of water shortage there should be more standpipes. I do not understand the logic of the argument. But what I want to ask the Minister is this. He mentioned free water being supplied to mosques. Could he give some indication as to the number of mosques that are now being supplied with free water? Would he also indicate the number of applications from mosques to his Ministry for free water?

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the information I have, 48 mosques are receiving a free water supply. The mosques get free water in respect of the persons who go there for worship. But those who live on the premises have to pay for their own water supply. I do not know the number of applications. I will check on them.

I want to reply to the Member for Serangoon Gardens. He says the Government have rejected applications for standpipes. In fact, some of the applications are still under consideration.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib - That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 22.

Subhead 22 at page 303. Inche Ahmad Jabri.

I am not moving.

The Member is not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 27. This subhead, Sir, is on account of "Equipment for markets - Bins". I would like to ask the Minister what type of market bins and how many of these bins can be made for $19,070. Sir, one cannot forget the dust bins attached to street lamps that disappeared!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is quite confused. I do not think he knows the distinction between carrier bins, street bins and ordinary domestic dust bins. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we want are 125 carrier bins for the proposed new markets and 300 for new specified, streets. In respect of replacements, we need 125 for replacements in markets due to wear and tear and 200 for replacements in specified streets due to loss and wear and tear, making a total of 750 carrier bins. Street bins are also required, Mr Speaker, Sir. An additional supply of ten is for the new market bin centre at Seng Poh Road, and 40 for replacements in markets. Mr Speaker, Sir, the cost of 750 carrier bins, at $16.75 per bin at the 1960 contract price, will be $12,563; and for 50 street bins, at $130 per bin (the City Workshop 1960 contract price) will be $6,500, making a total of $19,063 which is rounded off to $19,070. I hope that explanation satisfies the Member for Cairnhill.

May I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib - That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $100. In Inche Ahmad Jabri's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $23,616,290 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 31 -

Mr Speaker. Sir,I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1. Sir, the vote for 1961 was $90,000. This is the correct estimate for 3 Legal Officers at $2,500 a month. But for 1962, the amount asked for is only $60,000. The "Notes" show these words, "Part Provision". Do we or do we not have three legal officers? If we do not have them, do we or do we not want them? And herein lies the answer to the "Part Provision". If we want three legal officers, then it has to be full provision. If full provision for 1961 was made, has there now been a change in the minds of the Government that they could not get three legal officers and that they could only get two? If they could only get two legal officers, then they should provide for two and not put in three and put in "Part Provision" for only two legal officers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the intention is to recruit legal officers who have special qualifications in legal drafting, criminal law, prosecution and civil work, especially revenue cases, to assist in the work of the State Advocate-General's Chambers and to train the young legal officers in service. Efforts have been made to recruit in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, but so far without success. There have been a number of applications, both locally and from the United Kingdom and Australia. These were considered by the Legal Service Commission and the applicants were found not to be suitable. Recently Mr R. M. Berriman has been appointed senior legal adviser to advise on income tax law and practice. His services have been made available under the Colombo Plan Technical Co-operation Scheme. But his allowances will be paid from the vote for legal officers. Mr Berriman, I may inform the House, is a very senior officer in the Australian Income Tax Department. Efforts are being made, Mr Speaker, Sir, to recruit a legal draftsman from England. His services will be required especially for the drafting of the constitutional documents on merger. We have made an approach to Mr Hackling, who has had experience in drafting work in the Federation. We expect to hear from him soon. As for the third post, Mr Speaker, Sir, we also need someone who is very experienced in criminal work to give the Member for Anson a good run for his money. We have tried very hard to get this officer. But up to date we have not been successful. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, for next year, we are entering provision for just two posts of legal officer. Should we be able to get the third man with experience in criminal work, we can ask the House for more funds.

May I withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohamed Ali bin Alwi - That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (27) of subhead 1. That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (28) of subhead 1. In Inche Mohd. Ali's absence, the amendments were not proceeded with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (44) of subhead 1. Sir, this is about the Director of Legal Aid. I am not going to talk about this particular post. I am just going to talk about the Legal Aid Bureau. Sir, I think it will not beget the confidence of the public if the Legal Aid Bureau is to be under the control of the State Advocate-General, because the Legal Aid Ordinance does provide legal aid for people charged with offences against the law. The State Advocate-General is in unchallenged control of State prosecutions. Therefore, it would not help to bring about the confidence of the public in the Legal Aid Bureau if it is also to come under his control. When the Legal Aid Bill was moved in 1955, it was considered that the proper Ministry to which the Bureau should be attached was the Ministry of Labour and Welfare. I would ask the Government to consider transferring the Legal Aid Bureau back to the Ministry of Labour under which Ministry comes social welfare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite in agreement with what the Member for Cairnhill has said. That was the reason why the Legal Aid Bureau had always been kept in the Ministry of Labour and has only recently been placed under the control of the State Advocate-General's Chambers. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the present, legal aid is not being extended to criminal cases. Legal aid is granted only in civil cases. Should there be representations from the public and should the Bar support the extension of legal aid to criminal cases, then I agree the time would be opportune to take the Legal Aid Department out of the control of the State Advocate-General's Chambers. But for the present, as there are knotty legal problems that arise in the Legal Aid Department, it would be of assistance if this Department is kept under the control of the State Advocate-General. But I do agree entirely with what the Member for Cairnhill says. If legal aid facilities are extended to criminal cases, then it may be time for us to take it entirely out of the control of the State Advocate-General. 3.15 p.m.

In the light of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah - That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1*.

Amendment (5)*, Mr Rajah?

I am not moving, Mr Speaker, Sir.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14. Mr Speaker, could the Minister explain this problem in connection with legal assistance, the vote for which is $30,000? A few months ago I had occasion to send people to the Legal Aid Bureau for the purpose of obtaining legal aid. It was in connection with companies winding up and employees being retrenched. They have been waiting for months. Three or four of these employees have not been paid their wages. There has been an exchange of correspondence, but to date there has been no result. At least in one case the company has got to pay the man $500. They are still unemployed and are not in receipt of social welfare assistance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are specific complaints. I am grateful to the Member for Kampong Kembangan. We would like to know more about them and give attention to them. It is impossible for me to give an off-the-cuff answer in such matters.

(In Malay): In view of the explanation, Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr David Marshall - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $100. In Mr Marshall's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $848,930 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 32 - The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Leong Keng Seng - That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Mr Leong?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to move my two amendments. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Tun Lim Yew Hock, Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Leong Keng Seng and Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib - That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

Mr Rajah.

I am calling the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. This is a Political Secretary item. Sir, when something falls out, honest men will come into their own. I have not used the word "rogue" because I know the Prime Minister is not a rogue. He is an honourable man. But, Sir, when the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Finance fell out with the P.A.P. Government in July this year, what did the Prime Minister say in his awful disclosures broadcast over Radio Singapore? He said that Mr Lim Ching Siong was a Communist and that he was specially given the post of Political Secretary in the Ministry of Finance because in that particular Ministry he could do no harm. In other words, paying a Party comrade $1,100 a month not for doing anything good for the public whose money is being used to pay for this post, but for containing him in a Ministry where he could do no harm. Now, Sir, the cat is out of the bag. Sir, what did the Minister for Finance say in this House last year when this matter was raised by us? Let me quote Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 4, dated 10th December, 1960, col. 374. The Minister for Finance said: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not present in the House when unkind words were said about my Personal Secretary (Political). Had I been here I would have rushed to the defence of this bright young man. I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that he is very fitted for this post.' I repeat the Minister's words - Mr Lim Ching Siong was "very fitted for this post." In the name of the people of Singapore whose money is being spent to pay for this post, I ask the Minister for an explanation. Who was right? Was it the Minister for Finance when he said that this bright young man was very fitted for the post - An hon. Member: Of course, at that time.

- or the Prime Minister who said that this bright young man was a Communist and was given this job in the Ministry of Finance where he could do no harm? Whoever was wrong, it was the P.A.P. Government that was wrong because there is such a thing as collective responsibility. Sir, let us go back to last year's debate when the Minister for Finance stood up bravely and defended his Political Secretary, I felt sorry for him for the predicament into which he was forced. He had to stand up and defend his Political Secretary. Therefore, because I felt sorry for his predicament and I knew that he did not mean what he said, I tried to give him an opening where he could retrieve his mistake. I said, and I quote the same Hansard, cols. 378 and 379: 'Sir, when the Prime Minister was here yesterday, he did say, on the subject of Political Secretaries, that regarding things that are of a serious and important character - since the Minister for Finance was not here yesterday - there are a lot of things that are best left unsaid; and if he agrees [that is to say, if the Minister for Finance agrees] that there are a lot of things that are best left unsaid, then I am prepared to agree with him. There is no need to say, let us not bring this subject up, because it is rather embarrassing to him to have to defend something which he is not convinced he is prepared to defend.' I gave him that opening, Sir. But what did the Minister for Finance say? He stood up and said at col. 379: 'I am not at all embarrassed, Mr Speaker, Sir, but utterly bored.' Utterly bored indeed! And now I say to him that the cat is out of the bag. Shame, shame!

Dr Lee? Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown) indicated dissent.

The Member is not speaking. Mr Leong?

No.

Inche Ahmad Jabri?

No.

Sir, what I said on the previous occasion - the words quoted by the Member for Cairnhill, namely, that my former Political Secretary was a bright young man - was a statement of fact. No one will deny his brightness and his ability. As for his fitness to be a Political Secretary, let me assure the House that very few people are more fit than him to fulfil the duties of a Political Secretary. Unfortunately, Sir, on basic matters, we never did see eye to eye with this bright young man right from the beginning. It does not come as a surprise to the Member for Cairnhill. He knows that that was the position. The whole of Singapore knew that that was the position and, of course, the breach must come, as in due course and, in fact, it did come. If there is any defence necessary for the former incumbent of this post, I say perhaps the Backbenchers on the Opposition benches, the Backbenchers behind the Member for Hong Lim, may be more qualified to put up a defence now than I am. I have absolutely no responsibility for his conduct now. It is therefore quite wrong to say that the cat is now out of the bag. It is only so to innocent people, and I do not think the Member for Cairnhill is an innocent spectator. He knows what has been going on all the time - the trouble between the Communists and the non-Communists in the P.A.P. - and the cat has been out of the bag a long time ago. The cat jumped out of the bag in 1955. The Hock Lee rioters crashed the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the cat is now out of the bag and the poor Alsatian dog is trying to chase the cat. Sir, we tried our very best for the past two years to try to bring to the notice of the arrogant Government then the pitfall they were falling into. We warned them about such a situation developing. They pooh-poohed the idea. What was worse, they came along and put up a very bold front and defended a man who, it seems, because he is no longer with them, has been described as a Communist and a person who was put into a job where he could do no harm. Do we use public funds to put a comrade into a job where he could do no harm or where he could do at least some good for the money he received from the public.

Surely, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill does not expect me to denounce my former Political Secretary before there was an open fight between us. Surely you do not expect us to do so? [Interruption] I mean, you have to shoot a line now and then, but it was obvious at that time that a defence had to be made and face had to be saved. Sir, as regards the work that he did in my Ministry, I have said that I did try to arrange an assignment for him with Seamen's Registry Board to find work for unemployed seamen. We tried to improve the working of that particular section of the Government, it was quite an urgent task and I thought the then Political Secretary would be a good person. He knows the workers. He may not specialise in seamen, but he certainly knows the general problems of workers and he could get useful ideas from seamen as to how the Ordinance could best serve their interests. 3.30 p.m. Unfortunately my former Political Secretary thought I was setting a trap for him and firmly declined the offer, after which, of course, nothing could be done. Mind you, I had an idea of giving him some responsibility - rather tedious, of course, but it would occupy his attention eight hours a day. Once a year, the Auditor scrutinises the accounts of all Government departments and lists out the misdemeanours or inaccuracies or malpractices in the accounting procedures - a very long list - mostly over small things, like lost stamps, stationery not properly accounted for, etc. He would then make recommendations for improvements in these departments. I toyed with the idea of asking my Political Secretary to look into this, thereby contributing to the efficiency of the Government. But after he had refused point-blank the appointment of Chairman to the Seamen's Registry Board, I thought it rather pointless to proceed with the subject. Sir, I can assure you that everything that could have been done or could have been thought of was done or was thought of, but if the result was so meagre and the effort he put in did not justify the sums of money paid to him, then I suggest that the Barisan Sosialis Backbenchers are the persons to put forward the facts on behalf of their Secretary-General.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance said just now that his Political Secretary and his Party had never seen eye to eye with each other. Sir, when the Prime Minister was asked to explain the necessity for a Political Secretary, he said that the job of a Political Secretary was to explain the policies of the Government to the public. In view of what the Minister for Finance said, how did the Prime Minister accept a man who could not see eye to eye with him and how, since this person did not agree with the policies of the Government, could he explain them to the public? Why was he appointed in the first place? And in the second place, when they discovered that he did not see eye to eye with the policies of the Government, why did they not terminate the appointment?

Sir, I had no intention of participating in the duel that is going on between two good friends - the Minister for Finance and the Member for Cairnhill -

Since when were we good friends?

But since it is said that Mr Lim Ching Siong was unwilling to carry out the duties assigned to him by the Minister, I might as well say a few words here on the truth of the matter. Insofar as Mr Lim Ching Siong was concerned as the Political Secretary to the Minister for Finance, if it so happened that he was not seen doing a lot of Ministry of Finance work, it was largely due to the fact that he was not assigned duties which would be carried out satisfactorily by him. This is not something that is strange to the P.A.P. type of thinking. What they want is to use the services of a man so as to continue to get the support of the people whose support they expect to get, but at the same time keep him at a safe distance so that he does no harm to the political leadership of the Party. But I think insofar as the Political Secretary was concerned, he was not afraid of taking up the chairmanship of the Seamen's Registry Board or of taking up any other assignment for the reason that he was never afraid to hold responsibility. But unfortunately, in the thinking of the P.A.P. Ministers, they always make sure that a person is given responsibility but that he is not given the responsibility to have a say in the policies that he is supposed to execute. These are two different things. If you appoint so and so to carry out policies in regard to seamen, you must give him the right to have a say in the formulation of those policies. This is a distinction that I want to make. I can say quite safely that not only was this the case with the Political Secretary to the Minister for Finance, but also with the Political Secretaries to the Minister for Labour and Law and the Minister for Health. Therefore, Sir, I want to get this understood properly, that if Political Secretaries were paid $1,100 a month and they were not doing the work deserving of such a sum, the blame should not be put on the Political Secretaries as such but on the Government Frontbenchers fairly and squarely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Political Secretary to the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Finance brought out two points. I would like to clarify the second point he touched on. Regarding the checking of stores in the various departments, I was directed by the Minister at that time to discuss it with the Political Secretary. The Minister was suspicious and I was directed to tell the Political Secretary to check all the departmental stores except those of the Police and the Civil Defence. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a Minister is so suspicious of his colleague's work, you can then expect the colleague to adopt a similar attitude.

I might add a little, Sir. When the job of Chairman of the Seamen's Registry Board was offered to Mr Lim Ching Siong, there were ulterior and nefarious motives behind it. The previous Chairman of the Seamen's Registry Board was Mr G. H. Kiat and he was chased around. He was almost hammered because he could not cope with the job and the seamen wanted to make somebody a scapegoat. The Minister thinking that this was a tough job assigned it particularly to Mr Lim Ching Siong hoping thereby that Mr Lim Ching Siong would become unpopular. The Minister, of course, also hoped that the seamen would be as rough with Mr Lim Ching Siong as they were with Mr G. H. Kiat.

Sir, this really takes the cake - all this just on suspicion without any proof whatsoever. The Member for Thomson said that it was not fair to have given this assignment to young Master Lim because he would have been given the responsibility without any authority to participate in decision making. Sir, how does he know? The man never took on the job. If he had been taken on the job and had found that he had inadequate powers, that he was not consulted and that his views on the policies of the Government were ignored, then I think there would have been some justification for what the Member for Thomson said. But that never took place. The Member for Thomson was just expressing the suspicions which he felt and no doubt the suspicions which my former Political Secretary also felt. But if he thought that he would be given a job to do but that he was not to be consulted, that matter could have been raised with me. We could have come to an understanding. If I had in fact said, "You are there in the position of a minion. You just take orders from me and do not tell me what to do," then I say he would have been justified in refusing the assignment. But that never was the case. I say with respect that the Member for Thomson was talking nonsense. Now, the Member for Queenstown said that it was a tough job. I agree that it was so and therefore we selected a tough man for a tough job. The Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis thought his Secretary-General could not cope with a tough job. But I can assure you that I have more confidence in the ability of Mr Lim to handle this job and I say that he could have done it quite satisfactorily. He might suspect that I may set booby traps - that is another matter. I did not say that he refused the assignment because he suspected us. He refused it because he thought we were going to do him in. I have just got proof from a colleague of his that that was the case. So how can we trust this fellow? As for what the former Parliamentary Secretary said, I cannot recall whether I asked him to discuss this with the Political Secretary, but I did discuss the general proposition with my Parliamentary Secretary and I did say that there were a few sensitive departments which the Political Secretary could do well to avoid. There was nothing wrong with that. Everybody knows that Mr Lim is a great security risk. Why try to bluff and pretend that it is otherwise? He is not going anywhere near the Police - civil defence is unimportant as it concerns ladders, buckets, etc. - nor the Army departments.

I would like to say just one little sentence. It would appear now that there are two cats out of the bag and not one cat!

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. Some hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say No. Other hon. Members: No.

I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it.

Division.

The Member is too late. The next is amendment (4)*. Mr Marshall is not here. Mr Bani.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (129) of subhead 1.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Thio Chan Bee and Mrs Seow Peck Leng. 3.45 p.m. Sir, much has been said about the importance of the Political Study Centre, and the holder of this post now is Mr G. G. Thomson, O.B.E. I have never understood why the P.A.P. Government wanted to give Mr Thomson this very important post. I do not want to go into great details and expound on the importance of the duties involved, as this was done, I think, by the Minister for Finance last year, and also by various other Ministers every time the debate centres around the Political Study Centre. But it is very curious, Sir, that, on the one hand, we find the Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture and other key personnel in the P.A.P. Cabinet hitting out very strongly at poor expatriates like Professor Enright, or an innocent lawyer like Mr Booker. But when it comes to Mr G. G. Thomson, they seem to have a very soft spot for him. Sir,I venture to suggest that all that the P.A.P. Ministers want to exhibit - for the purposes of exhibition - is that they are anti-colonial. They utter very strong anti-colonial sentiments against poor people like Professor Enright. I assure you, Sir, that Professor Enright -

Professor Enright is no friend of yours!

- can stand in the middle of Chinatown and shout his head off commenting on the local political situation. It does not make one bit of difference to the political situation as such. But whereas the holder of this post, the Head of the Political Study Centre, is a man who is in a position to influence the thinking of a very important section of our population - the civil service. It seems to me very odd that this man, whom the Prime Minister once described as an expatriate and who wrote the speeches of the former Chief Minister, is made use of to impart political knowledge to the civil service. I do not know if it is true, but there is a rumour round town that it may be that Mr G. G. Thomson is in some way connected with the M15, It is very difficult to prove this, but I only hope that Mr G. G. Thomson has not been spending his two years or so in the Political Study Centre training cadres for the M15. If that is the case, then I am sorry to say that our civil service will be worse off than it is at the moment. It appears that the Government wants to retain this man in the post. I hear he will be leaving at the end of this month - I do not know - but in any case, the fact that the P.A.P. not only gave him this responsibility but also defended him prove one simple point, and that is that basically the political thinking of Mr G. G. Thomson and that of the P.A.P. Ministers differ very little. The futility of such thinking is exhibited very clearly in the speeches of the P.A.P. Ministers. Sir, if not for the influence of men like Mr G. G. Thomson, I do not think the Minister for Finance would talk about the first round, the second round, the third round, and the fourth round. I felt a little disturbed when I read in the papers that the Minister misquoted me terribly.

No, the papers misquoted me.

At that time I was not in the Chamber, Sir. Perhaps if the Straits Times misquoted him, then the Minister would say so -

Surely.

- quite clearly, and instruct the paper to carry a correction. But I want to assure the Minister, Sir, and to ease his discomfiture, that if we had to knock them out -

Order. I do not think we ought to talk about knocking out anybody. We are talking about the post of Head of the Political Study Centre. I do not think there are any knockouts there.

I do not want to knock out the Minister for Finance. I cannot knock him out because I am told that he has learnt unarmed combat at public expense. I have never had the money nor the time -

Order. Let us carry on with this Political Study Centre.

I want to point out that it is the reflection of the G. G. Thomson type of thinking that has spelt the doom of the P.A.P. Government, Sir. We are all agreed that it is necessary to have a Political Study Centre where civil servants can be orientated to Asian political thought and to the thinking of Asian nationalists. But when you have an expatriate, a staunch and powerful expatriate who is, as I said, suspected to be an M15 agent, heading the Political Study Centre, then I can only say, Sir, that I do not wish to be a civil servant and attend such a course.

I am not speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year the P.A.P. Government has been accused of teaching P.A.P. politics in the Political Study Centre. As far as I know, they are still doing it. Of course, it is not such blatant lessons that are taught in school where you say, "You must do this. You must do that." No civil servant has been told that you must join the P.A.P. Of course not. But just to explain what I mean. This little story is very short and will give the explanation better than a lot of words. I read in a magazine that a little girl came home from school and asked her mother, "Mummy, why don't we go to Russia?" So the mother said, "Russia! What for?" And the girl said. "The grass there is green. People are happy, and food is plentiful." She was painting a very colourful picture of Russia. Then the mother asked, "Who has been telling you all this?" She replied, "Teacher." There you are, Sir, you can instigate a child to love Russia, to want to go to Russia, to think well of Russia, without telling her, "Russia is good. You tell mummy to go to Russia." Things like that are supposed to be going on in the Political Study Centre. So to ease the public mind, may I ask the Government to tell us what are their aims in running the Political Study Centre? What do they hope to achieve? What has been achieved? What is being taught there? Which groups of civil servants are eligible to attend? Is the syllabus today the same as that when they first started the course? Are Assemblymen, if they wish, entitled to join the course and sit with the civil servants - not a special course for us, Sir, but to sit with the civil servants at their course? I shall be obliged if the Minister for Finance could tell us.

Sir, the Opposition really cannot have it both ways. One Member says that teachers having attended the Political Study Centre tell their children that the grass is green in Russia, everyone is happy and why not go there? If this were the fact, then I expect the Barisan Sosialis would be completely overjoyed and would not raise a word against Mr G. G. Thomson. Far from requiring him to leave the post, they might even suggest, instead of deducting $10, to add $10 to the vote. Sir, may I suggest that when the Member for Thomson was more than hinting that Mr Thomson was an M15 agent, he was steering pretty close to libellous slander, and that if he were to repeat such a statement outside this Chamber, perhaps he might take his chances. Be that as it may, I would first like to give a few facts about the Centre, the sort of details that the Member for Mountbatten asked for. First: who goes there? The answer is the civil servants. We started the course nearly two years ago. For the first 18 months or so we required all Division I officers, except those in purely technical jobs such as doctors, engineers, and people who have nothing to do with policy making, to attend this course. As regards the syllabus, the main outline of it was drawn up by the Minister for Culture, and the details were filled in by the Director and myself, in consultation with the Minister. I think the Minister for Culture is better qualified than I am to describe the contents of the course. The course itself lasts some two to three weeks. Civil servants go there every afternoon for a period of about two to three weeks. That is for Division I officers. When nearly all of them had gone through this course, we started with Division II officers, i.e. Executive Officers, certain types of teachers and, I think, principals went there: also police inspectors, and so on. For them the Study Centre organised a briefer course of about, I think, ten days. I forgot the actual period, but it was about ten days. It was a simpler course, although it contained all the elements of the main course. As I said, I will leave it to the Minister for Culture to give an account of the syllabus and contents of the course. But perhaps I may say a few words why this course is necessary and what we hope to achieve by establishing it and running it for the civil servants. First, Sir, what the course does not want to achieve. It is not designed to tell the civil servants or to convince them of the P.A.P. point of view. It is not even set up to convince the civil servants that socialism is a good thing, because the civil service must be neutral and it is not for the Party in power to tell the civil service that they must accept one political philosophy, be it socialism or Communism or liberalism or any other ism. 4.00 p.m. That is not our responsibility. No political leadership would be right in propagating a political party philosophy to the civil service. The Political Study Centre never did that. This, of course, has caused some unhappiness among the Barisan Sosialis Members, and even among others, because they say, well, there is the Government Political Study Centre. They must tell everyone in the civil service what a socialist society is and what they have to do to bring it about. If we were to do that, then I say we would fail in our objective. When we come to senior civil servants, we are not talking to duffers. All of them have gone through the discipline of a university or higher education and they are not going to say, "Yes. You tell me. I must believe it. Therefore, I believe it." They can distinguish between an honest attempt to explain to them the political history of the Asian revolution and a dishonest attempt to force on them a party political philosophy. Therefore, if the proposition is that the Political Study Centre should tell the civil service things that they have never learnt by experience, because as civil servants they have led a sheltered and isolated way of life, then it is necessary to tell them the struggle that goes on outside the civil service - the great revolution for national freedom that is surging through Asia since World War I. That surely can be told in dispassionate historical terms. There are books about it, books written by persons of all types of political persuasion. Then more recently, we have our own experience in Singapore and Malaya. The struggle of the Malayan Communist Party since 1945 to achieve political dominance in this country; the history of the armed insurrection in 1948. These facts again are known from newspaper articles, from men on the spot. Here again it is just a matter of getting the person who has the training and background for political analysis, a person who has discipline, say, in certain lines of academic pursuit. More than that I say the Political Study Centre is not required to do. It is not the business of the Centre to turn out great anti-colonial patriots. That is not the business of the Political Study Centre. We tell the civil servants, "Look, there is a revolution going on in Asia. We are having the effect of the backwash of this revolution, Trace the history of this Asian revolution from the 19th century onwards." Strange as it may seem, until barely two years ago, the general run of the English-educated, both inside and outside the civil service, were quite unaware of these things, because their attitude was that politics is something dangerous; it is better not to dabble or indulge in it -

On a point of order, Sir. Would the Minister hurry up a bit because he seems to be filibustering?

Order. I think the Minister is perfectly entitled to say what he is saying. I do not think he has reached the stage of filibustering. He is answering a simple question by the Member for Mountbatten. He is endeavouring to answer it. Mr Minister, please continue.

Sir, if I may be permitted a few moments to recollect my thoughts. The English-educated, until about two years ago, both inside and outside the civil service, were unaware of these events. They knew that something was taking place. They were rather disturbed about it. Many were really alarmed. Some had views and theories about how it happened and how it was going to work out. But there was never any occasion for them to make a serious study of these problems, to read books, to listen to lectures and to hold discussions amongst themselves. This was the main purpose of the Political Study Centre. It was a Centre run by civil servants for civil servants with the purpose of bringing home to them some of the major political problems of the day. But in order to equip them to understand the immediate problems facing the country, it was necessary to give them this back-ground of history regarding this whole business as a long historical process which is now taking firm shape in the independent nations in Asia today. Perhaps Members want further details of the contents of the course. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, would be only too happy to oblige.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two issues on this subject. The first is the holder of the post of Mr G. G. Thomson: the second concerns the question of the Political Study Centre itself. On the first issue, on Mr Thomson, I think this subject has been discussed and fought many times in the Central Committee of the P.A.P. from August 1959 until now. We were glad to hear what the Member for Thomson said just now, that Mr Thomson is sailing back to his homeland next month. If the Minister can give us a guarantee and an assurance, we will not hammer him on that issue. We know what Mr Thomson is. It is contained in the Hansard. It is contained in the minutes of the Central Committee. It is contained in the Hong Lim Resolutions. It is contained in the Hong Lim by-election mass meetings. And so we will not spend much time on the person of Mr Thomson himself. On the second issue, my view is that during its two and a half years of existence, the Political Study Centre has served no useful purpose.

Nobody asked you to talk.

Order.

Because what they were doing is to get an expatriate to teach our own Assemblymen, our own civil servants about the conditions in Asia, the national and social currents which are steering Asia. Mr Speaker, Sir, with all due respect, I am sure an expatriate is not qualified to teach us that. Of course, as far as I know, we have a few Asian tutors, both full-time and part-time, who are helping in the job. But these people teach nothing but just the purely anti-Communist line. Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Political Study Centre is an anti-Communist Political centre and openly poses as one, then it might serve the purpose o, the persons who form the centre. But as far as I know, this is not the case. As far as I know, the lectures are just harmless ones. Lectures are given by Ministers and visiting dignitaries. But during the tutorial discussions, where we have both Asian tutors and expatriate tutors, it is nothing but just playing the anti-Communist line most of the time, and at other times showing, for instance, the differences between the Prime Minister's political line and my political line -

On a point of elucidation. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Member for Hong Lim is always making wild statements without the slightest evidence. Could we just, for a change, hear from him some evidence, some facts to justify his allegations?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the lectures as recorded or those that have been delivered are all harmless. But after the lectures we have, I am told, tea groups, where there is a discussions on the merits and demerits of the Chinese-educated versus the English-educated; on how the ex-Minister for National Development did what he did. Is it not a fact, is it not true, that it is nothing but just playing the anti-Communist line in these political lectures? Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of elucidation?

Yes. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

How do the two topics the Member has mentioned tot up to the anti-Communist line? The fact that we are anti Ong Eng Guan does not mean that we are anti-Communist - logically.

Sir, I have never had occasion to attend all the lectures in this Political Study Centre, because, as the Prime Minister once said here, "no otak". We are not intellectual enough. But I have heard, and he can confirm whether it is true or not. You can deny it, if you want to.

Order. The hon. Member should address the Chair. Do not say that I deny anything.

The Minister for Finance, who in practice, I think, runs this Centre, can deny what I have heard. I was told, for instance, in one of the lectures, Mr de Cruz told a meeting of civil servants who attended of his experience of Communists cells, what happened and how awful it was. Another lecturer, Mr Puthucheary, talked about his experience in gaol, his experience of sleeping on tables - more or less from all his experiences - and what would happen to this country if the Communists took over. If it is for the Minister - I have not attended these meetings - to deny or confirm it. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that since the last two and a half years, from what we know of the Political Study Centre, it is not worth the money we vote for it and it should be scrapped. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad of the assurance from the Minister for Finance that the civil service must be neutral and that we must preserve the neutrality of the civil service. That being so, then the Political Study Centre must not only be neutral but appear neutral. The second point is also very important. We would like to have an assurance from the Finance Minister, Sir, whether these things, an example of which I am going to mention here, are being done. We have heard, Sir, that in the course of the lectures or discussions, comparisons are made with regard to the leaders of the Government and the leaders of the Opposition, and invariably the comparisons are so made that the leaders of the Opposition appear in a very bad light. If that is true, then, Sir, I do not think that is neutral. The comparisons are made naturally by lecturers appointed by themselves. Sir, if the Centre is to be neutral and appear to be neutral, then the staff must be neutral.

More neutral than others.

Sir, in order that the Government could really convey to the members of the civil service political ideas without any bias, I would suggest that the- post be not filled, that it be even abolished.

What?

The post of Head of Political Study Centre should be abolished - [Interruption].

Order. Carry on.

In fact, Sir, the whole duty could be shifted to the University of Malaya. Then people will believe that the aims are neutral. The facts should be given by lecturers who can afford to be neutral and I am sure the public then will not be having any adverse views. If, however, the Government insists on retaining control of this Study Centre, it is important that their appointees be such that they have had no previous connections with any political Parties whatsoever. If they have the academic qualifications without any suspicion of having any political bias, then, Sir, an organisation like this will be acceptable and will be above suspicion.

Sir, the fact is that the Minister for Finance holds Mr Thomson close to his heart, as has been exhibited by his threatening me with a libel suit on behalf of Mr Thomson. However, Sir, I shall be least concerned if the Minister for Finance is going to sue me on behalf of Mr Thomson, because I think nothing would give me greater pleasure. However, Sir, I want to ask the Minister for Finance whether it is a fact that Mr G. G. Thomson is, in fact, leaving at the end of this month and, if he is, whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint another head who is also an expatriate and who may have some very sinister connections?

Mr Chairman, when the Minister replies. I wonder whether he will reply to my two questions. He has not replied to them. He has in a vague way shown what has been achieved, But could he tell us actually how the civil servants, the Government, or the State have actually benefited by this course? The second question that I asked and which he has not answered was: if Assemblymen wish to attend and sit in at the course and listen for their own benefit or for their own satisfaction, will they be allowed to. especially if they come from the other side of the House?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very interesting to note that what was said by the Member for Hong Lim last year is being echoed by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. May I point out first that the courses which are being run in the Political Study Centre were sanctioned before they could be given by a group of people who included myself, the Minister for Finance and, in case there should be any doubt about this, also Mr Woodhull and Mr Puthucheary, who by no stretch of the imagination of the Barisan, could be construed as colonialists or stooges. I can assure the Members of the Opposition that the contents of the course are not directed towards making comparisons of any particular political Party in this Assembly or leaders of the Assembly. In fact, it is one of my duties to go there once a fortnight, or sometimes twice a fortnight, and very often people do ask questions where they pin-point either a particular leader or a particular political Party. Because of the allegation made right from the start that it is a brain-washing centre, we take great care, where we can, to avoid making political capital at the expense of one Party or the other. But very often it is true that in the course of discussion civil servants do bring out certain comparisons. And I am sorry to say, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim features very often in these comparisons where the civil servants regale us with rather heart-rending stories of what happened under the regime of the Mayor of the City Council or of the previous Minister for National Development. But even then sometimes it is difficult to avoid answering them because we have to exonerate the Government. Very often we do say that we do not want to go out of our way to discuss the merits of any individual politician or any particular political Party. That can be testified to by going to any of the civil servants. If there had been any specific instance of the Government making political capital out of these courses, I am quite sure those instances would have been transmitted to some Member of the Opposition. But in these allegations, so far nobody has mentioned any specific instance. It is quite true that in the course of a long discussion, you may occasionally say something in an offguarded moment. But not as a matter of principle. None of the courses are designed to put any particular political Party at a disadvantage. Some of the lecturers who go there and give lectures are not pro-P.A.P. Some of them are even suspected of being anti-P.A.P. There have been foreign correspondents who have lectured there. Sir, I will indicate roughly what the nature of the courses is. It is true the courses have changed from time to time. But generally they come broadly into the following categories. First, the history of Malayan political Parties - Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Is it a point of order?

Point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has already replied in greater detail. Is it necessary for the Minister for Culture to repeat what his colleague has said?

I am not quite certain whether the Minister for Culture is, in fact, repeating. If he is repeating, perhaps he should not. He should avoid repeating what the Minister for Finance has said.

Sir, I think it was the Member for Tanglin or the Member for Mountbatten who wanted to know what exactly are the contents of these courses. Sir, I am trying to indicate in more detail, where the Minister for Finance has only dealt generally with, the nature of the courses which are being run there. One is the history of the political Parties, which includes the M.C.P., U.M.N.O., and even the M.D.U., which was mentioned by the Member for Queenstown. It is quite true, Sir, that as a non-Communist party, some lecturers do tell things about the M.C.P. which may not be to the liking of certain Members, perhaps to the Barisan. But that is not a secret. It was never a secret when they were on this side of the House. They were non-Communists. We do not believe in Communism. To that extent, it is necessary for civil servants who are running the civil service to know the nature of one of the political forces, with which they have to contend, and their method of operation. In fact, the Member for Hong Lim indicated earlier that Mr Gerald de Cruz, who was formally active in the Communist movement here, does give the civil servants a first-hand knowledge of how these people operate and what they do. The Member also mentioned Mr James Puthucheary, who is now an adviser and a luminary in the Barisan Sosialis and who has also said many things about the Communists and the Communist movement. Perhaps, Sir, if at some time in the remote future Chin Peng does come out of the jungle and decides that he has enough of it, we are quite sure we will invite him to the Political Study Centre to give a firsthand account of what he thinks of Communism. By and large this is the general nature of the courses. Then we have lectures on Asia, the Asian revolution, economic problems, Malayan nationalism, Malayan culture, and talks by correspondents on current topics: what is happening in Laos, China and elsewhere. This is the broad structure of the courses, and from time to time a specific subject is changed. But as far as the lecturer is concerned, it is quite true, Sir, that we have tried very hard to get a local man who can run these courses. The moment we can find such a man, we shall certainly see to it that the post is filled. Mr Thomson only carries out our instructions as regards the contents of the courses which are dictated to him by us. He is a technician and he arranges the courses. He delivers what has to be said on our instructions.

I will say this, Sir. I was not hiding the fact that Mr Woodhull and Mr James Puthucheary also gave lectures to the civil service. But the dissatisfaction over Mr C. G. Thomson is not new. It has not come about just now. As the Member for Hong Lim has pointed out, all of us in the P.A.P. knew who Mr Thomson was. I have told the Prime Minister personally and privately what I thought of Mr G. G. Thomson, and so have Mr Puthucheary and Mr Woodhull. Can I beg leave to withdraw now, Sir, unless there is -

The Member can always beg leave to withdraw, but he has made a speech. Another Member may speak.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government have said that the courses at the Centre are not to promote P.A.P.ism, which is what I intended to point out when I said, that in Russia the grass is green. I do not accuse the Government of running a course to promote Communism, but rather P.A.P.ism. But, anyway, since they said it was not done, that the lecturers, out of their anxiety probably to try and be in the good books of the Government, tried to show how the P.A.P. is a good Government compared with previous governments, and how the present Prime Minister is a better man than the previous two Chief Ministers, would the Government give us the assurance that they would send out instructions to the lecturers that that is not to be done, and that if they do it, they will face the consequences? 4.30 p.m.

Sir, I am not aware that lecturers ever do such things. From the subject matter of the talks, there is no occasion for them ever to say that this Government is better than the previous government, although this is self-evident to the population. They are there to discuss larger problems like what is meant by economic development and how does it fit in - that sort of thing. They only incidentally say what the Government is doing, whether it is succeeding or not. The civil service knows what is going on and, as I say, nobody is going to bluff them. You are dealing with people who are capable of good judgment. We never underestimate their ability. Now the Member for Mountbatten asked whether Assemblymen could attend the course if they want to do so. I would like to think about this. It is, of course, meant for civil servants. Personally I see no harm if the Member for Mountbatten would like to attend it. But, on the other hand, if it is a general principle, I am not quite sure what the implications are. Perhaps if she could quietly go there and nobody is the wiser, it would not do anybody any harm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to point out that it has been done before. In the previous course run for Assemblymen, civil servants were allowed to attend.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (130) of subhead 1. Sir, this particular post of Staff Tutor is held by a person who is known to have been a keen Party politician. The last political post he held in a Party was as the Organising Secretary for the Labour Front, and he helped the People's Action Party to win the City Council elections. Therefore, his appointment to his present post gives rise to wonderment on the part of the public. Yet the Government wants to follow a course of neutrality. I think it would be wise for the Government to appoint people who are known for having been neutral in local politics, and they would then be clear of all these adverse criticisms that are being made. It is no use the Government saying that their directives are neutral. Directives can be neutral on paper but it is the people who carry them out that is the important thing, and if they are not neutral, the policy can appear to be neutral but the actions belie the written policy.

Sir, the point raised by the Member for Tanglin is that the incumbent helped the P.A.P. to victory in the City Council elections. This is the first time I have heard of it, and in fact the first time my colleagues have heard of it. The Member for Hong Lim is here to confirm or deny whether this man had anything to do with the victory of the P.A.P. in the City Council elections.

I think I should clarify the position. I think what the Member for Tanglin just now meant was that the man was so inefficient in organising the Labour Front that the P.A.P. won the elections!

Mr Speaker, Sir, so long as we are assured that the Government will sincerely follow a policy of neutrality in conducting operations in the Political Study Centre, we are with them. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment as an indication that I really support the policy of neutrality for the civil service.

Is the Member withdrawing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure about the assurance from the Minister for Finance.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1*. *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng. I do not know whether I have missed the bus, but I would like to speak on the salary of the Minister. I will generalise a bit. There is a lot of increase in salary under the whole Head. Since the Ministry of Finance has not done so well in the past year - you will remember, Sir, that I pointed to the House that there was only a 37 per cent performance of the development projects, which was misinterpreted by Radio Singapore to be a 65 per cent performance and by the Straits Times to be a 75 per cent performance - I see no reason why the Minister for Finance, especially when there is so much unemployment around, should increase his own salary.

Order. The question of the increase of the Minister's salary has been dealt with. Under this amendment which is, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1, the hon. Member is entitled to speak generally about the personal emoluments of the Ministry, and not to touch on any particular salary.

I think I will speak under the $100 Head.

Even under the $100 Head, I am afraid the Member for Queenstown will not be able to itemise. He can only speak on the general policy.

I bow to your ruling. I have one particular item on which I want to put a query, and that is the Central Complaints Bureau. I see there are so many Inspectors, Clerical Officers. Investigation Officers, Assistant Supervisors and Supervisors. I am just wondering whether they are going to be on the permanent or merely temporary establishment; and if they are part of the civil service, whether they are supposed to be politically neutral. Probably a lot of people do not know that the Central Complaints Bureau is a direct result of complaints from the P.A.P. branches and Assemblymen before the "break". As a result, we now see this new Central Complaints Bureau coming up. I would like to get an assurance from the Minister that, if and when these posts are filled, they will be properly filled, they will not be influenced by special political considerations as to whether the applicants are P.A.P. members or P.A.P. sympathisers, and everybody will be given due consideration and properly adjudged not on their political affiliations but on their work and their capabilities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see in the Personal Emoluments one post, Code I, which draws $2,075, four posts which draw $1,950 each, twelve posts which draw $1,670 each, five posts which draw $1,520 each, and seven which draw between $1,300 and $1,400. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to tell me how many of these posts are being held by women.

I think two of them are held by women.

Mr Speaker, Sir, evidently this is a question which needs some investigation and probably the Minister will be kind enough to give me a written answer later on. He does not specify where the two of them come in - at the bottom or at the top of the ladder. Anyway, when he gives me the answer, could he also state the reasons why so few women were appointed? Were they not academically qualified? Or was it the usual case of women being eligible in theory but that they were just not appointed in practice?

Sir, before the enlightened policies of the P.A.P. Government were implemented within the last two years, there was not one woman officer in the administrative service. Speaking offhand, I think there are now at least three - probably four. This is the first time we have urged the Public Service Commission to get bright women graduates from the University of Malaya and put them into the administrative service. This is absolutely revolutionary.

I think the question is directed to the Ministry of Finance. The Member for Mountbatten wants to know whether there are any women employees in the Ministry of Finance, and if not, why not. That is the question.

There are, of course, hundreds of women employees. There are two in the top echelons of the Assistant Secretary level. Of course, we have a few more outside the Ministry of Finance. But as I have said, we are making a start in recruiting women into the administrative service.

In the Ministry of Finance.

Generally. I mean the Ministry of Finance looks after the general civil service.

Would the Minister like to comment on the Central Complaints Bureau?

The hon. Member seeks an assurance that these people will be properly recruited, and I give that assurance. There is no question about that. An hon. Member: From the P.A.P. An hon. Member: From the Barisan Sosialis.

May I congratulate the Minister on trying to put more women in? May I also congratulate him on the fact that after my complaint about policewomen, one was promoted to the rank of A.S.P.?

I want an assurance from the Minister for Finance that no discrimination will be made as regards recruitment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the hon. Member say what discrimination he has in mind?

Order. I think that is probably an attack on the Public Service Commission. I do not know. An hon. Member: Its recruitment.

Then that is an attack on the Public Service Commission. Therefore, I think the Member for Queenstown is a bit too late. We have dealt with the Public Service Commission.

I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13. Subhead 13 is Passages and Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses. In the 1961 Estimates it was $1.2 million, and in the 1962 Estimates it is also anticipated that $1.2 million is going to be spent. I would have thought, Sir, that with the reduction of expatriate officers in the Government, the vote for passages should have been considerably reduced. As for the vote stands the same as it did last year; is it because Miscellaneous Expenses are increasing? If so, could the Minister tell us what is making it so expensive?

Mr Speaker, although the number of expatriate officers will be less next year, it is anticipated that the requirements under this vote will be maintained in view of the need to recruit overseas doctors, teachers of Malay, engineers, architects and other technical personnel. The vote will also provide passages and transportation charges for personnel recruited or appointed under the overseas service aid scheme of the Government. This scheme came into operation with effect from April this year, and commitments under this scheme for 1961 will fall for payment in 1962 because the terms of the scheme to be applied to Singapore take time to settle. Allowance has also been made for an increase in the costs of sea and air passages which were imposed with effect from 1st July, 1961, and 1st October, 1960, respectively.

Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance to say that against this vote of Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses will not be charged any travelling expenses of Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries or Political Secretaries, or Government servants travelling between Singapore and the Federation or any other part of Malaysia or any other country, and that this vote of Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses will merely be used for the purposes definitely enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary?

These charges will be charged to this Head.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance say that this vote includes passages and travelling expenses for Malay teachers. Malay teachers from where?

Malay teachers from Indonesia.

(In Malay): I am glad to hear that. But why recruit teachers from Indonesia? We have an abundant supply from Kuala Lumpur, and that will incur less expenditure in travelling.

I am a bit puzzled. I got one answer from the Parliamentary Secretary and on the prompting of his Minister, I got another answer. I only ask this question because, over the last two days when questions were being asked about travelling allowances and why votes were going up, the answer given was that it is becoming necessary because of merger and Government officers have to fly across every now and then, and therefore it is necessary to have an increased vote. So I hope that the first answer is the correct answer, and that is this: these Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses are expenses in connection with the recruitment of outside officers coming in or going out as a result of that recruitment. But I am now told that there are several votes which the Government could go to for travelling expenses. If that is so, I think the position is not very satisfactory, Mr Speaker, Sir,If it is possible for officers from the Ministry of Finance travelling to Kuala Lumpur on merger business to charge their travelling expenses against this item or some other Head, and yet a third Head, then I think the position is unsatisfactory. I think the House should know what particular travelling expenses are being charged to what particular vote. The ability to pick on the first, second or third vote and charge travelling expenses to any one of these three votes is an unsatisfactory position.

Sir, there are two subheads here which are relevant. One is subhead 10 which reads: 'Expenses in connection with -

Subhead 13 is going to be used for routine travelling expenses of Government officers. But the Parliamentary Secretary has said that so far as the first part of that vote is concerned - passages - it is being considerably reduced. Then it appears, Sir, that Miscellaneous Travelling Expenses are being increased. And in view of subhead 10 and various other items on various other Heads where travelling expenses are being increased, it seems to me, Sir, that it is wrong for this Assembly to vote monies to Government for travelling expenses in respect of Government servants who, with their knowledge, can go to several votes under several Heads to charge travelling expenses. From the point of view of some check on Government travelling expenditure, the position, to my mind, Sir, is unsatisfactory.

May I suggest that this item also be investigated by the Estimates Committee?

In view of that, Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to he allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $100*. * The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee. There is only one minute more to go, Sir. I think, in future, if ever the Minister for Finance should put up any statement for us to look at, he should not just put up paper transfers to deceive the people saying that he has spent so much money.

Sir, it is very simple. He said we spent 37 per cent of the Development Estimates. Hearing what he said, I would say his calculation is absolutely wrong. A school boy in Primary V would detected the error, Sir. And if the Member disputes that, I shall issue a statement tomorrow saying that he cannot calculate.

Time has expired. Dr Lee.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $38,219,460 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 37 -

(In Malay): Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 26. This is a vote for "Temporary Staff for Customs Speedboats". I notice that there is a reduction of $10,000 for 1962. The Customs Department is performing an important and vital role in the Government service, particularly in countering smuggling. In view of the unemployment problem, I suggest that these temporary staff be made permanent, as I would not be happy if they were dismissed.

Mr Speaker. Sir, these temporary Customs lieutenants and temporary Junior Customs lieutenants and temporary deck-hands were recruited in 1958 to combat large-scale smuggling between Rhio and Singapore. Now, because the Government has imposed a quota on the re-export of dutiable cigarettes, the threat to revenue has reduced to a large extent, and therefore these men are being retrenched. The Member requested that these men be made permanent, but as they lack the requisite qualifications, they have to be retrenched.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in this way we make the problem of unemployment even more difficult. For instance, when the Government want men to meet a certain contingency they recruit men; and when the need is over they retrench them. I think the Government should give special consideration to these men who have given service. They should be transferred to other departments. But this is just like discarding someone who is of no further use.

Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $4,298,790 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

It is a convenient time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this sitting, and shall take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. 5.31 p.m.

Head 40 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr David Marshall - That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Mr David Marshall is not here. Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $100.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch upon two points. The first is the point which I had already dealt with in the debate on the Financial Statement by the Finance Minister. But, unfortunately, he did not have time to reply to me. I think perhaps he should be given an opportunity to do so. The first point is about the repayment by Government of taxes which have been paid under an assessment already made and in respect of which the tax-payer has appealed but has had to pay the tax even before he could lodge the appeal. The point I made in my previous speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that in those cases the Comptroller and his staff should do their utmost to see that when they have satisfied themselves that there has in fact been an overpayment and the quantum of the return of the tax has been agreed upon, then the repayment of such sum should be made without any delay. I have heard complaints, Mr Speaker, Sir, not only from one or two, but from quite a few that although the quantum of the refund was agreed upon, yet the refund has been unduly prolonged. I am also informed that in some cases it has taken a year or more to refund. The second point I wish to raise, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. You will recollect the debate we had in this House when the Minister of Finance was asking for additional powers for his tax officers. The powers were resisted by the Opposition. Some of us had hoped that, by the increase in powers for the officers of the Income Tax Department, at least the net would have been cast wider to bring in a group of persons who have so far evaded the taxing officers. Sir, a number of people are of the opinion that the increased powers are being used to harass the people who are already paying taxes, asking them to pay quicker, asking them all sorts of questions. That may be good in a way. Sir. But I think what the public at large and this House would be interested to hear from the Finance Minister is this - that as a result of these increased powers, where the taxpayers were X in number, it has now become X plus Y, and these powers have, in fact, brought to the public coffers greater sums of money than would otherwise have been brought in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise another point that was discussed here sometime ago. That is the question of providing income tax relief for dependent parents. Sir, I well remember being on the Pan-Malayan Liaison Committee to discuss income tax relief. It was pointed out by an expatriate officer that in Europe, a family consisted of only husband and wife and children, and that parents could not be regarded as being members of the family. It was pointed out that in view of that and the fact that local people often adopt too many parents, therefore, they were not prepared to agree to personal relief being given. But, Sir, since then, because we have the Ordinance operating for quite a long time and income tax revenue has been increasing each year, I wonder whether it is not time for the Minister for Finance to give favourable consideration to this, in view of the fact that we do not have old age pension in Singapore - where the parents are really dependants - and whether he would not consider providing some personal relief in the case of wage earners who have to support dependent parents.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the repayment of tax which was not properly due. The Member for Farrer Park raised this subject in the debate on the Government's financial policy. After this debate I discussed this matter with the Comptroller of Inland Revenue. He has assured me that it is the policy of his Department to make repayments as expeditiously as possible. But sometimes before payment of money is actually made, certain formalities have to be gone through. Further, the Inland Revenue Department would also require certain information to arrive at the actual quantum. He assured me that if there was anybody who felt that he was unjustly treated in this matter, and if that individual would write to the Comptroller personally, he himself would intervene and he would get repayment made as quickly as possible. I fully agree it is quite wrong for Government to hang on to money which is not due to it, and the sooner it is paid back the better it would be both for the public and for the Inland Revenue Department itself. As regards the wider powers which we obtained from the Assembly last year, the Member for Farrer Park would like to have an account of how these powers were used and with what results. Briefly, I think we can divide these special powers into three groups. Firstly, we sought from the Assembly power for the Comptroller of Inland Revenue to ask for payments of tax on assessment raised by him even where there is an objection lodged by the taxpayer, the ground being that people do lodge objections in the hope of delaying payment. Under the old law, the taxpayer was not obliged to make any payment until the objection was resolved by the Income Tax Board of Review. The result of granting this increased power to the Comptroller has been most satisfactory. The Comptroller has no occasion to use this power extensively, but there has been a marked acceleration in the process of raising assessments. Taxpayers are now quicker to give information because there is nothing or very little to gain by delaying assessment. So the effect of that, I think, has been very beneficial. The second group of powers relates to the collection of information by various measures. It is still too early to assess how effective this would be, how much the extra yield to the revenue would ensue from the use of this special power. Perhaps I should explain, Mr Speaker. Sir, that there is in the Inland Revenue Department a section called the Investigation Unit. It is a small unit, but it comprises a very skilled investigation staff. Each year they collect nearly 10 per cent of the total revenue due from income tax. The present position is that they have found this power useful. I do not think they can be accused of using this power excessively, because we have no public outcry against it. Certainly the Member for Farrer Park, who takes an interest in this matter, has not put forward any specific complaints. Thirdly, there is the requirement that certain classes of business give receipts, and if they do not, they can be required to give receipts. This also has borne fruit. Two doctors in private practice have been. successfully prosecuted for failing to give receipts, and very substantial tax assessments have been raised on them. Action against a third doctor is pending. I have no doubt the medical profession will in future make their proper share to the State revenue. The Member for Tanglin has raised the old question of relief for the aged parents. Quite frankly, I have not given much thought to this subject. I do not know whether I should, in view of the fact that income tax legislation will be a Federal subject. So for the time being, I would say I prefer to reserve my position.

I want to bring up the question of the Review Committee for the review of property tax. This is the Committee where only P.A.P. Assemblymen are asked to sit and the Chairman of that Review Committee happens to be also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. You will remember that we had quite a bit of row last year about the Rent Conciliation Board having been staffed only by P.A.P. Assemblymen. Now we have the same thing happening again. We are just wondering if it is a case of conciliation and sympathy being given only to people who happen to know P.A.P. Assemblymen or people who are sympathetic towards the P.A.P. Why should only P.A.P. Assemblymen be in that Committee?

The reason simply, Sir, is that it is not a statutory Committee. It has no powers. It just meets in a really unofficial advisory status to assist the Property Tax Department. There is a lot of misunderstanding, especially among occupiers or owners of low value property. We do not get much tax from these small houses, attap houses and so on. But nevertheless, assessment must be raised in accordance with the law. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a standing invitation to evade tax. There is a lot of misunderstanding. The tax officials, of course, take the stand that that is the law and that they must enforce it to the hilt. On the other hand, Assemblymen who are in touch with public opinion realise that while you should collect your fair share of tax due, it should be done in such a way that people, if they are not happy, are at least satisfied that they are parting with money due to the Government. The Committee has been formed and because it is purely an advisory and not a statutory Committee, we have decided that the best way to get work done expeditiously is to appoint a Committee of Government Assemblymen. 5.45 p.m. If we were to make it an All-Party Committee, then you can be sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the fracas which has threatened to develop in the House but has never quite succeeded might well run out of hand in this little Committee. The Committee, of course, serves all sections of the community. Whether they are supporters of one Party or another makes no difference. They are entitled to be received by this Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the property tax that comes under Head 40. It is on the question of unoccupied premises on which tax has to be paid. I would like to point out to the Minister for Finance that the extra cost of the tax on vacant newly-built properties is not borne by developers. If the developers know that they have to pay the extra cost, they will put up the price of the houses and the poor people who have saved up all their lives to buy a home suffers that extra cost. The extra cost is not borne by the developer. It is always passed on to the poor buyer. The other tax is on properties that are not new, people who actually rent out houses. People pay assessment and Government charges assessment for the services that they render, such as roads and so on, which enhances the value of the property. But, Sir, properties do get a higher rent when they are furnished and that extra money is provided by the house owners themselves. The Government gets income tax as well as assessment on part of it, because they only allow deduction of the value of the property divided by five years. You are supposed to get back the money in five years, and property after five years, everybody knows, is worth nothing. While the owner suffers that loss, the Government is benefiting by the extra that they get from income tax and property tax. What I want to point out is this. While the house owners receive that extra, they pay Government extra. To a certain extent, it might be justified. But when they do not receive that extra, they do not receive any rents at all, the extra is presumed to exist, although the rents do not exist. People have had to pay assessment on the extra which does not exist at all because the house is unoccupied. So not only are they paying for the assessment on the rent of the house, it the rent is, let us say, $100, and by virtue of the place being furnished, apart from the cost of the furniture that is allowed by Government, Government charges another $70 extra. So you have to pay 36 per cent on the $70, which does not exist except hypothetically.

Sir, I struggle with the disadvantage of not really understanding what the hon. Member was saying. I do not know whether I can do it in two minutes or two hours. Quite frankly, I do not follow the hon. Member.

Shall I clarify?

Mr Speaker. Sir, this is not a vital issue. If the hon. Member feels unhappy, perhaps we could have a chat about it in the C.P.A. Room.

I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,784,710 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 44 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. With your permission, Sir, I wish to speak also on item (2)* of subhead 1 [Amendment (2)]. *Amendment (2) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Yes, if it is convenient.

Sir, quite a lot has been said on this business of restoration of pay cuts for the Ministers -

I do not know whether the Member is reopening the subject. He cannot do so. Let us not even touch on it.

Sir, I do not want to reopen the discussion on the restoration of the pay cuts; but as I was saying, sc, much has been said and, in fact, it was not my intention to reopen the discussion. But the point I want to make here is that we in the Barisan Sosialis, in fact, do not grudge the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries getting the extra money. But I would like to point out, Sir, that this $2,500 and $1,500 are not sums of money coming from the P.A.P. purse. They are coming from the public purse to which every man in the street contributes by way of taxes. Particularly here, Sir, the Minister for Labour has the responsibility to be neutral in dealing with labour disputes which involve the lives of thousands and thousands of workers. It is important for the Minister himself and the Parliamentary Secretary himself to set an example of neutrality, because invariably the Minister shows bias against the unions which are not led by P.A.P. henchmen. The staff who are in the civil service tend to follow the footsteps of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. Sir, numerous incidents have taken place, particularly in the last six months or so, which show that the intention .f the Government in operating the Ministry of Labour and Law is merely to give recognition, blessing and whatever other assistance can be given, to strengthening trade unions led by P.A.P. henchmen like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. I do not think I have the time, nor will you permit me, to touch on all the incidents. But briefly, Sir, I would like to illustrate what I say by what, in fact, happened in the case of the dispute of the Shaw Brothers employees. Sir, as everybody is aware, at the height of the dispute, the Minister for Labour denounced the leadership of the union involved and called the workers to attend a meeting at the Victoria Memorial Hall. On the surface of it, Sir, it all looked a very fine thing to happen. Here is the Minister, who is receiving $2,500, anxious to -

Order. Let us not have these asides. There is a grievance; let the grievance be against the conduct of the Minister. I do not think his salary has anything to do with it.

I just wanted to emphasise the anxiety shown by the Minister in wanting to settle a legitimate dispute of more than 100 workers. On the surface of it, as I was saying, it all looked very fine. The Minister wanted to settle a dispute of these workers and was over-anxious to intervene. So he asked all the workers to attend a general meeting at the Victoria Memorial Hall. But if we were to look a little deeper, it was a very sinister move, made deliberately to undermine the collective bargaining position of the trade union of the workers involved, and to undermine its rights and privileges. Sir, at no time in the past has there been an occasion where workers involved in a dispute were called to attend a conciliation meeting by ignoring the trade union. In this particular case, there was a trade union which is registered under the laws of the country and which is recognised by the Government as a legal organisation representing the workers concerned. A trade union which enjoyed the support and confidence of every worker involved. Yet the Government thought fit to disregard the union, call the workers up so as to be able to make political capital out of the dispute. As we are all aware, the workers saw through this. They quite definitely stayed away. Even the Minister did not dare go and face the empty hall in the Victoria Memorial Hall the next day. But this is just one of the instances, Sir, where the Government Ministers, particularly here the Minister for Labour, are prepared to go to any lengths, even to the extent of co-operating on the quiet with the employers, as to undermine the work of trade unions which are not loyal to the P.A.P. Sir, we have been accused of so many things. We have been told that we are in control of unions and we control the workers and so on and so forth. But it would appear, Sir, from events that all these allegations are unfounded, and all that emerges is the fact that the Labour Ministry today is, we are told, to be biased against the non-P.A.P. unions. Just before I conclude. I would like to give one more little example, Sir,I do not have the constitution of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees here. But if one were to look at the constitution, one would find the Secretary-General of the Union is allowed to hold office for five years, and there is a provision to the effect that the constitution of the Union cannot be amended for three years from 1961. All that it means is that for four years the Secretary-General cannot be removed by the workers. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I have been told that this is ultra vires the Trade Union Ordinance. I do not know how the Registrar of Trade Unions was told to register this constitution. And there are numerous other examples, Sir. I do not want to take away the time of this House by pouring out instance after instance. The only request I would like to make of the Government is to try and run the Labour Ministry as a government machinery dedicated to the cause of settling trade dispute in a neutral manner. The Ministry of Labour is not a P.A.P. outfit, and the Minister is not paid, as I have said earlier, from the P.A.P. purse. This is particularly important. I do not blame the civil servants I have had the nasty experience of facing up to some of the officials who are civil servants in the Ministry of Labour and who put forward a very biased line against the non-P.A.P. unions. But I certainly do not blame them because I know they have jobs to safeguard, and if they do not play the P.A.P. line, they will find themselves losing their jobs. That is precisely why it is necessary for them to set an example. I have no doubt that if they do set an example, the civil servants in the Ministry of Labour will follow suit. 6.00 p.m.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1." As indicated, the debate may range over amendment (2)*. * See footnote at col. 1896.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite appreciate why the Member for Thomson should make all these unfounded allegations against the Minister and myself and even against the officials in my Ministry. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health and Law will bear me out that, before the parting of ways, the Member for Thomson and many of his union associates used to complain to me and also to the present Minister for Health and Law that the officers in the Conciliation Office were not doing their work properly. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the documents here. It was sometime last year when the Singapore General Employees Union made unfounded allegations against the officials in the Ministry that they were not doing their work properly. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a trade dispute, it is very difficult for the officers in the Ministry to hold the balance. What the unions expect officers there to do is to speak on their behalf. There is a difference between the civil servants and the Minister and myself. The Minister and I can explain and discuss a matter with an employer. Sometimes we have to make use of our position to force an unreasonable employer to come to an agreement with his employees. Some employers are quite reluctant to come to an agreement with their employees unless they are faced with industrial action. So under those circumstances where we know that the employers are unreasonable and the workers are forced to take industrial action to reach an agreement, we give our advice and sometimes we press the employers to reach an agreement with the unions. So all this while, the unions expect the officers to adopt the same stand taken by the Minister and myself. As these officers are civil servants, sometimes their advice may not carry any weight and the employers may not respond to it. So the allegation that the officials in the Ministry of Labour are against non-P.A.P. unions in a dispute is unfounded. But the point is that there is no P.A.P. union or non-P.A.P. union. There has been a spilt. There is the N.T.U.C. and the S.A.T.U., which is under the control of the pro-Communists.

How do you know?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we now come to the allegations made with regard to the Shaw Brothers' dispute. The Prime Minister in his broadcasts has shown to the people of Singapore how the pro-Communist elements in the unions are trying to convince the workers that they are really working for them in order that they can control the unions. Therefore, with that objective in mind, a case in point is the Shaw Brothers' dispute. The workers' union submitted their demands to the management and had direct negotiations with the management. When they reached a deadlock, they did not refer the dispute to the Ministry. In this instance, I would say that the union was playing right into the hands of the employer. Instead of appealing to us to help them - as we always try to put any union in a better position - they tried to show that they were in a better position, and they also tried to convince the workers that they could get what they wanted without resorting to the Ministry of Labour. So when they reached a deadlock - just as when they were in trouble over the political issues, instead of consulting the nationalists in Malaya they went to see Lord Selkirk - what did they do? They went to consult an expatriate lawyer, Mr Booker, whom the Member for Thomson defended just now. They had a behind the scenes talk. But the employers got fed up with the attitude of the union and with the way the negotiations were handled. They therefore made up their minds to close down. This dispute only concerns those employed in the administrative office. It is very easy for the Shaw Organisation to transfer their administration office to Kuala Lumpur. When we understood that the Shaw Organisation intended to close down and transfer their administrative office from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, we had to step in, as we had the interest of the workers in mind. We can assure the House that we are not going to be so foolish as the previous Government which, in its foolish anxiety to build a union of its own, got into trouble because it tried to have people like Mr Jaganathan to build up the T.U.C. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not going to fall into that sort of trap. As far as the workers are concerned, we treat them all the same - whether they are members of S.A.T.U. or of the N.T.U.C. The P.A.P. Government will look after the interests of the workers, but we are not going to build up S.A.T.U. That is our policy insofar as the interests of the workers are concerned, and we will always maintain that policy. As I said just now, we were afraid that the hundred workers involved in the Shaw dispute might lose their jobs, and therefore the Minister himself convened a meeting between the employees and the employers. We knew that the union officials had an ulterior motive behind the dispute. So before the meeting was convened, the management instructed its legal adviser, Mr Booker, to have a consultation with me. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not like to reveal what we discussed, but this is what exactly took place. The representatives of the management said they were always prepared to negotiate with the workers, but they wanted me to assure them that in case of a deadlock again the Government would not refer the dispute to the Arbitration Court. If the management were sincere and genuine in their desire to negotiate - and the union did approach them behind the scenes - why did they want me to give them an assurance that if there was a deadlock the dispute should not be referred to the Arbitration Court? Anyway, insofar as that proposed meeting was concerned, the Minister received many telephone calls -that the employers were very anxious to attend. Later on, after seeing the Minister, as the representatives of the management agreed to resume negotiations in the Ministry of Labour, we therefore arranged a meeting there the following day where the two parties met again and concluded an agreement. But the point is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. It appears that the Member for Thomson is accusing the Ministry of Labour, after the parting of ways, of being biased and prejudiced against the so-called non-P.A.P. unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is definitely not the case, and I challenge the hon. Member to produce facts in cases where we have done so. For his information - maybe he is now too busy with his Party and with his trade union affairs which are being handled by his colleagues - there are so many cases handled by the Singapore Business Houses Union in which demands are submitted and direct negotiations with the management are asked for: and where negotiations have come to a deadlock the management suggest that they be referred to the Ministry of Labour. On many occasions, the management have complained to me that the unions refuse to do so. In such a case, I have to advise the employers to refer the negotiations to the Ministry of Labour. On many occasions, the Commissioner for Labour has arranged meetings in order to break the deadlock in the negotiations. These are cases which the unions refuse to refer to the Ministry of Labour. So where then is the truth in the allegation that the Government is biased and prejudiced against the so-called non-P.A.P. unions? Mr Speaker, Sir, we can assure the House that as far as the Government are concerned, we will carry out our workers' policy and we do not care whether they belong to this or that union. Where their conditions of service need revision and adjustment, we will always support them.

Sir, I would have loved to let this debate be a battle between comrades and ex-comrades, but the Parliamentary Secretary has found it necessary to bring in the previous Government. The previous Government did not do anything to corner the workers' market, as the P.A.P. did. The previous Government even persuaded the then T.U.C. to admit the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture to be the Secretary-General of the T.U.C., although he was known to be a very staunch P.A.P. supporter. And yet when the P.A.P. came into power and the same staunch P.A.P. supporter continued to be the Secretary-General of the T.U.C., what did the P.A.P. do? They cornered the whole market. Every staunch P.A.P. supporter was made an Assistant Secretary with a five-year term of office. If they want to fight, to lash out and have it out with their ex-comrades and disclose all guilty secrets, they can do so; but they should not try to accuse the previous Government of doing something which they themselves have been doing and for which they should be ashamed. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there are no P.A.P. unions. Come, come, do not make us laugh! We know which unions are P.A.P. unions and which are the S.A.T.U. unions.

Sir, I had the impression that the Parliamentary Secretary was merely beating around the bush. In the first place, I did not blame the staff of the Ministry of Labour. It is, in fact, true that from time to time we have criticised individual officials of the Ministry of Labour. We have done this ever since May 1959, that is, after the elections, and perhaps some of this was put down in writing and given to the former Minister for Labour and Law or to his Parliamentary Secretary. 6.15 p.m. The point I was making was that if the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary themselves show bias, you do not expect your civil servants not to show bias, especially when they know that if they do not show bias they may be faced with a "walking certificate". Sir, I have had numerous unpleasant occasions when - and the Parliamentary Secretary knows this very well - I had even to phone up my political opponent to save me from the tortures of the Ministry of Labour officials. I have had very many unpleasant occasions when puny little labour officers came to strike posts and addressed the strikers on picket rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and then said that no union official should be at picket spots. I then asked him, "What law says that no union official should be at picket spots?" And he said, "I have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary." Instead of arguing with the poor civil servant, I phoned up on a number of occasions the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary themselves. I have no doubt there are a few labour officers and high-ranking officials in the Labour Ministry who go out of their way to try and please the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary by showing over-bias against non-P.A.P. unions. I want to make this quite clear, Sir. I certainly do not blame them because I know this is being done because they want to keep their jobs so that they can get their pay at the end of the month. Secondly, Sir, on the Shaw Brothers dispute. I do not want to spend much time on it. The Parliamentary Secretary was saying that I was defending an expatriate. He knows well I would be the last person to defend an expatriate. For his information, Sir, I understand Mr Booker is a Singapore citizen. I am not defending him. I know him casually and met him across the negotiating table. And I have no, doubt that my defending him will be more embarrassing to him than to me. Therefore, it was not my intention to defend him. He was appointed by the Shaw Brothers Organisation to negotiate on behalf of the management, and naturally the union's representatives had to meet him to negotiate. There was nothing strange or sinister about it. What, in fact, happened during the dispute and negotiations clearly showed the attitude of the Minister for Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary. Negotiations on wage claims were carried on for six months. Although they were protracted, there was no deadlock, no ill-feeling, and the talks were held in a quite friendly atmosphere. Then one fine morning, Sir, the Shaw Brothers just closed the premises and locked out the workers. I do not know The reason. I am told that Mr Run Run Shaw and the Minister for Finance are good friends. It was a shock to the workers. Sir, one fine morning they went to work and found notices on the board to the effect that it was a lockout. And then negotiations, and negotiations. [interruption] Yes, there was a sit-down strike. I am not pulling any bluff. There was a sit-down strike, but nevertheless talks were held in a friendly atmosphere. After this lockout, the union and the management got together. There was a lot of persuasion on the part of the union before the management agreed to continue the talks. In the course of the talks, the union was informed by the management that they were told not to settle the dispute outside the Labour Ministry. This is the point - why must the Ministry of Labour advise the employer not to settle the dispute outside the Labour Office? Because the union knew this and understood the situation the employer was in, in the final stages it agreed to go to the Labour Ministry: The most interesting part here is this: right through the negotiations, as I said, there was a friendly atmosphere and even after the deadlock the negotiations were continued and concluded. But because of the insistence of the Labour Ministry, this is what they were told - after coming to an agreement outside the Ministry of Labour - that both parties had to go to the Labour Ministry for a formal agreement and say, "Yes, I agree to this." That was the case. [interruption] He wants proof, Sir. I do not think you will allow me to quote hundreds of instances, but if the Parliamentary Secretary wants, I can give him sufficient proof to show how the Ministry of Labour is being used as a P.A.P. outfit to make political capital out of legitimate trade disputes of the workers. I do not think, Sir, this is the place for me to quote all that. But in passing, I might as well say that everybody knows the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union has Government blessing to the extent where they go to the employer and say, "I want to -organise the workers into my union, the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union. Will you please circulate this letter on our behalf?" And the employer co-operates with the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union in helping to organise their union. In the first place, no employer likes to organise the workers into any union, be it a P.A.P. union. But the fact that in Singapore today the employers, at least some employers, are prepared to assist the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union to organise workers is a clear indication of the extent of the blessing the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union is receiving from the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary also said that we object to going to the Labour Ministry when the employers want to go to the Labour Ministry. That is a fact. The employers want to go to the Labour Ministry because the employers have been told, "You don't settle with the union outside, because I cannot make political capital. So everytime you face a set of claims from the union, you refer to the Labour Ministry." The employers say, "I want to refer this to the Labour Ministry." And we say, "Why should you, because there is no deadlock. If there is a deadlock and if we want conciliation, then we are quite prepared to go to the Labour Ministry. But right now there is no deadlock and we continue to negotiate." That is the point I am making. Today we have a situation where the Government, having lost the support of the workers, is trying to make a comeback by using a few unionists and some adventurous employers. In the process, they show complete bias against the majority of the unions in Singapore, which are not P.A.P. unions. That is precisely why I ask the Government, particularly the Minister for Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary, to make sure that in so far as handling trade disputes is concerned, try to be neutral. If they want to compete with us for the support of the workers in settling trade disputes, we are quite prepared to accept them in the trade union field. There are a few outfits, like the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union, the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees - a few, not more than five or six. But if they want, they can have a few more. We are quite prepared to compete with them in the trade union field. But we do not want the State machinery to be used to make political capital out of the legitimate trade disputes of the workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson knows as much as I do that the Minister for Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary are fair-minded gentlemen. It is completely untrue to say that they are in any way biased against what he chooses to describe as non-P.A.P. unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson knows this very well. He participated in the debate on the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He knows that Ordinance was brought into force with effect from 15th September, 1960. Under that Ordinance certain procedures are laid down with regard to negotiations, the way in which employers and unions get together to reach a collective agreement. There is a requirement that either side could serve notice on the other so that they could get together and begin collective bargaining. For some reason or other, Mr Speaker, Sir, a certain group of unions have never been prepared to invoke the provisions of that Ordinance after it came into force. I have spoken to them and I have told them that this law has been brought into force and have asked them to serve their notices under the provisions of that Ordinance. But they still choose to meet managements without recourse to the provisions of this Ordinance. They have tried to reach collective agreements in that way, the whole purpose being to sidetrack the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has referred to the case of the Shaw Brothers. That is a case in point. The union served their notice on the management but did not invoke the procedures of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The management considered their claims to be unreasonable, locked them out and said. "We close shop." In all other cases where this Union asked for negotiations with the managements and there was a breakdown in the negotiations, it just went on strike. It would never use the machinery of conciliation that was open to it under the provisions of this Ordinance. Well, the case in reverse was the Shaw Brothers case. In that case, they were locked out by the management. The management said, "Well, to hell with all this. We close down." What was the Minister to do? Here was a case where the union and the employer had sidetracked the Ordinance. The men would suffer if they continued to be locked out. So what was the Minister to do? He tried to arrange a meeting where everybody would be present, including the union officials and the management. And that meeting was boycotted by the union. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance is a good Ordinance if it is used properly. Just now the House heard what the Member for Thomson said. He said they were quite happy to go and negotiate in the presence of Mr Booker. The Member knows the Ordinance prohibits practising lawyers from participating in negotiations. This is laid down in black and white in the Ordinance. But they preferred to negotiate with Mr Booker, who acted on behalf of the management, rather than go to the Labour Ministry.

On a point of clarification.

Yes, certainly.

Sir, I do not think it is laid down in the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance that a practising lawyer is prohibited from participating in negotiations. A practising lawyer is prohibited from presenting a case in the Arbitration Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, they have chosen to interpret the Ordinance that way. I agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is not laid down -

Point of elucidation if the Minister would give way.

Order. I think the Minister has not completed his sentence anyway.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a defect in the law. We believed the unions would play fair by that Ordinance - that they would comply with the procedures laid down in it. We have found that they have done everything they could to side-track it. It will therefore be necessary for us to say, by way of an amendment to the Ordinance, that all negotiations will have to be carried out under the provisions of the Ordinance. Since the Booker affair. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bar Committee has sought a declaration from the High Court as to the interpretation of the Ordinance. The Government have agreed to make the position quite clear by introducing an amending Bill which would specifically state that all conciliation proceedings and negotiations would have to be within the provisions of the Ordinance, and not outside it, so that we could prohibit the side-tracking of its provisions. 6.30 p.m Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson also said just now that he was surprised that the A.U.P.E. could have been registered, and that the Constitution of this Union itself provides for the appointment of a Secretary-General for five years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have known the Member for Thomson for quite a long time. I have never heard him once mention to me that all this was ultra vires the Trade Union Ordinance. The first time I heard about it was this afternoon. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has expressed surprise how A.U.P.E. could have been registered. This union, as far as I know, is an amalgamation of existing unions. A number of Government unions in the Postal Department, Woodbridge Hospital and some other departments got together and amalgamated themselves, including in the amalgamation the City Council Services Union. Mr Speaker. Sir, there was never any reference to the Minister' about this amalgamation. There is power under the Trade Union Ordinance for the Registrar to approve such an amalgamation. As far as the Government is concerned, and as far as I am personally concerned, I never knew that the A.U.P.E. was registered until after it had been registered. The Registrar had full power to deal with that situation himself. So I am really very surprised that the Member for Thomson should have expressed surprise that this union had been registered. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is most unfair that the Member for Thomson should have tried to suggest to the House that the Minister for Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary have been unfair in their dealings with certain unions. I have known them personally for a very long time now, and I can assure the House that both these men, whom I know so well, are certainly not in any way unfavourably disposed towards any group of unions.

I want to say only a few words. In the first place, Sir, as far as the Industrial Relations Ordinance goes, to the best of my knowledge, there is no provision which prohibits a lawyer from negotiating either for the union or for the employer. The prohibition is only in presenting a case in the Arbitration Court. Secondly, the Minister says that I never said anything of A.U.P.E. before. I am quite sure it would be very embarrassing to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture if I were to say everything that happened in the private conversations between himself, Mr Woodhull and myself in so far as the organisation of A.U.P.E. is concerned. It is not my intention to take more time of this House in discussing this, but I assure the Minister, Sir, that if the Parliamentary Secretary wants, I am quite prepared to say all these things.

Just one more point, Mr Speaker, Sir. The House knows that the Bar Committee have sought a declaration from the High Court on the interpretation of the sections of the Industrial Relations Ordinance with which we have been dealing. Mr Speaker, Sir, they have made it quite clear that they accept the position that practising lawyers should not in any way be concerned with the actual handling of negotiations or appear as counsel before the Industrial Arbitration Court. All that the Bar Committee is seeking is a declaration that practising lawyers have the right to draw up agreements for their clients-who might be unions of employees or who might be employers-and the right to advise them, without meddling in negotiations and appearing before the Arbitration Court.

Mr Speaker, just on a point of elucidation. The Minister mentioned that he did not know anything about the registration of A.U.P.E. May I ask him whether he was referring to the first registration or the second registration of A.U.P.E.? Would he also enlighten us why A.U.P.E. was dissolved - I think it was September 1959 - and why on the same day it was re-registered again?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Member for Thomson has been speaking quite a lot about A.U.P.E. I think he must be answered. He made an allegation that if the conversations that, took place privately between the Member for Thomson, Mr Woodhull and myself were revealed, it might be embarrassing to us. Of course, Sir, if the conversations that took place between the Member for Thomson, Mr Woodhull, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Devan Nair and myself were revealed, it would be embarrassing also to those who are in the Barisan Sosialis at the moment. I think the question raised by the Member for Mountbatten could be answered by me. It was an amalgamation of two unions - the Singapore Union of Post and Telegraph Workers and the P. & T. Uniformed Staff Union, which were in existence in 1946 and 1947 respectively. One of these unions had strikes three times in that period. If you will remember, Sir, the present Prime Minister was the legal adviser of the P. & T. Uniformed Staff Union in 1951 during the strike. He also represented the Singapore Union of P. & T. Workers before an arbitration case in 1953. These unions in September 1959 amalgamated and formed what was called A.U.P.E. Negotiations took place between the new organisation and six other unions on further amalgamation. The law requires that every time an amalgamation is effected a new registration should take place. That is why the first A.U.P.E. had to be re-registered again under a new number. Eight unions -which were legally constituted and registered - by a secret ballot of their members and following the provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance, had amalgamated and created this union. If anything had been illegal and unconstitutional, then I suggest the Registrar of Trade Unions should be questioned, maybe by the Member for Thomson or anybody else.

Mr Speaker, may I reply to a few comments made by the Member for Thomson? If I understand him correctly, if he is trying to accuse the Ministry, particularly the Minister, myself and the officials there, of enforcing the Trade Disputes Ordinance, then I will have this to say. Since he himself is a responsible officer in the union, he should advise his members to observe peaceful picketing. Whenever there is a dispute resulting in industrial action, we always have a lot of complaints from the employer that the striking employees are not observing peaceful picketing. What we have now done, in fact, is to try to give an opportunity to the union responsible to advise their members to observe peaceful picketing. If the Member for Thomson does not want the Labour Ministry to remind them and advise them how to conduct peaceful picketing, then I suggest we abolish, the procedure. But he will have to see that the members are observing the peaceful picketing rule. With regard to the Shaw Brothers trade dispute, the Minister for Health and Law has explained this. It is not as the Member for Thomson puts it - direct negotiations. Before the negotiations ended in a deadlock, the union had already instructed its members to go slow. That was the thing that made the management fed up with the whole situation. They thought it was impossible for them to tolerate any more the irresponsible attitude of the union. That is why they made up their minds to close down. That is where they made the mistake and we had to step in, otherwise the workers would lose their jobs. Another point is this. The Member was under the impression that what the Ministry wants is that he must refer all trade disputes, all negotiations to the Ministry. That is not the case, Sir. What we have said is that there are conciliatory facilities. As far as possible, the union and the management can have direct negotiations. But in case they reach a deadlock at that stage, they should seek the assistance of the Labour Conciliation Office. Otherwise, before they do that, if they take industrial action -

On a point of information. Mr Wee Toon Boon resumed his seat.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary either confirm or deny that employers have been told to refer disputes to the Ministry of Labour?

Yes. We have advised the employers to do that. Why? It is because during this period, the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union especially had direct negotiations. As soon as they reached a deadlock, they did not refer the dispute to the Labour Ministry. They just called for industrial action. Then the employer had to come to the Ministry and seek our advice. We always advised the management that in order to avoid that sort of situation, they should come and inform us in advance and ask the Labour Ministry to take over the negotiations. That is what we have asked them to do. But we have never compelled an employer not to conduct direct negotiations with the union. We say, "Yes by all means, have your direct negotiations. But before you reach a deadlock and seek industrial action, the dispute should be referred to the Commissioner for Labour to see whether he would be able to assist both parties." That is what we have advised the employer and the union to do. It is not what the Member for Thomson has alleged, that is we are forcing the employer not to conduct direct negotiations but to bring all direct negotiations to the Labour Ministry. The last point. Mr Speaker, is about the question of a lawyer representing the management. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what office the Member for Thomson occupies in S.A.T.U. So many non-English speaking unions in S.A.T.U. are objecting to lawyers representing employers in negotiations or in just a normal trade dispute. I have had occasions when they came personally and appealed to me to advise the employers not to make use of the lawyers. If the Member for Thomson wants it, I am prepared to allow the lawyers to conduct negotiations on behalf of their employer. We have no objection to that, Sir,In fact, the Commissioner for Labour will be too happy. Otherwise, everytime a lawyer comes on behalf of the employer we have difficulty. On certain occasions the unions have boycotted the negotiations. They do not want to meet the legal representatives of the management. It is up to the Member to make up' his mind. We are prepared to accommodate him on this point.

I do not want to deny the others who have given notice of amendments. So I withdraw the amendment.

There is not much time left anyway. There are only five minutes left. The Member is not asking for a vote. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (2)* is not being moved. * See footnote at col. 1896. 6.45 p.m. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Rajah, Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr Bani and Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib - That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

Mr Rajah? He is not here. Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Sir, I move this amendment just to find out from the Minister concerned whether, like the Minister for Labour and the Deputy Prime Minister, having had sad experience of a Political Secretary, he would consider removing this item from the vote should he consider it no longer necessary.

Mr Bani? Mr Bani indicated dissent.

The Member is not speaking. Inche Ahmad Jabri? He is not here.

Mr Speaker, I think the necessity for a Political Secretary in the Ministry of Labour has been accepted by the Opposition bench. In fact, two days ago when they argued with me about my having a post for a Political Secretary in my Ministry, the Member for Thomson did acknowledge that in certain Ministries like the Ministry of Labour there was a genuine necessity for a liaison officer who can explain to the workers the policies concerning the Ministry of Labour. You must also understand that the Ministry of Labour is in charge of social welfare and the amount of work involved in social welfare is quite considerable. So I would say that the Ministry of Labour does require a Political Secretary who can assist the Minister in explaining his policies to the people.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 1. Sir, last year there was a lot of heated debate over this post. The then Minister for Labour and Law at that time disclosed in this House that he had to find a man to do this job, and after having found the man to do the job, the post would then be created. But he did say in this Assembly that he would see to it that before the post was filled the appointment would go to the P.S.C. So I now ask the Minister whether the appointment to this post has gone to the P.S.C. and whether the holder of this post is the same as the man who was first found by the Minister for Labour and Law at that time to do this job?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the appointment must have gone to the P.S.C. through the Establishment Office of the Ministry of Finance, otherwise. The post will not again be put in the Estimates for next year.

That is not an answer. Would he say that it has gone to the P.S.C.?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out last year by the Opposition that it considered this post to be a political appointment. I assure the House then that is was intended that this post should be a civil service appointment. It has now been filled through the Public Service Commission. It happened that the Public Service Commission agreed with the Minister that this man who was appointed was the most suitable person to do this job. We cannot say the P.S.C. was wrong.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head 44 having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1. That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 2.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4. Mr Rajah: Mr David Marshall: Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Low Por Tuck: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $100. The sum of $261,710 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 45 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $100*. *The same amendment also stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Dr Lee Siew Choh and Dr Thio Chan Bee. Sir, the debate that has preceded this item has been of particular interest to me particularly, and I want to speak about this item. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Hon, the Minister for Labour and Law, as he then was, moved this Bill in the Assembly sometime, I think, in February 1960, he did make the statement that this was something new in Singapore and he did not claim that it was a perfect piece of legislation. He said he would watch its operation and review the position after he had watched its operation sufficiently. He did also tell the House that there was provision in the Ordinance for a report to be put in by the President of the Court to the Assembly - a statutory obligation - which would enable the House to assess the quality of the work and the work as it affected the people of Singapore. Unfortunately, no such report has been filed by the President of the Court, and it is therefore not possible to have his point of view on the matter. But naturally some of us who have been interested in industrial arbifration have been looking forward anxiously and eagerly to seeing how the Court was functioning and what effect it has had on the life of Singapore, particularly on the relation-ships between employers and employees and the confidence that both these groups have in the Court. Mr Speaker, I feel that our Courts of Law have established a reputation in this country for their fair-mindedness and their sense of justice; so much so that anybody wanting to fight anybody, even the poor man wanting to fight the Government, says, "Put it to the Court. Let the Court decide. I will be satisfied with the decision of the court." This mental attitude sfaows the confidence and the faith the people have in our courts of justice, which is a good thing. The position I had hoped the Industrial Arbitration Court would reach soon was that it would be similarly viewed as our courts of justice are viewed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to say that the impact of the Arbitration Court upon the public, both upon the employers and the large sections of workers, has not been in the direction I had hoped it would be. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, it is not the fault of the Court nor the fault of any individuals. But I am venturing to suggest to the Minister that it is the inherent weaknesses within the Ordinance itself that have created the situation which has resulted in a loss of confidence both by the employing public and the employees in the Court. Sir, to put the thing in its proper perspective, I wish to refer to certain salient provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, an Australian Act, by which our Ordinance was inspired. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act of Australia, Mr Speaker, Sir, has been amended up to 1959, and the position to date, as I understand it, is this. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, two institutions are set up. One is the Commonwealth Industrial Court, which is a judicial court under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which has the exact status of a Federal Court in Australia. The second organisation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is not a judicial body in the sense that the Commonwealth Industrial Court is. The function of the Commonwealth Industrial Court is to deal with judicial matters under the Act. Mark you, Mr Speaker, Sir, judicial matters under the Act. The function of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is to handle the functions of conciliation and arbitration. So the Act envisages three items-judicial matters under the Act, and functions of conciliation and arbitration. Between these two bodies the whole of the industrial disputes is determined. The Commonwealth Industrial Court is composed of a Chief Judge and not more than two Judges. The composition of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Speaker, Sir, is composed of (a) a President, (b) not less than two Deputy Presidents, (c) a senior commissioner, (d) not less than five commissioners and (e) a number of conciliators. The difficulty I think, we have reached in Singapore is-and I seriously suggest it - that if we do not amend this Ordinance of ours, we will run into difficulties which will bring into disfavour all our Industrial Court proceedings. And that would be tragic. The difficulty in Singapore, as I see it, is this. The Industrial Arbitration Court, as we know it, performs two functions: the judicial functions under the Act, the function, not of conciliation, but of arbitration. Conciliation is vested with the Commissioner for Labour and his conciliation officers. Conciliation and conciliation officers come under the direct control of the Minister. The Minister is a political creature. Therefore, as soon as you introduce the Minister and his Government officials into the conciliation business, the matter tends to become political, whether you like it or not. So long as the Member for Thomson was on that side, it was not political. But when he gets to this side, it most definitely becomes political. This is what we told the Government before. So long as you have all the trade unions with you, you can give the matter a semblance of a trade union dispute. But once you have two forces in the trade union field, equally balanced, striving for trade union support in the trade union field, then it certainly must become political. The other matter where it is definitely giving the semblance of having become political is this. In Australia either party to an industrial dispute may refer a matter to either of these two institutions. Either party to the dispute, or the court itself, or the commission itself, could seize itself of an industrial dispute. So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position in Australia is that the Act takes the whole field of industrial disputes out of the hands of the Government. As soon as there is a possibility of an industrial dispute, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can seize itself of the dispute and adjudicate upon it. Either the employer or the employee can request the Conciliation Commission to seize itself of the matter and the Commission must seize itself of it. Now, what is the position here? It is this: If the employer wants to send it on his own volition he cannot do it. If the employee wants to sent it on his own volition, against the wishes of the employer, he cannot do it. Both must go to the Minister. But if there was no -

Both must go to the court.

Yes. Both must go jointly. That is the point. If one of them disagreed and did not want to go, then the Court could not be seized of it. Where there was disagreement between the employer and the employee, both of them would have to go to the Minister, and the Minister held them both by the neck. It is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am sorry to say it is so. Then if the Minister refused to move, nothing could be done. 7.00 p.m. Now, the Member for Thomson says that if it is a matter concerning a Government-sponsored union, up it goes to the Industrial Arbitration Court. The suggestion is that the only disputes that have gone up before this Court are disputes in which P.A.P.-sponsored unions or P.A.P.-favoured unions are involved. That is the accusation. An hon. Member: Not necessarily.

It could be, even if the Member for Thomson has not said it yet. He will say it one day - most as suredly, he will - because the system lends itself to such an accusation. There are matters connected purely with the law: I do not know whether they now come within the ambit of the Commissioner for Labour or whether they come within the ambit of the Industrial Arbitration Court. The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Industrial Court covers questions relating to the dismissal or injury of an employee on account of industrial action; interpretation of awards made by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; questions concerning eligibility of membership of an organisation; disputes between an organisation and its members; power to hold inquiries into disputed elections; matters relating to the cancellation of an organisation. It is rather an important question - matters relating to the cancellation of an organisation. Now on this particular issue, Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter is entirely within the power of the Minister in Singapore. The exercise of that power has resulted in one strike and it could have resulted in another strike, but the Government was wise enough to step back a bit, and that was settled. Now what I am suggesting to the Minister is this. Let us put this Industrial Arbitration Ordinance on a proper footing. Let us not tinker with it. Let us not say, "let us give the Court half of the powers, let the Minister maintain the other half of the powers," and so give industrial arbitration a political flavour. Let us not do it. Let us take it outside the ambit of the Minister's control. I entirely agree with the Government that there is need for such an Ordinance in Singapore, but let us create it in such a way that it will not be possible for any section of the public to accuse the Government of using it for its own political ends. If anybody is accusing the Government of so doing it is because the scheme of things under the Industrial Arbitration Ordinance is such that the Government are open to such accusations. All I am asking the Government to do now is for the Minister to reconsider the whole position, as he said he would when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill; and I tm suggesting to him that we follow the Australian system more closely. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not throw the Australian scheme overboard. This scheme has been arrived at in Australia after years of experience. It now works there and I take it that disputes in the industrial field whether in Singapore, Australia or in Timbuctoo take the same economic turn. It is not a question of white, black or yellow in this matter. It is a question of economics and it tends to go in one particular direction. So let us avail ourselves of the Australian experience and try to formulate legislation which will take away the entire field of conciliation and put it in the hands of a commission; and under the procedures laid down in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it is possible for an appeal to be moved from the decision of one Conciliation Commissioner to a full Court of Appeal under the Board. There may be a slight delay, I agree, but this tends to create confidence. The important thing in all these matters is confidence. If people have confidence in a thing, they will take to it. Once they lose confidence, then the whole position is lost. So I beg of the Minister to review the whole matter in the light of what our Court has done. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wanted to speak more on this, but unfortunately time is pressing and I want to give the Minister some time to reply.

The Question is. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $100." The Member for Cairnhill is not here. I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown would like to speak. Would the Member for Tanglin like to speak?

Yes.

Only five minutes left.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all want industrial peace and Singapore needs it badly, but we are now in the midst of a protracted industrial war. The Member for Farrer Park has referred to what has happened in Australia. I have here, Sir, the Free Press of Saturday with a report of the views of the Australian Labour Disputes Commissioner, Mr Potters, and I think his suggestions are very pertinent. He says that in Australia the Arbitration Court settled about 90 per cent of the Labour disputes and that the Court should be composed of independent people with no connection with any political Party. Sir, I think we need to benefit from the experience of people in other countries and we need it badly at this time. I suggest that the Government should not be too self-complacent about it and that it would take advantage of what has happened elsewhere. Sir, I notice that the present Industrial Arbitration Court has not got the capacity to deal with cases quickly. There is a queue of six already and when I spoke to one trade union leader about settling his dispute by referring it to the Court, he said, "Well, there are so many cases waiting. If I were to refer the case to the Court, I would have to wait for ages." I suggest that there should be another Court established.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have gone over all this ground before. I cannot agree with the submission of the Member for Farrer Park that because conciliation proceedings take place in the Ministry, there is therefore essentially a political bias. That is not true. When a dispute reaches the Arbitration Court, whether by a reference from the Minister or by a joint reference by both parties, the Court still has the power to remit the case for further conciliation if it finds that there is still room for, say, the continuation of negotiations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained this in the Second Reading debate on the Industrial Relations Bill. The function of the Court, as we see it, is not really a judicial process. It is more a legislative process. In conciliation proceedings, the Ministry offers its services to both sides. When negotiations are deadlocked, it tries to get both sides to reach an agreement. When it fails, then the matter is remitted to the Arbitration Court and the Court then tries to get the parties together to reach an agreement. Now if the Court cannot get the parties to agree, then the only alternative is for the Court to make the agreement for the parties. That is not a judicial process. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know there are certain groups of unions which do not like this Court any more than do certain employers. Certain employers dislike it immensely, because it has given decisions which they dislike. Mr Speaker, Sir, the practice in the Australian Court, as I know it, is quite unlike the procedure in our Court. There is no system of Registration of collective agreements in the Australian practice. Collective agreements are not required by law to be certified and registered by the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, a greater majority of agreements are entered into freely between the parties, and it is these agreements which are certified and registered. The disputes are a very small proportion of the number of agreements registered. Mr Speaker, Sir, before we can make any review of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, I am awaiting the report from the President under section 83 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. As far as the need for a second Court is concerned, there is now a backlog developing and when we proceed to amend this Ordinance, we shall provide for the appointment of a Deputy President.

Time has expired.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $171,330 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 46- The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib - That the sum to he allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

Inche Ahmad Jabri is not here. Inche Mohd. Ali.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take amendments (2)* and (3)+ together?

If it is convenient.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of items (1)* and (4)+ of subhead 9. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like an explanation from the Minister concerned regarding the Seamen's Registry Board - "Temporary Staff" and "Fees for Chairman and Author $2,900". Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister concerned to the fact that people in Government - whether they be temporary or permanent - should not be biased. I find the Secretary of the Seamen's Registry Board is a biased person. It is my opinion that he is too communal in outlook. If the authorities concerned would like further clarification, they could certainly enquire further into the matter. As the vote is paid out of the pockets of the public, such an attitude on the part of this officer is uncalled for. There is a great feeling of unhappiness about the conduct of this officer towards Malay as well as Chinese seamen. Sir, I do not like to dwell at great length on this matter. I would like to see justice done in the Seamen's Registry Board. I do not know why $2,900 is to be paid for an auditor. Is there not already an auditor? What is the proper reason for this? Is compensation paid from this vote or is it paid from any other vote? I would like further clarification on this. I would suggest that the assistance given to people who do not go to sea should be increased because, at the moment, I feel that it is far short of what should he given to these people. 7.15 p.m. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Catering Department, I do not know whether it is the policy of the Board or whether it is the officer responsible that the opportunity for training is not given to seamen or to people who are keen, but to new entrants, particularly to Chinese only. Why should this be So? This is a matter of grave concern to me. There have been complaints made to me and I feel it my duty to bring them to the attention of this Assembly.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 46 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (11) of subhead 9." The debate may range over item (4) of subhead 9.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the staff in the Seamen's Registry Board, they are not Government servants but employees of the Seamen's Registry Board. Though their employment is temporary, they will be employed as long as the Board is in existence. As for the accusation that the Secretary of the Board is biased, I have so far not received any complaints against him. However, all the staff have to work under the Board which is composed of representatives from the union, the employer and the Government. I am sure that if the Board receives any complaint of dissatisfaction with these persons in the discharge of their duties, it will look into it. And if it is found to be true, naturally steps will be taken to meet the complaint. With regard to the "Fees for Chairman and Additor" - item (4) of subhead 9 - Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is this. Previously the Chairman of the Board was Mr G. H. Kiat and he was paid a fee of $500 per month. On 15th October, 1959, the Government appointed Captain Pavitt to be Chairman of the Board. He is also the Master Attendant. He was appointed as Chairman in a personal capacity, and not as a Government servant. So Capt. Pavitt was performing his duties over and above his functions as Master Attendant and ex-officio Chairman of other Government statutory boards for which he receives no fees, and it was decided that he should be paid a fee of $200 a month as Chairman of the Seamen's Registry Board. This accounts for the $2,400 a year. With regard to the Auditor, he is a Government auditor. The auditor's fee is $500, and it is understood now that the Government auditor has reduced his fee to $250. That is why there is a decrease in the Estimates for this item for next year. Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the recruitment of seamen for the Catering Department, it is not true that the Board is discriminatory against Malay seamen working in the Catering Department. The main point is that in the Catering Department the employees have to handle pork. This problem was therefore brought up officially by the Seamen's Registry Board to the Muslims Advisory Board. The Muslims Advisory Board strongly advised the Seamen's Registry Board not to encourage or induce Malay and Muslim employees to work in the Catering Department where they have to handle pork. With regard to the selection of candidates for training as stewards, the point is this, Sir. Most of the people who have been seamen and have experience are not very keen to register themselves for training. From that point of view, we have to invite applications from people who have never been to sea to be trained and to be employed in the Catering Department.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, one question has not yet been answered. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten it. This is in regard to the new entrants. If I am not mistaken, the new recruits numbers less than a thousand Singapore citizens. Which category of citizens is that? Why is it that this is not open to all citizens of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, so far we only have training for stewards. As far as procedure is concerned, whenever any person is required for training, an advertisement is inserted in the newspapers. A Committee comprising the employer and Government representatives will look into the applications, interview the candidates, and select suitable candidates for training. These recruits are trained only for employment in the Catering Department. Therefore, if the Member for Kampong Kembangan is of the opinion that the Committee is prejudiced against Malay candidates, then the obvious reason is that they cannot be recruited into this sort of employment where they have to handle pork.

Sir, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary did not quite understand me. I am asking about the Catering Department. What I want to know is: why should vacancies for seamen be given only to the Chinese and not to the Malays?

Mr Speaker, Sir, from my knowledge of the Seamen's Registry Board, the Board itself is composed of Government representatives, seamen's representatives and employers' representatives, and there is a fair representation on the Board. I understand a representative of the Malay Seamen's Union is also a member of that Board.

No.

Not a member of that Board? Well, anyway, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the preparation of lists of new entrants into the sea service, the Board looks through the number of seamen that are on the register and the number of those who have actually got jobs. The number of new entrants is regulated in accordance with the employment position at any particular time. If there are more jobs in the sea service, Mr Speaker, Sir, more names will be put in the new entry lists. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe for one moment that there is any such thing as discrimination of race on the part of the Government in the preparation of the lists of new entrants into the sea service. It is all adjusted in accordance with the opportunities for employment at any particular time. If there are more opportunities for employment, more registered seamen are employed, and then only does the Board add to the list of new entrants. But if, say, there are more seamen out of jobs, then that list stays at a standstill. That is how it is operated. It is never operated on the basis of race.

Can I make my explanation in English.

Yes.

I do not mean to say that I do not agree with the statement of the Minister for Health. But here is clarification or proof of what I have said. I can assure the Minister that a member of the Seamen's Registry Board who was recently appointed by the Minister intends to join our union, and he told me everything. I can send this man to see the Minister at any time so that the Minister could understand what is happening in the Seamen's Registry Board. Another point, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether he intends appointing a member of our union to the Seamen's Registry Board in the interests of all the seamen of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it could well be, as the Minister for Health has said, that new names are entered in the register according to the demands put in by shipowners. In the last eight months or so we have tried to step up the demand for seamen on international routes, on which I think very few Malay seamen are employed. Malay seamen are mostly employed in home trade ships and local trade ships and not on international routes. That is why in the last eight months there has been a greater expansion. But if, in fact, there is a suspicion or any possibility that Malay seamen are being kept out of the registry, I say it is a very serious matter and I shall certainly look into and resolve it.

What about the other question that I put to the Minister - whether a member of our union will be appointed to the Seamen's Registry Board?

Perhaps the Minister could give his answer later on.

The Ordinance itself does not give representation o, unions, but there are seafarers' representatives on the Board. It is usual to ask the unions concerned to make nominations and for' the Minister to pick the names from the nominations made.

Sir, I would like to remind the Minister for Health and Law that he recently appointed from our union a member who represents the Asian Seamen's Club. So why not do it, this time? For our common interests.

This probably can be settled outside the Assembly Chamber, in the C.P.A. Room perhaps. Does the Member wish for a vote?

No. I beg leave to, withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.30 p.m. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $100*. * The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Sheng Nam Chin and Mr Chan Sun Wing.

Dr Thio Chan Bee, amendment (4)*. * See footnote at col. 1930.

I am not moving, Sir.

The Member is not moving. The sum of $1,017,060 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 47 -

Mr Speaker, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $l00*. * The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Sheng Nam Chin and Mr Chan Sun Wing. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are just two points upon which I wish to touch. The Government has now taken over the functions of the City Council. By virtue of that, they should now be maintaining the Jalan Besar Stadium and the Farrer Park running track. I have not been to the Jalan Besar Stadium recently. But I was there some three months ago. The condition of some of the stands at the Jalan Besar Stadium is deplorable. I was wondering whether any particular Ministry is really interested in the amenities this stadium provides. It used to provide, Mr Speaker, Sir, fairly large sums of money by way of revenue to the City Council. I dare say that similar sums are being obtained from the Jalan Besar Stadium which now go into the Consolidated Fund. I do ask the Minister in charge of Parks and Recreation not to forget the Jalan Besar Stadium because it is about the only decent football ground we have in Singapore. Not only are our State matches played there, but international visiting teams also, when they play matches in Singapore, do play those matches at the stadium. Therefore, it is not only from the amenity point of view of Singapore that it is important that the stadium should be kept properly appointed, but also from the prestige point of view, so far as international touring teams are concerned. The second point, Sir, is the Farrer Park running track. The land there was acquired by the City Council from the Trust and laid out at some expense, in order that it might provide amenities for athletes which were not available to them. As far as I am aware, Sir, when I was in the City Council, the track was well maintained and there were no complaints from the athletes. I now understand the tracks are so hard that no amount of spikes, however sharp they may be, will enter the ground. I myself have not been there, but I have been told of this by the athletes who use the tracks. I have no reason to doubt their statement that it is impossible for them to train there. Some of our athletes are now in the S.E.A.P. Games competing and trying to bring Singapore on the sporting map. I understand Government has also contributed some $60,000, for which, I am told, the athletes are really grateful. An hon. Member: $16,000.

$16,000 - I beg your pardon. I knew the Government was generous, but I did not realise it was that generous. But the point I am trying to make, Sir, is that all this money is ill spent if facilities for training for our athletes are not available. The Farrer Park running track was perhaps the only one which was available. I do not think we should let the track run down.

Mr Speaker. Sir, there is one point here I would like to stress. We would like to ask the Government to consider amending the Parks by-laws and regulations governing the use of parks. My Party applied for permission to use Hong Lim and Towner Parks for political rallies. Although the police did not give us any trouble over our applications, the. Park by-laws and regulations though were quite obstructive, and we were not able to hold these mass rallies. In view of the Government's contention and assurance that democracy should be given full play, and in view of the fact that Government want to allow us full freedom of speech and discussion, I would urge them to look into these old by-laws and consider amending them.

The Member for Upper Serangoon is not here. Dr Goh.

First, the Jalan Besar Stadium. I have not been there for years. But like the Member for Farrer Park, I do get reports, and the reports have not been too favourable. Bits of roof are falling down. Generally, the standard of comfort there is not what one would expect of a modern city like Singapore. Of course, something has to be done about it. The question is what has got to be done about it? When the Four-Year Development Plan was first conceived, various proposals were made. The Jalan Besar Stadium was discussed because it was inadequate to provide sporting facilities that a modern city needs. Unfortunately, at that time, the alternative put forward for inclusion in the plan was the building of a really grandiose stadium somewhere around Bukit Batok. This was a tremendously expensive scheme and was rejected from the Four-Year Development Plan because it was too expensive and too far away, and we thought that perhaps some renovations to the Jalan Besar Stadium would meet the point. But since then, of course, we have had to pay attention to more urgent matters. This aspect of developing amenities for the city was neglected. I think the time has come, and we are grateful to the Member for Farrer Park for bringing up this point to us. I think we should have a second think about this matter. What is the best way of doing it? I am not quite sure. We have to get opinions from experts and evaluate alternatives before we come to a decision. I think we have to decide very soon. After all, our neighbouring countries are pressing on. Kuala Lumpur has the Merdeka Stadium, and is pressing on with another one. Djarkata will have a $100 million covered stadium. Although one regrets that money has to be spent on these things - it does not provide future employment prospects - I think there is a case for a review of the whole position. If indeed, it seems that the track at Farrer Park has gone down, if it has deteriorated through neglect and not through, the drought, then I think the matter is quite urgent. Apart from that, I am afraid I am not in a position to give more concrete assurances. Now, as for the point raised by the Member for Nee Soon, I am glad to hear that he acknowledges that we are leaning backwards to be democratic. We have allowed them, within the rules of the game, all the mass meetings they need, or the mass meetings that they have applied for. But when it comes to playgrounds and children's parks, we have to balance interests. If we allow a mass meeting to be held in these playgrounds, it does mean, Mr Speaker, Sir, depriving children and parents of the use of the parks for that evening. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis may say that the message they want to put across to the people of Singapore is so urgent and so important that it outweighs any temporary inconvenience which we have to impose on the children and parents. But I say that that is a trivial issue. Government, of course, does not accept that point of view. Therefore, in our opinion, the by-laws of the City Council governing the use of parks and children's playgrounds should stand.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the explanation of the Minister for Finance does not answer our point. For instance, let us come to Hong Lim Green. It was the place in which, if I remember correctly, the P.A.P. fired its first salvo against the old S.P.A. Government. Not so very long ago, we had a big by-election in Hong Lim, and I do remember the Member for Hong Lim managed to get a huge crowd to that place for his mass rallies. The Government also held two or three mass rallies there and found that they were not very well attended. It might very well be that, because Government feels that it might not be able to fill the place should it hold a mass rally there and that the Barisan Sosialis might very well fill the place over-brimmingly, it thinks there is no need to revise or amend the regulations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if we had a mass rally, the children as well as the parents would have as much fun as, nay, much more fun than, they would usually have, because of the exposures of the Government and all its nefarious activities. I would seriously urge the Government to reconsider amending these regulations. The other point about the Jalan Besar Stadium is this. Since the Minister has given an assurance that the Government is looking into the possibilities of repairing the stadium - I hesitate to suggest, Sir, that it is really serious about sports and recreation in Singapore - it is not the Jalan Besar Stadium that it should rebuild or repair, but it should build a new stadium in a much bigger place with a bigger stand. A very good suggestion is to convert the present Farrer Park into a brand-new stadium. When I was a member on the Singapore Amateur Sports Council, I suggested that it would be best to build a stadium with aid from Government, say, on a dollar to dollar basis, and with contributions from the public. The Sports Council did get going on this project. Actually we visited the site once or twice, but somehow, after I left the Government, my name was automatically left out of the Sports Council, and that was the last we heard about the stadium. Should the Minister for Finance feel like reviving the whole idea, I do not mind giving my services for sports and for recreation and for the people of Singapore. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will think about that one.

Sir, I will think about that one and a lot of others! But coming back to this meeting. First, during the Hong Lim by-election, mass meetings were, of course, held from 7 o'clock onwards, when the people have had their dinner and the children were no longer playing on the fields or had left off playing. Outside the election period or by-election period, public meetings can only be held during the hours of 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Of course, if mass meetings are held there, children could be deprived of the use of these facilities. However, Sir, I am reassured to hear from the Member for Nee Soon that the Barisan Sosialis mass meetings would provide an uproarious time for children and their parents. Of course, it would, because the utter absurdity of their propositions cannot fail but draw laughter all round. While I can commend this light-hearted approach to politics as an argument in favour of allowing parks to be used during the time children want to use them, because the children would enjoy the mass meetings and laugh louder than if they were playing in sand pits, I do not think that is the purpose for which the Barisan Socialis hold their mass meetings. They have a more serious purpose, and if they provoked laughter and merriment, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not because they intended to do so. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is typical of the P.A.P. to shift the issue when they get caught. It is no laughing matter, Sir,It is nothing trivial. If the people come to our mass rallies, and enjoy coming to our mass rallies - as they did only yesterday - it is because we could explain the issues to the people in simple common language; it is because we can expose to the people the nefarious activities of the P.A.P. Ministers in the Government. If they feel there is something to laugh at - well, some people like to laugh at tragedy, and if the people want to laugh at the tragedy of the P.A.P. Government, I do not see why they should be stopped from laughing. After all, they can either cry or laugh; and under the P.A.P. Government they can do either one of those things. Surely, Sir, if the argument is that if the meetings are held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. it would deprive the children of the facilities offered by the playground, might I advise the Minister to look into the possibility of lifting this ban of not having meetings after 7 o'clock? In the Federation of Malaya, mass meetings are allowed at night. I see no reason, Sir, why mass meetings should not be allowed at night here. If the Minister's argument holds good, that if the meetings are held at night the children will not be deprived of their playing time between 5 and 7 p.m., I would commend to him the suggestion to amend the police regulations and allow mass meetings to be held after 7 o'clock so that we can kill two birds with one stone. Recreation parks can be used by children between 5 and 7 p.m., and by adults after 7 p.m. I think that is a strong point.

Sir, I find the Minister's proposition a very silly one.

Which one? Farrer Park or - ?

Sir, I am sure you will remember that in 1955 or 1956, the Prime Minister gave a very lengthy speech in this House criticizing the former Government for denying police permits to hold rallies after 7 p.m. I think the Prime Minister did say, in criticizing the previous Government, that it only believed in democracy before 7 p.m. I have no doubt that all this talk of rules and regulations is just to put forward excuses. We are told that we cannot hold political meetings in the parks because some rule in some rule book says they can only be held during election time. We are told you cannot have rallies after 7 p.m. because again some rule in some rule book says so. Let us get the thing straight. Either we believe in democracy or we do not believe in democracy. [Laughter] There is nothing to laugh at. We have been accused of being people who do not believe in democracy and who are working to break the democratic system. [Interruption]

Order.

And we tell the Government in very plain and simple language if you believe in democracy, remove these rules. You hold meetings in parks, car parks, any playing field, in the streets, anywhere, from 7 o'clock in the morning to 12 o'clock at night. We do the same. Let us both go and meet the people. Let us not have artificial rules and regulations which seek to restrict the democratic rights of the people.

Order. I might remind hon. Members on the Opposition benches that they are, in fact, eating into their own time, because we might go straight on to social welfare if they will try not to egg the Government to egg them on. Dr Goh, very briefly?

Certainly, Sir. Just a couple of words. The Member for Thomson says my remarks are silly, but I was just developing a theme. As if it can be a silly thing put forward by the Member for Nee Soon, which was, that he thinks his Barisan Sosialis must think it is glorious fun for kids. I say, of course, if that is so, then we must think seriously -

This is repetition, Mr Minister.

Now as regards the lifting of the time-table, the Member for Thomson says if you cannot hold mass meetings before 7 p.m., it is undemocratic; after 7 p.m., it is democratic. Sir, we have always suspected and we have said that the Barisan Sosialis have always been night birds. Why do they want to have meetings, after midnight? There you are, Mr Speaker, Sir. But to say that democracy depends on just what time to hold mass meetings, to me there is no more ludicruous proposition.

The truth is that the P.A.P. nowadays dare not meet the people. They have been saying that we did not hold any more rallies after the first two. The real reason is simply that we were not given the opportunity to hold rallies. We asked for an opportunity to hold a rally in Hong Lim -

That is opening out the issue. Does the Member for Farrer Park wish to take a vote?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,456,330 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 48 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48, he reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. The work of the Social Welfare Department is very strenuous. The Director of Social Welfare now has responsibilities for three kinds of works, in addition to work in relation to Social Welfare, he has to be the Acting Administrative Officer of the City Council, where his duties are also heavy. At the same time, he is also the Secretary and Treasurer of the People's Association. He has to shoulder three kinds of duties. During the present strike by the staff' of the People Association, the Secretary made a statement which was full of political colour, it may be due to the fact that he has many duties to shoulder. That is why he did not keep his status as a civil servant by making such a political statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Pasir Panjang wants to do is to accuse the Director of Social Welfare of being biased against those ex-employees of the People's Association who went to a so-called strike. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true the Director of Social Welfare holds three appointments, but as far as the appointment of Secretary and Treasurer of the People's Association is concerned, he is appointed because, under the People's Association Ordinance, he is to be appointed as Secretary and Treasurer of the Association. We quite appreciate the Member for Pasir Panjang's anxiety over this officer being over-worked. But as far as this officer is concerned, he has been carrying out his work properly and has not made any complaint. With regard to the allegation that he has been politically biased, the position is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. He is the Secretary and Treasurer of the People's Association and is merely an employee of this Association. So whatever statement he makes in the Press is not his own. It is merely the view of the Board. He just carries out instructions. So in any organisation whatever statements are to be issued would normally be issued through the Secretary.

Order. I am just wondering under whose Ministry the People's Association comes. I am not quite certain. Is it under Social Welfare?

Yes. May I explain, Sir? All the financial provisions are made under the Labour Ministry, but as far as the management of the Association is concerned, it is managed by the Board of Management.

The point I was trying to get at is whether or not this is the proper Head under which to discuss the People's Association as such. I do not think it is. It should have come under the Labour Head, as far as I understand it.

No.

Did I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour that all the emoluments in so far as the People's Association is concerned come under the head of Labour and not under Social Welfare?

The Social Welfare Department is also part of the Labour Ministry. Therefore, since the People's Association comes under the Social Welfare Department, personal emoluments are provided under the Social Welfare Department. The management of the staff and the administration of the People's Association is by the managerial board.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary point out where the emoluments are for the People's Association? Is it under Head 48 or Head 47, or whichever Head it is? We must get this correct.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect to your ruling, -

I have not ruled yet.

Your suggestion, Sir.

Order. I want to know first where are the personal emoluments of the employees of the People's Association?

I might be able to explain on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are discussing the People's Association under this Head, because in the People's Association Ordinance the Secretary Treasurer of the People's Association is the Director of Social Welfare and it is from this Head that he draws his salary. He is not a paid employee of the People's Association. I feel, therefore, this is the correct place to discuss the People's Association in respect of its Secretary Treasurer. Mr Wee Toon Boon and Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Everybody is in such a hurry. I want to get the solution to this question.

I will give you the solution, Sir. The Minister for Home Affairs has just pointed it out. It is on page 421.

It is under Social Welfare.

Under subhead 4.

I see. Then it is the correct Head in any case. Mr Wee was replying, was he not?

You have asked me to clarify under which Head this subject matter would be. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed it out to you. With regard to the allegation. I have already refuted it. As far as the Secretary and Treasurer of the People's Association is concerned, he is only an employee of the Board. So he carries out the policy of the Board.

The answer is, this is the proper Head under which the' People's Association can be discussed. And I think it is the moment of interruption. And it being 8 p.m. Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow, 12th December.

It shall be.

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