Hansard, 1963-06-12

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

33 p.m.

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

Yes, I do.

We are on the Main Estimates - Paper Cmd. 14 of 1963. For convenience, I intend taking the totals for each head as they appear in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on pages 35 and 36 of the Paper. We are dealing now with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper. 2.34 p.m. Head 1 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. Sir, subhead 8 is a vote for two cars and, according to the notes here, these two cars are meant for replacement. I have gone through the Estimates of previous years and I find that for 1962 a vote of $12,350 was asked for a motorcar for replacement. I would like to know how many cars there are in Istana Negara and how old they are.

Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara inherited from the former Governor one Rolls Royce which is still in commission, one Humber Pullman which is now scrapped and replaced by a Rover, one Austin and one Rover. The replacements are in respect of the Austin A60 and the Rover. The Austin is eight years old with a mileage of 130,000 miles and the Rover is 12 years old with a mileage of 76,000 miles.

Does the Member for Cairnhill require a vote?

No, Sir. In view of the explanation given by the Prime Minister, may I beg leave to withdraw the amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10. Sir, this is a vote for Furniture and Furnishings of $20,800. Will the Prime Minister be good enough to inform this House in what way this vote will be spent? What is the type of additional furniture and the type of furnishings that will be required?

Mr Speaker. Sir, there are five guest rooms at the Istana and, in view of the celebrations in August when we are anticipating a number of guests arriving for the occasion, it is deemed proper that these furnishings which have not been refurnished since 1945 should now be refurnished for the occasion.

In view of the explanation given, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $392,230 for Head ordered Ito stand part of the Estimates. Head 2 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. Sir, first of all, I must say how gratifying it is to note that the practice of having expatriate Chief Justices has finally given way to a new era in the judicial history of Singapore. I believe that no one would feel disgruntled at this basic change from our great misfortune to have had colonial Chief Justices whose contributions to the defence of the Empire are notorious in the annals of British colonial administration.

Order. I must warn the hon. Member that we have a provision in the Order in Council which provides that the conduct of a Judge or Judges cannot he referred to except by a substantive motion on notice given by at least one-quarter of the number of Members in the Assembly. Therefore, there cannot be any comment on the conduct of Judges.

I am aware of the provision in the Order in Council, Mr Chairman, Sir, and I do not propose to touch on the conduct of the Chief Justice as such. I was merely making some general comment on the fact that today the high state of respectability of the Chief Justice of Singapore is held by a local man. Sir, to the extent that the present Chief Justice is a Malayan - more so a Singaporean - we are happy. It is appropriate though that we reflect this appointment in the perspective of an independent Judiciary on which I propose to elaborate under my next amendment. Sir, I am sorry to say that the appointment of Justice Wee Chong Jin as the Chief Justice has not created the jubilation that it should have, if not for anything else then at least for the fact that it is the first local appointment. Sir, the discontent over this appointment, I am sure, is known to many. It is unlikely that Members of this House are not aware of this. It is not for me to talk of the competence or otherwise of Justice Wee, but what is paramount is to stress the need for a non-political approach by the Government to the Judiciary. Sir, it is an open secret today that the appointment of Justice Wee is regarded as a political appointment. Sir, having witnessed the conduct of the P.A.P. Government in the last four years, it is not difficult to understand the legitimate apprehension that the P.A.P. is capable of making the law courts P.A.P. law courts. It is regrettable that the P.A.P. persists in converting State institutions into P.A.P. organs. Sir, the people cannot place trust on justice if political colouring is introduced into the administration of justice. It is needless for me to say that it will be a sad day for Singapore if British colonial Chief Justices are to be replaced by P.A.P. Chief Justices.

Sir, I do not wish to demean the position of the Chief Justice by entering into a debate on this matter. If the Member for Thomson is so inclined as to pursue this point and I think having made this point in passing, I suggest that he pursue it. Then I am quite prepared to have the matter investigated. Under the Constitution, before the appointment is made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Prime Minister who has to give the advice is obliged to con-suit the retiring Chief Justice, which I did. I think the retiring Chief Justice deemed it fit and proper before he left the country to indicate what he thought of the advice he gave me. I also took advice from all members of the Bar Committee. Amongst the members I consulted was the Member for Farrer Park. I do not wish any justification for the choice made, which I can in good conscience say was the best that any Prime Minister in my position could have done. The fact that the Member for Thomson should have chosen in a sly way to try somehow to bring discredit to an institution of some importance in a democratic State without really wishing to pursue the point is, I think, a sad reflection on the standards of the Opposition. Men who have not got the courage to pursue their allegations publicly should desist from making sly and oblique references.

I merely wish to say this. As I did explain, I was not making any reference to the conduct of Justice Wee as such. I was merely airing a grievance over the appointment ---

Whose grievance?

--- which I think is widely known and which I am quite sure the Prime Minister is aware of.

I am astounded to hear the grievance. The Member for Thomson may not know that, in fact, the Bar Committee was unanimous that this was a fit and proper choice. To begin with, Mr Justice Wee was already on the Bench when this Government took office. 2.45 p.m. There was a choice of elevating one of the members of the Bench or seeking someone from the Bar. The two choices were both exhaustively surveyed and resurveyed. All I can say is I am grateful to the members of the Bar Committee and several leading members of the Bar of the advice they gave. I am sure that in doe course everybody will realise the wisdom of the appointment.

Does the Member for Thomson require a vote?

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 2 be reduced by $100. Sir, the manner of appointment of Judges and magistrates today in Singapore dues not inspire --- The Prime Minister rose ---

On a point of order?

On a point of order. I think before the Member for Thomson pursues further and casts a general slur on the Judiciary, I must bring to his attention first the fact that he is casting an aspersion on a small group of men. The law has it that if you cast an aspersion on a group of men so small - all are identifiable - then you do so at your own peril. And I say that if a Member commits a breach of privilege in this Chamber, using the privilege of this Chamber to cast aspersions on the conduct of Judges, then he must be prepared to face the consequences. It might interest him to know that under the Constitution to the Judges are appointed by a commission consisting of the Chief Justice and his brother Judges, including the State Advocate-General.

I think, at the moment, the Member for Thomson is in order as he is just attacking the method of appointment. The method of appointment has already been indicated by the Prime Minister and is provided for in the Order in Council.

That is quite so, Mr Chairman, and under this amendment, I merely wish to discuss the manner of appointment of Judges to the lower courts. Sir, I would say that the --- The Prime Minister rose ---

Is it a point of order again?

It is a point of order. He is going to attack the manner of appointment to the lower courts and I suggest he move under a different subhead. This deals with Puisne Judges.

It is under Judicial.

I thought he was moving under subhead 1.

Wake up! Do not sleep.

Order. The amendment is in regard to the whole of Head 2

I can understand the anxiety of the Prime Minister ---

There is no anxiety.

I can only tell him to contain himself and reply at the time when he will definitely be allowed to reply. Sir, I was saying that the manner of appointment of Judges and magistrates does not inspire public confidence ---

You mean your confidence?

--- in the administration of justice. Now, this is especially so in present day Singapore with the P.A.P. Government whose manipulation of State organs for political purposes is unprecedented. Sir, under the Constitution, the powers to appoint, promote or transfer district judges and magistrates is vested in the Legal Service Commission under section 93 of the Constitution, page 42. The Legal Service Commission consists of: (a) the Chief Justice; (b) the Chairman of the Public Service Commission; (c) a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated generally or specially by the Chief Justice; (d) the State Advocate-General; and (e) not more than two members of the Public Service Commission nominated generally or specially by the Chairman. Sir, first of all, the Chief Justice is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. For practical purposes, it means that he must be a man of the Prime Minister's choice; secondly, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is also in the same manner appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister; thirdly, the State Advocate-General is also appointed in the same manner. The remaining members, as has been pointed out, are appointed by the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Sir, the Legal Service Commission as constituted, as has been explained, is a body which has the authority for the appointment, promotion or transfer of all district judges and magistrates. That is the first point that I wish to make in respect of the manner of appointment of Judges and magistrates. The second point, Sir, is the current practice in the appointment and transfer of district court judges and magistrates. Art officer who is a magistrate today can be transferred tomorrow to become a Deputy Public Prosecutor and vice versa. There are many examples: one outstanding example is Mr Francis Seow Tiang Siew. He was a D.P.P. at one Time: then he was transferred to be a district court judge for some months and now, Sir, he is transferred once again to he a D.P.P. Incidentally, Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Francis Seow is a gold medallist, though not in the Olympics, but in the legal service for having run the race well on behalf of the P.A.P. He was awarded the ---

Order. There the Member is treading on very dangerous ground. He is now reflecting indirectly on the conduct of a legal officer. He must not do that.

All I wanted to point out was that he was awarded the Public Administration Medal - Pingat Pentadbiran ---

Order. Those medals are awarded for conduct and therefore there is an indirect reflection on the officer's conduct. That must not be done in this Chamber.

Very well, Mr Speaker, Sir, that was just one example. Then there are many other examples, and I do not propose to go into them now. But if the Government wants, I am quite prepared to list out a few more examples later on. Sir, the practical effect of all this is that a district judge, before whom the Solicitor-General appears and whose conduct is subject to the authority of the Judge, can one day be transferred and he expected to work under the Solicitor-General. Again. Sir, the other way round. A Deputy Public Prosecutor, who works under the Solicitor-General and takes instructions from him today, may be transferred tomorrow to become a district judge before whom the Solicitor-General will have to appear. I am quite sure the Government Members will agree that there are very illustrious examples of this to be quoted. It is hardly necessary for me to say that this practice puts the district judge or a magistrate in an invidious position in the administration of justice, particularly too, when the Solicitor-General himself appears in the courts. The least I can say is that this practice is scandalous. Perhaps you will recall that there was a case of a district judge who was transferred soon after a particular case in which six trade unionists were involved. Sir, some Members of this House have suggested on a previous occasion that an independent Judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy. Sir, there is no doubt that this is a laudable acclamation, though it is regrettable that it came from some people who merely pay lip service to democratic practices. The basis of my argument is not democracy or what have we. There is no democracy in Singapore, and Singapore is hardly a democracy. Therefore, Sir, it would be futile to talk about pillars of democracy. I hope that Members of this House - particularly those self-acclaimed champions of democracy sitting across the Floor - will forgive me if I put aside democracies and pillars of democracies and talk of hard reality. Sir, the administration of justice, in our view, is the essence of a civilised human society. The independence of the Judiciary is a fundamental pre-requisite for the administration of justice, as it should be. Justice in one form or another has been the crux of struggle in human society. However, unfortunately, institutions for the administration of justice have been more often than not instruments of oppression in the hands of the ruling class. Today, in Singapore, the P.A.P. takes honours for having excelled in the use of State organs for repression and oppression.

Sir, but for the aspersions that have been cast not upon me, but upon the Chief Justice, the State Advocate-General, the Chairman of the P.S.C. and a whole host of other appointments made by me, including the Speaker of this Chamber, I would have deemed the remarks made by the Member for Thomson beneath comment. It is in the nature of things that somebody has to make an appointment and in the new Constitution which came into operation in 1959. I inherited in my office the powers of a Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Mayor. If these powers, Mr Speaker, Sir, are wrongly used, then the institutions of the State will disintegrate. I am proud to say that at least as a result of the appointments made, housing has succeeded, the Polytechnic is expanding, the Public Utilities Board is well on its way to being established, and a whole host of statutory corporations, including the Singapore Harbour Board, are functioning efficiently, discharging their duties to the community. But to suggest, as the Member for Thomson suggests, that one makes political appointments for the purposes of having yes men is a proposition so absurd and so stupid that if ever he got endowed with these powers and uses them in the way he believes I have used them, then the State would collapse --- An hon. Member: It is collapsing.

With one flat going up every 45 minutes, with more roads built than ever in four years, than ever in the history of Singapore, with more street lights going up than ever before, with more kampongs in receipt of electricity than ever before, with more standpipes in all the rural areas than ever in the history of Singapore - [Interruption]. These things cannot be done in a matter of months. These are plans formulated in 1959 and 1960, when the unpleasant decisions had to be made to up the taxes, to put on the economy measures, in order to produce results in 1961, 1962 and now 1963. If only the Member for Thomson had more moral fibre, he would have stood up to the Communists at the unpopular moments that we went through and he would have seen sunshine at the end of it all. Instead of that, they switched sides and now they found out that it was the wrong side. I suggest to the Member for Thomson seriously to consider whether he is wise in his own interest to make these suggestions. Mr Francis Scow is one of the outstanding officers in the State Advocate-General's Department, and the State Advocate-General, I am proud to say, recommended him for a citation, together with other officers. 3.00 p.m. A D.P.P. prosecuting or a Solicitor-General prosecuting before a district court is no unusual business. I defended certain friends of the Member for Thomson before the District Judge with the Solicitor-General then prosecuting, Mr Shanks. The District Judge acquitted and he is now sitting as a Puisne Judge. As District Judge, Mr Francis Seow sentenced Mr Bani's close associate and stooge, Mr Foo, in the Business Houses Employees Union, to nine months for putting lighted cigarettes on the back of non-striking workers in a cowardly and dastardly manner. They appealed. The Chief Justice, who is not my appointment - it was an appointment by a former Governor - Sir Alan Rose, confirmed the sentence, and he served his nine months. I hope he is the wiser for it; for if there is any more such foolishness of brutality and bullying next time, he will find that the first offence is taken into consideration when the second conviction is considered. Political appointments? District Judge? Mr Choor Singh was there for years before the P.A.P. Mr Jamit Singh got a full and proper trial. I will not say whether he got his deserts. It is a matter for the Court of Appeal to decide. Everybody heard every scrap of evidence, every lie that went on in the court for a full 2½ months. Is the Member for Thomson suggesting that this Government should allow prosecutions to fail through lack of police investigations?

Order. I think the Prime Minister is going a bit wide of the subject. Can he come back to "appointments"?

Appointments. There is no new appointment that I know of, no important new appointments anywhere. The Judges are the same. One Puisne Judge becomes the Chief Justice. The Solicitor-General has become a Puisne Judge. The Registrar of the Supreme Court has gone and become the Acting Solicitor-General. The No. 2 District Judge has become the No. 1 District Judge. These were appointments we inherited. And so it went on. I suggest to the Member for Thomson that he and his friends should really examine their own heads. They always do this, Mr Speaker, Sir: first, they say they are going to win the referendum. Right on the very eve ---

Order. I hope the Prime Minister is not opening a debate on that. He can mention that only in passing.

To prove a point. Then when they lost, they said it was a fraud, phoney and cheap. We said petition. They did not petition. They have got the right to petition. Three M.P.s came. They welcomed them. One thousand people went to the Airport. The Member for Queenstown insisted that he had invited the three M.P.s. He said so. He was proud that he had invited them.

Order. Can the Prime Minister explain how that arises from this debate?

This is the point. They insisted that they address the meeting. Then when the verdict of the three M.P.s was against him, he whereupon denounced all three and said they had been taken on a conducted tour and they were gullible old gentlemen. Similarly with the Courts. We know that Members on the other side, on a certain day not so very long ago, came with other gentlemen to look for me. I do not know how lucky they were that I was not in. I do not know whether they were aware that certain definite security arrangements were made when the Cabinet is in session, as we have no intention to be wiped out like the Burmese Cabinet. It was well that we were not in session, and therefore the police were forbearing in extremis.

Order. I do not think that those remarks are proper because the case is sub judice. I do not think any reference should be made to it.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir,I just wish to point this out, that now having felt the rigours of the law run their course in the case of Mr Foo and the case of Mr Jamit Singh, they wish to prepare the ground for a denunciation of the whole Judiciary. Why? Because their conduct will now be put to serious scrutiny. It is not my fault, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they choose to do mad things; that they choose to do things of their own volition. But I say this. Say these things here and breach privilege, and they face the consequences. Say these things outside and I have not the slightest doubt that the gentlemen referred to will defend themselves. If the Member for Thomson is at all serious about these allegations, I say make these suggestions outside, because I really do not want to tight their battle. It makes it difficult for me. These are their own battles. Any aspersions he likes to cast on them outside, they have their remedies. I wish the Member for Thomson well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not rise to participate in the debate between the Prime Minister and the Member for Thomson. But I cannot allow the claim of the Prime Minister pass unchallenged. He claims that the P.A.P. has put up more stand-pipes. I say all that is nothing but a cruel joke. More stand-pipes without water? More stand-pipes for what? He claims that more houses are being built. Yet there are 4,000 vacant houses not yet occupied. Would it not be wiser to see that the 4,000 units built by the Housing and Development Board are occupied?

Order. That is exactly what I fear - a debate completely away from what we are in fact debating. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cairnhill will raise those points again when we come to the proper Ministry.

The Prime Minister, to escape the basic issue, goes around ---

Repeat these things outside.

Order.

--- beating about the bush. Sir, he always misses the point. We realise that the Prime Minister has acted within the law, within the powers vested upon him by virtue of the fact that he is the Prime Minister of the State of Singapore. I am not suggesting that he has done anything illegal or ultra vires the Constitution. I was saying that it is undesirable to have a system of appointments and transfers of district judges and magistrates whereby a person who is a magistrate today can be transferred to become a Deputy Public Prosecutor tomorrow. Sir, we realise that in these transfers the Legal Service Commission is acting according to the rules. But is it desirable? That is our basic point', and we think, if the public and those who are accused are to be expected to have confidence in the courts and in the administration of justice, then such undesirable practices must not be allowed to continue. I was not casting aspersions on officers in the legal service. My grouse is against this basic practice ---

You are back-pedalling.

--- which the Government apparently is not doing anything to rectify. Sir, if I may just say this before I sit down, because the Prime Minister with a lot of vigour has suggested that so many thousands of stand-pipes and housing flats and so on have been built ---

Order. I have stopped the Member for Cairnhill from raising that point. I do not want a debate on stand-pipes or roads or any housing. That debate can arise when we come to the Ministry of National Development.

All that I wanted to say was - because this was said 1w the Prime Minister - in the context whether the State organs are disintegrating. Sir, I share his views that the State organs must not disintegrate. That is precisely why we are trying to tell the Government, "Do not utilise State organs. Do not make it a farce by turning each and every single State organ into a P.A.P. organ." [Interruption].

Order. I am trying to channel the debate now. Criticism of the Prime Minister as to the state of State organs and as to appointments in these other State organs, I think, can come when we deal with the Prime Minister's Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Prime Minister on his clever distortion of fact. I have already said that the P.A.P. excels only in one department, and that is the department of distortions and sell-outs.

That is two already. You cannot even count!

He has just said a little while back that I insisted that I invited the three M.P.s. I never did say that. But I am telling the Prime Minister once more, in case he should forget, that it was as a result of my challenge to the M.P.s that they came along to Singapore to see for themselves.

And spend so much time and effort.

I did not denounce them after they had so-called passed judgment on us. In fact, when I made my speech in the Happy World Stadium, I had already given them my speech telling them that I was answering every point raised by Mr Bottomley. So what is all this about our denouncing the three M.P.s? We did not denounce them. We never expected too much from them. We knew what to expect from M.P.s in the Labour Party of Britain who hold views not very different from those held by Conservatives ---

Order. I think the Member for Queenstown has made his point up to now, and I am sure there will be other opportunities in the Committee of Supply for the hon. Member to expand on it. I will not allow any debate on that particular aspect.

I just wish to reply to the Member for Thomson on the system of transfers. I can only tell him that the only mitigation I can find for him is that probably he is ignorant of the system of law that is applied in this country, and indeed that applies in all other countries where members of the Bar and the Bench are small in number. Sir, it is a pity that the Member for Anson is not here, because I think on an occasion like this he serves a useful purpose, because I use him as a sounding board for concessions and admissions. All over the British Commonwealth, this system prevails. Before a man can ever become a Judge of the High court, he should have, in his career, acquired a varied experience as prosecutor, as counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff, adviser, draftsman, magistrate, Registrar, and Official Assignee. In other parts of the world, they have recruited their puisne judges from the Bar. Different systems prevail. A man picks up his experience in the wider world and then retires on his year of largest income, off income tax, on the Bench. That is not possible here, Mr Speaker, Sir. 3.15 p.m. I think the Member for Farrer Park will remember that I went through the Bar list of 130 names with him. That is all there is to it in Singapore. And you have to run a judiciary, you have got to run a legal service, you have to man all your other departments connected with the law, Trade Marks, Official Assignee, with the same group of men. You have got to be fair and give them a varied experience. This is purely a professional matter which is settled between the State Advocate-General, the Chief Justice, one Puisne Judge and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. It was so decided in London in 1957. We defended the Constitution - the Member for Thomson may remember - in the Tanjong Pagar by-election. We fought on the basis of this Constitution in 1959. Now we are on the verge of changing it. I do not know if the Member for Thomson thinks it a change for the better. But right at this moment, we are seriously considering the problem of future appointments after Malaysia. Perhaps the Member for Thomson does not know that in the Federation the Chief Justice is appointed by the Prime Minister and so are the Puisne Judges. That is an independent country. And here in a semi-independent country, we allow the Judges to sit together and appoint another man to join their august ranks. What system is to endure after Malaysia? This is a subject for careful debate between the Chief Justice in Singapore and his brother Judges and the State Advocate-General, who is at the present moment in Kuala Lumpur in a conference of lawyers, a conference which I may have to join shortly within the next day or so, if I may have the consent of one Member on the other side of this House. If not, then we will have to run the risk of having the Government defeated and voted out of office, and the Member for Thomson or perhaps the Member for Queenstown will feel the noose slip from round his neck again. But there it is. These are the problems. And I am glad that in his second speech he has decided - as the Leninist phrase goes - "one step forward, two steps back wards"; it is not two steps forward, one step backwards, but one step forward and two steps backward. That is right. There is nothing wrong with these appointments. What is wrong is, it is a pity that they should be shunted about in the way they are. If the Member for Thomson has any really bright ideas, let him give serious thought to them, not with the idea of getting Judges or Magistrates who will let off criminals by being intimidated from this Chamber. I do not think - not the men I know - that they will likely be so inclined. They are not likely to be rattled by the fierce noises here. In fact, what I have suggested to the Member for Thomson is, I think, the most honourable thing he can do. If he really believes that these are political appointees who do my bidding - are puppets - then I say, "Say it outside." He has retracted now, and he says, "No. It is the system." I say that if he can suggest a better system of having these four men sit down professionally and decide how to give everybody a chance, because this is a competitive race within a service to the top, and the top is the High Court Bench, let him put up his proposals. The constitutional lawyers are at the present moment in Kuala Lumpur. Lawyers from Brunei, North Borneo, Sarawak, London, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur arc all there drafting. On this matter, may I take this opportunity to say that when the House rises en Saturday, the Leader of the House will formally move that we adjourn to the beginning of August - I think it is the 7th of August. But I am hoping, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would like to give due notice now that these constitutional provisions will be finished before then. There is no hope now, in view of the delay that has taken place partly because of us and partly because of Brunei - difficulties over oil in one case and common market and surplus in the other - that the constitutional provisions will be ready before 27th June, when we are supposed to initial the broad principles. But I hope, before 7th August, to be able to reconvene this House, if it is possible. And I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will give due weight to the request then, because otherwise we will run into the 31st of August whilst we are still debating these provisions.

Order. The Prime Minister has a knack of quite nicely going away from what we are debating and getting away with it. The Speaker has been -brought into it. It is not really the Speaker. It is Standing Order No. 5.

I would just like to ask the Prime Minister one question. But before I do that, I must accept what the Prime Minister says. I am not a legal student, Sir. I must say that I have not been as fortunate as the Prime Minister who has gone to Cambridge and acquired a legal degree. The question that I want to ask him is this. He says that it is necessary to have a variety of duties so that varied experience is gathered for officers in the Government legal service. What I would like to ask him is whether it is necessary for an officer in the legal service, after having been a D.P.P., to have to be appointed a District Judge and then go back to be a D.P.P. to acquire experience in the process of prosecution, etc.?

I would like to mention to the Member for Thomson how the system operates when there are more bodies that one can move about. In England every Q.C. who is a private practitioner, every leading silk, is at the same time a Judge and a Recorder, which means the status of a District Judge and First Magistrate in some town. He does it as a matter of public duty. One day he is Judge and the next day he is Prosecuting Counsel, and the third day he is Counsel for the Defendant. These are normal procedures. Because a man knows what counsel does when he is prosecuting, what counsel does when he is defending, he is all a better Judge when he sits on the Bench. I am quite sure of that. I have never sat on the Bench myself, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I have not the slightest doubt that quite a number of the people who are at the Bar would make very good Magistrates. It might interest the Member for Thomson to know that the Chief Justice and his brother Judges are considering, together with the Bar, a system whereby one District Court is manned by a senior member of the Bar in roster, in order to help out in the duties so that from Time to Time when there are difficult cases, here is a completely unbiased member of the Bar who could sit as District Judge. That requires the co-operation of the Bar which means that leading lawyers whose average income is $4,000 a month - any member of the Bar with more than 12 years' standing would deem himself a failure if he is not earning at least $4,000 a month - would have to give that up while sitting on the Bench. The High Court Bench is paid only $1,950 a month. This is another problem that we face. But I would also like to take this opportunity to say that far from wanting to demean them, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a little constitutional problem in that I have to raise their status by way of a Supplementary Estimate in the very near future. It has been agreed in principle that the Judiciary will be Pan-Malaysian. Therefore, as such, the basic salaries of Puisne Judges - at present $1,950 - will go up to $2,100, and certain Establishment matters will have to be cleared regarding the other peripheral allowances. And before 31st August, I may have to move the Supplementary Estimate to bring their basic salaries into line with the Federation. But as I said to the Member for Thomson, he ought to be careful before he ventures into this field. These are men of some scholarship, learning and integrity. And he is unlikely to rattle them into doing things against their better judgment just by casting wide aspersions ---

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Yes, surely.

I am not retracting from whatever I have said. The Prime Minister suggested this once or twice and I just kept quiet so as to avoid interruption. I stand by every word I said.

The point of elucidation being?

I just want to have this point clarified before the Prime Minister goes on.

Order. If the Member rises on a point of elucidation, he must indicate his point of elucidation for something which the Prime Minister has said and which he does not understand. He will have an opportunity of speaking again, because we will go on until 3.45 p.m. on this Head. Mr Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if he wishes to cast his aspersions and, as he says, he still insists on them, then I suggest that he make them outside, and let these gentlemen at least have the opportunity of vindicating themselves. But to seek the cloak of privilege in this Chamber and just dance on the fringe of it is, I think, contemptuous in the extreme.

I just want to repeat once again that what I have touched on is the system of appointment and transfer of Judges and Magistrates in the Lower Courts. There is no question of retracting whatever I have said. If the Prime Minister wants me to mention these things outside ---

Do.

--- I am quite sure, Sir, if the occasion arises I will do so. I do not want to stand in the middle of the street and just make a speech because the Prime Minister asks me to make a speech. But if the occasion were such that there was a necessity, we would do it. Sir, the point the Prime Minister was making about the necessity of having a District Judge to go back to the duties of a Deputy Public Prosecutor is something that we cannot understand, and I personally feel that this is a farcical system. If the Government is genuine in wanting people to have confidence in the administration of justice, then the Government ought to do something about it. In principle, I am not objecting to the need for a Government legal officer to acquire experience. But what I cannot understand is the manner in which these people are being shifted about from one post to another. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to participate in this debate, because the Prime Minister is quite capable of looking after the debate. But I feel I am personally obliged to participate in it now because I consider myself part of the system of the rule of law. I sincerely believe that if we do not have the rule of law, then the whole concept of democracy in the way that we want to practise it must collapse ---

There is no democracy.

In this system that we operate, the Judiciary is vital to the survival of the rule of law, and therefore the survival of our concept of democracy. I think the Member for Thomson genuinely under a misapprehension. He thinks that if you are a D.P.P., then you cannot he a good district judge; if you are a district judge, then you cannot be a good D.P.P.; if you are a first-rate D.P.P., then you cannot make a first-rate Assize Judge. He seems to suffer from that misapprehension. Mr Speaker, Sir, to be able to understand how one trained in the law can administer each of these functions to the best of his ability, and without being frightened of or in any way subservient to the other aspects of the law is, I think, something only one can understand if one has been trained in the law and in the different aspects of the law. Merely to say that because one has been a D.P.P. and that therefore when he gets on to the Bench he is going to side with the prosecution is not correct and is not fair to the profession. There is another point I wish to raise: it is a technical point, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are on the Head Judicial. A number of these appointments like the Chief Justice and the Puisne Judges, all their salaries are items of statutory expenditure. There is no indication in this Head that any of the items of expenditure under the Chief Justice or the Puisne Judges are items of statutory expenditure. Now, in a minute or in a few minutes, Mr Speaker, Sir, you are going to ask this House under Head 2, for the amount of $2.05 million to be voted. This Assembly cannot vote that full amount because statutory expenditure is not voted upon. Because you will notice in Head 1 that statutory expenditure was not voted by the Assembly; and the only item of statutory expenditure which should have been included in page 35 and which should have come under Judicial has been omitted. So I do not see how you can ask this Assembly to vote for the amount to he voted in 1963 in the extreme right-hand column.

I just want to make one remark concerning what the Prime Minister has said about Assemblymen being charged or something like that. I think all Singapore knows that the Prime Minister in this particular case is our prosecutor as well as our persecutor. All Singapore knows that our case is a political case ---

Order. I have said all that is completely irrelevant and I am trying to stop irrelevancies in so far as this Head is concerned. That might arise - I do not know - when we deal with the Prime Minister's Ministry. Mr Prime Minister?

No.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $2,058,480 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 4 - The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head 4 be reduced by $100.

Legislature. Dr Thio.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $702,450 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 7 -

I just want to raise a few points, Sir, ---

Is the Member moving?

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee. I just want to raise a few points, Sir. You will remember that the Prime Minister in this very House gave as a reason for guillotining our debate on the 9th and 10th of April that he had to go to Kuala Lumpur for negotiations, when in fact he went there to play golf; and in explanation in page 86 of the Hansard of 10th June, [Unrevised transcript] [col. 737 of Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 6], the Prime Minister said in the second paragraph near the end: `Therefore, for reasons which I thought to be in the interests of the people, I did not attend a particular meeting in Kuala Lumpur and chose to stay in Cameron Highlands with the Prime Minister of the Federation who was golfing with me.' This little bit of a statement shows one or two points: that the Prime Minister did not attend the meeting because he chose to stay in Cameron Highlands, and therefore it could be interpreted, because of what had happened between the Prime Minister and the Federation Ministers, that the Prime Minister was trying to inflate his own bosom and flex his own muscles in a show of toughness. He never really had the interests of the people at heart. Because if he really had the interests of the people at heart, he would have gone to negotiate under any circumstances as befitting a Head of Government responsible to the people. He did not, because he wanted to inflate his own bosom, hoping to give the impression that he was a tough guy. That is point No. 1, and it shows that our Prime Minister is too arrogant even to negotiate on behalf of the people in spite of his own protestations. And then, Sir, may I refer you to page 95 of the same Hansard [col. 750], when the Member for Cairnhill, in reply, revealed the true story. Somewhere in the middle of the second paragraph, the Member for Cairnhill said: `He did not attend the meeting in Kuala Lumpur when the Finance Minister did, because he agreed with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya that no useful purpose could be served for a meeting to be held.' Therefore, Sir, unless the Prime Minister tells us that this is an incorrect statement and that the Member for Cairnhill has been speaking an untruth, the Prime Minister himself has been speaking an untruth. I do not know what we in the Opposition can do to the Prime Minister who chooses to speak an untruth in this House. But I would draw the attention of the House to comments in the newspapers as regards the Profumo case, which says that telling lies in Parliament hits at the root of Government ---

You are not sincere.

--- and the telling of lies in Parliament ---

Order, is the Member for Queenstown then suggesting that the Prime Minister has told a lie? If he suggests that, then he is out of order. He cannot use that word in this Assembly.

I said "untruth", Sir,If the Prime Minister wishes to correct the statement of the Member for Cairnhill, he can easily do so. I merely quoted from the Hansard, One of them was (telling an untruth. If it was not the Member for Cairnhill, then it must be the Prime Minister. In the case of the War Minister in England, well, he took courageous action. I do not want to suggest anything to our Prime Minister. But we would like to see what he has got to say on this subject about telling untruths or lies, if you like - according to the statement in the Press - in Parliament or, in our case, this Assembly. Another point which I want to raise, Sir - of course, it may have nothing to do with government work - is that the Prime Minister at one time, when the P.A.P. first came to power, gave specific instructions and directives to all P.A.P. Assemblymen that they must not attend dinners and private functions. Nowadays, we see the Prime Minister ---

Order. I do not think the Prime Minister is responsible to this Assembly for what directions he gives to his own P.A.P. members. I do not think this Assembly is interested. There must be some responsibility to this Assembly for any action done by the Prime Minister.

The connection with the Assembly is this, Sir. Because all Assemblymen's actions outside this Assembly can be accounted for in this House, I do not want to ---

Order. I do not think the hon. Member for Queenstown could get round it that way. If there have been directions to P.A.P. Assemblymen vis-a-vis their actions in this Assembly or in connection with this Assembly, then yes. But if it is on social visits and so on. I say no.

I do not wish to pursue that subject. Sir. We will leave it. Let me refer to the Prime Minister's constituency visits.

There is nothing to stop you.

The Prime Minister has been going round visiting all the constituencies, bragging to the people what the P.A.P. can do. We do not mind him going around. In fact, it is a good thing that he goes around --- The Prime Minister : You cannot stop me.

Order.

Nobody would like to stop him. He will be stopping himself unfortunately. Because very soon he will not have the opportunity of doing so again, not with this bally-hoo with arches, and students and Work Brigade boys lining the streets. If the Prime Minister really intended to meet the people as he says, then he should not have adopted the style of an emperor going on visits to the country. He reminds us of emperors in China visiting the countryside. Drums were beaten, cymbals banged, dragon dances, lion dances - is that the way to meet the people? 3.45 p.m. You know, the Work Brigade boys have to put up posters all over the place. Merely putting up posters sometimes can bring in a bill amounting to thousands of dollars. I do not know who pays for all that. Maybe the Prime Minister can answer. But this building of arches along the route and on the roads is a nuisance to the people, because it obstructs traffic. Today, the Prime Minister was supposed to have visited Ulu Pandan. I stay not so very far from Ulu Pandan and I have seen two arches already erected for the last 10 days ---

By the people.

One in Bukit Timah Road, just past Adam Road ---

Are you contributing for me?

--- another one in Adam Road itself. And mind you, Sir, both these arches have their feet, so to speak, right on the road. Previously, two lanes of traffic could pass; now only one lane, with the result that during rush hours, there is a terrific congestion, and people have to wait for 20 or 30 minutes to get past the junction. Children who have to go to school have to turn up late because of the congestion in traffic. Let us ask the Prime Minister: who is responsible for the building of these arches? According to the Prime Minister, it must be the people. Well, if it is not a government structure, then who has given permission that these structures be built on public roads? And what is our Traffic Superintendent doing about this? Is it because the people are to welcome the Prime Minister, therefore, everything is all right?

Are you jealous?

Order. The Minister for Finance just walks in and he interjects. I do not know whether he knows what the Member is talking about.

He does not know what he is talking about. But the most objectionable thing about the Prime Minister's constituency visits is this. Either with his knowledge or with his connivance, there are people who have been going around collecting money - $5, $10, $15 from the hawkers; $10 up to hundreds of dollars from shopkeepers. For what? You know, Sir, the talk that is going round. These hawkers say. "What can I do when people from the Government come along? You cannot do anything but contribute. If you do not want to give $5 or $10, you will be called a Communist. I would rather be $5 short than be called a Communist." The Government is using these methods of intimidation and coercion to get people to "contribute" money for the Prime Minister's "Welcome" arches. Does the Prime Minister realise that he is causing a lot of inconvenience to the people? In fact, I can say that far from getting the desired result, he is going to get a boomerang because the people are more annoyed than ever --- An hon. Member: Then why raise it now?

Good, but he does not know it. I think it is good that the Prime Minister should know it - [Interruption]. Yes, we would like you to be popular, Mr Prime Minister ---

Oh, no, please!

So that you need not prosecute and persecute Assemblymen - [Interruption].

Order. I was afraid of that, that the lead given by the Front benches of the Government side will be taken up by the Back benches on the Government side. There will be a rabble soon.

I met a couple of Work Brigade boys and they complain that if they do not go along to line the streets and form a welcoming crowd for the Prime Minister, they would lose their daily pay. They have roll-calls, and if they do not answer the roll-calls, they lose their money. Is that what the Work Brigade is meant for? The Prime Minister, of course, says that he goes to the rural constituencies to meet the people. But whom can he deceive? He cannot deceive the people. When people go to meet the Prime Minister, he disappears. He scoots from his office. Families wanted to meet him, but he dared not meet them. So how can he say that he goes to meet the people? When he goes to a constituency, he makes sure that all his bodyguards are around him, and if anybody should want to hand a memorandum to him, he has first to go through a certain sieve, so to speak, before he has even a chance of just handing over the memorandum. The Prime Minister was so embarrassed that he made sure that such people who wanted to meet him were completely prevented from doing so. These are only a few facts about his constituency visits. Today, the Prime Minister is also in charge of the ex-City Council and the Public Utilities Board is also under him. Everybody is suffering from the water shortage. If you go home at any time in the middle of the day, you just do not have water for a wash. But I understand that Oxley Road has no water rationing. I do not know who stays in Oxley Road. An hon. Member: The Prime Minister.

Well, I know that the Prime Minister stays in Oxley Road. I might shift there and enjoy no water rationing. But is this the proper way? Let the Prime Minister answer this. Why should he have water all the day when other people who need it most do not get it? Let him answer all this. Sir. Dr Thio Chan Bee rose ---

I wonder if the Member for Tanglin is touching on the same point raised by the Member.

On one point, Sir.

Perhaps if the hon. Member touches on that point only for the time being, then the Prime Minister will he able to reply to that point as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the subject of the Prime Minister's visit to the various constituencies, may we know whether he was doing so in his official capacity as the Prime Minister of Singapore or as the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party? If he was confused over the two, then, in my opinion, he should have paid two visits, one in his capacity as the Prime Minister and later on unofficially as the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party. It is because he went in his dual capacity that people were confused. When he attacked other political Parties in the course of his visit, I think that was improper, because if he, as the Prime Minister, made a political speech before a crowd that was there to meet him, he opened himself to the criticism that he is like a Government servant making use of his position for personal profit. Sir, I am sure he does not want to expose himself to that criticism. In future, I would suggest that he make two separate visits instead of one, as the Prime Minister and as the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party.

I expect we will have to dwell at great length on this Head. I hope that Members on the other side will get it off their chest, because I like to have happy Members of the Opposition, not men filled with venom and frustration. It leads to neurosis. My heart goes out to the Member for Queenstown. On two occasions, he found the burden of his heavy responsibility too much for him, and he literally passed out. I really ask him - if it helps him in any way - to denounce, abuse or otherwise to get it off his chest, and I say please do so in the sanctity and safety of this Chamber. First, Oxley Road and water. Now, Mr Speaker. Sir,I sincerely hope that the Press will note this, because if indeed Oxley Road is getting water and other roads are not, then this is a valuable piece of information to all in the neighbourhood. I am sorry to say that all the Member for Queenstown has done now is to enrage all my neighbours who will run around wondering how I can get water into my house when they cannot get it into theirs next door and in front and behind and when there has been no special road-digging to connect a special pipe to my house. Apart from the fact that he will enrage my neighbours, I am quite happy that he should have got this off his chest. Now, Sir, I have been likened to Baron Profumo, a man of great prowess in many fields of war and love. It is being suggested that, like him, I have lied to this House. Now, Sir, I have many shortcomings, like any other human being. But I hope that I am reasonably circumspect never to be a blatant liar. I said in the House on the night of 9th April that we had urgent talks, and we had talks, because Tun Razak was leaving after Easter for Washington and London and he would not be hack for a month. Talks were held - I have the records here - and meetings were held. I was there the very same night while the Member for Queenstown was talking at great length in this Chamber. I was told I missed very little. However, if there is anything of great importance which he thinks I ought to know, I hope he will refer me to the relevant sections of Hansard. We were in Kuala Lumpur meeting on 10th and 11th, and the 12th was Goad Friday. We returned to Singapore. We were due to go back for another meeting on the 16th, Tuesday. In the meantime, in the Finance Ministry of Kuala Lumpur, the thermometer went up. I was going up to join the Tunku for Easter at Cameron Highlands to play golf, amongst other things, in a special plane - there was a special reason why there was a special plane; a special R.M.A.F. plane picked me up at Kuala Lumpur, landed me at Bidor, flew on and picked the Tunku up at Butterworth and brought him back to Bidor, and we sojourned in the Highlands for four days. 4.00 p.m. The plan originally was that I was to be down on Tuesday for further talks - I read that the Finance Minister of the Federation said this in the Sunday Times of 14th April at page 1 referring to what Tunku Abdul Rahman had told Mr Lee: `He added, "What the Federation Prime Minister told Mr Lee was that the Federation was the goose that lays the golden eggs. But it was Singapore who has benefited from those eggs. In other words, Singapore derives the main benefit as middleman from the goods, the toil and sweat of the Federation. It was therefore only right that the Federal Government should be entitled to a fair share of Singapore's prosperity, for without the natural resources of the Federation, where would Singapore be?" Mr Tan said it was clear that on Thursday [that was the week before, on the 10th of April when the meetings were held] the talks were on the verge of breaking down. Then he said, "It was in fact at his (Mr Lee's) urging that the Federation Government agreed to continue the talks next week." Sir, I read this with some interest. I did ask for the talks. I seriously urged that we should meet again before Tun Razak went off because Time was running out; and when I read that in the open Press, I felt that, rightly or wrongly, the Finance Minister of the Federation had misunderstood my position. He thought I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown because there was no agreement and that I went down on my knees and pleaded for another. If I turned up at the meeting on Tuesday with the Finance Minister of the Federation in that frame of mind, and he suddenly found that far from going down on my knees I started telling him exactly what I thought of it all, he would probably fly off into a rage, which would not help things at all. Therefore, from the rarefied and comforting atmosphere of the Highlands, I let it be known, with the agreement of the Tunku who had spoken to his Deputy, that I was not going down to Kuala Lumpur until the temperature had gone down. This was reported in the Straits Times of 17th. I think I am entitled to choose my own tactics. This is a gruelling process in which I am engaged with a company director of no mean skill as a company director - and company directors are hard-headed men who have a glint in their eyes when they see money, and when they see Singapore's surpluses there is more than a glint in their eyes. And whilst I like to keep everybody happy, I must do it on conditions which make sure that I keep Singapore and the people of Singapore generally happy, including the Member for Queenstown, because I can assure him that if there were not all this money around the place, you can send any number of thugs to beat the man up and he would not have the $5 to give you for your arch. It is not possible. He must have $5 first. I make no apologies for choosing my own tactics. I have said before that we are always ready to negotiate. We still are. But I have made it quite clear that the formula - and I am now fortified by the unanimous support of the House because there was not one dissenting voice that night. I went home fully confident that the Government was not going to ---

Order. I am afraid the Prime Minister is now going far away from the point raised. I think he has answered it.

That is the point. Mr Speaker, Sir. Facts. Was there a lie? I said I was going to a meeting. I went to a meeting. The meeting nearly broke down. We never disclosed it. The Finance Minister of the Federation disclosed it and said I begged for a further meeting. I decided that in those circumstances it was hardly likely that there was going to be a reasonable argument, and he was probably under the impression that I was going to fall down on my bended knees and entreat him for a settlement. So I thought the best thing to do was to allow things to cool down. My very able colleague, the Minister for Finance, looked after all the matters that normally he and I together looked after. He did all the talking on our side, and reading from the minutes, I must say that I could not have done better. I would only like to say this to the Member for Queenstown. He should be careful when he thinks of Baron Profumo, because if he only knew the things that the Member for Hong Lim regularly tells us about him ---

Order. I do not think that arises. Can we go on to constituency visits? It is rather interesting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I implore him never to make a false statement in this House or he will be confronted by the Member for Hong Lim who is quite prepared, he told me, to swear on oath as to the qualities of the Member for Queenstown. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose ---

Point of order?

These are insinuations and innuendoes and I wish the Prime Minister will sustain what he has said.

I am not going to sustain what I have said.

On a point of information.

I am going to repeat what the Member for Hong Lim said to me and he will sustain what he said of the Member for Queenstown. I think that is fair enough.

Order. This is completely out of order. It is completely irrelevant. The Member for Hong Lim, I think, is entitled to say something if he wishes to say it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the usual tactic of the Prime Minister when he cannot confront arguments of the Member for Queenstown and he wants to get me to help him confront the Member for Queenstown.

Let us come on to the next topic.

So much for Baron Profumo, and I hope his name will never he forgotten by the two Members opposite. Now, Sir, my rural tour. The Member for Queenstown was greatly upset. I think he increased the hazards of driving for Dunearn Road. Thugs have been sent out, Work Brigade chaps; Government officials go around and collect $5, $10. What else could they do? Otherwise they would be dubbed Communists and so they paid up. Sir, I quite believe that if you employ a gang efficiently, they might collect some money. But I think it is not easy, having made them pay that money, to make them wait for you at a specified Time; and worse, to stand in the sun and listen to you. It is a fact that the Member for Tanglin finds it deplorable that people should be standing around listening and that I should go there in a dual capacity. Dr Thio Chan Bee rose ---

Point of information?

Point of elucidation, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Sir, I did not say that it was deplorable for people to be standing there to meet the Prime Minister. That would have been the right thing if he was going as Prime Minister alone. But what I want him to clarify is this: was he going in his official capacity as Prime Minister or as Secretary-General of the People's Action Party?

I was so careful in these visits that regularly the P.A.P. branch in the constituency is not visited. Because I went there as Prime Minister, I did not wish to associate the party organisation with my visit. It is as simple as that. I visited every one of them, and that was covered by the Press. The P.A.P. branch dresses up for the occasion like any other shops and other people. But I did not visit the branch, Mr Speaker, Sir, I went there as Prime Minister, and as Prime Minister I am entitled to tell the people what I think. One political Party in the Federation with branches in Singapore was trying to do us, and I think the open confrontation helped. It cleared the air. The two Senators have not appeared in Singapore for some Time, and I am told it is unlikely that they will appear. [Interruption] Well, not for some Time any way. I make no apologies for this. These are chosen, deliberate moves, made in what I believe to be the best interests of the people. If you find your arm being quietly twisted on a dark and lonely night, I think the right thing to do first will be to switch the light on so that everybody can see who is twisting your arm. Next, having done that, to apprehend the culprit who has been doing it, and thirdly, to make sure that he does not do it again. I think that is good. That is the democratic procedure of the open argument. If what I said was wrong, about setting up lottery boards and buying chaps over, well, I am liable, Mr Speaker, Sir. Here I am imputing to two venerable Senators, august gentlemen in the hierarchy of the nation and their interest in Malaysia. They thought that all the effort and energy we were expending in keeping the Member for Queenstown and his ilk down was to the benefit of the Social Welfare Lottery sellers, like him. I understand the discomfiture of the Member for Cairnhill because he was left out of the Lottery Board.

Order. The Prime Minister is now trying to persist in being irrelevant. That is completely irrelevant to what we are now debating. We are now debating his constituency visits, and he has brought in something which he has said in one of his visits.

That is the point, Mr Speaker. The Member for Tanglin asked: what right had I, if I went as Prime Minister, to attack political Parties? I expect he wants a Prime Minister who just kisses babies and loves everyone, including his enemies, like good moral rearmamers. I am told that if you slap their left cheek, they give you their right cheek. Finished with the right, you can kick them in the groin; they roll down on the floor in agony and never utter a word of anguish. But that is not the way Singapore is governed. Anybody who thinks he can outdo the Singapore Government is quite welcome to try. Like Sumo wrestlers, Sir, if you fail, then there is a heavy thud, and that is that. It is a well-known fact now: I mean the collision is on; it must be settled at some date. I have not increased affection and general bonhomie as a result of my disclosures. The Member for Cairnhill - I do not know. I have asked him not to be too worried about being left out from the Lottery Board.

Order. I think the Prime Minister has made his point. I do hope he understands what I am trying to do. This is Supply day and there is a guillotine on the different items. Therefore, if he can be as relevant as possible on every item, I think we can get on.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. But what I want to do really is to help the Members opposite. 4.15 p.m. Somehow, I think they feel the world is not quite right. Traffic is wrong; there are arches; extortion is going on. It is quite right if the Member for Tanglin - no doubt I hope one of these days when I visit Tanglin, I will have the pleasure of meeting him, unlike the Member for Queenstown who would not be in, as ho thinks it is wrong altogether - but whatever it is, never doubt that this is a Government that is prepared to justify everything it does, publicly and privately. It is prepared to justify publicly. Water for Oxley Road - test with the neighbours; test with the Water Department to find out where the valves are. Rural tours, Mr Speaker, Sir, boomerang on me. The Member for Queenstown loves me so much that he was driven to anguish at the thought that all this may come to grief on me. Well, I am indebted to him for the great concern and solicitude he has shown for me. But every foolish remark he makes, let him remember - the Member for Hong Lim is a much wilier person ---

Order. The Member for Hong Lim has not even spoken!

On a point of information. The Prime Minister knows, Mr Speaker, Sir, where his match comes.

There comes a great man! He never picks a fight where he is likely to get hurt. He is a wise man. In saying these things, there are hundreds of people in each of these constituencies who know that what the Member for Queenstown said was a lie and who would be offended by the lies; not a matter for me.

He said "lies", Sir, I never used the word "lies" about him.

I think the Member said "untruth". But may I point out that there are 22 items under Head 7 (Prime Minister), and we have not even completed one. Let us get on. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose ---

Is it on the same topic?

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have refrained from entering into the fray of mud-slinging by comrades and ex-comrades. But the Prime Minister in his mental anguish chose to bring me into the arena. I cannot understand it.

Do not worry. They can sell aeroplanes.

Sir, it would seem that what he has said - I would not have come into this and I would have let the Prime Minister have his fun at the expense of the Member for Queenstown. But he thought it was a good thing, while he is on this, to go on twisting everyone. He mentioned the meetings of the Inter-Governmental Committee in Kuala Lumpur. The Member for Queenstown tried to pinpoint the statements made in this House on the 10th, and he said that one of us (either the Prime Minister or I) was telling an untruth. The Prime Minister therefore had to stand up and explain the situation, to try to say that what he said about the 10th was the truth. I would not have wanted to pick flaws in his statement if he had just left it at that. He said, about the 9th, that he left for Kuala Lumpur on the 9th. That was true in that while the debate was going on, he was in Kuala Lumpur on the 10th. On the 10th, in the morning, he was having a wonderful game of golf, and in the afternoon when the meeting was to have been held, he did not attend that meeting. Right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order. I was just telling the Member that I attended the meetings on the 10th and the 11th. The newspapers are there, the minutes are there. If he says that I am lying, then the minutes are lying, the newspapers are lying. Then I have my conduct investigated, because obviously either I am a liar or he is persisting in repeating a lie after I have told him the truth.

He can have all his newspapers to say what he wants to say. I am not interested in that. This is what I said. And therefore ---

Well, in that case ---

Order.

On a point of order.

Order. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity of replying. Tun Lim.

It is a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir.

Is it a point of order? The Prime Minister : It is. I have stated, as a matter of fact, that I was in Kuala Lumpur on the 10th and 11th for two meetings. There are minutes of the meetings. The Member for Cairnhill is insisting that that is a lie and that, in fact, I did not attend the meetings. I say that if that is so, then one of us has committed a breach of privilege by calling the other a liar. Have it investigated.

Order. That is not a point of order. It is one statement as against another statement, and the Prime Minister has his remedy. If he thinks that the Member for Cairnhill is alleging an untruth, in fact, stating a lie, he may refer it to the Committee of Privileges by way of a motion. That is all there is to it - one statement as against another. The Prime Minister : Well ---

I am not here to judge. Tun Lim.

Sir, therefore, on the 10th in trying to answer that, he said, "Well, I was in Cameron Highlands. I consider it to be in the interests of the public."

Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Is it a point of order?

It is, and on another point of order. I am suggesting to the Member for Cairnhill that he desist, because I intend to move this as a matter of privilege. He leaves me with no choice.

Yes. But that is not a point of order. The Prime Minister is entitled to do that if, in fact, the Member for Cairnhill is not telling the truth.

I was just saying that on the 10th he said something else. He said that he was at Cameron Highlands and he considered that it was in the public interest that there was no need for him to attend the meeting. I forgot the date, and he said "16th". And I said that that was not true. I still say that it is not true. It was not he who said that there should be no meeting. It was the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya who told him it was not worth having another' meeting. He agreed. Therefore, he did not go. But the Minister for Finance, not having been informed that the meeting was cancelled, wept to Kuala Lumpur and they had a meeting no doubt with the Minister for Finance. The Prime Minister can say what he wants to say, but it would seem that he does not allow other people to say what they think is the true position.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this morning we have been talking about the rural visits of the Prime Minister. I myself am quite interested in this matter, and so I would like to give my own views on it. I personally feel that the Prime Minister of the State is not only a clever man, eloquent and capable, but today he is also a very outstanding actor in this House. As a matter of fact, we can see for ourselves that when the Prime Minister goes on rural visits, his performance is very outstanding and wonderful. Sometimes he cries, sometimes he jumps, and sometimes he laughs, and there is a lot of banging of gongs and drums. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very interesting matter for the Prime Minister to go to the rural areas. We originally did not bother about these things. But because the Prime Minister has said in this House that we cannot stop his visits to the rural areas. I would like to reply that we do not have any intention of stopping him from going there. We can see clearly, as our Party Chairman and other Members of this House have pointed out, that the Prime Minister has been going on rural visits to waste public funds. We know that the market is not so good these few days, and the visits of the Prime Minister have -not been of any benefit to the pea-pie. Instead it has cost them some money in the building and construction of arches. So we say that this is a suicidal move of the Prime Minister in the political field. We do not care to stop him. [Laughter] It is not a joke. I think you are crying inside yourself. This is not a joke, you know. [Interruption]

Order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the rural visits of the Prime Minister, as he explains, are made to enable him to understand the livelihood of the people in the rural areas. But what is the method and how does he go about this thing? He goes about it in the grandest way. How can he say that he can understand the way of living of the people? From the history of China we can see that those officials who were interested in the livelihood of the people, when they went on visits to the people, went in a very plain manner, without being noticed by members of the public. They did not make a lot of fuss and visit places where there were lots of arches. Mr Speaker. Sir, actually the aim of the Prime Minister in his rural visits is only to make political propaganda. We can see that when the Prime Minister said things during his visits, they were said with threats or deceit, especially recently with regard to the breakdown in the financial talks. The Prime Minister made use of the opportunity during his rural visits to make complaints before the people. When he met with difficulties, he said that they were difficulties in the financial talks; and then all of a sudden he made a twist and said that there was much progress. So he tried to make use of his rural visits to show that he is one who is a hero looking after the interests of the people. But how has he helped in the livelihood of the people? If one says that the amenities of any constituency must depend on the rural visits of the Prime Minister, then I say that this Government is incapable and incompetent. I would say that a responsible Prime Minister should not do a thing of this nature. If you want to develop the rural areas or to construct any road, then you must not wait until the Prime Minister goes on a rural visit. Mr Speaker - [Interruption]

Order. I do not understand these interjections in Mandarin!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, so, on the whole, we can say that the rural visits of the Prime Minister have been made in order to try and save his political life. That is all. 4.30 p.m. He was quite irresponsible when he said that he agreed to the detention of these people during February of this year, because he wanted them to have some rest and free meals. Mr Speaker, I say that this kind of talk should not have come from a responsible Prime Minister. I would like to explain to you further about this matter. I am a citizen of Singapore. Is that not right? If the Government is so irresponsible as to detain anybody and make use of public funds to feed them when they can work for their own livelihood, then the Government is being irresponsible. If these persons have not committed any crime, the Government cannot do this. If they have, then send them to the court.

Order. I think the Lady Member is now entering into a different debate entirely. She will have the opportunity, I am sure, to speak on that particular aspect. Shall we carry on with the constituency visits?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, all that I have said is actually closely related to the rural visits of the Prime Minister, because when he makes his rural visits, not only has he failed to keep his promise to understand the people, but he makes use of the opportunity to carry out his -political propaganda and make irresponsible statements and allegations. I say that this is wrong. On one occasion, during a rural visit, he said that he agreed to the detention of these people because he wanted them to have some rest and free meals. I say that responsible citizens were very unhappy about his statement. So I am pointing out to him that from this it can be said that the Prime Minister is irresponsible. Mr Speaker, on the whole, the rural visits of the Prime Minister provide occasions for him to get across his own feelings, his laughter and his emotions to the people. He wants the people to share his own feelings but they will not do this. It exposes his nature.

(In Mandarin): First of all, I must thank the Member for Stamford for using so much time and effort to advise me on how to become a responsible Prime Minister. I welcome her help and I thank her very much for it. She says that she does not intend to obstruct me in my rural visits because it will not be to my own advantage. That is well and good. I would like to ask her, during my first visit to Thomson District, why did all the people get these old people to visit me?

I take it that the Member wishes to raise a matter for elucidation. Miss Fung.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister claims that during his rural visits, some people used to organise rural dwellers and country people to welcome him. I would like to ask him to explain this.

(In Mandarin): Facts are facts. The first time I visited Thomson District, their youths dared not come out; so they sent out their old womenfolk; that was more convenient. This is nothing different from the Barisan Sosialis tactics. Miss Fung Yin Ching rose -

Order. I would suggest that the Member for Stamford make a few notes. It would be much simpler for interpretation. The Prime Minister completes what he has to say, and then I will allow the Member for Stamford to reply. Mr Prime Minister. The Prime Minister (In Mandarin): The Rural Dwellers and Country Peoples Association wanted to protest against the anti-colonialist heroes. I am an elected Prime Minister. Therefore, I cannot help but persuade them to meet me in an open front. The same womenfolk in Jalan Kayu and the women in Thomson District said that I did not satisfy their needs. What are their needs? Do they want payment or material compensation? Why all these arrogant and unjustifiable claims? All these are false statements. If the question of compensation is settled, they will then bring up another question. All compensations have been paid. So if both say that they are right, then one must be lying. So I asked one old woman to come and see me on Sunday and then on Monday when Press reporters were present, she dared not turn up, because her master's supporters did not dare come out. Our young Lady Member has described my rural visits as a show of putting across my emotions and feelings. If I have made any errors, I will ask her to excuse me. She has paid so much attention to my rural visits. I feel very touched and happy. To have such attention paid by her shows that there is a real need for my rural visits. Then, in future, we shall be able to disclose step by step whatever false statements they have made to the people since 1959. I personally hope that one day so young a lady like her will get more and richer experience and then perhaps she may help us to manage our affairs. As to telling me how to be a good Prime Minister, it is very kind of her, but if she says that I have been irresponsible in my talks to the people, then I say it is not a fact. I have said that those detained are having a rest and free meals. This is true, because they are actually having free meals - two eggs a day, a pound of butter, three pounds of beef and various dishes of vegetables. Therefore, I hope these people can review what they have done in the past in these quiet surroundings. Once they have reformed themselves, they can come and help in the development of Malaysia.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Prime Minister has said just now that in his personal Visits to the rural districts some people organised old womenfolk to embarrass him. In the past, because the educational policies in schools were in a chaotic state, the future of the students was in a very bad state: so they stood up to protest against this. The Prime Minister then said that these people are young and inexperienced and can easily be made use of. I must ask him what about these aged womenfolk? Will they be easily made use of too? By this argument, he will feel ashamed of himself. Old women have their own ideas. With years of life and experience behind them, how can they be easily made use of? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has said just now that he wishes that I must have full and rich experience before I can help him. He does not know himself. If I wanted to help, I would not help reactionary people like him to work. He does not know his own standing. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister always says that those under detention are living very well, but I must point out that if a person loses his liberty and has only good meals, then he is no better off than a pig. It is only our Prime Minister who envies such a way of life. He says those people have good meals. Is it true? We must know. But the money they use to pay for the meals - is it being brought out from their own pockets or is it from public funds?

Order. As I have said, that topic. I am sure, will be raised Time and Time again as we go through these Estimates. Unless any Member wishes to raise another topic, another point on item (1). I propose to close the debate on that item.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 4.45 p.m.

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Sir, the Prime Minister has on many occasions defended the Political Secretaries by saying that they act as bridges between the Government and the people.

Rubbish!

The Prime Minister did not say that? An hon. Member: He said that.

What are these Political Secretaries then? What is Jek Yuen Thong? Is he one of the bridges for the Government?

He is very useful ---

Order.

Did he try to act as a bridge between Singapore and Moshi? If Political Secretaries are to serve a useful purpose, then they must really do some work: and if they are supposed to meet the people and feel their pulse, then they must really meet the people. On the 22nd of April the families of detainees went to see the Prime Minister but they did not see him. They found Mr Jek Yuen Thong in the office, but Mr Jek did not see the families of the detainees. Why did he not? What was he paid for? We would like to hear some explanation from the Prime Minister.

I do not want to go too much into the details of this famous incident on the 22nd of April for obvious reasons. I asked Mr Jek Yuen Thong and he assured me that they went there to see me and not to see him. He told me that had they seen mc, some of the bottles and sticks which he saw might well have been suitably employed. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure them that I am usually in the office on Mondays.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 1. Sir, item (4) and item (5) are for Permanent Secretaries. For item (4) in 1962, we had a token vote of $10, and we are still asked to give a token vote of $10 for 1963. But in the meantime a post of Permanent Secretary (Special Duties), Grade C, has been created in 1962. I thought that when that post was created it would have filled that vote for the Permanent Secretary with the token vote of $10. Can the Prime Minister explain why he should want two Permanent Secretaries in one small Ministry, which will get smaller and smaller after Malaysia?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. One Permanent Secretary is at the moment acting as General Manager of the Public Utilities Board: hence the token vote of $10. The position is quite simple. I get no benefit out of having two Permanent Secretaries because they are doing their respective duties whether they appear on my list or somebody else's list. As for my Ministry shrinking after Malaysia, I think the Member for Cairnhill must have got his White Paper wrong, as mainly it is the Home Affairs that is shrinking. So all the questions that Members on the opposite side behind him find so much interest in - on Prisons, the shape of windows, sunshine, fresh air, exercise, free meals, companions to talk to, birds, rabbits, vegetables and so on - they will all be directed to the Minister for the Interior in Kuala Lumpur after August 31st. Mind you, I am ready at any Time now to collect any memoranda that they wish to give me on their behalf. But, Sir, as far as I am concerned, my Ministry continues as before. If it is shrinking, it is because the programme for setting up the Public Utilities Board has been completed; the Integration Bill winding up the City Council will be taken through all its stages, I think, in this Session, and there will be a devolution of these responsibilities on to other people.

If I understand him right, Sir, although there are two posts in his Ministry, there is only one Permanent Secretary working as Permanent Secretary. In view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Teng Kian --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made a mistake about this amendment. I therefore wish to withdraw it. I am not moving it. The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee ---

Dr Thio, amendment (5) .

I am not moving, Sir.

Dr Thio, amendment (6) .

I am not moving too.

Dr Lee, amendment (7) .

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3. That is for Entertainment. I see the sum of $10,000 is the same as voted for last year, and it is a pity, because I thought that sum should be increased. Sir, the Prime Minister entertains so many people nowadays in Sri Temasek that I am sure he needs more money. Instead of extracting money from the people in the constituencies who subscribed $5 and $10 for his arches, surely this money could be put to better use, and the people may not have to pay any money. I wonder if the Prime Minister will seriously consider this.

I was thinking that there could be a fair case made out to increase the vote, but in view of the general austerity of the Times, in case it is believed that we have got more surplus than it is already reckoned that we have, it is best that we keep our expenditure more or less as it is. But perhaps next year if the Member for Queenstown would let us know how far he would go in supporting us, once the financial terms have been settled and there can be no question of its being believed that we have more money than we require, then I will be very happy to receive any recommendations from him and his Party and from any other Members of the Opposition. Of course, I must remind the Member for Queenstown that this invitation to receive recommendations from the other side does not include a recommendation to increase Assemblymen's allowances.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that after each visit by the Prime Minister to the rural constituencies, those people who have contributed $10 in some places and in other places perhaps a few dollars more to the building of arches and the purchase of fire-crackers for the Prime Minister's visits would after the visit receive an invitation card embossed in gold print for a dinner in Sri Temasek. Now, what I wish to seek clarification is this. In addition to these rural visits, there ore many other forms of entertainment. I believe, held almost night after night in Sri Temasek. I agree that this $10,000 is not sufficient for the purpose.

Thank you. Hooray --- more.

It is only enough for three rural visits. I believe in any of these big parties where 800 people are usually gathered together, each person who has paid $10 for fire-crackers can get back a certain amount, depending on how much he can drink. If you can drink two bottles of Hennessy, you get hack three-fold. Therefore, Sir, I wish, first of all, if the Prime Minister agrees, we on this side of the House vote for a 50 per cent increase, or 30 per cent increase. If it is not necessary, then there must be some other reason. The entertainment expenses being incurred in Sri Temasek almost every night must have come from some other hidden vote. On this I wish to seek clarification from the Prime Minister.

I am gratified by the warmth and charity shown by my political opponents. Sir, I am indebted to them for their consideration. I will seriously give consideration to upping the vote by 50 per cent next year. As I have said, for various reasons I think it is impolitic at this moment to increase our entertainment allowances as it may be deemed that we have more than enough funds for our State purposes. So let us first settle our financial discussions at Kuala Lumpur. The answer that I will give to his other solicitous enquiry, as to how much I spend on my guests, is the one that I have given to the Member for Cairnhill, that there is a Public Accounts Committee, and if he is genuinely interested, not for the purpose of publicly humiliating my guests by having it said how much per head they are worth, then he can seek clarification in the Public Accounts Committee. That is the proper place.

Sir, the answer the Prime Minister gave me was that there have been no such receptions, but the Member for Hong Lim says there have been receptions almost every night. I do not know who is right.

The Member for Cairnhill often plays the joker. It so happened, he asked me the question when there were no receptions. The fact that the Member for Hong Lim says we are tottering around with whisky every night does not mean that we are. I have long ceased to worry about what he says, because if what he says is true, then we must all be here sodden and laden with whisky and food, incapable of meeting the constant fusillade that comes from the Opposition benches, and therefore we would all be grovelling away on the floor prostrate through sheer good living.

Does the Member for Queenstown wish for a vote? Yes? Oh. I thought lie wished to increase the vote!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

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

I shall take this Chair again at half-past five. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head 7, Amendment (8) , Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 6. Sir, this vote shows an increase of $4,000 over last year's estimate. The building, I understand, has been renovated and I therefore cannot understand why the maintenance costs should be more than those for last year.

I think last year the domestic staff was not in residence because the house was being renovated. It has just been in use since the beginning of December or the end of November last year, and the increase. I think, is for domestic staff.

Would the Prime Minister please inform this House how much domestic staff is engaged for this particular Temasek in Kuala Lumpur?

There is one cook, a house boy and a washerwoman - she does the laundry.

Who are the people who make use of this Kuala Lumpur Temasek? Do civil servants make use of it too, or only the Ministers?

If I can remember the circular rightly, I think all Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Division I officers, when they are on duty, and all Division II and Division III officers accompanying Ministers and Division I officers on duty.

In view of the explanation given, Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 6.

Dr Lee.

I am not moving, Sir.

Amendment (10). Mr Bani.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 9.* * The same amendment also stood the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock. Sir, we note that the provision for last year was $39,290 and for this year it has gone up to $161,900. The note referring to the Appendix merely seeks to clarify the proportion of Singapore's contribution to the upkeep of Malaya Hall. Sir, what we would like to know is why there has to be an increase of over $120,000 in this vote. Sir, we are not against any increase in the vote so as to provide improvements in Malaya Hall, provided, of course, that such improvements are justified. What we would like to know, Sir, is why the increase, and whether it is justified because we cannot trust the P.A.P. and we know, Sir, that they are quite interested in Malaya Hall. As a matter of fact, the P.A.P. is more interested in the occupants of Malaya Hall than the upkeep of Malaya Hall itself, and we would like to ensure that this fund is not used for activities which may help the P.A.P. to make their political activities easier in London.

I wonder whether Tun Lim wishes to say a few words.

No, Sir.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am cheered by the remarks of the Member for Thomson that he considers the maintenance and upkeep of Malaya Hall an important matter, even more important than the occupants of Malaya Hall in whom he suspects we have a great deal of interest. He does not trust us and in this particular respect I can assure him, since he trusts the Federation Minister for Internal Security more, I am sure he will accept the explanation that this is because we are implementing the Ismail Report. He will remember Dr Ismail, the Minister for the Interior of the Federation, who went there to investigate student affairs and made some recommendations which included extensions and renovations of Malaya Hall. This is our share ratio of one to two for the implementation of these recommendations. If he accepts Dr Ismail's word for it, then I am quite sure he will give us his support for paying our share and I can assure him that one of Dr Ismail's predominant interests is to ensure that Mr John Eber gets no credit out of Malaya Hall.

I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 12.

Mrs Seow is not here. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Mrs Scow Peck Leng and Tun Lim Yew Hock --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 ho reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14.

Mr Rajah is not here. Mrs Seow is not here. Tun Lim?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14. Sir, this is a vote for two cars of $44,000 for replacement. I would like the Prime Minister to inform this House how many cars there are in this pool and the ages of these cars?

Sir, the two cars in question - one is a seven-year old Humber Super Snipe and the other is a Humber Hawk. I am afraid I have not got the year in which the Humber Hawk was purchased - oh yes, it is a 1952 model.

Would the Prime Minister please tell us how many ears there are in this particular pool and what are their ages?

Sir, apart from these two, there are five other cars - two are 1961 models, two are 1962 models, one is a 1963 model.

Sir, is it not a fact that these two cars have already been purchased?

Not to my knowledge, Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the two new cars were in respect of last year's vote. They usually arrive a year after the vote.

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

Amendment (13), Tun Lim.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 16. Would the Prime Minister please inform this House how that vote of $5,000 is to be used, especially when a vote of $30,000 was given for last year to furnish Temasek?

I am informed that this $5,000 is for replacement of furnishings and linen as the place is used annually.

May I withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 17.

Amendment (14). Mrs Seow.

I am not moving. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 18.

Amendment (15). Mrs Seow.

I am not moving.

Dr Lee, amendment (16) .

I move, Sir. That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 18. A large number of new honours and decorations have been given to a lot of people ---

Subhead 18.

Subhead 18, oh, I am not moving. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 19.

Amendment (17), Mrs Seow.

I am not moving.

Dr Lee, amendment (18) , subhead 19. Senior Trade and Cultural Representative's Office in Indonesia.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 19.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Rajah and Tun Lim Yew Hock. Sir, we want to know what our Trade and Cultural Representative is doing in Indonesia.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Trade and Cultural Representative is right here in this House waiting for a free moment to report to me on what is happening to our business in Indonesia right at this moment. As the Member for Queenstown quite rightly pointed out, his services were suitably acknowledged by the State of Singapore in the National Day Honours. I think he has conducted his duties there as our Trade and Cultural Representative with a great deal of tact and diplomatic competence. I am happy to report that through the somewhat difficult period of the last few months, when boats and aeroplanes were buzzing between the Straits of Malacca and Malaya, we maintained correct and cordial relations with our big and powerful neighbour. 5.45 p.m.

Sir, in view of Malaysia, would this particular department not come under the External Affairs Ministry of Malaysia, and if so, would the Government not start considering in what way economy can be achieved right now? I refer to a particular item which is fortunately just a token vote of $10 for the purchase of houses. If as a result of Malaysia, while we may still have the representation, but it will come under the wing of the External Affairs of Malaysia, then, I think it would be a wise thing if we try to cut down on our expenses in Indonesia.

Sir, I do hope the Members on the other side take Command Paper 33 of 1961 seriously, because it does set out the main framework of our relations with the Central Government thereafter and I would like to refer the Member for Cairnhill to the second half of paragraph 5 of the White Paper: `While the Federal Government will be responsible for the conduct of external relations, the special position of Singapore in relation to entrepot trade will be safeguarded. Measures to protect the interest of Singapore trade overseas will include the establishment of a section within any of the Federal missions as may be necessary to deal with trade matters of Singapore. In any trade negotiation or arrangements undertaken or entered into by the Federal Government with another country due consideration will be given to the commercial needs of Singapore.' In other words, all these trade representatives representing Singapore's special interest will continue, but as part of the Malayan Embassy. But they will be looking after Singapore's special interest and entrepot trade. I do not think the vote can disappear because the vote will have to appear.

The Prime Minister has misunderstood me. What I have said is borne out by what he has said just now. What I say is, would it not be a wise thing if we could consider some economy? Will it be necessary to buy houses when these people can come in under the same, shall we say, housing compound as the Malaysian Embassy, instead of having separate houses? What I am more concerned about is the purchase of houses which will mean a lot of money.

Sir, whether or not the trade representative is there on his own as of right representing Singapore or is there representing Singapore as part of the Malayan Embassy, he must have a place to reside in, and if we do not pay for it, the Federal Government will have to pay for it and will charge us for it.

Does the Member for Queenstown wish for a vote? Dr Lee Siew Choh indicated dissent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 20.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Bani and Mr Ng Teng Kian. There are quite a number of decorations and honours which have been given to various people in Singapore. By what yardstick do they give these honours? Would the Prime Minister enlighten us?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am delighted that the Member for Queenstown shows proper and due interest and respect for this matter. I sincerely hope that when the citations are read, he would, I am quite sure, be invited to be present as a Member of this Assembly to do honours to those who have served the State of Singapore, and I hope he will listen to the citations with the interest that they deserve.

Have medals and honours been given to chairmen of welcoming committees to the Prime Minister's visits to constituencies?

There may well have been. Mr Speaker, Sir. We established a Public Service Star, but if they were, it was purely incidental, because they were also leaders of the communities that they live in. I am quite sure that if the Member for Queenstown does not think they are leaders of communities, he is quite at liberty to criticize.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I think by right, this subhead should be renamed "P.A.P. Honours and Decorations" instead of what it reads now. It is all very amusing. On May Day, Mr Devan Nair gave the Prime Minister a medal, and on National Day the Prime Minister gave Mr Devan Nair a medal. An hon. Member: Jealous, are you?

Sir, we are not, in principle, opposed to giving citations to public servants who genuinely perform functions in the interests of the State and its people. But what we do not want to see is the use of public funds to buy silver medals, gold medals and what have they to give people whose services are recognized only if those services are to the advantage of P.A.P.'s political interest. Sir, it is true that if we go through the names - and the Prime Minister himself has accepted it to be true just now in the reply given to the Member for Queenstown - in the list there are many whose only meritorious service appears to be activities which are political and in the interest of the P.A.P. There are a lot of people like Devan Nair - for example. Mr Gopalakrishnan. Practically all the P.A.P. trade union leaders have been given citations - gold medals, I suppose. Sir, it is strange again that some equally well-known P.A.P. trade unionists have been omitted. I am quite sure that this is not a mistake, but quite a deliberate act. For example, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture whose standing, I believe, in the P.A.P.'s small trade union world, is equivalent to that of Mr Devan Nair, or if not Devan Nair, at least, I believe, Sir, to that of other people like Ho See Beng and so on. But the Parliamentary Secretary did not get one. There is one other interesting example, Mr T. V. Gomez, who is also a notorious P.A.P. trade unionist. He has also been left out. Perhaps the reasons are that giving citations to these people would only make things more obvious. We do not think it is proper for the Government to utilise public funds in the region of $20,000 - next year $23,940 merely to give citations to individuals because their activities favour the P.A.P.'s interest. This, we think, is a complete waste of Time and a waste of money, particularly in a period which is described by the Prime Minister as a period of austerity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another instance where the Government has been using public funds for its own party purposes. We are not against giving decorations to people. But in order for a decoration or medal to be accepted by the people, the person who receives it must have contributed some substantial service to the State, otherwise the medal would be no more valuable ---

Quite right.

--- than the metal it is made of. Mr Speaker, Sir, in its last days of power, we see the Government coming out with emergency laws and by-laws, and putting forward new prizes for those who have helped the P.A.P. I understand that, in some cases, people did not want to take these prizes, because they did not want it to be known that they had taken sides, or they did not want to be in the bad books of any future Government. I have no doubt that some of these medals were given to those who have contributed meritorious service not to the State as such but to the P.A.P. There is one single instance where I wish to seek clarification from the Government. I remember a few weeks before these medals were given, the Organising Secretary of the P.A.P., who is the Minister for Home Affairs, opened a P.A.P. Branch in Jalan Kayu constituency, and in his speech he paid tribute and was grateful to one of the contractors - a famous contractor - building lots of houses in Sembawang and Jalan Kayu area by the name of Mr Ang Oon Hwee, who had given the P.A.P. the branch premises in Jalan Kayu. Not many weeks later after that, Mr Ang Oon Hwee got a medal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Hong Lim has got his facts wrong. He is referring to a wrong person. The Prime Minister and Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Let the Prime Minister reply.

May I clarify, please?

Let the Prime Minister reply.

I think he will have plenty of time. May I first make my point? Mr Speaker, Sir, quite rightly as the Member for Hong Lim says, these ought to be given to persons who have rendered service to the State. He approved, when he was a Member of the Cabinet, the establishment of these various orders and decorations, and so did the Member for Queenstown when he was on the Government side. Amongst those who got the meritorious service medal are two members of the Special Branch, Mr Ahmad Khan and Mr Richard Byrne Corridon. They did their work well, not for the P.A.P., Mr Speaker. Sir. They were there before the P.A.P., they will be there after the 31st of August when they will not be working for the P.A.P. at all, and they will be working direct to Kuala Lumpur. But we, nevertheless, acknowledge their valuable services in tracking down all the activities of vile and evil men out to destroy the State. So tot) Mr Koh Teck Kin, the President of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Mr Assomull. They are not P.A.P. members. Mr Speaker, Sir. They rendered valuable services as the leaders of the communities at a Time when men who were faint-hearted ducked for cover before it was known that the battle would be fought and won. They took a stand, when the fight for merger and Malaysia was on. So with Mr Abu Bakar Pawanchee. He was there before the P.A.P. came in: he will be there after the next elections whether it is the P.A.P. or any other Government. As for the Member for Thomson, he lacks the guile. The Three Kingdoms method of the Member for Hong Lim. He must read more of The Three Kingdoms. He is a bit too obvious, trying to stir up trouble between Mr Kandasamy and me.

Well, you have trouble.

Indeed, we have trouble because we stick to principles. 6.00 p.m.

On a point of information, please.

Surely, after this. Let me first dispose of the Member for Thomson before the point is brought home. No Member of the Government, whether a Parliamentary Secretary, a Minister or a Political Secretary, got any decorations, because as a matter of principle we felt that they are not eligible. Therefore, Mr Kandasamy, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, Mr Rahim Ishak did not qualify. Whether they were or they were not, the matter does not arise. But I say Mr Devan Nair rendered a public service, having successfully and consistently exposed the duplicity of the Communists both here, in Cairo, in Moshi and a lot of other places besides, and will continue to do so. And I say the State of Singapore owes him that star. And let me tell the Member for Thomson this, that Mr Devan Nair has got more iron in his soul than the Member for Thomson. Twice he went to prison for long periods, and he has got the guts to stand up to fight for his beliefs. I hope the Member for Thomson will emerge as much a man of iron as Mr Devan Nair. Then he is in a position to deride Mr Devan Nair and the medal which I think the State owed him, not for what he did for the P.A.P. but for what he did for the country in exposing the Communist conspiracy here, in Cairo, Moshi and a lot of other places besides, and he will continue to do so to the great discomfiture of the Communists, all the time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Prime Minister. First. I wish to clarify about this person who gave a house in Jalan Kayu. Anyhow, it is a Mr Ang who gave the house and it is the same Mr Ang who got the decoration.

How many Mr Angs are there in Jalan Kayu?

There are two Mr Angs in Jalan Kayu and the one who gave the house was Mr Ang Keong Lan and the one who got the medal is also Mr Ang Keong Lan. Now on the point of The Three Kingdoms, I must clarify this. It is true that I have read The Three Kingdoms very thoroughly, and because of that reason we have been able to escape so far unscathed from the repression, the oppressive methods, the cunningness and the ruthlessness of the Prime Minister, because he typifies the same person in The Three Kingdoms, Chou Chou, whose characteristics are cunningness, ruthlessness, small eyes and cruelty in the extreme.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the political life of the Government is coming to an end, it is apparently doing something which is very good at first sight. In 1962, on National Day, the Government gave away quite a great number of State honours and decorations but at that Time the number of recipients did not exceed 30. But this year, all of a sudden and out of the blue, the number increased to 424. Does it mean that these people who have been given these honours did not give any service to the State in 1962? Does it mean, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, that these people have done a great deal for the Government in 1963 and nothing in 1962? No, that is not the answer. Mr Speaker, the intention of the Government is to make use of these honours and decorations to achieve its political aim. Of course, we do not have any objection to those who have really rendered services to the State receiving State honours and decorations. But in the list of recipients made public by the Government, there is a great number of people who actually work for the Government itself. Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister visited the Sembawang constituency, there was a welcoming committee organised for this purpose and among the recipients of the State honours are members of this welcoming committee. One of them was the Chairman, Mr Yeo Kok Wah, and the other was a working committee member. For example, in Tam-pines, a recipient of the State honours was a member of the welcoming committee on the occasion of a rural visit by the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, why is it that the Prime Minister wants to do this? Well, it is all because he knows that in the near future the P.A.P. will have to face the judgment of the people. That is why it has to do these things to buy over some people in order to save its political life. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned Mr Ko Teck Kin and says that he is not a member of the P.A.P. True, but we must not forget that the Vice President, Mr Yap Pheng Gek, was not given any honour or decoration. Why? Well, it is because he has crossed over to the M.C.A., and that is why the Government did not give him one. Mr Speaker, I can assure this House that if Mr Ko Teck Kin had been a member of the M.C.A., he, would not have been given any State honour or decoration. So all this goes to show that the intention of the Government in giving honours and decorations to certain people is for its own political end. Mr Speaker, if my information is correct, in 1962, the recipients of State honours and decorations included the Vice Chancellor of the University of Singapore, Dr Sreenivasan. But he did not accept this honour. So we can see that it is not good for people to receive honours given by the P.A.P., because they know that by receiving them they will be bought over by the P.A.P.

Sir, it grieves me to have to berate Members on the opposite side. I often wonder how stupid people can be. A policeman risked his life to save a child in a burning but and be has got a medal for conspicuous gallantry. Only three awards have ever been given. Two police officers of high calibre worked ceaselessly to track the activities of vile and evil men who manipulated the persons who are now in Kuala Lumpur and in other places of rest in Singapore.

Ho See Beng. The Prime Minister : Ho See Beng contributed in no small measure in breaking up the Communist united front and their trade union organisation. [Laughter] Oh, yes, let us not laugh. Let us be quite realistic, and let us admit that the fight goes on relentlessly. There are men in the Army Services Union who are not P.A.P. - never have been.

Why?

Admiralty civilian staff. They are not so simple. They stood up to the Communists and they were not manipulated in the Communist united front in S.A.T.U. So I think they deserve honours. And I make no apologies that Mr Devan Nair deserves honour, and I hope that if there should be a subsequent Government which is not P.A.P., he will continue his good work, carry on the battle against the Communists and receive high honours. Why the number? It took us four years to see who was who. The Chief Architect of the Housing Board got a gold medal for public administration. I think he deserves it. So does the Acting Director of Primary Production who has done a splendid job in the rural areas - pig stud service, chicken inoculation, ploughing service, tree infection service, educating, advising and helping. He was there before the P.A.P. He will be there if the P.A.P. is not in Government next year. [Interruption] He was there before the P.A.P. He will be there after the P.A.P. is gone. He deserves a gold medal. And I think it is only churlish silly men who wish to bring into disrepute the whole of this Assembly as men who have not got the stature and sufficient maturity to know which are areas which should not be included in the political arena. It is foolish. About the Public Service Star, yes, there can be an argument. Yes, Mr Ko Teck Kin got a Meritorious Service Medal for taking a stand for merger and Malaysia before the battle was fought and won when it looked as if it could have been fought and lost. And he would still have the Star if he joined the M.C.A. tomorrow. Mr Chong of the Hakka Association got a Public Service Star, and he is a member of the M.C.A. We do not hold that against him. It is his wish, but he took a stand at the Time of the referendum when he joined 100 other associations.

Under pressure.

Under pressure? When Lim Ching Siong was saying at Hong Lim, and Lam Tian, another M.C.A. man, came up to me in my conference room - recorded on the tape in terror - what did he say? "Suan ching ching suan. We will finish them. Clean up the thugs." Who was threatening whom? I say that these are men who rendered service to the State, to the democratic State, who stood up against the Communists and we honour them - M.C.A. regardless. And if Mr Yap Pheng Gek deserves one, he will receive one regardless of his being a member of the M.C.A. And let me tell the Member opposite that on 31st of August, we are forging Malaysia Medals. The Minister for Culture was suggesting that we should have lead ones for booby and name them. Those who fought the nation, let them go down in posterity - names to be ashamed of, people who were manipulated into fighting national unity, manipulated until finally exposed as puppets of outside forces - the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Choa Chu Kang. I make no apologies for not recommending them for any Medals for Malaysia Day. And I think we ought to give serious consideration to the Minister for Culture's suggestion that we should have lead ones to commemorate their stupidities and idiocies. 6.15 p.m.

All that the Prime Minister said merely confirms what we said earlier on. We said that these awards - citations - are being used for political purposes. Sir, we are not denying that it is necessary, in principle, for an administration to recognise meritorious service. We have no objection, for example, to the corporal that the Prime Minister quoted. If the Government is going to give citations to individuals for having performed well in the political arena, then surely it is nonsense to use public funds to give citations. If the P.A.P. wants to set up a P.A.P. Citations Fund and give meritorious awards to P.A.P. personnel or other people who are prepared to bend backwards to please the P.A.P., that is their business. We have no objection. But to use public money to give medals to people who fight ---

The Communists.

--- political opponents is another matter. Sir, by Communists we know they refer to the Barisan Sosialis.

If it is not true, why not sue me outside?

I have told the Prime Minister once before, Sir. It is not for me or for any person accused of being a Communist to go to court and prove that he is not a Communist. It the Prime Minister has the guts to accuse us of being Communists or pro-Communists, then let him have the guts to charge us in an open court and prove that we are Communists. I told the Prime Minister once before in this House. I challenge him to take me to court and prove that I am a pro. Communist. He could not more. His face went red. And I tell him the same thing now. If I accuse the Prime Minister of being a robber, surely it is not for the Prime Minister to go to court to ---

You say that outside and see what happens.

--- disprove what I have said ---

Order.

--- though the institutions of law are theirs. Sir, I have called the Prime Minister all sorts of names outside. I am sure if he gets his boys in the Special Branch to play the tape recordings that they make, he will get a host of them. If not for parliamentary purposes, Mr Chairman, Sir, I would list them out here myself. He can take legal action if he wants. As far as we are concerned, if the Prime Minister calls us names, we could not care less. It does not make an iota of difference. He wants to call us Communists, pro-Communists, cowards, chaps who have no courage, unlike Mr Devan Nair. Incidentally, Mr Speaker, it is true Devan Nair was brave enough to go to prison once. An hon. Member: Twice!

He was brave enough to go to prison twice, but he was not brave enough to face the possibility of going to prison a third time.

Ha, ha! Come, come!

Sir, the Prime Minister knows. It is no use playing hypocrisy. He knows the reasons why Mr Devan Nair decided to be a stooge of his. The reasons are embarrassing to Mr Devan Nair. It is not because Mr Devan Nair is, a courageous man. Sir, what does courage mean? According to the Prime Minister, courage means you say yes to the Prime Minister. It does not need courage to say yes to the Prime Minister. It takes courage to say no. I cannot put Mr Devan Nair in prison, but the Prime Minister can put me in prison.

No, no; come, come!

He can.

Order.

He can. Sir, courage, bravery, a Government which has the use of the police, all State organs - are they more courageous? Or is it the Opposition, which is being consistently oppressed'? And yet we stand up to fight them. Who has the courage? Sir, their talk does not bother us. They can say what they like to say. Mr Chairman. We say history will prove. Five years, ten years, we like to see these courageous men - the Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture, the Minister for Finance - we like to see the courage of these men here, including Mr Devan Nair.

Why ten years?

Sir, the future will prove that they are merely a passing force, while we are a permanent force, because we represent the aspirations of the people.

Cheers!

Cheer me, yes. I am gratified. The Prime Minister cheers me. That is a fact. We say that so long as we do not cheat the people, we do not distort the will and aspirations of the people, we shall continue to be a permanent force.

Go back to Thomson.

You hold elections first.

I do not think I need go into this long justification of why the Member for Thomson is a brave man, after all, even though he has not gone to prison and Mr Devan Nair is a coward although he has gone twice. All I am interested in saying is that he glossed over the point he set out first in the attack, that this was one of the P.A.P. instruments of manipulation. I indicated to him how people who are in other political Parties have also been honoured. I might as well add that the Member for the Southern Islands knows many of these penghulus.

They are not our members.

Nor are they P.A.P. An hon. Member: Then he is a coward.

Order.

They are not P.A.P. I have shown in one instance how a man has been honoured even though he is in an opposition camp - a camp that I despise - but he took a stand, and if this is for political reward for services rendered to the democratic State, then I say, yes, it is, but not for P.A.P. political party purposes. If they say we have not honoured those who work for the Communists, I say quite right, why should we? All I ask the Member for Thomson to remember is this: We are as youthful as he is. We will last as long as he lasts. We will endure as long as he endures. And never make the grave error of believing that we lack resolution or iron in the soul. They melted away. Some Members on the other side are now less vociferous. They are attending to all their private duties. Quite rightly, I think they are intelligent men. An hon. Member: Nonsense.

They see that they were mistaken about this howling tempest - the East Wind blowing stronger and stronger. Suddenly they found the monsoon has changed. The East Wind diminishing! So, instead of going out sowing wild cats, they are now nicely at home every evening, no more wild oats, no more midnight sessions, pumping each ether on Marxism-Leninism. They are safely at home in case any questions are asked. And I say that is a sensible man, although, mind you, he deserves a medal for all this. Of course, there are some who feel they must justify their mistakes whatever the price, otherwise the world will laugh at them. Some of them find it difficult to sleep at night. They lose weight. I cannot say in any honesty that I have any sympathy for them, but I really feel sometimes that some of their clothes are a bit too big for them these days, and for obvious reasons. Where is all this talk of the masses on our side, the wrath of the people? We were supposed to be on the rum we were going to hide under tables; the masses would he looking for us; to beat us; to pulverise us. The imperishable strength of the working class! The hammer was going to knock us all out. We opened those blank ballots. They saw it; we saw it. They were in the rural areas. And I say we go out to meet them. We are not running away from anybody. They got the blanks in the rural areas through deceit - the big lie repeated by mouth - which we at that Time, in the time available, were unable to counter for lack of communications - radio, Rediffusion, newspapers. We were unable to reach the isolated village. So we go out there. Run away from them? Never! Never make this error. They made it once already in 1961 that our will was going to melt under the impact and the will dissolved away. Do not believe that. We are born and bred here, and we die here. I say that if you want to make this into a Communist State, then it will be over my dead body.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Prime Minister very cunningly evaded many questions. He mentioned that the recipients of these awards received them because they are brave and resolute. They stand up for their opinions. Mr Yeow Kok Hua, one of the recipients, was the chairman of a welcoming committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Mr Yeow Kok Hua was unknown to all the people in Sembawang before. Even during the referendum they did not come out to support the Government's merger proposals. Where is their courage and bravery? Where is their achievement? His only merit is that he was the chairman of a welcoming committee for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister went there, he shook hands with him. In return for this service, the Prime Minister gave him a medal. The Prime Minister mentioned why the people in Choa Chu Kang were not given any medals. The answer is that there will not be any by-election in Choa Chu Kang. The Prime Minister knows that in the very near future there will be a by-election in Sembawang, and, therefore, this is a very good opportunity to buy over these people. Therefore, in the citations, at least two members from Sembawang were awarded medals. Their only merit was that they went to welcome the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts are very clear. The Government's motive in giving these citations and awards is only to further their own political ends.

Order. I think the hon. Member is guilty of repeating himself time and time again. Can he go on to something different?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only wanted to point out to you that the answer given by the Prime Minister a little while ago was only meant to evade the many questions raised by the Opposition Members, which were all based on facts. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite obvious that the Barisan Sosialis do not quite understand the purpose of these awards. They have every reason to be opposed to the conferring of medals and awards on people who have shown that they are not Communists, that they are not prepared to be intimidated by the Communists or by their threats. What I am told is that in some Communist countries, receiving honours is a dangerous thing, because certain writers and patriots get medals one day and the next day they vanish from the scene. They are repudiated, they are condemned. In fact, Sir, I am told that even the leader, the boss of the Communist Party who conferred honours on other people, like Mr Josef Stalin, you will remember, Sir, he was honoured in the mausoleum - and when somebody took over, his bones were disinterred and reburied elsewhere. At least in democratic countries we have no need to confer honours on people just because of their services to the Party. In fact, very few of those who are members of the Party have received honours because they are Party members. Like Mr Devan Nair, for example, Sir, I think his name has been mentioned. Apart from being a trade unionist, he is a member of a number of Boards, including the Adult Education Board - a kind of service which I do not think any member of the Barisan Sosialis has ever rendered to the people. Their only kind of education is to mislead young children, to mobilise them, to participate in strikes, and riots, to use them as cover for their own safety, to hide behind them. At least Mr Devan Nair, in addition to his service to the cause of democracy, in addition to exposing the Communists, has also done a great deal to educate the people. And these are among his many other achievements for which there will be citations, and so will there be citations also for the others who have received honours. In fact, when the citations are made, as far as I know, there is no reference to their contributions to the P.A.P. All the references will be to their contributions to the service of the State, education, welfare - and. therefore, I would ask the Members of the Barisan at least not to make these honours a matter for political football here. And, Sir, if any Member even of the Barisan Sosialis suddenly decides to vacate the Communist camp --- An hon. Member: He will get a medal!

--- and come and fight for the cause of our country and not in the service of outside powers as traitors, then we may consider their names when the next Honours List is drawn up and I am quite sure they will be included in the next Honours List.

Sir, we have seen in the newspapers this morning that the Foreign Ministers' meeting in Manila is already paving the way for a meeting of the Heads of State. I do not know whether the Prime Minister here still thinks his Malaysia will be coming on so nicely or not. But one thing is certain. If he wants to talk so much about blank votes and all that, let him give the people a chance to decide in a true plebiscite, as advocated in the Manila conference today.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 21.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Rajah and Tun Lim Yew Hock. We want to know, Sir, what function our Trade Commissioner's Office in London is having, and what is the Commissioner doing in the United Kingdom! How does he help Singapore in our trade?

The point I want to raise, Mr Speaker. Sir, is whether this Office would be necessary after Malaysia has been set up. The Australians in the U.K. have Federal and State representation. From what I understand from some Australian representatives whom I met in London when I was there last, they had come to the conclusion that it was undesirable. I was wondering whether thought has been given to whether we should have both Federal representation in London after Malaysia and State representation as well.

We have given thought to this matter, and as I referred the Member for Cairnhill to paragraph 5 of the White Paper, I similarly refer the Member for Farrer Park to the same paragraph, that it was agreed, `Measures to protect the interest of Singapore trade overseas will include the establishment of a section within any of the Federal missions as may he necessary to deal with trade matters of Singapore.' Jakarta and London are our two missions at the moment. They will continue after merger as part of the Malayan Embassy or of the Malayan High Commissioner's Office in London. And, in fact, in the case of the London representative, it may well be that his duties as a financial officer of this Government may increase. The Crown Agents have increased their charges for handling our matters, such as payment of pensions and hooking of passages and advertisements for consultants and so on. We have therefore terminated the services of the Crown Agents, and we are saving money. The Office in London is now directly handling all payments of pensions, passages and other cognate matters. The Federation External Affairs Ministry may well decide to expand this particular function of the Singapore Trade Commissioner's Office to include their Crown Agents handling of matters too. The other function, of course, is to give information that may be enquired of by importers and exporters in London and general trade enquiries. We have adverted our minds to the possibility of getting them completely absorbed in the Federation External Affairs Ministry, but I think, for the first phase, we are convinced that we have sufficient special interest in entrepot trade to merit a separate commercial representative, or a Commercial Attache or Consul, to look after our special interests. As far as we can envisage, there are four places where ultimately we may want to establish a section in the Malayan High Commissioner's Office or the Malayan Embassy abroad, and they are Jakarta. London, Tokyo and New York.

Does the hon. Member for Queenstown wish for a vote? Dr Lee Siew Choh indicated dissent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, Sir, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 24. Sir, I would like to have some information from the Prime Minister as to the exact position with regard to the Malay Settlement at Kaki Bukit. First of all, whether there are any more lots available for distribution to applicants; and, secondly, whether the Ayer Gemuroh Malay Settlement will be proceeded with, and similarly with the West Coast Malay Settlement. These Settlements have been gazetted for quite some Time now, anti I believe the Government have only proceeded with the Kaki Bukit Scheme, and have not done anything with regard to the Ayer Gemuroh Scheme nor the West Coast Scheme. The other point which I would like to raise on this same item is with regard to the staff problem. I see that the staff doing the work on the Malay Settlements have been on a temporary basis for the last three or four years. I wonder whether it would not be convenient both for the Government and for the stall to have them put on a permanent basis.

First, the Malay Settlements. I think the Member for Geylang Serai is aware that progress has been made in three out of the four Settlements that have been gazetted. The only one where progress has not been made is West Coast Road because the area has these squatters. At Kaki Bukit Phase 1, 282 lots where allocated; in Phase 2, the area on the west, with an estimated expenditure of $30,000, it is expected that 50 allotments will he soon available; and in Phase 3, the area to the north, on an expenditure of $400,000 there will be 376 lots available. In Sembawang, 108 lots have been allotted on the 1st of June, old residents occupying 24 lots. And in Phase 2, 68 lots will he made available. At Ayer Gemuroh, an expected expenditure of $105,900 for constructing a sea wall and filling of the earth has been set aside and in due course allocations will be made, although we are not quite sure just how many allotments there will be. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai, I think, as the former Deputy Chief Minister in charge of lands and the S.I.T., understands the problem acutely. There are less and less lands available for the traditional Malay house in the urban areas. The traditional Malay house is one on stilts with a hit of land on it for fruit trees and the rearing of poultry. And in the Geylang Serai Scheme we are trying to acclimatise our Malay population to flat-dwelling. We have succeeded in the case of the Police and the S.I.R. where large blocks of flats are allocated, all to similar types of tenants in the same establishment, and they seem to have adjusted very well. And we are trying it out at Geylang Serai - there are two blocks, one block we are hoping will be completely for Malays in the area, the other for the Chinese and the other races who were displaced from the area as a result of the Geylang Serai Scheme. And, with, I hope, the co-operation of all Malay Members, if this scheme proves successful, then we are hoping in Phase 3 of the Kaki Bukit Scheme to have housing flats instead of the traditional Malay rumah pondok. For, on the same land where you can put up, say,100 Malay rumah in the traditional Malay fashion, no less than 500 units of housing flats can be erected. And it might be arranged to give them suitable plots of land nearby for the rearing of poultry or the cultivation of fruit trees. 6.45 p.m. That really is the core of the problem. I think the Member for Geylang Serai must be honest and admit this publicly that there is no hope of solving the Malay housing problem, unless we push the Malays more and more into the outer areas where there is no electricity, water, bus services, and proper roads. Unless we do that, the alternative is to get them to live in flats, and I think it can be done, provided certain adjustments are made by them and by the Housing Board, so that for religious and other reasons. It may be necessary that a whole flat is set aside for Muslims only; as the Member for Geylang Serai suggested, a corner of the Geylang Serai Market should he set aside for sellers of food prepared in the Muslim way, makanan halal. So these adjustments will be tried, all with the intention of trying to acclimatise the Malay kampong dwellers into the urbanised conditions of Singapore. Whether we like it or nut, this is a relentless trend and the Malays, as a group, either fit in with the modernisation of Singapore and live in flats, as they are successfully doing in the S.I.R. and in the Police quarters, or, it they insist on a piece of land around the house, in which case, our problems will continue to become more and more difficult as they are pushed into the more and more remote areas. I do not think the Members opposite who represent the Malay constituencies would like that to happen. The Member for the Southern Islands knows the enormous amount of effort and money that has gone into the Southern Islands. In Pulau Sudong, there is no water supply. We have to bring water there. More and more fishermen are catching the same fish population, and more and more kelongs are trapping the same fish. So the fishermen are getting less and less fish. Their children have to go to school, It would be so much easier for all of us if they could come and live on the mainland. But for various reasons, they prefer to live in the Islands, and so we try to make the adjustments. So it is with Blakang Mati, Sambu, Tekong, Bukom and a lot of other places. But finally we have to face the problem. The problem simply is, how do we help the whole community adjust to the new problems? I would be grateful if the Member for Geylang Serai would give us his co-operation on this.

I am glad the Prime Minister has given us the assurance that one block of flats will be allotted to the Malays in the Geylang Serai Scheme. But I would also like him to consider, in the case of the second block of flats, where there will be vacancies after the flats have been allocated to the non-Malays who have been de-housed in the same area, that they would be allocated to the Malays in the area. The other point is with regard to the West Coast Road. He said that it was not possible to proceed with the scheme because of the squatter problem. But, as I know it, it is not so much a squatter problem as a swamp problem. I believe that if the Government are willing to spend some money, they could reclaim no less than about fifty to sixty acres of land in West Coast Road which could easily be allocated to Malay applicants. The other point which I raised was also with regard to the temporary staff. They have been on a temporary basis for the last three years, I think, and since this is going to be a permanent feature of the administration, would it not be wise for the Government to place the officers on a permanent basis?

Is that the last point?

Yes.

I think eventually we will have to face up to this problem. Somebody has got to administer these Malay Settlements and I think the existing ones will continue, whatever happens, for a very long Time, and, sooner or later, we will have to decide whether or not the establishment of one secretary, one Malay clerk and one Malay typist three of them could be put on the permanent establishment.

Time is up. Does the Member wish for a vote?

No. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head 7 having expired, the following amendment standing in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Low Por Tuck, Mr S. T. Bani, Dr Thio Chan Bee and Mr Ng Teng Kian, was not proceeded with: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $100. The sum of $1,495,040 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 8 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that there are thousands of flats going up, but I notice that there is only a $220 increase as against last year for Lady Housing Visitors. I was just wondering whether we would not need more of these Lady Housing Visitors because of the number of flats that are going up now. I seek information as to how many ladies we already have, at what salaries they are employed ----

It is given there --- four, in the third column. It gives the number as four.

Yes. And what are their qualifications and their duties? I feel that specially trained personnel are required, because their duties are very important. In fact, they are there to see, with tact - it is a very difficult duty to carry out - that the standards of living in the housing estates are what they should be and that the standards of the slums are not brought there, and to help the people there to fit themselves into the new pattern of life, as against their old pattern of life. For instance, desirable community living, such as consideration for others, where you have to have more consideration for others when you are living in a housing estate than when you are living as squatters on a piece of land all on your own: mutual co-operation, religious and racial tolerance - all very important - and all these will have to be very cleverly and very tactfully carried out by these Lady Housing Visitors. I feel that specially trained personnel are required to carry out this job. That is why I am seeking information from the Government about their salaries and their qualifications, and also whether we would not need more of them in view of the fact that more and mere flats are coming up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Mountbatten has confused the Housing Board with the Land Office. The Land Office Housing Visitors look after some 2,300 State-reverted properties whose leases have fallen in, and their duty is to see that the T.O.L.s which are issued after the leases have been exhausted are not transferred or otherwise abused pending demolition and rebuilding. The problems which the Member for Mountbatten has quite rightly raised in respect of the re-conditioning of attitudes and patterns of behaviour really arise in the case of the Housing Board where, as she has pointed out, more and more such officers are being employed as larger and larger estates are developed.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5. Here, Sir, I seek your guidance. May I take my amendments to Head 9 No. (l)* and Head 11+ together, because they deal with the same matter - on transport and travelling? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7. + The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8.

9 (1)?

9 (1) under my name and Head 11 under my name.

Yes. The principle is the same. Perhaps we can discuss the principle.

Sir, both my amendments are on transport and travelling. I notice that under Head 8, subhead 5, and under Head 9, subhead 7, the Transport and Travelling allowances have been reduced. If I am wrong, I hope the Government will correct me, but I presume that "transport" means locally incurred during the course of duty, and "travelling" probably includes overseas travels to attend study courses. conferences and so on, in connection with the work of the officers. I was just wondering why the decrease? Is it because the cost of transport has come down; or because lower rates of allowances are now given to civil servants; or, if it does include travelling abroad for studies and conferences, whether fewer personnel are being sent abroad?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5." The debate may range over amendment (1) in Head 9 and the amendment in Head 11.

Sir, the answer is that last year, when the Estimates provided for $20,000, the actual expenditure was only $17,473. This is all local travel, not foreign travel, and the Treasury has therefore considered that the estimate this year should he reduced to what is expected to be a more realistic estimate of $18,600.

Does that apply to Head 9?

That is so.

Head 9, amendment (1) . Head 11 has no reduction.

The same explanation applies.

Am I right then in assuming that the rates of allowance remain the same?

Yes, that is so.

I wish to withdraw. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 8 be reduced by $100.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Teng Kian. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. have always claimed that they are honest and sincere and that the departments under them can run smoothly and efficiently. It was so when the P.A.P. came to power, but it is not so now. The administration of the Land Office is one of the worst of all the Government departments. The poor people always go to the department to seek help in order to solve their problems, but when they go there, their problems are always unsolved. There are many instances which can he quoted. When they go there, their problems are not solved; they always see their Assemblymen. But if their Assemblymen happen to be the Opposition Assemblymen, their problems still cannot be solved, because their Assemblymen are the Opposition Assemblymen. Sir, I want to quote a few examples that affect the lives of the people directly. According to information I have received, I know that there is a committee to deal with the transfers of T.O.L.s. and this Committee consists of three Parliamentary Secretaries: the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. If this Committee consists of only three Parliamentary Secretaries of the Government, I wonder whether it is fair to the people, especially those people living in the rural areas who oppose the P.A.P. 7.00 p.m.

You oppose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the transfer of the T.O.L.s is very important. As you know, the people living in the kampongs, especially the old men and old women, because they are afraid something may happen to them, so they want to transfer their T.O.L.s to their children. If that person first goes to seek help from the Opposition Assemblyman, and a P.A.P. Member or P.A.P. Assemblyman knows that this person goes to see that Opposition Assemblyman, his application will not be approved. The second point I want to ask the Government to make sure is that, as you know, Sir, on Crown land people are not allowed to build two houses in one lot. But the Government must be aware that the people living in the kampongs are usually poor and their families usually live in the same place. Because they cannot build two houses they must be allowed to extend their houses. Usually their application for building two houses cannot he approved, but the application for an extension of the house is usually not approved very quickly. It takes months to approve the application for an extension of the house. I hope the Government in future will take steps quickly and not to delay the application for many months. The third point I want to seek clarification from the Government, concerns boundary disputes. In kampong areas many people have boundary disputes because their boundary stones have been lost. Because of this the people ask the Government to go there and re-survey the land. Before the Government resurvey the land, they want to charge a fee which the poor people cannot afford. I hope the Government in future will not charge any fee because that is Crown land, and the responsibility of the Government is to see that there is no quarrel between two families. The fourth matter I want to ask the Government to help the people is this. There are many people, especially the Malays, who have illegal houses built on Crown land. These people live on Crown land for many, many years, and suddenly they receive notices asking them to move from their land. The Government offer no alternative to these people. I hope when the Government ask these people to demolish their houses they will offer them a place to settle.

Does the Member for Punggol wish to add anything? Perhaps a short speech.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to know whether the P.A.P. Government remember that in 1959 during the general election one of the election pledges concerned this matter - that the P.A.P. would give special consideration to the allocation of land for farming and rearing of poultry to the rural people. Four years have passed since then. But we have not seen the fulfilment of this election pledge. I would like to find out whether it is the Government's intention to fulfil this pledge.

First, the Member for Changi. I am afraid that the points made by the Member for Changi are so nebulous that I am unable to put my finger on his complaints. He makes a wild allegation that the Land Office is the most inefficient of all the departments. He does not set out any particular instance, or set of instances which justify his making such an allegation. He lists out his complaint No. 1 as the inability of the Land Office to deal with Assemblymen all equally because Temporary Occupation Licences are dealt with by a Committee in which there are three Parliamentary Secretaries, but he forgot to mention that there are also three officials on the same Committee. Opposition Assemblymen, such as he, are stymied in their efforts to get things done. Sir, I am glad that the Member for Changi can only cite this as his illustration of maladministration. The whole purpose of putting the three Assemblymen in charge of the T.O.L.s was to remove the stigma that there was some funny business going on with regard to T.O.L.s. The only thing is that they could be influenced in their duties for a consideration. Therefore, every T.O.L. goes through this Committee of three officials and three Parliamentary Secretaries in order to protect the officials. If they are doing right, I can assure the Member for Changi that there is no reason whatsoever why anybody who is in the right should ever require his services. I can also assure him that if they are in the wrong, his services will not help them. For instance, building two houses on the same T.O.L. is something which is wrong. By the very nature of the T.O.L., it is implicitly stated that the land would be required in the immediate future for public use. And the more families you allow on the land, the greater will be the responsibility of the State in re-housing them. For every public project which has to be preceded by land clearance means a re-settlement programme. His other complaint was, and I do not know why he should particularly mention Malays, because I think the Chinese and Indians are equally at fault in building unauthorised houses on Crown land. If the land bailiffs are not swift enough in their detection, the houses go up in one night and are immediately occupied - [Interruption] - old houses. The Member for Changi knows well that there is a Committee which sat on it. We decided in 1061 that all houses up to a certain date in 1960 would be allowed, and as from that date we issued a warning that houses put up would be struck down immediately. All houses up to that date have been allowed. I cannot remember now off-hand that particular date, but the Member for Changi participated in the deliberations in which I took the Chair.

1st April, 1960.

1st April, 1960, says the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. He has a good memory for these matters. We have a scheme whereby we enforce savings to help them in resettlement. They pay a small sum of money as rent. They pay a slightly larger sum as deposit, which will be returned to them when they are resettled, an enforced saving to ensure when resettlement takes place that not all the burden of resettlement is en the State. I really do not understand the Member for Changi. He really has got to make the grouse, but I do hope that he would try and justify his allegations, if he were to choose to make sweeping allegations like maladministration in the Land Office and that it is the worst department of the State. Now the Member for Punggol. Sir, I will be quite frank about this. Two Committees have sat on this, and the problem was - as you know. Mr Speaker, we brought this out in the last debate - how to fit the law into the realities of the situation. A man is in occupation of land, like a rubber estate. The owner is still in occupation of the trees and he has got his workers to tap them, but the squatter uses the land for chickens and other things. I am afraid right up to now the S.A.G.'s department has not been able to devise a concept in law whereby possession is with two persons at the same Time. Possession is with the owner because he is still tapping. The squatter is also in physical possession as licensee. But that really does not salve the problem. If you try and give to the tenant or the licensee the tenancy of the place, then the owner is debarred from occupancy: in other words, he no longer taps the rubber. Then the rent must go up to take into account the fact that the tapping of rubber is lost to the owner. But if the tenant cannot pay that rent because he does not know how to tat the rubber and make money on it, then the thing ends in a stalemate. Here is a concept of law of the absoluteness - of possession meeting the technical problem of joint possession. Then there is the owner who has his rubber tappers tapping and the squatter who has his chicken run in one corner of the estate and uses a large section of the estate for the feeding of his chickens and ducks. It may well be that we may ultimately have to resolve it by creating a new creature in the law - a tenancy which has not got absolute possession. That I do not know - I do not want to go into the intricacies of it. The problem is there and I raise the problem. All I can say is that legally a solution is not at present apparent. We have done what we think is the best in the circumstances, namely, hold the status quo until we find the problem to it. Another problem which I would like to mention and to which again we have not found the problem is the sale of flats. We want to work out a scheme whereby not only will the Housing Board build flats but they will subsequently sell these flats. The question is: do you sell air space or do you sell to all the people one block of flats, who jointly own the floor space of the ground floor, and build upwards? Or do they own that particular sector of the air space above the ground? This solution has been found in different countries in different ways. In certain continental countries, the solution is to sell air space: in other words, if the building comes down, then the tenant of that particular floor still owns that air space and provided you can get the co-operation of the other tenants, you can build back with the same air space --- 7.15 p.m.

Order. Time has expired. Does the Member wish for a vote? Mr Teo Hock Guan indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $586,210 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 9 -

Head 9 - Planning. Amendment (1)* is not being moved. Mrs Seow, amendment (2). * Amendment (1), standing in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. Sir, it says here - Preparation of Master Plan Documents. I do not quite know whether it is preparation of the Master Plan Documents based on the old Master Plan or whether it is intended to revise the Master Plan. But I would like to draw the attention of the Government to this fact, that if there is to be revision, which must take place sometime or another, then it should take note that the old system on which the Master Plan has been worked is not practical these days. I refer, for instance, to certain areas where it is insisted that to build a house in that area, you must have a minimum space of land as the surrounding houses. In some areas, Sir, which are so-called first-class areas, people built houses on one acre, two acres, at a time when land was about 10, 20, or 50 cents a square foot. Today, in the same areas, the land is about 2, 3, 4 or 5 dollars a square foot, and it is no longer possible for people to build houses on such big pieces of land. Because of the scarcity of land in Singapore and also because the concept of building skywards has been accepted by the people nowadays. I think the Government should have a new system of basing their decision on how big a space of land it should be. In some cases, Sir, this insistence has made it impossible for that area to be developed. I would like to point out, and give as an example, one area which I know of where it has made it physically impossible to develop that place. I will give this as an example because I feel that as the Housing Board builds more and more flats, this problem is going to crop up more and more. One end of Ridout Road is a first-class bungalow area where houses have been built on one and two acres of land. The other end of Ridout Road is within hearing distance of Queenstown. It is impossible to develop the land there because nobody is going to spend $200,000 on land alone to build a bungalow which is within hearing distance of third-class flat buildings like those built by the Housing Board. Therefore, it is causing stagnation there. As I have said, more and more Housing Board houses are coming up and more and more areas are similarly affected, and I feel that the Government should look into that when they revise the Master Plan and see that certain areas are not being prevented from developing because of impractical laws that are being insisted on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, the purpose of the preparation of the Master Plan Documents. They are for a revised Master Plan and also for the written statement which accompanies the Master Plan. I think the problems raised by the Member for Mountbatten really turn upon the question of density limit. Revisions have taken place, and I myself must say that I am very dissatisfied with the existing law because when we allow density to increase, the land owner profits by the increase in density and immediately puts up more housing units on the same piece of land, thereby increasing traffic and other problems. The price of the land also goes up because more can be built on it. A social problem is created, a burden which has to be borne by the State at large - traffic, utilities and so on. I am seriously considering, when altering densities, at the same time to put a premium on the alteration of densities to pay for all the runabouts and the flyovers that will be necessary in order to keep up the same rate of flow of traffic with the increase in density of population allowed on various pieces of land. I can assure the Member for Mountbatten that this matter is receiving attention. The only problem is that there are no easy precedents that we can follow. The English practice here, on which most of our planners have been educated, is unsatisfactory because of the sanctity of property. If density goes up, the land owner gets a profit on it. But I do not think that that is the principle which should guide us because the profit that the land-owner makes can only become possible because of the burden which the State has to carry with heavier density. Therefore, I think it is only fair that the land-owner should not altogether derive profit out of increasing density which we may ultimately have to allow in many of the suburban areas which the hon. Lady has pointed out. It may have cost a few cents a few years ago, a decade or two decades ago, but it is now being sold at dollars per square foot. I myself am not prepared to say that we have a ready-made solution, but I am quite prepared to consider any practical proposition. I think it has to be approached radically from the point of view of society as a whole, not the point of view of the sanctity of property. And once we accept that the standpoint is the benefit of society as a whole and not the benefit of the individual owner, then the whole approach changes, and it means, of course, a basic alteration in our land laws and rates of compensation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out, before I withdraw my amendment, that I am not interested in the individual or owner or the sanctity of property, as has been spoken about by the Prime Minister. But I am interested that certain areas should not be prevented from developing. It has been brought to my attention that certain areas have been prevented from developing because of impossible requirements of Government. Sir, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

The Lady has said something and she cannot withdraw if what she has said calls for a reply. Does it call for a reply?

Yes. I do not think I, can allow that to pass. From Time to Time allegations have been made against the Planning Department and I think we cannot allow these allegations to pass unchallenged. They have to be investigated because, if they are found to be true, then obviously misdemeanour is going on and there is an abuse of power. But what often happens is that a land-owner's interest is not necessarily in coincidence with the planner's interest. The planner is interested in certain deployment of use of land-varying densities, green belt, suburban areas, lay-outs, roundabouts and pieces of land. Whether it is worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars depends upon whether it is classified as a green belt or a heavily built-up area or is meant for suburban terrace houses and so on. I can tell the Member for Mountbatten that one of the acute problems is that developers like to find the easy way out - ribbon building. As a road is hit through, they like to build along the road. That is the easiest way out. But that is not the planner's way of solving our housing problem, and often we do not allow it. We say if you want to develop, then these are the conditions. It may be that property and other sociological conditions have not reached that point where development can take place in housing estates. But that does not mean that we should allow ribbon building. I do not know what specific instances the Lady has in mind, but I can assure her that I am fully alive to the massive powers of the planner and he has a committee which includes members of the professional organisations interested in planning - association of architects or society of architects, structural engineers - not the ratepayers. There is a balancing of interests and. I hope, sufficient checks and counter-checks to prevent anybody from getting his way, and certainly to ensure that the planner (1) discharges his duties in an unbiased way, (2) is also protected from malicious criticism when any particular group of property owners do not get their way.

Mr Speaker, I would like to make it clear that I am not accusing the department at all of being biased or of malpractice, as the Prime Minister seems to think. No. I was just pointing out that certain human elements might have been overlooked and too much of the theory and rules apply. I am just bringing this to the notice of the Government so that when the Master Plan is being revised, these matters will be looked into. I am not accusing anybody of malpractice or bias.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 9 be reduced by $100.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Rajah. During the last general election, the P.A.P. promised that it would go ahead with the revision of the Master Plan and the P.A.P. has been in office for four years. I would like to ask whether it is able to complete the revision of this Master Plan. The second point is this: I would like the Prime Minister to note that applicants in the rural areas will have to go through many governmental departments before their applications can be approved. Sir, I will ask the Prime Minister whether and how he can expedite their applications and to wipe out any malpractices, if any.

Would the Member for Farrer Park like to say just a few words before the time expires?

The only point I wish to ask the Prime Minister is whether he expects the completion of the second Master Plan within the year, so that objections could be heard and the whole thing finalised. A second Master Plan gazetted as such could have been completed within the year. That is the only question I wish to ask.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot guarantee that it will be done within the year. It may well be that we may have to ask for a further revote. But I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens could not have been listening to what I was telling the Member for Mountbatten. There is constant alteration going on with the Master Plan - revisions of density, changes in plan to face realities - and that is the reason for asking for the vote of $20,000 for the printing of this new Master Plan. As to his other scandalous allegation, that is exactly what I have said. If they keep on making these allegations, in all fairness, we have to investigate them, because it may well be that there are land bailiffs who have abused their position, particularly as we have known in the past of their overlooking unlawfully built houses on Crownland. If you can get a land bailiff to ignore illegal building for 48 hours, you can get a family into residence. 7.30 p.m. And if you can get a family into residence, then the social blackmail starts. He says, "I dare you to move me, my children, my family. This is all I have got in the world. I am squatting here. Now lift me." This is a serious problem. Hence, from time to time over the last few years, we have done regular switches, as they do in the Customs, so that nobody really gets to settle down into a routine and then begins to take short cuts in his duties. As against that, of course, is the constant problem of the man not really knowing his area. If you have too many switches, the man never really becomes familiar with the locality he is in charge of. He does not know the back-lanes and the by-lanes. The various bits and pieces and illegal buildings can well be put up and occupied and the tenant securely ensconced before this has come to the notice of the Land Office. But I have said that all these allegations of malpractice arise out of T.O.L.s. For that reason, we have put up this Committee of three Parliamentary Secretaries and three officials, the idea being to see that nobody sells or transfers T.O.L.s which are not supposed to be sold or transferred; and that nobody puts up another house on the same T.O.L., thereby increasing the burden on the Government of subsequent resettlement. His colleague, the Member for Changi, condemns this Committee. Quite forgetting my reply to his colleague, the Member for Changi, he said that the land bailiffs are corrupted and that we should look into the matter. This is exactly what we are doing. And when we do look into the matter, and we are straight, his colleague was not satisfied. So I do implore him to pay some attention to the proceedings that have just taken place before his questions arrive; at least he can follow up the argument instead of having to regurgitate the same old facts in a new form.

The Member wishes for a vote, or to withdraw?

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $827,770 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 11 -

Head 11-Survey. The amendment standing in the name of the Member for Mountbatten is not being moved.* * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. The sum of $958,270 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 12 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S.T. Bani --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 12 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Amendment (1). Mr Bani is not here. Mr Leong Keng Seng, amendment (2)+. + Amendment (2) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 12 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (13) of subhead 1.

I am not moving.

Amendment (3), Mr Leong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 12 be reduced by $100++. ++The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr S. T. Bani and Dr Thio Chan Bee. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Singapore River project has been dealt with.

Mr Bani is not here. Dr Thio Chan Bee.

I am not speaking, Sir.

Sir, the problem of the Singapore River will very soon be the responsibility of the Singapore Port Authority. In fact, I believe that at the First Reading of the Singapore Port Authority Bill, Members would be aware that the Port Authority will have jurisdiction over the Singapore River. Now, from my knowledge up to date, it has been concluded by a committee of experts that it would be very dangerous to dredge the Singapore River to a greater depth than what is already being done. The reason is that there is a possibility that further dredging will cause the walls of the embankment to collapse. This, of course, would be to the detriment of those who are using the Singapore River as a place of trade. However, this problem will be studied in relation to the possibility of extending other parts of the Singapore Harbour for lighter trade. Whether the Singapore River itself can be expanded to increase lighter trade I cannot say at this moment. All I can say is that the overall problem of increasing the facilities of the lighter trade will be studied in due course by the Singapore Port Authority when it is formed.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $210,240 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 14 - The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head 14 be reduced by $100.

Dr Thio Chan Bee.

I am not moving Head 14 and Head 18, Sir.

We will come to Head 18. The sum of $1,344,780 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 18 -

Head 18 - Dr Thio Chan Bee is not moving his amendment*? * The amendment reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 18 be reduced by $100.

No. The sum of $4,747,110 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 19 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 19 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, when the P.A.P. came into office, every one in Singapore thought that it would bring about a better life for them. The Vehicles Registration Office has close relation with the people of Singapore, and the staff employed by this office are also having this sort of hope. At the moment, there are many cars which are emitting smoke. To whom do these cars belong? I can say they belong mostly to the poorer people and also those who own taxis. If they do not have money to buy cars, of course, most of their cars will be emitting smoke. When they receive summons, the car owners will be fined, say $20, even in the case of a first offence. This will be a great burden on people who own such cars. I do not know how the Government will treat the larger vehicles owned by other bodies or Europeans, e.g., the S.T.C. How is it that the Government is not taking the same action against cars, vehicles or buses owned by foreign capitalists? Instead the Government has taken action against the cars owned by our poor people here. To the poor people, of course, $20 means a lot. But $20 to the foreign companies, who own big vehicles, is a small amount. They can pay up to $200 or even more. Fines imposed upon taxi drivers should also be reduced to, say, $2. In the P.A.P. pamphlet, that is The Tasks Ahead, at page 5, it is stated that the people of Singapore are mostly poor. They support us not because we have talents among us. They support us because of our principle of equality to all. I would like to point this out. Since all the friends and relatives of the P.A.P. have deserted the P.A.P. it is now trying to intimidate the people. I would not like to waste any more Time of this Assembly. But I would like to point out one more thing. The car park attendants were formerly P.A.P. members. They had been recommended for this type of work by the P.A.P. These people have a conscience. They do not like to toe the P.A.P. line. Now the P.A.P. is sacking every one of them, but not because they have offended against any regulations. They merely receive notices from the authorities terminating their services within 24 hours. 7.45 p.m. According to what is stated in The Tasks Ahead, the so-called equality to all is a far cry from this principle. Of course, these people do not like to become running dogs of the P.A.P., and because of this they were sacked. The P.A.P.'s way of doing things is a great threat to the staff of Government departments because if they do not toe the P.A.P. line, they would be sacked. The P.A.P. is applying psychological pressure on these people so that they are under mental torture. So I hope that the P.A.P. could give up this sort of practice and not try to put the people under fear of losing their bowl of rice. Formerly the P.A.P. asserted that it would do all sorts of things for the workers and the poor people. But what do we see these days? I ask the P.A.P. not to resort to these practices again. In the past the P.A.P. said that it wanted to protect the interests of the workers. This has been one of its slogans. But now this has been seen through by the people. The P.A.P. is not looking after the interests of the workers. For example, the interpreters of Assembly House are not being paid during tea and dinner breaks.

Order. I am surprised how the interpreters of the Assembly House have come under the Head Vehicles Registration. They come under Legislature. And whether they are paid during tea breaks or not, I really do not know: I suppose they are.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just giving you an example to show that the P.A.P. is not looking after the interest of the workers.

Order. But that does not arise under Vehicles Registration. I think the hon. Member has mentioned car park attendants, and he could concentrate on the car park attendants, if he likes.

(In Mandarin): Thank you very much for your advice. Mr Speaker, I am saying that I hope the P.A.P. should give up the unreasonable treatment that it gives to the people and the workers. There should be some reasonable treatment. For example, the car park attendants are actually making money for the Government, amounting to $1.2 million a year, but their pay is very small compared to the amounts that they can earn for the Government. In addition to their small pay, they are subjected to threats by the Government. So I say this is very unreasonable.

Mr Chairman, Sir ---

"Mr Speaker". Order. I think a circular was sent out by the Clerk of the Assembly as to the method of addressing the Chairman in Committee. The Speaker is addressed as "Mr Speaker", and the Deputy Speaker can be addressed by name.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, many car park attendants have had their services terminated just because they are against the P.A.P. Anyone who now wants to be a parking attendant must pass an examination set by the P.A.P. committee. This examination is very simple: (1) you must be a P.A.P. member or you work in a P.A.P. branch. An hon. Member: Bluff.

Say that again.

Order. Please continue.

Many instances can be quoted, Sir. When we quitted the P.A.P., members who are against the P.A.P. were expelled from their work as car park attendants. Sir, this is very, very dishonest. How can you say that a person who is against the P.A.P. cannot be a parking attendant? The policy of the P.A.P. now is that those who are against the P.A.P. must starve; or if you want to work in the Government departments, you must either be a P.A.P. member or working in the branches.

Mr Speaker, I will deal first with the point raised by the Member for Moulmein on penalties imposed upon owners of vehicles which emit offensive smoke. The Member for Moulmein surely must ask whether we should enforce laws that are for the benefit of the public or do not enforce laws at all. Everybody will agree that vehicles which emit offensive fumes from the exhaust are a danger to public health. In fact, one of the things which we wish to prevent in Singapore is to allow this city to degenerate into a smoke-filled town. It is well known that fumes from incomplete combustion of petrol can give rise to offensive chemicals which, if breathed in for a long Time, may be a cause of lung cancer; just as it is very much a possibility that a person who keeps on smoking a very large number of cigarettes and inhaling the smoke may suffer from lung cancer, it is in the interest of public health that we are enforcing this regulation so as to make the city clean. It is absolute nonsense for the Member for Moulmein to say that in enforcing this law, we are making the poor people suffer. In the first instance, poor people do not own motor cars. You can hardly say that Members of the Barisan who are sitting opposite us today arc poor when they have motor cars. And if their motor cars should emit offensive smoke, I have no doubt that complaints will be lodged with the Registrar of Vehicles and lie will take action accordingly. However, I do not think it is the intention of the authorities to impose a fine on all and sundry simply for the pleasure of collecting money from owners of vehicles who are guilty of this offence. Usually, in the first instance, a warning is given but in most cases this warning is not heeded and, therefore, more drastic action has to be taken. It is also incorrect 10 say that S.T.C. buses are exempted from this regulation. The law is applicable to every vehicle. Any person who reports on such and such a vehicle, whether it be a privately-owned vehicle or whether it be a taxi or a bus, will find that the R.O.V. will investigate the case and the owner of the vehicle will be asked to produce his vehicle and tests will be made to see whether the allegation is true that offensive smoke, which is detrimental to public health, is being emitted by such a vehicle. However, Members will agree that it is necessary now and then to enforce this regulation. These regulations are not new regulations which have been introduced by the P.A.P. Government. These regulations have been in existence ever since the Registry of Vehicles was formed. It is necessary in the public interest that these regulations must be enforced. On the complaint by the Member for Moulmein and the Member for Changi that car park attendants are being dismissed simply because they are not P.A.P. members, I must say that that is an utterly irresponsible and mischievous charge. Car park attendants are engaged by the City Council Committee, and they are taken on not on account of their party affiliations. I am quite sure the Member for Moulmein will know that many of the existing car park attendants do not belong to the P.A.P. He ought to know, because obviously his keen interest in this subject year by year should show that many of the car park attendants are his personal friends. Or would he say that at one time when he was in the Ministry of Labour (was it?), he was responsible for introducing these very same persons into the Registry of Vehicles? I will let the House know that some of these car park attendants had been dismissed or their services terminated on very unsatisfactory service. I can cite a number of instances. For example, some car park attendants apparently have a hatred for motorists, and one of their ways of venting their hatred on the motorists is to make false reports. 8.00 p.m.

Time and again car park attendants have been making false reports to the Registrar of Vehicles that the owner of such and such a car had not paid his parking fee. When the report is received by the Registrar of Vehicles it is natural that his first action is to issue a summons to the owner of the car; the owner of the car appears in Court, and when investigations are fully made, it is found out that the car park attendant had been telling a lie. This is one example of car park attendants not doing their duty; there are others who have been dismissed on account of their laziness. We have received many complaints from motor-car drivers that they have been kept waiting for a considerable time before a car park attendant comes to issue them with a parking ticket, although the car park attendant was only a few yards away. Any car park attendant who is dismissed is usually asked for an explanation by a Disciplinary Committee consisting of officers in the City Council. This Committee investigates all the charges made. There arc parking supervisors who do their rounds to watch the work of the parking attendants. Sometimes, they receive reports from motorists on the behaviour of certain parking attendants and all this comes before the Disciplinary Committee. We have 172 parking attendants at the moment and so far, of this number, only 25 have had their services terminated. It can therefore be seen that there has been no spite vented on car park attendants on account of their political affiliations. I personally have very little intimate knowledge of the political thinking or the political prejudices of the car park attendants. I do not see them at all. And 25 termination of services out of a total of 172 is very small indeed. That is a number which will be in keeping normally with dismissals concerned with unsatisfactory service. I must also add that besides car park attendants, we have also postmen who are employed at a lower level, and any termination of service or dismissal of a postman is decided by a Disciplinary Committee which includes the head of the Department and sometimes this goes up to the P.S.C. level. In the case of the car park attendants, the termination of their service is closely examined by a Committee of officers. As Minister, I have nothing whatsoever to do with their termination of service. I must once again refute the lie of the Member for Changi that a car park attendant must be a Branch member, or must be - what is it? - a member of the P.A.P. in order to be employed. It is all utter rubbish.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister must be aware that the termination of services of the parking attendants took place after we quitted the P.A.P.

It is quite nonsense to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the termination took place after they left the P.A.P. They left the P.A.P. in 1961 - was it not? I have just given him the figures for both 1962 and 1963.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a densely populated city. Therefore, the control over vehicles is a very great problem. The Government should be very careful in going about it. As far as I know, the Deputy Prime Minister has set up two Committees to investigate the traffic problem in Singapore. The first Committee was the Bus Service Inquiry Committee which was chaired by his Parliamentary Secretary. This Committee spent some time in carrying out investigations into all aspects of the traffic problem. It also issued its Report to the Press. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the Report, the Committee suggested many recommendations as to how to improve the bus service and to safeguard the passengers, especially the schoolchildren. But ever since the publication of this Report, we have not been able to see that the Government has actively implemented the recommendations. We urge the Deputy Prime Minister to tell this House to what extent the Government has carried out the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report and what are the difficulties of those which have not been carried out? Is it possible to improve the situation immediately in this respect? Sir, this is a very important problem. If the Government is only interested in setting up Committees and not in carrying out the recommendations of the Committees, it is only a tactic of deception. Sir, as far as I remember, after the publication of the Report, the Government also set up a Taxi Licences Review Committee. This was done after the Government temporarily suspended the issue of taxi licences. After some Time, the Government also announced that Singapore citizens are entitled to apply for taxi licences but that they must be recommended by the taxi-owners before their applications can be considered by the Government. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House how many applications have been received by the Vehicles Registration Office since the announcement of the Report; how many applications have been approved, and how many applications have been rejected, and what are the reasons for the rejection? I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can give a very detailed explanation to this House on this matter.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened to the reply by the Deputy Prime Minister. He seems to twist the facts to deceive the people by saying that I am not interested in public health. But the crux of the problem is that if any action is to be taken against cars which emit smoke, it is the taxi-drivers who are the greatest offenders. The Government cannot solve the problem by imposing more fines on taxi-drivers. The Government should educate these people by pointing out to them that they should minimise the smoke emitting from their cars or taxis. We all know that taxi-drivers are poor people. They earn only a few dollars a day, and they have to be on the alert to avoid being summoned by the traffic authority. The Deputy Prime Minister has twisted what I said by saying that I am not concerned with public health. I do not object to the enforcement of the law on traffic offenders. What I am asking is that the Government should reduce the fines, especially the fines on taxi- drivers. The fines should be reduced to two or three dollars. In regard to the car parking attendants, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the reason why I was so concerned about those who were sacked was that they are my relatives or friends. I come from the labouring class, and I stand on the side of the labouring class; I understand their sufferings. Termination of service without any reason is very unjust to them. He said that when I was in the Labour Ministry, I was in close touch with these people. Not only do I know this; the P.A.P. also know it. How are car parking attendants promoted? They know it, and I also know it, and there is no need for me to say how. Among those who were sacked, the first was the Secretary of the Moulmein Branch of the P.A.P. The Deputy Prime Minister also told us that only 25 were sacked. It might be possible that all these 25 were once their P.A.P. members and they were not all my friends. 8.15 p.m.

May I answer the Member for Moulmein first so that we will keep our trend of thought in line? I do not know whether the Member for Moulmein is aware that the majority of taxi-drivers do not own taxis. Therefore, the fines which have been imposed by the court are paid by owners of these vehicles; in other words, by people who own taxis, not by the taxi-drivers. It is utter rubbish for him to say that we are prosecuting taxi-drivers. Secondly, with regard to the quantum of the fines, I have no control over it; it is the magistrate who imposes the amount of the fine. It may well be that if the plea put up by the owner of the vehicle is sufficiently convincing, the magistrate may not even impose a fine. The magistrate could issue a severe warning, or, at the least, impose a small fine of two or three dollars, as suggested by the Member for Moulmein. Perhaps we might even think of making the Member for Moulmein a magistrate to sit upon these cases. Now, with regard to the questions raised by the Member for Yio Chu Kang --- An hon. Member: Not again. Choa Chu Kang.

Choa Chu Kang. [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, there is no innuendo in my remark, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always get mixed up between the two. It is true that a bus committee was appointed by me to study the conditions of service provided by bus companies, and a report was duly put forward. This report was circulated to all bus companies and bus unions. Now, the Member for Choa Chu Kang asked whether we have implemented the recommendations stated in the report. I must say that it is a bit difficult for us to force the bus companies to follow the recommendations made by this committee. At Times, you require a stick by which you can enforce regulations, but sometimes I think it is better if you can use persuasion rather than force to get into effect what you want. Well, in this case, we have tried to persuade the bus companies and the unions to give improved services to the public and, in some instances, I believe the recommendations have been carried out. But in some instances they have not been carried out. This, of course, is largely the responsibility of the bus owners. If they wish to extend their business, they should see that the public is well treated and well served. In the case of the committee which sat on the issue of taxi licences and taxi drivers' licences, this committee has not completed its investigations. I believe it sent out over 10,000 questionnaires to people who are holding taxi drivers' licences. Many answers have come in, and the R.O.V. is overwhelmed by the amount of work it has got to do to study the answers which have come in. Members of the House will be aware that there are slightly over 3,000 taxis which are now being operated by over 10,000 people who own taxi drivers' licences. We have had complaints in the past from the taxi-drivers' union that business has not been good, because of the excessive number of taxis in this City. On account of this complaint, we have temporarily suspended the issue of licences to people who wish to drive taxis. That is one positive way by which we hope to alleviate the plight of taxi-drivers, and I believe this has been favourably received by the majority of people who own taxis as well as people who drive taxis. When the Member asked me whether I could give him the number of applications for new taxi licences and applications for new taxi drivers' licences, I am afraid I am not in a position here to give him the figures, because he has not given me due notice that he was going to ask me this question. However, I will only add that this committee which is investigating into the conditions of the taxi service in Singapore will carefully consider whether it will be advisable to increase the number of taxis or the number of people who wish to drive taxis. With regard to the latter problem of the number of people who wish to drive taxis, one point of view is that really not all those who apply for taxi drivers' licences enter the trade. Many of the 10,000 who hold taxi drivers' licences are in some other profession or in some other occupation. For example, a person may be a tinsmith, or he may be working in the Harbour Board, or he may be working elsewhere, but at the same time he carries a taxi driver's licence. In the old days, a taxi driver's licence was issued very readily to any person who holds a driving licence and on payment of a small sum of money. This indiscriminate issuing of taxi drivers' licences has been to the prejudice of real taxi-drivers - people who are earning a living by driving a taxi. For one thing, it makes it very difficult for the authorities to judge how many people are really engaged in the taxi driving profession, and how to protect taxi-drivers in the profession from excessive competition among themselves. However, there is also the complaint from some taxi-owners that the ratio of about 10,000 persons who hold taxi drivers' licences to about 3,000 taxis is too small. They say that sometimes it is quite difficult for them to find a person to drive or operate a taxi. All these questions must be carefully looked into by this committee before a decision can be made. Obviously to make a decision one way or the other is going to annoy the taxi-drivers or the taxi-owners. But whatever decision we arrive at, it must be a fair and just one which would be in the interests of the operators as well as in the interests of the public.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is now four years since the P.A.P. came to office. It will be remembered that as early as 1955, 1956 and in the days when the Prime Minister, the Secretary-General of the P.A.P., was in the Opposition, a lot was talked about the Singapore Traction Company and the monopoly it has in maintaining bus routes. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the Government during these four years to break this monopoly of the Singapore Traction Company? Sir, as we know, the Singapore Traction Company, Limited, is a foreign company operating with British capital. The Minister for Finance says that he believes in local industries. And here in Singapore, in so far as the bus companies are concerned, we know that the local bus companies are not allowed to operate the routes that the Singapore Traction Company has. Sir, anyone will know that the routes the Singapore Traction Company operates are the most lucrative routes in Singapore. Although to some extent, taxi competition may have affected the revenue of the Singapore Traction Company, nevertheless, the Singapore Traction Company operates the most lucrative routes in Singapore. And also, of course, taxi competition is also a problem to the local Chinese bus companies which operate the routes which are largely outside City limits. Also, to make matters worse, I am told that there is a bias against local companies in the rate of calculation of road tax, passenger tax, etc, of the bus companies.

Order. I think it is time for suspension. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of time Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Order. The sitting will resume at half-past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of Debate on Question, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 19 be reduced by $100."

Head 19 (contd.) - Question again proposed.

We were talking about the fact that the Singapore Traction Company, Limited, has its buses operating on more lucrative routes and having an advantage in the fact that the amount of taxes that the S.T.C. has to pay is much lesser than what the local Singapore bus companies have to pay. Sir, what we would like to know is what the Singapore Government has done, a Government which claims to be socialist, though non-Communist socialist - I think, in fact, they are at the moment fanatically anti-Communist sort of socialists, if there are socialists of that nature - and also a Government which claims to give priority to local investors with a view to encouraging local industries, etc. Sir, in Singapore, we have, insofar as the bus companies are concerned at least, a position where there is only one bus company, namely, the Singapore Traction Company, Limited, which is a foreign concern, a British concern, operating with British capital, and all other bus companies are locally owned - owned by local Chinese businessmen. And yet, although four years have passed since this Government took office, nothing has been done - absolutely nothing has been done - to break the monopoly of the S.T.C., although in the days when the Prime Minister was in the Opposition, he decried attempts of the previous Government to foster this monopoly of the S.T.C. It will be remembered how in this House, in those days, it was suggested that the Singapore Government should take over the S.T.C. Sir, we would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government has taken and, if it has not taken any steps, what steps it proposes to take in the future.

Mr Speaker, I must first preface my remarks by saying that I hold no brief for any bus company, be it the Singapore Traction Company, the Chinese Bus, the Hock Lee, the Changi or the Green Bus Company. My responsibility is towards the public. It is my duty to ensure that the twelve odd bus companies which are licensed in Singapore provide services as best they can and as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the travelling public. The routes of the bus companies are under the control of the Road Licensing Authority. Whenever any bus company wishes to apply for a new route, the application goes before this Road Licensing Authority, and any bus company which has objection to this application can lay its objection before this Licensing Authority and will be heard. I must say here that the Member for Thomson does not understand in the least the running of the bus services in Singapore. Sir, I hold no brief for the S.T.C., but I say here that the S.T.C. holds no monopoly. There is no bus company which holds any monopoly.

There is a monopoly of routes.

There is no monopoly of routes. Name me one city route on which it holds a monopoly. It is not possible.

Take, for example, the routes from Serangoon Gardens Estate to Raffles Place, Upper Serangoon to Raffles Place, the Chinese bus companies are not allowed to operate on these routes, and if applications are made by the local bus companies to operate on a route which clashes with the S.T.C. bus routes, that application is turned down.

It is quite natural that no sane Licensing Authority will want to grant the same bus route to several companies. It will only lead to confusion of the services and the competition which will arise among the bus companies fighting for passenger fares along the same route will be so keen that instead of having a proper service there will be madness along this route. If the route had been given to the S.T.C., it was probably because it was earlier on the scene. You cannot expect a late-comer, if it applies for the route, to be given the route. These are considerations which must apply. And, in any case, it is not necessary for the Member for Thomson to come to this Assembly to lay the case for the Chinese bus companies. I have, in fact, two months ago, had a meeting with the Chinese Bus Owners Association together with their solicitor. Many problems were raised at this meeting. We spent a whole afternoon discussing these problems, and they went off satisfied with my explanations. This point of monopoly was raised by their solicitor and I asked him, "Which part of the S.T.C. Ordinance indicates that a monopoly is being given to the S.T.C.?" There is no section of the Ordinance which at the moment says that the S.T.C. has a monopoly of routes. It is all nonsense. Sir, it is all nonsense. [Interruption] The routes which are given to one bus company cannot obviously be given to another bus company. If one bus company is not allowed to operate on another bus company's routes, the position holds vice versa. You may as well say that a bus company which is only allowed to run a service from the Capitol to the end of Changi is holding a monopoly. [Interruption]

Order.

All right. I will give the House the real reason why the Member for Thomson is so keen on this problem, and it is very simple. He does not run the S.T.C. Union, and that is the real reason why he is raising these things. An hon. Member: He was thrown out!

Nonsense.

Order.

Members will be aware that some years back, there was a Commission of Inquiry which investigated into the possibilities of unifying the bus services in this city. There were two propositions. One was to get the bus companies to federate or amalgamate, and the other was for the Government to take over all the bus companies. This Government is not anxious to spend or dump several million dollars into the second proposition by merely taking over the bus companies without the possibility of providing more opportunities for employment to the people or even the possibility of improving the bus services. I have discussed the question of nationalisation of bus companies with several Ministers overseas, and it has been the experience that when you nationalise a bus company, for several years that nationalised bus company loses money and efficiency drops. It has happened not only in one country but in several countries. It is our policy that the millions of dollars which we will be spending must he so invested that opportunities for employment will be created. I do not see how you are going to increase employment of busmen, drivers or bus conductors by mere nationalisation. I do not agree that is an admirable step, however socialist one's ideas may be. Nationalisation just for the sake of nationalisation without positive benefits arising out of it is not a very rational step at all. On the first proposition suggested by this Commission of Inquiry, I have, in fact, had several meetings with the S.T.C. management and, in fact, with the Director of the S.T.C. when he was in Singapore sometime ago, that the S.T.C. should open its shares to local citizens. I even suggested to him that some of the S.T.C. shares should be sold to the local bus companies. I believe, according to my report, that approaches have been made, but the offer was not accepted. We have to face one simple fact, Mr Speaker, and that is many bus companies today are not solely involved in the business of running buses. There are many bus companies which do not try to plough back whatever profits they earn into the business of running bus services. We find many bus companies are involved in putting up housing estates, simply because it is more profitable. There is also the complaint that the takings of a bus company are not what they ought to be. And it is not unnatural that any offer made by the S.T.C. to local citizens that some of its shares can `be bought does not meet with very keen response. In regard to the granting of routes to bus companies, that is the job of the Road Licensing Authority, which is composed of officials. I have taken very great care indeed that no politicians should ever be in this Road Licensing Authority so that applications can be considered solely on their merits, and that consideration be given to the fact that the travelling public will benefit by these applications. As I have said before, the Member for Thomson just seeks to make a political issue out of this when there is none at all. If he were in charge of the S.T.C. Union today, probably he would have kept his mouth shut. 9.45 p.m.

I do not see how the S.T.C. Employees' Union comes into the picture at all. For the information of the Deputy Prime Minister, as early as 1959 when I was still in the S.T.C. Employees' Union, I told the Prime Minister, in the presence of Mr C. V. Devan Nair, of the necessity to break the monopoly of the S.T.C., to take over, to nationalise the bus transport industry. Sir, the fact that I raise this now has got nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the S.T.C. Employees' Union. Whether I am in the S.T.C. Employees' Union or not in the S.T.C. Employees' Union is not the issue. The issue is very simple. The Government claims to give priority to local capital, local industry and what-not. The Singapore Traction Company is a British company, operating with British capital, and it enjoys a good monopoly. This is by virtue of the fact that it is a very old company, that it is a British company, that the rulers of Singapore were the British. Therefore, it has the most lucrative routes in Singapore. There is no doubt about it - you can ask anybody in Singapore, and he will tell you that the S.T.C. operates on the most lucrative routes, routes which are most yielding. And what have the Singapore Government done to try - as they always say they want to - to encourage local companies to flourish? The Deputy Prime Minister merely says in law there is no monopoly. But in practice, there is. He knows as well as anyone else that there are certain routes on which the local companies cannot ply their buses. And from time to time local companies have objected to this.

Order. May I suggest to the Member that he is just repeating what he has said? What he has said has already been replied to by the Deputy Prime Minister, and all the Deputy Prime Minister has to do is to repeat what he has said in reply to what the Member has already said. So let us get to something new, if possible.

Sir, I want to say this again because the Deputy Prime Minister has not replied to this. I have said that, in addition to the fact that they operate on lucrative routes, there is the fact that the taxation policy is such that it is advantageous to the S.T.C., and the Deputy Prime Minister has made no reply at all to this.

Mr Deputy Prime Minister.

I say again that the Member for Thomson is just nuts. He does not understand how the bus services are run. I do not think he has even bothered to read the legislation regarding the running of bus services. The S.T.C. pays royalties - [Interruption]

Order. Let the Deputy Prime Minister finish.

And here he is confused himself. One moment he wants us to nationalise the S.T.C., the next moment he is asking us to encourage local capital. To do what?

To take over the S.T.C.

Just to take over the S.T.C. I am quite sure the S.T.C. is quite willing to pass over its shares to loca1 capital. In fact, it was only too eager at one time to get the company off its hands. That would mean not only the disruption of bus services, but also throwing several thousand workers out of jobs. If there is abundant local capital doing nothing, then the best they could do would be to invest in industry which would provide bigger opportunities for employment for our people. That is the pressing problem. I do not see how nationalising the S.T.C. or local capital taking over the S.T.C. can create more jobs. And I will repeat, although the Member denies it, his interest is mainly because he has not the control of the S.T.C. Union.

Does the Member for Thomson wish to elucidate something?

Sir, I did not say the S.T.C. does not pay taxes. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a very simple question, whether he knows there is a different basis used as between the S.T.C. and the local bus companies in assessing royalties. Obviously, he does not know.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that the people of Singapore do not have enough money to take over the properties and shares of the S.T.C. I personally feel that in saying this he is perhaps disregarding the capacity of the people of Singapore. As far as we know, in the fields of transportation, this s the most lucrative line. If the S.T.C. had been prepared to sell all its shares to the people of Singapore, then I believe overnight all the shares would have been bought over. The other point is that, as far as I know, the S.T.C., at the present moment, is paying taxes on a different basis from that of the Chinese bus companies. The Chinese bus companies have to pay taxes once in six months, whereas in the case of the S.T.C., their basis is different. If a bus from the S.T.C. is on the road for six hours, then tax will have to be paid only in respect of those six hours. So from this, you can see that the companies of the suzerain country have been given special privileges over others. Another point is that the routes of the S.T.C. have already encroached on the routes of the Singapore Chinese bus companies. That is why great losses have been suffered by the Chinese bus companies. Obviously, we know that the P.A.P. Government now is encouraging foreign capital and not local investment.

The Member for Pasir Panjang is only a little echo to the Member for Thomson. I have got to repeat all over again the arguments which I brought out a little while ago. As I pointed out very clearly, in so far as the bus routes are concerned, this is the business of an independent Road Licensing Authority, which judges the merits of each application and which hears any objection. If he says that the S.T.C. is encroaching on the routes of the Chinese bus companies, why does he not also say that it holds vice versa? It holds vice versa. I do not think the public want to see S.T.C. buses, Green Bus Company buses, Hock Lee Bus Company buses and Changi Bus Company buses, all racing one another down Nicoll Highway to look for passengers. That will only bring confusion in the bus services. Just a minute. It is not necessary for Members of the Barisan Sosialis to pretend that they are looking after the welfare of the Chinese bus companies here. I have just mentioned to them only a minute ago that I met their Association with their lawyers only two months ago, and we thrashed out many problems. It is not necessary for them to bring up all these problems.

Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $1,023,390 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 20 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Bani. Sir, this concerns the salary of the Minister to the amount of $30,000 a year. As far as I know, since the P.A.P. Government came to office, it has all along been carrying out colonial economic policies. That is why the rural economy has gone into bankruptcy. The rural areas come within the control of the Minister. So I would like to find out from the Minister concerned whether it is possible now to solve the many problems and the economic crisis in the rural areas?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1." Mr Bani?

I do not wish to speak on this.

I do not know whether there is anything to answer. [Laughter] Is there anything to answer, Mr Minister?

Sir, I had occasion the other day to say that the Member for Choa Chu Kang was out of his mind. Now we are faced with the Member for Jalan Kayu. He is from a rural constituency. But he is seldom seen around the rural constituencies because I have been to his constituency so many Times lately; I have heard so many things against him that it is not necessary for me to go into the details of his activities. Sir, he said that since the Government came to power, our activities in the rural areas have caused bankruptcy.

Sir, on a point of order.

Yes, on a point of order. Mr Bath.

Sir, I would like to ask whether it is proper for the Minister to refer to the Member for Choa Chu Kang when the question has been raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu?

I suppose it is quite in order for anybody in this Chamber to compare one Member of the Assembly with another Member of the Assembly. That is quite in order.

To say that there is bankruptcy in the rural areas shows that there is bankruptcy in that Member. I am not talking about whether he is financially bankrupt, but I think that politically, as an Assemblyman, he is bankrupt of ideas, of activities for his constituency. Sir, everybody knows how much we have done for the rural constituencies. An hon. Member: How much?

Order.

If Members opposite will want me to occupy their time, which is Opposition time, I am prepared to go into details. Would you agree, Sir?

Please do. 10.00 p.m.

Perhaps the Opposition are not interested in debating.

Well, for the information of the Member for Thomson, I come prepared because I know them well. And I know very well that the Opposition will go on repeating untruths - that the Government, since taking office for four years, have done nothing for the rural areas. Sir, they choose to close an eye to these things. As I have said the other day, the Member's mind needs to be examined.

Yio Chu Kang!

Since 1961, Sir, Time and again during Budget Time, they have been saying things against my Ministry for not doing anything. I do not mean to repeat all these things just because they keep on repeating them - the Government is not doing anything for the rural constituencies, and is not doing anything to help the rural dwellers. To say that the Government has not done anything for these people is enough to show that they are out of their minds.

You keep on repeating; that is wasting time.

Sir, anyone who takes an interest in the rural areas and the farming activities and who has compared the farming conditions in 1958, before the P.A.P. Government came to power, with the conditions in 1962, four years after the P.A.P. Government has been in power, knows that this accusation is the greatest distortion of the true facts. I would like to inform the House that the P.A.P. Government is extremely proud of the efforts and work that have been put into the rural areas since we came to power in June 1959. It has been our policy to assist the farmers, to help them increase production, to reduce production costs, so that their farm produce could become competitive not only against foreign imports sold in the local market but could also compete in export markets. This achievement can be borne out by the fact that in 1962 we exported 12,000 locally produced pigs, 68 million locally produced hen eggs, and about 2 million locally produced poultry to our neighbouring countries. Prior to 1959 we were not self-sufficient. What is the reason that has transformed Singapore from an importing country into an exporting one in agricultural produce? The simple answer is that Singapore farmers have been able to produce not only enough for home consumption but also to have a surplus for export, and not only have a surplus for export, but the cost of production has been reduced to such a competitive level that they could sell Singapore's agricultural produce on foreign markets against competition from foreign imports and local products of these foreign markets. Not very long ago a question was asked in one of the Legislative Assemblies in the Borneo territories as to why they had to import Singapore eggs into that territory. The answer was that Singapore eggs were cheaper than the locally produced eggs in Borneo. What do all these facts show? They show that Singapore's farming activities have expanded tremendously over the last few years, making it possible to produce enough for home consumption as well as a surplus for export. It also shows that the cost of production of farm produce in Singapore has been reduced to such a level that it has been able to compete effectively not only in the local market but also in foreign markets. The Government would not want to claim all the credit for this advance and expansion of farming activities in Singapore. Singapore farmers are hard working, intelligent and are very receptive in adopting new ideas in modern farming activities. And the agricultural and veterinary services provided by the Government are second to none in South-East Asia. Without the increased staff and the money that the Government has put in to improve and expand the various primary production services over the last few years since the P.A.P. came to power, farming conditions in Singapore would not have been what they are today. To give you an idea of what the Government has done in the field of primary production over the last few years, I would like to inform the House that we have produced improved strains of pigs and chickens for more efficient production and distribution to farmers at low prices. In 1962, 47,000 day-old chicks were sold at the reduced price of 20 cents each, and 425 improved piglings were distributed. We have also initiated a pig artificial insemination service to improve the pig stock in Singapore. To assist farmers to reduce the cost of production by cutting down losses of livestock through mortality and sickness, the Primary Production Department vaccinated 11.5 million heads of poultry in 1962, as compared with 6.7 million heads in 1959, nearly doubling the figure in only three years. In addition, a new service to protect young chicks from getting ranikhet disease was initiated in 1961. The Government also built more veterinary centres in the rural areas where poor facilities existed before 1959. These veterinary centres bring the very services to the very doorsteps of the farmers, and each centre has a veterinary surgeon and a team of six to seven subordinate officers permanently stationed there to assist the farmers. Since 1959 three more centres have been built, three are under construction and two more will be built next year. Apart from veterinary surgeons engaged in research and other veterinary services, there are now seven veterinary surgeons working full-time on the treatment of farm animals and poultry in the rural areas alone, as compared to only one full-time surgeon in 1959.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Point of elucidation, Mr Minister. Mr Tan Kia Gan resumed his seat.

Sir, I shall be very grateful if the Minister will elucidate whether or not he is reading excerpts from the Annual Report of the Ministry of National Development. I remember ---

Order. That is not a matter of elucidation. I think the Member for Thomson asked for it. I think the Minister is quite correct in giving a resume of what has happened. Please continue, Mr Minister.

Sir, it only shows that - [Interruption]

Order.

You have asked for it!

Order. Mr Minister, please continue.

Sir, apart from veterinary surgeons engaged in research and other veterinary activities, there are now seven veterinary surgeons working full-time on the treatment of farm animals and poultry in the rural areas alone, as compared with only one full-time surgeon in 1959. The number of livestock treated was 2 million in 1962 as compared with half a million in 1960. It is the Government's intention to build more of these veterinary extension centres in the rural areas where veterinary services are needed, and it is also intended to organise a veterinary mobile unit to provide services to farmers in Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong, and the Southern Islands. Sir, the disease incidence in livestock has reduced considerably due to these animal treatment services and the sale of veterinary drugs to farmers at cost price. The sale of $18,000 worth of drugs in 1959 compared with $80,000 worth in 1962 reflected how much more Singapore farmers have become conscious of utilising modern drugs to reduce livestock losses and to reduce the cost of production. This year the Government also intends to set up a veterinary diagnostic laboratory to combat livestock diseases. Members who have been to the rural areas recently would be struck by the change in animal husbandry methods used by the farmers. In the past, poultry and pigs have been reared on a free range basis and the animals fend for themselves. Through the demonstration and advice given by the Primary Production Department, many farmers are now adopting labour saving and cost reducing devices such as rearing poultry in cages and rearing pigs in simple hygienic pig sties. Through the efforts and research of the Primary Production Department into animal nutrition, many farmers are now feeding their livestock on a dry feed basis using well balanced rations which will ensure maximum production at minimum cost. To assist vegetable farmers, the Department has initiated a ploughing service to save the farmers a lot of Time and hard work, and an anti-pest service to help the farmers to combat agricultural pests and plant diseases with modern insecticides and fungicides using modern spraying implements. We have also recently initiated a sale of fertiliser service to help the farmers to use these cheap and effective fertilisers in order to reduce the cost of production. It is also the intention of the Government to produce improved seeds and planting materials for distribution to farmers in order to improve the yield and to reduce the cost of production. 10.15 p.m. I would like to say that these agricultural services were not available to the farmers of Singapore before the P.A.P. Government came to power. Recently a Primary Production Extension Unit has been established in the Department with the object of bringing the various primary production services even closer to the farmers. It will bring a knowledge of improved techniques of farming to the farmers through illustrated talks and films on all aspects of primary production. Handbills, pamphlets, booklets on these subjects are also being produced for distribution to farmers so that they may he acquainted with all the up-to-date production techniques. Primary Production Department personnel will also be able to apprise the Government of the difficulties and problems faced by the farmers so that new schemes could be formulated to assist them. As can be seen from the above, the Government has spared no effort in trying to assist the farmers, and nobody in his right mind could accuse the Government of want of trying to better the lot of the farmers, to help Them increase production and reduce production costs. The fact that in 1958 the total number of Government officers, including monthly and daily-rated staff, engaged in primary production work was 236 compared with 1963 when the total strength of personnel in the Primary Production Department increased to 434 persons, nearly doubling the strength of the establishment strength in 1958, shows that the Government is very concerned with the welfare of the rural communities. As the rural communities have been neglected by past governments, we are now doing everything possible to help the rural people and to develop the rural areas in order to rectify the mistakes and neglect of past governments.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, every time the P.A.P. Minister gives reports on figures. That is why they are afraid of their lies. The present condition is also caused by the concept of P.A.P. Ministers. I have here a Sin Chew Jit Poh newspaper report dated the 4th of June. It touches on certain merchants dealing in animal feed. They are faced with business difficulties, and they convened a Press conference and issued this report. This clearly shows rural difficulties. I will just quote from it here to show you: `The Chinese Animal-Feed Merchants Association convened a press conference, the Chairman of which said that the committee of this Association had a meeting on the 13th of this month at which the question of dropping prices of eggs was discussed. The rural economic bankruptcy and crisis were discussed too. Many merchants dealing in this line and farmers were meeting with difficulties.' Why did they mention all this? I would like to tell you. These merchants are dealing in animal feed which is supplied to the farmers. If the prices of their produce are lower than the cost, then they will lose money. They will have to calculate how much they can pay these merchants. There are certain merchants who are able to supply these goods on credit to them, and the farmers will have to calculate what is the amount they will be able to produce every month in order to cover the cost. The present situation is that when prices drop, farmers will not be able to pay for the supplies they get from the merchants, thus leading to their economic bankruptcy. The middlemen too have become bankrupt because of this. The Minister has talked about setting up various veterinary stations and surveying teams in the rural area. These are not fundamental solutions. On the face of all this, they look very nice. If the Minister goes down to the rural areas, he can find that everywhere chicken sheds are in a very bad condition. Because of the poor market, the farmers cannot maintain the repair of these sheds. I will tell you more about the prices of eggs. Recently the price of an egg has dropped to six cents each. This is the first Time in postwar years that the price of eggs has fallen to such a low level. Normally, in postwar years, an egg costs about 10 cents. Even in the Lim Yew Hock Government's Time, it was about nine cents per egg. Now under the P.A.P., it is only six cents. The farmers are therefore unable to meet their cost. Another point is that the chicks are mostly meant for the table. The selling price is about 90 cents per katty. Chicks must be fed for about four or five months before they can be sold at $2 each. So let the Minister calculate how much the cost is and how much the price is, and then he will know whether any profit can be made. For instance, a pig will cost about $80 per picul. But the piglings will have to be fed for about six or seven months before they can be sold as fit for the table at a price that cannot meet the cost. That is why I would like to ask the Minister for National Development how he is going to solve the difficulties in the rural areas.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago, we have heard the Minister for National Development reading the Annual Report of his Department, showing the grand achievements his Department has made. But he has forgotten one thing. Today, the present Government, in the field of rural primary production services, is only treating the symptoms but not the disease itself. The Government is only buying more stud pigs and is setting up a few more veterinary stations here and there. Can this raise the living standard of the farmers? There is grave doubt about this. We all know that the prices of domestic animals are very low and they are usually sold at a price that cannot meet the cost. I believe the Political Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister himself is keeping hens to lay eggs. But he does not make money out of this. That is why I say the Government is not tackling the basic problems. The Government is only treating the symptoms but not the disease. What the Government should be concerned with is how to enable the farmers to have good prices for their agricultural produce in order to better their livelihood. 10.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I quite appreciate what the Minister for National Development has read with regard to the so-called grand achievements of the Government in the rural areas. But what he says does not provide us with anything new at all. If we compare what he has said just now with what he said last year, with regard to the budget of his own Ministry, then we can see that there is not much difference. This is actually the same as white-washing an old house. This is only what the Government can do so far and it is claiming much credit for it. Mr Speaker, when the P.A.P. candidates took part in the elections in 1959, all the voters in the rural constituencies supported the P.A.P. in office because they believed that the rural development plans of the P.A.P. would ultimately improve the lot of the rural people, especially poultry farmers and farmers in general. Under those circumstances, the people in the rural constituencies gave them full-hearted support and attached great hopes to the P.A.P., praying that their livelihood would be improved eventually. In fact, the P.A.P. at that Time did give very good and practical plans for the improvement of the rural people. In fact, if the P.A.P. Government had done something practical to these plans, they would have indeed raised the standard of living of the rural people. So it is the responsibility of the Minister for National Development to implement all the plans that were promised the rural people in 1959 during the general elections. Unfortunately, however, from the reply given by the Minister concerned and the work done by the P.A.P. during the past four years, it can he seen that the Government, especially the Minister for National Development, has not given full-hearted attention to the development of the rural areas. Mr Speaker, let us look now at the booklet of the P.A.P. during the general election concerning the development of the rural areas. It is The Tasks Ahead, volume 1, paragraph 3. One of the paragraphs here says that: `It is our aim to encourage the establishment of co-operative societies of the farmers and to give them financial assistance, so that co-operative societies will replace the farmers' own ways of buying animal feeds and fertilisers. In this way, the co-operative societies will be able to buy cheaply the fertilisers and then resell them to the farmers without great profit. And then by and by the co-operative societies will be able to build up their own capital so that the farmers will no longer be exploited by the middle man In the purchase of the feeds and fertilisers.' Mr Speaker, the departments under the Minister for National Development, as far as I know, include one so-called co-operative society division. But what I would like to know from the Minister concerned is this. What has this co-operative division of the P.A.P. done during the past four years? What has it done in respect of co-operative society establishments? Has the P.A.P. done its best to foster the establishment of co-operative organisations among the farmers? Mr Speaker, the answer is very obvious. It is emphatically no. It is entirely no. If there had been any achievements in this field, then when the Member for Jalan Kayu raised certain queries, they should have been answered accordingly. In fact, there would have been no necessity for him to raise such queries. So we can see clearly that the Minister for National Development has not spent all his Time and made use of all the departments available to implement the election pledges of the P.A.P. That is why up to the present moment the lot of the farmer is still very bad and remains unimproved. Mr Speaker, no doubt the Minister has been able to quote a great number of figures in order to tell us that the Ministry of National Development and he himself have done a great deal to improve the livelihood of the farmers His explanation is that there has been an increase in the produce of the farmers over these years. But one must not forget one fact. In the past four years, there has been a tremendous increase in population in the rural areas. When the farmers' children leave school, they could not find jobs in the factories. The only thing for these people to do is to crowd round their vegetable gardens in order to raise their crops and thereby provide a livelihood for their own family. I do not deny there has been an increase in farm produce. But this does not mean that the livelihood of the farmers has improved. This is because increased production is closely related to the cost of production and the selling price of agricultural produce. So it would be a grave mistake if you only talk of the volume of production without taking into consideration the cost of production and the selling price of farm produce. I believe his colleague, the Minister for Finance, will not base this as his logic and say that this is proof of the improvement of the livelihood of the farmers. Mr Speaker, the Minister for National Development has also mentioned other matters connected with his Ministry. Bust he has not been able to show from his speech that the promises made by the P.A.P. in those days have been fulfilled. When the Minister for Finance made his Budget Speech, he was very proud of The Tasks Ahead of the P.A.P. But the Minister for National Development has made no mention of the P.A.P.'s The Tasks Ahead. That means that he himself knows that the Ministry of National Development has not done what the P.A.P. has promised. For example, Mr Speaker, the Government promised to set up a model fisheries village in order to help the poor fishermen improve their livelihood. There is a Fisheries Department under the Ministry of National Development. But I would like to ask this question. Has the Fisheries Department done anything? Has the Minister himself fulfilled the promise by making the Fisheries Department carry out the promise made during the elections? The answer is no. Mr Speaker, from all the available facts, one can see that the Minister for National Development should be ashamed of the answer that he has given us. He should not be proud of what he has said. In the past, he has talked about the allocation of goats to the Southern Islands. But I have not as yet seen him making any report on the work of distributing goats to the people of the Southern Islands. There has been no report on the rearing of goats in the Southern Islands. What is the progress made in this respect? If there has been any progress and success in this field, I am quite sure, Mr Speaker, the Minister for National Development would not have neglected this aspect of his achievements. So one can see very clearly that he has not been paying attention to the livelihood of the farmers and fishermen. Neither has he carried out the promises made by the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, the present lot of the rural people is extremely difficult. They are in great misery. The eggs produced by the farmers are taxed if they are to be exported from Singapore to the Federation. The Government has not been able to explain why that should be so. Neither has it been able to pacify the farmers over this matter. All that the Government can say is that on the advent of the common market, everything will be solved. This actually amounts to drawing a biscuit on the wall, and telling you that the biscuit is on the wall and that you can enjoy it. But, as a matter of fact, a biscuit on the wall is of no use to the stomach at all. Mr Speaker, if the Minister for National Development wants to establish confidence among the farmers in all the departments under him, then I think he should go all out to implement the promises made. It is no use for him to boast about figures. They are not very useful. 10.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is fully aware of the difficulties now being experienced by farmers, particularly those engaged in the rearing of poultry. My Ministry and the Ministry of National Development have been keeping the position under observation for quite some time. It is quite unnecessary for Members of the Barisan opposite to make reckless and unfounded charges. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that towards the end of last year and the first month or two of this year, the farmers were experiencing an even more difficult time than they are passing through now. At that time, the reason was largely due to certain measures taken by the Government of the Federation of Malaya when it restricted the export of eggs and poultry from Singapore to the Federation. That matter, you will remember, Sir, was solved in a very satisfactory way and brought immediate improvement to the economy of Singapore's poultry farmers. Now they are experiencing difficulties partly because of the fall in the price of eggs. We are fully aware of the reasons for this decline in prices, and measures to meet the situation are well in hand and preparation of these measures is in an advanced stage. It is merely a matter of examining to what extent the present decline in the price of eggs reflects the basic imbalance or disequilibrium in the supply and demand position, and to what extent it is due to temporary factors. It is an experience common to all countries because prices of agricultural products - not only eggs - are extremely sensitive to changes in supply and demand. Other countries also have experienced a very rapid and catastrophic decline in prices of agricultural products. This is inherent in many agricultural products because of the delicate balance between supply and demand. The measures that are required to improve the situation are fairly easy to carry out. But, at the same time, we must remember that we have to take into account not only the livelihood of the farmers but also the effect on the consumers in general. It is quite easy to bring about a high level of prosperity for farmers by, say, creating an artificial shortage of food-stuffs. The farmers would do very well; they would make a lot of money. But that would be at the expense of other people who have to pay high prices for food. That obviously is not the desirable thing, because it means that you are really shifting prosperity from one sector of the population to the other. As I have said before, Mr Speaker, Sir, measures to remedy the situation are in an advanced stage of preparation and will be carried out in the not too distant future. I make this point here because I want to make it clear that when these measures are carried out, they are entirely measures undertaken by the Government in the interests of the farmers. They do not at all reflect in the slightest degree anything that is said by Members of the Barisan opposite, because what they have told us today is nothing new. Further, they have grossly distorted the picture to the extent that they have deliberately neglected to give a proper picture of the measures that the Government has taken in the past and is taking and is continuing to take and will continue to take in the future in the interests of the farmers. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is very easy for Members of an irresponsible Opposition to make political capital out of the hardships of a section of the population. It is easy to blame the decline of prices of eggs on the wickedness of the Government, but such an argument can only deceive little children, and the immature minds which make up the bulk of the followers of the Barisan Sosialis. They will not deceive any adult with any brains to think, eyes to see, and ears to hear. Just as in the same way. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have Members of an irresponsible Opposition saying that the present water shortage is duo to acts of negligence of the present Government, when it has been demonstrated clearly by facts and figures that if there was any one person who was responsible for past neglect in the carrying development schemes for water in advance, that one person former Mayor of Singapore, at the Member for Hong Lim. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I advise the Barisan Sosialis not to shed any crocodile tears on behalf of farmers whom they claim quite wrongly have been neglected by the Government? The position is being kept under close observation, and measures to correct the situation are in hand, and they will be taken at a time of our choosing and not at a time when these foolish and immature young irresponsible politicians think that we should. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we take those measures, not only will the measures and the timing and the manner in which they are carried out be made clear to them but they will also see the purpose behind it.

Mr Speaker, we know that the policy of the P.A.P. concerning farmers and fishermen is to help them increase their daily produce. But what do we see now? The fishermen and farmers are now suffering very much, and I want to know whether the Government has any plan to help them. Sir, it is true the Government has built quite a number of veterinary centres in the villages, but it is not enough because the daily produce of the farmers still cannot be increased. For the fishermen it is even worse. The policy of the Government to help the farmers and fishermen has failed. The plan to set up a co-operative society has not been carried out by the P.A.P. Government. This plan is stated in The Tasks Ahead of the P.A.P. Most of the people living in the kampongs earn their living by rearing poultry and planting vegetables. The Government does not help them but only make them suffer. It can be seen in the case of Toa Payoh where many people earn their living in the way I stated above. These people have now been forced to move out from their houses and to live in places which they cannot afford. I hope that before the Government collapses, it will do something for the farmers and the people.

Does the Minister wish to wind up? Because we have to get on with the other items.

(In Mandarin):I would like to say something.

Yes, but not too long.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, regarding the items under the Head Ministry of National Development, Members of the Barisan Sosialis have made many allegations. They pretend that they are champions of the farmers. Although they come from rural constituencies, they very seldom go to their rural constituencies. If they should go to the rural areas, it is only for their own individual benefit. Mr Speaker, Sir, on any matter, theory is one thing and practice is another thing. Members of the Barisan Sosialis can put forward many beautiful theories but when they want to put them into practice, they can only draw biscuits on the wall to satisfy their hunger. 11.00 p.m. Regarding farming activities in the rural areas, we have to understand the background to these activities and the background to all the occupations in Singapore. Farming is only a secondary industry, and that is why we have to push forward our industrialisation scheme. Without industrialisation, to whom can you sell eggs and poultry? If there had been more blank votes in the referendum last year, perhaps the farmers would have been more miserable this year. They cannot even understand a simple and fundamental issue. We have to see that the increase in farm produce is in keeping with the increase of population. This is the result of farmers using modern techniques of production. If there has been an increase in their produce, the only problem is the problem of marketing their produce. If we were to talk only without devising a method to expand our markets, it would not help. The Members opposite always talk of helping the farmers, but when we carry out construction of roads and bridges in the rural areas, they make use of their united front organisations, such as the Singapore Country People's Association, to frustrate and obstruct our work. Can they say that they are helping the farmers in this way? Can they deny what they have done? As far as I know, when we carry out some schemes, many persons pretend to be farmers, but when we want to check their identity cards, they all run away. These are facts. Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not intend to waste the time of this House, but I wish only to rebut their argument. That is the end of my speech.

Does the Minister like to wind up?

Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu was quoting prices of eggs and poultry. If they were not incorrect prices, I would not have taken up the time of the Assembly. He mentioned that the price of an egg is now 6 cents as compared with about 10 or 11 cents in 1948/49. I have here, Sir, ex-farm egg and poultry prices compiled by the Department of Primary Production dated 9th June, 1963. There are two prices of eggs ex-farm, one for small eggs and one for large eggs. For small eggs it was 7½ cents on 8th June, 1963. For large eggs it was 8½ cents 19th June, 1963. The Member for Jalan Kayu mentioned just now that the price is only 6 cents. What was his intention in saying those things? We have officers who go round the farms all over Singapore island. The Member for Jalan Kayu has a farm of his own. He rears ducks, poultry and pigs, but he comes into this Assembly and deliberately gives false information with the idea of saying that the Government is not doing anything for the people of Singapore. He quotes the prices of poultry as 80 cents or 90 cents per katty. I have got here official figures. There are two figures for poultry - cockerel per katty on 8th June, 95 cents; for pullet, $1.45 per katty. Sir, in the figures that he quotes and the official figures that are collected by my Department, there are wide margins of differences. As I have said, he comes into this Assembly deliberately to mislead people and to give false information. An hon. Member: You are doing it.

When he mentioned rural bankruptcy, I thought he meant the bankruptcy of the farmers, but he stood up the second time and mentioned something about feed-merchants - merchants who sell feed-stuff to the farmers. He is more concerned about the bankruptcy of these feed-merchants than the farmers. He mentioned that because these feed-merchants have to give credit to the farmers and because some of these farmers have refused to pay up their money, so the retailers and whole-salers of feed-stuff arc going bankrupt. These are entirely different matters. He is more concerned with the feed-merchants who are losing money than the farmers who are having more produce from their farms - as admitted by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. But the Member for Changi stood up later on and said the exact opposite to what the Member for Choa Chu Kang said. He said that there is no increase a production in the rural areas. They are --- An hon. Member: You are twisting.

Sir, the Member said that I am twisting. I would like to refer to the Official Report of what he said. They are good for twisting what they say and what other people say. How do you expect the people of Singapore to believe in the Barisan Sosialis if they keep on doing this sort of thing! An hon. Member: Why do you not go to Paya Lebar?

My friend, don't you ---

Order. Mr Minister, let us carry on with this debate. Ignore the interruptions.

The Member for Jalan Kayu - I call him the Member for Kayu - mentioned about farmers being bankrupt, poultry rearers having chicken runs that are empty and dilapidated now. Sir, I have recently been visiting the rural constituencies together with the Prime Minister and, in fact, I have visited more constituencies unofficially because it is my duty as Minister for National Development to look after the interests of the rural folks. [Interruption] These are the Members from the Barisan Bench who do not bother about their constituents; they only go into other constituencies to disturb the progress of Government construction work in these constituencies. That is why they do not know what is going on. Sir, the last constituency that I visited with the Prime Minister was the Punggol constituency and this constituency, as can be verified by the Member for Punggol, has the most number of poultry farmers. In the Punggol constituency, wherever you go into the kampong tracks, you will find the residents have their own chicken runs. As I have said, they are now having their chickens kept in cages and all these cages seem to be expanding more and more and occupying more space, which simply means that the Barisan Members are just talking through their hats. The poultry-rearers and the pig-rearers in Singapore are enjoying a boom in production, although prices have fluctuated, but they have not gone so low, as suggested by the Barisan Members, that the farmers are going bankrupt. As regards the Member for Pasir Panjang, he was half-laughing and I could not understand what he was saying. Sir, if Members in this House cannot understand what he is trying to say, how do you expect him to be able to do anything for his constituency? [Interruption] The Member for Choa Chu Kang, as I mentioned the other day, is out of his mind again. He mentioned, in the same way as the Member for Changi did, that we have not done anything to help the farmers and the fishermen and that we have failed to form a co-operative society which we put in our The Tasks Ahead. Sir, I have not intended to say anything about this thing because it reflects on someone in whom I had faith at one time. When I took over the Ministry of National Development from the Member for Hong Lim, I worked out a scheme with a gentleman whom I sent away twice in two years for special training to initiate this farming co-operative work. But, unfortunately, after his second trip overseas when he had imbued himself with all the necessary knowledge and experience to come and form this co-operative society, he deflected from the Party. That, more or less, dashed the hopes of the Government to form the co-operative society. It was wrong on our part in this sense, that we had placed too much faith in a man whom we thought would be going along with us to help the farmers of Singapore. But because he is no longer with us, we have suffered a setback in this respect. But, as is stated in The Tasks Ahead, this co-operative society is to help buy feed-stuff, import feed-stuff, and sell it cheaply to the farmers and to import fertilisers and sell these fertilisers at low prices to help farmers reduce their cost. 11.15 p.m. But despite the fact that we have suffered a setback in forming this rural co-operative society, we have managed to produce a cheap fertiliser which has been experimented and used by farmers themselves and liked by them. This cheap fertiliser is being sold through the extension centres and the rural community centres to the farmers. As regards fisheries, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has again said that the Ministry of National Development has not kept its election pledges. I have many times mentioned in this Assembly what the Fisheries Department has done for the fishermen of Singapore. We have started two Fisheries Training Schools to help children of fishermen in how to service their boats and how to go around using modern techniques of fishing. We have also a mobile unit attached to the Fisheries Department which is on call to service fishermen's boats. We have also encouraged local fishermen and fishing merchants to go in for deep-sea fishing. All in all, Sir, the Fisheries Department has done what it possibly can to help the fishing industry. Now, I come back to the Member for Changi. He has mentioned just now about Toa Payoh farmers being forced out of the area by the Government, whether they are deprived of their livelihood. Sir, I have mentioned before in this Assembly the scheme in Toa Payoh and what we are doing to help the settlers move out of that place. Sir, out of 184 families who are living in the Phase 1 project of this Toa Payoh Scheme, 125 families have already moved out. To cater for the different needs of these families, flats, house lots, farm lots, basic terrace houses and shops have been offered and accepted by these people. Acceptance of such offers means that they will continue to have a livelihood of their own, and in many cases it will improve their present conditions. People have been offered basic terrace houses from which they can carry on with their small cottage industry. Others have moved into farm lots and house lots whereby they can carry on with their farming. Industrial resettlement cases will be considered for the Kallang industrial site. Compensation rates have also been well received by settlers. The fact that we have not been able to move these people and carry on with this Toa Payoh Scheme for two years is because of agitation from the Country People's Association and the Barisan boys. But as I have said, Sir, those farmers from the Toa Payoh area who have moved out have moved out to a place which is acceptable to them, and unless they are good offers, they would not have accepted them.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Sir, this item concerns Political Secretary. This subject has been brought up at every Budget debate and hon. Members will remember that in 1961 when we had our last Budget debate, there was an assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister that if it was found by the Government that the post was not necessary, they would abolish it. The Deputy Prime Minister, in accordance with that undertaking, has now abolished the post of Political Secretary in his particular Ministry. In this Ministry and as well as other Ministries, where they have the votes for Political Secretaries, it would seem that the Minister for National Development wants to keep this vote, although, since that vote was put in, there has been no Political Secretary at all in that Ministry. Sir, we cannot forget the tragedy of Political Secretaries. Three of them are now in gaol.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said in 1961, I had to be very careful in selecting a person to this post. Sir, in the past 12 months, I have been trying some people out to see whether they would suit this post. I have yet to find the man. But I am hopeful that in the not too distant future I will be able to find a man to fill this post.

Sir, I am happy that the Minister has been trying his best to find a man to fill the post, but I do hope that the Minister will not find it necessary to put that man in gaol as other Ministers have found it necessary.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tan Cheng Tong --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (22) of subhead 1.

Amendment (3). Mr Tan Cheng Tong.

(In Mandarin): I do not propose to move my amendment (3).

Amendment (4), Mr Tan Cheng Tong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (48) of subhead 1. This item concerns Assistant Primary Production Officers. All that I want to know is that last year there were ten such appointments; so why is there a necessity to increase the number to 34? Another question is, what are the duties of these officers? In the meantime, what is the manner in which these officers are appointed?

Sir, when we came te power in 1959, we felt that there were many problems in the rural areas which needed to be looked into so that solutions can be found to assist the farmers and fishermen. At that time, there were 24 temporary posts of Rural Organisers created. After some time, it was found that the work carried out by these temporary Rural Organisers was essential, so it was decided this work should be expanded and the temporary posts of Rural Organisers should be made permanent so that the holders could carry out their work more effectively and efficiently. The 24 permanent posts of Assistant Primary Production Officers (Rural Development) were created in order to bring them in line with the ten existing Assistant Primary Production Officers (Rural Development) posts. These 24 new posts were advertised in the English and vernacular papers by application. Out of nearly 395 applicants, the Public Service Commission selected 24 to fill the posts. As it is the policy of the Government to provide better and more efficient services, the work of these Assistant Primary Production Officers has also been increased. They are now posted in the various rural districts of Singapore to investigate farmers' problems and complaints, to carry out agricultural surveys and to provide primary production services such as sale of fertilisers, tractor service, poultry inoculations through the rural community centres.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was surprised that it took the Government four years to realise the importance of the primary production of the State. And eventually they have to make these 24 new posts permanent. I want to ask whether these 24 new posts are meant for those temporary officers or entirely new officers. 11.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister concerned this question. Since new appointments have been made, why is it that five holders of the original posts were dismissed from their posts? As far as I know, these five dismissed employees started work in 1959. They were living in the district of Punggol. Their work was in the region of Tampines and Punggol and the farmers who had been served by them were very happy and satisfied with their services. So I do not know for what reason they have been dismissed. Can the Minister enlighten us?

First, I must correct the Member for Punggol. These posts that we are talking about are for Primary Production Officers (Rural Development) and they are not part-time inoculators whom he meant. The part-time inoculators come under the temporary posts. Now I come back to the Member for Havelock. What I have said just now. Sir, is that when we came into office, we knew the importance of having services supplied to the rural areas, so we created 24 posts at that time. Last year we changed these posts into permanent posts. It does not mean that when these posts were temporary the people were not doing their work. But he is saying it took us four years to realise that we have to have these posts. As regards the men to fill these 24 posts, 22 of these 24 posts are filled by new applicants and two of the old Rural Organisers were selected to fill the other two posts.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the explanation given by the Minister just now was that the 24 posts were temporary until this year when they were changed to permanent. What I do not understand in that those five who were dismissed were also temporary officers. Why were they not made into permanent officers?

Sir, I do not think the Member understood what I said. What I meant was that these are higher posts than the posts filled by the five persons that he mentioned just now. Those five whose services were terminated were part-Time inoculators. They were in temporary posts which are different from these. The posts of Assistant Primary Production Officers (Rural Development) are Grade III-24. The qualification for these posts is Senior Middle III or Cambridge School Certificate or equivalent qualification, and the posts were filled by these five gentlemen who were dismissed sometime ago, as mentioned by the Member for Punggol, and who carried no such qualifications. What I mean is that these five gentlemen cannot fill these posts because they do not have the qualifications to fill them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, one of these five people possesses a School Certificate.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (99) of subhead 1* * The amendment also stood in the names of Mr Tan Cheng Tong, Dr Thio Chan Bee, and Mr Ng Teng Kian. We know that the work of the Director of the Work Brigade is to supervise the work of members of the Brigade, but he has not only been unable to fulfil his duties, but he also took instructions from the Minister to send members of the Work Brigade to certain rural areas where the Prime Minister was touring to put up banners with slogans such as "Our meritorious Prime Minister". He was also instructed by the Minister to send members of the Work Brigade to erect arches even during the middle of the night in rural areas where the Prime Minister would be going. During the national referendum, the mass rallies organised by the P.A.P. did not attract the masses, and so they had to send members of the Work Brigade to attend the mass rallies. If they did not turn up, then they would have their salaries cut. Apart from this, if the Ministers, the Prime Minister, or trade unionists are going abroad or returning from abroad, members of the Work Brigade will be sent to the airport to receive them or to send them off. If they do not do so, they will have their salaries cut. Their duty should be to work during the daytime and do some useful construction work, and they should not be regarded as a sort of instrument or as machines to be carted here and there, or to disguise as the masses, or as residents of rural areas welcoming the Prime Minister. The significance of the Work Brigade is entirely lost.

Order. The Member for Pasir Panjang should take notice that there are only five minutes left.

(In Mandarin): Furthermore, we know that the Work Brigade is also engaged in sandwashing. When the Work Brigade was washing sand at Kaki Bukit at a time the whole of Singapore was water-rationed, they made use of pipe water for washing sand. The Government sells the sand at only $9 per lorryload whereas the actual cost is very high. And now that the price of sand has risen to $17 or $18 per lorryload, the Government is selling it cheap to building contractors as if this sand is valueless. That is why I ask for a reduction of $10 for this vote.

Does the Member for Tanglin wish to say a few words before the Minister replies?

No, Sir.

The Member for Pasir Panjang has mentioned that the Director of the Work Brigade is only obeying what I instructed him to do, and not to do duties of the Work Brigade like building kampong roads, bridges and all the other amenities that we are bringing to the kampong folks through the Work Brigade. What he is trying to do is to get people to believe that the work of the Work Brigade is only to go out and prepare for the Prime Minister's visits and to send people off at the airport. These are practices which were carried out by the Barisan Sosialis Members, like the Member for Toa Payoh, when they were running the Work Brigade. He was a Supremo at that time. I remember when he left for Europe sometime in 1960. He had a group of these Work Brigade members to send him off without my knowledge. An hon. Member: Supremo?

Well, he was known as Supremo at that Time! He was then trying to make believe that we used pipe water for sandmining operations of the Work Brigade. This is a clear distortion of fact. He knows very well that no sand-miner uses pipe water. All sand-miners use water from ponds that collect rainwater, and some operators even use seawater to wash sand. But he is trying to twist facts in such a way that the sandwashing work of the Work Brigade is wasting water from pipes. Then he mentioned about a lorryload of sand from the Work Brigade being sold at $9 or $10. Sir, I remember reporting to this Assembly sometime ago - probably in answer to a question asked by him - that at that Time the price of sand was $12 for 4 cubic yards. Last month, the price of 4 cubic yards of sand has been raised to $l

6. But he is trying to tell us that we are using Government land, mine this sand, and sell it at a loss to the profit of con-tractors. What a distortion of facts! The Member for Pasir Panjang lives in Tampines. He is not living among his constituents, nor does he visit them. But he lives in an area where mining operation is in full blast. He knows the method of mining sand. He also knows what are the illegal ways of mining sand. He --- 11.45 p.m.

Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 20 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Dr Thio Chan Bee, Mr Tee Kim Leng, Mr Teo Hock Guan, Mr Ng Teng Kian, Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr Tan Cheng Tong and Mr S. T. Bani were not proceeded with:- Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to he allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (117) of subhead 1. Mr Tee Kim Leng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (122) of subhead 1. Mr Teo Hock Guan: That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Mr Tee Kim Leng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 26. Mr Ng Teng Kian: That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 51. Tun Lim Yew Hock: That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 51. Mr Tee Kim Leng: Mr Tan Cheng Tong: Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr S. T. Bani: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $100. The sum of $7,308,420 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 22 - The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Tun Lim.

Sir, I do not think I will move this particular one.

The Member is not moving. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (20) of subhead 1.

Dr Thio? He is not here. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Ong Chang Sam --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (21) of subhead 1. That the sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

Mr Ong Chang Sam? He is not here. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Teo Hock Guan, Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Mr Ng Teng Kian --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head 22 be reduced by $100.

Amendment (5). Mr Teo Hock Guan.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $706,090 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 23 - The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 23 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

The Member for Tanglin is not here. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 23 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5.

The Member for Farrer Park is not here. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Tan Cheng Tong, Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Dr Thio Chan Bee --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head 23 be reduced by $100.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I am not moving.

The Members for Mountbatten and Tanglin are not here. The sum of $8,307,640 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 24 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $100. 11.48 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I ask the Minister concerned whether he is aware that whenever the Prime Minister pays a visit to the rural areas, he always promises the people there that he will install street lights and build road-drains and bridges. Is the Minister for National Development aware that these actions of the Prime Minister are to show that it is his merits? I should say that it is not his merits. All these things should have been carried out by the Government, because the people are paying taxes. The Government levies taxes on them, and it has the duty to carry out all this kind of construction work, to build roads and to install street lights where they are lacking. Sewerage should be looked after. It should be repaired whenever it is necessary to do so. Whenever the Prime Minister goes to the rural areas, he will promise the people that the Government will do this and that for them in order to carry out political propaganda. That is why I would like the Minister concerned to pay attention to this matter. Another point is this. In many outlying rural areas, in the Sembawang constituency, the Government is installing many street lights and metalling the roads, whereas the Government is not going to in the other constituencies. Does it mean that this is a way to do political propaganda, to prepare the way for the future by-election in that constituency? Is it to make political capital for that event?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the Prime Minister has explained the objects of his rural visits, the Member for Serangoon Gardens still insists on twisting those objects The development of the rural areas with regard to roads, lighting, drains, stand pipes, has been going on for the last four years. The Prime Minister goes to the rural constituencies to understand further the needs of such people. But the process of supplying all these amenities in the rural areas has been going on for four years. When the Member brought up the subject of the Sembawang constituency. I do not think he has been down there. I do not think he knows the conditions that have existed since June 1959. For his information, the late Assemblyman for that constituency did a lot of work in that constituency for his constituents. The constituents of Sembawang knew very well, much more than the Member for Serangoon Gardens knows, that when the late Inche Ahmad was alive, he was looking after their welfare very well. He did it very much better than the Member for Serangoon Gardens who has not appeared in his constituency for over a year. I say this, Sir, because I have been down to his constituency lately to see to the needs of his constituents. And in the same way, his constituents told me that their Assemblyman was not to be seen, was not to be heard and when he goes back --- An hon. Member: He has lost his revolutionary fervour!

--- and when he goes back, they say they will see to it that he loses his deposit.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department is in charge of building projects throughout the whole island - urban or rural - projects relating to building of roads, street lights and other such works. At the moment, this department is not doing its normal round of duty. This round of duty is being handed over to the Prime Minister to carry out. I do not understand whether the present Public Works Department has already been transferred from the Minister for National Development to the Prime Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have seen in the past that many roads, bridges and lights in the rural areas were in such a condition that the Members of those constituencies suggested to the Government to improve them. The Public Works Department did not carry out the work of maintenance and repair. Only when the Prime Minister was about to visit the rural areas did they issue the so-called development projects, in which it was announced that various works and projects would be carried out. All this is the normal round of work to be done by the Public Works Department, but the villagers have to wait until the Prime Minister comes to the constituency before they can get all these normal services which they deserve; whereas the projects announced by the Prime Minister when he visited the rural areas were past projects, and not new ones. But the Government, in order to achieve its purpose of propaganda

Order. 12.00 midnight And it being twelve o'clock midnight Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

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

So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Goh Keng Swee] Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock midnight.