Hansard, 1963-06-13

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor) - from 12th June to 30th June, 1963.

"provide for the control of broadcasting and television services and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available day after 30th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Telegraphs Ordinance (Chapter 108 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee: read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available day after 30th June, 1963, and to be printed.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (12th June, 1963). "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $100."-(Mr Leong Keng Seng).

2.34 p.m. Head 24 -

The Question is, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $100."

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, last night, I mentioned that the Public Works Department is closely connected with every citizen of Singapore. The efficiency and work of this department have a very great effect on the future and livelihood of the people. We see that the expenditure of this department for this year is the same as that for last year. Its duties and tasks in the past have been of great concern to us. Last night, I also said that in the rural areas, there are many bridges, roads and drains which are in a very bad condition. Weeds are also found along the roadside. The P.W.D. should not neglect its maintenance and repair work. We have not seen it carrying out its duties in the past year. In order that the roads and drains in the rural areas can be repaired and maintained, the people in these areas must first wait for the Prime Minister to visit them. I have facts to back up what I say. Now all this has aroused the grievance of the people. They have to wait for the Prime Minister to visit them before work can be carried out by the P.W.D. The impression is created that the maintenance of roads and the building of social amenities in the rural areas is at the convenience of the Prime Minister. This shows the bureaucratic practice of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the bridges and roads in the rural areas are very necessary for the people and they should be properly looked after by the P.W.D. If they are damaged or they are in a bad condition, this will have a great effect on the livelihood of the rural folks. If the roads are bad and the bridges are not kept in a state of repair, the eggs and agricultural produce of these people will not find their way to the market and this will result in a great loss for them. In the past, the drains and rivers in the rural areas were looked after by the P.W.D. every two or three months, but now this work is handed over to the Work Brigade which is not carrying out the work of regular maintenance done in the past. Therefore, we can see lallang and weeds everywhere and some areas are flooded after rain, and, as a result of this, the people in the rural areas suffer a loss because their vegetables are destroyed. Obviously the duties of the P.W.D. are very important, but the Minister for National Development has not paid attention to the work of this department. He has handed over this sort of work to the Work Brigade and they have not carried out the work which should have been done, thus causing unnecessary losses to the rural people. I am of the opinion that since the expenditure for this department for this year is the same as that for last year, the Government should carry out its responsibilities to the rural people, such as the maintenance of roads, drains and bridges as it has done in the past. In this way, the rural people will be greatly helped.

Sir, as usual the Member for Choa Chu Kang is talking a lot of rubbish. This Head is Public Works, Recurrent. It concerns the maintenance and repair of Government offices, public street light, roads, backlanes, drainage, sewerage and other services. The Member then brings up the Prime Minister's visits to constituencies. He says that the Government does work only after the Prime Minister has visited these constituencies. [Interruption] Sir, the work of construction and development, whether in the city or rural areas, goes on all the time. The Member knows it. But he comes to this Assembly haranguing, hoping that the people outside will believe what he says. But I think in general the people out-side already have the Barisan Sosialis properly assessed. They know that these people yap rubbish. They do nothing in their own constituencies and they harp on "only when the Prime Minister goes to the urban constituencies that things are done." Sir, the work of development in the rural areas goes on all the time. For the information of the Member for Choa Chu Kang, in the rural areas from 1962 to May 1963, we spent $784,460 on laying 173 standpipes and also making water supply available to Pulau Tekong. We also spent $2,492,000 supplying rural electrification schemes for 33 kampongs. We also lit up 100 kampong roads, spending $240,186. We lit up 68 public streets at a cost of $455,195. 2.45 p.m. We also made up 194 kampongs and access roads to the tune of $1,125,318 for the making up of these roads. I would not have brought this up if the Member for Choa Chu Kang had not brought up the idea that we are not doing anything for the people of Singapore. Although this is a Head which concerns only maintenance, he is talking about development. He also mentioned something about the Work Brigade doing the work of the P.W.D. It is true the Work Brigade has taken over certain functions of the P.W.D., like grass cutting, desilting drains and all these things. But what these people from the Barisan benches ever since we had this Budget sitting have been trying to say is that we do not do anything for the people of Singapore, and that it is only when the Prime Minister visits the place that we are doing something for the people of Singapore. If they were in their right senses, they would not have been saying such things. I suggest that the Member for Choa Chit Kang get his head examined.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Head 24 concerns the maintenance fees of public works. This Public Works, Recurrent, expenditure should be spent on the repairing and maintaining of roads and drains. However, the Minister for National Development has said that we the Barisan Sosialis Members have not been working on our own. This problem will cause no surprise. As far as the Public Works Department work is concerned, the P.A.P.'s policy is to classify the works into several categories. Firstly, it is whether the area concerned belongs to the Ministers' constituencies. If it is so, then if there is any complaint, undoubtedly the Government will have the work done in that constituency. Next comes the constituencies of the Parliamentary Secretaries. If a Parliamentary Secretary and a Minister apply for the same work to be done, of course, the priority will be given to the application of the Minister. Thus the Parliamentary Secretary comes next. The third category are the Back-benchers, and there are also first-class and second-class Backbenchers. Those who are more obedient are classified as first-class Assemblymen. Those who are querulous or quarrelsome are classified as second-class lack-benchers. So in the Government departments there are four categories of services. Even in the Government departments there are four classes of work. So if the people want any drains or roads to be repaired or maintained or any street lights to he installed, they have to go to the Minister. If they go to the Minister, then the work can be done. They should go to the Minister first. If they cannot find the Minister, then they must find the Parliamentary Secretary. If they cannot find the Parliamentary Secretary, they must go to the first-class Back-benchers; and then comes the last. If they go to the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, they will not have any hope of having the work done, because the application will be thrown into the waste-paper basket. This is the policy of the P.A.P. That is why the constituencies belonging to our Assemblymen do not have any work done, because in the Government itself there are four classes of work. I remember before I left the P.A.P. I made an application that the areas in Market Street and Tew Chew Street should have their roads and streets repaired. I made the application in May 1961. At first it was intended to carry out the work. But when I became an Opposition Member this work was not carried out. No wonder the Minister was saying that we Barisan Assemblymen have no work to do, because, as far as the people are concerned, they have found out that even in the Government Party there are four classes of Assemblymen. If the people in Singapore wish to have some improvement in their life and in their social amenities, they must, first and foremost, topple the reactionary and colonial stooge Government. Otherwise they will not be able to have anything done for them, because in the whole parliamentary democratic system the Opposition should he a component part of it. But the P.A.P. has discarded the Opposition Members as far as public works are concerned. They play party politics. Ordinarily if any application is put forward to be done, it should be considered. But today the situation is different. If it happens to be second-class Assemblymen of the Government Party or the Opposition Members, we have to wait. Today the P.A.P. policy is such and it is not surprising that the Minister for National Development has said that the Opposition Members have no work to do. This is because in the Government Party itself there are four classes of Assemblymen. That is why our applications were never considered.

It appears to he an invitation to the Government Backbenchers to reply.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now after listening to the Member for Havelock, I am surprised that the Barisan Members should have introduced themselves because they are blowing their own trumpet. He feels that the people of Singapore are not intelligent. I think all this is a waste of time for this House. The allegation made by him just now is that when applications were made for a certain job to he done, they were not approved and the work was not done. This is all rubbish. I can quote examples to prove that even work in the Opposition Members' constituencies has been carried out. It is not true to say that only applications coming from the Government constituencies are approved and work is carried out there. While he made such allegations he should also substantiate them. According to him, there are certain roads which need to he repaired but the repair has not been done. He is the Member for that constituency. But at present he is interested only in his own party politics and the work that should have been done by him has been pushed on to us. If he has made any application for any work to be done, and if nothing comes out of it, why does he not make an inquiry about it? I can tell this House that what they are interested in is not the livelihood and welfare of the people. As far as I know, what they are interested in and what worries them most is how to go about extorting from the people. If people do not subscribe to them, then they will intimidate them. I can get many people to substantiate what I say. When debating on the Main Estimates, they are now talking of the so-called people's welfare and livelihood. Now on Sundays or weekends they go to people's houses to force them to donate money to them and to their front organisations, such as the Rural People's Organisation. They are trying to extort money from the people.

These points are irrelevant. Are there any other points the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to make?

(In Mandarin): No.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under this Head there is an item for maintenance of Government quarters, barracks and grounds. I would like the Minister to tell us how many Government quarters are now still vacant, particularly of the Class I type. 3. 00 p.m.

I do not have the information with me, but if the Member likes, I can let him have it tomorrow.

Could the Minister say whether there are any - even without the numbers?

No, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development was speaking about. I made an application in May 1961, i.e. before I left the P.A.P. if he wants evidence, well that is easy. We can go to the Director of Public Works and ask for it. But now, if we want to make an application, we have to go here and there and the result will be nil. It is usually like this: the Director will tell us that we have our difficulties and he has his, and the result will again be "No". The Parliamentary Secretary does not know all about this. Frankly, he is very inexperienced. What he is interested in is pig-rearing and the keeping of goats and sheep. The other point is that the Parliamentary Secretary said that they did some work in the constituencies of Opposition Members. Actually it is this: because they are the Government, they know that if such work is to be done on a certain day of a certain week, they see to it that before the work commences they go to that area and take a look. After the work has actually been done, the people will say. "Well, this work was done by the P.A.P." But this cunning tactic cannot cheat the people. This actually is the responsibility of the Government and they should do it. They cannot escape from it. He also asked why we did not do these things. It was because they prevented us from doing them. Some of our people used their own labour to open up drains and build bridges, and sometimes they were interfered with by the Government saying that they had first to satisfy certain laws and regulations. This is the policy of the Government nowadays.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, actually I did not wish to join in the debate on this subject of the Public Works Department. But since several Members of the Barisan Sosialis opposite have repeatedly mentioned the visits of the Prime Minister, I feel that, as a responsible Member of the Government in the Ministry of the Prime Minister, it is proper for me to participate in this debate. Throughout the debate on this Head, this question of visits of the Prime Minister to the rural constituencies has been repeatedly mentioned. To them, the question is like an atom bomb, because it exposes the dirt of the Barisan Sosialis to the rural folks. I feel that only those who deliberately close their eyes can fail to see the achievements and projects that have been carried out in the rural constituencies. During the term of office of the P.A.P., we have established the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee which was previously headed by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, now a Member of the Barisan Sosialis. Its members comprised the Members for Choa Chu Kang, Toa Payoh. Changi. Jalan Kayu - if I am not mistaken - and also I think the Member for Pasir Panjang. However, Mr Speaker, if you will peruse the minutes of the previous Committee, you will find that, at the time when the Barisan Members defected from the P.A.P. not a single minute was handed to the succeeding Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. When I took over from the Member for Upper Serangoon who went to Israel, I found that standpipes were meant for Choa Chu Kang only. The Member for Choa Chu Kang, at one time, was acting as a Parliamentary Secretary. As he then was, lie was trying to cut his coat to fall in with Members of the Government. I can prove that, Mr Speaker. There is not a single constituency left out of the Government's development projects. Perhaps when the Prime Minister visits the rural constituencies, he will be informed by the constituents of the projects or achievements made today. Suffice it to say, I think the people know who are fond of twisting facts. Mr Speaker, forgive me for quoting an analogy. If the intent of the Barisan Sosialis is had, the smell will be detected by the people, because works and projects such as drainage, standpipes, have, in fact, been carried out. It is possible that some Members of the Barisan Sosialis have approached the Director of Public Works with requests to get work done. It was wrong, because we have a Committee for this purpose, and they know that this Committee is responsible for such work. So they should channel their applications to this Committee. As Vice-Chairman of the Committee, I have never received an application from Members of the Barisan Sosialis for requests to carry out rural work in their constituencies. But the Member for Tanglin has submitted an application for work to be carried out in his constituency. The Member for Kampong Kembangan, the Member for Southern Islands and the Member for Geylang Serai too have submitted applications. But not a single request has been received from Members of the Barisan Sosialis. This clearly shows that they have neglected the interests of the people whom they claim to represent, because to date not a single application has been received by the Committee from them to do improvement work in those constituencies.

Order. May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that he is addressing the Speaker? He is pointing in the wrong direction. I do not mind if he points at the Speaker. Inche Yaacob (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I want to speak on this point which has been debated since yesterday. The Barisan claims that after the Prime Minister has paid visits to the constituencies that work is then carried out. The purpose of the visits is to buy votes - so the Barisan claims. If I were to read in detail the projects that have been implemented in the rural constituencies for the information of the Barisan Sosialis, it will take a long time. If I am to address my speech to people who are deaf, it will he the same as tuning on my radio in full volume for them to listen, and it will still not have any effect on them. Mr Speaker, to prove that the people welcome the visits of the Prime Minister, they themse1ves submit memoranda with recommendations for consideration by the Government. If the Prime Minister visits the rural constituencies, the people who welcome him do not comprise only members of the Work Brigade. If Members opposite are prepared to accompany the Prime Minister on his visits, I am prepared to invite them to see for themselves the livelihood of the people. The fact is that they are not prepared to face the constituents themselves because they have not done their job. For that reason, the Prime Minister himself takes the trouble to visit the rural constituencies to face the people so as to know their grievances. I wish to remind the Barisan Sosialis Members of the speech of President Soekarno, "As the father of the Republic of Indonesia, all State machinery will be at my disposal. With the strength of the State machinery, I can influence thousands, nay, millions of people. But one thing is beyond my control, and that is, to get each and every person who welcomes me to smile at me, because the smile comes from the heart of hearts." Thousands have welcomed the Prime Minister, and that clearly shows that the influence of the Barisan Sosialis is coming to an end. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are asked to believe is that Members of the Government are all hard-working people, that they are generous, that they go around meeting the people in the kampongs and in their houses and doing a favour to the people by building roads, drains, etc. Sir, first of all, I will he generous and concede one point, and that is that they are not idle. We agree they are very active people. They do a lot of work, it is because they are active and do a lot of work that today they still survive. Amongst the things they do, they sit down and plot, and think of how they can fix political opponents ---

We are fixed by you.

First year in office. Most of the time the Prime Minister spent was in plotting how best he could fix the Member for Hong Lim. The second year, he spent a lot of time plotting how to fix Mr Lim Ching Siong and the rest of us. This is one of the things they do. They are very active. They use police and other agents to try and disrupt organisations that do not owe allegiance to the P.A.P. They spend a lot of time trying to find ways and means of how best they can disrupt, for example, trade union organisations. Aside from activities like this, Sir, they build roads. We are not saying that they are not building roads. We are not saying they do not build drains, improve roads and undertake other development projects. What we say, in the first place, is that all these are inadequate. That is our first point. I am quite sure the people agree with us that these are inadequate. Secondly is this immediate and recent concern the Prime Minister has shown in the welfare of the rural dwellers. The Prime Minister became the Prime Minister in June 1959. He did not go round the constituencies in June 1959. In June 1959 he did a victory parade. But after, the whole of 1959, 1960) - no. When did he start these so-called Prime Minister's visits to the rural areas? Only recently. The reason is obvious. The Prime Minister's visits are a political stunt to catch votes, and I say the Government are dishonest if they do not admit this ---

Order. I think we have had a very lengthy debate on the Prime Minister's rural visits. I do not want to reopen the debate. I think the allegation now is that the rural complaints have all been attended to, just because the Prime Minister has visited rural areas.

I do not want to reopen the debate. I just want to make this point because so much play has been made of this so-called desire of the Prime Minister, the anxiety and concern of the Prime Minister over the welfare of the rural dwellers - a concern that did not arise during the three years in office, but has only arisen in recent months. Sir, we realise that right at the moment, the Government is paying extra concentration on improving roads, building new roads and other construction projects. We agree they pay greater concentration now. The reason for this is very simple. The elections are around the corner. It will be remembered that in 1957/1958, just before the last general elections, the previous government also concentrated on building roads and more roads, more post offices, schools, S.I.T. flats ---

That is not what we said in the election campaign.

The Prime Minister, when he was on this side of the House just before the elections in 1959, had said these things. His pupils must look these things up. The Prime Minister told the former Chief Minister, "You are now building more flats. Yes, but still you are not going to win the elections." That was proved correct, not because the Prime Minister said it, but because the people cannot he deceived that easily. Sir, today if this talk of the welfare of the people, the needs of the people is raised, and if some attention is paid to these things by the Government, it is because they want to try and recover their political stature. They know they are discredited. It is like a desperate dying man clinging on to anything that he considers medicine that will cure him. We tell them, "Do it. Take what you want. But one important lesson that we should learn from history is that you cannot deceive the people all the time" ---

That is true.

Then they have always said the time will soon come. Sooner or later, Sir, the people will pass judgment.

That is his moment of truth, Sir.

They are obviously overjoyed, Mr Speaker. I am sure you will agree that we have made a number of calls for general elections in Singapore ---

Keep on calling.

We made this call as early as 1961 ---

Chakap besar!

Order. All this, of course, is completely irrelevant. But I think the hon. Member has made his point. We are still on Public Works, Recurrent, that is, maintenance of drains and bridges and roads.

I just want to make this point, Sir. Who is scared of meeting the people? This has been raised ---

Order. I quite agree it has been raised on the left side of the House and on the right side of the House. It has been raised time and again. It will not hear repetition. We have heard enough.

Very well, Mr Speaker, let it go at that. I just want to make this one final point, if they are today building roads, flats, drains, these are because by obligation they are expected to do these things. Sir, the funds for this come from the people. The basic obligation of the Government is what they are fulfilling now. There is nothing to take pride in this. It is no use telling the people, "You must he grateful to me because I am building a road for you." We say yes, you have got your budget. We approve the money and you do the work because you are expected to do it ---

What have you done?

--- and if you want to get credit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but every time the Member for Thomson gets up to speak, he stimulates my interest in subjects in which I am not normally well versed. But, however, Sir, some of the things that he has been saying, I think, call for some reply. For example, the point he has been making is this. The Government has done a lot of good things. But it should do more. I agree with him. But what I want to know is: What have the Barisan Sosialis been doing? They were all elected on our platform to help complete our promises ---

That is true.

Today, they are on the other side criticising, destroying, obstructing. For example, Sir, it is true that the Prime Minister and lots of us are trying to catch up with sonic other work, backlog, mainly because after the second year, we spent a great deal of our time, nearly two years, fighting the Communists who were trying to sabotage a major platform in our election programme-merger and Malaysia. The greater part of two years which was vital to us was spent in combating them, stifling them, conscribing them. Therefore, Sir, if there are not enough stand-pipes, not enough roads, then I say the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis bear a great deal of the responsibility. One of the interesting things is that since the Barisan Sosialis left this side of the House everybody is well aware that things are coming up. Houses are coming up, schools are coming up, and a friend of mine has told me that that proves that if you have a water pipe, you will always get some dirt clogging the pipe. If you remove the dirt, the water flows freely. That is what has been happening. After the Communists suffered a defeat at the referendum, people have more confidence, no more obstruction. All that the Barisan can do is to make occasional speeches here and there. We have been able to more than fulfil a great deal of our programme. And for that, I would like to place here, Sir, I think, for the instruction of the Barisan Sosialis, a pamphlet* produced by our Ministry which gives the achievements of the Government during the last 47 months, one month short of four years. For the convenience of those Members who cannot read, there are lots of pictures too. I place it here in the Chamber for the information of Members. * Copy placed in the Assembly Library.

Order. I think the proper place for that is the Library.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not thought of speaking. But after hearing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development referring to Punggol constituency, mentioning that I did not know what was happening in that constituency, I am now rising to speak a few words --- Mr Chor Yeok Eng rose ---

On a point of order?

Yes. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not mention Punggol constituency. Perhaps the Member was sleeping. I never mentioned him at all.

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary himself is out of order because it is not a point of order. It is a point of elucidation.

(In Mandarin): I have not been sleeping. He himself was sleeping. What he has said, he is now denying. He has said it just a little while ago and now he has already forgotten about it. I remember there have been a few incidents in the Punggol constituency. Since I am a representative of that constituency, the people there came to see me and to ask me to try and solve their problems, and I conveyed these matters to the Ministry of National Development. Later on, these two matters after investigation by the Minister for National Development were finally resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. 3.30 p.m. But I feel that this sort of work is the responsibility of the Government. As a representative of that constituency, I have a duty to convey the opinions of the people to the relevant departments of the Government in order to help them. So when the Government has solved anything for the people in my constituency, the Prime Minister should not take pride on account of it. I think this incident happened only a few weeks before the Prime Minister went to Punggol constituency. I remember that a few weeks before he went to my constituency, there were a few P.A.P. members who went round to get the people to organise a welcoming committee. But they could not find the chairman of the committee, and the Minister for National Development had to go there himself to look for him.

We have completed the debate on rural visits. I do not want to reopen that debate. Is there anything on maintenance of drains, bridges and roads?

(In Mandarin): What I want to say is something which is related to the chairman of this committee. On the day when the Prime Minister went there, this chairman of the welcoming committee put forward a suggestion to deepen the river in Upper Serangoon. He asked the Prime Minister to solve the problem about this river. Later on, the P.W.D. people went there to investigate it. I had also written a letter to the P.W.D., but the reply I received was just a printed card which states that "the problem now raised by you is now under consideration." Later on, I heard nothing about it. But the Chairman of the welcoming committee, after sending his application, managed to get the work done immediately. It seems that his power and influence is greater than an Assemblyman. This is very unusual.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Havelock has just now said that when a Minister sends in an application for work to be done, the Government always attends to his work first. This is absurd. This is not correct. This is just to condemn the Government. At the last meeting of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee, the Minister for National Development sent in a request to have a road made up. But I, as the Chairman, and committee members turned it down. It is not a matter of our attending to the Ministers first, then the Parliamentary Secretaries, and then the Assemblymen. Our committee attend to all Assemblymen who send in their applications. When a Member sends in an application, for example, for a standpipe at a certain spot, if there is a standpipe not more than 50 feet away, how can we install one more standpipe there? Naturally-when an application is made, the Water Inspector and the Work Engineer visit the site and report back to the committee. If we are not satisfied, we in the Committee visit the site to see for ourselves whether a standpipe is necessary or whether the existing roads should be urgently repaired. We always attend to all these things. Now Members of the Opposition say that we only attend to Assemblymen of the P.A.P. constituencies. This is utter nonsense. We have been in the Government for nearly four years now. Does it mean to say that all of us are stupid and that we do these things in the public eye? We are not so stupid as the Opposition Members, especially the Barisan Sosialis people. They are always trying to mislead the people. They condemn the Government and they want it to collapse, so that they can come to power. I would remind Opposition Members that they should be very careful about doing these things. During the referendum, they went out to tell the people, "Look here ---"

Order. I cannot allow a debate on the referendum now. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary deals with the maintenance of drains, roads and bridges. Can we come back to that subject, please?

Thank you very much for your advice, Sir. They say that we did not attend to their constituencies. The Member for Changi is not here. Pulau Tekong is not a P.A.P. constituency. We installed a water service there. We made roads for the people there too. In Changi, we also made many roads. The Minister for Health and Law met the people of Changi and he has put up a request to the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee for more standpipes, the maintenance of roads, etc. In fact, the Barisan Members do not go to their own constituencies, and they do not know what the people need. That is the cause. The Member for Jalan Kayu said that we have done nothing. I think he is just like a kayu. His brain is kayu. He comes here and speaks all sorts of rubbish and incorrect things just to mislead the people. Yesterday, the Member for Queenstown said that the P.A.P. Government has done nothing. Just now the Minister for National Development mentioned that millions of dollars have been spent on street lights, stand-pipes, and so on.

Order. May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the debate is that roads, drains, and bridges have not been maintained completely or sufficiently. That is the issue.

Thank you, Sir,In fact, I went down to the Member for Upper Serangoon's constituency. I found out that some of the roads were had, and I just ordered the Work Brigade to repair them and also to put up street lights and kampong lights for these people. And the Member comes here and says, "We sent in our application and the Government did not attend to it." I just want to tell the Member this. They are Assemblymen. They are not children. Be gentlemen. Come here and tell the correct things. We do not mind if they condemn us when we are in the wrong. But do not condemn everything. The public know. When they read the papers tomorrow, they will know what the Members of this House have been talking about and that the things said are not correct.

I think the Member for Jalan Kayu deserves a hearing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that my constituency is Jalan Kayu and that the Parliamentary Secretary should compare me to a piece of kayu. We are criticising that they have not maintained the roads and drains. On the contrary, they [Indicating] are boasting of their construction and their works - (pointing to an officer in the official gallery)

Order. It is completely out of order to indicate directly a stranger from the Floor of the Chamber. If the Member has done so, he is completely out of order. The hon. Member must not do that. Has he done so?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the whole Public Works Department was headed by Dr Ng Wah Hing. [Interruption]

Order. I must have an answer.

(In Mandarin): I accept your ruling, Sir.

It is not enough to accept my ruling. This ruling has been given long ago - quite a number of months ago. I think the Member owes the House an apology for doing that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I accept your opinion, and apologise to you. Mr Speaker, when I was a member of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee, I know that many Assemblymen submitted their applications for work to be done in certain places. When the Prime Minister paid visits to the rural areas, he announced several projects which would be carried out. All these works are only part of what I had applied to be done in the past. If the Government want to mention these works, they should also mention that I had applied for them to be done in the past. I know that it is difficult to carry out the work to the satisfaction of all. This is my reply to some of the allegations made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Another point is that the Government is either corrupt or incompetent or is trying to do something which is not realistic. Certain kampong roads, after having been completed a year ago, have now fallen into disrepair. Certain roads should be at least six inches thick. But perhaps some of the works on the roads were carried out by contractors and the work was not properly done. That is why the roads are easily damaged by water or the rain. 3.45 p.m. Certain drains were not properly built. They are not according to the proper plan and this causes the water to flood the road in the kampong area. That is why the surface earth of the road has been washed away by the flood. Another thing is the improper manner in which they maintain the roads. There are so many holes in the roads. It is difficult for cars and vehicles to pass over them. I have written to or rung up a Mr Mahideen. But my application has not been considered. Certain roads are so bad that they are impassable. These are all facts. I had made some applications for stand-pipes. It was only just before the Prime Minister went to that area that these stand-pipes were built. But the sites where I had intended the stand-pipes to he built were changed at the convenience of the Prime Minister.

If the hon. Member wishes for a reply to his speech, he should at least give the Minister a chance.

(In Mandarin): There is one point I would like to stress. It is that they are very unrealistic. They are either corrupt or incompetent.

Yesterday I refrained from saying something which I will say now. This is very amusing because this concerns the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party, represented by the Member for Punggol. Very recently the Member for Punggol rang me up, and he also wrote me a letter alleging that there is an illegal prawn pond in Punggol. I bring this up because the Member for Jalan Kayu said that he was doing work for his constituents; that he applied for things to be done and that they were not done. Back in 1960 he did not apply for a permit and he also constructed one of these prawn ponds in the Punggol area. It was demolished ---

Order. I do not see how that is relevant to the maintenance of roads and drains, unless it is maintaining a road to the prawn ponds.

He wanted me to build a road to his prawn pond. The Member for Punggol said that it was only after the Prime Minister's visit to that area that something was done. But he knows full well that we have been in his constituency and working for quite sonic time now and we also know what his constituency thinks of him. Sir, the Member for Thomson mentioned something, that you cannot deceive the people all the time. I am very glad the Barisan Sosialis realise now that they can not deceive the people all the time. He said that it was our duty to do all these things. True, it was our duty. We planned and we came to this Assembly to get the money to do all this work.

Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $17,402,050 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 25 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (I) of subhead 1. The Minister for Health and Law does not act like one as regards the strike of the nurses. He should show some responsibility in solving the problem, but he does not tackle it and leaves it to the Prime Minister. The other point is the cholera scare in Singapore. It should have been the responsibility of the Minister to organise a meeting of experts in his Ministry to tackle this problem. But the work went actually to the Prime Minister's Office. So we see that the Prime Minister is at present actually looking after that Ministry.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister if he could inform the House of the date when the last revision was made of the salaries and conditions of hospital staff, including grades like nurses, student nurses, assistant nurses, laboratory assistants, etc.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang has said that the Minister for Health has declined to accept responsibility in regard to the nurses' strike and also in regard to the cholera epidemic which occurred recently. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the nurses' strike is concerned. I was all the time in communication with the two contending unions. There is a long history behind this dispute, and I do not propos e to bore the House with the details. But eventually sometime in 1960 these two unions came to some sort of a hotchpotch agreement. The Singapore Medical Services Union claimed to represent the assistant nurses, and the rival union, the A.U.P.E., claimed to represent the male nurses. The assistant nurses number about 719 in a total nursing establishment of 2,241, and the male nurses number about 219. There the matter stood, Mr Speaker, Sir. After both these unions served demands on the Ministry claiming revisions of salaries for the whole of the nursing service and for improved conditions, the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E., i.e., the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, called on me at my office in February this year. He made a proposal for a solution of this matter. He suggested to me that the Ministry should propose to the other union that he should keep in his membership all the student nurses and staff nurses and that he was quite prepared to let the other union have the assistant nurses and the sisters and charge nurses - the charge nurses are the male equivalents of the sisters. That proposal was put to the other union and they flatly turned it down They said it was unfair and they were quite prepared to submit the whole matter to a general ballot of the nursing service. They went further to say that if they lost in the ballot, they were quite prepared to dissolve themselves and return their certificate of registration. When they received that offer, we made every attempt to contact the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E. Three official letters were written to him at various dates. Various telephone calls were made on him. But every time our officials were told that he was elsewhere on other important business. Mr Speaker, Sir, to our surprise, on 23rd May, we received a strike notice. The strike notice said that if the demands that his union had made were not settled by midnight, the 6th of June, then the union would call out all the student nurses, assistant nurses, sisters, and the charge nurses on strike. This union included in its strike notice these grades of sisters and charge nurses which it earlier said in February it was prepared to concede to the rival union.. When we received that notice, we had to refer it to the Commissioner for Labour and ask him to conciliate. The Commissioner for Labour held two meetings with these two unions, and they took firm stands on this issue of union representation. The Singapore Medical Services Union claimed that they represented all grades of the nursing staff and that they wanted a general ballot to be held for all grades. The other union said that it wanted a restricted ballot to be held - a ballot restricted only to the grades for which the strike notice was served. These meetings took place very near to the date when the A.U.P.E. decided to call out its members. A strike then took place without justification. Before that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we told both unions that we had decided that a general ballot should be taken to find out which union had the majority of membership of the nursing staff. 4.00 p.m. Although the A.U.P.E. disagreed with us, we nevertheless proceeded to take that ballot, and that ballot is still proceeding. The Prime Minister intervened in the matter. He felt that if certain proposals that we had in mind were put to both these unions, there was a likelihood of their accepting them, in fact, he did hold meetings with them and put these proposals which have been accepted. The unions are agreed now that the Arbitration Court should be asked to find out whether the nursing staff were all members of a single service or whether the staff employed in the hospitals should be categorised, and the Court should be asked to determine whether there should he a decision on representation which would involve representation by two unions in respect of different categories in the service or representation by a single union in respect of the whole service. That matter is now before the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Member for Pasir Panjang to say that I left it all to the Prime Minister is quite untrue. In the case of the cholera epidemic, it happened that at the time this epidemic occurred, the Director of Medical Services was on leave, At the same time, the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Hospitals) was away on a conference, and the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Health) - these are the three most important officials in the Ministry - was ill in hospital. So I was left with a comparatively junior officer. He is the Chest Physician in the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. We got together and organised a campaign; so that it is also quite untrue for the Member for Pasir Panjang to say that in the cholera epidemic I left all matters to the Prime Minister. It was true that the Prime Minister did hold a conference to which he invited representatives of the Public Utilities Board. The Ministry of Health was also represented, and I was present at that conference. That conference was called so that he could co-ordinate the activities of the two Departments to meet this epidemic. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson asked me to tell the House when the revision of salaries affecting the nurses and medical auxiliary staff was last made. The answer is that there was a committee that went into all this, and it was necessary to relate the salaries of all these different grades to key salary scales in the Government service. This committee took two years to do this work, and finally the new scales were implemented as from 1st February, 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is shocking to hear the Minister say that his Ministry had great difficulty in trying to contact the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E., that despite three official letters sent to him and attempts made to contact him, all were to no avail. At that particular time the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E. was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. He was paid out of public funds, and he should be sitting in that office. Where then was the difficulty in contacting him? If there really was that difficulty, it would mean that the P.A.P. had allowed a Parliamentary Secretary, paid out of public funds, to be up to his tricks doing something else. Only such things could happen in a P.A.P. Government. Sir, I disagree with the Member for Pasir Panjang when he said that the Prime Minister has no confidence in the Minister for Health and that was why he intervened in the nurses' strike. The Prime Minister had to intervene because it was a quarrel between the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary before he resigned. It was a completely P.A.P. matter, And who else but the Prime Minister could admonish a Parliamentary Secretary? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture could just twiddle his thumb at the Minister for Health if the Minister for Health tried to settle it, But when he had to meet the Prime Minister, it was a different kettle of fish. Therefore, the Prime Minister took over. The Prime Minister, in fact, has great confidence in the Minister for Health. His confidence is so great that even the Prime Minister's wife went to a private hospital for treatment - the Mount Alvernia Hospital - instead of the General Hospital or any other hospital in the Ministry.

Order. Is that at all relevant? Has the Member completed his speech?

Yes.

Sir, it is obvious from the recent strike of the nurses and the threatened strike of the midwives and so on at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, which was averted by the dispute being referred to the Arbitration Court, that there is strong discontent among the nursing profession in the hospitals with the salaries and terms and conditions of service. Sir, I realise this is a very special matter that concerns the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, who is not here now, and the nursing staff, who are a special preserve of the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E. I do not want to pry into his affairs, but because this has come to he of public importance leading to a stage where a strike, in fact, took place, I think it is fair to assume that there is legitimate discontent. Sir, luckily this strike was not called by a union that is affiliated to the S.A.T.U. group, as otherwise the charge would have been that the Communists are calling the strike, that they are making the poor patients suffer. I think I will not be wrong if I assume that the strike was not called by the Communists. It was not a political strike, it was not a Communist strike, but it was a genuine strike. Sir, on that basis at least we must assume that there is genuine discontent. As far as I can understand, there are numerous grades of nurses and salary scales in the service. I hear there is strong dissatisfaction over even the nature of duties performed, and that dissatisfaction extends to the general conditions of service of the whole nursing staff. Sir, in view of all this, what I would like to ask the Minister for Health and Law is this: will the Government consider setting up a Commission to investigate into the conditions of employment of the nursing staff and their salaries, etc, with a view to bringing about a general revision and unification in employment terms and salaries?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that there is a genuine grievance among nurses that they are underpaid for the work they do, in the sense that their salary scales are related to the salary scales of clerical officers though they have to do shift work and overtime work and night work without adequate compensation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be wise to let the Arbitration Court decide this issue of representation first. Once that is got over, we can see how best we can deal with the need for proper inquiry to be made into the conditions of work of the members of the nursing staff. Mr Speaker, Sir, as to salary scales, the Member for Thomson is in the trade union field and he knows that the unions take exception to boards of inquiry, say, fixing or making recommendations for wage scales. The unions always feel that they can get a better deal if they can collectively bargain for better scales of pay and for improvements. So I would suggest that we wait until we get the decisions of the Arbitration Court and then we will either have to deal with one union or two unions and see how best we can reach a solution that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side of the House have always maintained from the moment when the Member for Kampong Kapor became Deputy Speaker, that he should not take part actively in trade union matters which might bring him to a head-on collision with the Government ---

Is it Deputy Speaker or Parliamentary Secretary?

It was Deputy Speaker at that time, We attacked that position consistently and all the time. Subsequent to those attacks - whether it was due to those attacks or to other considerations, we are unable to say - he became the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. That made the position even worse than the first position, from our point of view, because, instead of being part of the Legislature, he became part of the Government. It has now happened, he has now resigned his seat, as we knew eventually he would have to resign because one day if he were a genuine trade unionist he would have to choose, I wonder, Sir, whether the Government has now realised the almost impossible position into which it had placed itself. Could the Government give an assurance that things like this will not happen again?

I just want to clarify one little bit from what the Minister has said, I was not suggesting that some Commission be appointed to inquire into the conditions of salaries or, by any chance, taking away the collective bargaining right of the trade unions. I suggested that a Commission be appointed to investigate and make recommendations and, of course, the unions will have the opportunity of sending their cases. In so far as the present arbitration case is concerned, it will only deal with the representation question, and I am sure the Minister will agree that solving the representation question is just solving one minute problem. The basic one is the question of salaries, etc.

Does the Minister wish to say anything further? 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a point has been made by the Member for Farrer Park that when a member of the Government places himself in a position where there can be a conflict of duty and loyalty, the inevitable always happens. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is agreed. As to what the Member for Thomson has suggested, I think it would be wise to leave this matter over till we know what the decision of the Arbitration Court is. Meanwhile, we will give thought to what he has suggested.

Does the Member for Pasir Panjang wish for a vote?

No. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Sir, this item deals with the post of Political Secretary. Political Secretaries have been under fire at every Budget meeting since 1960. In this particular case, the Ministry of Health, the particular Political Secretary is now under lock and key, put in by the Government. I am wondering whether the Minister still considers that this post should remain on the Budget so that the Government can go around trying to find some Communist or Communist sympathiser whom the Government hopes to win over to their non-Communist socialist policy and then give him this job out of public funds, and later on, when the Government finds to its cost that such a person cannot be trusted, put him in gaol. I remember the Minister did say that if he did not consider that such a post was desirable he would see that it was abolished. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister gave that assurance and he had carried out that assurance. I am not so sure whether the Minister for Health has given such an assurance, but I have a feeling that almost all Ministers gave that assurance. Does the Minister for Health still consider that he wants that post on the Budget?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will concede that last year, eighteen months ago. I did - say that I would give consideration to the need for such a post in the Ministry of Health. I also concede that there are Ministries where the need for the services of a Personal Secretary (Political) is more urgent. I must point out that there are some sensitive departments in the Ministry of Health which regularly receive the attention of trouble makers. For instance, there is a Hawkers' Department and our new policy of helping the hawkers - we always give them alternative sites and provide these alternative sites with standpipes, they may have to be moved to enable cleansing to be properly done or to clear a traffic obstruction which might be caused by them. The trouble makers deliberately misrepresent our objects to the hawkers and it may be necessary in future to engage the services of a suitable person to serve in this post to counter the machinations of these trouble makers. So that it is necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, on reconsideration, in the public interest, that financial provision be sought for this post of Personal Secretary (Political).

Sir, since the Minister wants that post retained to trap another Communist, I have no objection. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 25 be reduced by S100.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr S. T. Bani, Dr Thio Chan Bee and Mr Ng Teng Kian. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the population in Singapore has been increasing very rapidly and the health services in the Government should be improved also. In the Four-Year Development Plan of the Government, there is something about the health services. There are at present 2,113 beds in the Hospital, and shortage of beds in a hospital implies that our health services are not adequate enough. Although we have now set up 24 outpatient clinics, in one day only 5,000 people can be treated. In order to cope with our increasing population, we have to set up another seven modem clinics, each one catering for 500 people, in 1964. Mr Speaker, Sir, four years have passed and the patients in the hospitals are always asked to leave the hospitals before they get better. We know that the poor people in Singapore live in very insanitary conditions and the air is very impure. When a patient returns to his home before he gets better, this is very bad for him and it will not help him to recover. Another point is that the patients in the General Hospital are crowded together especially in the Outpatients Department. The Government claims that it wants to build 17 clinics in the Four-Year Development Plan. But it seems that it has not reached this target. The third point is that in Upper Serangoon and Yio Chu Kang there is one old outpatient clinic. The patients who attend that clinic have to queue up in the hot sun and the queue is very long. Will this help the patient who is queueing up to get better if he is exposed to the heat? Therefore, I hope the Government will pay more attention to this problem.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, just now the Member for Pasir Panjang mentioned the Outpatients Department in the General Hospital. I have the same impression as he has, especially at night, because I have received so many complaints saying that ---

Order. The hon. Member will notice that time is passing. I think the hon. Member will be able to say what he wishes to say under the next Head, which is Hospitals Division. Will the Minister answer the points made?

The Member for Pasir Panjang thought that it was desirable that patients should remain longer in the General Hospital. He complained that there were too frequent discharges. Mr Speaker, Sir, the turn-round in the use of beds is about 50,000 a year in this hospital, and the General Hospital has only a capacity of 1,351 beds. Unlike the Chronic Sick Hospital at Tan Tock Seng Hospital you have about 1,300 beds and the same patient remains in a bed for a longer period because tuberculosis is a disease which requires longer treatment. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are doing our best to turn the Chronic Sick Hospital at Thomson Road into a subsidiary general hospital. In fact, there are 11 wards in that hospital; in five wards, 180 beds are being used at the present time, and six wards with a capacity of 216 beds are vacant. We have introduced a crash training programme to train nurses. As soon as we are able to do so with the modest increase in doctors that we have, we will -bring this hospital into service as a subsidiary general hospital, and that will help to relieve the present pressure on the General Hospital. Now, as far as his complaint that there is a lot of congestion at the main clinic at the General Hospital is concerned, we admit that. That is so. We are trying to detach the emergency cases from the outpatient cases and remove the outpatient cases from the General Hospital to the old hospital building at Maxwell Road. We have asked for financial provision to make the necessary alterations so that that old hospital can be converted into the main outpatient clinic for the city area. In regard to the complaint that the Upper Serangoon Road clinic is unserviceable, I will agree that that is a very old building. I visited it myself recently. It is just at the corner of Yio Chu Kang Road and Upper Serangoon Road. We have a site in view at the corner of Yio Chu Kang Road and Highland Road for acquisition for a new clinic to replace this old clinic. We will have to get the necessary financial provision to acquire this land and build a clinic there to replace the old one.

Does the Member wish for a vote? Mr Tee Kim Leng indicated dissent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,981,840 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 4.30 p.m. Head 26 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (78) of subhead 1.

Head 26 - Hospitals Division. Mr Bani, amendment (1).

I am not moving, Sir.

The Member is not moving. Amendment (2), in page 163 of the Estimates.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (228) of subhead 1. Sir, this involves Staff Midwives. The next amendment (3)* in my name is one which deals with Pupil Midwives. I wonder if I may speak on both at the same time, because they are quite related to what I want to say. * Amendment (3) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (229) of subhead 1.

If it is convenient, yes.

Sir, there is a very curious and outmoded practice in training midwives in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. Those who are employed are, in the first instance, made pupil midwives and are subject to training for a period of about two years and four months. I may be wrong - the Minister may correct me here - but to the best of my knowledge, it is two years and four months, after which they are expected to sit for an examination. If the candidates succeed in the examination, they are given three months' duties in the clinics in the rural areas. 4.32 p.m.

These three months, I hear, are for further practical training. Of course, in the course of the training during the two years and four months, they are also expected to do practical work, and most of them in fact perform duties which are normally performed by staff midwives. They are, of course, supervised by qualified staff midwives. Now the curious thing is this, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the period of training, they are not automatically employed as staff midwives. After the period of training, their services are dispensed with and, if they desire to become staff midwives, they have to wait for the Ministry of Health to announce that there are vacancies and that they intend to recruit staff midwives. Those pupil midwives who are successful in their training are then allowed to apply. Sir, this appears peculiar and outmoded, because what is the purpose of giving them their training if the Government does not want to employ them as staff midwives? I can only think of one reason, and that is to have cheap labour. I know some private employers are in the habit of doing this sort of thing. I do not like to believe seriously that the Government wants to have cheap labour, because in the course of training, the pupil midwives do work which is normally done by a trained staff midwife, but they are paid the rate for a pupil midwife, But after training, instead of getting automatic appointment like the assistant nurses, their services are dispensed with. Sir, I like to ask the Minister if the Government will lock into this with a view to abolishing this system, so as to provide an arrangement similar to the one that is in existence for other nursing grades.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I am not mistaken, the Member for Thomson says that the grievance that the pupil midwives have is that they do go out during the time that they are pupil midwives and do the work of staff midwives for a certain period but that they do not receive the salary of staff midwives when they are so employed. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. If they are pupil midwives, they must be paid as pupil midwives, Sir.

On a point of explanation. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Can I explain this? The basic grievance is not what the Minister says it to be. My point relates to period after training. I agree that you give them a rate of pay on the training scheme and that is that, but after training, they are not automatically placed as staff midwives, like the nurses, the assistant nurses - in fact like all other grades of nursing. Their services are terminated, They have to wait for months, Only when the Ministry of Health says that they want midwives, can they apply. That is the basic grievance,

Sir, if the Member for Thomson had not interrupted me, I would have gone on to the second point. Now I think the first point to be answered is this: if you are a pupil midwife, you must be paid as a pupil midwife, though you go and help out as a staff midwife. The second objection now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,In the case of nurses and assistant nurses, we accept the responsibility for training them. The Government accepts that responsibility and the Government ensures that it will train sufficient numbers of nurses and assistant nurses to fill all available Government vacancies. It is true that there is a lot of wastage - many of them leave us, and so on - and we have got to have crash training programmes to catch up with increases of staff which are necessary. That goes on throughout the nursing service. It is unlike the midwifery service, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We cannot accept any responsibility for assuring every midwife that we train that there will be a vacancy for her. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unlike the nursing service, there are a lot of midwives who go into private practice. They work on their own or they work with doctors. The Member for Thomson knows that very well, Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, their training and so on is not unlike that of the radiographers. We have got a medical auxiliary staff of radiographers which we train. We have got a radiography school. We train people who want to be radiographers, but we train them so that they can go into private employment as well as come into Government service when there are vacancies. It would be impossible for the Member for Thomson to expect that the Government can create the vacancies in the Government service to accommodate every midwife who has been trained at the expense of Government.

I honestly cannot understand the argument of the Minister. Sir. The Minister says that they cannot guarantee employment: in other words, they are saying that there may not be the vacancies. Sir, surely when the Government employs, say, one hundred pupil midwives, they are employing them not for the purpose of giving training, but for the purpose of doing one hundred persons' work and also ultimately with the view to placing one hundred as midwives in the various Government institutions. Take the question of the nurses. The same principle operates. You do not take assistant nurses, give them training and in the end dispense with their services on grounds that you cannot guarantee posts for trained nurses. Sir, the second point that I want to make here is the question of a midwife who leaves the service to go into private employment. It is quite true that there are private clinics which have midwives - maybe K.K. - trained midwives. But, on the other hand, if I think the Minister investigates this matter, he will find that the vast majority of the pupil midwives who leave the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital after training look forward to Government employment for obvious reasons, because most of these pupil midwives are young; it is not possible for them to go out and practise on their own, and there are lesser opportunities to work in private clinics.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think you will agree, regarding these pupil midwives, that there is quite a large number of them and we can employ only as many as we can. We cannot give an assurance that every midwife who is trained will be absorbed into Government service. That will all have to depend on the vacancies. You will realise that there is a much larger number of midwives practising on their own than there are nurses who practise as nurses outside the Government employment. Now, I do appreciate that there are large numbers of them who are outside Government service who apply for Government jobs. They are keen on joining the service, but we can only employ up to the number of vacancies that we have.

Can I also make the point that if the Government were to restrict the training of midwives just to fit into vacancies on the establishment of Government hospitals, that would mean that the number of trainees would be less than there would be? Therefore, there will not be the additional supply which will go into private practice. As the Minister for Health has said, the number of midwives in private practice is proportionately more than the number of nurses in private practice. Therefore, you have to train a larger number of midwives than can be employed in the Government institutions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my understanding of the situation is such that the demand for midwives in Kandang Kerbau Hospital and in the district clinics is much greater than the present strength of midwives the Government has. That is my understanding of the situation.

There may he scope for employing more of them in the schemes to be introduced in connection with the work of the Public Health Clinics. We must wait and see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I mean it is just common sense that we would like to employ all if we can if we have got the vacancies; but we can never give an assurance that everyone who is trained will be given a job after training.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani ---

Amendment (3) , Mr Bani.

I am not moving.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 26 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 112. Sir, I would like the Government to explain to us, so that we can understand the manner in which the Budget is being prepared, what is meant by a revote?

A revote is a sum of money which was voted in previous years in the Estimates but not spent, and revoted in the current year.

Sir, I thank him for that explanation, but could the Minister for Finance explain how a revote can be more than the original vote? How could a revote be more than the sum which was originally voted? In this particular case, the revote asked for is $14,840, whereas the original vote for 1962 was $11,500. I cannot understand. So if it is a revote, it could only be for $1 1,500, unless it means something else. Perhaps this is a new meaning - P.A.P. meaning - of a revote.

The money is intended to buy a particular service or buy a particular piece of equipment. Now if the price of that product has gone up in the meantime, or if it is found that the original amount is not enough, then you have to increase it. Approval is asked for to buy the particular equipment or service.

This is a further explanation. A revote is a vote asked for again for something that was not spent last year. So the correct way would be a vote of $11,500 plus $3,340 being extra cost, instead of which the Minister, after having taken more than one year to prepare the Budget, gave us a Budget that does not give the correct information. In his own words, when I asked him what is the meaning of a revote, he said that a revote is a revote of a vote that has not been spent. 4.45 p.m. Sir, what has not been spent was $11,500, but what he is asking for is a revote of more than what has not been spent. All I want to point out is that the note is wrong, is misleading. If the Minister had put in a revote of $11,500 plus an additional vote to meet an additional cost, because the calculation was all wrong in 1962, then we would have accepted it.

The original estimate was $11,500. Then it went out to tender and the lowest tender price was $14,838. The work was completed in May this year - it is the installation of a fire alarm system in the General Hospital - and that is why you get the sum of $14,840, because of the lowest tender price of $14,838.

I am not quarrelling with the amount spent, but what I am trying to point out is that it is misleading on the part of a Minister of this House to say that. It is not, in actual fact, a revote in the real meaning of that word. I do not know whether to proceed to a vote on this.

Is the Member for Cairnhill suggesting that there has been some new departure from financial procedures? If he will only study the printed Estimates, say, of the last ten years, he will find numerous examples of this sort of thing.

Sir, I will not want to waste the time of the Assembly by asking the Finance Minister to produce - and he has to go through ten years of Budgets to produce - something which is not there. I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $100.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Tan Cheng Tong, Mr S. T. Bani, Mr A.P Rajah, Mrs Seow Peck Leng, Tun Lim Yew Hock and Dr Thio Chan Bee. I just want to touch on two or three points, Sir. First, the Japanese doctors. I understand there is great dissatisfaction with the Japanese doctors who are still being employed in the Singapore hospitals. They were originally brought into Singapore, according to the advice that I have got, as a spite more or less against local doctors as a result of a number of them having resigned consequent on the pay-cuts. But the whole trouble about these Japanese doctors is that they have been made Senior Registrars with a pay of $1,100 as a starting salary and yet they are only doing jobs of ordinary M.O.s and supervised by ordinary M.O.s of Singapore. Why should that be so? I remember I brought this question up in 1961, and the Minister then gave an undertaking to look into the matter and I gave him concrete examples. I wish the Minister would enlighten us on what he has done about the matter. The second matter which I wish to bring forward is this: the Outpatients Department in Singapore at the present moment is very congested. They have, I understand, 15 doctors working in the Outpatients Department in the daytime, but only one at night. An hon. Member: Why do you not volunteer?

Why should there be only one doctor at night? Consequent on there being only one doctor after the usual office hours, many people who are very ill have to wait for a very long time before they are attended to in the Outpatients Department of the General Hospital. Are we short of doctors, or what? Could the Minister explain to us why there should be only one doctor when we are supposed to have many, many doctors with no shortage? The third point I wish to raise is: if the Minister will refer to page 174 under subhead 11 (3), he will see "Drugs and Chemicals", Estimates 1962, $780,000. But for 1963, it has been reduced to $723,000. Similarly, "Dressings and Sundries" above this, the figure is the same for 1962 and 1963. Similarly, on page 175, under subhead 21 (2), he will find "Drugs and Chemicals", and the amount is again the same for 1962 and 1963. And further down under subhead 26 (2), "Dressings and Sundries", it was $100,000 in 1962, but it has gone down to $71,000 in 1963. Similarly, on page 176 under subhead 31 - Medical and Surgical Equipment and Stores - you will find all the figures in the column for 1963 much lower than those in the column for 1962. I assume that with a population increase in Singapore there are more and more people making use of the services in the General Hospital. How is it then that less money is voted for all these services in 1963? Is it because fewer people are making use of the hospital? I would like to be enlightened on this, especially when we know that there is a lot of surplus in 1962.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $100 ---

The amendment has been moved.

(In Mandarin): I have a few questions. One concerns the General Hospital. I would like to ask the Minister for Health if he can say whether there can be established in the General Hospital an Emergency Unit which will provide facilities for patients to be admitted without any special procedure, so that they can be immediately admitted when there are emergency cases, in order to reduce the pains suffered by the patients and to lessen any worry of the members of their family and to reduce the number of fatalities. Because without such a facility, the people concerned will find it rather inconvenient; there will be cause for concern for them. This is one thing I would ask the Minister to consider. Another point is that the services provided in the General Hospital are usually rather lax, because the patient will sometimes have to wait for two hours or several hours at a stretch. I hope the Minister will pay attention to this and find some means to improve this situation. Another point is in regard to the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. This hospital is in charge of maternity cases who go there for confinement. I have been there too because my elder sister and younger sister have both been there and have other friends there too. I have found that the situation there is also not satisfactory, because after two days' stay an inmate will have to move out. Perhaps the Minister's wife has not been delivering any baby in that hospital, otherwise the Minister would have taken measures to improve the situation. I hope the Minister can pay attention to this matter so as to improve the situation there and help poorer people, because well-off people perhaps would not go there for delivery. It is mostly the poor people who go there. I hope the Minister will do something to help them and make things convenient for them. It is the poorer people who are making the most use of the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. When they are hospitalised, members of their family are rather concerned. At home they do not have telephones and they naturally find it rather difficult to contact the hospital staff. This is another reason for further worry. Whereas for the richer people or the Ministers, they have telephones at home and can easily get in touch with the hospital staff to enquire about the condition of their wives in the K.K. Hospital. This is another point I hope the Minister will pay attention to, to help the poorer people. Another thing is this. In the hospitals each hospital bed is normally charged at $12 per day.

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

I suspend the sitting until half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of Debate on Question, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 26 be reduced by $100."

5.31 p.m. Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a third question relating to Tan Tock Seng Hospital. I have heard that the maintenance for each bed in Ward C is $6, whereas the maintenance for other beds is $12 each. Is it proper to carry out in this way? Another point is about service conditions for nurses. Recently the nurses were on strike, thus causing inconvenience to the public. Has the Minister any method to resolve this question and to look after the working conditions of nurses in order to prevent future strikes which will inconvenience the public and the patients?

Time is getting short. I will call on Mr Rajah. Not speaking? Dr Thio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most dreaded diseases taking an increasing toll of human lives here is cancer. I understand that equipment for our hospitals here for the treatment of cancer is not as good as they have in Hong Kong. So patients requiring treatment for cancer who can afford it, of course, go to the United Kingdom or to Hong Kong. Since we are not lacking in funds, I wonder whether the Minister for Health and Law will look into this. Cobalt bombing is one of the methods of treatment. It is used in Hong Kong but not in Singapore.

Mr Bani is not speaking? Mrs Seow is not speaking? Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am concerned to see under this Head is that the Maternity Home at Maxwell Road is to be scrapped. The Government planned as far back as 1961, when they tabled their Development Estimates, for a $400,000 vote for a maternity home at Maxwell Road. Then for the Development Estimates for 1963, it is seen that they felt that out of this vote of $400,000, only $350,000 would have been spent by the end of 1962 and therefore a revote of $50,000 was asked for for 1963. But now in this Estimate of Personal Emoluments, it is seen that the Government is going to scrap this Maternity Home. I would urge upon the Government to reconsider their decision and to do all they can to set up a maternity home in that area which is very thickly populated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the Japanese doctors - we have five doctors - the contract of one has expired and he has gone home. There is still a shortage of doctors in the medical service, although, on the latest figures that I have, we have fortunately in service a total of 329 doctors as today. Nevertheless, we are still short. We are happy to accept in our service more doctors if we can get them. Recently two doctors from Formosa applied to join our service and I snapped them up immediately. These foreign doctors are not in any way blocking the promotions of local doctors. They are paid from a separate vote in the Estimate. If we can get them, I think we should be grateful for their services, so that they can help out in our hospitals and our clinics. This expansion will not be possible unless we can get more nurses and doctors. That must be realised by Members in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, the complaint was that they get into senior positions in the hospital and, therefore, block the promotions of our local officers. In point of fact, all our young local medical officers of ability get every opportunity of coming under the notice of specialist doctors, so that they can get opportunities of going overseas to get higher qualifications. I have spoken to the specialist officers who are in charge of these various units employing the Japanese doctors, and they have assured me that these Japanese medical officers are good officers, experienced officers, and they would be glad to retain them in the service. As to the complaint that there is only one doctor on duty at night, whereas there are 15 doctors on duty in the daytime at the Outpatients Clinic at the General Hospital, these postings are dependent on the number of patients that are dealt with in the daytime and at night. I will be making enquiries to find out why only one doctor is employed at night. I would have thought that before the officers in charge of these arrangements make these postings, they would have regard to the numbers attending at night and in the daytime at the clinics. The Member for Queenstown referred to reductions in the Estimates on Chemicals and drugs. I have discussed that with the Minister for Finance just now, and he told me that the amounts for the purchase of drugs have been overestimated in previous years. I have also on my own checked on this question and the Superintending Pharmaceutical Chemist has given me a note here, stating that the total number of all patients, both out-patients and in-patients, at all Government hospitals increased from 3,000,000 in 1958 to 4,920,000 in 1962. Also the amounts spent on the purchase of drugs have also increased from $2,389,000 to $3,155,000. I have noticed in checking these estimates that it has been the practice in the past to overestimate, But the Superintending Pharmaceutical Chemist has given me an assurance that they have sufficient drugs in store and on purchase to meet all requirements. The Member for Jalan Kayu has asked that we make arrangements to provide for easier facilities for admission to the General Hospital. That is not possible. Even if the patient is referred to the General Hospital by a general practitioner, it does not follow that he gets admitted. He has to be seen by the Senior Medical Officer in charge, and if the Senior Medical Officer in charge agrees that his case merits admission, then he gets admission. I have told the House just now that there are only 1,351 beds in that hospital and if everybody can be freely admitted into that hospital, it would lead to complete chaos and breakdown. Then the Member for Jalan Kayu also complained that the patients at the K.K. Hospital were detained for two days and released after two days' detention. That is all that we can do in the present circumstances. There are 50,000 babies delivered in that hospital in a year, and there are a little more than 400 beds in that hospital, and unless babies are delivered quickly, I cannot see how that hospital can carry on. Then he said there were not sufficient telephones by which the poor can contact their relations outside. There is a public telephone in that hospital and I see no reason for that complaint. Then there is the complaint of a charge of $12 and $6 a day. Those charges have been enforced for quite a long time. Then he wants the salaries of nurses revised. All that is being attended to. The Member for Tanglin asked that we give consideration to improving the facilities for the treatment of cancer. In fact, Mr Speaker, Prof. Patterson of Liverpool University visited Singapore in the last three months and he has drawn up a programme for the construction of the new cancer unit for our hospital. The cost involved is around $2� million. He says if the programme is supported by the World Health Organisation, then it would be possible for us to get funds from overseas to buy the equipment that is needed for such a centre. It is also important that you have physicists for this centre before you embark on putting up the buildings and buying the equipment. There are doctors already available with specialist qualifications for the treatment of cancer. If we can get the funds, then we can proceed with this project; but in point of priority there are other commitments which deserve earlier attention. I am just bringing that to the attention of the House. 5.45 p.m. Now, the Member for Cairnhill has asked why we did stop the vote for the provision of $400,000 for the setting up of a Maternity Home at the old Hospital in Maxwell Road. That was the project. But our plans were considered by Professor Baird - he is a noted gynaecologists and obstetrician - when he visited Singapore, and both he and Professor McKelvie, who is now on secondment and in service in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, have advised that we should not proceed with this project. It is necessary that in the building of this maternity hospital for there to be incorporated in the hospital itself the other facilities that go with a modern hospital and there is little room for expansion in this hospital. So they have advised me - both of them - and they have said it is their considered opinion that if we proceed with this project, it would be money going down the drain. Now, that building can serve another useful purpose. It can, as I have explained earlier on this afternoon, be converted into a main clinic to serve the Chinatown area. Now, that will relieve the congestion at the main clinic of the General Hospital, and it will enable the clinic at the General Hospital to concentrate on casualties and emergency cases. I think I have answered all the points that have been raised by Members of the Opposition.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I was shocked to hear the answer that, because there are no beds in the Hospital, women who go there for confinement are kept for only two days. Is that the proper answer from a good Government which sees to the welfare of the people? Is expansion, more space, more beds and more facilities, not the answer, rather than keep them for two days? What happens if more women go to deliver in one day? Then afterwards, what happens? It is a very strange answer.

Sir, the Minister explained that the number of doctors on duty at night in the Outpatients Department is dependent on the number of patients dealt with. I do not know what he means by that. Surely he should know by now that there are many, many patients going there after office hours. If, after having been in office for so long he still does not know that there are many people waiting in long queues in the O.P.D. and admission room at night, then he should resign, and let somebody take his office.

You take over.

If he finds that one doctor is not enough, then it is his job to have two doctors here or even three. An hon. Member: Or four.

You have plenty of money - $97 million, $300 million - how much is it? - all unused. Why do you not make use of the money for the service of the people?

Order. The Member for Queenstown is very easily upset, and when he is upset, he forgets the direct. Is there anything else?

The Minister also possibly does not know that in the Tan Tock Seng Hospital and in other places, there is a great shortage of drugs. Streptomycin, for example, one of the most important drugs is short. Why should that be? And yet he tells us that there are plenty of drugs. Outpatients go there to ask for drugs, and they are told that there is none. I wish the Minister would investigate into all this.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten expressed surprise that it was necessary for women to be discharged with a minimum amount of stay at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. That is a hospital in which about 50,000 babies are delivered in a year. It is one of the biggest maternity hospitals in the world today. Now we have expanded the facilities there, and when there are normal deliveries, there is a quick turn-round; they come in, and they go out. Now, of course, the cases that require treatment, well, they get the treatment that they require. Now in the case of the clinic at the General Hospital, the Member for Queenstown was protesting that it was very unfair and unjust that one doctor only should he posted on duty at night, whereas fifteen are on duty in the daytime. The question is to get the doctors. As I told you just now, we have 329 doctors in the service. They protest against our employing Japanese doctors. They do not want us to employ doctors from abroad. Is it not reasonable that we should get more doctors in the service? I put it to the Singapore Medical Association. They said, "Oh, yes, we will co-operate; all of us will co-operate; give our service to help out part-time in clinics and hospitals." So far I have only got eight doctors. An hon. Member: What about the Member for Queenstown?

Yes, what about you, the Member for Queenstown?

Order.

They all want to put money away in their pockets if they can! I tell you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are now making a declaration that we will give facilities to any doctor who holds a registrable qualification an entry permit with a promise of permanency in this State - any doctor who has got the registrable qualification, if he cares to come to Singapore for private practice or to join the medical service. But we will not be held to ransom by a group of unscrupulous people.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister could assure us that in countries which are medically advanced the women are kept in the hospital only for two days during confinement?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I can only tell the Member for Mountbatten that we have men of international standing serving in the hospital. There is Professor McKelvie there, He is seconded for service here in Singapore by the Canadian Government and he has not complained to me that we were ill-treating the women of Singapore by limiting their stay in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital to two days. Naturally, if the deliveries are abnormal, their stay must be longer. But if you are going to produce 50,000 babies a year, you have got to be reasonable - get it over quickly.

Sir, my point is this. If the experts think that two days is the right period, well and good, but if these people are forced to stay for only two days because of lack of space or lack of beds, as the Minister puts it, then it is the Government's duty to do something about it - to increase the number of beds.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to labour the point. As I have said, if they are required to stay for more than two days, they are welcome to stay for more than two days.

Sir, we are not concerned about the Minister's quarrel with the Singapore Medical Association. What we want from him is an assurance as a Government to see that the service is the Outpatients Department is adequate. Will he give an assurance here that at least two doctors will be provided at night?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not want to embark on all this. I cannot give such an assurance. I have got to ascertain the facts. I have to know; for instance, we have to take a log and find out. I want to find out; I am not going to leave it alone.

Good.

I am following it up. I want to see how many patients are attended to in that clinic every day as against every night. We have to so arrange the postings that we do not denude other branches of the medical service in order to give a better reinforcement to this clinic. There are priorities in all these matters, and they have to be looked into carefully. I just cannot stand up here and say, "Yes, I will give the Member for Queenstown an assurance." It cannot be done. In running these institutions, we cannot just act on the spur of the moment.

Mr Chairman, Sir, regarding the outpatient doctors. I can give the Minister one example. I myself brought a patient to the Outpatients Department at 3.30 a.m. one morning. The patient was suffering from cirrhosis of the liver and he had been vomiting blood. I had to wait for 45 minutes for the doctor to examine the patient. Now, if there was such an example, is the Minister going to look into the matter?

There is a doctor on duty al night and if this patient was not attended to earlier, it must have been that this doctor possibly was looking at some other case. But there are doctors posted for duty at night.

Does the Member for Queenstown wish for a vote?

Yes, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $35,505,140 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 27 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (237) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, I would like to know when the ex-Superintendent was transferred and on what grounds was such a transfer effected? I would also like to know who is the present holder of this post?

Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Loh Pui Kay held this post until 12th September, 1962, when as a result of criticism by the Chief Justice arising from an appeal on a corruption case, a Disciplinary Tribunal was convened which subsequently recommended that he should be transferred from his present post with the loss of one increment. From that date the present Acting Superintendent was allowed to act pending the substantive filling of the post. The post was advertised on 25th March, 1963, but the grading of the post has been objected to by the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees which raised this objection with the Chief Administrative Officer of the City Council and with a Board of Inquiry which is looking into the terms and conditions of transfer of City Council employees into Government service. In view of this objection, it has been decided to defer the filling of this post until the Board has had an opportunity to consider and recommend the scale for the post on integration.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 24.

Dato Abdul Hamid is not here. Amendment (3) . Mr Tee Kim Leng. 6.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 27 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the 1959 P.A.P.'s Election Manifesto in regard to the problem of hawkers, the P.A.P. method of dealing with it is based on the principle of educating the hawkers not to obstruct the traffic and, at the same time, to help them to get a living. They also know the problems faced by the hawkers, that they had been under the unreasonable control of so many departments before 1959, for example, under police control, and interference from the Police Department. But normally the reason for the arrest of hawkers is the same as the reason given by the Superintendent of Hawkers, and that is that they obstruct traffic. In its election pledges the Government was determined to get rid of this malpractice and that all problems relating to hawkers would come under the control of one authority and not under so many departments. But four years have elapsed. Are the hawkers today under the control of One authority? Actually, it is not so. They are still under the control of so many departments. They are the same as they were before; their plight is the same as before. Moreover, the hawker policy of the P.A.P. is not consistent, and the Hawkers Department cannot deal with the problem of hawkers effectively and reasonably. There are so many approaches towards the solution of the problem of hawkers. I want to quote an example. Some of the hawkers in Queen Street have licences, some have not, but whenever a licence is transferred to another person, the Hawkers Department always carries out investigations to find out whether the licensed hawker is actually engaged in the business. But those unlicensed hawkers are allowed to carry on their business. The licensed hawkers are very much worried because they are harassed by the authority. They cannot leave their business because the Hawker Inspector may turn up at any time to inspect their licences, and if it happens that they are not there, then their licences will be rescinded and they are sometimes summoned to the Hawkers Department to be questioned. This is a great harassment to them. We know that the problem of hawkers has become more acute. Before there were only 40,000 hawkers, but now the number has increased to more than 50,000. The P.A.P., while trying to boast of their industrialisation scheme which is only a paper scheme, has given wide publicity in newspapers. On T.V. we have also listened to the industrialisation scheme, but the number of unemployed has increased and the number of hawkers has also increased. The Government has not made any effort to alleviate the problem of hawkers at all. It is adopting the same methods and measures towards it, that is, to impose fines and harass them and expel them. We know that in many areas many hawkers have been evicted, for example, in Changi. East Coast Road, Joo Chiat, near Hollywood Theatre, Lavender Street and Tanjong Rhu. Especially in East Coast Road the hawkers there were engaged in the business for a long time, but now they have been asked to remove to the back lanes and, as a result, their business has gone down. At the same time, if they are arrested, a fine is very severely imposed. If a hawker is warned consecutively three times, he will be fined very heavily - up to $50. Another point is that the hawker stalls along Tanjong Rhu Market have not been properly looked after. The right of allotment was handed to the Hawkers' Association, and the hawkers who were there were not given their places, but instead these places were given to others, especially to members of the Hawkers' Association which supported the P.A.P.'s phoney merger proposals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to draw the attention of the Minister - and I have done it several times - to the complaints in the papers and by me here about the condition of drains, especially along East Coast Road, Geylang Serai, Mountbatten Road and the Katong area. I do not know about other areas, but the drains there are in a terrible state. It is really in a disgraceful state. Apart from that in town, down High Street or North Bridge Road and Change Alley, if you go there during week-ends, which I happened to do one week-end when I took some tourists down there (they are friends of mine), I have never known that Change Alley could be such a disgraceful place to take any tourist around. I do not know who has been scattering all the rubbish along the roads. If you go down on a week-end evening - Saturday evening, probably on Sunday evening - down High Street, you will not recognize that place, I can assure you, Sir. Would the Minister do something about it because a lot has been said about earning money through tourism and this certainly is not a way to attract tourists?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to tell the Minister is this. The behaviour of the sanitary inspectors in the Upper Serangoon area, when they carry out their duties, is not very good. At the end of this sitting, I will write to the Minister concerned and remind him of this matter, and I hope he will give consideration to this point.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to welcome the steps taken by the Government to try and solve the pressing problems of the hawkers who are plying their trade in back lanes and crowded streets. I have had occasion before to raise this matter in the Chamber. Such steps might inconvenience certain people, but I think, in the interests of the people of Singapore, we should not take this problem lightly. There must be proper regulation of control to look after the hawkers' problem. If the Government takes positive steps, I believe, like the recent outbreak of cholera epidemic, however much the Government puts out its efforts, this is a matter which we should view with grave concern. Another point, Mr Speaker, concerns health. We should feel ashamed of ourselves, as has been pointed out by the Member for Mountbatten, that no measures have been taken to rectify the situation as certain shops are dumping their rubbish indiscriminately. This not only concerns health, but also we must take pride in the fact that Singapore can attract many tourists. 6.15 p.m. If these tourists see hawkers plying all over the city, I think it will bring the good name of Singapore into disrepute. I hope the recent measures taken by the Government will be continued persistently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang has said that we have failed to carry out our promise to set up one authority for the control of hawkers. Mr Speaker, Sir, before we became the Government, hawker control was exercised by two authorities, the City Council and the Rural Board. Now with the integration of the local authorities and the Central Government, it is the Ministry of Health that exercise unified authority over hawkers. So that he really does not understand what is happening in Singapore, although he is a Member of this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have an intelligent and reasonable programme and an outlook on the hawkers' problem. It is not possible to eliminate the problem. That depends on the economics of our present position. All that we can do is to bring the problem under reasonable control. There are people who are not as fortunately placed as ourselves. These people have to find a livelihood, and because they find it difficult to find other employment, they have to take to hawking. We understand all that. We have tried to help the hawkers as much as we can. Hitherto the licensing laws were unreasonable in the sense that if a hawker decided to give up hawking, he was not permitted to transfer his business to another person. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have made the hawking licence freely transferable - that would stop graft. In the past, Sir, if a man gave up hawking, his licence would be cancelled and his pitch would be put up for auction as it were. And that, Mr Speaker, Sir, was an opportunity for corruption. Now when it is freely transferable, he gets money for his pitch whenever he wants to leave it. It has also been necessary to remove hawkers from areas where they definitely cause obstruction. But before we take any action, we give them notice and we find them sites close to where they have been operating. This is common knowledge in the town. Upper East Coast Road has been mentioned. Everybody knows that this spot, where the hawkers were hawking, was a spot where you have, say, three big cinemas. The road there was very narrow and we had to widen it. For that reason, to relieve the traffic congestion there, we had to move the hawkers into backlanes, give them alternative sites and provide standpipes for them. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, outside the Hollywood Theatre. That was a complete mess. We have now tidied all that up. We have moved them into the grounds of the Hollywood Theatre and everybody is satisfied. There was a scandalous traffic obstruction at the corner of Joo Chiat and Changi Roads. Everybody knows that that juction is a main junction and it caused a real obstruction. It was scandalous that it was allowed to continue for so long. We had to serve notices on the hawkers and move them from outside Changi Market to Lorong 101, which is just by the side of the market. We provided pitches for the hawkers who were plying their trade in Joo Chiat Road outside the market. We took the trouble to mark out about 150 pitches there. We did all that. We allocated sites to them. Everything was done through a ballot system. Everybody who hawked in Joo Chiat Road qualified for the ballot. They balloted. They got their allotments. And we fixed a date by which they had to move into their allotted areas. When we went in there, we found the whole place vacant. Our hawker inspectors had to check up why that happened. We allotted spaces and they disappeared. We went in, checked up and found most of those hawkers were hawkers who had stalls in the market. We checked up their names and addresses when we marked them for ballot, and we checked on their names and addresses in the market itself, and we found that they were related to the same persons. It clearly shows you what happens if the law is not enforced. There must be an enforcement of the law, otherwise no person who is in the market stall is going to remain there if hawkers outside compete with them. That is the clearest example which you can get that that is so. Everybody knows that there was a mess outside the Lido Cinema in Orchard Road. All those hawkers have not been put out of business. They have been accommodated in the lane by the side of the East Asistic building. That is a favourite haunt of all the people who are employed in the Orchard Road area. They go there and eat in the daytime. There has been no harm done to the hawkers. They have their same employment at an alternative site. Similarly with the hawkers at the East Coast Road area. They are in backlanes. Now there is the Tay Buan Guan organisation which has a grocery shop in East Coast Road. They have offered to put up a building behind their shop to accommodate these hawkers. They find there are opportunities for them to make money and for the hawkers to make money with them just behind their business in East Coast Road. Similarly, the Housing Board has also taken a very enlightened view of the hawker problem in the Kallang Board Estate. They put up as many as 436 hawkers pitches. Now they propose to rent those pitches `to all hawkers who are now trading in shacks in that area. When the hawkers move into these new pitches, they can demolish those shacks. They give them a proprietary right to those pitches. Those hawkers who go into those pitches will have to pay $10 a month and, at the end of three years, the stall will be theirs - the site will be theirs to do as they will. And they pay a small fee to the Hawkers Department to exercise proper control over the whole problem. That sort of operation has been going on, not only at Kallang but in Tanjong Rhu, in the Queenstown area and in many other areas in Singapore, so that it is not true to say that the Government is dishonest in regard to the pledges it has made to the hawkers. Of course, we keep a close watch on what the inspectors are doing. We have in the Ministry a Hawkers Advisory Committee on which the Health Department doctors, the Road Traffic people and the Police are represented. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have tried as much as we can to help them and see that there is an authority knowing what our inspectors are doing. They have to take out summonses against hawkers if they continue to obstruct the public roads, if they refuse to move into the sites that we make available for them. We have got to do something about it. Recently somebody rang me up in the office saying that just by the Clifford Pier on the main road there was a man setting up a hawker's stall. If we had allowed that, there would have been more going in there, We had to take action immediately to clear him out of there. That must be done in order that we can keep our streets clear for traffic to move in. The Member for Pasir Panjang said also that we were unfair in the way we allotted pitches and stalls to hawkers, that the allotments were handed over to the Hawkers' Association. That is a deliberate lie. There is not the slightest truth in that.

Order. The word "lie" has been ruled out time and again. The word "untruth" could be used.

I apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir,I withdraw that and say this is a deliberate untruth. We make sure that somebody responsible is present when the balloting is done, and it is always the Parliamentary Secretary himself who goes down and supervises the balloting. So that it is completely untrue to say that this work is handed over to the Hawkers' Association. The Member for Mountbatten says that the drains in the Kallang area are always dirty. She fails to realise that these are tidal drains. When you have high tides, the dirt does not go through the drains. The drains get dirty. We have contractors to clean the drains, and they are being adequately supervised. Making complaints here that the drains are dirty is a general complaint. Members should be specific about their complaints and not just say that all the drains in the Kallang area are dirty. Anybody can say that, Sir. The Member for Punggol complained that there was an inspector in his constituency who was misbehaving himself. If the Member will give me his name later, I will look into this complaint in due course. I must thank the Member for the Southern Islands who has seen the problem and who realises what we are faced with. I am glad that at least we do get support from Members of this House for the work we are doing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak for just two minutes. On the question of public health, I would not like to say something unnecessarily. I only hope that the Minister for Health will pay attention to the condition of the drains in Queen Street. The drains are very dirty. If we were to compare Tanglin and Queen Street, there is a great difference. Dust bins occupy the backlanes in Rochore Road and Albert Street, causing obstruction to traffic. I hope the Public Health Department will remove these dust bins and improve the situation there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that I was not specific. I have been so specific in this House that I described the drain and I took the trouble to go to the Minister's office sometime ago to even tell him what was the cause of the congestion in the drain. If it is a tidal drain, then the tide is a strange title that never ebbs, because the water level is always high. If the Minister wants to know which drain I am referring to specifically - all drains are dirty - it is especially the drain beside the Garrick Theatre and it goes through the Haig Road Government quarters into East Coast Road and into the Kampong Amber area down to the sea. That is the drain that is the worst hit.

We will look into the complaint of the Member for Bras Basah.

Moulmein.

Moulmein. He was once the Member for Bras Basah, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Really?

That is why he knows this area so very well. Anyway, we will see that all these roads are cleaned up - Queen Street, Rochore Road and Ophir Road. And as for the Member for Mountbatten, in a tidal drain when there is high tide, the refuse does not flow out. It is only when the tide is low that it can get cleansed. There is a difference between an ordinary drain and a tidal drain. I did not know that before, but I had to learn it. I will tell the Member for Mountbatten that I go round there myself. 6.30 p.m.

Order. Time is up.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $23,720,230 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 29 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. Sir, this concerns the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court. All that I want to do is to ask the Minister a question under this amendment: what has the Government done in respect of a memorandum submitted by the Singapore Bank Employees' Union, whose adviser is Mr C. V. Devan Nair, which requested the removal of the President of the Arbitration Court? Sir, I think it will be recalled that there was a Press report on this and a photograph where we saw some young feminine members of the Bank Employees' Union going to the residence of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to present the memorandum. I am told that the P.A.P. Government and Mr Devan Nair were not very happy about the contents of the memorandum, but because of the pressure of the members of the union and the executive committee, this memorandum was submitted. I would like to ask the Minister if he can explain what steps the Government has taken on the contents of this memorandum.

When parties in a dispute appear before the courts they either succeed or lose, and it will be quite impossible to agree that when a party is dissatisfied just because the decision did not go in his favour, then the judge is to he removed. We cannot accept that that should be the position at all. In that case, the dispute was whether a bonus was negotiable or not. The court held that it was and the Ordinance gave it the power to decide such questions. The court went on to apply the quantum of bonus awarded in an earlier banking caste to the dispute in question without hearing from, the union on the question of quantum, and the court had the power to so award. In that case, it is clearly a case where we should amend the law to provide that where earlier awards are applied in subsequent cases, the court should not apply the terms of the earlier award to the case in question before giving the union concerned an opportunity of being heard. That is clearly a case for amending the law rather than removing the President from discharging his functions.

Could I ask the Minister a question, Sir? The 1962 Estimates give the emoluments of the President as $26,100. The 1963 Estimates - that is, the present Estimates - give it as $23,400. There seems to be a reduction of $2,700 in his annual emoluments. Is there a cut in his salary?

I do not think that his salary has been in any way revised downwards, Anyway, I will check up on that to find out what has happened.

Does the Member for Thomson wish for a vote?

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

I beg to move, Mr Speaker, Sir, That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 he reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that I have another amendment, That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (25) of subhead 1. They are similar items in respect of the two Judges. Shall I deal with both of them?

Certainly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time that an entertainment allowance is being given to the First President and to the Second President. Before I say anything on this, could I ask the Minister what motivated the Government to provide this entertainment allowance of $150 a month for each of these Presidents?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 1." The debate may range over item (25) of subhead 1.

It is laid down in the Industrial Relations Ordinance that the President has the same tenure of office and terms of office as a Supreme Court Judge. It is specifically so laid down in the Ordinance. And he receives the same salary as a Supreme Court Judge. All Supreme Court Judges get an entertainment allowance of $150 a month, and, therefore, we thought it right and proper that the President of the Court should also have the same allowance. The Member for Farrer Park will remember that we created the post of the Deputy President, and it was provided in the amending Ordinance that the Deputy President should exercise the same powers and have the same protection and immunities as the President. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we thought that it was right that the Deputy President also should have an entertainment allowance. Now, the Deputy President is a career officer in the legal service of Superscale G standing, and he has been seconded for service in this post as Deputy President, These entertainment allowances are attached to offices. They are not personal allowances. They are allowances that are attached to particular offices. We have also powers under the Ordinance to appoint an acting President and an Acting Deputy President, so that whenever the President or the Deputy President is away, the Acting President or the Acting Deputy President can draw upon these allowances. Not being personal allowances, the allowances must be specially claimed and supported by vouchers.

Mr Speaker, I concede to the Minister that if an allowance is properly payable in the case of the President, it should also be paid in the case of the President of the Second Industrial Arbitration Court. I certainly concede that proposition. But I think the Minister takes the view that, because the Industrial Relations Ordinance sets out the status and position of a Judge appointed under that Ordinance shall be similar to that of our Judges in the Supreme Court, therefore, anything that is given to a Judge should also be given to a Judge under the Industrial Arbitration Ordinance. That I do not accept, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think what the Industrial Arbitration Ordinance intended to do was to preserve the status and power and position of Judges and give them a similar status. I doubt whether that proposition could reasonably include the contention that, because a Supreme Court Judge is given an entertainment allowance, therefore, it follows that the Industrial Court President should also get it; now, not all our Judges get entertainment allowances. Our District Judges do not get entertainment allowances. The Supreme Court Puisne Judges certainly do, and the Chief Justice gets a very much bigger entertainment allowance than the Puisne Judges. So I think the main reason for giving our High Court Judges allowances - and I do not deny that they should be given those allowances - is that by virtue of the position that they hold, they have to maintain themselves in a certain manner and when visiting dignitaries come, it is incumbent upon them to see that they are properly entertained. I accept the proposition that our Supreme Court Judges should be given entertainment allowances for which they are not accountable in a voucher form. Do they? Mr Byrne indicated assent.

In any case, I do not think that a Judge of an Industrial Arbitration Court should be put in the position of a Supreme Court Judge. None of our District Court Judges are placed in that position, although their status, to my mind, is not any inferior to that of the President of an Industrial Arbitration Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is laid down in the Industrial Relations Ordinance that the President shall have the same rights, privileges, protection and immunity as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and the section goes on to say that the provisions of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, relating to the tenure of office and the term of office of Judges of the Supreme Court shall apply to him as if he were a Judge of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court Judges are given an entertainment allowance of $150 a month, or $1,800 a year, it follows from that that the President should also qualify for the same allowance.

Does the Member wish for a vote?

No. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (3) * is not being moved. Amendment (4) - Mr Rajah. * Amendment (3) , standing in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (25) of subhead 1. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (11) of subhead 2. This is by way of an inquiry with a view to obtaining information - "Rent of premises ... $14,400". The premises in respect of which this rent is being charged is in the Supreme Court building. Am I to understand by this that there are going to be book entries, and that the Industrial Arbitration Court is going to pay $14,400 in rent to the Registrar of the Supreme Court?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is rent in respect of the premises of the Second Arbitration Court at Anson Road. It has to be rented from the Central Provident Fund Board. The Central Provident Fund Board is in occupation of these premises and they have rented it to us at $1,200 a month.

Does the Member wish to withdraw?

Yes, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, Sir. That the sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by S10 in respect of subhead 3. "Allowance for Panel Members and Referees." Sir, the Industrial Arbitration Court is constituted of the President and two panel members, one representing the employers' panel member and the other representing the employees' panel member. Sir, under section 6 subsection (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Minister may from time to time invite a trade union of employers and a trade union of employees to nominate members for inclusion in the panels. Sir, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that today the members in the employees' panel are members who have been appointed by the P.A.P. unions. This is a very major grievance because the implication of this, in practice, is that a large group of trade unions which do not owe loyalty to the P.A.P. and which reject attempts by the P.A.P. Government to control them are denied the right of nominating members of their choice to the panel. So when a dispute concerning this group of unions goes before the court, they will not have the opportunity of nominating a man of their choice to sit in the court. I believe the Minister will agree that the principle underlying the appointment of panel members is to allow the unions and the employers alike the right to nominate members of the court who would, in their view, help to bring about industrial justice. It will be recalled that during the time when the amendment to this section was debated in this House - I believe sometime last year - it was a very small amendment which merely sought to substitute the words "Trades Union Congress" in section 6 subsection 3 (b) to read "a trade union of employees". During the time when this amendment was debated, I raised this point and the Minister gave an assurance that he would invite unions to nominate members to the employees' panel irrespective of the union's political allegiance. Sir, I would like to repeat my request last year and ask the Minister, once again, to give a pledge - only this time I ask him to try and keep his word - and write to the unions and invite them to nominate members to the employees' panel.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the employees' panel, as constituted today, consists of six persons. It has been very hard to find unionists with the competence and ability that we require to serve on the employees' panel of this court. After a lot of difficulty, we have been able to get only six persons so far.

Nonsense.

Yes. Now, the Member for Thomson very well knows that when the Ordinance was first passed, it provided that the T.U.C. could automatically appoint all the members of the employees' panel. That provision of the Ordinance was in force for two years after the First Court was constituted, and I remember, when I was in the Labour Ministry, I wrote to the T.U.C. and requested them personally, on many occasions, to make the full appointments to the employees' panel. All that I could get were only four names from them, and amongst the four was Mr James Puthucheary. Mr James Puthucheary, as the Member for Thomson very well knows, served on that panel up to the time when he was detained in February this year. Now, there has been a split in the trade union movement. The Government did not take him out or force him to come out of that panel, just because he had joined the S.A.T.U. group. He was, in fact, a member of that Court up to the date of his detention in February. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is easy for the Member for Thomson to impute bias against us. He very well knows that we found great difficulty. Every time there is a case to be heard by the Arbitration Court, the unions of the S.A.T.U. group refused to make an appointment with anybody in this panel.

You never wrote to us.

They refused to make an appointment.

Nonsense.

So I invariably got letters from either the President or the Deputy President asking me to exercise my powers, since they do not want to nominate one from the panel on to the Court, to make a nomination myself. The Member for Thomson is well aware of the position.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it will be embarrassing for the Minister if I suggest that he is lying.

Order. Does the Member not know that that word is prohibited? He must withdraw the word and apologise.

I withdraw the word.

And apologise.

I apologise to the House. Surely, the Minister is talking nonsense. In the first place, he talks about the T.U.C. days. It is behind times. The T.U.C. was dissolved in 1961 because Mr Kandasamy, a P.A.P. Member and the Secretary-General of the T.U.C., went to see the Minister for Labour, another P.A.P. Member, and asked for the T.U.C. to be dissolved and the T.U.C. was dissolved. That was in 1961. This is now 1963, Mr Speaker, I agree that in 1961, when the T.U.C. was asked to nominate, there were difficulties in getting the names. That was because of the political considerations that the P.A.P. representatives gave in the T.U.C. secretariat when their names were being considered. But, however, that is a story relating back to 1961. Sir, right at the moment, no union which is a non-P.A.P. union as such - I can name at least 40 trade unions representing more than 100,000 members has ever been invited to nominate members to the employees' panel. The Minister says that he has six now and I tell him that he can appoint up to ten. Let him write to us tomorrow and we will nominate four names. Let him do that. Then there should be no difficulty. If he had written to these unions and if they had refused to nominate members to this panel, then he would have been justified in what he says. But this is not the case. He has not invited at least 40 trade unions, which constitute the majority of trade unions in Singapore, which represent the majority of the working population and which represent the majority of disputes arising, to nominate their representatives to the employees' panel.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions of this group have consistently shown by their attitude that they do not wish to participate in the workings of this Court. That is the front that they put up all the time.

Nonsense.

Everytime when there is a case to he heard, they will not make a nomination from the panel, and they leave it to the Minister to make the nomination.

That is because we do not have a member. Mr Byrne: That is always the thing that they have done. It is not true for the Member for Thomson to just gloss over all these things and say, "Oh, yes, that was in 1961." For two solid years from 20th October, 1960, when the First Industrial Arbitration Court began to function, we have written repeatedly to them and asked them to make their nominations to this panel. Under the powers of the Ordinance, before it was amended, they had the right to appoint all ten to the employees' panel. They refused to do so and until today they have not shown that they have changed their attitude at all.

Sir, I wish to point this out. Perhaps the Minister is under a misapprehension. He is talking of two things at the same time, One is the appointment of a member from the employees' panel to sit in the Court to hear a dispute, and the other is what I referred to just now under section 6 subsection 3 (b) where the Minister may invite a trade union to nominate for the inclusion in the employees' panel such number of persons as he may specify. Sir, on the first point. Today, because these 40 unions do not have on the employees' panel such persons as they themselves have appointed to be included in the employees' panel, when a case goes before the Court, these unions do not know which member of the employees' panel to choose. If there is a dispute concerning a bank employees' union and an employer, the bank employees' union chooses a member from the employees' panel because it knows, perhaps, that so and so in the employees' panel can represent the union's interest well in the court. 7.00 p.m. But to these 40-odd unions, this is not possible because they do not have, at the moment, anybody in the employees' panel whom they have nominated. This is what the Minister means when he says sometimes we do not nominate members to the court. That is quite so, Sir. But my grievance is not about that. I say, to remedy this position, the Minister, under section 6 subsection (3) (b) , should write to, if not the 40 unions, at least some of the big unions, and invite them to nominate names for inclusion in the employees' panel. There is no question of our not wanting to go to court. Surely if the Minister looks up the records, he knows the number of cases these so-called Communist unions have taken to court. I give a pledge to the Minister that if he writes to us tomorrow, within a matter of a week, we will nominate. There are four places. The Minister says there are only six at the moment. The Ordinance allows up to ten. We will nominate four, if we can, and if not, at least two, Let the Minister write to us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it the Member for Thomson has given an assurance in public that he supports this court as such. Otherwise, their attitude was this. "This was the court that the Government had set up." [Interruption]

Order.

"We did not participate in this court. We do not want to have a hand in the operation. Let the Minister so make the appointments." Mr Speaker, that was their consistent attitude. When they had the power to make all the appointments to the panel - I spoke to the big boss himself, Lim Ching Siong, he said no. He said, "Mr Byrne, we make four. You make the rest. This is the court that the Government set up." I like to hear what the Member for Thomson said. He said so publicly in this Assembly today that he fully supports this court, and that if the Minister writes to him he is quite prepared to suggest at least two names. I pointed out to this Assembly that Mr James Puthucheary was a member of this court. There was a split. He was not removed because he joined the S.A.T.U. group. He continued to serve on the panel. I pointed out that there are these four vacancies. We could have tilled all the vacancies. But we have left four appointments still vacant on this panel. In view of what the Member for Thomson has said, we are prepared to give consideration ---

Write to us.

--- to his request in this Assembly, in view of what he has said here today.

Mr Speaker, I originally wanted to speak also under amendment (7)*, but since the Minister has raised this, I might as well make the speech now. * Amendment (7) reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $100. Sir, there is no question of our supporting the court or not supporting the court. The Arbitration Court exists and it will continue to function so long as the Industrial Relations Ordinance is in force. Sir, I can say that we have never boycotted the court as such. We have had our reservations. If today the Bank Employees' Union can say, "Petition the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, throw the President out" - and it is because this was a legitimate complaint; there was discontent. We had our reservations. We do not want to run to the court like the Bank Employees' Union. Devan Nair faces the workers and makes a very fiery speech. Tempers go up. The workers say they want to go on strike. But it is against the P.A.P. policy to call strikes because more strikes will mean more Communists coming out. But, on the other hand, they cannot possibly tell the workers, "Do not go on strike," because the workers would turn around and say to Devan Nair. "You are not brave enough to lead us on strike." So they call a strike for a few days. Then they go to the Minister and say, "Please, Minister, refer it to the Arbitration Court," And so they had one strike after another - the Bank of America, the Mercantile Bank, the Chartered Bank, the Straits Times, one after another all these went to the Arbitration Court. We do not operate on this basis. And we say, Mr Speaker, unreservedly, that we believe that the Arbitration Court can fulfil a useful function in solving industrial disputes and in maintaining industrial peace. But as to whether this court can succeed or not will depend on the individuals who operate this court, including the Government. But the Minister wants a pledge as to whether we are going to support the court. I do not see his question. We do not boycott the court. We go to the court. There was the Plywood case. I cannot remember offhand, but if the Minister wants, I can list the number of cases that we have referred to arbitration, Fraser and Co, went on strike. We asked the Ministry of Labour Conciliation Officer to get the employer to agree to refer the dispute to arbitration. The employer refused. The Government did nothing about it. Watts & Baker went on strike. Ford went on strike. In the Straits Times, 43 workers made a demonstration today because they were sacked for getting cholera inoculations. We ask the Minister, "Refer this case to arbitration." Sir, these are facts. He tried to put on a show that we boycotted the court. We were against the operation of the court and, therefore, we should not be given the right to appoint members to the employees' panel. I say this is merely, in the usual P.A.P. fashion, a cover to protect the wrong that they have done to the majority of unions. I hope, Mr Speaker, that the Minister will give a pledge that he will write to these unions, ask them to nominate members to the employees' panel and we pledge to nominate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will give consideration to this request. As far as the strikes that were referred to just now are concerned, I do not know what the facts are. But I know it was the habit of the unions in this particular group to strike first, and then when they get the worst of it, they try the Arbitration Court. That is not playing fair by the court. If they cannot get their way, it is only when they fail in the strike that they say. "We go to the Arbitration Court."

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani ---

Mr Bani, amendment (6) .

I am not moving.

Amendment (7), Mr Bani.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 29 be reduced by $100.* * The same amendment also stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Dr Thio Chan Bee. Sir, I merely wish to make this point under this amendment. We definitely have certain reservations as to whether these Arbitration Courts can fulfil their functions in establishing industrial justice. These reservations are justified by events that have taken place in the past. Sir, for the proper functioning of these courts, one of the necessary things the Government ought to do is to ensure that there is no governmental intervention in the proceedings of the Arbitration Court. As, for example, in the case of a journalist who was dismissed by Kerala Bandhu Press in 1961, the proceedings were interrupted under a cloak of secrecy and an award was made without the case being fully heard. Secondly, Mr Speaker, it is necessary to give all trade unions the facilities of participation in the proceedings of the court - the facilities to appear before the court. Sir, the proceedings of the court are conducted in English. There are very few trade union officers who are English-educated and who arc capable of presenting cases in English. We have made this request in the past and we renew this request again - we think that the courts must allow for multi-lingualism in the proceedings.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one observation. Under the Industrial Courts Ordinance, the Minister responsible for this is the Minister for Labour. I am therefore, wondering whether it would not be proper that such estimates should appear appropriately under the Ministry of Lahour instead of the Ministry of Law.

Dr Thio?

I am not speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there really was not any governmental intervention as such. The only thing is that the court was made aware of reasons why the paper in question was not allowed to circulate in the Federation. That cannot be held to be intervention of any sort of governmental intervention in the proceedings of the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of facilities for participation. We have the ordinary courts of criminal and civil jurisdiction here, where the proceedings are in English. There would be chaos, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the proceedings were to be conducted in Tamil or in Malay or in Chinese in this Court. That is not possible and the Member for Thomson knows that to be so. There are legal problems connected with this court, and as I hold the portfolio for legal affairs, it is thought desirable that this court should be placed under the responsibility of my Ministry. But in point of fact, in the normal operation of the court, it is the Minister for Labour who is in charge, in the sense that he is vested with the power to refer disputes to arbitration under the powers of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 7.15 p.m. The sum of $348,010 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 32 -

Head 32, State Advocate-General's Chambers. Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1. Item (6) of subhead 1 is in respect of Legal Officers, and the salary given is $2,500 a month. Sir, if that is the correct salary, it would mean that the annual emoluments of Legal Officers is $30,000. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the arithmetic, $30,000 for one Legal Officer. For two Legal Officers it will be $60,000 and not $40,000.

Sir, in fact, when this vote was entered in the Estimates, it was envisaged that we would be able to get three specialists for legal drafting, crime prosecutions and civil and income tax prosecutions, but we have not been able to get any of them, and it is for this reason that this vote has been reduced. In fact, we are paying for the services of an Income Tax specialist from out of this vote and he receives much less than $2,500 a month.

I think the explanation for this is simple, Sir. For last year it was $60,000 for three; therefore, for two, in proportion, it must be $40,000.

Yes, that is the answer. Yes.

But that would mean that ever since 1962 they have not been able to get the Legal Officers of the qualifications they want.

That is so, yes. In fact, that is the point. We have reduced the number to two, and the money is even more than is required to pay the present incumbents who are helping out.

May I withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (21) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move my amendment. I wish to bring to your notice that I had given notice of an amendment under item (20) , but because under the "Notes" column, within brackets the words "se" appear, it would appear that my notice was treated as being out of order. My contention is this: that my notice was in order, because under section 30 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, subsection (7) , if you will permit me to read it, Mr Speaker, says: `The State Advocate-General shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as may from time to time be determined by the Assembly, and such remuneration and allowances shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund' So unless and until the remuneration and allowances have been determined by this Assembly, they shall not be chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, and it is only charges on the Consolidated Fund that are items of statutory expenditure. So until the Assembly has approved the allowances of the State Advocate-General, it is not a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, it is not statutory expenditure. Therefore. I am within my rights in moving the amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like your ruling on whether I can deal with that item now.

The hon. Member did give me prior notice of this point, and it would appear to me that it is so: that if the Assembly has not as yet determined by resolution the allowance of the State Advocate-General, then the Member is entitled to his query on the allowance, The salary of the State Advocate-General has, in fact, been resolved by the Assembly, but not the allowance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in dealing with this particular allowance, which the Government is bringing to this House, the first thing I wish to raise is whether it is ---

Order. I take it that the Member for Farrer Park did give due notice to the Minister that he would raise this point, because if he has not done so. then I am afraid he cannot raise the matter - the mistake was in the office and no notice has been given to the Minister.

I do not mind.

The Minister is prepared to answer. Mr Rajah.

I think the point is a constitutional one. There is nothing intricate about it. There are two points, Mr Speaker, Sir. One is a constitutional point. You see, Sir, the remuneration of the State Advocate-General was. I think, determined by a resolution of this Assembly on 16th July, 1959. It is subsequent to that resolution that it became possible for the Government to put it down in the Budget. Unless and until a resolution has been framed and approved by this Assembly in respect of the $6,000, my submission to the Assembly would he that this $6,000 is not properly entered in the Budget. The second item I wish to bring to the notice of the Assembly is this. The point that would have been raised, certainly by me if a resolution to this effect had been brought to the House, would be this: that the remuneration of the State Advocate-General is $24,900. The remuneration of the Chief Justice, which is on page 45 of the Estimates, is $28,500. So remuneration for remuneration, there is a difference which reflects the importance of the position and the status of the position in our constitutional setup. This allowance of $6,000 which, really, in effect is a remuneration, if added to the State Advocate-General's salary, makes it $30,900, which makes him $2,400 above that of the Chief Justice. Now, Mr Speaker, that is a position I cannot accept. That is the second point. The third point is: I object on principle, and I think the Minister for Law will agree with me on this, that no allowance should be paid to the holder of any office special to himself. He is the holder of the post. The post is evaluated at a certain sum of money. He gets that and nothing more. It is an invidious business that when the present holder vacates his office, either in five years' time or two years' time as the case may be, the subsequent incumbent of that post is not going to be given $2,400 on the basis that "You are not as good as the previous chap." So on these three points, Mr Speaker, Sir, I certainly object to this special allowance personal to the present holder of the post of State Advocate-General. The only reason for my giving notice of item (21) was to join the two together and speak on them together. Now that I have made my point on item (20), I do not wish to say anything more on item (21), because the State Advocate-General gets his usual variable allowance which any other officer in the Government gets. That is why I wanted to raise this in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand this allowance was paid to the State Advocate-General because he is not only the State Advocate-General, but the Permanent Secretary of the legal side of the Ministry of Health and Law. He has a lot of duties to discharge. Not only has he to exercise his functions under the Constitution in the matter of criminal prosecutions and advise all Government legal departments, but he is also the Head of his Chambers and the Head, as Permanent Secretary, of a number of very important Government legal departments, like the Official Assignee and Public Trustee's Office, the Registry of Companies, the Registry of Trade Marks, the Business Names and Patents Office, the Registry of Marriages, the Registry of Muslim Marriages, the Shariah Court, the Legal Aid Bureau, and the Juvenile Court. He exercises administrative control over these important legal departments. Now that is quite unlike what the Judges do. We found it impossible to pay the State Advocate-General a sum equal to or more than that of the Chief Justice. It would be quite improper if we did that. On the other hand, we must recognise that the State Advocate-General carries more duties. He has to discharge more duties, and he is vested with a lot of responsibilities for which he would not he adequately compensated if he were to receive a salary lower than that of the Chief Justice without adequate compensation. For that reason, it has been agreed that he should get his allowance.

Can I say a few words about this matter, Mr Speaker, Sir? Since no notice was given of this item. I have not come here prepared with the brief on the constitutional position of this item of expenditure. But may I tell the Member for Farrer Park about the practical considerations which have led us to give him this allowance personal to himself? I agree with the Member for Farrer Park that it is not a good practice, but nevertheless there are precedents of allowances personal to the holder, and these are carried out only in exceptional circumstances. There is every reason to consider his appointment and his allowances as exceptional. He is a man of tremendous breadth and depth of intellect, a man whose ability at legal draftsmanship is unsurpassed in this country. Further. I should like to inform the House that he has been invited by the United Nations to serve in a very high office in that institution, the salary for which would be considerably more than what we are now paying him. And in fairness to him and in acknowledgment of his great abilities, Government has agreed to grant him this allowance. If judgment is made on practical considerations as against the constitutional legalistic aspect, I do not think anyone will grudge the incumbent this additional allowance. 7.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not grudging the incumbent his allowance. In fact, I feel very sorry for having to raise this, but I feel it my duty to do so. Mr Speaker, you will remember that on previous occasions when it was suggested that the State Advocate-General should be the Permanent Secretary to a Minister, I objected to it. I objected in the most categorical terms, I told the House that it was not right for the State Advocate-General to be the head of a department in respect of which he might be called upon to give advice against some other department, and that would place him, the State Advocate-General, in an invidious position if he were made the Permanent Secretary to a Minister. Because as Permanent Secretary to the Minister, he is a servant to the Minister, but as State Advocate-General he is outside the control of the Minister and in a position to say yes or no to him. And because of the two capacities in which he has to function, I have advocated that those two functions should not he conferred on the State Advocate-General and he should remain State Advocate-General, pure and simple, and nothing else, Mr Speaker, Sir, I sympathise entirely with the plight of the Government. If I were the Government, it could be that I might try to do something about it. But the way in which it is being done is absolutely wrong. To put it under the heading "Special Allowance personal to present holder of post of State Advocate-General - $6,000" straightaway, puts it in opposition to the post of Chief Justice and invidious comparisons are made between the two. Under our Constitution, the Chief Justice enjoys a very much higher status than the State Advocate-General, as it must inevitably be so. Now, if the services of the State Advocate-General in the special circumstances in which the Government now finds itself are absolutely invaluable to them at the moment, then I would suggest to the Government that this is not the way to do it. There are several other ways of doing it, and it is not for me to suggest them. My business this evening is to tell the Government that this is absolutely the wrong way to do it - to give a special allowance personal to the present holder of the post of State Advocate-General is wrong. Could I ask the Minister whether this is a pensionable allowance?

It is not.

It is not. So if it were a pensionable allowance, it would he even worse. Mr Speaker, Sir. But the position is: there it is. It makes him the most highly paid legal officer in the State, and that is why I object to it.

On the legalistic point, if the matter is to he referred for legal opinion, may I also suggest that the matter of salaries of Judges he investigated because there is a similar section in the Order in Council which says - I will read the section 92 (2): `The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as may from time to time be prescribed by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore, or, if not so prescribed, determined by the Assembly...'.

At the present moment, this matter is under review.

The Minister for Law has got two more minutes if he wishes to speak.

We will take those constitutional points and see how best we can regularise the whole thing.

Does the Member wish for a vote?

No. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.35 p.m.

I am afraid time has expired. The time allotted for Head 32 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Mr Ng Teng Kian and Mr S. T. Bani, were not proceeded with: Mr Ng Teng Kian: That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (38) of subhead 1. That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (47) of subhead 1. Mr S. T. Bani: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $100. The sum of $803,170 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 33 - The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Ong Chang Sam and Mr S. T. Bani --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Mr Ong Chang Sam? He is not here. Mr Bani? He is not here. Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect at item (3) of subhead 1. Sir, here again, this is a vote for Political Secretary. I remember on previous occasions the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Finance had been under fire, and every time we raised objection to his appointment and even doubts as to the advisability of retaining the services of a man who is known to be associated with the Communists and in a position where he could he described as a sort of Political Commissar over-looking the work of the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Finance was very prompt in jumping up to his feet and defending his Political Secretary. He even went to the extent of paying tribute to him for having done good work for him in his Ministry. He said that the person concerned knew his job and had been of value to him and that he was also a man of many capabilities. The Minister for Finance liked his Political Secretary so much that the Government had decided that it would be better to put him in gaol to practise or to learn some more about the art of presenting the Government's case to the public and bringing the public closer and closer to the People's Government.

Sir, the exact words which I used to describe my former Political Secretary are that he was a very bright young man, and indeed he was, I cannot say how sorry I am now that he has met ---

Why did you lock him up?

Order.

Yes, I just want to express sorrow that such a bright young chap should have come to grief in so ignominous a manner, All this goes to prove that I must be most careful in selecting the next candidate for this post.

Sir, does the Minister for Finance still consider that he should have this post ready as a bait for another Communist?

Sir, I have already conceded to the Opposition that I must make my choice with far greater circumspection than was the case previously.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (67) of subhead 1. Item (67) is in respect of personal emoluments for eight General Clerical Officers. Eight General Clerical Officers last year drew a total emolument of $22,410, whereas for 1963 it is going to be $30,650. It means an increase of more than $8,000. Does it mean that each clerical officer gets an annual increment of $1,000?

Sir, the increase is only partly due to the abnormal annual increments of salaries of the clerical staff. The main reason is the transfer of more senior clerks drawing higher salaries to this particular section.

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

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (79) of subhead 1. Item (79) deals with Variable Allowance in respect of officers who are working in the Budget section of the Ministry of Finance.

That is right.

The Minister says, "That is right." Going through the personal emoluments side under Budget, there is no change in the number of posts between 1962 and 1963. But for total personal emoluments for the officers in this Budget section, an increase of $5,330 is shown. So there is a normal increase in the personal emoluments of these officers. Yet for variable allowances there is a decrease of $2,550. How does that come about - an increase in personal emoluments means a decrease in variable allowances, particularly when you deal with Divisions II and III officers?

Is the Member's arithmetic correct?

Yes. Under item (79) there is a reduction of $2,550.

The increase mentioned by the Member for Cairnhill is an increase in the total emoluments ---

Of all officers.

In the Budget section?

Yes.

But, as I have said, is the Member satisfied with his arithmetic as to whether it is correct?

Yes. If I could help the Minister, Sir: the whole total for 1963 is $317,950 and for 1962 is $312,620 - a difference of $5,330.

Under the Budget section?

Yes.

Sir, I am sure the arithmetic of the Member for Cairnhill is quite wrong. Let us go through item by item. Item (70) , there is no change. Item (71) , there is no change. Item (72) , there is no change. Item (73) , there is no change. Item (74) , there is no change. Item (75) , there is a change - there is a reduction of nearly $5,000. There is a reduction in item (76). There is a reduction in item (77), and a small increase in item (78). Therefore, I think there is a decrease and not an increase. So the Member's arithmetic is slightly off the mark. Actually there were changes in the holders of the posts in respect of three Executive Officers, one temporary stenographer and one general clerical officer. That is the reason why - [Interruption]. The stenographer is probably an unmarried young lady and therefore draws a smaller variable allowance.

I found where my mistake occurs. It is because I took all the items under "Establishment and Financial, Administration Division". May I withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (116) of subhead 1. Item (116) of subhead 1 is in respect of personal emoluments for 34 General Clerical Officers (Supernumerary). Thirty-four for last year and 34 for this year. For last year, the total emoluments came to $81,600, but for this year, it is down by half. Does it mean that there is a total change of all the 34, or is it due to pay cuts? Or were all the 34 Clerical Officers (Supernumerary) removed and new Supernumerary Clerical Officers engaged on a lower timescale?

Sir, this vote is intended to pay newly recruited General Clerical Officers who have to undergo a period of training of about six weeks immediately after recruitment before posting to various Ministries. This training includes attending lectures at the Staff Training School, followed by attachments in various departments for practical training. Therefore, this vote is only used to pay the salaries and allowances of newly engaged General Clerical Officers and this provision really works out to about eight months' salary. We found that the provision for 1962 was rather too high; we accordingly reduced it for this year.

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

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (127) of subhead 1. Sir, the post of Director of Training (and Head of Political Study Centre) seems to be very like that of the Political Secretary. I just wonder whether after four years this post is now necessary, because if the Political Secretaries who may be regarded as super graduates have most of them been found to be disloyal and so dangerous that they must be sent somewhere else, maybe there is no necessity for having this training school, In any case, after four years, whatever work that the school was intended to do must have been done already. Unless, Sir, the Finance Minister feels that there are still many more in the Government service who must undergo training through this school. I do hope that they will be more successful than in the case of those who have had political training to be Political Secretaries under them.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin is labouring under a grave misapprehension as to the duties of the holder of this post. He is not a Political Secretary. The fact that the word "Political" occurs in both posts does not mean that there is any similarity in the duties of these two posts. Every year, I have had to explain what work the Political Study Centre does and what the objectives the Government hopes to achieve by the work done there. I do not think I want to repeat the arguments advanced in 1961 when this subject was debated at some length. But obviously the Member for Tanglin is in some doubt as to the value of this training. There are two ways whereby I can convince him that this is valuable work. The first is by arguments and I would like to impress upon him that in the last 18 months, the reputation of this Political Study Centre has spread beyond the shores of Singapore and that the Governments of Sarawak, North Borneo and the Federation of Malaya have called upon the staff of this centre to run courses for their own officers in their respective territories. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when we started this innovation. Members opposite, particularly those in the S.P.A., were highly suspicious of it. They thought that this was an attempt to indoctrinate the civil service with P.A.P. ideology. Now, I am sure they will agree that if that, in fact, had been the purpose and that had been what is being done in the centre, it is highly unlikely that the Governments of Sarawak, North Borneo, and the Federation would have asked for the services of the officers of this training centre. The second way in which I can convince the Member for Tanglin that the duties of this post are completely unrelated and dissimilar to those of Political Secretary, is perhaps to invite him to attend a course. I am sure the Director will agree to make special provision and extend an invitation to the Member for Tanglin. I am also equally convinced that it will do the Member for Tanglin a lot of good. I am sure he will emerge from the Centre a much wiser man, more politically sophisticated and convinced that the work done there is impartial, non-party and of tremendous value to sustaining the democratic system against the onslaught of its enemies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, judging by the fact that what we have foretold has proved to be correct, as in the case of the resignation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, I do not think that I require any more brain-washing from their side. Sir, what we would like is this: if the Minister could make available to us the subjects that are being taught and the lectures given, some of us will be only too glad to have a look at them because there have been criticisms made by those who attended them, and I do not want to voice them here, which indicate that now and again in between the lines - now this is where the danger lies - there have been deplorable references to personalities in other Parties and in one case my own name has been mentioned. [Laughter] I am sorry, I have to say it now. Well, of course, the printed matter will not say anything. But I do not think it is fair for a thing like this, with mention of political personalities of other Parties - the Member for Cairnhill's name has been mentioned disparagingly, and I think we on this side of the House strongly object to that unfair indoctrination.

Mr Speaker, why does the Member for Tanglin still maintain that this is ideological indoctrination? Surely the Government of the Federation of Malaya will be the last government to expose its officers to indoctrination by our Government. He has made a request for the supply of materials. I will be only too delighted to let him have all the material, both printed and in tape recordings. [Interruption] No, no. A lot of the material is tape recorded and I am sure the Member for Tanglin will derive immense benefits from listening to it. He says that disparaging remarks were made in the course of instruction at the Political Study Centre about personalities on the Singapore political stage. But, Sir, he did not say whether these disparaging remarks were made by the instructors and tutors of the Centre, or whether they were made by the participants ---

By the instructors.

He never said so, Mr Speaker, Sir. A lot of instruction work carried out in the Centre is not so much by way of lectures from staff to the audience, but by participation in debates of the audience itself. It is possible that members of the audience might have strong views, perhaps not very complimentary - but I can hardly help it - of political personalities. If, on the other hand, he says that the staff have been taking a biased or unfair political line in personalities, well, if he will let me have details of these allegations, I will certainly inquire into them. As I have said, the Centre is to give students who go there a broad background, the historical development of the revolution in Asia ---

What revolution?

Historical revolution. Nationalist Revolution ---

Just like the P.A.P.?

--- and to distinguish ---

Chiang Kai-shek?

Yes, we not only discuss Chiang Kai-shek; we discuss Mao Tse-tung: we discuss the intelligent Communists who march on to victory and the unintelligent Communists who march on to disaster. Dr Thio Chan Bee rose ---

For elucidation, Dr Thio?

Yes. Sir, I have been asked whether those disparaging remarks were made by the students or by the instructors. I say here. Sir, they were made by the instructors, who were answering or who were discussing some points raised with the students. But I believe that I am sure the Minister himself would not want that sort of thing to go on, because if we are to be in power, we will not allow unfairness like that to be done to Opposition Members.

I am relieved to receive that assurance, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I have said, I completely agree with the Member for Tanglin that it is improper for the civil service to make political judgment before other members of the civil service on personalities on the political stage. If the Member will give me details, as I have said, I shall certainly look into the matter.

Mr Speaker, I am just seeking information. Will the Minister for Finance inform this House who is the man in this post?

It is none other than the good old friend of the Member for Havelock, Mr G. G. Thomson.

Sir, I remember how in 1961, we said that it was disastrous to have Mr G.G. Thomson as the Director of the Political Study Centre. I do not want to repeat what I said. I can only say that it is all in the Hansard, and Members of the House can always refer to it. Sir, we know the questionable character of Mr G. G. Thomson and if there is to be any person appointed to give political education as such to our civil service, then I say that G. G. Thomson should definitely not be the person. 7.59 p.m.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to touch on one or two other points relevant to this. First of all, I would like to say this. There is a background to the setting up of this Political Study Centre. Soon after the 1959 elections, when the P.A.P. came into officer' many Ministers, who did not really understand how and why they were put into office, exhibited the pride of being elected by the people, and they went on, to despise the English-educated, especially the English-educated civil servants who, the P.A.P. knew, largely voted against them. 8.00 p.m. I believe that one of the main reasons why the Political Study Centre was set up was to try and make the civil servants understand the aspirations of the masses, so that, in their day-to-day duties, they would understand the problems of our people in the proper perspective and be able to deaf with them more effectively. Sir, to the extent that a course in the Political Study Centre will not alienate our civil servants from the masses and the aspirations of the masses, we welcome the setting up of the Political Study Centre. It is because of this that people like Woodhull and James Puthucheary undertook to give lectures. But in practice, as the P.A.P. has done with various other State institutions, the Political Study Centre, far from fulfilling the purpose for which it was originally set up, became an institution for making P.A.P. propaganda, for trying to make the civil servants owe allegiance to the P.A.P. as such. And the Member for Tanglin is quite correct in what he has said. In the course of lectures, personalities of other political Parties, political opponents of the P.A.P., have been degraded, and there have been deliberate attempts to try and orientate the civil servants to think like the P.A.P. Ministers. Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers, who, I said, soon after the elections, did not understand the feelings of the English-educated, are today no better off than they were before. It will be remembered how they stood up to spite the English-educated. Today they think that by continuing the Political Study Centre they stand to gain, because they believe that they can get the English-educated - I am referring to the English-educated, because the majority of the people in the civil service are English-educated - to be the supporters of the P.A.P. for the P.A.P. cause, as against what they call the Communist cause. I like to tell them this. I really have great sympathy for people like the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Culture ---

I feel sorry for you now.

I am grateful, you know. Feel sorry by all means. When they used to flex their muscles to the English-educated and told them that they must go on their bended knees and beg and be happy and grateful that they were alive, they did not understand the English-educated. We were much more realistic. We knew that it was a matter of fact that the majority of the English-educated, the majority of the civil servants, were alienated from the mass of the people, and that, therefore, they were not able to understand the feelings, the thinking and aspirations of the masses. Far from trying to understand their problems objectively and providing a proper orientation, the Political Study Centre was turned into an institution for instilling civil servants with so-called P.A.P. ideology, though I do not think the P.A.P. has any ideology anyway. And it is sad, in spite of all the money spent out of public funds, the Political Study Centre today is no better than it was before. And this is because it is being put to misuse.

First of all, Sir, I would like to ask the Member for Thomson whether he has been anywhere near the precincts of the Political Study Centre. [Interruption] When?

Order.

I have never seen him, Sir. I am a regular goer to the Political Study Centre, and I have never seen him anywhere around there. [Interruption] The only time he might have come was when Mr James Puthucheary and Mr Woodhull occasionally left their trade union affairs to come and help us out in the construction of the courses for the Political Study Centre. In fact, Sir, the course itself is more or less what was agreed upon by Mr George Thomson, Mr Woodhull, Mr Devan Nair, Mr James Puthucheary, the Minister for Finance, myself and a few others. The course is still the same; the outline is the same. One of the things about the Member for Thomson is that when he talks about the English-educated being alienated from the masses, what he means is that the people are being alienated from the Communists. And when he talks of people, masses, he equates them to the Communists, the M.C.P., we begin to understand the drift of his conversations and his speeches. If he wants any proof that the Political Study Centre is a success, the first is the fact that there are Right-wing Governments who are equally suspicious of the Political Study Centre. The colonial governments in the Borneo territories are equally suspicious of the Political Study Centre. Civil servants were initially suspicious of the Political Study Centre. What happened was a number of civil servants came anxiously, nervously - they sent one or two - to the Political Study Centre. Having gone there, they told us quite openly, "We were quite afraid. When we came here, we thought that there was going to be P.A.P. propaganda, socialist propaganda and Communist propaganda." They said that the two weeks' course was so revealing that they were going back to their respective governments to recommend that other civil servants be sent here. This group of officers came here at about the time when our friends decided they did not want merger, when they felt that Singapore should merge with Indonesia. At about that time, when there was trouble brewing in the Borneo territories, the officers who were sent said, "It is necessary, since our officers sooner or later are going to be troubled by the same elements that have been troubling Singapore. It is a good thing to send more officers, especially civil servants in the Borneo territories who are more or less like District Officers a single officer has control over large tracts of territory; he is more or less a law unto himself - and it is necessary that these officers should get a political grasp of what is going on - not P.A.P. propaganda, as the Member for Thomson said - the essentials of democracy, the enemies of democracy, how the Communists function, how they subvert, how they operate." Even the Federation Government also sent down officers. In view of this the Political Study Centre is serving a useful function, and to the civil servants themselves. Initially, they were reluctant to come. Not only are the civil servants now requesting for refresher courses, but for the information of the Member for Thomson, who runs the Business Houses Employees' Union, he will be interested to know that a number of business firms have already started sending officers and staff to attend the Political Study Centre. The heat with which the Member for Thomson has been slanging away at the Political Study Centre is therefore understandable, because just as he has not been able to capture a number of unions which are trying to get into the civil service and to manipulate people, I can tell him that very soon he will find it a little more difficult to mislead the workers in commercial firms, especially the English-educated. But what he is up to and what his friends are up to - [Interruption]. I can see a great deal of anxiety being generated, but in course of time all firms ---

What firms?

Order.

--- will be included in this course and maybe some private practitioners will also find members of their staff coming to these courses. Anyway, Sir, it has proved itself. This Political Study Centre is something independent of P.A.P. ideology or indoctrination and it has become a crucial and an effective weapon against the enemies of democracy.

You do not believe all this, do you?

A lot of revealing things have come out. We never knew that it is a Britisher still heading the Centre. An hon. Member: Recommended by James Puthucheary and Woodhull.

Order.

These are the people who are supposed to have been ousted. But the P.A.P. has found it very convenient to retain them. Why? To help the P.A.P. to subvert? No, they cannot. But they hope to buy the civil service over. Now, they are telling us that even business firms are making use of this Political Study Centre. I ask what business firms?

You are not going to intimidate them, are you?

These are the business firms that represent vested interests, not the local people's interests. That is why I ask the question and they dare not answer. So this Political Study Centre actually represents only the vested interests. The whole idea of the P.A.P. is to perpetuate colonialism in this part of the world, as can so very easily be seen in their support of the present Malaysia Plan.

Sir, in the Japanese town of Nara, you will find three famous brass statues of three monkeys.

Order. I think Nara and monkeys have got nothing to do with the Training Division. The Minister for Finance is inviting a debate on them. Let us come to the Training Division.

Mr Mammen, Sir, if you will only bear with me I will take no more than two minutes to show the direct relation between the town of Nara and the Member for Queenstown. I am making a direct reply to the Member for Queenstown. Now, these three brass monkeys are world famous, one monkey has both hands over his eyes, the other monkey has his ears stuffed by his hands and the third monkey has his mouth covered by his hands. An hon. Member: How can he hear? 8.15 p.m.

Order.

The Member for Queenstown is incapable of seeing truths. To that extent, he represents the first monkey.

Order. The Minister is very much out of order. I will not allow such remarks to be made in this Assembly.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I am not saying ---

No. I have made my ruling and the Minister cannot pursue that line.

Now to reply to the very foolish and extravagant remarks of the Member for Queenstown. He alleges that the whole purpose of the Political Study Centre is to perpetuate colonialism and that the whole basic policy of the P.A.P. is to continue the perpetuation of colonialism. Sir, for a man of his age, training and profession, to come to this utterly foolish and idiotic conclusion ---

On a point of order, Sir,Is he referring to me as idiotic? I would say he is a foolish fellow.

It is not a point of order.

Sir, the conclusion he came to is manifestly idiotic and if that reflects on his personal character, well, I am not pursuing it.

If the Minister is reflecting on his personal character, he should withdraw that.

Oh, I am not, I am not at all.

All right. Let us proceed.

I am saying his conclusion is completely idiotic. In fact, most of his statements are completely idiotic. [Interruption] All we have got from the Member for Queenstown is an unending stream of drivel. Why he ever sees fit to inflict this drivel upon this House and bring democracy into contempt, I cannot understand. Now, the Member for Thomson alleges that the whole purpose of the Political Study Centre is to convert the civil servants to a pro-P.A.P. attitude - in his words, to get them to owe allegiance to the Party. Sir, if this were the case, can he please explain how is it that the governments of other territories, including the Right-wing Government in the Federation, have requested the services of the ---

They are all colonial Governments.

Order. May I remind the Member for Queenstown that we are in the Committee of Supply? If the Member wants to elucidate or get any information from the Government side, he is at liberty to speak. Dr Goh.

May I explain that for the best part of three months this year, the staff of the Political Study Centre were sent to the Borneo territories and the Federation to carry out on-the-spot courses so that the maximum number of officers in these two territories could get the benefit from this training. Now, is the Member for Thomson seriously suggesting that the Federation Government-which is led by the Alliance Party, part of which is not on very good terms with the P.A.P. in Singapore-wants to see its civil service subverted by the Political Study Centre to owe allegiance to the P.A.P.? This is the irresistible conclusion and it is so foolish that I am surprised a man of his age could make such a statement in this House.

(In Mandarin): The Political Training Centre up to this present moment has been established for a period of four years. The P.A.P. Government, especially our Minister for Finance, hopes that in the course of the four years' training, it will be able to change the attitude of the civil servants towards the P.A.P. The Party hopes that the civil servants will understand the situation of the P.A.P., and particularly the position of the P.A.P. in the general election to come and the change of policies of the P.A.P. during these two years. I must give this advice to the Minister for Finance, that no matter how the P.A.P. Government tries to make use of the so-called political training to make the civil servants change their attitude towards the P.A.P., it is impossible for them to achieve this aim. It is merely a waste of time and a waste of effort. I will explain to you further on this point. I came across some civil servants and casually we talked about these things. Generally speaking, the civil servants will never, never forget and forgive the P.A.P. for the unilateral and arbitrary action in reducing their allowances.

Order. I wish to remind the hon. Member that the time allotted for the Ministry of Finance is ending at 9.40 p.m. If the Member is going too long on the pay cut of the civil servants, the Opposition Members will be losing their chances to speak on other items.

(In Mandarin): In the meantime, the civil servants will never, never forget; neither will they ever forgive the P.A.P. Ministers for their arrogance and for their sneer at them in 1959. So, although the P.A.P. Government, especially our Minister for Finance, who is quite clever and intelligent and who is quite good in buying over talented civil servants and get them into his own Ministry, no matter how hard they try, the civil servants will never, never forget and forgive the P.A.P. for their pay cut and their arrogance. The other point ---

Order. If the Member wants to discuss this subject in detail, I think the most opportune time is when we come to amendment (l6)*. We can dispose of this and have a whole debate on the Ministry of Finance, including the Finance Minister. This is the Political Study Centre. Mr Low Por Tuck. * Amendment (16), standing in the names of Mr Low Por Tuck, Mr S. T. Bani, Mr Ong Eng Guan and Dr Thio Chan Bee, reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $100.

(In Mandarin): I have another point to make before I conclude. The Minister for Finance has said just now that the Federation Government and the Governments of the Borneo territories quite appreciate the work done by the Political Training Centre, but I doubt it very much since the P.A.P. is providing all the staff for the training of civil servants in the various other territories. I am quite suspicious of their motives. Because on the advent of Malaysia, the civil servants of the other territories will have got the influence of the P.A.P. No matter how hard they try, I will tell this House, although the civil servants of the other territories have not been given a dose of the arrogance of the P.A.P., they will nevertheless have some influence from the local civil servants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have noticed in the last few days that a new strategy is being pursued by the Barisan Sosialis; for example, they have suddenly come to criticising the pay cut. I have had occasion a few days ago to look at the speeches made by some of the Members opposite and, I think, including that of the Member for Havelock on the pay cut. We have never regretted at that time having made the pay cut and still regretting it. There is justification, but today the Barisan Sosialis, with complete cynicism, are using this purely as part of their strategy to bring down everything with them; upset the civil servants, the bourgeoisie. Yesterday they were in defence of bus owners employers.

Order. So far the Minister has made his point in reply to the Member for Havelock on the pay cut and the civil servants.

Sir, the other point is that we are not interested in running this Political Training Centre to get civil servants' votes for the P.A.P. If we want to do that, there are other ways of doing it. I have already indicated that this is a course whereby we have tried to ensure that the civil service performs its basic function of translating effectively the cause of democracy to the people. One of the main things of the Communists is always to destroy the State structure, to bring the police and its bureaucracy into disrepute. Therefore, this Political Training Centre was instituted not to give P.A.P. propaganda but to ensure that the bureaucracy, the civil service, can use their machinery effectively, as they are entitled to do, not as politicians but as civil servants to safeguard the democratic system against the encroachment, the inundation of the anti-democratic forces. That is the main reason why the Federation Government, knowing full well that though it is a Political Study Centre from Singapore of the P.A.P. Government, knowing that it is neutral as far as party politics are concerned, has requested the services of our training officers as well as sending their officers to the Political Study Centre. I notice the Member for Have-lock is now trying to play a little game, and says that he is trying to warn the Federation Government that the P.A.P. is going to subvert their civil servants and therefore please do not send them. Sir, they know that most civil servants who are trained at the Political Training Centre can carry on the battle for democracy in the Federation, in Borneo, in Sarawak and we hope in other places as well.

Any more Members who wish to speak? It is time then for suspension. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this sitting until half-past nine. Order, order. 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 sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (127) of subhead 1."

Head 33 (cont.) - Question again proposed.

No other Member wishing to speak? Does the Member for Tanglin wish for a vote?

No, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Ong Chang Sam, Tun Lim Yew Hock and Dr Thio Chan Bee --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (128) of subhead 1.

Mr Ong Chang Sam and Tun Lim Yew Hock are not here. Dr Thio?

I am not moving.

Amendment (8) - Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4. Mr Speaker, Sir, subsidy to Housing and Development Board $6,028,000, and the note against it reads "For period 1.1.62-31.12.63." Now, that I take it is the exact amount of the subsidy which the Government is giving to the Board in respect of reduced rates of interest on which loans are made to the Housing Board. If I am correct in that assumption, could the Minister please tell the House the exact amount of money which has been lent to the Housing Board on which this subsidy has been calculated?

Sir, in my Budget speech, I said that the details and calculations for this item have yet to be agreed between my Ministry and the Housing Board. This figure in fact represents what the Ministry of Finance believes should be a fair quantum of subsidy to the Housing Board. When final agreement is reached, it is possible that there may be some variation to this figure. The subsidy covers not only the difference between the rate of interest of the market terms and that of the subsidised terms, but also other items. One important item is the property tax which in 1962 the Government levied on vacant properties of the Board. We felt that since the Board was performing a social service to the public - the Board is in fact an agency of the Government in respect of public housing - therefore it appears to deserve some special treatment by way of tax on vacant properties. There is also an item representing the loss incurred by the Board in respect of certain houses that were let out in previous years at sub-economic rents, even after allowing for lower rates of interest then charged to the Board. The Member for Farrer Park asked for the amount of loans that this subsidy would cover. I have not got the full details with me, but if he will be satisfied with a fairly close approximation, I will say that the volume of loans that will be covered by this subsidy will be somewhere around $115 million plus or minus $10 million - I would say of that order of magnitude.

I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock ---

The Member for Cairnhill is not here. Amendment (10)*, standing in the name of the Member for Cairnhill. I have a written authority here under Standing Order 35 (2) authorising the Member for Tanglin to move his amendment. Dr Thio.

I am not moving. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving amendments (11) , (12) and (13) .

Amendment (14) , then.

Yes. I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 40. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have taken an unusual course of asking for the total elimination of that vote, because it seems to me that the contribution under section 23 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance would not be possible, as that Ordinance has already been repealed and there is no such thing as section 23 existing at the moment. Now, in the first instance, I do not know who is going to be the beneficiary of this contribution, but if there is going to be a beneficiary, I would suggest that if the Government intends the beneficiary to be the Housing Board, then I think the trust is in favour of the wrong beneficiary, because the contribution under section 23 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance was a sum equal to the Improvement Rate which the City Council used to levy on behalf of the Improvement Trust, and to the extent of the money realised on the Improvement Rate the Government contributed. Now, there was a statutory provision as to how this Improvement Rate could be used. It could only be used for town improvement, like backlanes and slum clearance. So that it would appear that the proper beneficiary - if the Government intends to be generous about this thing - is not the Housing Board but the Planning Authority. But the Planning Authority, at the moment, do not seem to have any statutory functions in the way of putting through backlanes or the clearing of slums. So I would suggest that, as the vote is worded, it seems to be ultra vires and a matter on which the Government cannot act.

Sir, the Member for Farrer Park, I think, would be quite correct if, in fact, these payments were to be made in respect of the position after the establishment of the Housing Board. What actually happened was that the Housing Board was established on 1st February, 1960. Before that it was the Singapore Improvement Trust which was the housing authority. Now, it so happened that the Government did not pay the Improvement Trust in respect of contributions for the second half of 1959. Moneys were owed but we did not pay to the Trust in 1960 because there was no Trust. The Trust has ceased to exist.

Order. The next item is in the name of the Member for Fairer Park. If he will forego some of his time, perhaps the Minister can complete his explanation.

Yes, certainly, Sir.

Dr Goh then.

Accordingly after some time the Housing Board made a claim for this fund on the grounds, if I recollect correctly, that they were successors to the improvement Trust and certain moneys were owed to the Trust in respect of claims or liabilities that existed in the second half of 1959. The matter was debated at some time and it was referred to the Director of Audit as well as the State Advocate-General and it was agreed that a payment should be made to the Housing Board for this amount. After that, of course, there will be no further payment due to the Housing Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not pursue the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 9.40 p.m.

Time has expired. The time allotted for Head 33 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Mr Low Por Tuck,, Mr S. T. Bani, Mr Ong Eng Guan and Dr Thio Chan Bee, were not proceeded with: Mr A. P. Rajah: That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 42. Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr S. T. Bani: Mr Ong Eng Guan: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $100. The sum of $45,044,140 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 35 -

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 35 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 31. Subhead 31, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore Allowances. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should know this but i do not quite understand what "Singapore Allowances" mean. It is merely a question of wanting to find some information. What are "Singapore Allowances"?

Sir, Singapore Allowances are allowances payable to pensioners. The amount of pension is, of course, determined by the formula worked out in the Pensions Ordinance and carries no cost of living element in it. It was decided in 1950 that the amount as calculated was unduly low and, accordingly, the cost of living allowances paid to pensioners were approved. Roughly, the rates are: on the first $50 of pension 10 per cent, second $50 four per cent, and so on and so forth. These allowances are payable only to pensioners whose total pension and Singapore Allowance do not exceed $257 in case of pensioners without dependants and $331 in case of pensioners with dependants.

During the debate on the Budget speech I asked the Minister whether he would be good enough to look into the complaint that payment of pensions through post offices has meant a delay in payment to the pensioners concerned and whether he would take steps to see that payment of such pensions is made on the same day as that when they were paid at the Accountant-General's Office.

This is on Singapore Allowances. Does that arise on Singapore Allowances? 9.45 p.m.

This is also allowance.

Does it arise on Singapore Allowances? I do not know.

It could be related.

Yes.

I will certainly look into the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir,I have not had time in the last few days to go into it. But I am not sure whether it is possible to speed up the payment because when it is paid through post offices there are certain procedures to he followed. But if it is at all possible to speed it up, I will make every attempt to do so.

May I withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,876,790 for Head 35 Ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 36 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7. Sir, this is a vote for a contribution to the Red Cross Home for Handicapped Children. It shows a reduction of nearly $8,000 as against the contribution for last year. Sir, the Red Cross Home for Handicapped Children is doing a very worthy service to the handicapped children of Singapore. Could I ask the Minister to reconsider this cut and give the same amount of contribution as that for last year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rate of contribution is half of the actual expenditure incurred for the running of the Home. In fact, the actual expenditure for 1959 was $50,199. In 1960, it was $47,285. So there was not a very significant drop. But in 1961 the expenditure dropped to $35,000. Now the grants have to be estimated on the actual expenditure of the institution in the year preceding that in which the estimates are prepared. That is why in approving the grant for 1960 the actual expenditure of the institution for 1959 must be looked at. And it is because of' this reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in 1961 and 1962 we gave them the same grant of $25,260. But when there was a significant drop in expenditure in 1961 we gave them half of it, $17,530, which is half of the actual expenditure of $35,000 in 1961.

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

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. Subhead 8, Singapore Academy of Medicine, is a new item which appears under this head. Could the Minister tell us what the Singapore Academy of Medicine is and what its objectives are?

Mr Speaker, the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, was formed in 1957. Membership is by invitation and its members are specialists from all branches of medicine. The membership is now about 80. Its objects are to foster medical and scientific interests and to uphold the high professional and ethical standards in all fields of medicine. Its activities include scientific meetings, post-graduate education by arranging a series of lectures and demonstrations, public lectures on medical philosophical topics. In fact, this association proposed holding a conference sometime in April - I think it was - in 1962. Note, Mr Speaker, the date. This association was sponsored by an international conference scheduled to take place sometime in 1962, but in point of fact, they did not get the participation of the invited countries. So this conference never, in fact, took place. They thought that the expenditure on the conference would be $8,000 and they asked the Government to meet half of that expenditure. That was agreed to. Later, failing to convene this international conference, they had a local conference. They sponsored a local conference in Singapore, and they asked that this contribution be used for the purposes of that local meeting. That was not allowed because it would have created a precedent. If we had allowed that money to be used for a local meeting of doctors sponsored by that association, other organisations would have made similar requests to the Government. So that, in fact, that conference never took place and this sum can be deleted.

It will not be used. It cannot be deleted now. Perhaps the Minister can say it will not be used.

It will not be used.

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

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 16. The Minister did make some reference to the Labour Research Unit in his Budget statement to the House. I was wondering whether the Minister would elaborate on the purpose of instituting the Labour Research Unit, what it is intended to do and whether it will help in private industry and what its objectives are?

The Labour Research Unit is intended to assist trade unions in the formulation and preparation of claims. It is also to assist them, where necessary, in the preparation of research material for them to carry out their negotiations, and if negotiations culminate in arbitration, to prepare the cases for the union in the Arbitration Court. The sum entered here is largely to pay for the staff of the Labour Research Unit. Apart from clerical and typing staff, this consists mainly of trade union leaders seconded from private employment into the service of this Labour Unit.

I believe this unit is now housed either in the National Museum or somewhere near the National Museum. Is it the intention of the Minister that, when Trade Union House has been built and equipped, this Research Unit will move into Trade Union House and become part and parcel of that establishment?

Yes, that will be so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Labour Research Unit is nothing but a P.A.P. outfit. Sir, if Members across the Floor will have some honesty, then the least they can do is to admit it, because there are facts to prove what I say: $299,810 of public money spent on a few civil servants, administrative staff, and more on what the Minister for Finance calls trade union leaders seconded from private employment. Sir, the Minister can list these names. They are all officials of P.A.P. trade unions - Mahmud Awang, etc. I ask the Minister to publish their names and to publish the amount of allowances and salaries given to them. As usual, the P.A.P. always provide a cover. They must have a cover. They could not put here as $299,000 to be spent on P.A.P. Research Unit or P.A.P. Labour Research Unit. Well, it is public money, so they have to put a cover. The cover is, they say, to assist the trade unions in preparing cases, assist them in negotiations and to set up research facilities also to assist the unions. Sir, I wish to make it very clear that I do not oppose such lofty aims of the Government - if they want to genuinely assist the trade unions in setting up a research bureau to assist the trade unions in preparing cases, etc., we have no objection. We would say, "All right, why $299,000? Perhaps more." But that is not the aim. The aim is to assist one group of trade unions, and all for the purpose of furthering P.A.P. interests in the trade union field. Soon after the February arrests in which many union leaders who were opposed to P.A.P. control of unions were involved, there was a lack of negotiators for these non-P.A.P. trade unions. One of the functions of these people - the so-called trade union leaders who were seconded from private employment - was to go round and offer their services. They went round telling workers, "Look, you do not have leaders; you do not have anybody to negotiate: we will negotiate for you." That was the first step. The second step would have been if the workers had accepted it - of course, the workers saw through it - make these unions P.A.P. unions - I will name him one person who did this. I do not know what his designation is - United Workers of Petroleum Industry, Aziz. He offered his services and so did many others. If the workers had fallen for this, the next step would have been to get them into their unions or, as the Minister for Culture says, "to capture the union." Sir. I am not objecting to legitimate competition in the trade union field. I am not saying that we are afraid of P.A.P. cadres who are paid out of public funds who may compete with us. What we strongly object, and we take very serious exception to this, is the use of the State funds. We have said it over and over again. It is necessary for us to say it over and over again, we oppose the use of public funds for P.A.P. purposes. 10.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, quite naturally the Member for Thomson is aggrieved. I can well understand his resentment. Mr Speaker. Sir, but first let us have our facts right.

Not with the P.A.P.

The P.A.P. does not own unions and does not control unions. These are independent unions. They have their own Executive Committees and they have their own policies. Take a simple example, Mr Speaker. Sir. The A.U.P.E. is supposed to be a union of the P.A.P. Government. It is an independent body within a democratic system.

You have got your facts wrong.

The second fact he has got wrong is this. He says that Inche Awang is one of the staff of the unions and he challenges me to read out the names of trade union leaders in private employ who have been seconded to this Unit.

Why do you not read out the names?

I will read them out. They are no secrets at all. No. 1 is Mr Aziz Karim from Shell Company, No. 2 is Mr Nah Ah Poh from Rediffusion; No. 3 is Mr Gopalakrishnan of the Straits Times; No. 4 is Mr Chue Shui Hoong of ESSO; No. 5 is Mr Larry Quek Hong Tiak of ESSO; No. 6 is Mr William Swee of the O.C.B.C.: No. 7 is Mr Peter Lim Choo Poo of Prudential; No. 8 is Mr Lim Kim Hean of the Chartered Bank; and No. 9 is Mr Ho See Beng of the Straits Times. Sir, I admit at once that the purpose of' this unit is to strengthen the democratic, nationalist trade union movement, and the Member for Thomson is quite rightly alarmed and resentful over this unit because it has succeeded. Sir, may I just read out the list of defections of branches from the pro-Communist trade unions, such as the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and the Singapore General Employees' Union? First, from the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union - 16 branches of theirs have gone over to the democratic nationalist unions. The American President Lines, Business System, Boustead & Co., Borneo Co., Caidheck Macgregor & Co., Evatts Steamship. Harrisons Lister, Hagemeyer, Japan Air Lines, May & Baker. Overseas Corporation, Scott & English, Sandilands Buttery, Lendrum, Lindeteves-Jacoberg, Maynard & Co. From the Singapore General Employees' Union: Malayan Breweries, Fred Waterhouse, Gleneagles, Thorny-croft, Teck Heng, Lian Hup Transport. Singapore Transport & Storage, Fraser & Neave, Cathay Organisation International Films, Malayan Bitumen, and so on and so forth; 21 branches. Naturally they are annoyed. We hope in future, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Industrial Research Unit will give them cause for even more intense annoyance. That is exactly the purpose of this Unit.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 19.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have also given notice of an amendment to subhead 25+, could I deal with it at the same time because the principle involved is the same? + The amendment, in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah, reads as follows:-

Yes, certainly.

Sir, on the face of the Estimates, there has been a reduction against the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association, from $500,000 last year to $400,000 this year. There is also a reduction of about $32,000 on the Voluntary Institutions for Children. I would like an assurance from the Minister that these apparent reductions are not due to any cut in the allowances but through some system of computation of the allowances.

The Question is, `That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 19." The debate may range over subhead 25.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the vote for subhead 19 has been reduced from $500,000 in 1962 to $400,000 in 1963 because experience over the last four years has shown that the average expenditure is below the figure of $400,000. For example, in 1962 the actual expenditure was only $354,375. The average annual expenditure over the last four years is also in this region. Payment to S.A.T.A. is on the basis of the number of destitute cases treated by them. The scale of rates is as follows: for those receiving public assistance for T.B. treatment allowance from the Social Welfare Department, a sum of $30 per patient per month is paid to S.A.T.A. In addition, for a small number of such cases, who are selected for rehabilitation training at S.A.T.A. workshops, S.A.T.A. is paid an additional $25 per patient per month. Similarly in the case of subhead 25 "grant to Voluntary Institutions for Children", the reduced figure is based on the actual average expenditure over the last four years. The actual expenditure in 1962, for instance, was only $229,534.50, and the average over the last four years is in this region. Grants are made to 11 institutions for children on a per capita basis. The rates are $1.50 per day for statutory cases and 50 cents per day for non-statutory cases. I wish to emphasise that the reduction does not mean any reduction at the receiving end of the grant. In fact, if the amount estimated is insufficient, transfers can always be effected from savings in other votes.

May I withdraw my amendment, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (5) in respect of subhead 25 is not being moved. Amendment (6) .

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 44. Subhead 44 - Amenities Fund for Students in United Kingdom. This appears for the first time as a vote in our Estimates. May I ask the Minister what does this amenities fund intend to do for students in the United Kingdom?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a little history behind this. In the past when the Federation of Malaya and Singapore were not independent - in the case of the Federation, it was not independent then - local students in London were looked after by the Director of Colonial Scholars. The two Governments used to contribute the sum of the equivalent of �2 l0s, per head - be they Government scholars or private students in the U.K. - as disbursements for various amenities. But with changing times and the institution of the Office of Director of Malayan Student Department, it was then decided that each territory would look after its own students. Therefore, as from 1961 the Malayan Students Department of the High Commissioner's Office for the Federation of Malaya in the United Kingdom would he looking after our own students. This particular item is in respect of the general welfare contributions from the various former Commonwealth territories to the United Kingdom Secretary of Technical Co-operation by way of a 10 shilling contribution per student from each territory which could then go to a centralised fund for all welfare organisations in the U.K. for students ---

Order. Time has expired.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,721,750 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 37 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4. Subhead 4 is a vote for Hotel Allowances. While it is pleasing to see that there is now a reduction of $5,000 being asked for 1963, it is my view that it would have been more economical to the Government to house these officers in Government quarters. I would also like the Minister to tell us for how many officers is this vote of $25,000 meant?

Sir, this vote is to meet the needs of overseas officers on their return from leave or on their first arrival in Singapore to stay in hotels pending the time when they can move into quarters. Normally they are not given permission to stay in hotels for periods exceeding three days, but sometimes it does happen that the type of quarters which the officer wants or is entitled to is not immediately available,, and therefore permission is given for them to stay for longer periods. About two years ago, Members will recollect that there were large numbers of vacant quarters. The position was such that we had to rent out quite a number of these vacant quarters to members of the public. But now the position is getting more tight partly because of the expansion in our infantry Regiment. Many of the officers for the Regiment are seconded from the British military forces, and under the terms of secondment they are eligible to stay in hotels for a period of up to 21 days, and of course they do make inroads into the number of quarters available.

May I withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6. 10.15 p.m. Subhead 6, Mr Speaker, Sir, is Recoverable Expenditure under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme - $920,000. Sir, I have put down two notices of amendments under Ministry of Finance, subhead 12 and subhead 13, which I did not move because of lack of time. They seem to be connected items. Perhaps the Minister, in replying to me, could range over the other two items. Could the Minister tell us what this Overseas Service Aid Scheme is intended to do, and how Singapore intends to benefits by such a scheme?

This is an agreement we entered into with the British Government with retrospective effect from the 1st April. 1961. The U.K. Government has a scheme whereby it makes certain payments to what are termed "entitled officers", that is, officers formerly recruited by the Secretary of State in London. That is the main category; there are other categories. In order to encourage the retention of such officers in overseas territories that are emerging to self-governing status, and to prevent the rapid exodus of experienced officers, the British Government has a scheme to give certain benefits both in cash and in kind. The benefits, perhaps I could mention some of them, are: the British Government would pay an inducement allowance which is equal to 10 per cent of the officer's basic pay and expatriation pay. He is also entitled to somewhat more generous passage terms - the U.K. Government pays half of that. There are also certain improvements to pensions and gratuities. The additional cost of this is borne by the British Government. In addition, the children of these officers, if they are educated in England, entitle the officer to certain allowances which are fairly generous. Payment for the local items of cash is made in the first instance by the State Government and recovered from the British Government. In the 1963 Estimates the revenue would appear at page 30 under Class II B.1, (12) (i) and (12) (ii) . This agreement will have a validity of 10 years from 1st April, 1961.

Could the Minister tell us whether there are any such officers in Singapore at the moment serving under that scheme?

Oh, yes, indeed. They are called "Designated Officers". They number something like 56. I think this would include those in the military forces, I should imagine.

May I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,344,800 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 38 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 38 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak tonight on the detection and preventive side of the Customs and Excise Department. To enable the Customs and Excise Department to exercise their functions of detection and prevention, it is important for them to be sufficiently well equipped in order to beat the people who use the most modem speed-boats and the most high-powered vehicles in order to smuggle into and otherwise distribute opium or other contraband goods in Singapore. It seems to me that in order to do this, the Customs should be equipped with really high-powered boats and, on the land, high-powered vehicles. I think it is important that they should be equipped with really first-rate speed boats in order to tackle the smugglers who move cigarettes and opium into Singapore. From time to time we have read cases in the papers where the report sometimes says that the smugglers were able to beat the Customs and to make a complete get-away. I take it that the get-away is only possible if the smugglers' boat is faster than the Customs boat, if the Customs boats were faster and the smugglers got away, then it is a matter for discipline. But I take it that the Minister is satisfied that the get-away was entirely due to lack of speed. I think it is up to the Government to provide them with the speed to enable them to capture these individuals.

I agree with the views of the Member for Farrer Park. In the past there had been competition between the smugglers and the Customs in respect of horse-power of outboard motors attached to smuggling craft on the one hand and the Customs launches on the other. I think the race started with something like a 25 horse-power engine and rapidly accelerated to 75 horse-power. If the Member for Farrer Park will turn to page 253, subhead 20, he will find that there is provision for the purchase of two launches costing $150,000 and eight 75 horse-power outboard engines.

That is 1962.

I have been assured by the Comptroller of Customs that this would be adequate for the time being. But, of course, if their duties are increased with the advent of the common market, then they would probably need more staff as well as more equipment. I am very glad to note that at least from the Opposition side I shall have one staunch supporter if and when Supplementary Estimates have to be passed by this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Minister that in certain matters I am all for speed. In view of the Minister's explanation, may I beg lease to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,070,630 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 41 - The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Ong Chang Sam ---

Mr Ong Chang Sam is not here. The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock ---

Tun Lim Yew Hock, amendment (3).

I am not moving amendment (3), Sir.

Amendment (4).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (77) of subhead 1. The Head deals with variable allowance again.

We are back to arithmetic!

This time I hope my arithmetic will be right. An hon. Member: After dinner, it should be!

After dinner, it should be, Sir, especially as I have had no dinner. The mind would be sharper now! Sir, the variable allowance in this case shows a reduction of $9,180, whereas, if we look at the emolument side under the "Registry of Business Names" the reduction in personal emoluments is just $5,430. The reduction of total personal emolument is only $5,430, whereas the reduction in variable allowance is very much more. Can the Minister please explain this arithmetic?

I think the Member for Cairnhill has this time hit on something. His arithmetic is quite correct. Obviously this rather severe drop in the amount of variable allowances calls for an explanation. The reason is that a substantial number of the posts in the Registry of Business Names are at present vacant and will probably remain vacant for some time until the Ordinance under which this section operates is amended, so that in fact a lot of the sums voted for in this section of the Estimates will not be spent. But that does not really explain the fall, because it was not spent either in 1962. The reason is that in 1962 the method of calculation was not correct. It was incorrect because they estimated variable allowances at the mean of the salary scale, whereas if there are new posts the calculation should be at the minimum or bottom of the salary scale. That method of calculation was made in 1963 and that explains the rather severe fall in the amount of variable allowances.

May I withdraw the amendment, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (78) of subhead 1. Item (78) shows "Increases due to Revision of Salaries of Division IV employees and integrated City Council State." Would the Minister please say what kind of Division IV employees and integrated City Council Staff work in the Registry of Business Names?

Actually there is not one member of the staff of Division IV Integrated City Council Staff working in the Registry of Business Names. Actually this item refers to the whole of The Inland Revenue Department and not merely to the Registry of Business Names. I think the Member for Cairnhill is quite familiar with the reasons for this increase. It is because on integration we had to smooth out various anomalies, and in smoothing out these anomalies, of course, it always works out to the advantage of the employees. I think that is all I need say on the subject. 10.30 p.m.

The reason why I have brought this up is just to show that, despite the fact that the Government has taken more than one year to hatch this Budget, there is a lot of careless budgeting being done. About the previous one, the Minister said there was an over-provision and now he tells us that this is something which should not have been there. Why should it have been there if it should not have been there?

I do not think the Minister said that.

Yes.

I never said there was a mistake. This is an item that refers to the whole of the department and not merely to that section. If the Member will refer to the other Heads, he will find that the last item on personal emoluments almost invariably shows increases due to the revision of salaries. And it so happens that he thought that it refers to the Registry of Business Names whereas in fact it refers to the whole department.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 15. Item (1) of subhead 15 is "Contribution to Central Provident Fund". This shows an increase of a few hundred dollars. What I want to know is what kind of provident fund contribution is there for employees in the Registry of Business Names who are all on the pensionable establishment?

There are, in fact, 20 clerical officers, 8 typists and one office boy who would be required to contribute to the C.P.F. if we enlarge the Business Names Registry when the new Ordinance is passed. So this is really a provision for expansion and, if expansion is not proceeded with, then, of course, this vote will be frozen.

This is another example of not preparing the Budget. It provides for contribution to the Central Provident Fund but it does not provide for personal emoluments. How are you going to get the Heads? There is no provision under the Registry of Business Names at all.

Yes.

No.

When we were discussing item (77) , I did give the reason for the decrease in variable allowance from $22,000 to $13,000 that that refers to new posts which have not been filled, and that when they are filled they will be put at the minimum scale. I mean, the full provision is there.

Contribution to the Central Provident Fund is a statutory contribution, and yet under this Budget it is marked under the Notes section "subject to Treasury sanction". Is the Minister for Finance above the law that it should be subject to his sanction.? Or is this an admission that this was prepared wrongly and hastily in spite of the long delay that the Minister has taken to prepare these Estimates?

Sanction in that if new staff has to be recruited it must be approved in the first instance by the Treasury. It is all right.

The payment.

Does the Member wish for a vote?

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Low Por Tuck, Mrs Seow Peek Leng, and Dr Thio Chan Bee ---

Amendment (7). Mr Low Por Tuck? He is not here. Mrs Seow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $100. Sir, I believe that the Government has a plan to encourage the middle and lower income groups to own houses, and they give special rates - I believe it is 23 per cent, if I am not mistaken - to people occupying their own houses in rural areas. If, on principle, they want to encourage people in the middle and lower income groups to own houses, there are people in these income groups who own houses in the city area and not in the rural areas. It does not mean that just because they do not have much money they have to live in the rural areas: many of them do buy houses in the city area but they do not enjoy that benefit. For the sake of encouraging people to save in order to buy their own houses, especially those in the middle and lower income groups, I am just wondering whether that concession of rates of assessment could be extended to people who own houses in the city area as well.

I am not speaking.

Sir, I do not follow the hon. Member. What concession was she referring to?

Property Tax, and not assessment. I think it is called Property Tax now.

Property tax, yes. People who live in their own houses and do not rent them out are allowed on application to pay 23 per cent instead of 36 or 34 per cent. But this only applies in the rural areas. If it so happens that such houses are in the city area and on the boundary line just opposite the rural area, such house owners do not get the benefit.

My impression is that this benefit for owner-occupied houses in the rural areas was the result of our increasing the rates. There was an exercise in 1961 - rates in the rural areas were increased but we thought that we should exempt owner occupiers from this increase. Now, rates in the city area were not increased, and I do not think there is any reason to extend the concession to owner occupiers in the city area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has a very good memory. Yes, that is the case. It was because of the rise in the rates in the rural areas. But my argument is this: the motive for giving owner-occupied houses special rates is to encourage wage earners to own houses. So if special rates are given to owner-occupied houses on one side of the boundary line between city and rural, why does his brother or colleague who lives on the other side of the boundary line not enjoy the same benefits?

That really is the luck of the draw. The chap who is on the rural side of the boundary line should thank his lucky stars that he gets away with it. Anyway, I think we have already given substantial concessions to owner occupiers everywhere by way of exemption from income tax. Of course, the real thing to do is to make capital loans available on easier terms to people who want to buy houses. Everyone seems to think that the present terms are all right: no lack of demand for loans on present terms. So I think for the present we had best leave them alone. I do not know whether the Member will be satisfied with that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I get very funny reasons given today, such as if you have no beds people cannot stay in hospital for as long as they need to stay. The Minister for Finance says that it is matter of luck whether a person gets it or not. I do not think a government should be run like that - a matter of luck. If the Minister says that the idea is to encourage people to go into the rural areas and develop them, so that these people could go there for the sake of this concession, then I am quite prepared to accept such a reason. I expected an explanation like that. I did not expect the Minister for Finance to say that it is just a matter of luck on which side of the boundary line you happen to fall into.

True.

Does the Member wish for a vote?

No. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,904,810 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 45 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock. My ex-friend, the Minister for Home Affairs-cum-the Minister for Labour-cum-P.A.P. Organising Secretary - Sir, it is strange and to some extent intimidating to have a Minister for Home Affairs as also the Minister for Labour. I am sure we all vividly recall how the Tunku, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, once said that his Minister for Interior knows how to solve industrial problems in Singapore, and the Tunku added that he himself does not know how. Long before merger and Malaysia we already know how, because they already have got quite a few prominent trade union and working class leaders locked up. It is all the more sinister when we notice that in Singapore we have a position where the Minister for Home Affairs is also the Minister for Labour. I can only conclude that this shows the importance the Government attaches to Labour. I hear that one of the reasons why the present Minister for Health and Law was transferred was that they thought he was unfit to handle labour problems, and so they needed a man who had the support of the police force and who could move the police force and also a man who was very trusted by the P.A.P. hierarchy. However, Sir, my main concern now is not the police and the Intelligence sources that the Minister possesses and which are, in fact, used against trade unions that he does not like, but the labour policy of the Government. Sir, everyone knows that the P.A.P. was elected on a labour ticket.

Which has been carried out. 10.45 p.m.

I wish it were true. Sir,If it had been carried out, there would not have been the Barisan Sosialis sitting on this side of the House. We would have been there and the P.A.P. would have been as strong as, if not stronger than, it was in 1959. It is because they have not carried out their policy, it is because they have deviated from the policies on which they were elected that today they are in such a degenerated state - thoroughly discredited, disintegrating all the time. The latest is the drama put up by the Minister for Culture's former Parliamentary Secretary.

What has happened to him?

Order.

I think what will happen to him is more important, Sir. Probably he will cross the Floor of his own free will, or he will be made to cross the Floor. However, that is for the P.A.P. to answer. It is not for us to speculate. We can only indulge perhaps in a little wishful thinking. But as I was saying, we are concerned about the Government's labour policy: a Government which was elected by the workers on a labour ticket and which today. Sir, does not have a consistent labour policy. Sir, I just wish to make one or two references to this claim that they have fulfilled their labour policy, and merely to touch on one or two other points which are fundamental. To start with, the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In their election manifesto they said that the setting up of a court would give the trade unions the right to opt in. That was not kept. It will be remembered that even in the days when we were in the P.A.P., I supported the Bill from across the Floor and I did point this out. The whole basis of P.A.P. labour policy was unification of the trade union movement. That is all forgotten. There is no unification. The P.A.P. has only helped to further divide the trade union movement. In 1961, the moment there was a political split in the P.A.P., the Singapore Trades Union Congress was dissolved, thereby reverting back to the position as prevailed in in the early days - a division in the labour movement. The reason why they dissolved the T.U.C. is very clear. As has been explained a number of times, they had four and we had six and so they could not control the T.U.C. There is the second fundamental point: the basis on which the P.A.P.'s labour policy was formulated. `Unification of the trade union movement - not done. Sir, they claim today that they have fulfilled their labour policy. There are many other instances and examples and perhaps it is not possible for me to quote them here. Today the Labour Ministry is pursuing a policy whereby they act on the whims and fancies of the P.A.P. Minister. I wish to say something on the Labour Conciliation Officers, but I will say that when we come to Head 46. However, I would just like to make this remark as a prelude to that, so that I will not be misunderstood. We concede that the majority of Labour Conciliation Officers who are civil servants are doing a good job. The vast majority of them, almost all of them, except a few, are genuinely trying to seek solutions to industrial disputes. Sir, I hope when the Minister replies he does not say, as other P.A.P. Ministers have always said, that we condemn the civil servants, we cast aspersions and what-not. We are aware that the reason why the Labour Ministry is not functioning as it should function is that the Labour Minister is playing politics with the trade unions. We have heard the accusation that the S.A.T.U. group of unions do not want to use the Labour Ministry. This is not true. I believe we are able to recall the recent exchanges between the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and the Ministry of Labour on the Fraser strike. The Fraser Company wanted to break the strike and employ black-legs. The Ministry of Labour said yes. If it were a P.A.P. union, it would be a different matter. It is not a P.A.P. union. They said, "Yes, we will give you police protection. You break the strike." Then when the union disclosed this publicly, the Minister turned around and said, "The Business Houses Employees' Union did not use the Labour Conciliation machinery." Sir, this was proved to be untrue. The records maintained by the Labour Conciliation Officer who handled the case will show that the Ministry was 1consuited and talks were held in the Ministry. There are various other examples to show that it is not these unions which are staying away from the Ministry of Labour, but it is the Ministry which, as directed by The Minister, seeks to play politics with the trade unions and disputes of the workers. So long as this happens, Mr Speaker, the Ministry, the whole conciliation machinery, arbitration processes, will stand thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the workers. Nobody is going to have confidence that a trade dispute can be solved peacefully. So long as the Government seeks to use the Ministry for political purposes, for making political capital out of trade disputes, confidence cannot develop in the ability of the Ministry of Labour. Sir, I have said earlier that the Government's labour policy is inconsistent and based on the whims and fancies of the Minister. I would like to quote just one further example to prove this. There is the question of secret ballot. I quote this example because it is not possible for the Minister to say that this is Communist talk because the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has put forward the same argument. Under section 18, subsection (3) , I believe, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, a secret ballot is ordered if the employer on whom a claim has been made, refuses to negotiate with the trade union which has made the claim because he is of the opinion that that union does not represent a majority. It then follows with a secret ballot which can be ordered by the Commissioner for Labour. Sir, there are two points here. One, as to when a secret ballot should be held, and secondly, - I will deal with the first point first, Sir. The records of the disputes relating to this handled by the Ministry of Labour show that the P.A.P. has completely disregarded this particular section of the Ordinance. There have been instances where unions have asked for a secret ballot and the Minister has refused. On the other hand, there have been instances where the Minister has imposed secret ballots. I would like to quote one example - C. K. Tang. The workers of C. K. Tang were members of the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, a P.A.P. union. On the 5th of December. 1961, the workers left the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union. A majority of them - 85 to be precise, out of 120 - joined the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. On the 5th of December, 1961, and ever since, the Business Houses Employees' Union requested the Ministry to hold a secret ballot to determine the representation, because the employer refused to concede that we had a majority. He was doubtful as to our majority and he asked the Ministry also to hold a secret ballot. Sir, as we know, the secret ballot was only held a few weeks back. This was held a few weeks back not because they liked it, but because we threatened to take civil action ---

That is not true.

Whether it is true or not, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to say if he consults his Commissioner for Labour. 11.00 p.m. Sir, the other aspect of this question. Just now the Minister for Finance quoted the names of companies of workers who have gone over to their side, and two of the names he quoted were Tiger Breweries and Anchor Breweries. Sir, here, the Singapore General Employees' Union had served claims on the management. The rival union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, sought recognition. Acting under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the employer said he was not sure whether the Singapore General Employees Union represented the majority, and they went to the Labour Ministry. We asked for a secret ballot. At first, they refused to hold a secret ballot. Sir, that relevant section, as it is now, allows a certain amount of discretion to the Commissioner. But while the law allows this discretion to the Commissioner, it is not for the Commissioner to abuse the law. On reading the provision, it is clear that if the employer says. "I do not want to negotiate with you because I am of the opinion that you do not represent the majority," or if "I am doubtful that you represent the majority," then it is for the Commissioner to consult and hold a secret ballot. No, they did not want to hold a secret ballot. They marked time. They allowed the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union to make excessive claims, just on paper, promising quarters for the workers, one house for each worker, $100 increases, just to try and get the support of the workers. And finally, Sir, when the secret ballot was held, they included certain categories of workers who should not have been included, in the same way as they sought to include a certain category of nurses in the secret ballot that they wanted to impose on the nurses to determine union representation. In this case, Sir, it was a P.A.P. member, the Parliamentary Secretary, who opposed the decision of the Government to hold such a secret ballot to include categories on whose behalf the claims were not made. Of course, in the case of the A.U.P.E., they dare not press the point for fear that he may cross the Floor quicker. But in the case of Tiger Breweries, no, they pressed on, and held a ballot. It is true we lost. But anyway, that is one other example. I do not want to go on quoting more and more examples. I can only say that there are many and perhaps in the course of the debate, there will be some more quoted. One favourite thing that is said by the P.A.P. Ministers, which was repeated earlier today by the Minister for Health, is that we call a strike, get into trouble, then we go to the Labour Ministry. This is not true. And to prove this is not true, I just want to elaborate on what I have said earlier on today. Sir, there has been a very recent case. This will be a good test of the Government's sincerely in wanting to help the workers. The Prime Minister that day defended Ho See Beng in getting a gold medal - some award, I do not know what: whether it is gold, silver or bronze - a public service award or whatever it was. Ho See Beng is involved. Ho See Beng's name was read out by the Minister for Finance just now. All the names that he read out merely confirmed what I said, that the Labour Research Unit is a P.A.P. outfit. Sir, 43 workers of the Straits Times were sacked by the management for having gone to have cholera inoculations. They were called casual workers, but they have been working in the Straits Times for years. They are not members of the P.A.P. union. The P.A.P. union there is led by Ho See Beng, the man who is now paid out of Government funds as a seconded officer from private employment. They were not members of this union. When they asked the management to provide inoculation facilities, the management refused. They told the management they were going to a Government clinic to get inoculations. They went in the morning. When they returned, an official of this union, the right-hand man of Mr Ho See Beng, told them they were sacked. Sir, they are still out. This afternoon they did a demonstration, and the union which now represents these workers is called the Singapore Bookshop Publication and Printing Press Workers Union. The dispute is being referred to the Labour Ministry. [Interruption] No, we tell the Minister. There is no strike, nothing. If the workers were sacked, they were sacked for answering the Government's call to get inoculated. Let us see how sincere they are if they want to settle this. Let us see if they want to help this union. This is a non-P.A.P. union; it rejects the P.A.P.'s control. Let us see if they want to help. If they cannot settle it, let them at least refer this dispute to arbitration. We will fight it out. That will prove a further point, that we are not anti-Arbitration Court. Sir, I just want to conclude by saying that we realise that the P.A.P. has a vested interest in the trade union movement. They are not as naive as Members of the S.P.A. They know, Sir, though they have to play the Right-wing game to please maybe the British masters, the Tunku basically, they have to count on the support of the workers to come back here. They know that. They know that by numbers the workers are more. There are over 600,000 electors, the majority of whom are workers and their dependants. They have to get their support. They know they have vested interests, and they know that if they are to survive politically, they must try to get the workers' support. An hon. Member: They are all coming to us all the time.

Well, that is fine, if all the workers want to go over to their side, if the workers want to choose to do so of their own free will, we say jolly good. It does not matter to us, because we are not as short-sighted as the Minister for Finance. We believe in the struggle of the workers. Whether the workers are members of the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union or the Singapore General Employees' Union does not make very much difference, because the struggle against the employers goes on. If the Minister is a good socialist, as he claims to be, he must accept this to be correct. Therefore, we are not bothered. We are not like the P.A.P. running around trying to grab the workers. We do not do these things. On the other hand, we do not sit back and say, "All right, you come and poach on our members." No, we fight. But if we think we do not have a majority, we concede defeat. We will say, "Jolly good, go over." T.V. Gomez - one of their star performers in the trade union field - was not given a Public Service Star, Sir. I do not know for what reason. Perhaps it was because his questionable character is very well known to many workers and employers. Anyway, Mr Speaker, T.V. Gomez went to the Arbitration Court and in front of the Arbitration Court, in front of the Deputy President, he said, "I have a majority. I have 119 members." He was caught out lying in the case of Plywood. The Deputy President was sympathetic: he knew the problem; he did not want to embarrass him more and he held a secret ballot. On the other hand, if the Court had agreed to our suggestion and put Mr Gomez in the witness box, he would have been proved a liar and a perjurer. They had the cheek to go to court. We do not do this sort of thing. To drive home this point, we say, today the nurses who go on strike, the bank workers who go on strike, and the insurance workers who go on strike are not members of what they call Communist unions. This is, from our point of view, an indication of the increase of class consciousness. We say, jolly good, whether they are under P.A.P. unions, S.P.A. unions. [Interruption] We are not short-sighted as they are. Therefore, we are not worried if the Minister says that thousands and thousands of workers have gone over. The first proof is `that since May Day last year, they have been saying thousands have gone over. They have a very unique way of making propaganda. First, they say that 50 workers from one company went over. Then two weeks later, 20 workers went over, and so on - individual items. Then at the end of two months, they put all the total together and say that so many hundreds have gone over. And they start all over again. After six months, they put the grand total together and say so many thousands have gone over. We are not denying that workers have gone over. Yes, some of our branches. This is an open secret. We do not deny it. An hon. Member: Tiger Breweries.

They say Tiger Breweries. Yes, you took over. These are facts. But from May Day last year, they have been saying that thousands and thousands of workers have gone over. This year their May Day celebration was such that they did not have even 50 per cent of what they had last year.

Rubbish!

It is not rubbish. You can ask anybody who was there. Everybody knows. We had a lesser crowd too compared to last year. It is true. An hon. Member: Half.

If you say half, then it was 40,000.

Order. I have not said a word. The Member should remember that he is addressing the Speaker. May I also remind him that the debate on this Ministry will give over at 11.50 p.m.?

I am just ending, Mr Speaker, Sir. Half means 40,000. Foreign correspondents and local Pressmen were there as witnesses. But the Ministry of Culture's official estimation of the Jalan Besar rally at which the Prime Minister was given a star by the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., Mr Devan Nair - the Prime Minister who reciprocated by giving on National Day another star to Mr Devan Nair - was first, 3,000; then they increased it to 7,000. But let us be generous and say 7,000. Last year, the Ministry of Culture estimated their last year's crowd to be 15,000. Surely the Ministry of Culture is not going to put forward Communist propaganda, and they could not have computed this figure because they are pro-Communists. Well, there it is, Mr Speaker, Sir. I want to stress this point: so long as the Ministry of Labour does not conduct itself as a Ministry of Labour should and it is not genuinely and sincerely non-political in wanting to solve problems arising from industrial grievances, there can be no industrial peace; it can only help to increase industrial strife.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1." Tun Lim?

I withdraw. 11.15 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am sure the Member for Thomson cannot be serious when he says that he has been intimidated by me or that I have intimidated him, for the simple reason that I happen to be also the Minister for Home Affairs. In any case, Mr Chairman, Sir, I will only hold this office for another 2� months, and I only hope that when I relinquish my powers as Minister for Home Affairs, he will have a kinder man to contend with. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has accused the Government of having deviated from its pro-labour policy. Far from the Government having deviated from its pro-labour policy, I think the Member for Thomson has deviated from his political stand. He was elected on the P.A.P. Five-Year Plan, but since 1961 he has gone over to the other side, and if at all any person has deviated from his stand I think it is the Member for Thomson. I think the best way to answer the criticism of the Member for Thomson is to narrate the concrete achievements of the Government during the past four years. Sir, the P.AP. Government's policy on labour and trade unions was clearly laid down in the Five-Year Plan entitled The Tasks Ahead. In all our approach to labour problems our guiding principle has always been industrial peace with justice. During the last four years, because of our enlightened policy and our open stand on the side of the workers, the workers of Singapore have benefited considerably in the form of monetary wages and fringe benefits. Many of the laws which worked to the disadvantage of the workers were removed and new laws to protect the interests of the workers were introduced, so much so that today our labour legislation has been acclaimed to be the most progressive in South-East Asia by labour experts and trade unionists who visited Singapore. When the present Government assumed office in June 1959, we took strong action to stop evasion of the statutory provisions by employers, with the result that widespread evasion of statutory obligations, such as payment of overtime wages, holidays with pay and rest day pay, etc., was eliminated. The Government, through the Labour Department, has up to date recovered through its Labour Inspectorate alone the sum of almost half a million dollars and paid it to the workers concerned. Encouraged by the pro-labour attitude of the Government, many of the workmen took their claims to the Labour Courts set up by the Government to deal with these problems and, as a result, from June 1959 to date, the Labour Courts have recovered a total sum of almost half a million dollars and paid it to the workers. In the same period, through the good offices of the Labour Courts, a sum of $50,000 was also recovered on behalf of domestic servants. What is more important, Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from these monetary gains, is the fact that the employers have come to realise their statutory obligations and are willing to meet them, and the workmen are aware of the statutory benefits they are entitled to and are no longer afraid to bring their grievances to the Labour Department. One of the means of achieving industrial peace with justice is the enactment of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the setting-up of the Industrial Arbitration Courts. The achievement and the confidence with which the workmen and employers have in the Industrial Arbitration Courts is well known to the people and need no further elaboration. Suffice it to say that the Industrial Arbitration Court has now come to be generally accepted by both employers and workers as an invaluable machinery in resolving industrial disputes. Last year the two Courts arbitrated 31 cases and certified 264 agreements, compared with 9 cases and 121 agreements for the 1960/1961 period. This goes to prove that the workers and their employers have come to have confidence in the industrial machinery of the State. Some mention was made by the Member for Thomson regarding the Conciliation Service. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Conciliation Service of the Labour Department has done extremely well in settling labour disputes in the interest of both the employers and the workers. For the period from 1960 to 1962, the Conciliation Service settled a total of about 3,000 disputes and disposed of 600 disputes in other ways. This Conciliation Service is available to both the employers and the workers without any distinction. For that matter, the Labour Department has served all trade unions, employers and individual workmen without distinction. In 1962, Mr Speaker, Sir, out of a total of 1,064 disputes dealt with by the Labour Ministry, 603 disputes were brought by unions, 12 by employers and 449 by individual workers, and out of the 603 disputes brought by trade unions in 1962. 382 were brought by unions affiliated to or associated with the group of trade unions which the Member for Thomson belongs to; while 221 were brought by other unions. Now, if the Conciliation Service had not been fair and partial. I am sure the S.A.T.U. group of unions would not have brought their cases to the Labour Ministry. Mr Speaker, Sir, there were only two occasions on which requests for assistance from the Labour Department had to be refused. The first was a request from the Singapore General Employees' Union in November 1962 to pursue its demand for the dismissal of a workman employed by Tithes Dental and Photo Supply Limited. In that case, it was explained that the Labour Department could not be a party to any negotiation, the sole object of which was to obtain the dismissal of a worker. Briefly, in November 1962 two workers employed by the Company had a fight in the Company's premises during their working hours. One of the workers concerned was a member of the Singapore General Employees' Union and the other was not a member of any union. After the fight the Company warned both the workers, in writing, that if they fought again they would be dismissed. The action taken by the Company was reasonable, but it did not satisfy the Union. The Union demanded the dismissal of the worker who was a non-union member. When the Company rejected the Union's demand, the Union called a strike of its 32 members employed in the establishment. Up to the time of the strike, the Union had not availed itself of the conciliation machinery in the Labour Department. It was only on 19th November, 1962, that is, two weeks after the strike had occurred, that the Union first asked for assistance from the Labour Department. By then the Company's board of directors had already passed a resolution to close down the company. However, on the persuasion of the Ministry, the company eventually did not proceed with its intention to close down. The strike eventually came to an end on 4th of December, 1962, when the Union dropped the demand for the dismissal of a non-union member and agreed to a return of work by the strikers. Now, in this particular case, the Union concerned had sought to use Government machinery, the State machinery which the Member for Thomson has accused of being partial, to put pressure on the employer to get one of the non-union members of the company out of employment. Now, the strike which lasted from 5th November to 4th December, 1962, achieved nothing, but did a lot of harm. Besides depriving 32 union members and 18 non-union members of earning their livelihood for about a month, it nearly led to the closing down of the establishment. And what is the term of agreement eventually? Each union member has to send a letter of apology to the management. They receive no strike pay and no bonus. The other case that was mentioned just now was the case in connection with secret ballots conducted in C. K. Tang Ltd. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this particular case there was already at that time in force a certified collective agreement between C. K. Tang Ltd, and the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union. The Commissioner for Labour did advise at that time that a secret ballot could not be held because there was this certified collective agreement in force and, according to the legal advice at that time, so long as a certified collective agreement was in force, no secret ballot could be conducted. However, in April this year, the matter was reviewed again and legal advice was given that the Commissioner for Labour could, even during the currency of a certified collective agreement, call for a secret ballot to be held, and immediately upon the receipt of the legal advice a secret ballot was conducted. 11.30 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has criticised just now that the Labour Research Unit is a P.A.P. outfit. The setting up of a Labour Research Unit was one of the election pledges that we made during the election, and it was upon this pledge that the Member for Thomson was elected. Perhaps he has now forgotten. Mr Deputy Speaker, trade unionists have complained that while employers have excellent research facilities and qualified personnel at their disposal to help them with the presentation of their cases in the Arbitration Court, trade unions have been at a disadvantage. Trade unionists with the necessary experience and qualifications to help trade unions are few in number, and trade unions possess no great research facilities. On the representations of the trade unions made through the National Trades Union Congress, the Government decided to set up this Labour Research Unit staffed by qualified economists, accountants and legal men. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Unit is primarily concerned with advising any union seeking its assistance on matters concerning the formulation of claims for collective agreements, adjustments affecting existing or expiring collective agreements, and the preparation of cases for presentation before the Industrial Arbitration Court. Since its inception in January 1963, the Unit has been inundated with a variety of requests touching on labour problems. To date it has been consulted by various unions in 89 major cases, the benefits of which will accrue for some 10,000 workers. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Labour Research Unit is independent of official control and exists primarily to serve trade unions. All trade unions in Singapore, irrespective of their political or other affiliations, are eligible to call on the services of the Unit. Some of the unions affiliated to S.A.T.U. and others belonging to neither S.A.T.U. nor the N.T.U.C. group that have made use of the services of the Labour Research Unit are the Singapore General Printing Workers' Union in connection with their dispute with Qalam Press and the Malayan Airways and Qantas Empire Airways Local Employees' Union versus Air India case. Now, these two unions belong neither to the N.T.U.C. nor S.A.T.U. Then there is the Industrial Workers Union of Singapore (N.A.A.F.I. Branch) which belongs to the S.A.T.U. group and the Member for Thomson is an adviser of this union. This union too consulted and sought the advice of the Labour Research Unit. Then the Mansfield Local Employees' Union, whose adviser is Mr S. Wood-hull, too consulted the Labour Research Unit for advice. Finally, the Singapore National Seamen's Union, another union belonging to the S.A.T.U. group, also sought assistance from the Labour Research Unit. And assistance and advice were duly given to them. Now it would appear that the S.A.T.U. group of unions have not been forthcoming in calling on the services of this Unit. However, I need not labour the reasons for this. The pro-Communist leaders of the S.A.T.U. group cannot be expected to conduct research for the benefit of the workers. And the Labour Research Unit, from their point of view, is bad because it only does research to justify the claims of labour and maintains no contact with foreign Communist Parties. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the stock accusations of the Member for Thomson is that the Government has failed to support the unification of the trade union movement. Now, when the pro-Communists talk about the unification of the trade union movement, they mean the control of the movement by the front agents of the Communist Party of Malaya. It is surely impossible to expect the Government to help the Communists to gain control of the trade union movement under the pretext of unification and to surrender the non-Communist majority of the workers of Singapore to the tender mercies of foreign inspired anti-national elements. In the circumstances, it is better that there should be a clear demarcation between pro-Communists and non-Communists in the trade union movement. And the Government will continue to encourage the genuine unification of the trade union movement but on the basis of democratic and independent trade unionism. We have no doubt that in the final result the labour movement of Singapore will be so unified.

Mr Mammen, Sir, after hearing a long recital by the Acting Minister for Labour, one would feel that the P.A.P. is really pro-labour. The Government has been trying to make out to the workers of Singapore that it is a good Government for them. It claims that it has a labour policy that is in their interests. This means that the Government knows that it has a lot of things to do in order to implement that policy. And yet, after the death of the Member for Sembawang, Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim, last August, the post of Minister for Labour has been left vacant with only a Minister acting in his place. That shows that the Government has not given labour its due place in the Cabinet. The Member for Thomson has mentioned that it is significant that the Acting Minister for Labour is the Minister for Home Affairs. This is because a good number of trade unionists belonging to the S.A.T.U. group are now in gaol as a result of the orders signed by the Minister for Home Affairs, concurrently Acting Minister for Labour. But what is more important to the issue is this. Both the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis are playing party politics in the trade union field. Both are trying to capture trade union organisations for their own selfish political ends. And to listen in this Assembly to the exchange of mud-slinging by the contestants, who are both guilty, would make one think that the whole trade union movement hangs around the activities of the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. We have maintained that a strong trade union movement can only emerge if it is free of political control. If the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis really believe in this, then they should put an end to the political warfare that they have been waging in the trade union world. If Barisan Sosialis speakers bring attention to the strikes that have been organised by the P.A.P. unions, then the Acting Minister for Labour brings attention to the strikes that have been organised by the Barisan-controlled trade unions. All this is not helpful nor conducive to the industrialisation policy of the Government. Many industrialists would have liked to come to Singapore and open up factories, but they have been deterred by the fact that there has been this industrial unrest engendered by opposing political Parties for political ends. I say, put an end to this strife in the trade union movement. If this is done, the industrialisation policy of the Government can be easier implemented.

Mr Bani. There are only seven minutes left.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just want to say how disappointed I am that the Minister for Labour has not replied to the points I raised. All that we have witnessed is the reading of the Labour Ministry's Annual Report. Surely you know at least the Minister must give us sufficient intelligence to be able to look up these documents. We get them free of charge. Sir, I just want to make two points. One is this question of secret ballots. The Minister explains how at one time the legal advice was that you cannot hold a secret ballot if there is a collective agreement in force. And then how at another time the legal advice was such that you can hold a secret ballot. But this only proves what I have said, that the so-called labour policy of the Government is inconsistent. They do not want to hold a secret ballot when it is to their disadvantage. They hold a secret ballot when it is to their advantage. There is no coherent consistent policy. This is a policy based on the whims and fancies of the P.A.P. interest and of the P.A.P. Ministers. On the Labour Research Unit, he quoted some cases. Our basic grievance against this unit is that nearly $300,000 is spent on sustaining 10 or 12 people whose names were read out by the Minister for Finance who are P.A.P. personnel - Ho See Beng, Gopal, Aziz, etc. I am grateful to the Minister for Finance for having read out this. Sir, we say the Labour Research Unit is a P.A.P. outfit because it is loaded with P.A.P. men. And what is more, public funds are used to sustain these people. And it is in the interest of the P.A.P. to try and tell the workers, "Yes, we want to help you." and therefore they offer their services to all unions. 11.45 p.m. If they are genuine about wanting to set up a Research Unit for the unions, then why not consult the 40 odd unions which are not P.A.P. unions? They want to fight these unions because they say that these are Communist unions. Sir, I can only say that these 40 unions are registered according to the laws of the country and are registered organisations. So long as they are registered bodies, their rights must be respected. If the Government think that all these unions are Communist and therefore should not exist, they have the power to take action. I am sure they must have thought of the possibility of banning some of the unions. Well, that is a different proposition altogether. So long as the unions exist, it is hypocritical for the Government, on the one hand, to say, "All right, you operate as a registered union," and, on the other hand, to say, "You cannot appoint a member to the employees' panel in the Arbitration Court because you are a Communist union; you cannot have your representative in the Research Bureau because you are a Communist union." This, I believe, is hypocrisy. This proves further that the P.A.P. is trying to use Government organs and Government funds for the purposes of P.A.P. interests.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I quite appreciate and understand how the Member for Thomson has to put up so hard a defence for the misdeeds and evils that they have done to the workers.

What are they?

We will come to them one by one.

Order.

Just now, he mentioned that the Minister for Home Affairs was asked to take over the Ministry of Labour because he will be there to intimidate the workers. This is far from being the case. You will remember that during the Roneo case, the Member for Thomson's closest colleague, Mr Foo Yong Fong ---

Borneo?

--- Roneo. Borneo? Yes, we will come to Borneo also. He put a cigarette end on the neck of an executive officer and he was punished. Now, similarly members of his union who were on strike there lodged a complaint with the police alleging intimidation from the manager. Similarly, the police also took up the investigation and the manager was produced before the court and prosecuted, but in that case there was no case and the manager was acquitted. Another point is that their own S.A.T.U. unions came personally to me with a request for police protection. They said that when they were on strike the employers used thugs to intimidate them. Yes, we asked the police to give them the necessary protection. So where is this intimidation? Sir, the hon. Member wants to know about ballots. I think probably he was not being informed of the facts. In the instance of the Plywood case, when the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union also challenged for recognition, the case was brought before the Labour Ministry by the management. The Labour Ministry offered a secret ballot in that instance. But the hon. Member's union, the Singapore General Employees' Union, refused a secret ballot. There is a letter written by the secretary of that union. It is in the file. If the Member wants, I can produce it tomorrow before this House.

Produce all your files for us.

Order.

With regard to the C. K. Tang case, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I happen to have here the exact legal opinion given by the State Advocate-General's Chambers. I will read it, and if the Member for Thomson wishes to challenge the authenticity of that, by all means he can do so. May I read it? This is a quotation: `The collective agreement, a memorandum of which has already been certified, is binding between the parties, etc, and is deemed to be an award which is final and conclusive...'. 11.50 p.m.

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

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 45 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Mr S. T. Bani, Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr Lin You Eng, Mr A. P. Rajah, Mr Ong Eng Guan and Dr Thio Chan Bee, were not proceeded with: Mr S. T. Bani: That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1. Tun Lim Yew Hock: That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Mr S. T. Bani: That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 1. Mr Lin You Eng: Mr S. T. Bani: Mr A. P. Rajah: Mr Ong Eng Guan: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $100. The sum of $311,510 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 46 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. Sir, about the Commissioner for Labour - Mr Pang Tee Pow. Earlier I said that the majority of the Conciliation Officers in the Ministry of Labour are doing a good job. In fact, the Minister - I do not blame him, because he was reading from the Annual Report - was trying to answer a point that I never made. He was trying to explain how the conciliation officers work hard and settle the disputes. I agree with him. I never deny this. The majority of them do so. But there are one or two - and this man, Mr Pang Tee Pow, who is now in Geneva making political speeches, is one of them. Sir, it is strange that the P.A.P. has made so many appointments, since it came into office, to the post of Commissioner for Labour. Mr Kok Ah Loy transferred, Mr Goh Koh Pui transferred, now Mr Pang Tee Pow is the Commissioner for Labour. Sir, I was referring to Mr Francis Seow yesterday as a gold medallist. This is obviously a degree lesser; Mr Pang Tee Pow is silver medallist. The Government has shown recognition by giving him a medal, but, unfortunately, his contribution to the P.A.P. interest has not been as much as that given by Mr Francis Seow and therefore, instead of a gold medal, he received a silver medal. Sir, we do not want to go around threatening civil servants. We do not do this sort of thing which is a habit of the P.A.P. But we say this to them: we understand the problems that the civil servants face. We have a Government which is devoid of all decency and does not respect the independence of the civil service. It uses threats, intimidation and bribery in the form of medals, etc., to get the civil servants to do what they want them to do. Sir, we realise the predicament of the civil servants, and we say that we do not blame them. But there are certain individuals like Mr Pang Tee Pow who bend backwards to please the Ministers. And we say that today the side-drum to the Minister for Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary, who constitute the political wing in the Ministry of Labour, is Mr Pang, the Commissioner for Labour. He is the third person who acts as if he is a P.A.P. cadre. You take the case of C. K. Tang, for example. Just now the Minister was trying to explain how and why the C. K, rang secret ballot was not held. Sir, the Commissioner for Labour, since December 1961, did not offer any explanation at all to the Business Houses Employees' Union for refusing to hold a secret ballot. Arrogance, trying to please the Minister - therefore, he just did not care less for the Business Houses Employees' Union. A public servant whose duty to us was to consider the holding of a secret ballot, when repeated requests were made, did not even give a reason - let alone a reason, Sir, there have been letters which he has not even replied to. Sir, we say that the P.A.P. Government is not going to be in force for ever and ever. The time will come sooner or later, when the P.A.P. is going to disappear, and the Ministers, the Parliamentary Secretaries and their cadres are going to disappear. When that time comes, the people who played politics when they were not supposed to play politics, will have to pay for all their actions. And we hope that wisdom will prevail, and that there will not be these attempts by individuals to bend backwards to please the Ministers.

Would the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary like to speak?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now I was stopped because of the time. Since the Member for Thomson wishes to pursue the case of C. K. Tang, then may I take this opportunity to continue with the legal opinion given by the State Advocate-General? All this is on record in the files. If the Member for Thomson wishes to pursue the matter further, by all means. There are other sources of avenue open to him to enquire into it. The S.A.G.'s opinion was as follows: `The collective agreement, a memorandum of which has already been certified, is binding between the parties, etc, and is deemed to be an award which is final and conclusive save as varied in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In the circumstances, I [that is, the S.A.G. Chambers' legal officer] do not see how the question of the recognition of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union arises. Section 18 (3) cannot apply at this stage and you cannot be required to conduct a secret ballot now. ["You cannot" refers to the Commissioner for Labour]'. This is the legal opinion tendered by the State Advocate-General. Just now the Member for Thomson alleged - rather I would say that he intimated - that the present Commissioner for Labour is not carrying out his work ---

Point of elucidation. Sir. Mr Wee Toon Boon resumed his seat.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the quotation he gave just now of the legal opinion is from the first or the second legal opinion, because the Minister earlier on said that there were two opinions given. I am also anxious to ask the Parliamentary Secretary ---

Order. Time has expired. 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, the 14th of June.

So be it.

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