APPROPRIATION BILL

Order for Committee of Supply read: [4th Allotted Day]

FIRST SCHEDULE

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 61 -

The Chairman: We are on Head 61. Mr Lee Kuan Yew:

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I move,

To reduce by $18,240 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (8), Senior Executive Engineers, Grade G, on page 244 of the Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in the Remarks column it is indicated "Increase one to include the appointment of Senior Executive Engineer (Defence Services) now abolished." At sub-head 1 (15), this particular appointment which is being abolished is put as "Senior Executive Engineer (Defence Service), Grade G - Abolished."

We heard the Minister for Communications and Works yesterday trying to impress us with his Ministry's efficient pruning by the reduction of redundant superscales. We want an explanation of why it is found necessary, when a post is abolished, to create a new one to absorb the person whose post has been abolished.

Question proposed.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): Sir, during the last few days we have listened to the Member for Tanjong Pagar speaking on motions to remove new posts from the Estimates. These motions have covered a wide field - in fact, all the posts which an expatriate might conceivably be appointed to, or required for, or promoted to. The reason generally given for the motion was that the post was unnecessary and that it should be removed. Latterly, however, he came out into the open and suggested that the posts were deliberately created for the benefit of the expatriates now envisaging abolition and that the elected Ministers had, shall we say, been hoodwinked into agreeing to their inclusion. I had intended to answer that suggestion yesterday, Sir, but I thought perhaps I might speak in heat and it would be better that I deferred the matter until today. That suggestion, Sir, is a base and dishonourable suggestion which can only stem from ignoble and dishonest minds. It impugns the intelligence of the elected Ministers and the integrity of the civil service, both expatriate and locally domiciled, which over the past 80 years, by its unswerving devotion to duty, its conscientiousness, its incorruptibility and its sense of justice and fair play, has built up a reputation second to none. The suggestion is so ridiculous that no one will believe it, apart from a handful of unhappy bigots who conceived it and a measure of whose judgment and ability the suggestion is. Even the hon. mover of the motion, being a man of great intellectual ability and integrity, knows in his heart that it is false, absolutely false.

Perhaps if I explain the procedure in dealing with applications for new posts, it will put the suggestion in its true perspective. Proposals for new posts must be in the hands of the Treasury by the 15th of April. The great majority are received in February and March. The proposals put up by the heads of departments are considered with great care in the Treasury. Many factors, such as the planned expansion of a department to meet the growing needs of the public, the duties to be performed, the qualifications and experience required, the responsibilities to be borne, staffing requirements generally - all these matters are considered in the Treasury. Other branches of Government are consulted. The head of a department himself is called up to amplify and explain his proposals. In the end all the proposals are considered against the background of the financial position of the Colony, and only those are approved for entry in the Draft Estimates which are absolutely imperative for the successful and efficient conduct of the business of government. In this connection over the years, the Treasury has built up perhaps an unenviable reputation for being difficult in respect of new appointments. I should also like to make it quite clear that in deciding whether an appointment should be entered or not, the only criterion - I repeat, the only criterion - is need, the need of Government, the need of the public. The question whom the post is to be filled by is completely irrelevant.

Sir, all the posts entered this year have satisfied this criterion and need. They have been proposed by officers of long administrative experience who have only the efficiency and successful operation of their departments in mind, men who, as a result of that experience, can look ahead and see the needs of the future. They have been vetted by a succession of officers of wide administrative and financial experience, whose duty it is - and they have never failed in that duty - to eliminate any proposal which is not justified.

What has now happened, Sir, is that the judgment of these acknowledged experts has been challenged and called in question by a small band of civil servants who, to the best of my knowledge, are not qualified to say whether posts in, say, the Medical Department, or the Audit Department, or the Accountant-General's Department, are necessary or not in the public interests or for the efficient discharge of government business. In expressing these opinions, they appear to have been actuated by motives which reasonable men and women would spurn with contempt. What they say in effect is this: that it is better that a post should remain uncreated or unfilled rather than that they should run the risk of having it filled by an expatriate. All I can say is this, Sir, that this bigoted judgment will be small comfort to the parents of a child whose life is perhaps lost because specialised knowledge which might otherwise have been available is lacking. That, I think, Sir, sums up the matter. The honest opinion of disinterested civil servants of long experience is called in question by a small band of bigots of little or no experience. I think judgment in this matter can safely be left to the intelligent members of the public and to the large body of the civil service with whom I have worked for many years and for whom I have the highest respect.

Lastly, Sir, I should like to touch on the suggestion that elected Ministers were, shall we say, hoodwinked. This is a dishonest, scurrilous and disreputable suggestion.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that he must not use unparliamentary words in this Assembly, no matter how much he feels like using those words. "Dishonest", "scurrilous" and "disreputable" are possibly unparliamentary.

Mr Hart: In the circumstances, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw those expressions.

This year, since we had some prior warning through the Press that certain new superscale posts might be the subject of attack by a small unhappy group of the civil service, it was decided by the Council of Ministers that all proposals would be examined by its Finance Committee. This has been done. The need for each post was examined in great detail. Heads of departments were called up for discussion in most cases. Some posts were deleted. Those which remain are those which satisfied the elected Ministers that they were essential for the efficient discharge of government business.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): I think I have only got a minute or two left, Mr Chairman, to deal with this matter. I find it difficult to express my sense of disgust at the profound absurdity of these amendments which the Member for Tanjong Pagar continues to move.

His objection here is simply to the removal of two brackets and two or three words. The title of the post has been abolished, but the works still remain. What is going to happen in the future will be that the Executive Engineer concerned with defence works will still continue to do it, but if the defence work is slack for a period, he can do other work. If there is a lot of defence work to be done, then another engineer can help him with it; that is the simple effect of this change. I think, in fact, I could have had this shut out under Standing Order 33 (1) (b). If this amendment were accepted, Mr Chairman, there would be no money to pay the officer concerned in this post, and consequently he would have to live rather meagrely on his expatriate allowance and his variable allowance which would not get him very far.

I wish to make it quite clear that this is a preposterous objection to a mere change in the designation of the work for the purposes of greater administrative flexibility.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am glad, Mr Chairman, Sir, that it is an expatriate who finally has to answer for these things. He has alleged that it is an unhappy band of bigots, unbalanced men with scurrilous minds and scurrilous hearts, who have made these allegations, and the Chief Minister yesterday was astonished that representations were not, in fact, made to him.

I made enquiries yesterday to find out the reason for this. As early as the 17th of October this year, the Federation of Government Union Employees, the Singapore Senior Officers Association, the Graduate Teachers Association and the Singapore Teachers Union wrote to the Chairman of the Malayanisation Commission and sent copies of the letter to the Chief Secretary and to the Chief Minister. They were dealing with the creation of superscale posts to which they took the strongest possible exception. I do not know how much time I have, Mr Chairman, Sir, and I wish to read only the relevant passages. The penultimate paragraph of that letter, to which they have had no acknowledgment or reply from the Chief Minister or the Chief Secretary, -

The Chief Minister: The letter was not addressed to us.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - says:

"We do urge the Commission to make an interim recommendation to Government that the Singapore Establishment should be fixed as from the date of the appointment of the Commission, and that no new Division I posts, whether timescale or superscale, should be created by Government without prior reference to the Commission. We also request the Commission to make an interim recommendation to Government that no superscale posts in Division I should be filled substantively on the advice of the present Public Services Commission until after the recommendations of the Malayanisation Commission are known. We are sending copies of the letter to the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister - "

The Chairman: Order. I think I have to interrupt the hon. Member because it seems to me that the Malayanisation Commission is a quasi-judicial body and this document was sent to them and perhaps ought not to have been referred to, except possibly in passing.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, this is not a confidential communication to the Malayanisation Commission. This was a point of view publicly declared and proclaimed by the Federation of Government Union Employees, the Singapore Senior Officers Association, the Graduate Teachers Association, and the Singapore Teachers Union. They proclaimed it publicly. They sent copies to the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. They stated in clear categorical terms that they were against the creation of any new Division I posts. The Chief Minister will have to answer to the people. The Financial Secretary does not have to answer to the people. He does not have to answer to the bigots. If he does not like them, he can call them bigots. But the Chief Minister will have to answer to the people whether he likes them or not, and whether they are bigots or not, because they represent the will of the people.

The Chairman: Order, order. The time has elapsed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $4,669,470 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 62 -

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4 (1), Upkeep of Government Roads, on page 251 of the Estimates.

In moving this amendment, my attention was drawn to the fact that an allocation of $130,000 has been made under this head as against one of $10,000 in 1955. I would have no objection to this increase if provision is being made for at least one item, or rather group of items. I refer to the approach roads to schools. All three of the main Government schools in the Tanglin Division have approach roads which are in appalling condition, and I know that these are by no means the only schools which are suffering. This matter has already been brought to the notice of the Minister for Education, and I hope that this increase means that the information has been passed on to his colleague at the Ministry of Communications and Works.

Sir, the argument which might be used is that roads leading to schools are not the responsibility of the Government because they are frequently private roads to be made up by frontagers, but in the three cases I have quoted the schools are the very first buildings situated on the roads in question, and it seems to me that it is part of the duty of Government, when building and maintaining schools, to build and maintain serviceable approach roads to them. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the increase under this head is intended at least in part for this purpose.

Question proposed.

Mr Francis Thomas: This vote is in respect of some 120 miles of Government roads which include car parks and access roads, roads to hospitals, prisons, Mount Pleasant Road, Haig Road and so on. I am afraid, Mr Chairman, Sir, I cannot give you a clear picture of what will be done about school approach roads in particular. I am very well aware of the situation, Sir. When I was a teacher, the approach road to my own school was exceedingly bad. I very warmly sympathise with the hon. Member for his efforts to get the roads improved.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, it is not clear to me from the remarks of the Minister whether these roads will be attended to or not.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am afraid he will have to remain unclear for the moment.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 6 (7), Minor Works, on page 252 of the Estimates.

In the Estimates it is shown that $150,000 is required this year for minor works. The approved estimate last year was only $60,000. I now seek information as to the necessity for the increase of this vote by 250 per cent and the work to be done.

Question proposed.

Mr Francis Thomas: This is a simple little grant of money which is used for im- proving Crown land when you anticipate building or other work of that kind; for example, the filing up of the swamp land at Kolam Ayer for civil defence purposes; the taking up now of some bits of concrete flooring at Shenton Way which will have to go at some time. That is the general purpose - where Crown land needs to be cleaned up and put into good order, perhaps with a view to building, then the work is put in hand and the work is done.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: That is not very much information, but still I thank him for the little he has given me.

Mr Hart: Can I amplify further, Sir? In last year's Estimates there appeared "Minor Works Medical"; "Minor Works Education"; "Minor Works General".

I think the total came to $500,000.

We decided this year that we would cut all these special departmental minor works votes out and increase this General Minor Works vote by a very much smaller sum than the sum which we cut out.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I thank the Financial Secretary for helping out the Minister. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr Hart: If I may say so, Sir, we work as a team!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Question proposed,

That the sum of $6,549,400 for Head 62 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, I should like to refer for a few moments to the question of flood alleviation. I am glad that the Bedok scheme has now been started and will be completed, I hope, to the satisfaction of the residents there in a few months.

But I would ask the Minister now to turn his attention to the Ulu Pandan area. He stated, in reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar the other day, that plans must be formulated before money can be spent. But I would remind him that a plan already exists in the Ulu Pandan area. It was formulated two years ago, published in fact in July 1953 by the Flood Alleviation Joint Committee, composed of representatives of the Government and the City Council, which recommended a scheme to take water away from Alexandra and Bukit Timah through Ulu Pandan to the sea. The Alexandra canal scheme was originally estimated to cost about $4 millions, and this was subsequently reduced to a one million dollar scheme. Finally, however, it was decided first to go forward with a pilot scheme to make sure that the waters of Alexandra would run away in a westerly direction and the reverse direction from what it does at present at a cost of $120,000, of which Government agreed to pay $60,000. Eventually this scheme was completed, I think, about nine months ago at a cost of $200,000, the extra cost being due largely to the need to purchase land from the War Department. I say this scheme was successfully completed in the neighbourhood of nine months ago and I think I stated in this House in April that the water was running away in the right direction, that is to say, in a westerly direction.

But what has happened since then? A lot of the canal has silted up. Enterprising farmers are now growing water-hyacinth in ponds for their pigs, and the water at the top end of the canal is now running in the opposite direction back towards Alexandra and the city. It seems to me that a scheme which has cost the public $200,000 and was successful should be followed up immediately and that money should have been granted in the 1956 Estimates to see that what has been done already is not wasted but is being carried on.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Chairman, Sir, I have only got at present the preliminary very brief mention about Ulu Pandan. The Member for Tanglin's remarks do seem to me to indicate that if the work done is silting up and if farmers are interfering with it, - do I understand that properly? - it does seem to indicate the need for proper planning before we put these works in hand and for a really comprehensive overall scheme before we undertake those relatively minor works.

I cannot give a figure for this area. It is one on which we have not got a report yet, but it might be in the nature of $1½ millions. I think that could be considerably reduced. I cannot anticipate the expert report which we shall get in the course of the next few weeks. I hope early next year it will be available for discussion by the Assembly.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Chairman, Sir, water-hyacinth growing and silting of the canal does indicate a lack of supervision and a lack of interest rather than anything else.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $6,549,400 for Head 62 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 63 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew -

To reduce by $19,960 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (3), Assistant Controllers of Telecommunications, on page 253 of the Estimates.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, Sir, this is another of the amendments that I was to move against an increase in superscale posts for expatriates. If, in fact, I were to move it this morning, I would give the Chief Minister an opportunity to state categorically in this House whether he agrees with the opinions expressed by his Financial Secretary that the representations which I have carried into this Assembly were made by bigoted civil servants.

I am blocked by Standing Orders from moving this amendment, but I would like to take this opportunity to say, Mr Chairman, Sir, that I have not during the course of this debate impugned either the personal integrity or character of anybody in this Assembly. I have, however, categorically stated that the only reasonable inferences one can draw from those facts presented as they are in official publications are the ones I have drawn in this Assembly. In view of the obstacle of Standing Orders in the way of this amendment, I will not move.

Question proposed,

That the sum of $4,397,680 for Head 63 stand part of the Schedule.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, reference has been made to certain representations which were made to the Sreenivasan Commission of which copies were addressed to me, and a complaint that there was no receipt of a reply from me -

The Chairman: Is the Chief Minister speaking on this question?

The Chief Minister: To some extent it is on this question, Sir. If I may be permitted to comment, Sir, on the motion that was withdrawn?

The Chairman: I am afraid, Mr Chief Minister, you are out of order.

The Chief Minister: May I speak on a point of explanation, Sir?

The Chairman: On another occasion, Mr Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: There will not be any left, Sir. I would ask your indulgence on a point of personal explanation, Sir.

The Chairman: Not at this time, Mr Chief Minister.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Call a Press conference!

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $4,397,680 for Head 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: That disposes of the First Schedule. Now, on the Second Schedule - Development. SECOND SCHEDULE

Head D 13 -

The sum of $15,030 for Head D 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 14 -

The sum of $6,000 for Head D 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 58 -

The sum of $3,344,970 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 29 -

The sum of $295,000 for Head D 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 48 -

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $500,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4 (2), Primary Schools, Group B, on page 8 of the Development Estimates.

In view of the explanation of the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) yesterday, I had intended not to proceed with this amendment as I felt I could not extract any more useful information from him, but I understand that my friend the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) wishes to have an opportunity to speak on this subject as he had none yesterday, and so I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the Member for Tanglin very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. With your permission, Mr Chairman, Sir, before I touch on this subject, I wish to remind all Members in this House that, despite so many Party differences, yet we have at least one common aim, that is, this country is going to get rid of colonialism. Therefore, we must also get rid of the colonial educational policy.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we have had a chance to glance at the development estimate on education. One glance and we can see that this is another colonial educational policy. We cannot trace anything at all that shows that the Government has kept its word when it promised during the elections, "Equality of education for all races! Preservation and promotion of all cultures!" Our Chief Minister even went to the extent of talking during the elections about lifting the language barrier in this country, and I am sure, Sir, that all this is connected with education. We believe that the educational policy of any country in the world is always of prime importance. Whoever can carry out a healthy and constructive policy will not only bring about immediate benefit to the country but benefit for a long, long time to come.

Sir, when we look at the Estimates, we see a number of new secondary schools scheduled to be built. I wish the Minister for Education would clearly indicate to us how many of these will be Malay secondary schools; how many will be Chinese secondary schools; and also whether any primary school is to be built during the coming year. Sir, we cannot understand Government's policy on education. On the one hand, it promises the people that their cultural position would be secured. They say, "We are going to give you fair treatment." Yet, on the other hand, they are promoting only English education. Although we are very happy to note that more money is voted this year, we must not forget that the previous Legislative Council - we very often called them a colonial Legislative Council - unhesitatingly gave $12 millions to improve Chinese education. Whether this grant met with welcome or just only resentment or even fear and suspicion is not known.

Sir, I think it is now high time for the Minister for Education to have the courage to make a start to get rid of the colonial educational policy in this country. My sympathies quite often go to many Ministries which have been attacked by the forceful and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar who accuses the Ministers of being influenced too much by their expatriate assistants. But, Sir, my sympathies do not, in the least, go to the Minister for Education. I believe the Minister for Education has betrayed Chinese education. He, more than anybody else, should understand the Chinese school tradition in this country. He should himself deal with the policy on Chinese education or even vernacular education and should not depend solely upon the expatriate officers. Sir, if I have your permission, I can give a particular example.

The Chairman: Order, order. I just want to understand what the hon. Member is getting at. The amendment is in respect of primary schools. The hon. Member is talking about primary schools?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you. Carry on, Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, everything has been so frankly debated that I am going to emphasise that this Budget has been framed entirely by the Colonial Office, including its policy on primary schools. I remember not long ago we invited a so-called education expert from Hongkong to give us advice on bilingual education, to give us advice on Chinese education in particular. Sir, let me speak as a former Chinese school teacher. We always regard Chinese education in Hongkong as peculiar and unpopular. Mr Chairman, Sir, it will surprise you to know that Chinese education in Hongkong is -

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) rose -

The Chairman: Point of order?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, the Member is referring to evidence given before the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education, which evidence is not yet allowed to be brought up before this House for discussion.

The Chairman: Arising from that point, if the hon. Member, in fact, is referring to evidence which has been given before the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education, then, of course, he is out of order.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, I think our Minister has jumped too quickly to conclusions! I just say according to what has appeared in the papers.

Sir, this so-called bilingual expert was going to give us advice on Chinese education, and I am going to say that that is wrong, and the decision to invite this Hongkong expert was, I am sure, not made by our Minister. Sir, it may surprise you to know that Chinese education in Hongkong is taught not in Kuo-yu but in Cantonese, with profit-making as the motive. It is not only colonialised but commercialised. Yet we are going to accept such advice from this colonialised and commercialised expert!

Mr Chew Swee Kee rose -

The Chairman: Point of order?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: The hon. Member is not talking on the Development Estimates. He is now talking on the educational policy.

The Chairman: I had better refer hon. Members to the relevant Standing Order 69 (7), which says:

"Any Member may move an amendment to the schedule to reduce by $ ... the sum to be allotted for any head of expenditure ..".

Then, paragraph (11):

"On the question, "That the sum of $ ... for head ... stand part of the schedule", debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided ...";

so that I must rule that the hon. Member is probably making a speech on the main Question. The Question that is before the House is the question proposed by the Member for Tanglin, and it is an amendment to reduce by $500,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4 (2), Primary Schools. If, therefore, the hon. Member wishes to speak further on the question of policy, he should wait until the main Question has been proposed.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think our Minister is getting very impatient! The whole reason is that the Minister for Education has been greatly influenced by the expatriates, and I doubt very much whether the Minister has framed the educational aspect of this Budget, or has he only just been consulted?

The Chairman: Order. From what I can gather, the Member for Changi is, in fact, talking about the policy on education. That is correct?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng indicated assent.

The Chairman: Please wait until I propose the main Question before the hon. Member speaks on it. This is an amendment.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, then I simply have to ask the Minister for Education to indicate clearly whether this $500,000 for all the primary schools is intended to be allocated among Malay schools, Tamil schools and Chinese schools, or merely to English schools alone.

Sir, many a time the Government Ministers accuse Members of the Opposition of reading their speeches. This proves to us that there is prejudice against one's mother tongue which one wants to use because one cannot speak English as fluently as our Hon. Ministers can. But that does not entitle them to say, "Well, I am an educated man." We cannot, on the one hand, give fervent support to Government's policy in building so many English schools to promote English education, and, on the other hand, stop vernacular education from progressing. So I want to repeat that I am not clear whether our Minister himself has framed the development aspect of education in this Budget or whether he has only been consulted. Have I your permission to point out how much our Ministers are influenced by the expatriate officers? Can I?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member might or might not be in order if he carries on in that theme when I propose the main Question. If he wants to speak on the main Question, he can do so, but whether he will or will not be in order I will have to decide as the occasion arises.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Chairman, Sir, some Members come here just for the sake of criticism and nothing else. They just know how to criticise - destructive criticism, not constructive criticism.

I think I had better confine myself to Standing Orders and reply to the amendment before the House, and that is the reduction of $500,000 from the Development Estimates. I gave that reply on Monday and I would advise Members to read that reply. The hon. Member the mover of this amendment had indicated that he would withdraw his question today, but he moved it again in order that an opportunity be given to others to speak on it. I repeat: the Government is all the time carrying out investigations into ways and means of reducing the cost of buildings, but it must be borne in mind that economy on capital expenditure must not be offset by increase in maintenance costs. It is also important that schools should be built, but we do not want them to have a quality, which is so inferior as to be a reproach to our legislators.

We have, sitting on a Committee in the P.W.D., expert educationists who can advise how class-rooms could be reduced in size, how the ceiling could be reduced in height, and we are working out a scheme whereby the cost of buildings will be reduced considerably.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the Minister for Education has not answered my question.

The Chairman: Order, order, Mr Lim Cher Kheng. The Minister has not answered your question because you have been out of order. Please wait until the main Question is proposed.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I do take objection to Ministers repeating all the time that our criticisms are all destructive and not constructive. Actually, it is only out of destruction sometimes that construction emerges. We have to do a certain amount of destruction here in order to take away the ideas of standards of building which were set at a time when we were in affluent circumstances and when we had not undertaken such extensive social programmes for the under-privileged.

May I put it this way, Sir, and ask a question: whether savings could be effected out of this enormous amount of, say, a few hundred thousand dollars during the next year or two and whether the savings, say about half a million dollars - being about ten per cent estimated to be spent - could be diverted to vernacular schools, Chinese, Malay and Indian?

Mr Francis Thomas: Perhaps I might be able to help the hon. Member on this one. The situation, I think, is over these 18 schools in Group B, and I wish to inform hon. Members that one will be ready by the end of this year and tenders will be called for 13 more before the end of this year. That means, of course, that the very lengthy planning and so on - site investigation and all that - is now ready and we are in a position to call for tenders. Consequently, if you want to stop that in order to readjust your plans, you will have to go back one year and stop 13 schools from being built, which I am sure is not the intention of the mover of the amendment.

There remain four other schools for which site difficulties have not yet been cleared, but as soon as sites are available, we shall go ahead with them.

As far as I can see from my constructional angle, it would be extremely difficult in respect of this vote to divert the money from the schools since a large part of the preliminary work has already been done, and if that work is stopped, then you will stop the whole building programme.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Question proposed,

That the sum of $11,542,020 for Head D 48 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, looking through this estimate on development, I do find the item "School Playing Fields" coming up and $100,000 allocated for developing playing fields. We all realise that playing fields in Singapore are scarce and few and far between, and indeed you do find that there are many schools without playing fields.

I must also inform this House that although some schools are fortunate enough to have playing fields, yet these are not put to maximum use.

It is just a suggestion, Sir, that it is a good thing to put in probably two or three more playing fields out of this allocation of $100,000, but I think it would be a better thing that the existing playing fields of some schools -

The Chairman: Order, order. The time has elapsed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - should be shared with other schools which have not.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $11,542,020 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 18 -

Question proposed,

That the sum of $10 for Head D 18 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Hart: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think there is a contradiction in terms between the First Schedule and the Second Schedule. The First Schedule refers to "Garden, Botanic", and the Second Schedule refers to "Gardens, Botanic". The correct title is "Garden, Botanic".

The Chairman: We will correct that as a typographical error. The "s" is deleted.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $10 for Head D 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 54 -

The sum of $10 for Head D 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 7 -

The sum of $385,000 for Head D 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 45 -

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 1, Acquisition and Development of Sites for Resettlement, on page 12 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, this is a very huge sum of $5,500,000. No particulars on this subject are given, and before I say anything, I would like to know what they are.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: I fully appreciate the difficulties experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Telok Ayer, and I think we have now agreed, Sir, that they will be solved in the future by the existence and the work of an Estimates Committee, reports of which will give detailed information about how the various votes are built up.

With regard to this item, "Acquisition and Development of Sites for Resettlement", I do not think I need explain the purpose for which the money is provided. Perhaps I will merely give the hon. Member some information as to how the sum is made up. I think that is what he wants?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes.

Mr Hart: We have estimated this year that we will probably have to acquire about a thousand acres for farming and that will cost approximately $2 millions; 200 acres for rural resettlement and other types - $0.8 million; for site development we have allocated $1 million; for general resettlement costs $1.2 millions, making a total of $5 millions. There is also a revote from last year's provision of $500,000. That is how the amount is made up.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I am quite satisfied with the explanation given to me, and I would not like to proceed with the amendment.

The Chairman: Has the hon. Member the assent of the Assembly that his amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 2, Purchase of Land, on page 12 of the Development Estimates.

I am moving this amendment for the same reason given in my preceding amendment - that no explanation is given about this item.

When the Hon. the Financial Secretary replies, I hope he will indicate also whether the purchase of any land or buildings is in itself an investment and not an item of expenditure.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Chairman, Sir, I will answer the first part of the question. Actually, the Ministry of Lands or the Commissioner of Lands is the agent for various Government departments in the purchase of land. For instance, the Education Department would want land to build schools; the Medical Department would want to build hospitals and clinics. The actual authority for the purchase of land in Singapore is the Commissioner of Lands. He is nothing but an agent for the various Government departments.

The break-down figures for the sum allocated for next year for the various departments are : $ Education Department 3,850,000 Medical Department 1,140,000 Social Welfare 500,000 Posts and Telegraphs 500,000 Secretary for Defence 160,000 Telecommunications 50,000 Customs 40,000 Broadcasting 30,000

These are the break-down figures for the various Government departments and Ministries which require land and for which the Commissioner of Lands acts as the agent.

As for the second part of the question, I think I will leave it to the Hon. the Financial Secretary to reply.

Mr Hart: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend had in mind when he spoke of the investment of Government funds in land. Perhaps he might care to elaborate further?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: What I meant, Sir, was this. I have bought a pencil. This is an investment and the property is in my hands. It is not an item of expenditure whatsoever. You can dispose of this pencil and again recredit. Now, can the Hon. the Financial Secretary indicate in his future Estimates that it is an investment, or that it is a reserve fund invested in something? That is all I want to ask.

On the other hand, the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has explained that this will be required for Government purposes and, as such, I will not consider it an investment at all because it belongs to the Government of the Colony. In the circumstances, I would like to withdraw this amendment.

The Chairman: Has the hon. Member the assent of the Assembly that the amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed.

That the sum of $16,239,780 for Head D 45 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Mr Chairman, Sir, under this head $5,500,000 has been allocated for "Acquisition and Development of Sites for Resettlement". I have one resettlement in my area, Sir. It was created nearly 18 months ago. The condition of the roads and surroundings is far from satisfactory. I am told, Sir, on a recent visit by the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that the money is already there in the Estimates, but the difficulty is to get surveyors to survey road-works and then implement them, the reason being that there are no surveyors available in the Department. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, Sir, when one thinks of the fact that there is money available but the work is not done.

These resettlements have very little amenities, and the more we can provide for them, the better would life be for the people living in these resettlements. I would suggest to the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing - I have already mentioned it to him during his visit, but I would like to put it on record as something that I have said in this Chamber - that the Government should resort to finding some private surveyor to do this type of work, so that the work would not only be speeded up, but the fact that it is being put in hand would give some confidence to the people living there.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Mr Chairman, Sir, the question which the Member for Seletar has in mind is receiving my immediate consideration.

Mr Nair: Thank you.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am one of the people coming from outside the city area, and I am coming again to this question of contribution to the Rural Board. The Hon. the Financial Secretary has complimented the Rural Board on collecting a lot of revenue. I think that compliment must be qualified. Here in Singapore you do find that many people live in congested surroundings right in the heart of this city. I think it should be the policy of Government to encourage people to live in the rural areas, and if you are going to encourage them to live in healthier rural areas, you should bring to them more amenities of life. As a person who has been living in the rural area for a very long time, I can safely say that the amenities there are not up to standard. The roads must be greatly improved. Playing fields must be provided in almost every district. I will just give one aspect of living conditions - the night-soil system. It is not good in the rural areas and needs looking into.

All these things need money, and yet we have four million odd dollars for an area which is, I think, ten times greater than the city area. Sir, I think this sum is inadequate and should be increased so that there will be more encouragement for people to live outside the city area. Furthermore, if this sum were increased, there would not be the necessity of increasing rates. I have heard the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing state that $2 increase a month for all the amenities in Serangoon Garden is justifiable. There should be no complaint about it. But I would like to inform him that when a person buys a house in Serangoon Garden, he buys it with a promise that all these amenities will be part of the price he pays for it. But after a year you say, "No, the value is greater. All that we have promised to install is not going to be installed unless we put an added value on the house." That, I think, Sir, is not justified.

The Chief Minister: Sir, may I remind the Member for Serangoon that the promise made was not by Government or the Rural Board, but by the owners of the estate themselves; and that, in fact, the Rural Board house owners have had considerable encouragement?

I would also remind him that they pay 60 per cent of the assessment that the city dweller pays. The assessment on the annual value of their houses is 20 per cent. The city dweller pays 32 per cent in respect of the annual value of his premises.

Sir, I am sure the Member for Serangoon is conscious of the fact that he cannot get services without payment, and payment ultimately comes from the public. The system of assessment is considered a fair one and has so far worked reasonably well in that the persons who have the amenities and are in a position to pay, do pay. A man who owns a house has his premises assessed, and I understand it is very conservatively assessed at an annual value of, say, $100 and he pays per year on that in the rural area only $20. If he gets $100 rent a month he pays on that rate for all the amenities that make possible the occupation of the premises in question, $20 a month to the authorities.

I would like to add this, that there is no question whatsoever but that the amenities in the rural areas should be improved. On this I am in complete agreement with the Member for Serangoon, and it is certainly our hope, Sir, to continue what has already been done in the way of giving greater amenities to the areas outside city limits.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $16,239,780 for Head D 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 49 -

The sum of $10 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 39 -

The sum of $200,020 for Head D 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 52 -

Mr John Ede: Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $220,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 2, Urban Health Centre, on page 16 of the Development Estimates.

In moving this amendment, Sir, I wish to express objection to the erecting of another $2 millions building in the vicinity of the General Hospital. I understand that it is to be a teaching centre and not for treatment, but why should it cost the equivalent of something like three secondary schools? Is the Minister entirely satisfied that such a centre must cost as much as $2 millions? I realise that three-quarters of the amount is from the Colonial and Welfare Development Fund, but could not part of this generous grant have been promised to further new industries?

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: I think perhaps I should answer these questions since the Development Estimates were really my child, a thriving child, I hope!

As the Member for Tanglin has said, this is a project which involves not only Colony funds but C.D. & W. funds. It goes a bit beyond that in so far as it is what you might call a tripartite effort on the part of the Government, the University of Malaya and the City Council. It is, as he says, a training establishment - training of nurses in rural health; training of doctors in public health; and the City Council are going to use it as a child health clinic.

As the Member for Tanglin knows, before we can get any grants from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, we have to put up a particularly strong case to justify expenditure, and it is subject to most careful scrutiny and pruning by the authorities at home before authority for a grant is given. I think I can say in all good faith that this represents the minimum amount of expenditure which is required to provide the services which we envisage. It is a training establishment of the highest order. As I say, $500,000 is coming from Colony funds and $1,500,000 from C.D. & W. funds.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr John Ede: Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4, District Hospital, on page 16 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga) in his speech on Monday went some way to clarify Government policy as far as his Ministry is concerned but not, in our opinion, far enough. One question he has not yet answered is this: Why give priority to improvements in the General Hospital over the building of a new district hospital?

Decentralisation is admitted to be essential, and admitted to be part of Government policy, and yet this is to be delayed for the best part of another year because money has to be spent on reconditioning the General Hospital wards first. Is this absolutely necessary, and is it in the best public interests?

Let me pose another question. Even if more beds will be available than before in these General Hospital wards, what will the cost be per bed, and how does this compare with the proposed cost per bed at the new district hospital? I hope very much to hear that neither the reconditioned wards nor the new district hospital will be built of a very high standard, nor money lavished on the new Mistri wing of the General Hospital but that the public is going to get very much better value for its money. Nevertheless, at the cost of $3,200,000, I have my misgivings.

Another point, Sir, needs explanation because the Minister for Health and the Financial Secretary on Monday seemed at variance with each other. The former explained to us that the first site for the district hospital selected was in Katong and was abandoned because piling would be too costly. The latter stated that work on the new site at Kallang would be slow because the land was reclaimed land and much piling would be needed and would take time. Now I can readily believe that most of the old airfield area is not suitable for heavy buildings because of piling problems on reclaimed land and there seems to be a contradiction. Is the new district hospital then to cost more than it need because it is going to be built on an unsuitable site? Is a great deal of piling going to put up the cost per bed of this hospital? Is the Minister satisfied that this is not only the best site geographically but also the cheapest from the taxpayers' point of view? I hope that hon. Members opposite will not feel that these are destructive, sterile questions. What we want is to be convinced that the right decisions have been made in the public interests. If money continues to be poured into the General Hospital area at the expense of decentralisation, it is our duty to probe into the reasons for it until we get a satisfactory answer.

One other point I would like to mention is that under Head 3 this Assembly approves, among other items, a sum of $300,000 for a 250-bed hospital to be built by S.A.T.A. Plans for this have been drawn up by a private architect, and a charitable organisation has to be careful of money, especially when it is Government money and public money. Now, if a private organisation can build a 250-bed hospital for $300,000, why cannot the Government approach these figures? I realise, of course, that a T.B. hospital is a hospital limited to a single disease. It is a curative hospital, but there seems to me a very great disparity between a 250-bed hospital at $300,000 and, I think, a 400-bed hospital at $3,200,000.

Question proposed.

Mr Francis Thomas: I think the Member for Tanglin touched at one point on the Kallang site?

Mr John Ede: Yes.

Mr Francis Thomas: Perhaps I can help him out on some technical details about that one. The first non-technical detail, of course, is that the site there is already Government property. We have not got to pay very high prices for it. In that respect, of course, the site is eminently eligible because it is free. Secondly, it is eligible because it is very well situated from a demographic point of view because the population around is both heavy and poor and it is therefore a very suitable place for a hospital to be where the poor people can get into it easily.

On the question of piling, it is extremely hard to find any site in Singapore now where you do not have to put piles down and there will undoubtedly have to be piling, but no more than there is in the ordinary way with the majority of the buildings that have to go up nowadays.

Mr Hart: On the question of delay in construction of the district hospital, I think I am right in saying that it will take a year to prepare the plans finally before work can be started. In the meantime, we are spending a certain amount of money on the General Hospital. I will deal with that point under the item "Alterations to Ward, etc." which is going to be raised, I think, by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) very shortly.

I am afraid I cannot give the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) any details about the cost per bed. He knows much more about the S.A.T.A. Hospital than I do myself, but I think it is of rather simpler construction generally than a fully-fledged district hospital with operating theatres and all the other things like staff quarters that go to make up a fully-fledged district hospital. The estimated cost, of course, will be most carefully drawn up. It may be that we will be able to reduce the estimates as a result of the activities of the Sub-Committee on Medical Building Costs which is now sitting. That is a matter which we will deal with in the future.

As regards the site, I think my hon. Friend the Minister for Communications and Works has explained that. The first site mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health was at Katong - a private site close to the Sea View Hotel. That project was abandoned when we decided to build a hospital on the eastern portion of the Kallang Airport site. I think these are all the points which have been raised by the hon. Member.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, I should like to add just a small point for the information of the Member for Tanglin, which he might find helpful in the matter of comparison. I did enquire as to the position in England and I was told that for a modern hospital that is fully equipped, with operating theatres, it is assessed that the cost is in the region of £2,500 per bed. I think that is a point which he might find useful for comparison.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, the Financial Secretary has just told us that for this hospital one year will be required for planning, and I take it that about two to three years will be required for its construction and equipment to enable it to be run as a hospital. In the meantime, I am very much concerned about what is going to be done during the next four years to alleviate the position of the sick people in this area who have to go down to town through very congested traffic. I think during rush hours it would take an ambulance coming down from the Katong area to the General Hospital well over half an hour, if not more. Are we now going to adopt a defeatist attitude and do nothing about it?

I have been assured that the beautiful building - the terminal airport - is not going to be used for the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force. May I humbly suggest that this building should in the meantime be pressed into service as a district hospital until such time as a new one is ready? It has all the facilities there. You have the administration rooms, telephones, services which can be used for surgical wards, offices, etc. You have on the first floor rooms ready to be turned into wards. There is a very large area of open space on the first floor which has been used as a restaurant and as a look-out chamber and which can be converted into extra wards, if necessary at a very cheap cost.

I am now offering this suggestion to the Minister for Health whether, in all seriousness, something cannot be done for the people in this district, because it will not only serve the people living in this area but also all the people living in the Serangoon and Paya Lebar area - a very congested area - and enable them to by-pass the town by using the excellent roads of Paya Lebar and Aljunied Road.

The Chief Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, the idea of having a hospital at the airport terminal has been considered by the experts whom we must consult and whose views we must accept, and we have been assured that that building is wholly inappropriate and inadequate for the purposes of a district hospital. But the suggestion just made by the Member for Paya Lebar that it might be utilised as a sort of temporary cottage hospital seems to have potentialities, Sir, and I would like to assure him that that question would certainly be investigated from the point of view of a purely temporary cottage hospital rather than a fully-equipped hospital. I think there might be something in it. It might well be feasible.

Mr Nair: Sir, sometime in 1954/55, if I remember it correctly, Thomson Road was suggested as a site for a district hospital. As far as I can remember, there are two sites - both Government property - which are available for public purposes. One of them is an elevated site and I am wondering whether the Government has considered the possibility of erecting a district hospital on it. I think it is a very ideal site.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, Sir, with due respect to the experts, I cannot see why the old Kallang Airport cannot be turned into a hospital. Just before the fall of Singapore, all the hospitals were in the open, under tents, and the terminal airport building is a very good building compared to tents for a hospital!

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): I think it was the Member for Tanglin who enquired what the average cost of a bed would be. Working it out on a $3,200,000 hospital, I have already intimated to the Members of the House that in the first phase, it is anticipated that with the staff available and by the time that it is erected, the hospital can accommodate 250 beds. This is, of course, anticipation, and we hope to enlarge on that. There will be provision for enlargement to a 400-bed hospital. Working that out, the cost would be about $7,100 per bed.

Mr John Ede: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am not quite clear what the Minister intended to convey. Does he mean that a district hospital at $3,200,000 will only have 250 beds?

Mr Braga: No, 400. 250 beds in the first phase.

Mr John Ede: At $3,200,000 not 400 beds?

Mr Braga: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 10 (3), Alterations to ward, etc. on page 16 of the Development Estimates.

I see here that the estimated cost is $2,820,000 and this will include an extension to the Orthopaedic Unit. This amount is to be spent for alterations to wards at the General Hospital. This amount seems to be a terrific one. To me it visualises a building - two buildings, in fact. I am reliably informed that the new Chartered Bank premises, Crosby House, at Anson Road costs just over $3 millions, and if you take away the cost of the foundations, I think it should be somewhere about what is going to be spent on the alterations to the General Hospital, with an extension to the Orthopaedic Unit - $2,820,000. Here is a complete and concrete building before us. For that same amount of money you have Crosby House - a beautiful huge six-storey building with equipment furnished. I am not an engineer, but I can see facts. For $3 millions, they have built the Bank of China building. The cost of Asia Building is $6 millions. It will need a lot of explanation from the Government to justify this amount voted in the Estimates for "Alterations to Ward, etc." - $2,820,000.

I would also like to ask what extra accommodation we would get for this enormous expenditure, and how many beds we are going to get for spending nearly $3 millions of public money. We could have put up another skyscraper in Singapore.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: Sir, I should point out to the Member for Paya Lebar that under this sub-head 10 (3) the total estimated cost of the whole scheme is $2.82 millions. That is an estimate of the cost of alterations which the Minister for Health has in mind for implementation over a number of years.

Now I can tell him what has been spent so far and what we propose to spend this year against the provision of $400,000 which has been entered in the Estimates, part of it being a revote and part of it being new money. The revised estimate of cost of work done so far is $365,000. I think the hon. Member is familiar with the General Hospital to know what I mean when I refer to Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This money has been spent on remodelling of Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to take in the verandahs, thus adding bed accommodation space to the wards. At the same time, new bathrooms, lavatories and other accommodation of a similar nature have been added to make allowance for the increased capacity of these wards. At the same time also, what is called a follow-up clinic has been made for Professor Monteiro's Unit. The object of this follow-up clinic is to get patients on to their feet as soon as they can walk and therefore free beds for the occupation of other patients. But at the same time, as they still require treatment, facilities have to be provided for them under the care of the same physicians who have been treating them before and not to force them to go to the General Outpatients Department. That is the object of the follow-up clinic which has been provided along with the alterations and remodelling of these wards for the sum of $365,000.

Next year, with the money provided, we hope to supply a new Ear, Nose and Throat Unit. I think those who have had to attend the Ear, Nose and Throat Unit of the Hospital for treatment will realise that it is not very adequate. They have to use the general operating theatres in the vicinity of the consulting room. Waiting accommodation for outpatients is not particularly good. It is proposed to take the ward which has been vacated by the children who have been transferred to the Mistri wing and turn that into a complete Ear, Nose and Throat clinic, with operating theatres and a proper Outpatients Department, and so on and so forth. The net effect of that would be to provide 50 additional beds for Ear, Nose and Throat patients.

We are also at the same time to add another floor to the existing block in the Orthopaedic section of the hospital. That will provide an extra hundred beds. At the same time there will be other minor alterations required to provide the facilities for the increased number of beds in these wards.

As regards the future, I have here a long list of what is proposed to be done in the years from 1957 onwards. For example, modernise and increase the bed accommodation in the Stanley Block and Norris Block and so on and so forth, but I must say this, that it is not at all certain that we will proceed with this programme. The matter is now under consideration and it may well be that in the course of the next two or three months we will have a completely revised programme which may cut down future plans for alterations to wards in the General Hospital and divert the funds which have been earmarked for that purpose to other purposes. I think I can say that the remarks which have come from the Progressive Party in this connection are very constructive and helpful and they will be borne in mind by the Minister.

Mr Braga: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Financial Secretary has dealt with the programme regarding the suggested alterations to the General Hospital.

I saw a frown on the face of the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) on the question of the district hospital with 450 beds. May I just remind him that the $3,200,000 is not specifically for the 250 beds? That is particularly to cover a 450-bed hospital. What I meant was that in the first phase we can only accommodate 250 patients, but the sum of $3,200,000 is for a 450-bed hospital with all the equipment and conveniences. I would also remind hon. Members that it is very misleading to talk about hospitals in terms of the number of beds. One must consider a hospital in terms of its functions. A hospital has beds and those beds must be used to the best possible advantage. It is not a question of beds but an increase of facilities to the general public.

The Financial Secretary has told you about the floor that we intend to expand for the Ear, Nose and Throat Department and the Orthopaedic Unit and so forth; and also to provide a follow-up clinic for those patients who have left their beds. This will enable the beds vacated by them to be utilised by other patients. We must also provide facilities for out-patients as well as in-patients. I think the Financial Secretary has covered all the various departments that we have in mind when making alterations and additions to the General Hospital.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, the assurance from the Financial Secretary has cut short all that I wanted to say! We are indeed happy to have his assurance.

I would say that in all hospitals we want more facilities, but I maintain that the most important function of a hospital is to cure as many people as possible.

Also I have faith in the predecessors of the Medical Department in their early planning, so that if it is said that they had not thought of knocking out verandahs to increase space accommodation before, I think I would differ on that.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Chairman, Sir, whilst on the subject of hospitals -

The Chairman: We are on alterations to wards!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 10 (6), Quarters for 78 Sisters, on page 16 of the Development Estimates.

I see here under this item the estimated cost for these 78 quarters is $1,250,000 which works out at about $16,000 to $17,000 per unit. I take it that flats are intended for these 78 sisters? I do not want to spend too much time on this item. I mentioned at the previous sitting that it was possible to reduce the cost of housing the rank and file of the Police from about $10,000 to $5,000 per unit, and I would urge that similar consideration be given so that the accommodation cost here can be reduced to somewhere in the region of $12,000 per unit instead of $17,000.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: If I only knew, Sir, before the event, I would be able to give very full answers! As my hon. Friend the Member for Paya Lebar says, the cost per unit will work out at about $16,000 to $17,000. I think I can say that this building has not been started. I think hon. Members will know where it is being built. It will be built just behind Vickers Block. Plans have been prepared, recently signed, but they have been prepared in the light of the decision taken by the Government to reduce the cost of medical buildings as much as possible. They will be revised in the light of the decision of the Sub-Committee on the cost of medical construction, and it is possible that considerable savings will be achieved on the cost per unit of these buildings, principally, I think, by reducing the standard of equipment and fittings, tiling and other things of a similar nature inside the block itself. As I mentioned, I think, at an earlier sitting of this Assembly in connection with the sister quarters in the Vickers Block, we have reduced the cost per unit very considerably, and the same economies will be practised in respect of this block for 78 sisters.

As regards the principle underlying the construction of this block, we have found - I think it is generally accepted - that it is necessary to have a quarter of the staff of the hospital actually resident on the spot in case of an emergency. Provision of quarters for 78 sisters will really work out at one sister for 45 beds in the hospital once it has been expanded to the full capacity. I think in these circumstances it will be agreed that provision of a block of quarters of this size for sisters is not an unreasonable project.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I would like to ask whether this work, or, for that matter, other works or buildings or alterations, is being done by the P.W.D., or do you give it to any private architect or private contractors? When discussing this item with the Member for Paya Lebar, who has some experience of construction of cheaper buildings and cheaper flats, I have been told that the work can be done by private architects through private contractors, under, of course, the supervision of a Government architect.

Sir, I would like to enquire whether Government would be prepared to utilise private architects if their own costs are much higher than the others.

Mr Hart: We do utilise private architects from time to time, Sir, if we find that the projects which we have in hand and which are regarded as essential are beyond the capacity of the Public Works Department, but the Public Works Department is our department. It consists of highly qualified architects, quantity surveyors and all the other people who are required to supervise the construction of buildings, and where possible we always employ the Public Works Department.

On the question of cost, it is a difficult problem and I would not like to discuss it here - whether the cost of construction under private architects is cheaper or dearer than that of the P.W.D. There is, of course, the question of paying architects' fees which have to be paid when we employ private architects but which, of course, do not have to be paid when we employ the P.W.D.

Our policy in general is that where possible we employ our own people, but if their capacity is over-taxed, then we have no hesitation in going to private architects.

Mr Braga: I wish to assure the Member for Paya Lebar that the question of costs is continually in my mind, because the more money I have to use, the more benefits I can bring to the people - build more clinics and district hospitals. I have spent hours and hours with the Financial Secretary and the P.W.D. in trying my best to reduce costs, but for his information I would like to say, in connection with these quarters for 78 sisters, that there are only three flats there for the matrons, and each sister will have a bed-sitting room and a bathroom.

Mr Francis Thomas: I would just like to make a point about the architects. People do level accusations against the Public Works Department for building -

Mr R. Jumabhoy rose -

The Chairman: Point of order?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir. Sir, there was no accusation made by me at all, and the Minister for Communications and Works should not bring in this at all. I have never levelled any accusations against the Public Works Department for anything. I only wanted to enquire -

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr Francis Thomas: Neither did I level any accusation against the Member for Telok Ayer. I was saying "people". I wish to have an opportunity of replying to things that are said by people around this town and which are in the same general form as what the hon. Member said, only more emphatic.

The fact is, of course, that the P.W.D. builds the buildings which they are told to build. The architect is told what he has got to produce, and he produces the best he can with the money allotted. As regards the cost of the buildings, whether they are extravagant, whether they are luxurious, or whether they are economical and austere is a matter of general Government policy; and we are now instituting, as I have already explained in this Assembly, policies of economy and austerity. We have set up machinery which I have described for that purpose, and I hope that the economy and austerity will successfully follow. As I have said, they cannot be expected to appear until you have got new works in hand which will start with the plans made now. They cannot appear in respect of works which have been planned in the past unless you are going to tear up your plans and make a new start with consequent delay of a year or so.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 11 (1), Quarters for Matrons, Sisters and Almoner, on page 16 of the Development Estimates.

In this case, I have studied the figures with great alarm and I shall indeed be really alarmed unless some explanation is given as to why there should be an increase of nearly 25 per cent in the estimated cost. Under the Remarks column we have "Estimated cost revised from $450,000", and under the Estimated cost it is now $720,000. Well, I am mistaken, it is nearly a 60 per cent increase. If the same amount of accommodation is envisaged, something must have gone very wrong. I will therefore seek information before I speak further on this point.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: The answer to that question, of course, is that another floor has been added to the building which was envisaged for the $450,000 entered in the Estimates last year. I think hon. Members will remember, possibly about three months ago now, that I came asking for an application for supplementary vote for $270,000 to this vote - Quarters for Matrons, Sisters and Almoner at Kandang Kerbau. That was approved by the Assembly. As I say, the object of the exercise was to add another floor to the building - it is a two-storey building - making it a three-storey building, and adding one-third more to the accommodation. As I say, Sir, the increase has already been approved by the Assembly and I regret that I did not make that clear in the marginal note.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I am still unable to understand how an additional floor can make an increase of nearly 60 per cent to the total cost. There is very little information before us, and I shall just merely express my very sincere hope that the new Building Committee will go into this figure very thoroughly. As it stands at present, it looks as if we are spending $37,000 per flat.

Mr Hart: I think there must be some mistake, Sir. The original estimate, if I remember rightly, was $450,000, and we have added $270,000, I think an increase of about 33 per cent, for another floor.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 11 (4), Additions and Alterations to existing Hospital Buildings, on page 16 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, I see here an item for $2 millions, and many of the remarks that I have made before apply in this case. From the rough figures mentioned this morning, it appears to me that the proposed cost per bed of this new S.A.T.A. wing will be around $3,000 each. That in the district hospital will cost about $8,000. The Chief Minister has mentioned a fantastic figure of somewhere around £2,500 per bed in a London hospital. I think we can get a very good idea if comparative figures are given to us showing the various costs of the S.A.T.A. Hospital and the General Hospital. Of course, we must make allowance for administrative offices and other equipment.

Question proposed.

Mr Braga: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think hon. Members are aware that a new block was opened at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital - I think some Progressive Party members were present at the opening ceremony - but now that that block has been opened, and it can accommodate 116 beds, it is necessary to modernise and renovate the old building and to provide the additional hospital beds as such renovation will permit.

In the block facing Bukit Timah Road, for example, the ground floor and part of the first floor have now been vacated by the Administrative, Outpatient, X-Ray and Dispensary Departments and this accommodation will be converted into ward accommodation of 128 beds as compared with 75 in the old building. The pressure on this hospital is such that additional theatre accommodation also is essential, and it is proposed to provide under this item gynaecological operating theatres apart from the obstetrical theatres provided in the block lately completed.

Members must also remember that the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, as has been told, is one of the finest in the world. It is a teaching hospital and adequate provision must be made for that purpose.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, in the case of alterations to buildings, I am still putting up the old argument that whatever old buildings we have, they are still useful and can still be used even without alterations, and if the cost is going to be very large, you could easily put up another new building which will incorporate all the modern conveniences that you can ever think of.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 12 (2), Ward Blocks, four, on page 17 of the Development Estimates.

I do so advisedly because I see here in the Remarks column that the estimated cost has been revised from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000. On that alone, I submit that I am entitled to ask for quite a lot of information.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: I think the question was why had the cost increased by $2 millions. I think the answer is that four blocks are being built instead of two.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 12 (3), Conversion of Students Hostel for 150 Nurses, on page 17 of the Development Estimates.

Now here we have a very clear case of what can be over-spent in the nature of alterations and conversion. 150 nurses are to be accommodated in this Students Hostel which, I presume, must have been built at quite a substantial price pre-war. Now $300,000 is required for conversion, which works out at $2,000 per unit.

As I have been informed this morning that sisters only get one bed, one sitting room and toilet, I presume the nurses will only get just one room instead of two - one bed-sitting room instead of a sitting and a bedroom. To my mind, to spend $2,000 for converting an existing building into one-room quarters is fantastic. I know the Singapore Improvement Trust are now building two-storey flats - admittedly they are small - in Guillemard Road. They are units by themselves and can house at least four to five persons each. They each cost $2,300 only, and with the services, sanitation and all, I think it is $3,000, not more than that.

Now, if you can have a complete house for $3,000, what justification is there for spending $2,000 to alter one little room - $2,000 per unit? Something has gone wrong somewhere, and I think there is a lot of room, as I say, for a change of heart, according to our friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, these are the things that make me sit up, and I think that a complete revolution of ideas is necessary in the case of our admirable P.W.D. architects - I am casting no aspersions on them, Sir, they are friends of mine and I have great admiration for them. They have done excellent work. I do not agree in those respects with the hon. Member who says "Hear, hear!" and keeps on interrupting me. But still, in the interest of the country, and because of the financial stringency that we are facing, I am determined to see that for every cent we spend, we shall get at least double the accommodation.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of elucidation, Sir. Surely, getting more for every cent we spend than what we ordinarily get depends also upon people in the contracting business, does it not?

Mr Braga: I would like to remind the Member for Paya Lebar that that building is now being used as a hostel for the students of the university. They are vacating it. There is accommodation there at present for 90 students, and when the work of conversion is completed, there will be accommodation for 150 nurses. Now it is urgently necessary to provide residential accommodation for staff nurses and the building is to be so altered as to provide for dining rooms and so forth - they are not there now, but they all have to be provided for. I am not a financial expert nor an architect nor - in reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar - am I a contractor, but it must be visualised that this has to be properly built and suitable for the nurses.

The Member for Paya Lebar has paid his esteem and regard for the architects of the Public Works Department, and I am sure that, since he knows them so well, they will not put a much higher estimate than is necessary for the purpose for which the building is now going to be renovated.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, there is no question at all about the over-estimating. The only thing is I am trying to make it clear that the whole design has been done on a style which we cannot possibly afford today, and there must be a change in the concept of building for our civil servants.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Chairman, Sir, this matter of building costs is one which has been thought of very early in the life of this Government, and I have indicated the date on which a file has been opened, and what action has been taken since. I will repeat the action, which is that at the very highest level a body is being set up with representatives of the Government architects, the City Council architects, the S.I.T., and people engaged in private practice. It does take a little time to get them all together because they have bodies which have to meet and elect a particular person to serve on that body and that is not operating yet, but I hope it will be operating very shortly.

We have in operation two working parties - one in respect of costs for educational buildings and one in respect of costs for medical buildings - and they are examining in detail both the general principles of building and also particular points such as the quality of finishes and so on which are the things on which you can probably save most.

Of course, we have also increased the powers of the Public Works Department Standing Committee under which it can now refuse to accept items which it considers extravagant. If a Minister thinks he must have some item, then he will have to bring it to me, and if I say "I am afraid you cannot have it", then he will have to go to the Council of Ministers and he will have to make out a case for the item which he considers necessary but which the Public Works Department Standing Committee considers excessive. However, this can only operate with regard to the future unless you are going to try and pull down the buildings you have in the interests of economy, or tear up the plans or destroy the preparations already made. Therefore, it is not much use referring to the past. You must look to the future, and I can only assure hon. Members that these bodies are operating and will operate. I do not think there is much use going on about extravagance until you see whether their operations do, in fact, produce the economy and austerity which we are seeking to establish as the standard for all public buildings.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, my complaint is that, on the whole, the Ministers have not been able so far to bring their will to bear upon the officers who have been carrying on their work in the usual pre-election days.

Mr Francis Thomas: Hear, hear! Fortify the P.A.P.!

The Chairman: Order, please. We have had order up to now.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, in the case of this item under discussion, provision for 150 nurses, we will just make the case very simple so that the man-in-the-street can understand it. Suppose we buy a three-bedroom house, and it is available in many housing estates at about $12,000. So if you are going to provide for 150 nurses, you will buy 25 such houses. You will have two persons to each room, with a dining room and a kitchen all of their own and a little lawn in front, and the whole thing costs just $300,000. Thus you have new buildings, and added on to that you will have free land; whereas here you are pulling down your old hostel, probably tearing it to pieces, and then reconstructing it at the same cost - old building and no increase of land. You are suffering a loss.

Mr Francis Thomas: Much as one likes the idea of the nurses and their dining rooms and their little lawn so that they can play badminton or have a tea-party, one must remember that the nurses are required at the hospital and not on the lawn in front of their houses. They have to get from the little lawn to the hospital, which takes a certain amount of time and is also going to cost money. If the nurses are going to have their transport paid, you will find that you have put up your recurrent expenditure by a large sum. You can calculate it yourself - if you site your nurses in Serangoon Garden Estate or up in Thomson Road, you will see what the cost would be, assuming, of course, that by that time the transport strikes are over and the nurses are able to get a bus. If not, you can calculate what it would cost to come by pirate taxi or what it would cost you if you provided them all with cars. I do not think, in fact, you can arrive at any permanent saving by dispersing your hospital staff all over the island in remote little building estates.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I think the Minister for Communications and Works is confusing the issue. He is bringing his class-room theories into this debate. What my learned Friend here means is that he is comparing the costs, not the conveniences.

Mr Francis Thomas: I am sorry to keep rising in these matters! Surely the Member for Paya Lebar does appreciate that if you are going to have a hospital, it should be sited in the centre of population; land in the centre of population is scarce, and you cannot therefore build a lot of small houses with vacant land around them. In a site where there is no land, you have to build a multi-storey hospital of the type where you can house a lot of people in a small area. The alternative is to build your hospital in some place where there is no population, and, of course, you will still be unhappy because the sick people have to travel a long way to get to the hospital. There is really no simple answer to it. The thing is that you must have your nurses near your hospital as a practical necessity. You may have some living out, of course, but you must have your hospital in a populated area where it serves the population and consequently you must build a multi-storey type of structure normally.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: The Minister for Communications and Works is so concerned about his nurses that he cannot think away from his hospital and his nurses. We are asking him to look at it from the point of view of comparative costs of building. For the amount of money spent on conversion here, he can buy 25 or even 30 houses. We are not, of course, saying that he must do it. It can be done in another case. It just happens that the argument arises out of accommodation for nurses, and I must ask him to think of it from the point of view of arithmetic and not nurses.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 13 (2), Staff Quarters, on page 17 of the Development Estimates.

I have very little to say on this except that the information given us here is very, very scanty. I see here that half a million dollars has been estimated for the cost of these quarters, but we have not been told how many are to be built.

Question proposed.

Mr Braga: Mr Chairman, this project includes accommodation for probationer and mental nurses, and does not represent only quarters for the supervisory staff. In any case, Woodbridge Hospital and Trafalgar Home are in the rural area, and it is essential to provide residential accommodation for a third of the staff on the site. This provision, in fact, provides quarters for the male and female nurses at Woodbridge Hospital and for the matrons, sisters and doctors at Trafalgar Home and represents possible construction in 1956.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I regret to say that I am as vague as before I started.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, can the Minister give us some information as to how many people will be staying there? How many nurses or warders or supervisors?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $7,519,890 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: I propose to suspend the sitting till half-past two.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head D 19 -

The sum of $1,680,070 for Head D 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 60 -

The sum of $405,470 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 21 -

The sum of $440,000 for Head D 21ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 61 -

The sum of $100,000 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 64 -

The Chairman: Head D 64. Mr Lim Koon Teck and Mr John Ede have amendments to the same item. I will call upon Mr Lim Koon Teck.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I beg to move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 1, Quarters for Government Officers, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, I regret that I shall have to take a little more time than I intended to, and that is because of certain remarks having been made in this House about persons who might be interested in building contracts and, in particular, with reference to the statement by the Hon. the Minister for Health when he said that my interest in building is not my hobby alone and that, in any case, he would not ask me for any help -

Mr Braga rose -

The Chairman: Is it on a point of information?

Mr Braga: It is. Since the hon. Member takes it like that, I withdraw the facetious remark made - I do not cast any aspersions upon him.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I did not take it in that light, but as I have been speaking so forcefully on this point, I want to assure the House that I have not made any profit out of my low-cost housing ideas. I admit that I have built a hundred odd houses in Singapore. They range from $6,000 to $12,000 and they have been all sold. I have worked on a return of 6 per cent, which is the actual rate that we have to pay the bank for interest. I have also designed low-cost housing which can be built for $3,000 on swamp land, which I believe the Hon. the Chief Minister has seen and admired. I have also during my election days - call it an election stunt if you like - helped to build a five classroom school for $15,000 on swampy land. I hesitated to tell that to any of the Ministers, but now that I have my position clear that I am not making any profit out of this, I can show it to them. Anybody can have my plans and my ideas, but do not ask me to build them as I prefer not to do any low-cost housing. I can now speak with a clear conscience.

Sir, here we have an item of $4 millions for quarters for Government officers. It has been revised from an estimate of $3 millions, and I shall have to ask why this increase has been made. I admit that since the introduction of the Provident Fund and the strikes, costs have gone up about 5 per cent but not to the extent of 25 per cent.

Now, another point I wish to make is that I do not think it is necessary today to provide housing for Division I or Division II senior officers. I notice in the Estimates that the cost for each of these officers comes to about $45,000 for quarters and about $35,000 for flats. It has come to my knowledge that future senior officers, who undoubtedly due to the Malayanisation scheme will be Malayan officers and who will be using these quarters, would prefer, if possible, to buy their own homes on the hire-purchase system helped by the allowance which they are getting for not having Government quarters, and I think this is a very sensible plan. Why lock up all this capital on something which the Government servants prefer to own themselves? If he buys one house now and pays on instalments, the house will be his in ten years time, and when he retires he will have a roof over his head. What I do maintain is that all the money that can be saved from the quarters for this class of officers should be spent on the lower income group many of whom unfortunately will not be able to buy their own homes, no matter how cheap they are, unless Government is prepared to allow them to buy without payment of interest.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: In the 1955 Estimates, Sir, $3 millions was entered as the cost of building quarters for Government officers, and I think the Estimates of that year said $1.55 millions had been spent, another $700,000 had been provided and $500,000 was revoted. In 1956 the cost has been increased to $4 millions and the figure in the "Amount estimated to be spent" column is $2.2 millions. The figure in the "New Provision" column is $1 million, and in the second last column of the Estimates you have $750,000 required to complete. Since the start of the scheme, the following quarters have been built: 10 quarters have been built in Mount Pleasant: 3 blocks of flats have been built in Leonie Hill; that is 30 quarters altogether: 2 more blocks of flats, that is, another 20 quarters, are being constructed at the moment. Of the $1 million provided this year, it is estimated that $750,000 will be required to complete the two blocks of flats which are now under construction. That will leave $250,000 to make a start, as was intended, on a further block of flats for senior officers, there being at present approximately 30 officers on the waiting list for houses. 23 officers are living in rented quarters, the rents being paid from the Rental Vote, and 16 bachelors are without any accommodation at all. Now, that waiting list is the justification for this additional block of flats, which we did envisage. If, however, the result of the Report of the Malayanisation Commission necessitates a revision of our plans, then, of course, we will undertake a revision forthwith.

Sir, of the $1 million provision made this year, $750,000, as far as we can estimate, is required to complete work in hand at the moment and the other $250,000 is a possible saving, having regard to the result of the findings of the Malayanisation Commission.

Mr Francis Thomas: There are one or two points that might be usefully added to the excellent summary of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. In view of the expectation of Malayanisation, these new quarters are being built with provision for three bedrooms on the grounds that when local officers inhabit them, they are very likely to have more dependants because the senior expatriate officer tends to have his children overseas or his wife overseas and does not have the same need for bedrooms as a man who may possibly have his father and his mother or other relatives, or perhaps a larger family than expatriate officers manage to achieve.

The point raised about people owning their own quarters or houses is an interesting one, but I would point out that there is no absolute impossibility for a man to own a flat. In fact, this question is under consideration and if in the future the officers say, "We would like to own our accommodation instead of just living in it, so that when we retire we can continue to live in the same flat", I have no doubt that this Assembly could discuss it and make it possible for people to buy a flat in a block if they want to. There is also this point, that if you are going to scatter your Government servants all over the island in privately-owned houses, you do by that reduce the amount of available sites for the non-Government builders and the private citizen. It is highly desirable to economise on space as much as possible because ordinary citizens cannot get together into a kongsi and build a block of flats. When one man buys one house, the State buildings will cover lots of extra ground, for each is in effect one section of a flat building and it is lying on the ground instead of being on a fourth storey. A private citizen has to work on that basis. The Government has the financial resources and the planning ability to provide multi-storeyed buildings in which a lot of people can get accommodation, and there is a definite economic advantage to the territory as a whole if you can reduce the pressure on building sites by having multi-storeyed accommodation.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that the points I have raised are now being considered by Government I withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Has the hon. Member the leave of the Assembly to withdraw this amendment?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr John Ede -

To reduce by $500,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1, Quarters for Government Officers, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr John Ede, are you proposing to move?

Mr John Ede: I do not propose to proceed.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Chairman, Sir, I move an amendment,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 2, Improvements to Crown Lands, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, my real reason for having brought up this motion is because there is one word at the head of the accounts which I could not understand. That word is "Development". I take it that by "improvements", it means the making of an already good thing look better?

In the sixty years of my life, I have covered almost every piece of Crown land in my and the surrounding districts. I have so far never come across any work done which can be called an improvement to any Crown land. I wonder what is there to be improved on any Crown land. If I am not mistaken, I think every piece of Crown land is being rented out and if improvement is needed on the Crown land, that should be the responsibility of the tenant or the licensee. Why should Government "carry the baby"? So I would like the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works to give the House an explanation.

Question proposed.

Mr Francis Thomas: I rise, Mr Chairman, Sir, with my face extremely red to confess that, by a slip rather similar to that by which the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) earlier yesterday confused an Executive Engineer with an Electrical Engineer, I confused earlier today "Improvements to Crown Lands" with "Minor Works Unforeseen" and I am afraid I gave to the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) the answer which should now have been given to the Member for Changi -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: You have not done your homework!

Mr Francis Thomas: It was purely a matter of inattention. I was looking at a different item under that Head and I did not listen to his opening remark. If he wants the information which I should have given him if I had been on the spot, he is very welcome to it. It was, in fact, I think, given by my friend the Hon. the Financial Secretary.

This improvement to Crown lands - as I have actually said before and I will repeat it again - is preparation of Crown lands whether for building or other purposes on swampy areas like Kolam Ayer. I have mentioned this morning that we have there a large civil defence area and some of the ground is still swampy and not, in fact, serviceable until it has been filled up.

Well, this provision will enable us to fill it up. Also you have to fill up areas where you want time for the earth to settle. You do not build immediately you fill. You have got to let it consolidate and then you will have another look at it to see if you want to put in some more perhaps. Before the building programme can start, you may have to fill up for a considerable period beforehand in order to make sure that your earth has consolidated before you put in anything on top. It is not for large schemes but for comparatively small works where there are no appropriate funds elsewhere. I can go on with more detail if you like. In Bukit Panjang such a case has occurred. I do not think I need expatiate on this.

If the hon. Member would let me know the particular areas that he has in mind, we can see if they are ones that merit improvement at this stage.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think that explanation is quite all right for me. I have all the time been thinking of Crown lands which are leased on Temporary Occupation Licence. Sir, I therefore beg to withdraw that amendment.

The Chairman: Has the hon. Member the leave of the Assembly to withdraw the amendment?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Chairman, Sir, I move,

To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 9, Improvements to Secretariat Building, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, it is proposed to spend $200,000 on repairs to the Secretariat building. I quite agree that we should upkeep our public buildings in a manner that would reflect the dignity of Singapore, but instead of spending such a huge sum on an old building just to give it a facelift, I think it is better that we spend this amount to build one or two schools. We are told that we are very short of schools, and to build schools we must have sufficient funds. I understand that Government has a plan to build a new Secretariat along the Esplanade. If that is so, I think it is very unwise to spend $200,000 to repair the present building. I would suggest to the Hon. the Financial Secretary to scrutinise this item once again, give priority to the building of schools and to hold up this item for some time.

Question proposed.

Mr Francis Thomas: I expect that my colleague the Hon. the Chief Secretary or the Hon. the Financial Secretary may speak to this one, but I would like to correct the impression that it is a facelift. There is a mezzanine floor to be put in to expand the accommodation and make things easier and more spacious, and at the same time improve the running of the Secretariat by adding to the amount of space available.

Mr Hart: I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr Lazarous: But could I know, if my information is correct, whether the Government has a plan to build a new Secretariat along the Esplanade?

Mr Hart: Not so far as I am aware, Sir.

The Chief Secretary (Mr J. D. Higham): Nor I.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, we now come to a very small item of $15,000 for lighting and I move,

To reduce by $15,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 12, Street Lighting, Goodwood Hill, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, earlier on during the Second Reading of this Bill, the Hon. the Financial Secretary indicated to us that this development is necessary because we are now trying to change over from gas lighting to electric lighting. I am of the opinion, Sir, that this area is one occupied mainly by the upper bracket of the civil service. I am also of the opinion that the people involved are not many. In fact, I think they are fewer than in other areas that have similar claims, so that if we think that we are going to give such amenities to people in the higher bracket, then we must also think of people who are in the lower bracket. They are more numerous in number and such sums of money will be put to better use when many people share it. The operative word now is not just "services" but "service to the largest number of people involved".

Now, if the Government is informing the House that it is because we are to change the lighting from gas to electricity, then I think that can wait because it is not necessary. In fact, if you take away one service by turning off the gas supply, then must you immediately turn on the electrical supply? Any improvement to street lighting should be considered also in the light of traffic accidents. That area, I believe, is not a main thoroughfare. You do not have many cars getting in and out. Again, that area is not a place whereby people go on foot or on bicycle late at night, and, as far as I know, whatever transport they use would be cars of their own, and if not cars of their own, at least taxis. Now, I suggest you shift to another area - I think you can find another area - where you will probably find more people on foot or on bicycle late at night and where the traffic is heavier. Then, in that case, that claim for improvement would be more justified. I would like to hear further what the Government have to say on this point.

Question proposed.

Mr Hart: Government has an obligation to provide street lighting in the areas where Government quarters are. At present, Goodwood Hill is lit by gas. We have received notice from the City Council that the gas supply will be removed by the end of this year. By arrangement with the City Council, however, we have agreed with them that the gas supply will remain in being until such time as we can replace it and until such time as we can put money in the Estimates to replace it with electricity. That is the reason for this vote. To leave Goodwood Hill unlit, we would be failing in responsibility in respect of areas in which Government quarters are situated.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I remember, too, that there is another area which is probably lighted by gas - McNair Road. Am I correct? If I am correct, then I would like an explanation of why that one is not torn up and electricity supplied.

Mr Hart: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question, Sir. I take it that this matter is conditioned by the planning of the City Council.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Chairman, Sir, I move,

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 15, Electric Cookers and Water Heaters for Quarters in Government Institutions, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, in the first instance, I do not see that any money was voted for this item for this year's Estimates and I presume that this is a new scheme for the purchase of electrical appliances for quarters in Government institutions. If that is so, I would suggest that it would be far more to the advantage of the Government to have these appliances hired from the City Council. From my own practical experience, I feel that it is far more economical to hire such appliances rather than purchase them, and I will quote an example.

The minimum price for an electric fan would cost $120. It would cost another $40 for the installation of this fan, which makes a total value of $160. The maximum life of this fan would, I presume, be ten years, which makes $160 divided by ten which is $16 per year. Now, I have worked it out on this $16 that it would be cheaper to hire a fan from the City Council because it would cost only $1, whereas it costs roughly $1.50 for the purchase of this fan. Apart from the money saved, I think it is a good gesture on the part of the Government to co-operate and support the City Council to help them push their appliances so that more could be used by consumers. I must make it clear that I am not speaking here as a City Councillor, because I have no interest in the City Council at all except as a Member of the City Council. I am speaking here in the interests of economy so that Government can save more money.

Question proposed.

Mr Francis Thomas: I could not agree more with the remarks of the hon. Member. They seem to me to be right on the beam, but unfortunately he himself and the other personalities of the City Council are the persons to blame.

The fact is that the Government buys electric current at bulk rates from the City Council. The rate, I think, is six cents per unit as against 17½ cents that the public pay. Consequently, the City Council says, "I am selling this in bulk to you and I am not going to give you any service with it. If you want meters for individual houses, you have to buy your own meters. If you want to have fans, you have to provide your own fans." They will not, in fact, rent us their fans or their cookers or their refrigerators or whatever it is that we want to rent. They refuse to let us have them, and I wish that the hon. Member could convince them - it is now rather too late, I am afraid. That is the situation, that these appliances are not being bought to donate to Government quarters. They will be treated in the same way as the City Council appliances are. They will be hired out to the occupants and the money, in fact, will be recoverable. It is, in short, a commercial transaction which the Government is carrying out on a small scale as compared to the big scale in which the City Council operates the same provisions. I hope that adequately deals with the point.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the answer is satisfactory to me but I am really surprised that the City Council has ever turned down Government's application for the hire of fans or any other electrical appliances. As far as I know, the City Council is trying to encourage people to hire such appliances. As an example, I quote the recent Trade Fair in the Happy World where the City Council demonstrated a number of electrical appliances. They even put on staff to demonstrate, to encourage and to show people that it is far more economical to hire appliances, and it is therefore a real surprise not only to me but, I am sure, to many other City Councillors who are sitting in this House that the City Council have turned down Government's application for the hire of their appliances.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Choon Eng -

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 16, Flood Alleviation Scheme, Bedok, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that I have read in the Press that a dam is now to be constructed in the Bedok area and that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas) has confirmed that this is part of the scheme, I beg leave to withdraw this item.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not proposing the amendment?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: No, Sir.

The sum of $5,603,000 for Head D 64 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 56 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Koon Teck -

To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 2, Community Centres, on page 23 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that a Committee has been set up and that there is an assurance that the cost of building will come down and the expenditure that we may have to incur will be used for more houses and more Community Centres, I do not propose to go on with this amendment.

Question proposed,

That the sum of $130,050 for Head D 56 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Chairman, Sir, when I look at development under Social Welfare, I am always interested. Under that Head, I look at item 6 - Youth Holiday Camps. The estimated cost I can see here is $200,000 but the total allocated is $10. I would like an assurance from Government that Youth Holiday Camps are important. So far as Singapore is concerned, we can only boast of: 1. The Tanah Merah Youth Camp. 2. The Lim Chu Kang Boy Scouts Camp.

If, however, you consider the number of boys and girls who would like to go out camping but who do not belong to any organised movement, then you can see that the need is very real. I consider that, for the health of the coming generation, for developing a sense of co-operation amongst them and developing their ability to organise things themselves, youth camps should be dotted all over Singapore and where you can, by the sea, so that it will serve as an added amenity to youth.

On item 2 - Community Centres - we are budgeting for three at $450,000 and a token vote of $10 is put down. Community centres, I believe, would be helpful to a community that is well-welded together, but from what I can see of so many centres, a great deal more work has to be done. A start must be made to develop community consciousness amongst groups of people staying in specified areas. Usually, the centres built by Government are far away from such habitations and people do not find it convenient to make use of them. I would like the Government rather to consider the feasibility not of building centres all on its own but of making small grants of, say, between $10,000 and $20,000 to assist communities to build their own centres. In that manner, when a community works for the building of that centre, I believe they will be proud of it and they will run it even more efficiently.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, at yesterday's sitting I gave an assurance to the Member for Serangoon that youth welfare is in the fore in the Government's programme.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member in connection with community centres, I have this to say, Sir. There are at present in existence thirteen children social centres, some of which are developing on the lines of community centres. Three community centres have been built under Social Welfare Department votes -

The Chairman: Order, order. The time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $130,050 for Head D 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 63 -

The sum of $1,854,630 for Head D 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 43 -

The sum of $225,010 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 65 -

The sum of $3,656,196 for Head D 65 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

The Chairman: Turning back to the First Schedule, the Question is,

That the First Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

There will be a consequential amendment to the totals.

Question put, and agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: Turning to the Bill itself, the Question is,

That clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Mr Hart: Sir, I beg to move,

That clause 2 be amended as follows:

"A sum not exceeding two hundred and twenty-eight million five hundred and seventeen thousand and six hundred and seventy-five dollars shall be and the same is hereby charged upon the revenues and other funds of this Colony for the period from the 1st January to the 31st of December, 1956, the said sum so charged may be expended as specified in the First Schedule hereto."

I also suggest, Sir, that the marginal note be changed to "$228,517,675". That is consequential.

Question, "That the words 'two hundred and twenty-eight million four hundred and ninety-four thousand and eight hundred and thirty', proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the words 'two hundred and twenty-eight million five hundred and seventeen thousand and six hundred and seventy-five', proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: The word "and" appears to have been left out in line 11. Would the Minister like that inserted?

Mr Hart: Yes, Sir, I move,

To insert in line 11 the word "and" after the figure "1956,".

Question, "That the word 'and' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Hart: The Committee stage has been concluded, Sir. May I have permission to report back to the House?

The Chairman: Will the Minister move, please?

Mr Hart: Sir, I move,

"That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly."

Question proposed.