Hansard, 1961-12-12

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Labour - from 11th to 16th December, 1961.

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that on the 11th day of December, 1961, he assented to the Final Appropriation (1959) Bill.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted day]. Resumption of debate on Question (11th December, 1961), That the sum to he allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1."-(Mr Tee Kim Leng).

2.33 p.m. MAIN ESTIMATES, 1962 (Cont.) Head 48 -

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1." I understood there is going to be a debate on the People's Association in respect of this item.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if a civil servant makes a declaration which is of a political character, then he is not acting properly as a civil servant. The Director of Social Welfare has done this. We know the Department of Social Welfare is a department which has to shoulder many responsibilities, including assistance to needy people. Therefore, if the Director of Social Welfare makes statements of a political nature, they tend to confuse the people and cause misunderstanding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I explained last evening that the Director of Social Welfare was appointed Secretary and Treasurer of the People's Association under the People's Association Ordinance. Since community centres are one of the social services provided by the Social Welfare Department, therefore the Director of Social Welfare was appointed to serve the People's Association. With regard to the allegation that he is being asked to issue public statements of a political nature, as I explained last evening, he is purely an employee and he carries out the instructions of the Board. Whatever statement that is issued through him is the opinion and policy of the Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang can hardly expect to get away with the statement that civil servants are being used as political instruments of a political Party. All the published statements that this officer has made related to acts of hooliganism and violence indulged in by the former employees of the People's Association. I see nothing political in them. He was just stating that they went round centres, breaking windows and inciting children to damage property. Where is the political line? If the Member for Pasir Panjang says that the officer is engaged in a political light against the Barisan Sosialis and this assumption is implicit in his statement it just proves what we have been saying, that the Barisan Sosialis are supporting the former employees of the People's Association.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put it to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng, amendment (1) on the Order Paper Supplement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek your guidance on this. Could I take amendments (1) to (21)* as a whole first, as there are three questions I would like to ask, which I shall have to repeat 20 times if I do not take them together? After I have done that, I will pick out a few and speak on them. Can I do that? *Amendments (1) to (21) read as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of items (23) to (43) of subhead 1.

Yes, certainly. First, move the first amendment.

Thank you. I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (23) of subhead 1. Sir, the three questions that I said I intended to ask on the posts shown in items (23) to (43) are - how many of these posts, except the new post that is to be filled in 1962, are vacant; how long have they been vacant; and why have they been kept vacant?

I suppose the hon. Member should pose all her three questions.

Yes, Mr Speaker. The three questions are - how many of them are vacant; how long have they been vacant; and the reason why they have been kept vacant?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only this morning obtained a list of the personnel in the Department of Social Welfare and this was complied as at 1st January, 1961. According to this list, we have only one vacant post of Aftercare Officer, two posts of Assistant Lady Superintendent, one post of Assistant Warden, two posts of Cook, two posts of Welfare Attendant. The two vacant posts of Cook are in Grade II. These are all the vacancies I find on this list. As to when they have been vacant, as I said, this list was complied as at 1st January, 1961, and I do not know the dates when these posts were vacant, but I am sure the Director of Social Welfare must have taken action to fill these posts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just saw the day before yesterday in the programme of the exhibition next door that the two posts of Assistant Superintendent have been filled, but I do not know about the others. Why I ask whether there are vacancies is that I know there has been a clamour for more staff; the homes are inefficiently run not because of the inefficiency of the staff, but because of the lack of staff. Since we have the vote, I do not quite know why those posts have been kept vacant. What I would like to know is whether it is difficult to get qualified people. Or what is the reason for keeping such posts vacant?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember sometime last year I enquired from the Director of Social Welfare whether he had taken steps to fill all the vacant posts in the Social Welfare Department. He told me he had referred this question to the Establishment. It seems the Establishment Branch held up the establishment because they anticipated a batch of graduates from the Social Science Faculty of the University of Malaya. I do not know whether the posts have been advertised by now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that that is an assurance that in 1962 the vacant posts will be filled. Thank you. Now on item (24), I wonder why one person is getting $565 up to a maximum of $685.

Order. If the hon. Member has finished on general principles covering the whole of the Residential Institutions, perhaps I could now go amendment by amendment. Are there any matters of general principle? No? I will put the Question on the first amendment if the Member for Mountbatten wants a vote on it. The first amendment is on the three Superintendents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that will not be my first amendment. My first amendment will be on item (24). I have covered item (23).

Does the hon. Member want a vote?

No. I beg to withdraw my amendment in respect of item (23).*

No dissentient voice? Amendment (1)* is withdrawn. Amendment (2). Will the hon. Member moved formally if she wants to comment on it? 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (24) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, item (24) shows "2 Lady Superintendents", one drawing $565-685 and the other (Salary Code II-24) drawing $595-675. So while the latter starts with a higher salary, she ends with a lower salary. And the former, while starting with a lower salary, ends with a higher salary, and that is supposed to be a personal scale. I wonder whether there is any special reason why a personal scale, separate from the timescale, is given to her.

The answer is quite simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. Every now and then salary scales are revised because of abnormal rates in comparison with other scales. And quite often salary scales are reduced or altered to the advantage of the present holder. When such a thing happens, the present holder can opt to remain on the more advantageous salary scale while new recruits will he brought in at the revised salary scale.

In view of the explanation, may I have your permission to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (25) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 2 Assistant Superintendents against this item. In view of the fact that more Assistant Superintendents are asked for in the Junior Approved School when it comes up, could the Minister tell us whether the two Assistant Superintendents would be sent there or would they remain where they are now?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter will be looked into by the Director of Social Welfare. No doubt when the time comes he will make recommendations, and we will see that there is justification for the transfer or recruitment of additional staff. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not trying to be impertinent, but the Member for Mount-batten is a member of the Board of Visitors and I am sure all these things could be clarified by the Board.

That is exactly why I am asking this. I notice there is a grant for the building of the Junior Approved School in the Development Estimates. But I do not see anywhere else a vote for its staff. I am just wondering whether these people will be taken out to fill the posts there, or whether the Government intends to put in Supplementary Estimates later on. I see no Estimates at all for the staff of the school that is coming up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is typical of the hon. Lady. She comes to see me in my office and tells me there are dirty drains along Haig Road. I send the Cleansing Department men there to get them cleansed. And she comes into this Assembly and asks me to make a report to the Assembly on the dirty drains. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten is a member of the Advisory Committee on institutions which are run by the Social Welfare Board. When I was in the Ministry, Mr Speaker, Sir, I chaired a meeting every month and all members of the Committee were present at the meetings. It was their duty to break themselves up into sections, one section visiting regularly the Boys' Home, another the Girls' Home, and another the Mount Emily Home, and one section visited the Homes for the Aged Persons, at Woodstock and at Bushey Park. All the information gathered, Mr Speaker, Sir, was regularly discussed at our meetings. The hon. Member used to attend these meetings very irregularly. To make a show of it, she comes to this Assembly and asks me questions the answers to which would have been available to her had she attended the meetings regularly. As far as the Junior Approved School is concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, she would know, if she had attended the meetings, that we have brought a Mr Riley out, a U.N. consultant, to advise us on the site for the school and the type of building required. One proposal is to convert the Buona Vista Community Centre into an approved school. As soon as we get a report from him, Mr Speaker, Sir, plans will have to be put in for the building of the school, and we would also have to enter provisions for instructors posts for this Junior Approved School. The experience required for the running of the Junior Approved School is entirely different from that required of the Assistant Superintendents who are running the Orphanage at the Perak Home for boys, and the Assistant Superintendents at the Gimson School. I hope I have now explained the position to the satisfaction of the Member for Mountbatten.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Minister's information, the drains he mentioned are still in the same condition as they were. I shall be bringing up this matter again and again until the drains are cleaned. I went round there yesterday - I will not go into details - and I saw what I saw last Wednesday. It is typical of the Minister to avoid the issue. I know Mr Riley has sent in a report asking for one Supervisor, one Assistant Supervisor, and 3 House-masters. I will not go into the details of this list of officers. I see there is no increase in the staffing except in one or two cases. And that is why I ask: what is to happen to the recommendations by the expert from the United Nations, Mr Riley? Is Government going to supply all the staff; or does Government think that he is asking too much; or is Government going to decide later what he is going to have? I have seen the vote already. Knowing that it is a conversion of a building and not a new building, I except it to be finished by next year. Had it been a new building, I would not have asked but would have taken it for granted that the building would not be ready by next year. But knowing that it is a conversion of the Buona Vista Community Centre, I expect it to be ready. If it could not be ready, all that Government need say is, "It will not be ready and so we will not need the staff." It is a simple question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched." When the building comes up, all we have to do is to put in an A.S.V. for the extra funds required.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no wonder the Government are in chaos. They do not plan ahead. Anyway, Mr Speaker, in view of the explanation given, I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving my amendments to items (26), (27), (28), and (29), but I shall be moving my amendment to item (30).

The Member is not moving amendments (4), (5), (6) and (7), but will move amendment (8), i.e., in respect of item (30)? The amendments read as follows: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (26) of subhead 1. (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (27) of subhead 1. (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (28) of subhead 1. (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (29) of subhead 1.

Yes.

Please move.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (30) of subhead 1. Sir, item (30) says, "1 Child Care Officer". There is in existence a boarding-out scheme for babies, and it has long been requested that Government supplies a Child Care Officer. There is another request from the expert from the United Nations, I believe it is for the boarding-out scheme for Perak House. He thinks that is overcrowded and that a boarding-out scheme should be started. And for that, he has also, in his report, asked for one Child Care Officer. Now, could the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether this Child Care Officer is to be for the babies or for the new project that has been recommended? I just want to know whether the new project is to come up and whether this Child Care Officer is for that project.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from our experience we have found that it is much more beneficial for the child if it is hoarded out with a family who agrees to look after the child. Also it is much cheaper if such arrangements are made. Mr Speaker, Sir, we did have a Child Care Officer for babies sometime ago, but for some reason or other that appointment was abolished. Now, the intention is to introduce a new post of Child Care Officer so that this officer will be in charge not only of babies but of children up to the age of, say, 10 years, so that he will be able to look after and supervise proper and suitable boarding-out schemes for the young boys at Perak Home and for the young girls at the Girls' Homecraft Centre.

Sir, I do not know whether I interpret this correctly. Do I take it that the Minister means that this officer will do the job connected with the old project as well as the project that is existing, as well as starting a boarding-out scheme for Perak House? Of course, it is only a recommendation and has not come into existence yet.

That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Minister means that one officer will be sufficient. I would like to draw his attention to it, and I hope he will look into it and see whether one officer is sufficient - he is the authority on the subject. With that, I would like to withdraw, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the observations made by the Member for Mountbatten will no doubt be looked into.

It is at this stage that the Member asks leave to withdraw.

I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (31) of subhead 1.

I am not moving my amendment to item (31), Mr Speaker. Sir. My next amendment is to item (32).

Yes.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (32) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, this item shows "1 Lady Warden", which is a new appointment. The note says, "For Girls' Hostel". As far as my knowledge goes, I think I am correct in saying that the Girls' Hostel has one Lady Warden now, who has been drawn from the Yorkhill Home, what they call the Girls' Homecraft Centre. I am just wondering, Sir, when this new Lady Warden is appointed, will the Lady Warden from the Girls' Hostel go back to Yorkhill and this new Lady Warden will take over her job in the Girls' Hostel? Or will the same person be allowed to remain and the new appointee goes to Yorkhill? I feel very strongly that this Lady Warden who has been posted from Yorkhill to the Girls' Hostel is doing the job most efficiently, and having done it for a few months, I feel it is wiser that she be kept there to continue her work so that there will be a continuation of work, and for obvious reasons it is better to keep her there. 3.00 p.m.

We had provision from the previous estimates for the building of a Girls' Hostel. We also have funds from C. D. & W, for that purpose. We have found' the girls temporary accommodation in an old Government building in Canning Rise. The Ministry of Finance wants this building for the housing of overseas officers. We shall have to look for an old building and convert it for this purpose, or use C. D. & W, funds to build a new Girls' Hostel, in any case, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Mountbatten has rightly pointed out, to start off this hostel we have to transfer somebody from the Girls' Homecraft Centre to this hostel. These jobs are filled through the Public Service Commission. They will have to be advertised. There will be other people also who will be applying. It will be up to the Public Service Commission to make the selection. We cannot give any assurance to the Member for Mountbatten that, because she considers this lady who is acting in this appointment to be suitable, that would also be the view of the Public Service Commission.

Sir, in view of the explanation, I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (33) of subhead 1.* That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (34) of subhead 1.+ That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (35) of subhead 1.++

Amendment (11) .

Sir, my next amendment will be in respect of item (36).

Amendment (11)* is not being moved. Item (12)+ is not being moved. Item (13)++ is not being moved. Item (14), Mrs Seow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (36) of subhead 1. Sir, item (36) shows there will be one extra instructor. There are already 23. May I ask, Sir, what qualifications are required for this extra instructor? I am a bit doubtful because I see here the sum of $90,130 as against $84,000, which is an increase of $5,870. If the instructor is to be appointed on the same salary scale as the existing instructors, which is $220 a month to start with, there is an excess of $3,230, is this instructor a special instructor who is going to be paid on a higher scale, or is the $3,230 just the normal increments for the existing 23 instructors? It might very well be. But I just want to know whether it is a special instructor who is going to be appointed, at a special salary scale since the amount is so different.

The salary codes are indicated here, Mr Speaker, Sir - one for men instructors and one for women instructors. There is nothing special. This instructor will not be given any special salary. If it is a woman instructor, she will get a salary within the salary code of III 41, and if it is a man instructor, his salary will be within the salary code of III 22.

It looks as though it will be a woman instructor. It is for the Mt. Emily Girls' Home.

It will be so.

Then I take it, Sir, that the $3,230 increase is just for annual increments of the other 23 instructors. In view of that explanation, I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (37) of subhead 1. Sir, item (37) says "Projects Supervisor". I was just comparing item (36) with item (37), and thinking that they were having a special instructor for item (36), I was wondering a projects supervisor does not need a man who is better qualified than an ordinary instructor. You will notice, Sir, he is on the same pay scale as the instructors. I feel that since the man has to organise projects, the Government might need a more efficient or better qualified man on a better salary scale for the sake of the efficiency of the job that this supervisor is going to undertake.

Mr Speaker, some of the boys remain in the hostels for a period of about six to nine months. The system of organisation there is quite unlike the system of organisation in the homes like the Gimson School, where the boys are placed in the custody of the home for three years, and where courses of instruction and training can be organised for the boys. In the case of the Bukit Batok Hostel and other hostels for boys, Mr Speaker, the boys are there for short periods. It would be the duty of this projects instructor to organise worthwhile projects for them, projects that they can begin and complete within the short time that they are living in these hostels. It is for this purpose that, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, of which the Member for Mount-batten is a member, this provision has been entered in the Estimates.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for that information. I realise this is what the Board has recommended, but we have not stated the qualifications of the instructor. I was just pointing out to the Minister, in case it is an oversight, that this is a more important job and whether it would not need a better qualified man. But the matter is in his hands. Because of my interest in social work and because of my desire to see that the homes function as efficiently as they can, I am bringing these points to his notice from the experience that I have had in my social work. In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (38) of subhead 1. This is the "Assistant Housemistress". I notice that the salary scale is III 77. which means that she draws a salary of $122 to a maximum of $270. I was just wondering what her duties are for $122. An ordinary domestic amah gets that. If her duties are no more than an ordinary amah - but in a glorified term, she is called "Assistant Housemistress", I am quite satisfied. But in case she is really to assist the Housemistress in doing some sort of organising work, I feel that that salary scale will not get the type of person we want.

The scale is from $122 to $270, is it?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, this really proves that the Member for Mountbatten has not been doing her homework. The provision for this post was entered in the Estimates for the Woodstock Home. That is the home for old ladies, Mr Speaker, Sir. As the Member for Mountbatten knows, when we started this home we had a male officer who was, seconded from one of the institutions to this home to look after the old ladies. The subcommittee in charge of this home has repeatedly made representations to the committee that it is not fair to keep this man, a single male, amongst the old ladies. They consider we should introduce this new post so that a lady house-mistress can be employed to assist him in caring for the old ladies. That is the position. If the Member for Mountbatten had really done her homework, she would have known all about this post.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is typical of the Minister. A straightforward question does not get a straightforward answer. I know all this. He is telling me nothing new. We did recommend a female to be there. But all I ask is, is this female going to share the work of the male, whatever the officer in charge there is called, or is she just going to do more or less the work of an amah? I feel a salary of $122 is not sufficient if we want an Assistant House-mistress of calibre who can really work with the housemaster, if he is known there as such. Anyway, in view of the difficulty the Minister has in answering that question, I will not cause a delay, Sir. I beg leave to withdraw.

Order. If the hon. Member begs leave to withdraw, she should not preface the request by a long speech. That might indicate she does want an answer. The Minister is perfectly entitled to answer if he wishes to answer. There is no dissentient voice anyway. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (39) of subhead 1.* That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (40) of subhead 1.+

Amendment (17)*. Mrs Seow.

No, Sir, I am not moving. My next amendment is on item (41).

Amendment (18).+

I am not moving it.

Amendment (19), Mrs Seow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (41) of subhead 1. Sir, item (41) is on welfare Attendants - two posts for the Homecraft Centre and one post for the Girls' Hostel, I had better explain why I ask this question in case the Minister accuses me of not having done my homework again. Why I ask this question is that I know the post for the Girls' Hostel was not for a Welfare Attendant but an assistant warden. Do those two do the same jobs, although they have different names?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears from the estimates for last year that there are 21 attendants. We propose to increase the number to 24. These are the servants who look after the girls at the Homecraft Centre. It was thought by the Committee that it was not fair to put older girls in charge of the younger girls in that home. It is necessary for these older girls to go to school and to do their homework. To relieve them of these chores, the Committee has recommended that we employ two more amahs. They are posts of amahs - maidservants - in this home. Two more posts for this home and one more for the Girls' Hostel at Canning Rise.

In other words, Sir, the request for one assistant warden for the Girls' Hostel is not granted. They are giving them amahs instead.

There is a lady warden.

Order. Has the Member finished?

Yes.

Mr Minister.

Mr Speaker, there will be a lady warden for the new post of Lady Warden in item (32) for the Girls' Hostel. This will be a post of servant for the Girls' Hostel.

I take it for granted then that, in the Minister's opinion, an assistant warden is not necessary. What they need really are welfare attendants, such as amahs. Thank you. Sir. In view of that explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.15 p.m. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (42) of subhead 1.*

Amendment (20)* in respect of item (42)?

I am not moving, Sir.

Amendment (21)+.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (43) of subhead 1.+ Mr Speaker, Sir, my question here seems redundant because of the Parliamentary Secretary has said the post is vacant. From investigations made and by reading reports, I find that there is a controversy over this post of Farm Overseer. In some reports, they say it has been filled, and in others they say it has not been filled. I have tried to ring up some people to find out. Some say it has been filled, and others say it has not been filled. I wonder whether it has been filled. I think this post of Farm Overseer in Gimson School is very important. So I am wondering whether the Minister can just tell me yes or no. Is it filled or not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree it is a very important appointment, but for some reason or other we have had great difficulty in getting a suitable person. But just before I left the Ministry, I understand we were successful in getting a suitable person to fill this appointment.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (66) of subhead 1. Here, Sir, I admit I have not done my homework. I do not know what this is for. "Women and Girls' Protection Officer" - I have never come across it before. Could the Minister tell us who this person is, where she is attached to, and what work does she do? I cannot quite place her with the people who, I know, exist in the different homes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the women's Charter, the Director of Social Welfare is the protector of women and girls. We have to control vice and proceed against vice operators in Singapore. We have one section that operates against these vice operators, and there is another section under the control of the Director of Social Welfare which looks after the rehabilitation side. This post is on the protector's policing side for action against vice operators. When police raiding parties go round, it is very necessary that we have a woman officer in charge of this work. In the past we used male officers and we got all sorts of complaints that they were in league with the brothel-keepers. To be sure that does not happen, it is proposed that we enlist the services of a woman officer for this work.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

Dr Lee?

I am not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Sir, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister certain matters which I feel are important and he should take note and try to rectify them. The first thing is about the frequent changes of officers in the home. In many of the homes, especially the boys' homes, the officers in charge have been change so frequently that there is no continuity at all. The officer, when put in that position, scarcely gets enough time to settle down to learn about the problems and difficulties of the home before he is switched oil' and taken to another department, while somebody else is put in his place. I remember the Visitors' Board once complained and said that the previous man was good. He was put back, and all of us rejoiced. But we rejoiced too soon. Before we knew where we were, he was taken away again. The children too will lose confidence if there are frequent changes. They do not have enough time to be friendly enough with the officer in charge to have confidence in him. The children too are very confused. For the sake of the homes and the children, I appeal to the Minister to look into this matter and, if he will, see that in future there will be as little changes as possible in these homes. The children in the homes are already handicapped, or underprivileged, or they are juvenile delinquents, and they cannot be confused like that. It is going to make them worse. So I hope the Minister will do something about it. The other point is that there is a Parole Board for well-behaved boys in the homes. If they behave well, they can he let out sooner than their term. But as I have pointed out in the last few days, Sir, whenever a thing is for the benefit of the females, it just does not happen. There is no Parole Board for the well-behaved girls. So I hope the Minister will do something about this. He should either empower the present Board to parole the girls as well, or appoint a new Parole Board for the girls. Sir, I have mentioned the Junior Approved School. I have not seen the posts, but the Minister has explained. There is, however, another point, i.e., creches. I notice the Government has promised this in The Tasks Ahead: 'The P.A.P. Government will establish more creches to look after children while mothers are at work. We will encourage factories employing large numbers of women to provide creches or, factory sites.' I see no extra vote for creches. I very much doubt, Sir, that there has been an increase of creches or there is an intention to increase them. But I ask the Minister to tell me if there have been increases, both in factory sites and Government creches, with the exception of the four from the City Council which they have taken over, and the two Government creches which they are continuing with. Apart from that, I notice in the Budget some posts in the Community Recreation Section. One lot was actually put "abolished post", another lot - has no vote for 1962. I am just wondering whether the Minister could tell us the reason for this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the movement of staff, I entirely agree with the Member for Mountbatten. In fact, that was the advice I always received from the Board of Visitors when I was Chairman of that Board. The Director of Social Welfare is aware of the position and I understand he has issued instructions that, as far as possible, the stall who are recruited for service in a particular home remain in that home to develop an interest in the work of that home. So that matter is in hand. As regards a Parole Board for female delinquents, so f at I am glad to report to the House that there are very few female delinquents. They behave themselves better than the boys, so that as far as girls are concerned we do not need the equivalent of a Gimson School for them. The Parole Board looks after delinquent boys who get remission of sentences whilst they are working in the Gimson School. A different problem arises with regard to girls. They are usually inmates of the Mount Emily Home and I think it would be dangerous to put such girls out on parole, unless the Member for Mountbatten wants to look after these girls and be the Chairman of their Parole Board. As far as creches are concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have four City Council creches and two Government creches. We have also opened a creche at New Market. There are two creches run by Government, one in Victoria Street and one in Banda Street. Both are very popular. When I was in the Ministry, we opened the New Market Creche, but for some reason or other, it has never proved as popular as the Banda Street Creche. Again. Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks as if the Member for Mountbatten has not gone down to her own constituency, because there is also a creche here that has just been built behind the community centre in Mountbatten. Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Did you invite her to the opening?

No. P.A.P.

With regard to the entry on page 418 of the Estimates affecting the Community Recreation Section, it is not necessary to maintain a Community Recreation Section any more in the Ministry. All the work of community recreation has been taken over by the People's Association. All the staff that were employed in the Community Recreation Section have been found other jobs in other sections of the Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of the Minister, I dare not go anywhere near the Mount-batten Community Centre because it is known as the P.A.P. holy of holies! The Minister did not invite the elected representative of that area, i.e., myself, to be present for the opening of that community centre. So, if it is the P.A.P. holy of holies, how can I be found there? Anyway, can I now withdraw, Mr Speaker. Sir, in view of the fact that I have made that statement?

Unless any Member wants to speak?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the honourable lady must have the last word! Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.* *The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Tee Kim Leng and Mrs Seow Peck Leng. That is Development and Intergration of Community Associations. Sir, I understand the Government's community association project has, in fact, met with tremendous failure in that the response from the people has not been to the liking of the Government. Strangely enough, as the Member for Mountbatten has pointed out, many people are inclined to look at the People's Association centres as institutions of the P.A.P. and not as community institutions. Sir, we have all heard quite a lot about the People's Association. We have read a lot in the papers, and in this House the Prime Minister and various other Ministers have said quite a lot. In all talks referring to the People's Association, the Government have merely seemed to be interested only in connecting the People's Association's current strike with the Barisan Sosialis. They have been so eager to hold the Barisan Sosialis responsible for the strike that they have, in fact, ignored, first and foremost, to give consideration to the legitimate grievances of the employees of the People's Association and, secondly, to find the solutions to the legitimate grievances of these employees. Sir, in the first place, I do not know how and in what pattern these community centres are built. I believe they are situated within the boundaries of the electoral constituencies. There are constituencies which do not have even one single community centre, while at the same time there are constituencies which have more than one community centre. But I am aware of the circumstances in which the officials of the People's Association, maybe community centre leaders, etc., were appointed. I do not want to go into the circumstances, but I would like to take this opportunity briefly to touch on the position that is prevalent today in the community centres. 3.30 p.m. As I was giving, Sir, the Government's interest seems to be just to hold the Barisan Sosialis responsible for the strike. But this is something on which we must be clear. I think most of the Government Ministers will at least secretly agree with me that if we have 100 or 200 workers going on strike, there must be, in the first place, a legitimate reason. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that anybody can force 10 or 20 workers to go on strike, let alone 100 or 200 people. Therefore, I say it is important that the Government should - after they have done enough of smearing - at least try to concentrate on the legitimate grievances of the workers. They, in fact, ask for the formation of a union through which they can constitu tionally put forward their grievances, and that right has been denied. The Prime Minister said the other day that because these workers do not belong to a union they have no right to go on strike. On the one hand, they deny these workers the right to form a union; on the other hand, they said, "Because you are not in a trade union, you have no right to go on strike." The fact remains that there are grievances and they ought to be looked into. The Government must attempt to seek solution. Insofar as I can gather, the People's Association, employees are employees who do not come within the same category as civil servants, particularly they are not governed by General Orders. As such. I think the Government must state categorically that whatever political views individual employees of the People's Association may hold, it is not necessarily inconsistent with the objects and ideals of the People's Association. I am told that the Prime Minister, in an interview with a delegation from the employees of the People's Association, said that he expected the employees of the People's Association to be loyal to the P.A.P.

No.

This is something which the Ministers can confirm or deny, but I have sufficient reason to believe that this was said - of course, not only loyalty to the Government but also to the People's Association. But insofar as loyalty to the People's Association is concerned, I do not think that any employee involved is disputing that fact. Insofar as loyalty to the Government is concerned, I do not think anybody is disputing that fact. But if employees are to be penalised because their political views are not consistent with the views of the P.A.P. leadership. then it is an entirely different matter. Briefly, I hear that the dispute in the People's Association is centred around this fact, that seven members of the P.A.P. left the P.A.P. and joined the Barisan Sosialis - I do not know whether they joined the Barisan Sosialis or they are members of the Barisan Sosialis. The point is that even if they had been mem bers of the P.A.P. and had resigned from the P.A.P. and have now joined the Bansan Sosialis, that should not be the reason for their expulsion from the People's Association, unless, of course, the Government can show why the political beliefs of the employees of the People's Association must be subjected to the views of the P.A.P. leadership by virtue of the fact that they are employees of the People's Association.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the cost of building community centres is paid by the public. But during the past two years we have seen know the Party in power has turned the community centres into branches of the P.A.P. The Government have said that it is to the credit of their Party that they have put up the community centres. After putting up the community centres, the elected representatives of some constituencies were not invited to the opening ceremony but officials of the P.A.P. were invited. We know that the cost of these community centres is paid by the public and not from the purse of the P.A.P. Public money should not be used for the Party. We have seen that the employees of the People's Association are responsible for the activities of the community centres but they do not agree with the political ideas of the P.A.P. They want to be loyal to the People's Association but the P.A.P. leadership want them to be also loyal to the P.A.P. This is unjust. The P.A.P. make use of these organisations as their Party branches. There is another point. Last year there were two by-elections. The P.A.P. got the employees of the People's Association to take part in their mass rallies. We know this was very unjust and unreasonable. I do not know why the Government want to spend such a big sum in 1962. Do they want to set up community centres in constituencies which belong to the P.A.P. or in constituencies which do not belong to the P.A.P.? There is one community centre which has been closed down by the Government. There is another one, which is a very shabby building built during the Japanese occupation. This is not fair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to relate the circumstances before the People's Association came into existence. In the Annual Report of the Social Welfare Department (Cmd. 6 of 1961), it says: 'Towards the second half of the year, the community Recreation Division assumed direct responsibility for the Social Welfare and Rural community centres. The term of office of the Management Committees...'.

Order. The hon. Member should realise that her speech is being interpreted. She is going a bit too fast.

I wanted to give time to the others to speak. Anyway, I will go slower: 'Towards the second half of the year, the community Recreation Division assumed direct responsibility for the Social Welfare and Rural Board community centres. The term of office of the Management Committees and Advisory Committees for the Social Welfare community centres and the Rural Board community centres were terminated. The Director of Social Welfare took over direct control of these centres and those run by community associations.' Sir, that is what they tell us but what they omit to tell us is that soon after the P.A.P. came into power, these community centres which had been run by the communities themselves, by the people elected by the communities and by the people interested in community welfare, were suddenly stopped and they were idle for months. The people were all confused. They did not know whether they could or could not go into them. When the community centres came under the direct control of the Government, the officers were changed so often that the people who went there did not know who they were. The whole place was in confusion for several months. Then one fine day we were told, "Oh, yes, the community centres have been returned to the community. The Government is not controlling them now. The committees are elected from the communities themselves." We were all very happy only to realise that that was done because the People's Association were then con rolling them. As soon as the P.A.P. came into power - if I am not mistaken, it may have been a few days or a few weeks after they came into power - they learned that the President of the Singapore Youth Council was given a grant to go to America. The next day, it was published in the papers that the Government intended to withdraw the $15,000 that was given to the Singapore Youth Council. Now the Singapore Youth Council had 35 youth organisations affiliated to it. It did a very good job. It was affiliated to a world body - the World Assembly of Youth. At the next function of the World Assembly of Youth, Singapore was not affiliated to be represented because the Government virtually killed that association. First, they said they would withdraw their grant. That is the unfair part of it.

On a point of information, Sir. Mrs Seow Peck Leng resumed her seat.

I heard the hon. Lady say just now that because of all this, Singapore was not represented at the last World Assembly of Youth Conference. May I inform the Member for Mountbatten that Singapore did send a representative as an observer and he came from the People's Association? I have had meetings with the World Assembly of Youth representatives and they agreed that in place of the Youth Council they would be very happy to have observers from the Youth Section of the People's Association sent to their conferences. That was done.

Sir, I did qualify my statement by saying that Singapore was not represented as an affiliated member. I realise what the Minister has told us. As I said, Sir, the next day they said they were going to withdraw the $15,000. The workers there were so interested and dedicated in their work that they said, "All right, then we will try to find our own finances." What did the Government do? The Government were determined to kill the S.Y.C. They said, "All right then, if you find the finances, we withdraw the loan of our premises. You cannot use our premises." And so on, Sir,It went on stage after stage. Whatever the S.Y.C. put up, the Government fought it. The S.Y.C. gave up when they could fight no more. 3.45 p.m. The same thing happened to the Safety First Council which was affiliated to the other Social Welfare Council.

On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mrs Seow Peck Leng resumed her seat.

As far as the Singapore Youth Council is concemed, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we became the Government there was a meeting called by the Director of Social Welfare. He ad vised me on the work of that Council. Their representatives were duplicated, Mr Speaker, Sir. The same group of representatives on the Youth Council were also on the Council for Social Services. Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal to the Youth Council - that they should dissolve themselves - was made on the advice of our senior civil servants who were knowledgeable in these matters. The Council for Social Services, which was a duplication of the Youth Council, has also existed since we have been in the government. They had been doing very good work indeed and we are very grateful to them. It was because of the advice that I received from the Ministry officials that the proposal was made to the Youth Council to dissolve themselves, and the Youth Council made the decision themselves.

Sir, I am very surprised to hear that the Youth Council took the decision themselves. From the officers of the Youth Council who approached me, I heard they were trying to survive! Anyway, the Safety First Council was the same, Sir. The feeling of the members of the Safety First Council was - and this was actually said - that the Safety First Council was dissolved because there were not sufficient P.A.P. members in the Council.

I am just wondering whether the Safety First Council will come under this vote.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Let us try and confine ourselves to community centres.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going into details. I am just mentioning it in passing to substantiate my statement on the S.Y.C. Then, Sir, what happened? Their guns misfired! Their bullets boomeranged. The People's Association staff turned against them, and some were sacked. I hear that now they have employed some people to replace those who were sacked, and it is rumoured that these are either P.A.P. or pro-P.A.P. or at least in sympathy with the P.A.P. There is a rumour that as they could not find enough pro-P.A.P., they even got people sympathetic to the P.A.P. Sir, this is an outrageous breach of trust. Why should the tax that is paid by Members of the Opposition and by those who are evidently what they are - anti-P.A.P. - our supporters who are anti-P.A.P., and the tax paid by you and your staff, who are not supposed to take part in politics - why should all that money be used to run the People's Association to promote P.A.P. propaganda and to ensure success for the P.A.P. in the next general elections? Sir, their Siamese boxing has brought their proud majority of 35 to a tragic majority of one. The sooner they turn to Queensberry rules, the better for them before they lose that majority of one. Sir, there are accusations that the staff of the People's Association have been asked to be loyal to the P.A.P. if they want their jobs. The Prime Minister has denied that, saying that he has tape re-cordings made in his office to prove that he had not called upon their loyalty to the P.A.P. I regret to have to say this, Sir. In fact, I am still trying to decide whether I should say it or not. It is not nice for the Prime Minister. But I would like to tell him this: it is no use denying it. When the People's Association went on strike, the strikers came to my house and handed me a tape which recorded the speech of the Prime Minister given on his first day of leave when he went to the People's Association. And that tape definitely said, "You must be loyal to the organisation (meaning the People's Association), to the Govemment, and to the P.A.P." Now, they have given me this tape. I do not know to how many more people they have given this tape. I do not think the Prime Minister should deny it, as there is evidence. And if the Prime Minister wishes to hear the tape, or does not believe that I have it, he can have it anytime he wants.

Sir, it is useless for the Member for Thomson to pretend that the trouble in the People's Association is unconnected with the Barisan Sosialis. In fact, the whole furore in the Association started at the time the Barisan Sosialis members formed themselves into a political Party. The genesis of all this is quite simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. The key and important staff of the People's Association were recruited by a sub-committee of the Board of Management of the People's Association. On that sub-committee the two most important members - in fact, the members who decided on the appointments - were the Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Upper Serangoon. Of course, they packed important positions in the Association with their cronies. In one of the law courts, the Member for Upper Serangoon stated that his Branch Secretary, who had been out of work for about ten years, suddenly passed the examination paper marked by them, and got appointed to the post of community centre organiser in that district. Now that is the background. When the Barisan Sosialis members - former members of the P.A.P. - defected, it is only natural that their views would be transmitted to the former staff of the People's Association. The opinion among the former staff was very simple. They said, "Well, the Government is falling. There will be a revolution in October when a new government will take over." Some of the people who generally opposed us thought we were wrong. Other thought they might as well climb on the winning bandwagon. So it became impossible to enforce discipline in the Association. Top members were openly conspiring right down the line to oppose the Government. In the first instance, it was necessary to make an example of a few by dismissing round about half a dozen members. Instead of having the salutary effect that we had hoped for, this led to more agitation. And it became necessary to dismiss more people. During this period, the ringleaders were running the Association and its facilities as if these belonged to them and not to the people of Singapore, let alone the Board of Management of the People's Association. They defied orders. They held meetings as and when; and where they liked. Sir, it became obvious that control over a section of the staff had been completely lost, and it therefore became necessary to force the issue. Accordingly, when the ringleaders sought an interview with the Prime Minister, he agreed to talk to the general rank and file of the staff of the People's Association and explain to them the situation. The ring leaders agreed to convene such a meeting. I think the House has heard from the Prime Minister what transpired - that contrary to the agreement with the Prime Minister, they held a rival meeting at a different place at the same time. After that, of course, these misguided persons went on what they called their "strike". Sir, the strike was not, as the Member for Thomson was trying to suggest, because they wanted to form a union and were denied the right to form a union. That was not the issue.

On a point of elucidation. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

I did not say the cause of the strike was the demand to form a union. I said there were legitimate grievances.

Sir, when one talked of grievances, one meant grievances leading to a strike. Therefore, the inference must be that they wanted to form a union and were denied that right. Sir, they never wanted to form a union. That came about only after they had vacated their posts. Then we told them, "You have walked out of your jobs. You are not walking out on strike, as you have not got a legal union." It is only then they said, "Let us form a union." When they applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, he quite naturally pointed out to them, "You are not being employed by anybody. So you cannot be a member of a union of the People's Association staff, because you are no longer the staff." That is a side issue, Mr Speaker, Sir. The main point is that once they embarked on a so-called strike, Singapore saw a series of examples of utterly reprehensible conduct on the part of these persons. They resorted to violence. They beat up people. They broke the windows of certain community centres. They broke up furniture of other community centres. In one place they even spilled pig excreta on the premises. That was absolutely disgusting, uncivilized conduct. And all the time they tried to prevent members of the public from having access to the community centres. Community centres, Sir, are meant for the public. They provide a useful service - people rest there, read newspapers, listen to the radio, play games, and enjoy other facilities for recreation. But this gang of undisciplined louts took it upon themselves, with no legal right whatsoever, to prevent members of the public from entering community centres. In somecases they turned up in big force and frightened the loyal staff who wanted to work there. There have been numerous instances of staff members being assaulted by these ruffians. Now, Sir, in these circumstances, may I suggest that when the Member for Thomson said that we must find a solution to this problem, we have found a solution to this problem? These persons have been dismissed. In so far as the Government or the Board of the People's Association is concerned, there is nothing for us to do. They walked themselves out of their jobs and they stay out. Sir, this is the first round of the scrap between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis and the pro-Communist supporters. The result of this, Sir, is that persons whom they have duped into this foolhardy action have lost their jobs, and lost a good permanent career in the People's Association. There was round two. Round three - students did not sit for examinations. But the majority did, and they never got the support of the majority of the Chinese students. Only a misguided minority did not take the examinations. The result is that one year's work in school is wasted. 4.00 p.m. So it could go on. There is trouble in the Work Brigade. Perhaps several hundreds of people will have lost their jobs and no opportunity to get work. If this is the way the Barisan Sosialis think they can rally the support of the working masses, by leading them to misery, loss of employment, then, Sir, I wish them the best of luck. This is completely the result of political manceuvres. My colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, will be able to recount to the House when one of the persons who was dismissed at an earlier period, approached him and pleaded that she be given back her job. The Minister for Health and Law said, "Well, we will be glad to take you back. But you must give some undertaking that there will not be a repetition of the disgraceful conduct which these people have been indulging in." The long and short of it is that, when she found that she would not be taken back, this young girl shook her fist at the Minister for Health and Law and said, "You just wait for the October revolution. You will be out. We will be in office." This was the way these foolish and misguided young men and women were inveigled into mounting their so-called strike. Their attempt to get support and sympathy from the public has failed dismally. Indeed, they are now reduced to forming two littte outposts, one in Havelock Road and one off Geylang Road, as a gesture of futile defiance. They attempted to mount what they called mobile pickets. They tried to block the entrances of the People's Association. For what reason, I do not know, Mr Speaker, Sir,If they think that is the way they can get sympathy from the public, that is, by denying the public the means of access to community centres, then there is something wrong with their ways. But even their mobile pickets have packed up, having met with hostility and opposition wherever they went. May I suggest to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis that they call it a day and not try to make an issue of a lost cause? One feels sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the victims who have been manipulated by evil men behind the scenes. They had a promising career in the People's Association. There is a salary scheme. There are conditions of service. With the expansion of recreational facilities in Singapore, they had a bright future and considerable scope for improving themselves. We have arranged with overseas governments, including the Governments of Israel, Australia and New Zealand, to run training courses for these persons so that they can see what other countries more advanced than we are in this respect are providing. All this they have thrown away in a few moments of folly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the opening words of the Minister for Finance are that it is useless for the Barisan Sosialis to defend. May I say here that it is useless for the Govemment to pretend that when they introduced the People's Association Bill, it was in their minds to make the People's Association a political arm of the P.A.P.? If not, why should it be mecessary for the People's Association to be controlled by a Board whose membership is the Prime Minister as Chairman, the Minister for Labour and Law as Deputy Chairman, and the Minister for Finance. They want to turn it into a political ann of the P.A.P. I said at previous sittings that there were two Frankensteins created by the P.A.P. Government. One is the Work Brigade and the other one is the People's Association. They thought that in this way they could ensure to themselves continued success of the P.A.P. in future elections. So much so that they even trained members of the Work Brigade and workers in the People's Association to attend mass rallies, to come along somewhere around the City Hall and cheer them when they were getting a beating by the Member for Hong Lim. In the two by-elections that took place recently, members of the Work Brigade and the People's Association were ordered by the Government to be present at their mass rallies. Allegations have been made against the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the People's Associat�on, who addressed a meeting of the employees and told them that they must be loyal not only to the Association and the Government, which no doubt would have been right, but also to the P.A.P. As has been mention ed by the Member for Mountbatten, a tape-recorded message is in her possession. That no doubt will go before the Commission of Inquiry when it has been appointed. All these things were done at a time when the P.A.P. were arrogant. They now try to say that all the evil things done in the name of the People's Association were done by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They were at that time members of the P.A.P., and they were acting on the orders of the P.A.P. Whatever they did, they did it in the name of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. must accept full responsibility for all the political intrigues that have been going on in the People's Association.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Member for Caimhill has taken quite a lot of time, I am indebted to him for having raised and emphasised certain points which I myself wanted to raise, points which become more cogent when emphasised by the Member for Cairnhill, because it is a fact that the People's Association is the so-called second front or the political arm of the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill has already read the list of members on the Board of the People's Association: the Prime Minister, the Minister for Labour and Law, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Home Affairs. All the important Ministers are on the Board. It is naive of the Minister for Finance to suggest to this House that, for an organisation of such importance, the whole policy-making body consists of two persons. I myself and the Member for Upper Serangoon. It is indeed naive -

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way. The Member does not give way.

Time is running out, Sir.

Order.

Any organisation can only be run by the people who are in it, and it is naive of him to suggest that we put our boys into the People's Association so that it can be run for our purposes. Surely the People's Action Party is not as stupid and as naive as that.

You were inside.

Yes, I was there. That is correct, Sir. But I was there only to take and transmit orders. If any of the Members opposite dispute that, surely when the Commission of Inquiry is set up, I shall produce all the duly signed papers, minutes, letters, memoranda addressed to me, purporting to give me instructions as to how and whom to select, as to whom to promote, and whom not to promote, as to who is satisfactory and who is unsatisfactory. All these things are on record, Sir. It is quite naive of the Deputy Prime Minister to call Inc a stool pigeon. After all, I was only a Parliamentary Secretary in the Government, and I had to take orders from my Ministers, particularly from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.

You are not.

Order.

If the Deputy Prime Minister so disputes. I shall produce evidence in which it is clearly stated that he himself has given me orders. I have carried out those orders, much to his satisfaction .I could produce also minutes to say that he was happy that I had carried out those orders. For them now to say that the whole policy of recruitment in the People's Association was in the hands of the Member for Upper Serangoon and myself is indeed something which is beyond credulity. To say that the people whom we recruited came with us because we left the P.A.P. is completely wrong and irresponsible, because we can produce documents to show that many of the people who were sacked from the People's Association were actually recommended for appointment in the People's Association by some of the Ministers. The only reason I do not want to produce these documents now is that there is no Commission of Inquiry. As soon as the Commission of Inquiry is set up, and as soon as I have been given an adequate assurance that all those papers may legally be produced without any trouble befalling me, or any threat, those papers will be produced.

Sir, to answer the Member for Cairnhill why the Ministers are on the Board. The answer i3 simple. We saw complete failure of the community centres under the previous Government. I was at one time the Director of Social Welfare, and I found the community centres were total failures. First, they were too big. An average community centre cost about a quarter of a million dollars. Secondly, they were sited in the wrong places, far away from where the people stay. And thirdly, the staff were all wrong. Therefore, in order to make sure that former errors are not repeated, and that vast sums of money are not wasted, we have decided that we must have direct control and supervision over these community centres. I wish to comment rather briefly on what the Member for Nee Soon said. Brave words, Mr Speaker, Sir! They have got documents! I can assure you that we shall insist on the production of the documents. Earlier on during these troubles, the ex-staff of the People's Association, I think probably on the advice or with the assistance of the Member for Upper Serangoon, issued a statement saying that these were the names of the staff, and these were the persons who introduced them or who recommended them for employment. Against my name was a certain Miss - I have forgotten her name. I found out that I did not even know who she was. Later on I checked with the Treasurer of the People's Association and found out that she was one of these people. I think probably the Member for Havelock will know.

On a point of order. The particular lady was introduced by the Minister himself.

It is not a point of order. Dr Goh, please continue. There is only one minute more.

Sir, the Members opposite are given to a fairly great deal of recklessness in making their statements. [Interruption].

Order.

I have checked these matters fairly closely with the Secretary Treasurer of the People's Association, and he has in his file all the records which will be produced at the right time. I do not know what has happened to the Member for Nee Soon. I do not think he has much reason for elation. Certainly the Member for Upper Serangoon is looking extremely nervous because he knows how deeply he is implicated in this. 4.15 p.m.

Order. Time has expired. I take it the Member for Thomson wishes for a vote? Mr Bani indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allocated for Head 48 having expired, the following amendment were not proceeded with: Mrs Seow Peck Leng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 10. That the stun to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead 10. That me sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (9) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (10) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (11) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (12) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (13) of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 10. Mr S. T. Bani: Mrs Seow Peck Leng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 15. Dr Lee Siew Choh: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $100. The sum of $15,781,500 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 49 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. Sir, unfortunately when I was in the P.A.P. I was never consulted on the appointment of the Minister for Culture, and I do not think I was even consulted on having to have a Ministry of Culture. If I had been consulted on the appointment of the Minister for Culture, I would have said that the present Minister for Culture should be the last man to be the Minister for Culture. I understand he has extensive training and experience in propaganda work by virtue of the fact that he was employed by the Straits Times and the Singapore Standard for quite some time.

Order. I do not think all that is relevant at all. If the hon. Member thinks the Minister for Culture has failed, he must show how he has failed. I do not think it is relevant to say what his private life was like before he was appointed to be the Minister. Let us now come down to the point as to how the Member considers the Minister for Culture has failed in his Ministry.

I assure you, Sir, I do not want to discuss his private life. I was just leading up to the point that the present Ministry of Culture is not, in fact, the Ministry of Culture. It is the Government's Ministry of Propaganda and has become the Ministry of P.A.P. Propaganda.

You have got the Barisan Sosialis -

Order.

Sir, today we find the staff and the functions of the Ministry of Culture, and everything else go to make up the propaganda machinery of the P.A.P. Sir, we understand the Minister for Education issues a statement and the Ministry of Culture distributes it. That is perfectly in order. There is no complaint. But if the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee issues a statement for it to be typed and printed and distributed by the Ministry of Culture, it is quite a different matter. How can you use paper, to say the least, which is bought with public money, for typing out P.A.P. Central Executive Statements?

Rubbish!

The Deputy Prime Minister says it is rubbish. For his information, we know that even official statements issued by the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union have been distributed by the Ministry of Culture. Surely, Sir, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union is not a Government organ. Unless, of course, the Government wants to admit (I hope the Minister for Culture will admit) that the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union is, in fact, a Government outfit then I say it is all in order. But I do not think the Minister will admit that. Sir, the Ministry of Culture, which indulges exclusively in P.A.P. propaganda work, is also guided by the Minister for Culture to get newspaper editors to play up or play down news items according to the whims and fancies of the P.A.P. leadership. Sir, I do not suggest that the Minister calls up the newspaper editors and says, "This is my statement. You must publish it in full. That statement is issued by my political opponent. You must not publish it." The Minister for Culture has sufficient experience to do this thing subtly so that nobody, in fact, knows that the Minister for Culture is doing the work of the editor of the Straits Times. Sir, I have no doubt that the Minister for Culture is going to stand up and deny vehemently these allegations. I tell him, Sir, before he starts denying, that if he is seriously suggesting that I know this to be untrue, then -

Liar!

Order. I think I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs use a word which he knows to be completely unparliamentary. He will please apologise to the House for using that word and withdraw it.

I apologise.

Withdraw that word.

I withdraw that word.

Sir, I tell the Government benches this. If they seriously suggest that I am not telling the truth, they can hold a public Commission of Inquiry -

Do you think the Government has so many commissioners?

- and get newspapermen to testify, so long as they can give an assurance to the newspaper reporters that no matter what they testify to, their jobs are safeguarded. I have some friends in the journalist world and I have had occasion to get information direct from them. I say that the Government are in a position, by the fact that they run the machinery of State, to hold a Commission of Inquiry. Get every single reporter to testify; give him a guarantee that he will not be penalised for telling the truth; and you shall get the truth and nothing but the truth. I am sure, Sir, they must have been amused to see Mr Lim Ching Siong just getting up from the chair with the Prime Minister seated in a big picture appearing in the Straits Times. That picture was taken in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room. I am told that the photographer was quietly advised by the Minister for Culture to take this photograph. I do not know what political capital they want to make out of it. It looks a very silly proposition to me. I think, if at all anybody should get the credit, it should be Mr Lim Ching Siong, who seems to be standing up. But anyway, Sir, this is the thinking of the P.A.P. Government. They thought they had made very big political capital out of it. But the point here is this. That we have reason to believe the Minister for Culture ushered the cameraman into the C.P.A. Room. In fact, the man who snapped that shot was employed by the Ministry of Culture. I am told the Chinese papers published the photograph and added a footnote saying, "Photograph by the Ministry of Culture." Sir, I do not want to say much. I am sure the Minister for Culture has quite a lot to say and I would like to listen to him first. But I want to tell him this in all earnestness. If it is the intention of the Government to use the Ministry of Culture as the propaganda wing of the People's Action Party, let them at least rename the Ministry. Call it "Ministry of Propaganda"; then you can use it for propaganda purposes for the Government of the P.A.P. But do not go and call it the Ministry of Culture and do very uncultured work. This is, I beg to submit, Sir, an insult to a most honourable term - culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say how disappointed I am in the way the Member for Thomson has tackled this particular item? He indicated to me that there were going to be fireworks, but what we really heard were things fizzling out. There was nothing concrete or substantial. For example, he queried whether we should not name it "Ministry of Propaganda" and he would be quite satisfied. Surely, Sir, as a very intelligent gentleman, he is not going to be satisfied by a change in a terminology and not the work of the Ministry. It is quite true, Sir, that a Ministry such as this - and government itself - relies on propaganda. Every Assemblyman in this Chamber came here because his Party or his election agent managed to put over good propaganda to convince the electorate that what he stood for was right. I am told the august origin of the word "propaganda" started at the time when Christianity was being propagated. The word "propaganda" means really to propagate a belief or a faith. To that extent, we who are elected as the government certainly have a right to use all propaganda machinery to put over a point of view. I can quite understand why Members of the Barisan have suddenly developed an antipathy for Radio Singapore over which many of them were not only eager to broadcast but also got our Ministry officials to write the speeches for them. So they were using at that time the propaganda machinery to put over a point of view. What has happened is that we have used the machinery of propaganda effectively. What they are complaining about is not that we are using the propaganda machinery, but that we are using it so effectively that today many of them have been reduced to silence. In fact, they have even to quit the Chamber because there are lots of propaganda even in this Assembly. We are not claiming that the propaganda machinery is not being used. It should be used, and by every government, to put over a point of view. If it were improperly used, that is, if we were doing something which should not be done, then that is a different matter. The radio department, publicity, and films are in tended to convey a particular type of message. But I will say this: that never in any instance have we used Radio Singapore or any of the other propaganda organs of government to put forward purely P.A.P. propaganda. We have used it to put forward Government propaganda. It happens to be a party government, and to that extent we put forward the Government's point of view; the Government's attitude to certain things; the Government's stand on certain problems. That is something which every democratic government, if not a totalitarian government, uses. The only difference is that in the case of a totalitarian government, there will be no Barisan Sosialis to ask questions about the Ministry of Culture. But in a democratic government, they can even very light-heartedly ask certain questions, knowing full well, Sir, that they can go back home quietly and go to sleep without hearing a strange knock on their doors at 2 o'clock in the morning. 4.30 p.m. But may I just correct one misapprehension, Sir? An allegation was made. I do not think the Member for Thomson really believes it. He has a way of putting forward certain things without proving them or stating the facts, just as he insisted that I worked for the Straits Times, the Malayan Tribune and for the Singapore Standard as well.

I did not say the Tribune.

To that extent, he has a way of putting forward half-truths and then withdrawing them. He says we use the property of the Ministry of Culture to issue statements by the Central Executive Committee. I would like to point out to you, Sir, that we have never gone out of our way to use even the radio to put over reports of our P.A.P. conferences except insofar as they may have national implications. In fact, I remember when the Member for Hong Lim left the Government, we felt that there was a case where the matter had gone beyond party politics to national politics. Here was a Minister who had to leave the Government, and in that case we did issue a statement from the Central Executive Committee over the radio. I understand the previous Government used to broadcast over the radio the opening of every branch of the Labour Front. In fact, we have given strict instructions - Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

On a point of elucidation?

Sir, this is the height of untruth.

Check this up, because it was pointed out to me that when the former Chief Minister - I am not saying this Chief Minister - opened Labour Front branches, radio broadcasts were made about them. [Interruption] (The trouble is that when a Party had two Chief Ministers, it becomes a bit difficult. So I will say that I am sorry. I was referring to the first Chief Minister.) But we have never done that. The only time we have issued party statements is when they have national implications, just as when we had a special Review Committee which made certain suggestions as to how the work of the government should be improved. Since the Committee included not only Ministers but also the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs who deserted half-way through, we thought that since these recommendations were being made by a responsible group, to that extent we broadcast them over the radio. Again, Sir, when the Barisan Sosialis had their two inaugural meetings, those meetings were broadcast over Radio Singapore. So I would ask them to say whether we have at any time used the radio or any of the other instruments of propaganda at our command to propagate purely party politics. I say that they cannot produce such evidence because we have never done so, but we do certainly use the machinery of propaganda to put forward Government's views on any questions of national importance to the people. As regards the allegation "Oh, the Minister for Culture, of course, does not intimidate editors. He does not call them into his office and frighten them into playing up this or that news.". let us say quite openly that we do call the newspaper editors and we discuss things with them and say, "We think it is important news. These are the implications behind it. Would you give us good play?" Just as the Members opposite who criticise the papers for not giving them due play, are at liberty to ring up the reporters or the editors concerned. If the newspapers do not listen to them, it is just their bad luck. They do not happen to be the Government. But we certainly ask the press for publicity - and it is quite legitimate; it happens in every democratic country. A government can call the editors to a Press conference and say, "This is what we intend to do. These are the reasons why we are doing it. We would like full play given to it." - When a paper refuses to give publicity for some reason or other and then you close down the Press - then we say the freedom of the Press has been infringed. But we try to persuade, argue -

Intimidate.

We never intimidate. In fact, the Member for Thomson himself said so earlier. At least, he gave me enough credit by saying that we do not resort to such crude methods as twisting the thumb of an editor and saying, "You had better print this in the newspapers." Most newspaper reporters and editors are responsible people. They respond to sensible argument.

Sensible intimidation!

And to that extent they do play up certain news. For example - it was mentioned earlier - it is quite true about Mr Lim Ching Siong and myself in the C.P.A. Room calling not one photographer but a group of photographers asking whether they wanted good news. You have gentlemen walking out of this Chamber saying that they were hungry and that they wanted to go home early because they feared being waylaid. But what did they do? They were drinking beer in the C.P.A. Room. From the news point of view, that was something.

On a point of information, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Surely Mr Lim Ching Siong was not sipping beer the other night in the C.P.A. Room. This is a very serious allegation.

Sir, not only Mr Lim Ching Siong but I think the Member for Nee Soon and two or three other Barisan Socialis Members were sitting around a table -

Order. Lest the Minister go into further details, I think this is personal conduct. It should never be even referred to under our Standing Orders.

Sir, the point I want to make is that the moment they saw the cameramen, they were scooting along the corridor. It showed that that thing was of great news value. Mr Lim Ching Siong saw it from the news point if the Member for Thomson did not.

Order. I am making enquiries about that photograph. I am not quite sure whether that was completely against the directive which I have given about the use of the C.P.A. Room. The least said about it, the better. [Interruption] Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the gist of the argument put forward by the Member for Thomson was that the Government was using the radio and other propaganda machinery for putting over propaganda. That, I submit, is nothing irregular. In fact, any government which does not use its propaganda machinery effectively to put over its message deserves to fail.

The Minister for Culture said that he was responsible for putting over a point of view and that P.A.P. propaganda was never solely put over. At the present moment, the P.A.P. and the Government are both the same. If the Minister says he is going to put over Government propaganda, in actual fact, he is going to put over P.A.P. propaganda. If he wants to put forward any point of view, it is only fair that he put forward both points of view. Why should he put forward only one point of view? This is very pertinent, Sir. During the recent debate on the merger issue, you will remember that I complained in this House that there was complete blackout of news of speeches from the Barisan Sosialis. On the first and secon4 days, nearly half an hour was devoted to the speeches of the Minister for Finance and other people, but hardly one line was devoted to the speeches made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. In this particular case, there was a deliberate blackout, I think, on the citizenship issue. Even the English newspapers were told that that question should not be brought up. If the Minister wants to be fair about anything, it is only fair and right that the people be rightly informed. If Radio Singapore is to be put to proper use, then all controversial questions should be put forward to the people and they would then be able to judge. It is now the general talk in town that Radio Singapore is no more Radio Singapore but Radio P.A.P. I hope the Minister will be able to correct this. He also mentioned a little while back that there was no party propaganda put forward. I will even go so far as to say that the Minister has instructed the civil servants in his department to put forward his party propaganda line. There were talks by one P.S. Raman. He is the Programme Supervisor. He gave three talks on merger arid they smacked completely of P.A.P. propaganda. He never gave both sides of the picture. I am sure what he said must have been dictated to him by the Minister. We would like to know whether, in actual fact, the Minister is encouraging neutrality of the civil service or encouraging the civil service to take part in politics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if and when the Barisan Sosialis do come into power, then I gather that what they are going to do is to take over Radio Singapore and use it to put over their own propaganda. Any government which comes into power will naturally put over its own propaganda. Everybody knows - in fact, the whole town knows - that the Member for Queenstown has been repeatedly invited to come to a radio forum and we are still awaiting a reply from him whether he is prepared to have an encounter with the Minister for Finance, the Member for Farrer Park, and I think the Member for Hong Lim as soon as it is convenient. So we are far from wanting to keep out the Opposition's views. We are inviting them to come and say what they like openly over Radio Singapore, subject to the usual laws of libel, sedition, slander and so on. The Member for Queenstown had complained that Radio Singapore had been blacking out reports of speeches by Barisan Sosialis and other Opposition Members. So I asked the News Section to give me a summary of how many lines were allocated to Government and Opposition speakers at a given period. They chose the period 21st to 23rd November. On 21st November, the total news items at 7 p.m. was 190 lines of which the Member for Queenstown merited 185 lines. On 22nd November, the Government speaker had the bulk of the time. On 23rd November, during the 7 o'clock news, there was a total of 346 lines out of which - I had been speaking then - I had 161 lines and the Member for Anson had 166 lines. 4.45 p.m. On 23rd November, in the 10.30 p.m. round-up of news, there were altogether 436 lines, of which I had 156, the Member for Anson had 176, the Minister for Education had 87, and the Member for Changi had 12 lines. So it is not quite true to say that the Member for Queenstown has been blacked out. It is quite difficult to compress a speech which extended over 7� hours into something like 5, 7 or 8 minutes. In fact, Sir, I would like - perhaps not on this occasion but on some other occasion - to ask the Member for Queenstown, as an experiment, to try and compress his 7�-hours speech into a ten-minute bulletin, which runs to about 190 lines, without his complaining that some material points or some pungent phrases have been left out. He made another allegation - allegations are made by indicating that they do not know whether it is true or not, but they think that it is so. For example, the Member for Queenstown said the English newspapers were told not to play up some statements he made about citizenship. Sir, I myself had great difficulty in following the point he was driving at about citizenship. In fact, he had great difficulty in sorting out his notes. But I can assure him that at no point did I bother to ring up any newspaper or even Radio Singapore, to say, "Blackout whatever points the Member for Queenstown made about Singapore citizenship." It is obviously ridiculous. I thought it would be more to the advantage of Government for people to read the kind of nonsense that had been talked about citizenship then to have it blacked out and, therefore, give to the Member for Queenstown the intellectual stature and standing which he does not otherwise merit. So I can assure him and everybody else that I do not ring up any newspaper and say, "Keep so-and-so's speech short", or "Black-out so-and-so's speech." The Member for Thomson said he had made enquiries. Can he produce any newspaperman or any editor who could say that I said that at any time? What we often did was to ring up newspaper editors or journalists and say, "Look, the P.M. has made a speech. We would like as full a coverage as possible." Or, "An Assemblyman has made a speech. We would like a full report." In fact, I remember the time the Member for Queenstown went to a C.P.A. conference. His speech, I think, was written in conjunction with my Political Secretary, and I corrected it.

That is an untruth, Sir.

Sir, many Parliamentary Secretaries do go abroad to C.P.A. conferences. A speech was sent to me consisting of his notes, and my Political Secretary and I expanded it.

That is very untrue, Sir.

Order.

After he had made his speech, the script was sent to us for distribution to the Press. In fact, Sir, I told the Press that in view of the fact that the Member for Queenstown represented the Government at the C.P.A. conference, would they give it good publicity? The radio certainly did, and the newspapers certainly did. I can assure him I did not [Interruption] -

Order.

- call up any newspaper editor and force him at the point of a gun to see that the speech by the Member for Queenstown was published. To that extent, we do that, in fact, every political party, whether in or out of office, always does that. Therefore, to complain that prevailing upon newspaper editors to give play to speeches or statements by the Government is a transgression of the freedom of the Press is something which no newspaperman would agree with, because it is a normal part of government practice and is something which is accepted by all newspapers.

I want to say only a few words, Sir,I am glad the Minister for Culture has admitted that he calls up newspaper editors and speaks to them. In other words, he gives guidance. I agree with the Minister, Sir, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister is not a crude operator to tell the newspaper editors, "Please, you must play this statement up, or your head goes off." Sir, I give the Minister full marks in so far as ability as a propagandist is concerned. I have no doubt he knows how to operate his Ministry. Sir, I attended a meeting of English-educated workers on Sunday. I was secretly delighted when I heard one of the speakers refer to the Straits Times and Radio Singapore as "Rajaratnam Times" and "Radio Rajaratnam". That is a fact. We do not object to the fact that the Government has necessarily to have propaganda machinery. I am not [Interruption].

Order. The leader of the House must contain himself.

I am not attaching bad connotations to the word "propaganda". I realise that if you want to have an information service, you have it. Having a Ministry like this for government propaganda, in my view, is something that is proper, just and reasonable. But if you have it for P.A.P. propaganda, well then, it is a different matter. Sir, the Minister for Culture can say that the only things dealt with in the radio talks, the only items touched on by radio announcers in their news items, and the only things that we tell the newspapers to play up, are matters which are connected with the government or matters which are of national interest, it only needs a little bit of common sense to know that you can have a wide range of matters under the definition of "matters of national interest" and "Government matters". For instance, the Prime Minister gave 12 radio talks. They were supposed to be matters of merger - what merger means to the people. But he used the 12 talks to carry on a character assassination of his political opponents. I read in the newspapers, and I am sure quite a few others also read in the papers, that the 12 radio talks were intended to be followed by radio talks to be given by Mr C. V. Devan Nair. In the case of the Prime Minister, it is the Prime Minister of the State speaking to the people. But Mr Devan Nair? I do not know why they have not put him on the air. It may be because they know we were prepared to raise objections. But this is the point I want to make, Sir. One can easily raise any matter, a pure and simple P.A.P. political propaganda matter, under the pretext of raising a Government matter, because the Government in office today is the P.A.P. Government. When the Member for Hong Lim was expelled, the Minister for Culture said that that was a national matter and, under that pretext, Radio Singapore was used. I am not going to argue with the Minister on the principle of a government wanting to use the government propaganda machinery for propaganda purposes. But, Sir, as far as Radio Singapore is concerned, I ask the Minister for Culture to read the Hansard which recorded what the Prime Minister said in 1955. I think one of the first matters the People's Action Party representatives raised in this Assembly, when they were on this side of the Chamber, was to have Radio Malaya transferred to a public corporation. I do not have the time to look up the Hansard, but if the Minister for Culture looks it up, he can find the sort of argument the Prime Minister put forward. He then downed the previous Government for using Radio Malaya as a propaganda medium for the Party in power, it is now more than 2� years since the P.A.P. assumed office, and I have not heard any Minister talking of Radio Singapore being transferred to a public corporation, because all this is forgotten so long as they can use Radio Singapore for P.A.P. propaganda purposes, and so long as it suits their convenience.

Any further speeches on this?

I just want to stress one further point, Sir: that we are not against the P.A.P. using the radio. But let them not make Radio Singapore into Radio PAP. Let them really be fair and give everybody a chance, and on national matters like this both sides of the picture must be presented to the people. As regards the insinuation of people writing speeches and all that, I was in the P.A.P. for quite some time. I am sure the Minister for Culture never wrote my speeches, neither did the Minister for Home Affairs. In fact, I did some of his speeches myself.

Order. Let us not go into that now. It is irrelevant. The Minister will say a few words and I will then wind up.

First of all, Sir, it is quite true that it is very difficult to find out where Government propaganda ends and where party propaganda begins. I quite concede that. It is one of the difficulties of anybody operating a propaganda machine. But I would suggest that we have, as far as is humanly possible, avoided using Radio Singapore for purely party propaganda purposes. It is obviously a region where there are borderline cases. As far as the 12 talks by the Prime Minister are concerned, at no time was any of the talks used to run down any political Party as such. The main purpose of the talks was to pinpoint those who are playing the pro-Communist game. Individuals were mentioned, and groups associated with such individuals were also mentioned. To that extent, we contend that those talks were of national importance, and not intended to put over P.A.P. propaganda. There was no claim to get the people to support the P.A.P. as such, but to support merger as such and to support the nationalist cause as such. It might have meant to find out, who are nationalists and who are for merger. To that extent, it was a campaign against anti-merger elements or against pro-Communist elements. The last point, Sir, is this. I say that the invitation to the Member for Queens-town is still open, and if he wants to put forward his point of view, Radio Singapore will readily accommodate him.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

It is 5 o'clock. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this sitting. I will 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani. Sir, a Parliamentary Secretary is closely associated with the Government. He is a part of the Government. Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries of a government are, in fact, the managers of the civil administration. They are, therefore, the employers of the public employees. I would like to ask the Government whether it is right and proper that a Parliamentary Secretary can be the Secretary-General of a union of their own employees. If an assistant manager of a company were to be the Secretary-General of the union of that company's employees, the Government would be the very first one to stand up and decry that union as a yellow union. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is the Secretary-General of A.U.P.E. makes A.U.P.E. a yellow union. What is more significant is that the Secretary-General of A.U.P.E. should be the Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Culture. What a culture! If one were to talk about yellow unions, then that kind of culture is nothing but yellow culture. Sir, a Parliamentary Secretary can only owe one loyalty, and that is to the Government. I find it difficult to describe the situation where the Parliamentary Secretary, as Secretary-General of A.U.P.E., issued a warning in the Press that Government employees may strike. Sir, this is just like an assistant manager of a company issuing a warning to himself that his employees may go on strike against himself. What a joke! Sir, another point about A.U.P.E. is that in the Ministry of Culture there may be employees who are members of A.U.P.E., although I hope not. If they have a grievance to lay before their employer the boss, they will then have to go to him, who is the Secretary-General of their union, and say, "Come on, we have a grievance against you. "Will you please lay it against yourself?" What an invidious position the Parliamentary Secretary would be in should such a situation arise. Sir, I do not wish to say much on this subject which leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, a subject which can bring no credit to any man who wishes to be accepted as a genuine trade union leader. A Parliamentary Secretary, as I said, can only have one loyalty, and that is to the Government. He cannot pretend to owe loyalty to the trade union of the Government's own employees which he claims to lead. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to declare his loyalty. If his loyalty is to the Government, as it should be, then he must resign from the post of Secretary-General of A.U.P.E. and other unions, and also as honorary adviser to other trade unions. But if he feels so strongly that his first loyalty is to the trade union movement, then he cannot and must not be the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government. Sir, this matter is a simple one. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary himself, up to his own conscience, to decide whether he wishes to be Parliamentary Secretary or to be a genuine trade union leader. While being a Parliamentary Secretary, he should not organise unions of his own employees and of other employees, and then for the Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Labour to stand up and say, "There are no P.A.P. unions."

The Member for Thomson is not speaking. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have always thought the Ministry of Culture deals only with cultural affairs. But I understand from the Member for Cairnhill that I should be drawn into an argument whether a Parliamentary Secretary can continue to be an officer of a union. If the argument put forward by the Member for Cairnhill is correct - that by being a Parliamentary Secretary there is therefore a conflict between his loyalty to the Government and his responsibility as a trade unionist - then every Assemblyman, who is a member of the Government, should also come under the censure, because there are obviously possibly conflicts of loyalty to the Government as such and to any outside organisation. whether it is a trade union or any other association to which he belongs. So the question, is not that because he is a Parliamentary Secretary, and therefore more closely associated with the Government, the conflict of loyalty is more acute than when he was just an Assemblyman and Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that there will be no occasion when his duties as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture will conflict with his loyalty to a trade union. But if it is true, Sir, that just because he is a Parliamentary Secretary, his position is more invidious than if he were an Assemblyman, then the question is whether an Assemblyman, especially one with connections with the Government, should or should not be involved in a trade union, because then obviously there may be occasions when he cannot reconcile his loyalty to the Government with his loyalty to the trade union.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Minister has got it wrong. A Parliamentary Secretary is a part of the Government. How can he be the Secretary-General of a union of its own employees? So if there are grievances in, say, the Ministry of Culture, then members of A.U.P.E. will go to the Secretary-General - according to the Minister, it is not wrong for him to be the Parliamentary Secretary - and say, "Hey, boss, you as Secretary-General go and speak against yourself, and say we want this, etc." How is the Parliamentary Secretary going to do his duty? The Minister for Labour and Law - he is now the Minister for Health and Law - in 1959 and 1960 was most critical of yellow unions. Would he not describe a union where a member of the management is leading his own employees as the biggest yellow union, if the term "yellow union" is not to be distorted? An Assemblyman is entirely different, Sir. An Assemblyman can owe his position to the fact that he is connected with the trade unions, and that he got himself elevated to the position of Assemblyman because of his close connection with and his good work among the workers of Singapore. An Assemblyman should, as far as possible, know for himself what he can do and what he cannot do. But it does not matter, he can still lead a trade union. But if he were to belong to the Party in power, then his position would be very indivious, because every time if he went down to his union employees and say. "Boys, be patient. Do not be so fast," then what would the unions say? "Ah, you stooge of the Government! You running dog of the Government! Do not come to us and talk rubbish!" Although he might at that particular time sincerely believe that patience was necessary. It would make his job more difficult. But for a Parliamentary Secretary, who is a part of the Government, to be controlling a union of Government employees, it is, I am driven to say it, the biggest attempt by the P.A.P. to control its own employees, by saying "Shut up! Do not say too much! We are your boss, and we also lead you!"

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill has overlooked the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. If he will carefully look into that Ordinance, he will see that the employer, as far as the civil service is concerned, is the Minister for Finance. In matters of affecting the civil service, he has the power to make appointments to the panel of the Industrial Relations court. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true and we concede that we are all members of the Government, but we have different functions. 5.45 p.m. For instance, the Minister for Finance takes responsibility for the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Of course, the ultimate responsibility is with the Cabinet. But the day-to-day affairs of the civil service are within the portfolio of the Minister for Finance. As far as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is concerned, we were very particular, when this appointment was made, to ensure that he was not in any way connected with any department of the government where it could be said that he was placed in a position where there could be a conflict of loyalties. For instance, he was not put in the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry. The reason is that we all know that the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees is an amalgamation of certain Government unions. The important Government unions that form the amalgamation are the union of postal clerks and the union of the uniformed postal staff. So it would have been quite improper if the Member for Kampong Kapor had been placed in the position of being the Parliamentary Secretary to, the Deputy Prime Minister whose portfolio covers the postal department. But he is tucked away now in the Ministry of Culture, having nothing to do with the organisations of public employees in their relationship to the work of the Ministries where they are employed. So that, Mr Speaker. Sir, we submit that this appointment was properly made, and there can be no suggestion whatsoever that, because the Member for Kampong Kapor is the Secretary-General of A.U.P.E. and he is also the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, this is a case where a member of the Board of Management is also on the Executive Committee of a union. That is not the case, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the Member for Cairnhill knows that very well.

Sir, I know other things very well too. Take the case of .A.U.P.E. There was trouble in the Health Ministry between the Singapore Medical Workers' Union and A.U.P.E. -

Order. Is this relevant to the issue we are discussing?

It is. If I can crave your indulgence, you will find there is a meaning to my words here. There was a ballot. The medical workers won the ballot. Therefore, they should be recognised, and they have been recognised by the previous Minister for Health as the only union to represent the workers in the Health Ministry. The then Minister for Labour and Law came along. He felt that because A.U.P.E. was led by a Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, he also was in the invidious position of having to slap his own colleague. He said that A.U.P.E. could also collect subscriptions. That nearly caused another strike by the Singapore Medical Workers' Union. Fortunately, he saw the error of his ways. He said, "All right, since the S.M.W.U. is the legally recognised union for employees in the Health Ministry, therefore, A.U.P.E. should have nothing to do with it." All these things are putting the Parliamentary Secretary himself and the Minister and the whole Government in an invidious position. The Minister says he has found nothing. I am not worried about what the Government think, because we know what the Government think. They want to control the unions. But as one trade unionist to another trade unionist, Sir, I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary, that you can only owe one loyalty, that you cannot owe loyalty to both, and they are conflicting interests. It is up to the man himself to declare his stand. But if he were to say that he can still be Parliamentary Secretary and continue to be Secretary-General of a union of his own employees, then I, for one, would begin to lose alt respect I have for a trade union leader.

The Member for Cairnhill has misunderstood the dispute between the Medical Workers' Union and the A.U.P.E. It is true there was a ballot taken. There was intense trade union rivalry between these two organisations. Following on the result of the ballot. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Woodhull - he was at that time in the Health Ministry - issued instructions to say that the union which won the ballot should be given the exclusive right to collect union subscriptions. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that a ballot determines recognition of a union. The winner of a ballot is recognised by the employer. Every employer is so bound, and the Government as an employer is equally bound. But in this case Mr Woodhull went further than that. He said he would give the union the exclusive right to collect subscriptions. If I am a worker, I have the right to pay my subscription to the union of my choice. Who is Woodhull to compel a worker to pay his subscriptions to a particular union? That was wrong. And when that came to my notice, I, as the Minister, had to do something about it. First of all, I proposed that we would see what we could do to come to some arrangement. We would give equal facilities to collect union subscriptions to both unions. But the Medical Workers' Union disliked it. They said they would want a ballot to be held again. That was the proper thing to do, Mr Speaker, because in the ballot the Medical Department did not extend the ballot to the employees of Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Woodbridge Hospital. If a ballot were to be taken of the whole of the medical service, the ballot should be taken right through the service. But for some reason or other, in the ballot, Tan Tock Seng and Woodbridge Hospitals were excluded. However, the A.U.P.E. would not agree to the holding of another ballot. The matter has been put right by granting the union which has been recognised in a particular establishment all the facilities for collecting subscriptions from those employees who are working in that establishment and denying those facilities to the rival union which is not recognised. That is how a solution was found. But the principle remains that we could not give any union the exclusive right to collect subscriptions. That was the point at issue in the dispute between the Medical Workers' Union and A.U.P.E. Surely the Ministry cannot be accused of playing politics in this matter now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Minister for Health and Law has seen fit to discuss the whole issue again, I think I am the only Member left in this House who knows the exact facts that led to this ballot. The argument in the beginning was that A.U.P.E. represented Woodbridge Hospital, and that the Medical Workers' Union represented Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Each had the exclusive right of collecting trade union dues in their own sphere of influence. In the other hospitals we were not very sure whether this union or that union would have the majority of workers supporting them, and therefore a ballot was taken. It was mutually agreed upon that the ballot should only concern hospitals other than Woodbridge Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, and that the results of the ballot would give whichever union that won the exclusive right they had enjoyed hitherto in either Woodbridge Hospital or Tan Tock Seng Hospital. It so transpired, Sir, that originally A.U.P.E. represented Woodbridge Hospital and the Singapore Medical Workers' Union represented Tan Tock Seng Hospital, and each had the exclusive right of collecting dues in the respective hospital. Therefore, when the ballot was held and the results made known, naturally the Singapore Medical Workers' Union which had won then had the exclusive right of collecting membership dues from all the hospitals except Woodbridge Hospital. These conditions were agreed between the two unions before the ballot was taken and I was one of the persons involved in the meeting that resulted in this ballot.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has been speaking about A.U.P.E. and about myself on three or four occasions and I have been wondering what are the motives or objectives of his attacks. But I think today he has made it quite clear. He has suggested that I should resign not only from A.U.P.E. but also from the advisership of several unions. Sir, this is the crux of the problem. The United Workers in the Petroleum Industry is the amalgamation of two unions and the Member for Cairnhill has very great interest in one of these unions -

Order. I am not going to allow this debate to range over all these disputes between advisers and so on and so forth. The Member for Cairn-hill has raised an issue. It is whether or not a Parliamentary Secretary should be the Secretary-General of a union of Government employees. That is all. I did suggest that mention of this ballot would take the debate out of the issue, but the Member for Cairnhill was certain in his mind that it was relevant and I allowed it. I will not allow the debate to go further than that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has had the advantage of saying many things, and I bow to your ruling. If I cannot explain about the other unions, I shall not be able to answer the points raised. However. I shall abide by your ruling. I want to explain here that the Permanent Secretary of each Ministry is the only person who has the right to hire and fire. It is not the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. If there is any dispute between the workers and the head of department in any Ministry, it is the Permanent Secretary of that Ministry who has the final say. If he cannot resolve it, then it is the Public Service Commission, which has fuller powers. It is not the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Minister. If tomorrow a peon or a clerk in the Ministry of Culture is disciplined, that issue is not raised with the Minister for Culture; neither is it raised with me. It is raised with the Permanent Secretary and only he can take a decision. Sir, as for a union becoming P.A.P. or otherwise, the Secretary-General is one among so many members of the Executive Council. In A.U.P.E., Sir, there are 48 members in the Executive Council. The Secretary-General is one of 48. It is the majority of the 48 that will make decisions on the policies of the union. It might be interesting to mention here that several members of the Executive Council of this Union are members, and active members, of U.M.N.O. Indeed, Sir, the President of the Union was, in the opinion of the Member for Hong Lim when he was Mayor in 1958, a S.P.A. member. Is the Member for Cairnhill saying that all these people have now become P.A.P. men? Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim) rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Kandasamy resumed his seat.

I do not know who the President of this Union is.

Sir, I shall explain it for the benefit of the Member for Hong Lim. The City Council Services Union had a dispute with the Mayor at that time. They appealed to the T.U.C. and I led a delegation to see the Mayor and it was -

Order. Let us not have all the details. I think the Member for Hong Lim would like the name of the President to see whether he can remember him, I suppose.

The name of the President, Sir, is Mak Kum Heng. I think that will register - Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time I hear that Mak Kum Heng has been closely associated with the S.P.A.

So be it, Sir, if his memory is that short. Sir, the decision whether a man remains a Secretary-General of his union or not is dependent upon his membership. Indeed, Sir, the more the Member for Cairnhill attacks A.U.P.E., the more members seem to join A.U.P.E. I think the final decision, in fact, rests with the members and not with the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am the Minister for Culture and, sorry to say, I could not quite follow the intricate arguments going on for the last few minutes. It reminds me, if I may say so, of the Polish painter who was asked to write an essay on the elephant. Instead of writing about the elephant, he said, "Before I can write about the elephant, let me start with the Polish question." Similarly, I suspect that this particular post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has been made an opportunity for ventilating an old trade union vendetta. 6.00 p.m. So let me say this about the duties of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. They are quite plain. They include, as the Member for Thom, son said, keeping an eye on newspapers, Radio Singapore, printing, the National Theatre, attending shows that I cannot attend. So I cannot see which of these duties conflicts in any way with his trade union activities. I can assure the hon. Member that as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture - not as the Parliamentary Secretary as such - his duties conflict in no way with his trade union activities. Therefore, all these interesting arguments about the various trade union disputes and so on have nothing to do with the question before us, whether, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, his duties in the Ministry conflict with his activities as a trade unionist. In any case, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, his duties are simple. As has been explained, he carries out the duties of the Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Culture. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill and others that I have nothing to do with trade unions. Occasionally, I do transmit any statement that comes from the Ministry of Labour about trade union matters. Beyond that, my Parliamentary Secretary and myself have nothing to do with trade union matters as such.

Sir, carrying a little further the point made just now by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that the man who finally hires and fires an employee is the Permanent Secretary, and that neither the Minister nor his Parliamentary Secretary has anything to do with it. I would like to be enlightened by him, whether, in his opinion, a Minister can also be a Secretary-General of a union; and if he cannot be one, how is it that the Parliamentary Secretary can be one, and why the difference between the two?

Sir,I have made the point just now, that as far as the civil service is concerned, the Minister responsible is the Minister for Finance, and it is so laid down in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Cabinet has a collective responsibility no doubt, but the Parliamentary Secretary is not a member of the Cabinet. In any case, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is not in any way concerned with the terms of employment of officers in the civil service. That is the point.

Sir, I thought I had made myself clear. I said that I was amplifying upon the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture when he stated that neither Ministers nor Parliamentary Secretaries had anything to do with the hiring and firing of the staff, and that therefore a Parliamentary Secretary may become a Secretary-General of a union. Following his own enunciation, I was only asking him whether a Minister can also be a Secretary-General. I was awaiting his answer. I just seek to be enlightened on a statement made by him.

The point of order I want to raise is that the question put by the Member for Nee Soon is purely hypothetical and therefore it is out of order. It does not call for a reply.

I think the Minister is misreading his Standing Orders. Hypothetical propositions are put in debate. It is only during Question Time that no Member may raise a hypothetical question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now very, very clear from the course of the debate that the Government maintains that one of its own Parliamentary Secretaries -

To the Minister for Culture.

- can be a Secretary-General of a union of its own employees. We say it is wrong. We say that would make the union concerned a yellow union inasmuch as the Government or the Minister for Labour would describe a trade union led by an assistant manager of a company as a yellow union. We say it is wrong for a Parliamentary Secretary to lead a union of the Government's own employees. If they say that is right, there is no more to be said about it other than for you to put the question, Sir. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1."

Division.

Take a Division.

On a point of order, Sir. Can the Parliamentary Secretary vote for himself?

It is a very good and sound democratic practice for a person to vote for himself! The House divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 23; Abstention, nil; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Buang bin Omar Haji Jumat. Junid. Ahmad Jabri bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammad Akib. Chan Chee Seng. Bani, S. T. Chan Choy Siong, Chan Sun Wing. Madam. Fung Yin Ching, Chor Yeok Eng. Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Siew Choh. Goh Keng Swee. Leong Keng Seng. Hoe Puay Choo, Lim Yew Hock. Madam. Lin You Eng. Kandasamy, G. Lingam, S. V. Lee Khoon Choy. Low Por Tuck. Lee Teck Him. Mohd. Ali bin Mammen, John. Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Ng Teng Kian. Suradi. Ong Chang Sam. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Seow Peck Leng, Ramaswamy, S. Mrs Sahorah binte Sheng Nam Chin. Ahmad, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Thio Chan Bee. Yaacob bin Wong Soon Fong. Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Abstention. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Nil. Koh, C. H. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cheng Lock. Marshall, David. Rajah, A. P. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment (3). The Member for Farrer Park is not here. Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani. Sir, the Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) for whom the post was created when the P.A.P. came into power resigned in October 1959. Since then this post has been kept vacant. A lot was said during the debate last year and I do not propose at this juncture to do more than to ask the Minister whether he wants to keep this post in his Ministry and whether he has hopes of filling it. 6.15 p.m.

I am not speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the need for this post was explained in the Budget debate last year. The reason still stands, but may I indicate, Sir, that there is some difficulty about filling the post, not because we cannot get qualified men but because it is a political post? Perhaps by the end of this year if we do not get it filled, then I think we will have to abolish it.

This year?

No, if we do not get it filled, then it will not be shown in next year's Budget Estimates.

Sir, from the reply of the Minister, it would seem that he wants to keep this post until the end of 1962. May I remind him that in the debate last year, he said that this post was fixed at $1,400 as against $1,100 for Political Secretary, because it was a special post requiring the services of a person with special qualifications. Therefore, it was $300 more. Political Secretaries now have their salaries jacked up to $1,350, and when I queried this increase, in comparing this salary with that of the Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political), the Prime Minister mentioned in this House that there was no need to fill this post. Now, who gives us the correct version, Sir? The Prime Minister or the Minister for Culture?

I do not know whether it was in the Chamber that the Prime Minister said there was no need to fill the post.

That is why the salary of this post was not jacked up.

No. The post could not be filled. We have been trying for the last one year or so to fill it. If by the next Budget we cannot get anybody to fill it, then I think there is not much point in retaining this particular post, though the need for it is still more evident than it was last year, because we are having other facilities and instruments of propaganda, such as television and so on, and the need for an officer of this calibre is necessary. But if we cannot get him, then I think we will have to dispense with such a post. But I cannot recollect, Sir, whether the Prime Minister said there was no need for this post and indicated that it was to be struck off.

As far as my memory goes, Sir, he did say that that was why it was not necessary to adjust the difference between the salary of Political Secretaries and that of Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political). But in view of the assurance of the Minister that if he could not find anyone for this post he would advise its deletion at the end of the year, I beg leave to withdraw.

I have already indicated that if a Member wishes to ask for leave to withdraw, he should not preface his request with a speech. That is why I am hesitating to ask for leave. Anybody who wishes to speak, may speak.

It is more likely, Sir, that the Prime Minister might have said that, in view of the fact that the post had not been filled, there was no need to make the necessary adjustments. I might be wrong, because both of us may be hard of hearing.

Now then, does the Member ask for leave to withdraw?

May I withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Tun Lim Yew Hock, and Mr S. T. Bani - That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 1.

I am not moving.

I am not moving. The following amendments stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1. That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of subhead 1.

I am not moving both amendments, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask leave to speak on amendments* (7), (8), (11), (12), (19), (20), (21), and (22) on the Order Paper Supplement? *The amendments read as follows:-

All on one principle?

Yes.

The hon. Member will move the first amendment, and then speak on principle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (34) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, item (34) concerns News, item (40) Publicity, item (82) Broadcasting, item (102) Programmes; subhead 10 deals with News Services, subhead 14 Civics Programmes - I am sorry, I will not touch on amendment (20), subhead 14 - subhead 15 Main tenance of Publicity Equipment, and item (1) of subhead 16 Photographic Services. All these facilities, Sir, I claim, have been misused. The Ministry of Culture exists with the aim of building a Malayan nation, fostering and promoting Malayan culture, to foster good relations among the different races, and to inform the public of Government's policy. How have these been carried out, Sir? How successful have these been? What have they achieved? The Ministry of Culture is supposed to be a public relations organ of the Government and, as I have said before, to promote good relations and under standing between the Government and the public. Now, are the current events, like the picketing of the Chinese School students a sign of good relations and understanding? I know the students' picketing arose from an educational issue. There is no doubt about it. But it is the duty of the Ministry of Culture to bring Government policy to the public so that the public understand and appreciate it enough not to create trouble over the misunderstanding. I am sure there is a lot of misunderstanding in the Chinese educational system of 4-2. As I have said before, I myself misunderstood it until I had a chat with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. I now see the point. I do not know enough of Chinese education to say whether I support it or not. But I know what I used to think of it before. I was ignorant, and so were the student picketers. Probably they too are thinking the wrong way, as I used to think. Has it been brought to their notice? Have the public been convinced of the 4-2 system? When I was speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Sir, there were a few guests there. They themselves learned a new thing. When I said, "Is that so", I was not the only one to say that. My voice was echoed by several guests there. It just shows, Sir, that the public do not know what is the real principle behind the 4-2 system. It is the Ministry of Culture that is responsible for bringing Government policy to the public. The same with the People's Association. If the People's Association exists for the good of the public, again I say it is the duty of the Ministry of Culture to bring that to the public. But as it is, there is trouble there. And the Work Brigade. And as mentioned just now, P.A.P. unions versus non-P.A.P. unions. If there is no such thing as P.A.P. unions versus non-P.A.P. unions, then why should the public say so? What has the Ministry of Culture done to see that if it is not so, then the public understand it is not so. That is why, Sir, I claim the Ministry of Culture has failed in its duties. What it has done has not been to bring Government policy to the public, but to glorify P.A.P. Members and Ministers -

Order. I was afraid that might come out. I think we have had enough of debate on Radio Singapore, Radio P.A.P., and all that sort of thing. The hon. Member has been in order up to now, but if she carries on and attacks the Government for making these services the instruments of party propaganda, then I think she has lost the opportunity. We had a debate on that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just point out that in amendment (22) [item (1) of subhead 16], under Photographic Services, I believe there is a vote of $100,000 for Film production? May I touch on that? It is the same argument, that the money spent on filming is not to show Gov ernment's policy to the public. I do not know what they intend to do this time, but the last time I believe $200,000 was paid to Cathay Organisation to film Ministers using the changkol, sweeping the streets, cleaning - I do not remember - maybe not cleaning the drains because they do not like cleaning drains or such things -

It was the wrong film!

There was a film, Mr Speaker, and thousands and thousands of dollars was spent on that. It was shown to Assemblymen. I was there at one of the filmings. Sir, at a time when there were enough workers to clean the streets, when the workers were functioning quite normally, Ministers, who were paid over $3,000 each by the public, swept the streets and changkolled when there were labourers to do those jobs. Yet at a time, when there was a strike and the whole of Singapore was filthy, the Ministers did not go out to clean the streets. I am not maintaining, Sir, that it is the Ministers' duty to clean the streets. Far from it. We do not pay street-sweepers $3,000-odd each. Oh, no, I am not maintaining that. But following the point of argument that Ministers should he filmed cleaning streets and using changkols and clearing dumps or stones on the roads, Sir, the proper time to do it is when it is needed. At least if they had filmed that and said, "Well, you see, when Singapore needed cleaning, we ourselves went out and cleaned it," probably there is justice in that. I am not saying that Ministers must clean the streets, but I do say that since they did sweep the streets, they should sweep them when it was necessary and not when there were labourers to do it.

I understand, Sir, that we are taking a few items together amendments (7), (8), (11) and (12). I wish to speak on amendment (11)*. * See footnote at col. 2014.

I think the best way to do it is confine ourselves to the two issues raised by the Member for Mountbatten - firstly, whether or not Government policy is being brought to the notice of the public sufficiently through these media, and secondly, whether it is right that photographs be taken of Ministers sweeping the streets. Those are the two issues. Perhaps the Member will confirm it.

Yes. 6.30 p, m.

Those are the two issues. Later on, I will ask the hon. Member to move the amendments so that that could open up a debate on item (82) . Mrs Seow.

Sir, it is not only sweeping the streets to glorify Ministers and P.A.P. Assemblymen.

Shall we deal with these two issues? Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had some difficulty in following the point the Member for Mountbatten was trying to put across. What I can understand is that, unlike the Barisan Sosialis, she believed that the Government should not use the media of propaganda to put forward any point of view. The Member for Mountbatten chided us for not having put forward more explanations about Chinese education and about the People's Association.

The Government's point of view.

Yes, the Government's point of view. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the question of Chinese education is concerned, a lot of statements issued by the Ministry of Education were put over the radio. These were discussed. There were statements by the various Parliamentary Secretaries, long statements read over Radio Singapore. Though the Member for Mountbatten takes a great interest in radio, I suspect she does not listen to enough of it. As regards glorifying the Ministers, I would like to say that, in fact, I did read out an extract from the Straits Times last time in which they indicated their disappointment that we produced a film where, unlike previous regimes, the Ministers were not glorified at all. We probably shot a short scene showing, I think, Ministers digging trenches and levelling roads. But I can assure you that one of the standing instructions in making films is not to show Ministers in it. This year, for example, Sir, we have produced seven films in the series, "People's Singapore". One of the things we tell them is that, unless it is of specific importance, Ministers should not appear in the films. But if the film needs a particular scene of a school, and if a Minister has made a statement about schools, then he might be shown in a short flash. But by and large, out of the thousands of feet of film that have been shown, very few Ministers have appeared. If the Member for Mountbatten and any other Opposition Member would like to spend, say, six hours and run through all the seven films that we have produced, they will see very few shots of Ministers. I am quite prepared to take the Member for Mountbatten along and show her that one of our instructions is that we do not want Ministers in the films. People do get tired seeing Ministers doing this and that in films. She talked, in a very broad sense, about the misuse of propaganda media. These include the News Division, the News Services and so on. All she in dicated was that we have not given the problem of Chinese education and the People's Association enough play over the radio. We feel that enough of it has been said. If the Member for Mountbatten would like to look at some of the scripts, she is quite welcome to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not arguing over the amount. I say the Ministry has failed to achieve what it has set out to achieve-to make the public understand Government policy enough to appreciate it. The fact that trouble has broken out in the quarters that I have mentioned - I will not repeat it - shows that the attempt to make the public understand has failed.

May I make the procedure clear to the Member for Queenstown? The Member for Mountbatten, in moving amendment (7), has indicated that she wishes to speak generally on amendments (8), (11), (12), (19), (21), and (22). That, I take it, is correct. The Member for Queenstown has indicated that he wishes to speak on amendment (11). If what the Member for Queenstown wishes to speak an item (82), that is amendment (11), covers the aspects raised by the Member for Mountbatten - first, that Government policy is not being put over sufficiently to the people via these media, and secondly; that the vote on filming is being used for the glorification of Ministers and P.A.P. members, then he can speak now. But if he wishes to speak on another, aspect of item (82), then he will have to depend on the Member for Mountbatten whether or not she will move, at the proper time, amendment (11).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all that I wanted to say, but for the sake of democracy, I think -

Order. The Member should wait her turn. We have other amendments intervening. We are on amendment (7). Does the Member want a vote?

No, Sir. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (8)* is not being moved. Now, amendment (9). Tun Lim Yew Hock. * See footnote at col. 2014.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (41) of subhead 1. Sir, item 41 is in respect of a new post of Publicity Editor for the Publicity Division. As far as I can see from the Estimates before me, Sir, the Publicity Division has only one person so far, and he is the Head. He is the head of a division without the arms and the legs to run the division. It is felt that the Publicity Editor should be created, I think, to help him. May I know the duties of the Publicity Editor vis-a-vis the Head? Is there no duplication?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a new post created to meet not so much the expansion of the Ministry as such but of the particular Publicity Division, where so far the Head has been doing work such as sorting out photographs, writing captions for photographs, going through manuscripts and pamphlets and so on, when, in fact, he should not be concerned with this routine secretarial job, but should be concerned more with co-ordination of the various publicity media under his control. In view of that, it was felt that the Publicity Editor would relieve him of the secretarial jab of reading proofs, containing captions to photographs, doing lay-outs for posters and so on. But the qualifications required of the Editor would be that he is either a university graduate or he has experience in journalism.

Sir, from the reply of the Minister, it would appear that the Head of the Publicity Division has been sorting out photographs and writing captions for photographs. Because he has no, arms and legs, therefore, he has to do all those things. In order to help him do this sorting out of photographs and writing of captions, a Publicity Editor is now required. Is it necessary to have one so high just to sort out photographs and write captions.

The Member for Cairnhill misunderstood me. The Head of the Publicity Division was doing this job in addition to his normal job. The Publicity Editor would not only be writing captions but he would also be producing material and so on under direction, leaving the Head to do his own work. The Head is in charge of not only publicity but also of such things as tourism, cultural matters, the Aneka Ragarn Raayat. All these come under him. The Publicity Editor will, therefore, relieve him of many of the edi torial tasks which' he now undertakes and which, we feel, is a little bit too much for him.

I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in, the name of Mr S. T. Bani - That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (53) of subhead 1.*

Amendment (10).* Mr Bani.

I am not moving, Sir.

Amendment (11). Mrs Seow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (82) of subhead 1. I have said what I wanted to say,. Sir, except that it has been repeated again that I said that the Ministry of Culture has not given sufficient publicity. I repeat that I did not say "sufficient". I said they have failed to promote understanding between the Government and the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to refer to the Head of the Broadcasting Division. We in the Barisan Sosialis recently received a letter from him. Before I go further, let it not be said that it is a personal attack on him, because I would be the first to congratulate him on his recent promotion. But the whole wording of his let ter to us had a political overtone. I thought it would be to his disadvantage as a civil servant that he should be under pressure from the Minister to such, an extent. I will just quote one sentence: 'It is more illuminating [he is asking us to attend a forum. Sir] to hear impromptu exchanges in discussion than to listen to the reading out of long prepared statements with no relevance to the subjects people are interested in.' Sir, for a civil servant to utter such sentiments is definitely uncalled for. As representatives of the people, we can definitely tell him that we know what are the things people are interested in and what are the things which are relevant. I do not think a civil servant will dispute that. If the Head of the Broadcasting Division had been fair in his reporting, Sir, he would have given us the chance and given us enough publicity so that people would have known our viewpoint. But for a civil servant to speak like that, it is, first of all, an insult to Assemblymen. I may even venture to say, Sir, that it is partially an insult to the Speaker himself, because you rule on our speeches here and it is absolutely not in order for anybody outside to say that our speeches are irrelevant. I would - 6.45 p.m.

Order. Does the sentence in that letter relate specifically to what happened in this Chamber? Because if it is, I would like a copy.

Yes, Sir, it is in the letter from Radio Singapore. This is addressed to me and I am sure copies must have been addressed to Mr A. P. Rajah and Mr Ong Eng Guan. Copy of the letter handed in to the Clerk.

Order. I do not think we can say with, any certainty that paragraph 3 refers to what happened in the Assembly at all. I think the hon. Member should read paragraph 3 in toto. It is up to the Speaker to decide whether or not it does, in fact, refer to something said in this Assembly. If it does, then, of course, there is prima facie a breach of privilege, because there seems to be an indirect criticism of the Chair. But looking at it, there does not seem to be any specific reference to what happened in this Chamber. Perhaps the Member could read the whole of paragraph 3 for the record.

The relevant paragraph reads as follows: 'The radio can help to clarify the viewpoints of the respective political parties and bring out the truth regarding the proposals for merger between Singapore and the Federation. Informal discussions in which members of the Forum freely express themselves on relevant points put to them by the audience can do much to put the truth before the people. It is more illuminating to hear impromptu exchanges in discussion than to listen to the reading out of long prepared statements with no relevance to the subjects people are interested in.' As you say, Sir, it could be interpreted that they have no relevance to what has happened in this Chamber. But as you must have known, Sir, the Prime Minister spoke so much about it and even the Minister for Culture only a little while ago said the same thing, and this has particular reference to what has happened in this Assembly.

Order. I do not think the hon. Member can make that allegation. If he wishes to make that allegation, then, I think the proper way is to move a motion that there is prima facie a breach of privilege and then that motion under our Standing Orders will be referred to the Committee of Privileges. He could move that tomorrow if he wishes.

I am not prepares to go so far, Sir, because it is a waste of time. Actually -

Order. If what the hon. Member says is correct, it is not a waste of time because the Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the Assembly and any criticism of any action of the Chair is a criticism of the Assembly as a whole and, therefore, it is a matter of some seriousness.

If you allow me, Sir, I may consider this point and later on bring it forward again. But in the meanwhile, I will just touch lightly on the matter and say that if it is a case of wanting the truth to be out, then it is only fair that the radio should give a very fair report of all that has happened !in this Assembly, instead of giving a one-sided version over Radio P.A.P. But for a civil servant to be pressured by the Minister to write things like that - you see, Sir, we understand the position and we are not blaming the civil servant at all. We know what is exactly happening. Let it be clearly understood that when we say these things at the present moment, it is not that we want to attack the civil servants. We are attacking the Ministers behind those civil servants, the Ministers who force these civil servants to do things which they normally would never want to do. As everybody knows, we agree with the principle, which the Prime Minister himself has enunciated, that the civil service should be neutral and not only be neutral, Sir, but also be very polite; and in the writing of any letters, politeness should be the keynote with the civil ser vants. That was one of the points raised yesterday, Sir, about the Central Complaints Bureau. The discourtesy of civil servants was at one time the main complaint of P.A.P. Assemblymen and branches. This led to the formation of the Central Complaints Bureau. Therefore, if civil servants write letters, let the Ministers behind them not force them to write letters that may be construed that they themselves are entering the political arena. Because if any civil servant should go into the political arena, then he would have to take the consequences. I am sure the Minister would not like that to happen. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind.

I was wondering, Sir, whether it will be convenient now for me to move amendment (13)* in my name because the basic issue involved is the same. *Amendment (13) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (103) of subhead 1.

No. I think we will have to wait, unless there is going to be an attack on the holder of the post of Assistant Head. But if the Member for Thomson is going to speak on the principle whether a civil servant should be courteous and should not be guilty of apparently taking sides in a political issue, then he can speak now.

I was not going to speak on the principle of the civil servants taking sides so early in the day. Since it has already been mentioned that the holder of this post had given a series of talks on merger, I have nothing more to say on the post. I would just like to follow up what the Member for Queenstown has said on the principle of a civil servant taking sides in political issues. Sir, we are not like the P.A.P. Ministers who at one time took pride and went about arrogantly warning the civil servants. Sir, we realise that the majority of the people in the civil service are working for their living. In so far as their duties are concerned, they want to carry them out to the satisfaction of the people in government, irrespective of what political Party is in office. But, Sir, we are disturbed to note that there are one or two here and there who, so to say, bend backwards to please the Ministers. Sir, we feel that to some extent it is understandable where a civil servant is told to write letters with a certain amount of political overtone, putting forward the views of the Party in power. But when it comes to a civil servant who, as I said, bends backwards to please the Ministers in office and performs functions for which he is not in the first place paid, and, secondly, performs duties which are in contradiction to the governing General Orders which are binding on his conditions of service, then we feel it is time that we tell such civil servants in quite plain and simple language that the P.A.P. Government is not going to be in office for ever and ever -

Order. That is not the line of approach. Let us go on to the principle of it.

I did point out, Sir, that I am not going to take the sort of line the P.A.P. Ministers took before the elections. Nevertheless, I feel it is important that members of the civil service ought to realise that no matter what pressure is applied by those in power, they have a duty and they will be within their rights in performing this duty and be neutral and non-political. All that I want to say is this, Sir, that we do not want to see civil servants performing P.A.P. functions. We do not want to see P.A.P. Ministers hiding behind the civil servants and letting the civil servants carry out P.A.P. propaganda. Sad will be the day for the individual civil servants who risk their necks in bending backwards to please the Ministers. Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chua Kang) (In Mandarin): Just now my colleague pointed out that the civil service must keep its neutrality. Now I want to stress specially that the Head of the Broadcasting Division should keep his neutrality because the radio broadcast cannot only be heard by the people here but can also be heard by the people in Malaya and the whole of South-East Asia. Now, I want to raise one point. On Sunday, there was a radio programme reviewing the debate in this House on merger. But in this review, the views of the Barisan Sosialis were unfairly treated. As Head of the Broadcasting Division, he should comment fairly on the whole debate and other affairs conducted in this House. He should not be one-sided and in favour of the Party in power. The commentator was, as far as I know, the Head of the News Division, Li Vei-Chen. The Head of the Broadcasting Division must try to avoid this situation; otherwise, the neutrality of Government servants will not be maintained. I do not know whether it was the Government's directive to the Head of the Broadcasting Division t, allow the Head of the News Division to make such an unfair review of the debate which was broadcast to the people of Singapore and the Federation. Therefore, I hope that in future the Head of the Broadcasting Division should not make any unfair criticism or comments on the debate in the Assembly, especially on the merger question. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice one thing. When it comes to debating subjects like the radio and films, vague general statements are made like "The Ministry has failed." What are the facts on which you form that opinion? If you just say that the moon is made of cheese, you will have to give a reason for saying so. Similarly, the Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the report of the merger debate over the radio last Sunday was unfair and unjust. Why? Where was it unfair and unjust? What is the point that should have been put over and which was not put over? In what way was there a distortion of what was said in the Assembly? It is not enough to say that it is unfair and unjust. So unless and until he can say, "This is unjust because this is what was said. This is not what we said in the Assembly." Or, "It is unjust and unfair because very material points, such as these, have been left out."

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Not from the Minister but from the Member for Choa Chu Kang.

The hon. Lady is too late.

No, on what the Minister has raised. He says the Member for Choa Chu Kang has not brought up any constructive criticism of how it is unfair. I may be mistaken, but I think the Member did say - the Member can clarify this - that the announcer made his own comments on what had happened here. Did he say that the announcer should not make his own comments on what had happened here? Is he accusing the announcer of having introduced his own opinion?

I do not know whether the Minister can answer that.

Yes, the announcer makes a commentary on the Assembly debates. If we have to telescope proceedings which took many hours into half an hour or twenty minutes, obviously the man who wrote the report has to make his comments to say that during the course of the debate there was strong opposition from the Barisan Sosialis on such and such a point. It is a summary and, to that extent, it is a comment and no reporter can ever write a commentary without introducing his personality into it. There was a summary of the two weeks' debate on merger. Reverting to the more interesting point about the criticism directed against the Head of the Broadcasting Division, I am glad the Member for Queenstown has indicated that it was not the Head of the Broadcasting Division who wrote the letters. In fact, the letters did make it clear. I have some copies here and one of the early letters reads, 'I am directed by the Minister to refer to your letter ...'. This referred to the invitation to the forum sent to the Member for Queenstown. It is quite clear that this forum was at my suggestion. In view of the fact that merger has become - a very controversial and important question - I did suggest that various political personalities be invited. The letter, as such, was brief and it asked, "Would you come to the forum?" Because the Member for Queenstown or some of his colleagues had shown great reluctance to enter the arena, in the next letter it started off with, 'I have been instructed by the Minister to refer to your letter of the 5th October . . . .'. It is quite clear that these letters were written to various individuals on the instructions of the Minister concerned, and that the civil servant was merely a vehicle for transmitting this invitation. If the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson are quite clear on the point that it is not the civil servant -

Why hide behind them?

In fact, I am saying that far from hiding behind them, we started off by saying in the letter, "I am instructed by my Minister to tell you this." We are not hiding. I think the rather vague hints about the P.A.P. Government not being here and the Barisan Sosialis succeeding it and so on are unnecessary, because we are not hiding behind any civil servant, and the letters make that quite clear. I had hoped that instead of this amendment being moved under the Head, News Division, or the Head, Broadcasting Division, Members of the Barisan Sosialis would have been wiser - and perhaps a little more to the point - if they had moved an amendment to the Head, Minister. It is clear that all invitations are sent under instructions from the Minister, and therefore he takes the responsibility. In fact, Sir, the Minister takes responsibility for every action of any civil servant. Therefore, the allegation that civil servants are entering the political arena is a veiled hint that unless they rebel against their Ministers they may not find things to their liking when the Barisan Sosialis take over the government. I do not think they really mean it. It is purely an attempt to frighten a few of the civil servants. Let me state quite clearly that we - the Ministers in particular - take responsibility for the letters that were sent to the leaders of the various political Parties.

As I said before, we do not blame the civil servants, but if a letter is going to be political, let the civil servant not sign it but let the Minister himself sign it, and then we will deal with the Minister accordingly.

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

Amendment (12)* is not being moved. Amendment (13)+. Mr Bani is not here. Amendment (14)++? * See footnote at col. 2014. + Amendment (13) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (103) of subhead 1. ++ Amendment (14) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (166) of subhead 1.

I am not moving.

Amendment (15)*. Inche Ahmad Jabri is not here. Amendment (16)+ in respect of the whole subhead? *Amendment (15) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (191) of subhead 1. +Amendment (16) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

I am not moving.

Amendment (17) . Tun Lim.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan will move it.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6. Mr Speaker, Sir, a sum of $42,000 will be spent in 1962 in connection with National Day Celebrations. I feel it is normal expenditure, but I think it would be even more beneficial and better if we abolish National Day celebrations in Singapore. One of the reasons is that the P.A.P. Government and the Alliance Government in the Federation of Malaya have agreed on merger in a Greater Malaysia in accordance with the White Paper. Would it not be out of place for Singapore to celebrate National Day celebrations? What sort of National Day celebrations? Would it be Singapore National Day celebrations or other National Day celebrations? I think it is time for us now to create a true National Day which will be celebrated by the entire people of Malaysia. A vote has been provided for Singapore to celebrate her own National Day in 1962, but then in 1964 the big question will arise whether we are going to celebrate National Day. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a difference in the nature of the celebrations carried out in the Federation and those carried out in Singapore, because of the position of the people in both territories. To my mind, we should save this amount of $42,000 and spend it on other essential necessities which would benefit the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, U.M.N.O. has participated in National Day celebrations, although originally we were opposed to the displaying of flags. It is not my intention to support any Party, but I feel there will be a show of strength between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis when the time comes to celebrate National Day. Each Party will try to demonstrate its strength in the hope of convincing those present that one is stronger than the other with an eye to forming the future government. As far as the P.A.P. is concerned, the Malaysia proposals are going ahead. If Malaysia celebrates National Day, a conflicting position will arise. For instance, in 1964, the Federation Military Forces, the Federation Regiment and the Malay Regiment or the Malaysian Regiment which will be formed will take part in the parade in the Federation of Malaya. But if it is also held in Singapore - I do not know what the defence position will then be - I think the Federation of Malaya will also take part. In addition, the question of the National Anthem will arise. If we celebrate, we will certainly not forget our National Anthem, but then the question will arise as to a new National Anthem for Malaysia. I hope the Minister for Culture will clarify the exact position with regard to this item. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is Malaysia, obviously there will be many changes in this part of the world. National Day, the National Anthem of Singapore, Merdeka Day, and so on will actually have to fit into the context of Malaysia. Obviously Malaysia National Day will have priority over all other functions. Therefore, I want to keep it open and cannot state here and now whether National Day will be abolished. But National Day celebrations will definitely take on a different character, so long as National Day is a State celebration, and what we call the National Anthem will become a State anthem. So the character of these celebrations will certainly change - but in what way and in what degree, it is too early for me to say. But I quite agree with the Member that National Day certainly cannot have the importance that we give to it today. But let me say one thing: the purpose of National Day is not only a State festival, but is also used as a means of driving home to the various communities in Singapore the concept of a common identity, of a common purpose. Even after we get Malaysia, we will have to do something to dramatise by way of popular participation - as National Day seeks to do - the sense of a common identity, of people getting together to declare their faith, their willingness, their readiness, and their determination to become a nation. That function can be taken over if and when they decide on a Malaysia National Day or Malaysia Day, in which case the date would certainly not coincide with June 3rd but with the day when Malaysia comes into being. So until such time as that happens, we have to keep on with our National Day celebrations, which I hope would become progressively less important in scope, less and less national in character, and become more and more a State function and a State celebration.

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

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani. Mr Speaker, the vote for promotion of cultural matters amounts to $65,000. I do not wish to speak at length on this subject, because the Minister himself knows better about cultural matters. I do not oppose the vote, but if I am wrong, the Speaker could pull me up. In connection with Labour Day, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore -

Order. Time has expired. I take it the Member will withdraw, as there is no time. Inche Mohd. Ali indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head 49 having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mrs Seow Peck Leng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10. That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14. That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 15. That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 16. Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 20. Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49, be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 61. Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr S. T. Bani: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 78. Tun Lim Yew Hock: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 90. Mr David Marshall: Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: Dr Lee Siew Choh: Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Chan Sun Wing: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $100. The sum of $9,192,860 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 50 - The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. 'That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Mr Chan is not here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing. Sir, this item has been in the Estimates for a number of years. Some Ministers have said in this Assembly that they may consider withdrawing this post from future Estimates. Can the Minister for Home Affairs give such an assurance? He has never had a Political Secretary in his Ministry. That is why he does not have all the trouble that his ministerial colleagues have had with Political Secretaries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just be repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister has said over the last two days. So to avoid tedious repetition, I would just inform the Member for Cairnhill that what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday and the day before yesterday applies in this case.

Sir, he is repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister has said. May I withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. The Minister for Home Affairs has taken a good holiday, but we do not know what he has really done for the Home Affairs Ministry. What I would like to raise are just a couple of points, Sir. Who really rules the Home Affairs Ministry - the Minister or the Special Branch? If the Minister for Home Affairs has to take orders from the Special Branch everytime, then I do not see what good the Minister can do in the Ministry of Home Affairs. As we all know, Sir, the Special Branch was originally trained and orientated towards one objective only, and that was to preserve the colonial empire and colonial interests.

Order. The Member for Queenstown is on the wrong head. I think the Special Branch comes under Head 55. Perhaps he could wait until we come to Head 55 and then attack the Special Branch.

I will not touch on that then, Sir. I will just touch on publications and citizenship.

Yes. Dr Lee.

As we know, Sir, in the case of publications, there has been a blanket ban on a large number of books, especially books that come from China and iron curtain countries. The P.A.P. has always prided itself on being a non-Communist, socialist party, but all books on socialism, Sir, have not been allowed to come into Singapore. And if people want to read anything from China, then it has to be read not from books but -

Soviet Russia!

Order. Dr Lee.

- from pamphlets, maybe from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs. So everybody has to learn things not from books but -

From bitter experience!

- by word of mouth and through lectures and discussions instead. If the P.A.P. Government were really sincere in promoting socialism in this country, then it would be only fair that books on socialism be allowed into the country. If we go along to all the book-shops, Sir [Interruption].

Point of elucidation, Sir.

Order. I think the Minister for Finance will have an opportunity of speaking. Dr Lee, please continue.

If we go along to any of the book-shops, Sir, I do not think we will find on sale any book on socialism or books which teach us the .elements of socialism. Not so very long ago, Sir, I put through an order for some periodicals. I rang up the Chief of the Special Branch and he told me that such publications would not be allowed. If they are going to ban things like that -

Point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way. All this is eating into the time!

All right.

I just want to find out from the Member for Queenstown this. What are the books that he ordered, and when were they detained?

Not detained yet, Sir. I had to pay for the books, and I made sure that if I paid for them, they would come to me. And I rang up the Head of the Special Branch and he promptly told me, "It would not do." I could not get the books.

Name them.

Point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

I do not think I need any elucidation. He can always find things out from the Head of the Special Branch. Now that the P.A.P. branches are no more with the P.A.P., and Assemblymen are no more with the P.A.P. and can not make further representations to the P.A.P. Committee of Review, I hope they will bye able to relax their blanket ban on books, so that more publications from all over the world may come into Singapore. The Prime Minister himself has said on many occasions that he would prefer open discussion to inhibition and ban on books and ideas. Let him really live up to his words - let all the books that the people want come in. If his ideas are so good, let the P.A.P. and the Minister for Finance try to convince other people that P.A.P. ideas are better than ideas which we can get from books. 7.30 p.m. As regards citizenship, Sir, I may add that, as a result of representations from ex-P.A.P. branches and ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen, a lot of improvement has already taken place in the department. There is not so much bureacracy now. There is hardly any more discourtesy. But we are still wondering when they will release their stranglehold on the grant of citizenship rights to people who have been in the forefront of the anticolonial struggle. A lot of people, because of their not having been granted citizenship, have not been able to get jobs. For a government that professes the socialist creed, to deny citizenship rights to people who are progressive and socialist in outlook is definitely not the correct thing to do. A number of people wanted jobs as teachers or jobs in other departments, but because their citizenship had been held up, and because it is the requirement of the Singapore Government that all applicants must be Singapore citizens, therefore, these people were denied a chance to get jobs in the Government. Not only jobs in the Government, Sir, but also work as seamen. I understand that certain people, just because of the delay in their being granted citizenship rights, have not been able to go to sea and get jobs as seamen. I hope the Government will look into this and reorientate its policy so that all the people who have been most forward in their anti-colonial struggle will be given their due elementary and basic human rights.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown has just now claimed that we ban all publications coming from China or other iron curtain countries. In the first place, I must deny this entirely. 7.32 p.m.

Publications from Communist countries, especially those from China, have not been altogether banned. The Member for Queenstown also says that all books or publications on socialism are not allowed to come into Singapore. This allegation is baseless and not factual. By his making such a baseless allegation, we can see that in the past, when he was Parliamentary Secretary in my Ministry, he did not get himself to understand the work of my Ministry. Perhaps what he was interested in were yellow publications, because I remember that when we banned some yellow publications this year, he asked me why I should ban them. He said he did not see any reason why they, should be banned. That is what he told me at that time. Of course, the Member for Queenstown is a doctor. Maybe he could have a detached view of such publications, as though he is treating his patients without any discernable emotion. But we are not concerned with whether the Member for Queenstown is a doctor or not. Because he has long experience, he is less likely to be influenced by undesirable publications. But to young people in general, it is necessary to ensure that their mental and spiritual health are not corrupted. Of course, to the Member for Queenstown, such publications pose no question at all. I can tell him further that when we banned yellow publications, the Member for Nee Soon, who was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, also said that these should not be banned. So from the allegation he made just now, the Member for Queenstown is perhaps only interested in free importation and sale of yellow publications. As a matter of fact, it was a pity the Member for Queenstown did not give the Minister for Finance a chance to speak. He was referring to socialist publications. I can tell the Member that such publications have not been banned. All progressive publications are welcomed by us. Maybe he cannot distinguish between Communist publications and socialist publications. We have banned many publications of a Communist nature. Our policy in this respect is generally like this. All publications in praise of the Communist way of life and advocating unconstitutional means to overthrow the government and publications of a purely propaganda nature must, of course, be banned and will continue to be banned. But we will not ban classical works by Marx and Lenin. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang does not know about this, then he is not clear about the work of the government. Even in the case of Communist publications we consider each case as its own merit whether it should or should not be banned. For example, some publications have been sent to University professors. If they can ensure that these publications will not be abused, then we will consider their cases and allow them to have the books. On this matter, I ask them to consider the Report made by the Review Committee of the P.A.P. The Review Committee has made recommendations to the Government and these have been accepted. One of the recommendations concerns socialist publications. It is recommended that all literature and songs imported from other countries will be allowed as long as they do not incite our people to do unconstitutional things in this country, and as long as they benefit the people of Singapore socially and intellectually. That is our attitude in regard to censorship of publications. We can say that our system of censorship is a bit more lax than that in the Federation of Malaya. But it must be understood that in deciding on our policy of censorship, we must also consider the policy of the Federation of Malaya, because Malaya and Singapore are only separated by the Causeway and the chances of circulating publications in the Federation are very great. Books circulating in Singapore can easily go into the Federation. At a time when we are trying to struggle for merger with the Federation, we must try to stop all acts and influences which are detrimental to our fight for merger and to the building of a Malayan consciousness, although the intermingling of cultures should be encouraged between the two territories. Furthermore, I can tell the Member for Queenstown that when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, he did not pay attention to certain facts. It is this. Some books had been banned by the Lim Yew Hock Government. But when the P.A.P. took office, these banned books were reviewed and some of them were released. Since June 1959, wheat the ban on books published by 53 publishing companies was reviewed, some 8,500 books have been released by the P.A.P. Government. So we can see clearly that the allegation made by the Member for Queenstown is groundless. 7.45 p.m. On the question of citizenship and the Citizenship Registry, I will say this. The administration of the Citizenship Registry is always in our minds. We always try to improve the work of the Registry and we have done a great deal in this respect. I can tell the Member for Queenstown, if he does not know about this, that all genuine nationalists have not had their applications for citizenship refused. All progressive people whose citizenship was denied by the Lim Yew Hock Government have, during our term of office, had their cases reviewed by us and many of these cases have been approved. Therefore, such allegations are not based on facts. There is no point for me therefore to reply to them one by one.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not prepared to speak, but after hearing the Minister for Home Affairs, I think there is something which is not quite true. He says that we are now having discussions with the Federation of Malaya on merger. Since merger is now in view, he is afraid that certain books will be circulated in the Federation of Malaya. On this point, I will say we know that the Federation of Malaya has banned books published by 53 publishing companies. Any book published by any of these 53 publishing companies will be banned. Since the P.A.P. Government is negotiating with the Federation Government on merger, perhaps this may materialise. The P.A.P. Government is always trying to comply with the many policies and laws of the Federation of Malaya. It has taken steps to ban certain books and has also lifted the ban on certain books. I think in the earlier period perhaps there was such a practice, but if it is still the practice, then I am afraid the P.A.P. type of merger will not take place easily, because, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, these books will he circulated in the Federation of Malaya. Of course, the Federation of Malaya will oppose the inflow of such books into their territory.

(In Mandarin): I do not want to inconvenience you, Sir, but since the Minister used Mandarin, I too want to reply to him in Mandarin. He said I could not understand the affairs and the administration of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I want to say that it is because I understand it too well that I have left the Ministry! There are many things inside the Ministry which cannot be disclosed to outside people. When I was there, I saw all those things with my own eyes. If these things are disclosed to the public of Singapore, then I do not think the public will let them escape so easily. The Minister has mentioned just now certain things relating to the anti-yellow culture campaign. But I want to tell the Minister for Home Affairs that it is most important that one must not pretend. If anything needs to be countered, then counter it. It should not be said that anything relating to the anatomy of the human body is something yellow, and therefore to be countered. Perhaps when the Minister was a bachelor, he had different views on certain things. He was entitled to his own views. But if he had been an older man, perhaps his views would not have been so contradictory. The Minister for Home Affairs also says that the ban on many books has been lifted and that they have been allowed to be imported into Singapore. He and the Minister for Finance always talk about Mao Tse-tung, that Mao says this and Mao says that. But has the Minister for Home Affairs ever allowed books written by Mao Tse-tung to be imported into Singapore for us to see. and read? As true non-Communist, Socialists, they should allow certain books to be imported into Singapore. They should also allow books from various countries, other than America and the Right-wing countries to come into Singapore. If they think they can win the ideological battle, then they should allow free competition of thought by permitting these certain books to come into Singapore. Now, I want to touch upon what the Minister says about the anti-yellow culture campaign. There is a book called Huo Tih Hui I (The Reminiscences of Fire). This book has been classified under the category of "yellow books.". May I ask him whether this book is really yellow or red or white? Or what colour is it?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I want to tell the Member for Queenstown that it is only because we are a non-Communist Socialist Party that we have no duty to propagandize for the Communists or to propagate Communism on their behalf. The Member for Queenstown should enumerate facts to substantiate his allegations. When we have reviewed these books which are nothing but propaganda for Communism, then, of course, we will ban them. It does not mean to say that we are siding with any particular side. I can tell him that many books from Formosa have been detained, although we have not disclosed this to the local Press. In the same way, many American books, since they were entirely of a propaganda nature, were also banned. There are two ways to go about it: one is to publish in the Gazette the ban on these books. The other way is to detain them without publicity. If the books are few in number, then we usually detain them. Such publications as America Today or The World today or books from Formosa, The New World and The Present Continent of Red China, are all detained. The Member for Queenstown says that when he was Parliamentary Secretary to me, my views on certain things were different from those I hold now, because I was then a bachelor. But I want to tell him about these books which he deems not to be "yellow" books. These are novels exploiting sex, crime and immorality for base ends. The author is Fung Yoke Chee. Other examples are "The Diary of a Virgin", "Love letters", and "Night at Niang Niang Temple". They are stories about a spinster, a maid, a flying man, and others. How can he say that these publications are not "yellow"? The Member for Nee Soon once said about books of this nature, "What does it matter? Why should these books be banned?" [Interruption].

Order. The difficulty is that the interpreters will not be able to follow the interjections. The Chairman also will not be able to understand what they are. So as far as possible, the Opposition should try to avoid making interjections.

(In Mandarin): Therefore, the accusations and allegations made by the Member for Queenstown are all groundless. Just now the Member for Havelock has raised the question of our relationship with the Federation of Malaya. We understand the Federation of Malaya is an anti-Communist Government and we understand its policy. That is why we must consider the sources of certain books. We must not make it easy for certain books to be circulated in the Federation of Malaya to embarrass the Government there. If we want to have merger with the Federation of Malaya, we must not take any step or measure which will put the Federation of Malaya in a very embarrassing position. Therefore, the censoring of books cannot be carried out in isolation.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow, 13th of December.

Tomorrow then.

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