Hansard, 1961-12-18

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

32 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of the Estimates?

I so signify.

Estimates containing a Vote on Account for expenditure for part of the year 1963 of the State of Singapore (Cmd. 39 of 1961). Dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper - Head 1 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his statement to this House on 4th December explained why he considered it necessary and desirable that the 1963 Vote on Account had to be taken at an early stage. I would like to quote from a transcript of his speech. The P.A.P. Government are fond of saying that they always say what they mean, and they mean what they say. If you remem ber. Sir, a ministerial statement made during the course of the debate here on the boycott in Chinese middle schools was found to be a mis-statement. In order that there can be no doubt in the minds of the Opposition that he has made a mis-statement, I would like the Minister to say whether the transcript of his speech is correct. I quote from page 37 [of the "first copy" of the Hansard]. He said: 'The vote on account is asked in respect of annually recurrent expenditure. Such expenditure is incurred in regular amounts each month being payments for salaries of staff, regular services used by the Government such as water, light, electricity, stationery, telephone, rents of offices and so forth.' May I, Sir, before I proceed with the many amendments that stand in my name, ask the Minister whether he meant what he said and said what he meant when these words were said by him?

Order. I do not think the Member has even moved the amendment standing in his name.

I am sorry, Sir. I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $100. I mean to say what I have said just now after moving this amendment.

The point the Chair wishes to make is that all remarks must be related to Head 1, because the hon. Member did have an opportunity of debating the statement made by the Minister for Finance. The House was given an opportunity of saying whether or not they wished the Minister to move, "That the House do now adjourn," to enable a debate to be held on the statement. But that opportunity was not taken. Therefore, there cannot be a general debate on the statement of the Minister. If, of course, the remarks can be related to any particular Head which indicate that the Minister went wrong in his statement, then that will be in order.

With respect, Sir, I am not debating the Minister's statement. What I am seeking is information-whether the transcript of what he said on 4th December is correct, in view of the fact that one Minister's previous statement had been found to be a mis-statement.

The Member must indicate how that question relates to Head 1. I think that is the point I am trying to make.

Because I can prove that if it is a correct transcript, then the Vote on Account does not bear out the statement of the Minister for Finance.

I think the Membet should now indicate how that is so.

I would like tt, indicate that the Minister asked in his statement for a 55 per cent vote oh account in respect of Personal Emolu ments and Other Charges Annually Recurrent. That is what he meant by annually recurrent expenditure. But I want to prove that no work has been done at all in the compilation of these Estimates before us. What is presented to this House is that it is 55 per cent of the total votes in 1962 including Other Charges Special Expenditure, and the Minister, of course, cannot say that the Special Expenditure for 1962 will also be the same Special Expenditure for 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did make a statement and I think the transcript is a correct representation of what I said. Perhaps it lacked precision because I did not convey the full meaning of what items would, in fact, be sought under the vote on account. The point I intended to make in that statement was that it is the ordinary Estimates which would come under the procedure applicable to the vote on account, because, apart fiom O.C.S.E. items which form a small part of the total sum in the ordinary Estimates, the others cover fairly regular amounts. I made that statement in order to compare the procedure for estimating expenditure in the ordinary Estimates with the difficulties in forecasting expenditure in the Development Estimates - that they are two different things. If the Member for Cairnhill will refer to the whole text of my statement, he will find that I developed the reasons why, in respect of the Development Estimates, it is not possible to ask for approval for part of the year. That was the point I was making, not that I intended to pull a fast one over the Member for Cairnhill or any other Member. I was just developing the theme of the two approaches when asking for a vote on account. I hope I have made myself clear.

On a point of clarification, if the Chair might assist us. In view of the Minister's indication that the statement was not quite precise in character and since we have now received the full details, is there no procedure whereby we can, in fact, debate the principal issue whether there should be a Vote on Account and Development Estimates for 1963?

The hon. Member is too late on that issue. I did indicate earlier on that the time to do that was when the Minister offered to adjourn the House, but that offer was not taken ad vantage of. That was the time to debate whether or not there should have been a Vote on Account. At the moment, we are presented with this Vote on Account and no details of it have been given, quite correctly. The only idea of a vote on ac count is, as indicated in the Constitution, to provide for expenditure for a part of the year and details need not be given. I do not know why the Minister chose to say 55 per cent. This is the procedure in every Parliament, that if a vote on account is asked for, a lump sum is asked for and they simply say, "We want this lump sum for X months." That is all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we listened to the statement of the Minister for Finance on 4th December, we took it to mean that what he was asking the House for was just 55 per cent of annually recurrent expenditure. Those are the words he used. Because of that, we were led into a position where we thought it would not be necessary to scrutinise the Estimates in detail. This could account for the fact that so few Members of the Opposition have sent in amendments. It would now appear that what the Minister said was not what he meant to say, because the words are very clear - "55 per cent of the annually recurrent expenditure". The Minister tried to pooh-pooh the Special Expenditure as a small amount. But may I point out that for 1962, that is the basis for this present Vote on Account, the Other Charges Special Expenditure is $48 million and 55 per cent of that would come to about $27 million. We are being asked - if I may touch on the whole lot - to vote $27 million more than what is actually necessary to pay for any recurrent ex penditure. Once we give our approval to the Vote on Account, there is no control on how that money is to be spent. The only control is the amount to be spent under each Head. 2.45 p.m. The Vote on Account, in this particular instance, Sir, comes to about $16,000 under Head 1 for 1962. This is for three items: crockery, electric typewriter, and motor car. And 55 per cent of that vote is $9,000. Now, these three items are special items. I do not think they will be required to be purchased in 1963. We will be voting $9,000 - a blank cheque to the Government to use in any way it may think fit so long as it does not spend beyond $9,000. For all we know, this $9,000 could be used towards the payment of the creation of a new post or towards new annually recurrent charges, or for other special expenditure which, if brought to this Assembly, the Opposition might consider to be unreasonably extravagant. Sir, it is unfortunate that I have to speak in this strain on the Head "Yang di-Pertuan Negara", but it happens to be the very first Head. I would not like it to be misunderstood that I am raising anything against the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, but I am raising it in the strongest terms of protest against the Minister for Finance who tried to mislead this Assembly by saying something which is not borne out now by the facts of the case. Sir, I would like the Minister to note this: if this vote is given, it is clear the money could be used for a purpose which the Government considers advisable or necessary. The Minister need not have to come to the Assembly and say, "No, I think we want to buy a motor boat for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara with the $9,000." They can still buy it so long as it does not go beyond $9,000. We would have, as it were, given away our rights to criticise any expenditure so long as the amount spent does not go beyond the Vote on Account - 55 per cent of the special expenditure for 1962.

Sir, I am sorry if I misled Members of the Opposition on this point, but I assure you that if they were so misled, it was not intentional. The Member for Cairnhill understood my remarks to mean that we will be asking for a Vote on Account only on O.C.A.R. items. I think that was his point. If that was my intention, I would have mentioned specifically that we were only asking for a Vote on Account on O.C.A.R. items. Perhaps, as I have admitted, my presentation was lacking in precision. And if it has misled Members, then I can only express my regret. But, Sir, if you study the O.C.S.E. items, you will find that for the most part they are very necessary items of expenditure. They are items to replace various types of equipment needed in Government departments. Further, some items are really in the nature of annually recurrent, for instance, "Scholarships, Courses and Fellowships". They now appear as O.C.S.E. items. It is just not possible for us to say, "Well, we can run the Government only on O.C.A.R. expenditure." That would mean that replacement of equipment in the public services would have to be suspended. Further, some very vital items which are really in the nature of annually recurrent expenditure have been included for accounting purposes under O.C.S.E. The Member for Cairnhill quite rightly said that it would mean that the Assembly would be committed to approve of items of expenditure the details of which they do not know. I think that is a valid submission to make, and I trust he will be satisfied with two assurances which I will make before the House. First, that we shall limit as far as possible O.C.S.E. items to replacements of equipment, very essential purchases of, say, new equipment to maintain efficiency, provision of certain items of expenditure such as scholarships to which we are in any case committed. We shall be extremely careful about introducing items such as this, i.e. getting new types of equipment which in the normal course of events would go to the Assembly for approval. That is the first assurance I make. The second assurance that I give to the Assembly is that we hope it will be possible to frame the Budget for 1963 if not by the end of next year, then as soon as possible after that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the difficulty we are faced with is this: the Minister did say in page 37 of the "first copy" of the Hansard that the Vote on Account asked for is in respect of annually recurrent expenditure. He also went on to enumerate and categorise what annually recurrent expenditure meant. He said that such expenditure is incurred in regular amounts each month, being payment of salaries to staff, regular services used by the Government such as water, light, electricity, stationery, telephone rentals, and so forth. The enumerated and categorised items, Mr Speaker, Sir, are normally items which come under annually recurrent charges. So I regret it rather puts us in a difficult position for the Minister to say now that he made a slip of the tongue. Sir, if one examines the 1963 Estimates, Paper Cmd. 39 of 1961, the Minister in his statement at page 1, paragraph 2, says: 'The estimates containing a vote on account below provide for six months requirements for the public services shown under the respective Heads of expenditure for 1963. They are calculated at 55 per cent of the votable expenditure appearing in the 1962 Estimates.' The important phrase there is "votable expenditure". Votable expenditure is set out in page 42 of the 1962 Estimates, and the vota'b'le estimate appears at the bottom of the fifth column - $352,920,900. Next to it, Mr Speaker, Sir, is "Statutory Expenditure 1962 - $41.105 million" which is not votable expenditure. And if you will be good enough to turn to page 44 where there is a further categorisation of total amounts to be spent; the first column there is "Head of Expenditure"; then "Personal Emoluments"; "Annually Recurrent"; and the "Total". On this page 44, Mr Speaker, Sir, Special Expenditure amounts to $48,150,370. It is a big sum. It is not a small sum. If the Minister says it is only a small item, it is not, because $48 million is very much more than the Statutory Expenditure which we have to incur, being $41 million. So it is an important item. Now, that is the difficulty that we in the Opposition find ourselves in - that we are being asked to vote, by the manner in which the Minister has approached this problem in asking for a 55 per cent vote, on what is known as "votable expenditure", which includes special expenditure. And special expenditure amounts to $48 million. If you will look at page 43, under the Ministry of National Development, Head 20, the special ex penditure is $6.05 million. And the special expenditure for the Minister himself [Head 32] is $32.017 million. Quite a big sum! What the Minister wants us to give him is 55 per cent of this $32 million by virtue of this Vote on Ac count,which the Opposition might not be prepared to do. So the position now is this. Because of the manner in which this has been presented to the House, I think it will become necessary for the Opposition to vote against all the provisions for the Heads which the Minister is asking, unless he is prepared to withdraw this Vote on Account and come back to the Assembly on a different basis. I myself, Mr Speaker, Sir, do not think that this is proper time at which this Vote on Account should be asked for. If the Minister had felt honestly that he could not have prepared his Estimates for 1963 in time, i.e. in November or December of this year, he could quite easily have presented this Vote on Account sometime next year - March or April, June or July - and the Assembly would have been prepared to look at it.

Hear, hear!

But the manner in which this has been brought to the Asembly leaves one in doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, on a number of matters. After all, Sir, the only effective control the Opposition has over the Government is the Annual Estimates. The Government could govern without convening the Asembly, but by virtue of the Constitution, the Government has to come annually to the Assembly to get a vote for the following year.

Order. The Member for Farrer Park is embarking on an issue which is. I think, now barred by reason of the fact that the House did not take the opportunity when it presented itself. He has made his point indirectly.

So that is the position the Opposition finds itself in - that the Opposition is constitutionally bound to exercise control over the Government on expenditure. The position the Opposition ncw finds itself in, Sir, is that it is going to give the Government arte blanche in matters of expenditure to the end of June 1963, which the Opposition is not prepared to do.

Sir, both the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park made objections on just this fact: that while they would not mind agreeing to a Vote on Account for Personal Emoluments and Other Charges Annually Recurrent, their contention is that the vote for Special Expenditure, amounting to $48 million, is a big item and carte blanche for so large an item of expenditure does not appear acceptable to them. May I just explain to the Members of the Opposition that of the $48 million Special Expenditure, $30 million (the biggest single item) would be a contribution to the Development Fund. You are left, therefore, with $18 million. Now of that $18 million, the biggest single item would be the Ministry of National Development - some $6 million, and nearly the whole lot of that goes to expenditure on the Work Brigade. These are, in fact, really annually recurrent expenditure. They are not something special, not something that has been sprung on the Opposition as a new item. When I use the words "annually recurrent", I was not using them in the technical sense when referring to O.C.A.R. items Therefore, the balance of Special Expenditure, after the deduction of $30 million contribution to the Development Fund and the cost of maintaining the Work Brigade, amounts to some $12, million. And six months of such expenditure would be a sum of just over $6 million. I do not think the Opposition., if they consider these facts, could say that they are giving the Government an undue measure of freedom in financial expenditure. 3.00 p.m.

I just want to answer the Minister on the two points he raised. The first point was about the $30 million which appears under Head 32, page 346 of the Estimates, subhead 34 - Allocation to Development Fund, $30 million. I do agree with the Minister that that is a big sum. We voted that sum last year too; we have voted it this year, and the Minister thinks that the Assembly will vote it next year too. In all fairness, I do not think the Minister should assume that. If, for some reason,, the Assembly comes to the conclusion that the Development Fund is not doing all it can, and there are sums left in the Development Fund, it could well be that the Assembly might not vote the $30 million. That is in reply to that. The other point the Minister made was in respect of the Ministry of National Development, Head 20, page 150. It is quite true that subhead 41, Work Brigade Projects, $5,890,170, is the main item. But here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Assembly were to come to the conclusion that the projects envisaged for 1963 are such that the Assembly does not approve them, then the vote could easily be knocked out. But the point at the moment is this: without the Assembly knowing anything about this special expenditure, we are being asked to vote 55 per cent of $5.89 million.

Sir, the Minister is trying to explain away his mis-statement. He is now trying to say that when he said annually recurrent expenditure, he did not mean O.C.A.R. But let us examine his statement again. He did itemise. He did give examples of what he meant by annually recurrent expenditure, such as regular amounts each month being payments for salaries of staff, regular services used by the Government, such as water, light, electricity, stationery, telephone, rents and so on and so forth. All these mean P.E. and O.C.A.R. and nothing else. I must register my very strong protest against the manner in which these estimates have been prepared. They have not been prepared in keeping with the ministerial statement. They were brought in at a time when we had been sitting for 22 days, and when every Member of the Assembly was very tired. If it had been a true statement, no one would have challenged it. But that statement has now been proved to be a misleading statement. It is now left to the Opposition to show its protest and disgust at the manner in which this has been presented by voting against every item under every Head.

Hear, hear!

Time has expired. We are on the Vote on Account for 1963, Head 1, Yang di-Pertuan Negara, on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $100."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 23; Absent, 9; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Buang bin Omar Mohammad Akib. Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong, Lee Siew Choh. Madam. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lim Yew Hock. Goh Chew Chua. Lin You Eng. Goh Keng Swee. Lingam, S. V. Hoe Puay Choo, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Kandasamy, G. Ng Teng Kian. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Teck Him. Rajah, A. P. Lim Cheng Lock. Tan Cheng Tong. Mammen, John. Tee Kim Leng. Mohd. Ariff bin Thio Chan Bee. Suradi. Wong Soon Fong. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Absent. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad, Madam. Haji Jumat. Tan Kia Gan. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Toh Chin Chye. Bani, S. T. Wee Toon Boon. Koh, C. H. Yaacob bin Mohd. Ali bin Mohamed. Alwi. Yong Nyuk Lin. Ong Chang Sam. Rajaratnam, S. Paired. Sheng Nam Chin. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Kuan Yew (Absent). Seow Peck Leng. Mrs

Will the Member for Mountbatten indicate with whom she has paired?

With the Prime Minister. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $123,570 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 2 -

Head 2, Judicial. Time has expired. But will the Member for Cairnhill agree to giving Head 2 five minutes out of the next Head?

Yes.

That is, we give Judicial then up to 3.20 p.m.

Yes. 3.15 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, the Judges are a very small body, but they are the balance wheel of our constitution. I have raised this matter before and received a most unsatisfactory reply, a reply completely lacking in imagination, suggesting that our Government intends to do nothing about a small body of extremely important people constitutionally, although they recognise that the remuneration is grossly inadequate. Mr Speaker, Sir, I say that it is important that their status should be recognised as equivalent to Ministers. I say that being conscious that they are being grossly underpaid, we should give them justice. I do ask the Minister for Finance to give us an assurance that he will so alter their remuneration as to bring their status outside the civil service ambit. I know - and it is unfortunate that he himself has been conditioned for so long in the civil service - we can only see them in the context of the civil service pay. It is inappropriate for Judges. I say we do not have to wait until the Federation takes a decision. We should be able to take a decision now without prejudice to any schemes which the Federation may seek to impose on all Federal judges if and when the closer political relationship proposed is ultimately achieved. I do urge the Minister to recognise that this is a matter of some gravity. It should not be dealt with lackadaisically in such a cavalier fashion as it has been dealt with so far. Let us not have only sympathy. Let us have action.

Will the hon. Member move?

I apologise. I move, That the total sum to he allocated for Head be reduced by $100.

Sir, as usual the Member for Anson has over-reached himself. He has charged the Government with dealing with this subject in a lackadaisical fashion and treating Judges in a cavalier manner. What is the evidence on which he makes this accusation, Mr Speaker, Sir? I already said, in reply to his question, that Government was considering changes in the remuneration of Judges. I was not prepared to go further because at that time discussions were taking place between the Government and the Judges on these matters. For this reason, I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he complains that I am making unfair comments and without evidence. The evidence is that the Government has been conscious for a long time of the inadequate remuneration of the Judges. The Federation has moved as far back as the 1st of June, and there have been new provisions for Federation Judges. Will the Minister tell us when we may expect action from this Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made a study of what the Federation Judges receive and what our Judges receive. The information has been very carefully tabulated and from the figures, Mr Speaker, Sir, we find that there is very little difference between what our Judges get and what the Federation Judges receive. In the case of High Court Judges in England, their salaries are more or less equated to what the permanent heads of the British civil service get, and we can say, Mr Speaker, that similar equations exist both in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, I understood the Government accepted as a fact that the remuneration of the Judges was inadequate. I understood the Government accepted as a fact that it is inappropriate that the salary scales should be equated with the civil service scales. I do ask that there be some action in those circumstances. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $1,064,180 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 7-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $100.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr David Marshall. Sir, this is the same matter as that which I raised under Head 1. In fact, Sir, all the amendments that I have put in are of a similar character. I have not put in amendments for every Head, because I am satisfied that the little bit extra to be voted for the other Heads will not give the Government much leeway to do what it likes. But on this Head of Prime Minister, Sir, the total for O.C.S.E. comes to $546,090. At 55 per cent, we are asked to vote about $300,000 for the Prime Minister to use as special expenditure. What do we see under special expenditure, Sir, under this Prime Minister's Head? We have here an item of two cars for replacement. There were two cars for replacement in 1961, two more cars are asked for for replacement in 1962, and the two cars cost $47,030. Then again, the furnishings .for Temasek, Kuala Lumpur, that is $30,000; Furniture and Equipment for State Guest House $5,000; and other matters into which I will not go. But this amount of $82,000, it does. I do not think this expenditure will be incurred again. But then by approving a vote on account of 55 per cent for items that will not be used - again that money could be used if the Government thought it necessary to buy another three cars for the Prime Minister - then we will have no control whatsoever. I feel we could save the time of this House if I appeal to the Minister for Finance to withdraw this and get his staff to work on it; and if where items under O.C.S.E. are, in fact, and can be described as O.C.A.R., then put them in, put in a provision of 55 per cent for them. But where the items are of a special character, like the purchase of cars, furnishings of guest houses and what not, which definitely will not be incurred again in 1963, leave them out. Then we would be quite satisfied. But as it is, because of a ministerial misstatement, we are beginning to have doubts of the intentions of the Government. So I would suggest the Minister for Finance withdraw this and get his staff to spend another month on it. Then come back to this Assembly with an application for a vote which is more related to what is required to be used in 1963, instead of coming here and asking us for something which is more than what is required to be used for 1963. If he will do this, then there will be a need for me to move an amendment to every item. Otherwise it will be my duty to stand up in this Assembly on every item and describe the attempt by the Government to foist something on the Opposition which has been done through a mis-statement of the Minister for Finance.

If it please you. Mr Chairman, I rise to support this motion on the ground that the position of the Prime Minister has been utilised for purposes of abusing the people of Singapore and bringing us into disrepute and contempt. The Prime Minister of Singapore, a citizen of Singapore himself, has been indulging, as Prime Minister of this territory, in constant abuse of the people of Singapore, whereby he has built up an image of a people who are Communists or proCommunists, a people who are to be feared, a people who indulge in riots; in fact, a people for whom it is necessary to seek outside assistance to control. Sir, I wish to protest in the most vigorous fashion permissible under parliamentary procedure against the conduct of the Prime Minister in that respect. I know there are rules which prevent us from discussing the conduct of a Member outside this House, but this is conduct as a Prime Minister. I am sorry he is not here to hear this. It cannot be postponed to another time. But I say that he has given a false, a grossly inaccurate, a grossly improper, a grossly untrue picture of a decent people and that we are no more cancerous or diseased than any Member in this House. Every human being has a few germs in his blood. That does not make him any the less healthy. There are no healthier people, there are no more decent people, and there is not a better State in the world than this island of ours, or a greater one - things which have been forgotten, thanks to the Prime Minister and the P.A.P.

Sir, I propose to ignore the outburst. I think it makes no impression on anybody. But the Member for Cairnhill raised a point which I think requires some answer. Now, under the O.C.S.E. Head, like the subhead in the Prime Minister's Office, surely, this reinforces the point I was making earlier; that out of a total amount of $546,000 voted for in the 1962 estimates, about 90 per cent is to pay for expenses in our two trade divisions, one in Jakarta and one in the United Kingdom. You will find as we go along, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these are necessary items of expenditure. I hake already given the Member for Cairnhill an assurance that great care will be taken to see that we shall not spend money on new items which, in the ordinary course of events, should go to the Assembly for consideration in detail, and I think that assurance could be accepted.

Sir, I personally have no desire to embarrass the Government. It may be the Government was caught short on this and made an overstatement which it possibly now regrets. But I hope the Minister will also understand the point of view of the Opposition that if we vote for this we are giving him carte blanche. Whether he accepts it or not, it is, in fact, carte blanche for him to spend the money. But if the Minister will undertake that no money will be spent on these items of special expenditure (what we say is special expenditure is that which comes under column 4 on pages 43 and 44 of the Estimates) without coming to this House for a resolution on it, then, so far as I and my colleagues en the Front bench are concerned, we will be prepared to accept it. I do not know what my colleagues behind are going to say on this. 3.30 p.m. Mr David Marshall rose -

Time has expired. We might raise the point on another Head.

May I suggest that we carry on, Sir, as the next amendment* will not be moved? *The amendment reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $100.

Is the Member for Tanglin going to move his amendment*?

No, Sir.

Shall we carry on then up to 3.35 p.m.?

Sir, I do not know whether I understood the Member for Farrer Park correctly. Did he say that we should net spend any O.C.S.E. items without a resolution of the Assembly'? For instance, we have to pay the salaries of the staff in the Trade Offices in Indonesia and in London. Does it mean that we should not do it without the approval of the Assembly? If you are going to say. "Well, look, you should refrain from incurring expenditure on items like cars, furniture, etc, without the approval of the Assembly," I am prepared to give that kind of undertaking on things which are new items as distinct replacements of equipment.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it difficult to understand why the Minister seeks money which he is prepared to undertake not to spend. Surely the simple procedure would be for him to concede that all the $48 million or the 55 per cent thereof should be deleted from the vote.

Surely what the Member for Farrer Park is asking is very simple. He says that in order not to hold up the debate or the approval of this vote on account, he wants an assurance from the Minister that no money under O.C.S.E. will be spent unless by a resolution of this Assembly, and that is only to take place in 1963. Even in the course of the whole year 1962, the Minister can get one of the civil servants in his Ministry to work out what is required for 1963, and he can just table a motion covering every item. It will then mean that we do not have to hold up the debate on this vote on account, otherwise it will be necessary, in the interest of the right use of the funds of the people of Singapore, for the Opposition to vote against every item.

I am trying to come to an understanding with the Opposition on this. Is this correct? They say that sometime next year, if time is given to work through the O.C.S.E. items, and we give this undertaking and say, "All right, we will give details of what is required," then they are prepared to carry on. Well, I am prepared to give that undertaking.

Can I have a little clarification, Sir? It is very ambiguous. What is the undertaking? Do we understand that the undertaking is that no part of the money which is for O.C.S.E. will be spent except by a resolution of this House with reference to detailed items? Is that it?

Yes, that is the position. Sometime next year, I shall present to the House details of the O.C.S.E. items and seek the approval of the House to spend that money for 1963.

Tun Lim, do you wish for a vote?

Sir, before I withdraw, there is another assurance which is necessary, that the money voted for O.C.S.E. - the 55 per cent - should not be used by the Government for other items - O.C.A.R. or P.E. That is another undertaking.

Sir, what my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, is worried about is that the Government will go about creating new posts without putting up detailed estimates.

It is a question of virement. Dr Goh. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

I think the Member for Cairnhill wishes to know whether advantage would be taken of virement ,on Special Expenditure money.

Yes, the virement goes on. I do not knob, whether the Member for Farrer Park suggested that we should not proceed with that section of the Financial Procedure Ordinance.

Sir, once we present that vote in March 1962, the whole thing will fall into place. I do agree with him there. But the main point is to get that presented. In the meantime, if he gives this undertaking I think that should be enough.

Sir, may I then withdraw my amendment?

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members -

With respect, Sir, I maintain my amendment on the principle.

I am asking the question and the only thing that the Member for Anson should say then is, 'No.' Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

No.

The hon. Member wishes for a vote?

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $746,100 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 8 - The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the total, sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $100.

The amendment is not being moved. The sum of $328,240 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 12 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr David Marshall - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 12 be reduced by $100.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, I should like your guidance here. I am very conscious of the ruling that matters relating to the conduct of a Member outside the House should not be brought in except on a substantive motion. It is my desire under this motion to refer to the letter which the Deputy Prime Minister wrote - he was then Acting Prime Minister - to the leaders of the Opposition Parties on 6th September, 1961, which was referred to in this House. Would it be proper, Sir?

I think the Member for Anson should realise that these are Estimates containing a vote on account for 1963. The opportunity to raise that point has passed. We are now one year ahead - 1963. I would suggest that the hon. Member file a substantive motion on that point for a debate to be taken.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The sum of $124,070 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 14- The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 14 he reduced by $100.

I am not moving in view of the undertaking given. The sum of $764,900 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 16- The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 16 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving. The sum of $669,160 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 17 - The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving. The sum of $6,351,570 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 18 - The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 18 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $2,699,400 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 19 - The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head. 19 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $832,750 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 20-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $100. Sir, the Minister for Finance has said that the O.C.S.E. - I am only touching on this in passing - contains a vote of $5 million for the Work Brigade. In view of the fact that the Work Brigade is now turning out to be a Frankenstein to the P.A.P. Government, would the Minister make a statement of what is happening now in the Work Brigade where even soldiers have to be used?

The Chair is in a difficulty. If the Member for Cairnhill wants to know what the present position of the Work Brigade is, then he should not raise it on a vote on account for 1963. But if he puts it this way - that in view of what is happening now, does the Minister think that the Work Brigade should be in existence in 1963? - then that is in order.

That was what I meant originally. I thank you for your guidance, Sir. The reason why I put all that in is that the big O.C.S.E. is there. I was most disturbed when I read the Free Press as I came in. That is why I am taking this opportunity of asking the Minister whether he thinks it advisable, in the light of what is now happening in the Work Brigade, where even troops and the police have to be used, to continue with the Work Brigade right up to 1963.

Yes, we consider it advisable to continue to 1963. I do not think we can let incidents like this upset our plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we fully realise that the Barisan Sosialis would be accused of having fomented trouble and all that, and I rise to speak because, as you have read in the papers and as the Member for Cairnhill has just mentioned, troops have been used in the camps. The Minister for Finance has said that the trouble in the Work Brigade is the fourth round. We do not know what round it is, but if it is truly the fourth round, I can assure him that there will be a kayo for the P.A.P. in the fifth round.

Order. Does that mean the fifth round will be in 1963?

I think the P.A.P. will be knocked out long before that. As I was passing the -

Order. I tried to indicate how this debate should go on. I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown is coming to the point, that in view of what is happening, the vote for the Work Brigade should not stand for 1963. If that is his attitude, then of course he is correct. But if he is not urging that, then I think these details become irrelevant.

Yes, Sir, if the Work Brigade should ever exist in 1963, then let us hope that things like this will not happen. Sir, I went to the Airport early this morning - 3.45 p.m.

Order. I cannot allow that. These details, I think, cannot be debated. We are on a Vote on Account for 1963. We should focus our attention on 1963 - to consider whether a vote of this nature would be necessary in 1963. If it is necessary, then these details do not arise at all.

Can I draw your attention, Sir, to the little bit of trouble that is at present in the Work Brigade, so that we may take precautions and so that similar trouble will not happen in 1963?

Please continue.

As far as I know, Sir, there is grave dissatisfaction in the Work Brigade, and this stands under two heads.

Order. I cannot allow that. I think the course the Member can take is to claim the right to speak on the adjournment or move a motion on the matter.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise for a few moments on the question of squatters. It is a problem which is with us and which will be with us in 1963. The Ministry of National Development has issued notices to a fairly large number of squatters, in so far as I can ascertain, asking them to demolish unauthorised buildings and evicting them from their land. I would wish the Government to consider establishing a policy for the period in question whereby, though these people are unquestionably in the wrong, Mr Chairman, nevertheless the problem of housing being as acute as it is, should be approached with understanding. I would like this policy established, that where it is possible to permit unauthorised structures to continue -

(In Malay): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I feel that the matter raised by the Member for Anson regarding the demolition of houses on Crown land does not come within the ambit of the Ministry of National Development.

Can the Minister for National Development assist the Chair? Does the matter come within his Ministry?

The Land Office.

Not his Ministry. Will the Minister rise and let me know whether the squatter problem is a responsibility of the Ministry of National Development?

Squatters and their resettlement come under the Land Development Vote for the Land Office, and the question of unauthorised huts comes under Building Survey, Head 22.

Is that the Ministry of National Development?

Yes.

In both cases?

No. The Land Office comes under the Ministry of the Prime Minister.

The Member then is too late.

No, Sir. If I might suggest, I am speaking about demolition of buildings which 1 understand the Minister to claim as being under his Ministry. It is my suggestion, Sir, that there should be an established policy of sympathetic consideration of the needs of these people and an attempt made by him or his colleagues to live them alternative sites, or where possible to refrain from demolishing unauthorised structures unless they are genuinely of a character which make them unhealthy.

Is the Minister prepared to answer that?

In fact, in the year 1962 I intend to bring in legislation to cover unauthorised houses on what to do with the existing thousands of unauthorised houses, so that the matter could be resolved within the year 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is just to seek elucidation. Will the legislation that the Minister has mentioned cover only unauthorised huts on Crown land, or will it affect unauthorised huts on all lands?

On all lands.

Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,806,850 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 22- The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 22 he reduced by $100.

I am not moving. The sum of $358,300 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 23 - The following amendment stood in the names of Dr Thio Chan Bee and Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 23 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving.

I am not moving. The sum of $4,688,160 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 26 -

Sir, may I say that in the light of the undertaking, I am not moving any more amendments* * The amendments read as follows:- That the total sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 42 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 44 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 53 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 54 be reduced by $100. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $100. to the Estimates containing a Vote on Account for 1963 standing in my name.

Thank you. The sum of $19,499,230 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 27 - The sum of $12,988,960 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 31 -

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $100, in respect of the State Advocate-General's Chambers. These Chambers, Mr Speaker, have been chronically understaffed for as long as I can remember. I remember I urged, when I was in a position to do so, that we should have the staffing position improved. But it is a curious thing. It is the only department in Government that I know which is anxious not to increase its staff. Sir, I say that today though there has been a recruitment, there is, in fact, acute understaffing. We have heard through the newspapers, the favourite medium of information of the Government, that we are recruiting a gentleman from Australia to assist the State Advocate-General in criminal court prosecutions, and that we are recruiting some other gentlemen from overseas for civil matters. Those, like many others, have proved abortive. I ask the Government whether, in fact, it is conscious that the staffing position of the State Advocate-General's Department is inadequate, and what measures it intends to take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another brainwave, of the Member for Anson. I am quite confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the State Advocate-General's Chambers are up to full establishment. The Member for Anson is quite worried about these three legal appointments. I must mention to the House that one of the appointments is to be filled by a competent and senior criminal lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, to give the Member for Anson a good run for his money!

Does the Member wish for a vote?

Yes. I will not withdraw.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $466,920 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 32 -

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, I wish to draw the House's attention to the Income Tax Department. I have been reliably informed by a firm of accountants of repute it is not a matter of personal prejudice that, until the advent of the P.A.P. and before the departure of the former Comptroller of Income Tax, the Department was far more approachable than corresponding departments in the United Kingdom and Australia. Mr Speaker, I would like to draw attention to one minor aspect in which I was involved. In 1960 a new section, section 86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, was introduced which - makes tax payable within seven days, not tax on monies which have been earned, Sir, but tax on the current year's income. If it is not paid within 30 days, Sir, then immediately it attracts a 5 per cent penalty, not 5 per cent per annum but 5 per cent on the total amount allegedly due. Even if there was an error in computation and it is pointed out to the Comptroller and there is correspondence, if you exceed the 30 days by one day, there is a 5 per cent penalty. Sir, it is true that there is a discretion in the Comptroller whether that penalty should apply or not. I give you this case, Sir,I received a notice, and in due course I wrote by sending a cheque for one-third of my tax and asking whether I could pay the remaining two-thirds during the next two months. Sir, I had just exceeded the period,- I think, by about a day or so. I received a reply to say, "Yes, but the 5 per cent penalty applies." Now, a 5 per cent penalty for the first month makes it 60 per cent interest per annum. And a 5 per cent penalty for the second month makes it 30 per cent per annum. The Finance Minister, who is a statistician, can do his own calculation; but it does mean, Sir, that for two months' grace I had to pay 45 per cent interest per annum. We rightfully condemn money lenders as criminals who charge more than 24 per cent annum. But documents are available to prove that the Comptroller of Income Tax asked, in effect, for 45 per cent interest per annum. I promptly went to the bank, Sir, and made arrangements to pay forthwith by cheque. And when I did pay it, protesting vigorously, I received a letter to say, "Well, in the circumstances, you need not pay it and the penalty will not apply." The position, Sir, is obvious: that the Comptroller of Income Tax did not exercise his discretion - that, in fact, these almost lethal powers are being used indiscriminately and probably used by junior officials without con sidering the principle involved. I say that it is necessary for the Income Tax Department to protect the revenue and it is perhaps sometimes necessary to be unpleasant about it. But there is no need to act like thugs or to try to earn the reputation of thugs. There is no need to be tough guys. Sir, I have received complaints of delays in refunds. You see, Sir, you have got to pay your tax within 30 days in spite of any complaint you put in. But if you complain in good time, and it is graciously viewed by the Comptroller, even then, Sir, you have to wait a very long time before you get any refund. 4.00 p.m. I do say, Sir, that there is, particularly in the Income Tax Department, an unfortunate tendency to absorb all too readily P.A.P. traditions of tough guys. All too readily they are acting in a manner wholly incompatible with the conduct one expects and is entitled to expect from a civil service - consideration and, particularly, an intelligent exercise of discretion.

Sir, just on the evidence of his one experience in the Income Tax Department, the Member for Anson has decided that the Inland Revenue Department is guilty of indiscriminate use of its powers. Sir, may I suggest that one swallow does not make a summer. If the Member for Anson wants to convince us of his proposition, he must surely bring more than his own personal experience, unfortunate though it was at the beginning. But the fact, Sir, that he was let off in the end -

I was not let off.

Order.

I am sorry, Sir.

I beg your pardon. I understood him to say that after he had paid off, the Comptroller did say that he would waive his tax. Is that right? This is not the way. If I am that thuggish, I suggest that the Member for Anson would be more troubled than what actually happened to him. As regards the delay of refund, that point was made by the Member for Farrer Park. I did make inquiries from the Comptroller of Inland Revenue, and he assured me that there was no intention at all on the part of his Department to hang on to money that was not due to it. He gave an assurance that he himself would intervene personally should any instances be brought to his notice. Here again, Sir, wild allegations are being made by the Member for Anson with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Mr Speaker, it is so easy to indulge in abuse - "wild allegations". I do not know what is wild about what I said. "No evidence whatsoever", he says. Mr Speaker, I quoted information received which the Minister has, because I wrote him a letter incorporating it from one of the outstanding firms of accounting in Singapore, in which they complained of the conduct of the Income Tax Department since the P.A.P. took over. I gave him an instance where his Comptroller sought to charge me 45 per cent per annum. I paid from the bank immediately without seeking that indulgence at the Government's cut-throat rate. Is that wild allegation - that 45 per cent per annum? Mr Speaker, you are aware that until the Committee of Privileges rules, I am somewhat forced to refrain from referring to information which came into my possession in a professional capacity, even though I may have my client's permission to disclose it. Those instances I cannot disclose. But at least is it not a fact those things which I have stated, and are they not indicative? Is it not recognised that there is, in fact, a general dissatisfaction with the management of the Income Tax Department?

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go on, I need your guidance whether I can touch on the question of the mishandling of the presentation of the 1963 Estimates by the Government under this item.

What point is that?

I mean under Head 32, can I speak on the question of the mishandling of the presentation of the 1963 Estimates by the Government?

I do not quite get what the hon. Member desires to do. But we have dealt with that aspect of the matter. The Minister for Finance has given an undertaking that a motion - correct me if I am wrong - will be moved in due course in 1962 in connection with the special expenditure. I thought that was the solution. I do not know what other point the hon. Member wishes to touch on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on the statement made by the Minister for Finance on the 4th of December. It was the explanation given by the Minister on the presentation of the 1963 Estimates.

Which page and which paragraph?

Page 35 ,of the "first copy" of the Hansard. I will touch on the statement in the various paragraphs.

If it is a general debate on that statement, I have indicated that that cannot be done. The point was raised by the Member for Cairnhill that the statement that the vote on account took in 55 per cent of the 1962 Budget also indicated that 55 per cent of the special expenditure is to be voted by this House on account. The point was taken that the House would not know how that money was to be spent, and that point was resolved by the Minister giving the undertaking that no such special expenditure would be undertaken without a resolution of this House. I do not know whether there is any other point the hon. Member wishes to touch on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my whole idea is that it is not necessary for the Government to bring up, at this juncture, the 1963 Estimates. It is simply wasting the time of this House.

It is a point I made at the very beginning - I do not know whether the hon. Member was here - that if he had wished to raise that point, he should have insisted that the Minister move the adjournment of the House when he offered to do that, so that his whole statement could be debated. The opportunity has been lost. The hon. Member cannot raise it again now. We are still on Head 32, Ministry of Finance. Does the Member for Anson wish for a vote or does he wish to add to what he has said?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I wish to say that the reasons given for the presentation of these Estimates at this juncture suggest an inefficiency in the staff in the Ministry of Finance, which seems inade quate for the normal requirements of presenting a Budget in appropriate time; or else, Sir, the utilisation of the Standing Order by the Minister for purposes of bringing about a position whereby the Government can rule without convening the Assembly. In either case, my motion is reinforced, as I would respectfully suggest in this instance, as a vote of censure which I intend to press. Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $100."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 23; Abstentions, 4; Absent, 9. Ayes. Noes. Chan Sun Wing. Buang bin Omar Fung Yin Ching, Junid. Miss. Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Chee Seng. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Lin You Eng. Madam. Lingam, S. V. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Goh Chew Chua. Marshall, David. Goh Keng Swee. Ng Teng Kian. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Chang Sam. Madam. Ong Eng Guan. Kandasamy, G. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Khoon Choy. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Absent. Suradi. Abdul Hamid bin M. Ismail Rahim. Haji Jumat. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Ramaswamy, S. Bani, S. T. Sahorah binte Koh, C. H. Ahmat, Madam. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Kia Gan. Mohd. Ali bin Toh Chin Chye. Alwi. Wee Toon Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Yaacob bin Seow Peck Leng, Mohamed. Mrs. Yong Nyuk Lin. Teo Hock Guan. Abstentions. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Lim Yew Hock. Rajah, A. P. Thio Chan Bee. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $21,020,710 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 35 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr David Marshall - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 35 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $838,100 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 37 - The sum of $2,364,340 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 4.15 p.m. Head 38 -

I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 38 be reduced by $100. I would ask the Minister for Finance to inform the House whether he considers that in 1963, we will still have an Exchange Control Department, and if so, Sir, for what purposes?

In 1963, we shall have Exchange Control unless, in the meantime, the Central Bank of the Federation of Malaya has established its branch in Singapore to take over the duties of Exchange Control. It is not possible now to say whether it will come about by 1963. Other than that eventuality, we shall have our Exchange Control.

Mr Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether he has ever considered the appropriateness of the provisions of Exchange Control to this area, which should be as free as possible from any controls hampering financial activities. Why should they be necessary here and for whose benefit are they in force?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malayan dollar is linked with sterling whereby the currency backing of the Malayan dollar is held, under the law, in sterling securities. It is the responsibility of all governments in the sterling area, i.e., all governments whose currencies are backed by sterling in one way or the other, to exercise a degree of exchange control for a general purpose, to see that the basic common unit on which their individual currencies are based is fully protected, should such protection be necessary. Sterling, of course, in the last few years has been a strong currency, although recently in England, the British Government has felt there is a certain balance of payments problem. Improvement in the standing of sterling has made it possible for Singapore to relax nearly all its exchange control provisions in line with the policy taken by the Government of the Federation of Malaya. One hopes that this happy state of affairs will continue. But one cannot say for certain that this will be the case, and so long as there is any possibility that the sterling area could experience the balance of payment difficulties, exchange control would be necessary as an instrument of Government policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand the Minister. I am not sure whether I do. Exchange control is enforced for the benefit of the sterling area but not for our own. We are in a strong position. Sterling itself having achieved a fairly strong position, Singapore has been able to relax those controls to a major extent, and it is hoped that in the future they will be completely removed. Do I have an assurance from the Government that they are conscious of the importance of giving the maximum freedom to trade in this area, and that it is their duty to put the maximum pressure at their disposal for special treatment of Singapore for the removal of all exchange control restrictions?

Sir, those considerations are always present in the minds of the Government, and I can assure the House that the government of an entrepot centre such as ours must press for the largest area of freedom in these matters.

If it please you, Sir, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $104,770 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 40 - The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving. The sum of $2,081,600 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 41- The sum of $585,420 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 42 - The sum of $120,590 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 44 - The sum of $143,950 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 46 - The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the total sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving. The sum of $559,390 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 48-

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $100. The purpose of this amendment, Sir, is; to seek an assurance from the Government that they will honestly and conscientiously refrain from utilising community associations for party political purposes, that they will take earnest steps to prevent those community associations from being used not only for P.A.P. purposes, but for any other political purposes, that they will be strictly administered for the welfare of the community associations and not as breeding grounds for the P.A.P. The second matter that I wish to raise, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on the subject of public assistance, with reference to 1963. It is not adequate to raise public assistance by 5 per cent in 1963. Mr Speaker, I ask the Government to consider the report to which I have already referred, which advised that we should have statutory provisions in respect of public assistance, that it is this Assembly which should be responsible for the exact amounts to be paid out in public assistance and not at the whim of the Government from day to day. I would also revert, Mr Speaker, to the question of allowance to tuberculosis patients who are not citizens. Mr Speaker, I hope to make my point clear, that though there is some political justification for saying we will not give allowance to the indigent if they are non-citizens, that is false economy in the context of tuberculosis patients, because tuberculosis, Sir, knows no barrier of citizenship and a non-citizen can infect citizens of Singapore. I would like an assurance from the Government that they will reintroduce payment of tuberculosis allowance to non-citizens.

Mr Speaker, I will answer the point raised by the Member for Anson on community centres and my colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, will reply to the one on public assistance. It is the intention of the Government that community centres should be run solely for the benefit of the community living in a particular area. I do not believe that Members of this House will support any idea that community centres should be used as, what the Member for Anson terms, "breeding grounds" for either P.A.P. members or Workers' Party members or Barisan Sosialis members or S.P.A. members. I do not think we want to make community centres political centres.

They have been.

I can point to one model, and that is the community centre in Rochore. It is still called the Stamford Community Centre. It is a very old centre. The residents who live in that, area form the committee. They run their own centre and no party politics has been introduced there. It is our intention that in future all community centres will be kept free from party politics.

Thank you. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have again been accused by the Member for Anson. He is apt to make - I would not describe them as wild statements, but pretty exaggerated statements. If the hon. Member will look up the 1961 Estimates he will find that the expenditure voted on public assistance was $7,760,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, to increase the rate for the head of a household by another $5, we have had to increase that vote to $8,980,000, which is an increase of $1,220,000. All the family budgets are related to the expenditure which this Assembly approves. We have a lot of other commitments - not only public assistance. We have our educational programme and our medical and health programme, and this is the amount of money that we can afford in the present circumstances. On the question of T.B. treatment allowances, it is true that we had to stop these allowances for people who are not citizens for reasons of economy. It does not mean to say that they are left to fend for themselves. We have the mass X-ray teams which go round. They have been visiting various parts of Singapore. They have been isolating all cases of T.B. and these cases are being sent regularly to S.A.T.A. for treatment. So that if we find a deserving or a hard case where a person is a non-citizen and is suffering from T.B., we try to help him out by contributions from the Silver Jubilee Fund. The Silver Jubilee Fund is used for that purpose. So it is not true to say that we do nothing for people suffering from T.B. who are non-citizens.

In view of the assurance of the Deputy Prime Minister, could we ask him to clarify a couple of points? So far as we know, only P.A.P. Assemblymen have been asked to open community centres. In future, would the Government ask Opposition Assemblymen to open community centres? In view of the fact that the present Board of Management is completely political, would the Deputy Prime Minister make it non-political?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree with the Member for Queenstown that only P.A.P. Assemblymen have been opening community centres. He himself opened one. The Member for Nee Soon, the Member for Pasir Panjang and the Member for Havelock have opened community centres. How can it be said that only P.A.P. Assemblymen have been opening community centres? But I must say this: if in future any community centre should be opened in a ward where there is an Assemblyman, then it is quite correct that he should be invited to, open it or b: present at least. I must say this in this House, that when the post office was opened at Pulau Branithis has nothing to do with community centres - I invited the Member for the Southern Islands to be present, but I do not think he was present. What else can I do?

Can I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that in the Mountbatten ward, where there is an Assemblywoman, he went along to open the community centre? Again in the case of Joo Chiat where there is an Assemblyman, the defeated P.A.P. candidate of that ward was asked to open the community centre.

Shame!

Sir, I am really not keen to open anything at all and I always fight shy of social events. But the point is that I was urged by the Minister, who was then in charge of community centres, that in my capacity as Deputy Prime Minister I had to go to this area and I did so. But I must confess that it was a mistake.

(In Mandarin): In Upper Serangoon there is a community centre which has been completed. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would like to invite the Member for that constituency to officiate at the opening ceremony.

(In Mandarin): Just now, the Member for Upper Serangoon mentioned the community centre in his constituency. If the community centre is in Punggol constituency, I do not know whether the Minister will ask him or me to officiate at the opening ceremony of the community centre. Can he enlighten us on this point now?

The solution is to invite both Members!

As this community centre has been functioning for the last three months, there is no need to open it at all.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to be content with what seemed to be a very honest assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister on the subject of the non political conduct of these community centres, but I was a bit startled when he said, "No Member present wants to use those community centres for political purposes." He knows very well that his Government has been using those centres for political purposes, and I am sorry to hear that even now they are being used for political purposes. If the centres happen to be in the wards represented by Opposition Members, they are not invited to open them. But it is the Deputy Prime Minister who opens them and invites others to attend. I shall leave it at that. Sir, there is a much more important matter and it is one which the Minister for Health and Law has dealt with. I would like to ask him: what is the amount that has been spent from the Silver Jubilee Fund on assistance to tuberculosis non-citizens during the first eleven months of 1961? How many of them have been assisted? And what will be the cost of assisting tuberculosis; non-citizens under the present scheme on the same basis as citizens? The Minister speaks of economy - a dangerous economy - because what he has pointed out is that they are sent to S.A.T.A. and given X-ray treatment. He has omitted to mention this basic factor, that they do not get the wherewithal to have adequate nourishment which would strengthen them in order to resist and overcome their disease, and if they are unemployed, as they must be, and if they are destitute - and these are the people I am speaking about - and if they have no adequate nourishment, then they are the breeding ground for tuberculosis for our citizens. Sir, they are not our citizens, but let us face it honestly: those people who live and work here are entitled, from the humane point of view, to assistance in respect of these matters. What is the Government saving money for? I consider it is - and I say this with regret - an inhuman approach to a very human problem. Sir, we come to the question of public assistance. The Minister said that I made an exaggerated statement. What statement did I make which was exaggerated? I said that it was not adequate to increase by five per cent in 1963 payments that we would be making in 1962. The $5 extra per head of household is for 1962, and it is only five per cent extra that we are increasing for 1963. Those are facts. I would not ask the Minister for Finance to withdraw any statement that he makes because he rather enjoys slanging me, but I do ask the Minister for Health to review the suggestion that I have indulged in exaggeration. I would like to go further on this subject. The head of a family will get $21 a month, which is not bad; the wife will get $10, and the children will get $5 each. You will see, Sir, that when we view, shall we say, our very healthy financial position, when we view the surpluses we have every year and the dynamic picture for the future, we can approach with more liberality the question of those who are officially starving. I am quite sure the Minister accepts the figure of the University that it requires, I think, $22 to live on the cheapest possible food scientifically purchased in order to maintain survival, that anything less than that means deterioration in health which will have an effect on the country. I know that he must accept these things as facts. Let us not speak of economy in the wrong places. Our wealth has permitted us this year to give back to the businesses - thanks to the Minister for Finance - the business registration fees of $2 million a year. These were the people who, he said, last year should contribute something, that they were a privileged class. This privileged class has had $2 million given back to them, and no more money is to be contributed by them next year or the year after. If we are in a position to be that generous to a privileged class, can we not show a little more humanity - no more than that - to the very under-class?

The Member for Anson says that by giving the head of a household $5 more, we are putting up the expenditure by five per cent.

No. On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

We are putting it up by $5 for 1962, but in the 1963 Budget, we are putting it up by only another five per cent, not by another $5 for 1963 from 1962.

We did approve the increase in expenditure. This is what the House has already voted - an increase from $7,760,000 to $8,980,000, which I make out to be an increase of 16 per cent to pay for this $5 increase. If we were to include all people suffering from tuberculosis in the T.B. treatment allowance scheme, we would also have to allow non-citizens to participate in our public assistance scheme. It is not possible to keep these two schemes distinct. If the rule is that public assistance is to be given only to a citizen, we will also have to apply the same rule to the person who suffers from T.B. and exclude the non-citizen. In order to get over that difficulty, payments have been made in very deserving cases to non-citizens suffering from T.B. from the Silver Jubilee Fund. On the question of community centres, I think the Member for Anson has made an accusation that these centres are for political activities. I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever visited a community centre to see how it operates. If he goes into one, he will see that there are all sorts of activities going on. There are young persons engaged in all sorts of handicraft work. There are activity instructors engaged in all the community centres and they do very valuable work. Handicraft work is not political activity. Sewing is not a political activity. Basket work is not a political activity. Radio engineering is not a political activity. I wish the Member for Anson will really go round the community centres to see what is going on, and once he does so, he will change his mind.

(In Mandarin): Just now, the Deputy Prime Minister gave us an assurance that the activities in the community centres will not be of a political nature. We welcome this assurance, but there are three points on which I want to be clear. 4.45 p.m. The P.A.P. has now lost the support of the people and no one goes to the branches of the P.A.P. The branches are now closed at night and their officials have gone to the community centres. The second point is that there are many community centres and their officials are officials of P.A.P. branches. The third point is that the Minister for Labour, in his reply, said that in view of the strike of employees of the People's Association, the People's Association has recruited many voluntary workers to help in the running of the community centres. He said that these voluntary workers are paid $4 allowance, and all of them are not P.A.P. members. As far as I know, many of these paid workers, the so-called executive secretaries, are, on the one hand, paid by the P.A.P., and, on the other hand, are also paid by the People's Association. Many of them are working in the community centres. I hope the Government can clarify these three points.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to reply to the Member for Havelock. He says that it is not true that P.A.P. branches have closed down and that it is merely a falsehood. He also says that members of the P.A.P. have become officials of community centres. It is not the people who have defected to the Barisan Sosialis but merely the executive committee that has gone over to the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Geylang East stood up to reply, I thought he was replying on behalf of the Government. Now I see that he is replying on behalf of the Party, and making an official admission that all the members of the executive committees of the branches of the P.A.P. have now come over to the Barisan Sosialis. I am indebted to him for that explanation. But my real purpose now is to make one point only, and that concerns the Minister's reply that the T.B. allowance cannot be given to non-citizens, because, if the Government decides to give the T.B. allowance to non-citizens, it has also got to give public assistance allowance to non-citizens as well. I am very disturbed by such an analogy and such logic, because basically the purposes of giving public assistance allowance and T.B. allowance are different. In the case of public assistance allowance, it is given as a welfare aid scheme. On the other hand, the tuberculosis allowance is given as a welfare aid scheme only secondarily, but primarily for the purpose of eradicating tuberculosis in Singapore. It is what we call in medical words a therapeutic allowance, because if T.B. allowance is given to those people who are infected with tuberculosis so that they may get well, the result would be an eradication of the reservoir of infection so that other people in Singapore may not be infected by the infected people. Therefore, not to give non-citizens a T.B. allowance would defeat the purpose of the allowance itself, because if one section of the reservoir of infection remains, it still serves to spread the disease. For the last two years I have been trying .to convince the Minister for Labour and Law then, and the Minister for Health and Law now, of the importance of the therapeutic aspect of the allowance. He does not seem to have understood it and still does not understand it today. I am very disturbed, Sir.

He need not lecture to me, Mr Speaker, Sir,I understand more about it than the Member for Nee Soon ever will. This is public assistance.

It is not public assistance.

It is paid by the Social Welfare Section of the Ministry of Labour. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that no payments are made to those who are chronic sufferers from T.B. The T.B. allowance vote will not be used to assist people who are chronic sufferers from T.B. It is only those who are able to recover that are assisted out of this public assistance vote. Mr Speaker, Sir, in point of fact, we can give the information the Member for Anson is seeking by looking through our records. There is a very small proportion of people who come from else where, who are non-citizens and who are suffering from T.B. whom we can assist, Mr Speaker, Sir, and assist adequately, through the Silver Jubilee Fund. This is a question that we understand. We are not ivory from the shoulder upwards. We understand all these problems and we know how to tackle them. The point is this, Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot make a logical distinction, however hard we try, between granting T.B. allowance to non-citizens and denying non-citizens public assistance. We cannot explain such a distinction to the public, Mr Speaker, Sir. They will not understand it even if we tried to so explain. So the only way is to use the other fund to help people who suffer from T.B. who are not citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I might make it very clear to the House that I had no intention of lecturing to the Minister, nay, far less to arrogate to myself the impertinence of lecturing to him. I was only speaking because I thought it was in the interests of the people of Singapore to know these facts. I feel the Minister is trying to lead us away from the point by saying that this T.B. allowance is not given to chronic patients. When the scheme was first introduced, Sir, it was introduced with a view to first treating all the actively infected patients, particularly those within the income earning group, that is to say, under the age of 55, and subsequently to isolate and treat all the other chronic cases. The whole purpose of the T.B. allowance, Sir, I wish to stress again, is to eradicate this disease, and it has been introduced satisfactorily in most Western countries where T.B. is now almost non-existent. I just want to make it very clear that I had no intention of lecturing to the Minister.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I for one am grateful for the intervention of the Member who last spoke. He was able to put the matter from the medical point of view and from his special knowledge when he was working with the Government. But I would like to draw the Minister's attention to certain facts which emanate from his own statement. He started off by telling us that the measure was necessary for economy purposes, if you remember. But now I understand him to say that it is necessary because of the rules. You cannot have rules for a non-citizen who has T.B. allowance but cannot have public assistance. Sir, I must confess - probably I am deaf - but I am just not able to follow that. We have a public assistance scheme which deals with our citizens and, frankly, I would like to touch on it this far: I consider that those who have given five years' employment to this area and have five years' residence should qualify even though they are non-citizens. But I touch on that en passant. Then we have tuberculosis allowance. Surely it is in the hands of the Government, and the only persons who can criticise the Government are the representatives of the people themselves who would criticise the Government for being more generous today by giving where it has not given in the past and by giving to non-citizens who are tubercular. Mr Speaker, he has indicated one aspect which somewhat lightens the load of our anxiety. He has assured us that some of the deserving cases receive assistance from the Jubilee Fund. I would like to ask him, Mr Speaker, whether he is in a position to give a firm assurance to this House that in all cases of persons suffering actively from tuberculosis who are destitute, deserving non-citizens will receive adequate assistance from the Silver Jubilee Fund for nourishment purposes. Can he give us that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have X-ray teams that are making surveys. In the reports that we have received of surveys made in various areas, it has been pointed out about 60 per cent of the total population have turned up to take X-rays. Out of this number, Mr Speaker, Sir, about 5 to 6 per cent have been found to be infected and are treated by S.A.T.A. Out of the rest of the 40 per cent, there might be quite a lot of them who are infected. We do not know what the incidence is. But whenever T.B. cases do come to our notice and when they appeal to us for funds and assistance, I can assure this House that not a single case has been ignored. Every time the fullest inquiries are made. There is a means tests for public assistance. There is also a means test for the T.B. allowance. Whenever we get to know that the breadwinner of a family is incapacitated because of T.B. I can assure the House that our officials play the game by them fairly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for that assurance. By that assurance, I understand that should people come to see me at my Meet-the-People sessions and tell me that they are not citizens of Singapore and would like to have public assistance or T.B. allowance, I will most certainly refer them to the Minister concerned.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to reply to the Member for Havelock. He said that there were about 100 members on the staff of the People's Association. When they left their posts, the People's Association did not recruit any new staff to replace them. The establishment of community centres is to provide certain facilities to enable the people to have the opportunity to learn certain things and to take part in certain cultural recreational activities. But some ex-members of the staff of the People's Association, as a result of influence and agitation by the Barisan Sosialis, left their posts in total disregard of the need of people for cultural recreational activities. Thus the People's Association thought it necessary to appeal to willing volunteers to step forward to run community centre activities. As to the allegation that there were some volunteers who were P.A.P. members, I wish to say that we accepted their offer since they were the people then prepared to sacrifice and offer their services. We accepted their services on this ground only. It is not because of their political background or any connection with the P.A.P. There were many P.A.P. members in various areas of Singapore. If these voluntary workers happened to be P.A.P. members, there was nothing wrong with that. But as to the activities which benefit the people so much -

On a point of clarification.

Will the Member please wait until I have the translation? A Member should never intervene until the Member speaking has completed his sentence.

I apologise, Sir.

Will the Minister for Home Affairs continue?

I have finished.

I must apologise for having disturbed the last speaker in the middle of a sentence, Sir. But I understood him to have challenged the members of the Barisan Sosialis, that none of them had volunteered for service, either in the People's Association or in the community centres. I would just like to inform him that the Member for Upper Serangoon and myself, who had served the People's Association for the last one and a half years, were expelled from the Board of the People's Association. We were prepared to serve, but we were expelled.

(In Mandarin): Just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said several things which I think are not quite true. He said that in respect of the voluntary workers, there were inevitably some who happened to be P.A.P. members. But what I said just now was that, although some were voluntary workers, they were paid $4 each per day. Among these voluntary workers, several were paid executive members of the P.A.P. I have raised this question in order to ask how it is possible for a person to get paid from the P.A.P. on the one hand, and on the other hand, to get paid from the People's Association. The Minister for Home Affairs said that some Members now on strike are irresponsible. It is regrettable for him to say so. We can recollect that several months ago, there was a big fire at Bukit Ho Swee. Without the workers from the People's Association, who worked hard day and night, I believe the relief work at that time could not have been carried out so smoothly. At that time I heard several Ministers praise highly some of these workers who are now on strike. How can they say now that these workers are irresponsible? Just now, the Minister for Home Affairs also said that the People's Association have not recruited new members of the staff. It is now the 18th of December. I remember it was last month that the Minister for Labour, when he replied to my question, said that he wanted to advertise vacancies to get new members for the People's Association. Now I wonder who is right - the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister for Labour? He also says that none of the Barisan Sosialis members have come forward to assist in the work of the community centres. Of course, this is but natural, because at present the staff of the People's Association are on strike. That cannot be denied. You may try to argue about it, but you just cannot deny it and convince the people that they are not on strike. So if in the course of a strike members of the Barisan Sosialis were to come forward to assist in the work of the community centres, then it would be tantamount to our trying to break the strike of the staff of the People's Association. This is what we are against. As regards the points I have raised just now, that is to say, that some of the branch executives of the P.A.P. have gone over to work in the community centres on a voluntary basis: and on another point, that many of the community centre workers are executives of the P.A.P., the Government has not answered them. I hope the Government will give us a positive and clear-out answer.

Order. Thereupon Mr SPEAKER left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I will suspend now. I will take the Chair again at 5.40 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.10 p.m. until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of debate on Question, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $100." Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we already dealt with this item when debating the 1962 Budget, and I do not want to waste the time of the Assembly. I have three points to make. There is no strike in the People's Association. It is not a strike. The workers of the People's Association voluntarily left their posts on political grounds. The second point is that after these irresponsible workers left their posts, we have not recruited any new workers to replace them. The Minister for Labour has said that the Government wants to advertise for new workers. That is something for the future. For the time being, we have not made any decision yet. The third point is that if those workers who voluntarily left their posts now feel sorry for what they have done in the past, and if they want to write down a statement expressing their regret for what they have done, then the Board of the People's Association will consider their cases.

It is a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here, Sir, because we are very glad that he has admitted that it was a mistake to have made community centres political in the past. We on this side of the House, especially the Barisan Sosialis, welcome his assurance that he will in future keep politics out of community centres and the People's Association. Sir, in view of the Government's admission of their past mistakes, would they give us an assurance, in spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has just said, that the present team leaders and centre leaders who are on strike will not be victimised because of their political views? 5.45 p.m. Could we also have an assurance that some reasonable settlement would be come to between the Government and the people who are on strike? In view of the admission that politics was a factor involved in the recruitment of P.A.P. members into the community centres, would the Government also give an assurance that interviews and questionings be not done at the P.A.P. headquarters, that Central Executive Committee members be not asked to interview and question candidates, and that membership of the P.A.P. be not a condition for the getting of work?

Hear, hear!

Another thing, Sir, which has not yet come out so far is that all these members have been asked to subscribe to the so-called P.A.P. Welfare Fund. We wonder -

Order. I was wondering whether all these details could not best be ventilated in the Commission of Inquiry, which the Prime Minister said would be appointed. Am I correct in saying that a Commission of Inquiry is to be appointed in regard to the People's Association.

If the Government will give that undertaking.

Is there no such undertaking? An hon. Member: No.

If the Government is willing to give that undertaking.

My understanding is that we are quite prepared to carry on with a Commission of Inquiry, but we are waiting for a draft of the terms of reference of this Commission of Inquiry from the Member for Upper Serangoon; but so far it has not been forthcoming.

But we want an assurance from the Government that whatever the terms of reference, they are willing to have this Commission of Inquiry. Are they going to give that undertaking? Do not turn round and say just because certain terms ,of reference are no good, therefore, they do not want to have it. Let us have their assurance. I will not waste the time of the House much longer, Sir. But I want to make one further point, that if community centres are meant to be non-political, let them be truly non-political. But if the Government intends to use these community centres as avenues of political meetings, then let them extend the same facilities to Opposition Members. Because we know for certain that the Prime Minister himself called a party meeting in one of the community centres. We hope such things will not happen again, and if they do, then let the same facilities be extended to all political Parties.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree with the last speaker about facilities for all political Parties. Fortunately, I am in a very independent position in this, and my opinion is that it is unhealthy, from the point of view of public welfare, that community centres could be used for political purposes, whatever the Party and however good it may be. I think the debate can be cut very short now. We have what I understand to be an assurance, and I would like this clear from the Minister for Finance, that a Commission of Inquiry will be appointed. I am quite sure he does not mean that he is waiting for the terms of reference from the Barisan Sosialis. No government could possibly mean that. I take it that what he means is that he is waiting for the terms of reference suggested by the Barisan Sosialis before the Government itself sets out the terms of reference. But am I to understand that whatever the terms of reference by the Barisan Sosialis, the Government will, in fact, appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the activities of the People's Association, the dismissal of the employees therein and the circumstances of their dismissal; all political activities in which it has indulged, and to make recommendations with a view to protecting community centres from political interference, generally speaking?

Sir, my colleague the Minister for Health and Law has gone to great pains to explain to the House that no political activity takes place in community centres. The community centres provide a range of recreational activities to persons living in the areas. That has never been disputed. No Member of the Opposition has ever given one iota of evidence that it is otherwise. As for the Commission of Inquiry, Mr Speaker, Sir, let it not be imagined by the Opposition that the Government is shrinking from this, because the misdeeds that were carried out in the administration of community centres were misdeeds perpetrated by former members of the P.A.P. who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest to you that there is some reluctance on the part of the Member for Upper Serangoon to put forward the draft terms of reference. We are not running away from this at all. We have nothing to fear. I say that when the time comes and the truth is out, those members of the Barisan Sosialis who were former members of the P.A.P. will be put in a position of extreme discomfiture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask a simple question. The Minister is telling us that the Government need not fear, that they will not shrink from it, that they will not run away. Just answer, will you, "yes" or "no"? It is a simple question. Do not evade. Maybe he does not mean to evade, but to me it is tantamount to evasion. Will the Government undertake to appoint a Commission of Inquiry on its own terms, quite naturally, Sir, after considering any terms of reference which might be suggested by the Barisan Sosialis, since he insists on them, and he will not accept any from me - I do not mind, Sir. But will he give us a firm assurance that the Government will appoint a Commission of Inquiry?

The Prime Minister has already given that assurance.

Will you?

How often have we got to repeat this simple thing, Sir? I say we are waiting for the draft terms of reference from the Member for Upper Serangoon. There is a point to this.

Hear, hear! Some hon. Members rose -

No. I will not catch the eye of any further Member. I am blind. Mr David Marshall?

I withdraw.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn? An hon. Member: No.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $8,679,830 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 49 -

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $100. Head 49, Sir, is the Ministry of Culture, a Ministry that is the creation and the creature of the P.A.P. with annually larger votes. 1962 - $9 million; 1963 - $5 million to account for part of the year. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P., conscious of the specious but not of the basic facts of life, are conscious of the value and influence of the propaganda machinery of Western and Communist nations. They have patterned the Ministry of Culture as the Ministry of Propaganda, seeking through selective and false reporting to create an atmosphere favourable to the P.A.P. Party and to the P.A.P. front bench. The word "culture" is a misnomer. It is, in fact, a party political machine and a Government propaganda machine. I do not know whether the Minister is really interested in culture. I do know, in so far as I can judge as a citizen, that he knows about culture as much as I know about the sputniks. Culture, Mr Speaker, is the sediment of the ages in the human spirit reflected in a people's way of life. The Ministry, apart from acting as a P.A.P. propaganda machine, seeks not so subtly to destroy the roots of the cultural heritage of our individual communities in the name of Malayan culture. What kind of Malayan culture does one expect to build on the quicksands and falsehoods of the P.A.P. political philosophy? They do not even recognise the elementary fact that to destroy racial cultures is to destroy the members of that race spiritually - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Dr Goh.

Point of clarification. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Sir, there is an allegation made that we are destroying racial culture. This is a serious matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. Violent emotions -

What is the clarification?

Well, I want evidence.

Prove it

Order.

I did not hear the point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

There was none.

Thank you, Sir,I say they do not recognise that in order to build a Malayan culture - that is their intention, which I doubt - it is necessary not merely to maintain respect for individual racial cultures, but also to strengthen them. It is on the strong pillars of the individual racial cultures of our peoples that we can build the common roof of a Malayan culture. You cannot, Sir, build anything but hypocrisy and humbug, the fear and inferiority complex in people whom you seek to make ashamed of the traditions of their respective races. I feel strongly about this aspect, Sir. It is fortunate our people are not misled and maybe the P.A.P. will ultimately recognise that the road it is taking is a dangerous road for all concerned. Sir, on the minor aspect of the P.A.P. acting as a political propaganda machine, I draw attention particularly to Radio Singapore, now popularly know as Radio P.A.P. Much was expected from this organisation. The Prime Minister told us we could not have - what was it, Sir? - rock-'n-roll; that is right. Instead we can have rhymes about smoking cowdung cigarettes every morning. That is the extent of the changes. But what we do have is a completely dishonest, I repeat, dishonest News Division. Sir, I would like, if I may, to table the text of a broadcast allegedly made by the Head of the News Division of the Ministry of Culture, Mr Li Vei-Chen, of the merger debate which, to my mind, is a dishonest travesty of the proceedings of this House.

Order. If the Member wishes to make an allegation that there has been a breach of privilege in this House, then in that case the proper method is for him to give notice of a motion. That motion will then be considered by me, and if I agree that there is a prima facie matter which affects the privileges of the House, I will refer it to the Committee of Privileges. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this came to my attention on Saturday morning. I seek your guidance here. Is it not proper to deal with it under this Head, because it does affect the conduct of the Ministry of Culture?

If it is an allegation of a breach of privilege, there is a Standing Order which tells the hon. Member what to do.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister did make light of complaints from the Opposition about Radio P.A.P. being used for P.A.P. political purposes. He quoted the number of lines given, inter alia, to myself. It is not the quantity of coverage. It is the points they permit you to be heard on. You do appreciate that in expending one's points, one might perhaps take ten minutes in referring to a single aspect which can be dealt with under its relevant head perhaps succinctly in three lines. It is a question of, if they give you your full ten minutes, touching on one of the minor points you have been dealing with but excluding completely the main paint, as they excluded in the case of the Member for Queenstown the pivot of his attack on the White Paper by ignoring his complaint about citizenship. That is dishonest reporting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not listen out of consideration for myself to Radio P.A.P. I have unfortunately had occasion to hear reports of what had transpired. On one occasion, by accident, I did listen and I considered that a certain part was a gross misrepresentation. I wrote to the Head of the News Division asking for a copy of the transcript of what was broadcast. I was informed that the Ministry would not release, not even to Members maligned, copies of the transcript of what was broadcast over this political radio organisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, when there is a legitimate or seemingly legitimate complaint particularly by a Member of the Assembly about a radio broadcast, it is important that he should at least be permitted the right of inspection of the transcript in order to ascertain to what extent he has been misrepresented or maligned. I have to inform you, Sir, that I did mention to the Head of the Radio Division and to the Head of Radio Singapore that I required inspection for the purposes of making known to this Assembly - which was then sitting - the facts, and I was refused. Not until four days afterwards did the Minister approach me and say, "You can have the inspection now." By that time, Sir, as you are aware, a motion that the matter had suddenly arisen would not have been accepted by you and could not have been accepted by you. It would have meant a substantive motion and it would have meant resuscitating what was already dead. I say that that sort of approach is not an honest and proper approach and is lacking in adequate consideration not only for Assemblymen but for all those who may be maligned - as they are - by the radio organ of the P.A.P. The people of Singapore have suffered, and suffered grievously, from the diarrhoea of words which the P.A.P. has poured through its radio organ day after day, and from the hysteria of Communism spearheaded by their Prime Minister. They were so sick of it that the town was full of jokes about it. The radio has been abused and the long suffering citizens of Singapore have had their bellyfull of it. This amendment is by way of protest on two aspects: one, the distorted political concept of culture, and, two, the gross abuse of Radio Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was shocked to hear the allegation made by the Member for Anson because the point raised by him was the same as that he made in the Anson by-election. During the last two years, open-air concerts have been held in all parts of Singapore. In this respect, I believe the people of Singapore, irrespective of race, will agree with me that we have encouraged the bringing together of the many arts and cultures of the different races. We are also encouraging the bringing together of the arts and cultures of the East and West. By this means, we hope to nurse a new Malayan culture. If the Member for Anson will .admit that he does not know the significance of culture, then it is excusable. However, if he alleges that the Minister for Culture does not understand culture, I hope he will make an appointment to be at a forum with the Minister for Culture.

No time.

(In Mandarin): Maybe what the Member for Anson knows is striptease culture. During the past two years, we have never -

On a point of clarification or on a point of order if you like, Sir,I did not hear what was said, and I do not think the interpreter told us.

The complaint is that the interpreter did not interpret the last sentence. Can we have the last sentence again?

(In Mandarin): Just now I said that what the Member for Anson knows is only striptease culture.

On a point of order, Sir,I consider it a point of order to have a translation of what is said. I have not heard the translation and I am entitled -

I think the allegation is that the culture of the Member for Anson is a striptease culture.

Ah!

(In Mandarin): I say this because when the Member for Anson was the Chief Minister he received Rose Chan and he had certain contacts and connections with her.

On a point of order. I do not consider it a laughing matter. It is a point of privilege, Sir. I ask that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is a grossly dishonest and improper suggestion to make that I have a relationship with Rose Chan - a striptease actress. It is only disgraceful and disgusting people who can think like that.

Order. I am not aware that the Parliamentary Secretary meant what he said in the sense taken by the Member for Anson. All I understood is that there was an occasion alleged by the Parliamentary Secretary that a striptease dancer was received by the Member for Anson in his official capacity. I think that is all. Is that it, Mr Parliamentary Secretary?

(In Mandarin): Sir, what you have interpreted is quite correct. The allegation of the Member for Anson against the Government is an insult: to the cultural bodies in Singapore. During the last two years, we have never received any complaint from any cultural body alleging that the Government has victimised the cultures of the different races. They have never been dissatisfied with the policy of the Government on culture. During the last two years, when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, I had never received any complaint from the Chinese, the Indians, the Malays or the Eurasians alleging that the Government's policy was to destroy racial culture. It is only the Member for Anson who alleges that there is dissatisfaction among the races, and it is unfortunate that he has brought forward this kind of argument in this House. During the last 2� years, the Government has encouraged Asian cultural bodies to be conscious of their arts and cultures which have been suppressed by the colonial government. A play entitled "Ch'i Yen" was staged in Singapore. This play is about the great poets of old China. If we wanted to destroy Chinese culture, would we have given permission to a local cultural body to stage this play in the Victoria Theatre? The Malay and Tamil local cultural bodies have similarly staged their own dances and plays. 6.15 p.m. We try to draw the essence of the cultures of all races and bring about an interflow, so that there will be a mutual understanding of the cultures of all races. And through this interflow of culture, we try to create a Malayan culture and art. Just now the Member for Anson raised a question concerning a member of the staff of Radio Singapore, Mr Li Vei-Chen, in relation to his broadcasts. In this respect, if all of us make a serious study of his broadcasts, we will know -

Order. As regards this particular broadcast, the hon. Member for Anson has made a serious allegation, and that is that there has been breach of privilege. I have indicated the course of action he should take, if he wishes to pursue the matter. I do not think we should open a debate of this nature.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Anson has made an irresponsible allegation against the Government. I hope he can sub stantiate his allegation against Government's action in trying to create a Malayan culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to all those who are straining at the leash to answer that Member, for their indulgence in permitting me to rise again. And I rise, Sir, to point out the dishonesty of this culture which seeks to make an issue of the fact that a lady came to visit me in public, with reporters and my staff present. She was perfectly decently dressed and asked me something about a licence. She happened to be a striptease artiste. They used what was perfectly proper conduct on my part, even though it may not be proper to the P.A.P. who only receive the rich and have no time for the poor, to suggest that I had relations with a striptease artiste, which was the phrase I heard interpreted.

That is wrong!

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated in no uncertain terms that the interpretation put by the Member for Anson on that remark is wrong. He has said that in so many words.

Thank you, Sir. But in the circumstances I would like to point out that such an interview could have no possible relevance at all in the context of this debate, or of my having an understanding of culture being a striptease. It was intended for malicious prejudice. Sir, who is guilty of striptease culture? It is this Government. Whether it is under the aegis of the Minister for Culture is a matter for this, House to judge. But we have had, month after month, this striptease tearing of little veil by little veil, and little dribs and drabs of information about merger. Striptease culture? These are the artistes. Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary says that no dissatisfaction has been indicated to the Government by cultural bodies. Maybe not to the Government. I know to what extent the people of Singapore befo re Hong Lim and Anson had been terrified and intimidated by this group of people when their leader, the Prime Minister, spoke about "We have to be a little tough." There has been grave intimidation of the people of Singapore, and it is only since Hong Lim and Anson that the voice of the people has been raised in protest. I shall not keep the others who are now straining at the leash, but to give the gentleman who spoke last all the particulars he seeks.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was surprised just now that the Member who answered the Member for Anson was not the Minister for Culture but his Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps the Minister does not understand culture, and that is why someone else answered for him. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said that the Government was trying to promote cultural activities among the various communities. At the same time, he said the Government had never heard of any complaints from any cultural body. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe everybody will agree that we must have a Malayan culture. In the course of promoting this Malayan culture, we should not do anything to the disadvantage of a certain culture, and talk about it in the Assembly now, because we still do not know what form Malayan culture will take. This will depend on how the cultures of the various communities develop in future. Therefore, in respect of this question, namely, the future of Malayan culture, we should not stress the culture of a certain community and praise or denounce its merits, because this will only lead to certain misunderstanding and perhaps to some disastrous results. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has just now said that last year the Ministry of Culture approved a drama called "Ch'i Yen" and allowed it to be played on the stage of the Victoria Memorial Theatre. This drama was presented by the students -of the Chinese High School. I saw the drama myself, perhaps with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. According to information received by me, the Ministry of Home Affairs nearly refused to allow this drama to be staged. But the Minister for Culture, in order to show that he was encouraging cultural activities, asked the Special Branch to approve the staging of this particular drama. During the course of its presentation on the stage, the Government ruled that the contents of this drama should not be stressed too much and that certain aspects of it should not be dramatised. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education can guarantee any future stagings of this drama, and whether in future Government will still have regulations and conditions when giving permission for this drama to be staged. During the course of the debate last week, I pointed out that the policies of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Home Affairs were contradictory. As far as I know, there will be a drama staged at the Victoria Memorial Theatre next year. The title is "The Song of the Coconut Forest" - "Yeh Lin Chiao Kerh". According to what we know, the Government has not allowed this play to be staged. But, Mr Speaker, the whole play is based on the local situation, namely, a presentation of the lives and activities of the people, which the Minister concerned has professed to encourage. But this play has been banned. This morning I went to a book-store' to buy a book on this play. I have not made a careful study of its contents, and therefore am not sure whether they are as undesirable as the Minister has claimed them to be. And I do not know whether they are similar to those in the book called "The Reminiscences of Fire" which was banned by the Minister concerned.

Sir, I cannot understand the Member for Choa Chu Kang. He has not even read the play. So what is he talking about? He is talking about something which he has not read!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's decisions and the work of the Government are usually for show only. What I want to stress here is that we must give more chances to local artistes and writers to develop their talents. If the Government think that the presentation of local realities and facts are of a Communist overtone, then I say there is no need for the Ministry of Culture to be in existence, and there is no need for the Ministry to encourage or promote local writers to write works representing the actual way of life and real facts as exist locally. From this example, we can say that this year, on National Day, we planned to organise a concert. One of the items on the programme was "Tsai Hua Pu Tieh". This item has not yet been approved. Mr Speaker, Sir, an application has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and he has not got permission for it.

(In Malay): Point of clarification.

No, the Member is not giving way. 6.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, at that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development mentioned this question to me, and I had also -

Order. I have allowed the hon. Member to go into one or two details, but I must remind him that we are now talking on general principles. I do not know what general principles he wishes to illustrate by this particular incident.

On a point of order. I would like to draw the attention of the Chair to the time limit.

The debate on this amendment can go on to 7.00 p.m. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned this incident just now because I wanted to disprove what the Government has claimed. They claim that they want to encourage local artistes to produce their own works with a local realistic background. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I said that this item had been staged several times and for many years in Malaya. It had been staged on many occasions during the Aneka Regam Raakyat concerts. I do not know whether the Minister for Culture is really encouraging the free development of the cultures of the various communities. Why did they ban a simple item such as this? That is the contradiction between the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Home Affairs. I hope that in future the Ministry of Culture will be more liberal towards local artistes and that it will be more realistic in their approach to local works. It should not think that local works are communistic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson made certain allegations against the News Division. He made references to letters that he had written to the News Division and implied that the replies were not prompt or that they were not forthcoming. I want to draw your attention, Sir, to the type of letter the Member for Anson wrote. I have a copy of a letter. I shall read an extract, Sir, and I shall make copies of this letter available to the Clerk. 'I intend to say this in public on Sunday night and I hope you will be there to hear it and to sue me. I intend also to say it in the Assembly -'

Order. I do not think we should go into these details. The complaint by the Member for Anson was that he never got prompt replies.. And what was the reason? The reason was the tone of his letters. Well, say so and be done with it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the person to whom he addressed the letter is a civil servant. The Member for Anson was once a Chief Minister, though short-lived. He knows well that if he has any complaints against any department in the Ministry, the avenue is open to him either through the Standing Orders or to approach the Minister. But he threatens a civil servant, knowing full well that a civil servant is not able to defend himself. That is the point, Sir. I think such behaviour, of using his official position to threaten and abuse a civil servant, is most unbecoming of an honourable Member of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over $5 million has been asked to promote a Malayan culture. Unless the Ministry knows exactly what it wants and what is to be achieved, this is going to be a waste of money. From what the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has said, it looks as if culture to them means songs, dances and things having relation to the stage. This is not true, Sir. Culture is a way of life. The work of the Ministry of Culture is to promote goodwill and understanding between the different races, and to promote an understanding of the way of life of the different races. Probably the putting up of the dances, songs and art of the different races does promote an understanding of the different races in Singa pore. But I have asked this question a couple of years ago. It has never been answered satisfactorily. I wonder whether it can be answered today. What does the ex-Parliamentary Secretary mean when he says, in effect, that he hopes that a Malayan culture is to be born in the future out of the different cultures that are being displayed today? Does he mean a Chinese dance more malayanised or an Indian dance more Chinese? What is the Ministry's idea of a Malayan culture or a Malayan dance that they are going to promote out of all these Malay, Indian, Chinese and European dances? Have they a clear idea of what exactly is their aim when they talk about the birth of a new Malayan culture?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, let me say that I sincerely congratulate the Member for Anson who, I know, is a well-known lawyer. He now professes to be an expert in matters of culture. In his speech, he mentions That he greatly respects all the various cultures existing in Singapore. I support him in that respect. But if you read his speech between the lines, he is insinuating that the present Government is ignoring the cultures of the various races. This will stir up communal feelings. I still remember - I have forgotten the title of the book - that there are cultural leaders who say that colonialism cannot eradicate a nation unless the culture of that particular nation is wiped out. A nation cannot be continuously colonised by the colonialists unless, first and foremost, the culture of that particular nation is colonised. This has a great influence on the culture of a nation. For that reason, Mr Speaker, because the question of culture is very important, let us not discuss something which will have detrimental consequences to our cosmopolitan society. We do not wish political influences to affect the people into thinking that the Government is trying to destroy Chinese culture, and similarly that it is trying to destroy Tamil culture or Indian culture. Let the Government be damned if it wants to destroy Malay culture. This has been uttered by the various political leaders during election time in order to get votes. They tell the Chinese people not to forget their culture of a thousand years old, and that they have a traditional culture of their own. Mr Speaker, let us not try to revive communal feelings if we are sincere in our efforts to build a united nation with an undivided loyalty to this land. To build a Malayan culture is not a simple matter. It will take a long time to evolve a Malayan culture. It cannot be achieved during the short space of few hours or a few days. To create a Malayan culture out of the various cultures and the various religious beliefs is surely not an easy matter. As suggested by the Member for Anson, by the creation of a Ministry of Culture, a united Malayan culture could easily be developed. The creation of a culture cannot be forced upon the people. As one leader did say on one occasion, "I can influence thousands, in fact, millions of people to respect me, but I cannot force them to smile at me because such a smile comes from the bottom of their hearts." Likewise, Mr Speaker, the question of culture. We cannot force any kind of culture upon the people. The people themselves must voluntarily accept the culture, a culture which they themselves wish to make as the basis for a Malayan nation. Therefore, a national culture can only be born from a sincere and honest desire of the people who wish to practise it and without its being forced on them. Therefore, in a country like Singapore, where there is a multi-racial society, we must have a Ministry of Culture. It is not for the purpose of forcing a certain culture upon the people. But it is the responsibility of this Ministry to bring about goodwill and understanding between the various races so that they can live in harmony and peace. Otherwise, if they do not know one another, there will be no feelings of love. So the first responsibility of this Ministry is to introduce the culture of the various people among themselves. 6.45 p.m. As an example, if plays are performed by Malays, the audience are limited to Malays; similarly with the Chinese and the Indians. But with the creation of this Ministry of Culture, we can stage the dances of the various races and have an audience composed of the various races. If the Chinese put up a lion dance play, it does not mean that it will swallow up the Malays. Similarly, if the Malays perform the art of self-defence, it does not mean that it is stabbing the Chinese. If they can understand the meaning of the word "art", then they will not be afraid of the lion dance nor will they fear the art of self-defence. So the first and primary job of culture is to introduce the various cultures. We should not forget that to create a Malayan culture the most important factor is language. Language is the instrument to unite all races for the purpose of creating culture. For that reason, it is our declared policy that Malay be the national language. If this can be practised as a first step - we are going to have National Language Week - then I am confident, Mr Speaker, that this matter will be resolved with the best of intentions. Language reflects the nation. In addition, Mr Speaker, when talking about all these matters, we must have a people who owe their allegiance to this country. If they realise that they will live and die here, then the spirit of compromise will emerge between the various races. After that it will be easy. We have been segregated by the colonialists. We should not forget the old diseases left by the colonialists and which cannot be eradicated quickly. I wish to warn all political leaders not to stir up communal feelings in cultural and religious matters which may lead to undesirable consequences in our multi-racial society. I hope they will not use this means for political ends. They will win, but let us not forget the disastrous consequences. For that reason, Mr Speaker, I very much regret the speech made by the Member for Anson. In the beginning he has said he has all the respect for the various cultures. Then he alleges that the Government is killing Chinese culture. I hope this sort of thing will not happen in our community.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the last speaker tells you he regrets my speech. Sir, I would like to say there is one speech from the Opposition which I really enjoyed. It was a magnificent speech, and with much of it I agree -

From the Government?

I beg your pardon, Sir, from the opposite benches. Sir, there are two or three misunderstandings. I did not say that the creation of a Malayan culture was easy. Of course, not. At no time it is to my mind impossible for any group to create. It is a matter of evolution of time. Nor did I single out Chinese culture as being attacked by the Government. But there is one aspect with which I must disagree with the Member. Sir, he has the right approach when he says, do not stir communal issues; they could have dangerous repercussions. That is true. But, Sir, there is a far greater danger in allowing an ulcer to fester quietly than to lance it. I say it is wise to bring into the open the deep-felt emotional anger about certain aspects of Government policy. It clears the air and it also shows Government what the Opposition and some people in the country think. You heard a Member on the Government Front benches tell you that nobody has complained to the Government. If we all follow the advice of the last speaker and do not mention it because we fear arousing communal emotions, we will have exactly that attitude. Nobody complains; therefore, it is all right. The question of communal issues is like a nettle. Grasp it firmly, grasp it cleanly, deal with it honestly, do not pursue it beyond what is necessary to make the point. Sir, we disagree there, and he is entitled to his views. To my mind, it is healthy and it is necessary to raise an issue of that character. Sir, of course, I agree with the last speaker that we need a Ministry of Culture, but I say we do not need a Ministry of P.A.P. Propaganda. There is a distinction. We need a Ministry of Culture. I agree with him completely in his assessment of some of the aspects of work which the Ministry of Culture could achieve but which, unfortunately, the Ministry is not pursuing seriously. Finally, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kapor - I am sorry; I think he holds an office in Government which I have definitely forgotten.

He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture.

Culture? Forgive me, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has listened so attentively to my speech. He misunderstood the only point he stood on. I did not complain, Sir, that I received no reply. I said the reply I received refused me sight of the script. Then he referred to another letter in which I invited a certain civil servant to attend my rally where I had intended to attack him, and he said that was improper conduct.

Order. I have ruled that out.

No.

Yes. I have ruled out that letter.

You ruled out the letter but not the reference, I thought, Sir; his reference to it. I just want to make this point. If I am going to attack a civil servant, surely it is only right and proper that I should write and tell him, and give him the opportunity to be present. That is my understanding of culture, obviously not that of the gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Ministry and whose understanding of culture I cannot possibly agree with. To my mind, it is the essential fairness to the officer in question that he should be invited to be present and I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that was improper conduct.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear from the Member for Anson, for he has tried to draw back what he said just now. Because just now he clearly alleged that the Government was destroying the root of cultural heritage. But now he has swallowed his own words. Mr David Marshall rose-

Point of order?

Yes, Sir. Surely if I am misrepresented it is a point of order. He says I have swallowed my words and withdrawn what I have said. That is not correct, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang said that we should allow the mutual interflow of the cultures of the various communities and not try to stress their merits or defects. I agree with this very much. But then he alleged that we had interfered with the free staging of dramas and plays in Singapore. We have an executive committee. When an application by any organisa tion to stage any programme is refused, the decision can be reviewed by this committee. As far as I know, there is a book-stall in Singapore - I think I can tell the Member for Choa Chu Kang that it is the Youth Book Store - which has published many works and books by local artistes. According to what I know, the Government has banned only two of these plays. One describes how the police of the Federation of Malaya used their gun barrels to murder rubber tappers who were unarmed. But this kind of action in this environment of ours, in this multi-racial society of ours, is perhaps that of the Communists in the Federation. Another point the Member for Choa Chu Kang has raised is about dances. We have only banned those dances which were imported from Communist China praising Mao Tse-Tung and the People's Republic of China. If we allow this kind of publications, dances or dramas or plays to be imported into our multi-racial society, it perhaps may cause suspicion among the Malays and the other communities. Another play was about certain strikes. This was written by a local play-wright. Now we are encouraging that all kinds of strikes should be settled by peaceful means and negotiations. For instance, a book describes how the strikes in 1956 were staged and how the police used force to cause bloodshed and so on, would such a book be desirable in the present circumstances? The last point is that before we approve any item of programme to be staged, we have to take into regard our ultimate objective of merger with the Federation of Malaya. In this respect, we have to see to it that we have favourable conditions and an environment that are conducive to merger, and not try to cause any suspicions among any races. 7.00 p.m. Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $100."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 23; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 10. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Buang bin Omar Mohammad Akib. Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong, Lee Siew Choh. Madam. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lim Yew Hock. Goh Chew Chua Lin You Eng. Goh Keng Swee. Low Par Tuck. Hoe Puay Choo, Marshall, David. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Teck Him. Rajah, A. P. Lim Cheng Lock. Sheng Nam Chin. Mammen, John. Tan Cheng Tong. Mohd. Ariff bin Tee Kim Leng. Suradi. Thio Chan Bee. M. Ismail Rahim. Wong Soon Fong. Ong Pang Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Abstention. Sahorah binte Nil Ahmad, Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Koh, C.H. Lee Kuan Yew. Lingam, S. V. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajaratnam, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Teo Hock Guan. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $5,056,080 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 50 -

The time allotted for Head 50 expires at 7.10 p.m. I propose to add five minutes to the time allotted for Head 50, a further five minutes for Head 51, and five minutes for Head 52. Head 50 - the time expires at 7.15 p.m.

Sir, I rise to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $100. I will be very brief, Sir. There is under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance a Review Tribunal which, at the time I formulated that Ordinance as a temporary measure, was presided over by a Judge and it had the power to make its own orders, and if it released a person the Government could not interfere. This P.A.P. Government which says it is socialist and for liberty removed the protection of the Judge. It also removed -

Order. I do not think the hon. Member can say that the P.A.P. Government removed it. It was a decision of this Assembly. As far as I can remember, I think it was an amendment of the Ordinance. If the hon. Member is not satisfied, he must then beg leave to introduce another Bill to bring back the old provisions.

If it please you, Sir, the protection of the Judge was removed at the instance of this Government. The provision whereby the Tribunal had the right to make the order was also removed at the instance of this Government. There !is nothing left but the power to advise. Sir, the reason given by the Prime Minister was that the Judges were unhappy at being associated with the administration of these provision. Imagine my surprise when I discovered than, in fact, it is a High Court Judge who is presiding over one of these Tribunals. Now I would like to know whether it is the Government's intention, insofar as it can for the period in question, to reinstate the previsions of the protection given by not merely having a High Court Judge, as it has now, but also by giving that Tribunal the power to make the order and not merely to advise. I would also ask the Minister on how many occasions up to now has the Government rejected or not acted in accordance with the advice of the Tribunal.

Sir, the subject raised by the Member for Anson was clearly explained by the Prime Minister when he moved the amendment to the P.P.S.O. in 1959. The main reason was that the Judges were unhappy - as the hon. Member knew full well. In view of impending merger, I think it is highly undesirable for the Government to move a further amendment to the P.P.S.O., which will mean a departure from what is in force in the Federation at the moment, because I think the Internal Security Act of the Federation also provides for an Advisory Committee and not a Tribunal. As far as I am aware, Sir, I do not think I have acted against the advice of the Advisory Committee. I am not very sure, but I do not think I have done so.

I said that I understood the Prime Minister to say that the Judges were removed by this House at the request of the Government because they were unhappy at being associated with the administration of the pro visions. But the curious thing is that there is a High Court Judge. So that unhappiness could not have been real. Why should the power not be given back, or an assurance not be given to this House that the Government will at all times act in accordance with the advice of this Tribunal?

So far as I can see, the difference is that in the case of the adivisory Committee the Chairman may be a High Court Judge but he only gives advice. The responsibility lies with the Executive and not with the Judiciary.

Will you give me an assurance?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $931,750 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 51 -

The time is now altered to 7.25 p.m. The time at which consideration will end is 7.25 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would enquire whether, since the Government is so confident of what they call merger, this sum for defence services would be carried by the Federation and is part of the $10 to $12 million which we will be giving them for the purposes of defence and a diplomatic corps. I would enquire whether the Government is conscious of the need, for the future, of re fraining from utilising the military forces in a provocative manner. 7.15 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the City Council strike - I shall call the Public Daily-Rated Employees Federation for simplicity the City Council strike - troops were used in a highly provocative manner insofar as I could judge myself. It was wholly unnecessary. Everywhere that I could see in the places where I saw these troops, the strikers were completely peaceful. Sir, there was no need to use, troops at all so far as I could judge, and the police were adequate. Again this morning we see newspaper pictures and reports of troops being used in the eviction of 42 individuals. Surely, Sir, our Police Force is adequate. I am a little uneasy at what seems to me to be a provocative use of military force, and I would request an explanation.

To the first point raised by the Member for Anson - whether in the event of merger this would be a commitment of the Central Government - the answer is obviously "Yes". The White Paper is quite clear on that. Now, Sir, the use of troops. They were necessary in the City Council strike, because on the first day of the strike, strikers resorted to illegal methods of intimidation. It was, there fore, necessary to mount a show of force, and this had an immediate salutary effect. After this demonstration of strength, the strikers in their picketing action complied strictly with the law, with the result that we went through that strike peacefully and without incident after the second day. And I say that, far from the use of troops being provocative, they were deployed to give the minimum of provocation. Sir, we do not need any advice from the Member for Anson on such unfortunate occasions as may arise on how to use troops, the police, and so forth. Members will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during the years 1955-56 when the Member for Anson was at the helm of State, we saw him being chased from pillar to post. He tried to please people who were not there to argue in a reasonable and logical way. He tried to deceive himself into believing that, when you are confronted with a political force which is, not out to seek a reasonable settlement of issues, you can argue with them, you can treat them as reasonable people across the negotiating table. Sir, we saw during those days how the Member for Anson, when he was Chief Minister, was chased from pillar to post, allowed the administration to collapse, allowed -

That is false.

- the whole apparatus of State to be regarded with contempt by people who should have been taught a lesson. The result of his feeble, weak, vacillating policies was that ultimately when the Communists mounted the effort against him, he was reduced to a quivering, whimpering, half-demented pulp of a man -

You are a liar!

Order. The Member for Anson knows that [Interruption]. Order. The Member for Anson knows that is an unparliamentary word. It must never be used in this Assembly. He must apologise to the House and withdraw that word.

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

And withdraw the word.

I withdraw.

Sir, history is a record of facts. It is quite unnecessary for me to conjure up imaginative events when they are recorded in newspaper accounts, when everyone knew that when the major effort was mounted against him, he fell sick. And in Singapore, one degree north of Equator, where the temperature is always above 80 degrees, the Member for Anson had to go around in woollen suits, and eventually -

Order. Is all that necessary or relevant? I will refuse to allow any details of that nature.

The point I want to make is that when we deployed the instruments of force which every State must have at its command, the objective is not to provoke action. The objective is to subdue any thought of illegal resistance - to convince the persons against whom such a demonstration of force is necessary, that it is quite unprofitable for them to mount illegal resistance. If we had relied on the innocent approach recommended by the Member for Anson, we could have perhaps sent a couple of policemen to each of these Work Brigade camps and tell them to behave themselves. Far from achieving this objective, Mr Speaker, Sir, might I say that the result would be that the mutinous members of the Brigade might have been tempted, or probably would have been tempted, to assault policemen, the arm of the law; the police on whom we rely to enforce law and order? It was, therefore, necessary in this exercise to have such a show of overwhelming strength that even the most reckless of the members of the Brigade would have been brought immediately to their senses and complied with the orders which had been lawfully given to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not regard this exercise with any particular pride or happiness, this series of events in the Work Brigade. It has, to the Government, been a regrettable thing. It is regrettable because so many hundreds of young men and women, whom we are trying to assist to start a useful career in life, have been deceived by evil men conspiring behind the scenes to use these persons as instruments of their policy to discredit and bring down the Government. It gives us no pleasure at all, Mr Speaker, Sir, for us to carry out this exercise; but the decision having been taken, discipline must be enforced, and law and order must be maintained. We do not shrink from these measures. Quite unlike the Member for Anson, Sir, who tries to avoid unpleasant decisions. When the time comes for us to make an unpleasant decision, we stand up to the challenge, Mr Speaker, Sir. We do not scoot like cowards, like the Member for Anson.

Order.

I object.

Order. The Minister must now withdraw the word "coward" used of a Member of this House.

As you so wish, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw.

Time has -

On a point of order. Is it permissible that I request that those statements should be referred to the Committee of Privileges? Because they are false. He has made repeated false statements about my past actions, and I do say, Sir, they should be referred to the Committee.

I will not act under the Standing Orders in this context, but if the hon. Member is dissatisfied, he can file a notice of a motion alleging that there is a breach of privilege or an abuse of privilege.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $5,452,120 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 52 -

The time is now extended to 7.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of attracting further abuse from the Minister -

Order. Is the hon. Member moving? I am only interested in that.

I am indeed moving, Mr Speaker, Sir. I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 52 he reduced by $100. And I say, Sir, at the risk of being abused by the Minister -

On a point of order. Is it in order to suggest that an hon. Member abuses another Member?

Order. The Chair is in a very difficult position if he has to decide what is and what is not abuse. I think jibes and counter-jibes have gone across the table. Some of the jibes can be construed as abuse and some cannot. Mr David Marshall.

I did refer to any hon. Member.

Only three minutes more.

If it please you, Sir. One can hardly hope for satisfaction when one can only register a protest. We have been told that there is $1�* million less in Entertainment Duty for 1962, and we anticipate for 1963. We know, Sir, that 14 out of the 19 persons appointed to the Film Censors Board of Appeal are P.A.P. persons. I did earlier ask, Sir, in a speech on the Budget Statement for an answer. I did not get any, and it looks like I am not going to get any. In those circumstances, I shall press for a division. The Government, Sir, in acting in the way it has acted, and the Minister, in acting in the way he has acted, has shown a disregard for the Opposition and a contempt for democratic procedure. Sir, apart from protesting against the conduct of the Government in appointing P.A.P. personnel to the Film Censors Board of Appeal, and apart from pro testing against conduct which seems to have resulted in a loss of $1� million to our Treasury, I now add a protest at the conduct of the Minister who, l say, has shown by his attitude a few moments ago his complete unworthiness for his post or any post at all. *At page 18, line 18 of the stencilled copy of the Annual Budget Statement, there was a typographical error. "$1� million" should read "$� million". Mr Ong Pang Boon rose -

Half a minute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am completely at a loss -

The Minister has only half a minute.

Mr Speaker, I think the Member for Anson is a bit confused over -

Order. Time has expired. 7.30 p.m. Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $100."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 23; Absent, 11. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Buang bin Omar Mohammad Akib. Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong. Lee Siew Choh. Madam. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lim Yew Hock. Goh Chew Chua. Lin You Eng. Goh Keng Swee. Low Por Tuck. Hoe Puay Choo, Marshall, David. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Teck Him. Rajah, A. P. Lim Cheng Lock. Tan Cheng Tong. Mammen, John. Tee Kim Leng. Mohd. Ariff bin Thio Chan Bee. Suradi. Wong Soon Fong. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Abstention. Ramaswamy, S. Nil. Sahorah binte Ahmad, Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Koh, C.H. Lee Kuan Yew. Lingam, S. V. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajaratnam, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Sheng Nam Chin. Teo Hock Guan. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $230,300 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 53 - The sum of $1,347,240 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 54 - The sum of $613,300 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 55 - The sum of $14,414,580 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 57 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $100.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr David Marshall. Sir, for a number of years now, there has been a serious shortage of trained staff in our schools. We hope that by 1963 the Minister will have enough trained staff to, prevent this instability of staffing in the schools. Sir, this instability of staffing has led to an unsatisfactory state of affairs. If heads of schools are transferred after one or two years, and sometimes only after a few months, or trained teachers are taken from one school to reinforce a new school, although the Ministry may find it necessary, yet from the point of view of the parents and the students, the whole position is not satisfactory. Sir, judging from the point of view of the heads and the teachers themselves, if they know they are going to be in a school for three or five years, they will think not of the short-term objective, but of the long-term objective. They know that if they plan a thing and carry it out, they will be able to see the results. But if they have no such certainty, they will reason out that it is no use planning something if they are not going to be there to see the fruits of what they have sown. The result of such instability, Sir, is that the heads regard themselves as stop-gap measures, and the best thing to do is to keep the machinery moving with the result that the children and the schools suffer. From the point of view of the parents, they feel that they cannot identify the school as being linked up with a certain head or a certain senior teacher; the staffing is so fluid that they themselves get confused. The children, like little children who see their parents changing and their nurses changing all the time, have also a sense of instability and a lack of continuity. Sir, I would suggest that, as soon as trained teachers are sufficient, the schools be so organised that they have teams of heads of schools and teachers stablised round them, because unless there is this kind of stability, I am afraid, Sir, we will not be able to have efficiency, co-ordination and the long-term interest of the students and the community round these schools looked after. This is a suggestion that I make for the Minister's consideration, because we have found that where a school has a stable staff and a head who knows that he will be there for some years, there can be maximum efficiency, continuity, a team spirit, a family spirit produced and a community round these schools. We also feel that the school belongs to the community.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I do not intend to raise under this amendment the many faults and deficiencies of this Ministry. This will be dealt with in the substantive motion seeking a Commission. But this afternoon I do rise on what may seem a minor matter, but nevertheless it is important to many parents. In 1959, Mr Speaker, many students failed the Secondary School Entrance Examination. They were told that they would be posted to Post Primary I and thereafter to Post Primary II. They under stood that after Post Primary II, having passed it, they would be allowed to join the main stream in the secondary schools. Sir, I myself have very little knowledge of these aspects, but I was approached by a parent and he drew my attention to the fact that his daughter, who was one of those who failed in 1959, was put into Post Primary I in 1960, did well, went to Post Primary II in 1961, did well, and in fact she was amongst the top 25 or 30 per cent. But despite this, she has received a letter telling her that she has been dismissed from the school and she could not be considered for a transfer to a secondary school since the standard of the Post Primary II examination is below that of Primary VI. 7.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, she is not the only one affected. I understand a large number of them are affected. I wrote to the Minister on the 4th of September. That was two weeks ago, Sir,I have not had the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a reply. It is true he is busy, but I had anticipated at least that somebody would have replied pointing out what the true position is, if, in fact, my information is inaccurate. The unhappy position, Sir, is this. If those two years, 1960 and 1961, were in fact inadequate to bring her up to secondary school standard, which she had taken in 1959, they were a fraud upon the child and a fraud upon the parents. Secondly, they were given the impression, Sir, and I ask the Minister whether this is correct, that these Post-Primary classes were to equip the students to cope with secondary school curricula.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to put two points to the Minister. Although this expendi ture is for 1963, I hope the Minister for Education will implement it during this year. Many parents have complained that the students are required to use a particular school uniform and that the cloth can only be bought from one shop. This is inconveniencing poor parents, because that particular shop will then have a monopoly. I think the best thing for all students in Singapore to do is to use one school uniform for the sake of convenience, so that when a student is transferred from one school to another, there will be no need to change his uniform. Secondly, the purchase of textbooks, Mr Speaker. This is a source of hardship to poor parents. If a student is in Primary! V this year and he has a younger brother in Primary IV, the child in Primary IV will not be able to use his brother's books when he goes up to Primary V. I do not know why the textbooks keep on changing every year. This is merely to benefit the printers at the expense of the parents. I hope the Ministry of Education will help to resolve this problem in order to alleviate the hardships of the parents most of whom cannot afford to buy textbooks. If the old textbooks can be used, it will be a great help to those parents who have many children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to reply very briefly, first, to the Member for Tanglin's remark regarding the shortage of trained staff, which he hopes would be overcome by 1963. That, I think, is a forlorn hope, because, according to the Four-Year Development Plan we have indicated that it will be necessary to recruit no less than 1,000 teachers each year. Because of the large size of our admission per year - between 55,000 and 60,000 children - and about 20,000 leaving school, we have therefore a net increase per year of something like 35,000 students. At a rough ratio of 1 teacher to 30 or 35 pupils per class, we must have at least 1,000 teachers. Therefore, if we have to recruit 1,000 teachers each year, there is no, alternative except to train our teachers by the in-service method. On the whole, they will have to do 3 years in-service training largely for primary schools. Therefore, each year we shall be having at least 3,000 teachers under training at the Teacher's Training College. So you can see the size of our problem. In 1959, we started with 10,000 teachers. Every year there has been an increase of 1,000 teachers. So by 1963, we will have 14,000 teachers. Of the 14,000, 3,000 will be undergoing training. Much as I would like to see trained teachers being produced at the rate of 1,000 per year, it is not something that seems foreseeable in the near future. Now I will reply to the Member for Anson. I wish to apologise to him for not having been able to reply to his letter. He himself did acknowledge that I have been quite busy in recent weeks. The tone of his letter was rather strong. He used the word "fraud" in the provision of Post-Primary classes. Knowing the Member for Anson, I did feel that when replying to him I should couch my reply in such words as not to bring about an altercation with him outside the Assembly. I would like to assure him, first of all, that the Post-Primary classes were first started in 1960 because the result of the Secondary School Entrance Examination (as it was known in 1959, and which has since been changed to the Primary School Leaving Examination) was so bad that only 31 per cent of the students passed it. Now had we attempted to follow the previous Government's policy, what would have happened would be that only 31 per cent would have gone into secondary schools and the remaining 69 per cent - those from the English primary schools - would have had to fend for themselves in private schools or get out of school completely. We felt that that would create a great social problem. So we immediately got together to give these poor kids a chance to stay in school. Now, the main tragedy was this. Because of the automatic promotion system that existed in the English primary schools since 1951, I think what happened was this. Although they took the so-called Secondary School Entrance Examination, a good percentage of the students were only of Primary III or Primary IV level, because they were not examined at all. They just moved up year by year. So, having provided classes for the nearly 4,000 pupils who failed the examination, we did find that after one year in Post-Primary classes, only 200 were salvaged. In other words, we found them able to keep pace with the secondary school students, and they were siphoned off. But the rest were such poor material that all we could do was to give them another year of education in school. There was no fraud at all. We were trying to keep them in school. After these two years, they were still not able to catch up with the secondary stream and, therefore, would have to leave. That really is the position, Sir, about the Post-Primary classes, and this is only the transitional period. We intend to put these children into regular secondary vocational schools for two years. That is why we had the Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. Its Report has been tabled, but the White Paper of the Government has not yet been placed before this House. Lastly, to reply to the Member for the Southern Islands. It is, I think, a very good suggestion that all schools should have the same type of uniform. But there would be this danger, that we would be accused of trying to standardise everyone. Every school has a little pride about the type of uniform that it designs for its pupils. But, on the other hand, we do say that no school should really tell its pupils that t they must buy cloth from a particular shop. But generally they have some little understanding in that they get a special rebate, and so school children will benefit by going to a particular shop because of the special rate. As for textbooks, Sir, it is a little regrettable that there should be changes in textbooks because we are talking in terms of Malayanisation of textbooks. So it is likely that books are being changed because the authorities feel that better types of books are now available and are more in line with Malayanisation. Hence the changes in the text books. But all we should -

Order. Time has expired. Does the Member for Tanglin wish for a vote?

No.

Does the Member for Anson wish for a vote?

No, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $49,025,830 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 47 and 56.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads as they appear in the last column on pages 1 and 2 of Paper Cmd. 39 of 1961, stand part of the Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $194,106,820 shall be supplied to the Government on account under the heads of expenditure for the public services specified in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 39 of 1961," put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.

Is it convenient to take the adjournment now?

Yes. Thereupon Mr SPEAKER left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have considered the application for vote on account for the year 1963.

The Minister would like to sit tomorrow, I take it, to consider the Development Estimates?

I beg leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

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