Debate Details
- Date: 10 April 1969
- Parliament: 2
- Session: 1
- Sitting: 13
- Topic: Oral Answers to Questions
- Subject of Question: Orderlies for Gazetted Police Officers (Particulars)
- Key participants: Mr N. Govindasamy (Questioner); Minister for Defence (Answering Minister); Lim Kim San (recorded as the speaking name in the excerpt)
- Keywords: gazetted, police, officers, orderlies, particulars, strength, Govindasamy, asked
What Was This Debate About?
This parliamentary sitting records an exchange in the “Oral Answers to Questions” format concerning the provision of orderlies for gazetted police officers, and specifically the “particulars” of the police establishment and its staffing levels. The question was raised by Mr N. Govindasamy and directed to the Minister for Defence. The core of the exchange, as reflected in the available excerpt, concerns the relationship between the authorised establishment of gazetted police officers and the actual strength on the ground.
In the excerpt, the Minister’s response begins by stating that the authorised strength of gazetted police officers is 205, while the actual strength is 192. The Minister further indicates that, at the time of the answer, 164 gazetted police officers are in a particular category or status (the excerpt truncates the remainder of the sentence). The question-and-answer format suggests that the Member sought clarity on how many gazetted officers existed, and by implication, how the allocation of orderlies should be understood in light of staffing shortfalls or distribution across categories.
Although the record excerpt is brief, the legislative context is clear: in Singapore’s parliamentary practice, oral questions are used to elicit administrative facts and to test whether government staffing, deployment, and support arrangements are operating as intended. Such exchanges often become relevant later when questions arise about the interpretation of administrative schemes, the scope of official entitlements, and the practical implementation of public service policies.
What Were the Key Points Raised?
The key point raised by Mr N. Govindasamy was framed as a request for particulars relating to orderlies for gazetted police officers. In legal and administrative terms, “orderlies” are typically support personnel assigned to senior officers, and the question implies that the allocation of such support may depend on the number and status of gazetted officers. The Member’s choice of wording—“(Particulars)”—signals an intent to obtain a breakdown rather than a simple yes/no answer.
The Minister’s response, as far as the excerpt shows, provides the establishment figures that underpin any entitlement or staffing calculation. By stating that the authorised strength is 205 but actual strength is 192, the Minister is effectively highlighting a gap between planned establishment and real manpower. This gap matters because administrative entitlements and staffing ratios are often designed around authorised strength. If the actual strength is lower, the number of orderlies required (or the number actually provided) may be affected, potentially leading to questions about whether orderlies are being allocated proportionately or whether there are operational constraints.
The Minister also indicates that “at present” a subset of gazetted police officers—164—are in a particular condition or category. While the excerpt does not complete the sentence, the structure suggests that the Member’s question likely sought to know not only the total number of gazetted officers, but also how many are eligible for orderlies or how many are serving in roles that attract such support. In public administration, eligibility can turn on rank, posting, or whether an officer is actively performing duties that require additional assistance.
Finally, the debate’s procedural posture—an oral answer—means that the exchange is primarily fact-finding and accountability-oriented. It is not framed as a bill or motion, but rather as a mechanism for Members to obtain official information. For lawyers researching legislative intent, such records can still be valuable: they show how government officials understood and applied administrative arrangements at a particular time, and they can illuminate the practical meaning of terms used in statutes or regulations governing the police service and public service employment.
What Was the Government's Position?
The Government’s position, as reflected in the excerpt, is that the police establishment for gazetted officers is structured around an authorised strength of 205, but the actual strength at the time is 192. The Government also provides an “at present” figure of 164 gazetted police officers in a specified category, which likely bears directly on the provision of orderlies.
In substance, the Government’s answer appears to justify or contextualise the allocation of orderlies by grounding it in manpower realities. This approach suggests that the provision of orderlies is not treated as an abstract entitlement detached from staffing levels; rather, it is administered in relation to the number of eligible officers and the operational strength of the force.
Why Are These Proceedings Important for Legal Research?
First, oral question records can be used to support statutory and regulatory interpretation where legislation or subsidiary instruments refer to administrative arrangements that depend on staffing, rank, or eligibility. Even where the debate is not directly about a statute, the government’s explanation of authorised versus actual strength can inform how courts and practitioners understand the practical implementation of rules. If later legal disputes concern the scope of entitlements for police officers or the administration of support staff, these proceedings provide contemporaneous evidence of how the executive branch conceptualised the relevant administrative framework.
Second, the debate illustrates the parliamentary method of oversight through information. Lawyers often look for legislative intent not only in speeches during bill debates, but also in government responses to questions that clarify how policies operate. Here, the government’s provision of establishment numbers and category counts can be relevant to arguments about whether a policy was intended to be applied uniformly, whether it was constrained by manpower shortages, and whether eligibility criteria were tied to particular postings or statuses.
Third, the record is useful for reconstructing the administrative context of policing and public service employment in 1969. The mention of “gazetted police officers” and the existence of a structured support role (“orderlies”) indicates a hierarchical service model. For legal research, such details can help interpret later reforms by showing what the system looked like before subsequent changes. When interpreting later amendments or successor legislation, researchers may use earlier parliamentary records to understand the baseline assumptions—such as authorised strength planning and the relationship between rank and staffing support.
Finally, the debate’s format—“Oral Answers to Questions”—is itself a legal research signal. These records are often treated as official statements of policy or administration at the time, and they can be cited (depending on jurisdictional practice and evidential rules) as part of the broader legislative history. While they may not carry the same weight as committee reports or enacted text, they can still be persuasive for understanding how government officials interpreted administrative terms and applied them to real-world staffing.
Source Documents
This article summarises parliamentary proceedings for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute an official record.