GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed on Question.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, we had an eloquent plea from the Opposition for more facts. Unfortunately, the pleader for more facts is now leaving the room just when he is going to get them. Never mind, they will be on the record.

Let us take the Telephone Board. There was a rather unkind attack on the Telephone Board for moving at a snail's pace in its development programme whereas, in fact, we have already recently tabled before this Assembly the Report and Financial Statement for December 1955, and the earlier development plan tabled which indicate that they have laid a total of more than 20,000 circuit miles in the course of 18 months; that they have added 2,257 new lines one way or another - a big net increase of services; that, in fact, they have made very good progress indeed and that if there is any delay to be complained of, it arises, as is pointed out in the development report, from the fact that they could not get possession of the site for the City Exchange - there is a lengthy reference to this. I say that it is rather an unjust thing to attack a public corporation, which is doing an extremely good job of work and going ahead very much faster than could have been expected, without referring to its own published statements which fully justify its rate of progress.

I would also like to refer to a complaint made that the mechanical working of the Exchange is unsatisfactory. Of course, it is because, as is pointed out in the Report which is included in the development plan, the Central Exchange is working at 98 per cent loading, whereas 90 per cent is the efficient limit. If the Exchange is overloaded in the service of the public, well, the answer is that it is better to give as many people as possible a telephone line even though it does sometimes get crossed with someone else's than to cut down the total load and give a smaller number a perfect service. As soon as they can get the City Exchange through, I think we shall find that we stop getting crossed lines and that kind of thing.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) wanted clarification about the unified bus system. Well, he has been promised a White Paper. I am anxious that there should be clarification and that there should be an ample opportunity for the public and Members of the Opposition to fully study the situation and get it thoroughly talked over and I hope that we shall have a good interval between the publication of the White Paper and the time that we take a debate.

I pass over a complaint about the widening of Yio Chu Kang Road as that has already been mentioned by me.

Another hon. Member wanted clarification about protection from floods at Bedok. This was given in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 21 of 1955. Reference to page 6 will indicate the measure of protection. These protective works are substantially complete apart from the few points which are waiting for the earth that has been lifted out of the swampy grounds to dry out before the works can be completed.

I think I might very briefly give an account of the six major flood prevention schemes which we now have in the report form. There is the main drainage at Bedok and Ketapang catchments at $523,000; the main drainage at the Geylang River catchment at $1,872,000; Bedok is, as I said, substantially complete and we are hoping to start on Geylang as soon as this Assembly has voted the first instalment of the money. There is the drainage of the Whampoa, Kallang and Seletar catchments about which the Member for Tanjong Pagar made a considerable muddle. That is estimated at an all-in cost of just under $16 million. There is the main drainage of the catchments at the Bukit Timah and Stamford Canals at about $9½ million; the catchments at the Singapore River and Sungei Ulu Pandan at $3 million, and the Sungei Api Api and Tampenis at about $1,865,000. I should stress that these costs are in relation to the drainage works and do not take into account the cost of land acquisition or possible demolitions of houses which would come to a very large further sum. I am hoping that we shall table these reports fairly soon and it may be helpful if we publish a White Paper as well so that those who do not want to read the whole reports can at least read the White Paper and get the general principles and the general problems of flood prevention.

I must stress that although one has the technical answer, one still has to carry out the works and find the money. The total for the drainage works alone is somewhere about $32 million and if you add to that the cost of land acquisition, it is a formidable sum and you are going to have to raise a lot of money for it. The flood programme is phased into the general development programme which will be tabled soon and there will be an opportunity to discuss it then.

Another complaint was on the lack of details regarding the large economies mentioned in His Excellency's Address. I might illustrate this, I think, but it is worth while, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go on to relate details of the economies, to set them in perspective by mentioning the building costs on which the economies have to be made. Back in 1940, you could build for 30 cents a cubic foot. In quoting these figures, I am quoting for the type of buildings that the Public Works Department does according to their type of construction. You can always change your figures if you leave something out or if you use a different type of construction. In 1953, costs were 74 cents a cubic foot, 82 cents a cubic foot in 1954. 96 cents a cubic foot last year, and then up to $1.06 a cubic foot this year. That is in relation broadly to wage rises in Singapore as a result of the upward movement of wages, the Labour Ordinance and that kind of thing and also to rises in imported materials like cement or structural steel due to wage increases in other countries.

The Teachers Training College deserves a mention for savings, I think. The first six items on the College for which contracts are already let or in hand totalled $760,000. They are now down to $613,000; there is a saving of earthworks from $350,000 to $107,000 by adopting a different plan for earth-working; by changing the road plan, from $½ million down to $35,000 - that kind of figure.

For primary schools, we got a handsome saving indeed. The previous type of school - 16 classes, 40 pupils each - cost $14,781 per class room or $370 per pupil. We got the cost down for the new standard primary school - 3 stream type - to $9,500 per class room or $238 per pupil which I think hon. Members will agree is a handsome economy. For the accommodation for student nurses, the accommodation per nurse has come down from $6,400 to $4,000 - another handsome economy - due, primarily, to better planning and, secondarily, to reduction in the standards. Broadly speaking, over this year, I think we shall show savings in cost - I am not talking of the savings which the Hon. the Financial Secretary refers to when he transfers a bill from one year to the next but actual lowering of total costs - on final construction of about $2½ million on a building programme of about $30 million, so that that again is a very handsome overall economy.

We are anxious to get on with the taking of the vote on this matter. I think I will rest on these points, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I am afraid my other points of interest are rather higher level matters which cannot be dealt with except at some length.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Mr Speaker, Sir, time is running short and I need not take up the time of the Assembly unnecessarily. There are two points which I should like to clarify, Sir.

The Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) mentioned this morning that during my election campaign, I promised to reduce the rentals of S.I.T. houses in Singapore. Well, Sir, this is not so. In fact, it is a deliberate lie on the part of the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: Order. Did I hear the word "lie"? I am not quite certain.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to withdraw the word "lie". It is a mistake on the part of the Member for Queenstown. When the last Government decided to reduce the rents of S.I.T. houses, it was the intention of Government to try and help those who are really in need of help and not for people who live in cheap S.I.T. houses and who can afford huge American limousines. There is going to be no subsidisation of rentals for these types of people.

The other point which I was going to raise, Sir, was in connection with the eviction of farmers from private land. The Master Plan in Singapore has earmarked over 25,000 acres of land as an agricultural zone, and within this zone, the farmers will have sufficient protection against landlords who, because their land is so restricted, will not be able to exploit it other than for agricultural purposes. However, Government is well aware of the hardships which harry the farmers and I can say that careful consideration is being given by Government to the criticisms directed against the present legislation.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

The Chief Minister: Yes, in reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed very happy to hear from Members of the Opposition in response to my call for a vote of confidence that the Government has their support. I would like to give them my assurance that, during the intervening period before the reopening of the constitutional talks in London, the Government will do everything in its power to bring about a state of affairs that will be not only conducive to success but also in the best interests of the people of Singapore.

I said yesterday. Sir, that in the fight for Merdeka, let us not play party politics and yet the leader of the People's Action Party said that his Party would give me their vote of confidence if I agreed to his three conditions. Sir, let me say here and now, and in the most emphatic terms: I will not bargain nor will I buy any vote of confidence. The cause to which the Government is pledged, to which all of us are pledged, demands of each and every one of us, no matter to which political Party we belong, every ounce of honest endeavour to promote united effort and united action. I explained with all sincerity in my speech yesterday the reasons that impel me to call for a vote of confidence. I ask the People's Action Party to examine their conscience and vote accordingly.

Let us now, Sir, examine the three conditions:

(1) to call for a national convention;

(2) to plan the tactics for the next talks;

(3) to plan concerted and united All-Party constitutional action if the next talks fail.

As against this, Sir, permit me to repeat what I said yesterday:

"I have been silent, and deliberately so, on our plans for Merdeka because I feel a new strategy is called for as a result of experience gained over the failure of the last talks. This time we must plan and plan well so that we can negotiate from a position of strength. In this planning, there will, of course, be consultations with Members of the Opposition with a view to united effort and united action. Let us not play party politics in this great task. Let us, however, show that as true Malayans we are united in the fight for Merdeka because in unity we beget our strength and in unity we brook no failure."

Is there any dissimilarity between the two? I can see no dissimilarity other than the difference in the choice of words. What I have quoted are conditions which I feel will beget success. Obviously, the P.A.P. feel the same way. Why then have they found it necessary to turn my conditions for success, which I announced in my main speech yesterday, into their conditions which I must accept before they can give me their vote of confidence? Why, why, why? I am indeed puzzled. I assured hon. Members that there will be consultations with the Opposition in drawing up plans for the next talks. I have not disclosed what form these consultations will take but if it will make the People's Action Party any the happier, let me say that the representatives Of all political Parties in this Assembly will be called to attend a conference to draw up a plan for Merdeka.

Sir, the leader of the People's Action Party repeatedly said yesterday that we are a caretaker Government. Let me explain, Sir, our position clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding. This Government is not a caretaker Government in the accepted sense of the word. This Government is a caretaker Government in so far as its life is concerned. We aim to reopen talks in London by April 1957. If we succeed, a new constitution will come into being. If we fail, the purpose for which I accepted office as Chief Minister will have come to an end but during the intervening period, the machinery of Government will be in full swing and whether we govern wisely or not, time will tell.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our efforts to raise a Singapore Battalion and our call to the people of Singapore to come forward to serve Singapore have been decried by the hon. Member, and all these from a man who claims to have a great love for his country. What greater love, what greater loyalty, has a man than this that he should serve his country, fight for his country and, if necessary, die for his country? What better guarantee have we for internal security than that we should raise our armed forces to augment the Police Force?

On Malayanisation, as is to be expected, the hon. Member talked and talked just for the sake of talking, not caring for the language he used nor for the justification of his remarks. Did he not read the Report of the Malayanisation Commission? Did he not know that in that Report, abolition terms are recommended? When the Government has completed detailed study of the Report and when negotiations with staff associations on terms of abolition have been completed, these will be made known to the Assembly and the hon. Member will have every opportunity to speak to his heart's content.

Now, Sir, as Minister for Labour and Welfare, I will answer briefly the points which he raised in connection with this Ministry.

On the revision of the Trade Disputes Ordinance, I do not propose any amendment for the time being. This Government cannot ignore the fact that in the immediate past, strikes of a political nature had been threatened.

On the rights of trade unions to collect political funds, I assure the hon. Member that this has not been forgotten.

On the Labour Ordinace, I have been considering various amendments to this Ordinance as a result of experience gained over the past eight months and I will introduce an amending Bill when I have completed my examination.

On the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, I am aware of the points raised by the hon. Member and they are at present under active consideration.

With regard to workers in the Armed Forces, obviously the hon. Member and two other hon. Members who spoke on the same subject are not in full possession of the facts. Workers in the Armed Forces are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, the Labour Ordinance and the Central Provident Fund and will be covered under the two Bills which I introduced yesterday and will still be covered under any legislation which this Government introduces in the future. In any proposed labour legislation, there surely must be consultations between employers and workers' representatives.

On the question of unemployment, Sir, the hon. Member spoke about unemployment insurance and increase in the rates of unemployment relief. Paragraph 43, Sir, of the Governor's Address is quite clear on this. The hon. Member also stated that no strike had brought about the closing of any factory. May I remind the hon. Member that the Mis-Sino Company Limited, manufacturing soft drinks, had to close down their factory last year as a result of strike action organised by the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union?

The hon. Member said that the Governor's Address is all blah, blah, blah. May I, Sir, respectfully submit that during the two hours when he had been speaking he had been blah, blah, blahing away?

Sir, there are two other points which have been raised by other Members on the subject of community centres and youth clubs. I would assure hon. Members that I will look into the points raised by them.

Question put.

The Chief Minister: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clear the lobbies

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, Nil; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Nil. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Butterfield, C. H. Chew Swee Kee. Goh Chew Chua. Abstentions Goh Tong Liang. Nil. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Absent Jumabhoy, J. M. Jumabhoy, R. Ede, John. Lazarous, A. R. Marshall, D. S. Lee Choon Eng. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Resolved,

That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Wednesday, 29th August, 1956.

Mr Speaker: We have arrived at the moment of interruption.