NATURE RESERVES ORDINANCE (Amendment to Schedule)

11.44 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name,

That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted there-for:-

"All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in parts of lots 136-15 and 136-17. Mukim No. V. Pandan, and in part of lot 94-13 Mukim No. VI, Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 236 a. 0 r. 0 p., 90 a. 0 r. 0 p, and 45 a. 0 r. 0 p. respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged red on Certified Plan No. 7499 filed in the office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.".

"And the Lord God sent him out of the Paradise of Pleasure to till the earth from which he was taken." This, Sir, is from Genesis, Chapter 3, Verse 23 (Douay version) describing what happened to Adam and Eve when they ate of the forbidden fruit. A thoughtful providence, Sir, saw to it that man was provided the wherewithal to obtain sustenance for himself and for his family. A merciful providence provided man with land to till and mine, to extract his needs by the sweat of his brow. A cooperative providence provided man with the seas to extract food from, if he was clever and courageous enough. A thoughtful providence also provided man with swamps and marshes, which is neither land nor sea, as a reserve, for man to use his skill and cunningness, if he wished to put it to his use when his other resources were found to be insufficient.

Now, Sir, the resources of Singapore: We in Singapore are land hungry. On an island of 225 square miles, we have a population of 1½ million. Perhaps hon. Members are not aware of the density of our population. I have here, Sir, the Colombo Plan fact sheets that are produced by the Colombo Plan Information Office in which are quoted the density of population figures for the various Colombo Plan countries. Now the figures for Singapore are taken on a previous census basis of 1¼ million. Singapore's figures are quoted as 1,635 per square kilometre and the next highest Colombo Plan country's density of population is that of Ceylon, that is, 131 - less than 1/10th of Singapore. Now, the enormousness of the density of population situation cannot be realised by hon. Members unless they see such figures. Worked out on a population basis of 1½ million, Sir, our population comes to 6,667 per square mile and that is the highest population density, I believe, in the world if we take Singapore as a nation - as a country by itself which we are now.

Sir, I have spoken at various times on the need to put land to the best and the most economical use we can. Even then, it cannot be concealed that we have not sufficient land and at the rate that our population is growing, we will find it very hard to produce enough food even on the basis of what we are producing now. Therefore, it is our duty to make use of every little bit of land that is available, and if no land is available, to make use of other resources like marshes and swamps rather than to let them go to waste.

Sir, the Fisheries Division in my Ministry has shown, by experiments, that it has conducted in the Government prawn ponds, that it is possible to increase the yield per acre of prawn ponds in swamp areas to .34 ton per annum, that is more than 5½ picul per acre per year. A survey of the swamp areas of Singapore has also disclosed that not many areas of such swamp lands are available for development for prawn pond purposes. In order to increase the opportunities for our local citizens, I put up a proposal to the Nature Reserve Board early this year, that the Board should release the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve for the purposes of prawn cultivation in ponds. Later on, I modified my proposal to a request for a further 800 acres only because 200 acres of that Nature Reserve are already occupied by a prawn pond operator without licence and those 200 acres, it seems, were opened up by him during the Occupation period. At least a quarter of the 800 acres which I am asking this House to vote for release will be reserved for cooperative prawn ponds for the Malay fishermen living in the area and I propose to organise these Malay fishermen into a co-operative for that purpose. Full assistance will be given to these Malay fishermen in order to organise them and to set them on a proper footing into a co-operative so that they can exploit the prawn ponds in the area.

It is obvious, Sir, that considerations which favour the release of a large area of mangrove swamps in the Pandan Nature Reserve for the purposes of prawn pond cultivation more than outweigh those which favour the retention of this area for the limited purpose of a nature reserve to serve only a small section of the population, either for the purpose of recreation or of education. The colony, Sir, has come to a stage now where it cannot afford the luxury of mangrove swamps as nature reserves, for such swamps can be put to better economic use, and for the biological studies of nature students, it is considered that the swamps along the south coast of Johore which are quite close to us will be more suitable.

In order, Sir, that the whole of the Pandan Reserve, excepting an area of 370 acres which will not be required and which will be kept as a reserve, should be released for the economic use of prawn pond cultivation, an amendment to paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Nature Reserves Ordinance is necessary and under section 4 (1) of the Nature Reserves Ordinance,

"The Legislative Assembly may by resolution amend the Schedule to this Ordinance by either the addition to or deletion from the said Schedule or may make any modification of the boundary of an area already included in the said Schedule."

The effect of the motion which I have moved will be to reduce the present acreage of the area shown in paragraph 5 of the Schedule from 1,370 acres to 370 acres, thereby confirming the release of 200 acres which are now already covered by prawn ponds without licence, and also releasing a further 800 acres for redevelopment as prawn ponds. The remaining 370 acres will continue under the control of the Nature Reserve Board as a nature reserve-cum tourist attraction. I must emphasise that the areas shown in the other five paragraphs of the Schedule to the Nature

Reserves Ordinance will not be affected by this motion.

Sir, I beg to move.

Inche Mohamed Sidik: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question proposed.

11.55 a.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this motion introduced by the Minister for Commerce and Industry, as he has already stated, is briefly this: to reduce by a thousand acres from approximately 1,370 acres to about 370 acres the Pandan Forest Reserve which is at present under the protection of the Nature Reserve Board as one of the five areas on the island of Singapore requiring so to be protected.

The Minister has placed before this House his reasons for wishing to reduce the Pandan Forest Reserve area, namely, the highly laudable and well-intentioned reason of wishing to open up this area for prawn ponds, so that there will be a greater prawn supply in our local markets, and employment for an increased number of prawn fishermen.

Regarding this intention of increasing our prawn supply, I am completely at one with the Minister: it was I myself who pressed the Government to increase the prawn catch in the Committee of Supply a year ago. Since then, I have made investigations and enquiries, just as the Minister himself has. The only difference between us is that we have come to different conclusions: his conclusion is that the island's prawn catch can be increased by converting 1,000 acres of this mangrove forest, or rather the balance of 800 acres, into prawn ponds: my conclusion is that the reverse may very well be the case, not only shall we reduce our prawns but reduce, and reduce to extinction, a unique mangrove area to no purpose.

Sir, I shall first put forward reasons, and the reasons of experts, why this mangrove area should be reserved as an area of scientific importance, and. secondly, reasons why the Government is running a great risk of doing the opposite of what it intends if it carries through the policy of the Minister.

I shall urge as strongly as I can that the Government withdraws this motion, that it reconsiders all the evidence available and acquires more scientific data on this subject before proceeding any further. I base my plea on this simple truism: that you can cut down a tree in a matter of minutes, but it takes you 10, 20 or 30 years to undo what you have done and replace that tree.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I launch into my main argument, I would like to emphasise that I have no axe to grind in this particular matter, I have no interest in the forest reserve or prawn ponds except a scientific interest and an interest in Singapore's well being, and I have considered this problem as objectively and dispassionately as I can in a desire to find out the truth. My whole case is this: that in the light of present evidence I am of the opinion that the Minister is making a grave mistake.

Sir, I would first like to draw your attention to the purpose of the Nature Reserves Ordinance now before us: the long title states that it is "to provide for the dedication and administration of certain lands in the Colony of Singapore as Nature Reserves".

Section 3 of the Ordinance states the objects in greater detail. Sub-section (1) reads:

"The lands shown in the Schedule to this Ordinance are hereby dedicated, set aside and reserved for the purposes of the propagation, protection and preservation of the indigenous fauna and flora of the Colony and for the preservation of objects and places of aesthetic, historical or scientific interest."

Sub-section (2) reads:

"Such lands shall be controlled and managed not only for the purpose of protection and preservation as aforesaid but also for the purpose of providing under suitable conditions and control facilities for the study of and research into matters relating to the fauna and flora of the Colony and the physical conditions in which they live.".

And the lands mentioned in the Schedule are the following, each of which was created as a reserve for a particular reason:-

No. 1. This is the forest reserve known as the Municipal Catchment Area, which is preserved for the obvious reason of protecting part of our water supply, and accounts for the City Council having powers to nominate one of its members to the Nature Reserve Board.

Nos. 2 and 3 are two adjoining sections of the Bukit Timah Forest Reserve forming one area which is the "classical collecting area for a very large proportion of Malaya's flora. It is the type locality for probably more species of plants than any other area of comparable size in the world. It is the only remaining piece of primary lowland forest on Singapore Island."

No. 6 - if I may skip Nos. 4 and 5 for the moment-is the Labrador area which "conserves a primitive species of fern, 'Dipteria conjugata', which is found elsewhere in Malaya only above 3,000 feet."

And Nos. 4 and 5 are firstly the Kranji Forest Reserve, which "typifies the transition from muddy foreshore to a dry land vegetation," whereas the Pandan Forest Reserve is "typical of tidal mangrove. With the total exploitation of other mangrove areas on Singapore Island and the extensive working of the mangrove in South Johore, Pandan is the last remaining piece of typical mangrove."

I should explain, Sir, that the obvious scientific portions of the explanation of the areas which I have just given are not my views, but part of a considered report made by the Nature Reserve Board itself.

Pandan, I repeat, is "the last remaining piece of typical mangrove". And I would add the following report of the present Director of the Botanic Gardens:-

"The species of plants recorded from the Pandan Reserve represent about 1/20th of Singapore's flora. One species at least is found elsewhere only on the east coast of Malaya, and another nowhere else in Malaya South of Negri Sembilan and Pahang. A fern recently found at Pandan has been previously recorded in Malaya only in the mountains of central Malaya. Some 13 species of rare plants are at present known in the area."

It will therefore be realised that the five areas listed in the Schedule were all to be protected for specific and separate reasons.

If, therefore, this Assembly reduces the Pandan Nature Reserve from 1,370 acres to 370 acres by approving this motion, an area which is "the last remaining piece of typical mangrove", I maintain that it is violating the letter and spirit of this Ordinance which expressly states that the area is "dedicated, set aside and reserved for the purposes of the propagation, protection and preservation of the indigenous fauna and flora of the Colony". I would add that the word "dedication" expressly carries with it a sense of permanence.

Now I know perfectly well what the Minister's answer to this might be: it is perhaps the only point he has. Professor Holttum, in giving his views on this problem earlier in this year, stated:

"Natural vegetation can only be preserved in samples sufficiently large to be self-propagating. In most cases, units of about 200 acres are probably a minimum for this purpose."

So my hon. Friend the Minister might say, "There you are, Professor Holttum has stated that 200 acres is sufficient. I am leaving you with 370 acres or almost double."

But there are at least two points which qualify, if not negative, Professor Holttum's statement which was written in London without more accurate knowledge of the areas proposed to be alienated. Firstly, the areas to be left are divided into three separate sections of 236, 90 and 45 acres respectively so that the last two are of no value at all. Secondly, all three areas are strips along the coast, and I have a map which shows that this is so. Now, if you, Sir, have been into this mangrove area, as I have, you will immediately have noticed one curious fact. That the mangrove along the edge of the coast and on the two banks of the Sungei Jurong is stunted: in other words, the trees are smaller than those growing further inland.

The Nature Reserve Board has pointed this out as follows.

"It is utterly impossible for these (three areas) to be representative of a whole mangrove community since mangrove vegetation consists of a series of gradations from the seaward edge of the innermost border to where dry land begins. The plant species and the animals associated with them vary with the degree of inundation and exposure they have from the tide."

Sir, if you take this argument - and any ordinary person can accept it after simple observation together with Professor Holttum's opinion, you will appreciate that the fragmentary 370 acres proposed to be left untouched are of little or no value. He said:

"Natural vegetation can only be preserved in samples sufficiently large to be self-propagating."

The acres concerned lying along the coast do not form a complete unit of mangrove and therefore cannot be self-propagating.

Indeed what Professor Holttum said was this and I quote:

"In most cases, units of about 200 areas are probably a minimum for this purpose, and larger areas would be better. From an educational and cultural viewpoint, it is the duty of any community to preserve adequate samples of its natural vegetation, and in Singapore mangrove constitutes a distinct type of vegetation of particular biological interest."

It is quite clear therefore that Professor Holttum qualified his minimum of 200 acres by saying that it must be an adequate sample of natural vegetation which means that it must be large enough and representative enough to be self-propagating. It is quite clear that these coastal strips do not fulfil these conditions, that therefore the granting of these strips does not fulfil the intention of the Ordinance and that the Minister's interpretation of Professor Holttum's 200 acres would be extremely misleading.

But Professor Holttum's view is not the only expert view: if his view gives the Minister the ghost of a case, other experts whom I shall now quote give him no case at all.

Mr E. J. H. Corner is the first authority: as many Members of this House will recall, he was Assistant Director of the Gardens from 1929 to 1945 and is the author of the classic book Wayside Trees of Malaya which contains descriptions of 950 different species. He is now at the Botany School at Cambridge University. His memorandum on the Reserve can only be quoted in part:

It was at times thought that Johore could provide better nature reserves, but it was realised from the beginning that a keen and skilled staff would be essential to maintain them, such as could be supplied only from the Raffles Museum and Botanic Gardens. Further it was foreseen that the restoration and maintenance of areas of original forest in Singapore would add greatly to the amenities of the island; for instance, they would provide places in which to show the town-children the natural scenery and biological complexity of Malaya, as well as supplying places for exciting excursions, and of course attractions for tourists who would like to enjoy drives into tropical scenery.

Pandan Reserve was particularly held in mind for this purpose ... to discover the enlightenment which protects, and, within its limits, encourages wild life and scenery, will be a joy to visitors, a pride to the populace as it welcomes education, and a sign of hope and integrity to the world. To falter will be to barter away the birthright of future generations."

Mr Tweedie, until recently Director of Raffles Museum, has given this opinion:

"The zoological interest of mangrove swamp lies partly in the ground level and aquatic fauna of fish, molluscs and crustacea and partly in the arboreal fauna of the forest. Impoverished samples of the former can be seen in areas subjected to cutting, but it is largely exterminated by conversion to ponds. These animals (especially the crustacea) are easily observed during the day and are of great interest to students of animal behaviour. . . The proposed action at Pandan would therefore destroy a nature reserve of a very special and important kind."

Professor Purchon, Raffles Professor of Zoology at the University of Malaya, stated:

"The area in question is the type locality for a number of described species. Indeed the value of the area in this respect is so great that to assess it accordingly would be a very difficult task. The area is important scientifically and educationally. It is regularly used by staff and students of the Department of Zoology for teaching purposes, and it is similarly valuable to our schools."

The Professor of Botany, Professor Gilliland, has written:

"In Singapore, with its very large number of schools and its two universities, these nature reserves are a vital necessity for the teaching of biology. That public interest may increase in Singapore follows naturally from the commencement of the teaching of biology in Singapore schools in 1938.

In Singapore, the Pandan Reserve has many advantages - it is conveniently accessible to Singapore schools and universities; it is the locus of certain of the rare plants, including orchids, recorded on the island, and it is of sufficient area to be self-maintaining as a mangrove community. Further, lying as it does in the estuary of a stream, all the physiographic factors which operate to bring about a mangrove habitat are present."

The Minister has suggested that students and teachers can go to Johore to study.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is clear that the hon. Member will take some time?

Mr John Ede: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Then I will suspend the sitting. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.12 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

2.31 p.m.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned before lunch I was giving the House an exposition of the scientific value of the Pandan Nature Reserve as confirmed by experts, and I had almost concluded my arguments on this aspect of the problem. There is, however, one important point still remaining, one of the few made by the Hon. Minister which requires to be answered, in a singularly unconvincing speech.

The Minister has suggested that students and teachers can go to Johore to study biology, but will he tell the House where in Johore there is a Nature Reserve? There is, I believe, some accessible Forest Reserve 40 miles away at Pontian, but that is controlled and cut for the purposes of timber. Only in a Nature Reserve will we find the undisturbed mangrove in its natural state which biological studies require. Are we to deny these opportunities to our two Universities?

Only yesterday I obtained further information on this point. I have it on the authority of a prominent member of the Department of Zoology at the University of Malaya - whom for some reason the Minister has not thought fit to consult - that there is in fact no mangrove in the whole of South Malaya which can be called first-class, and you would have to go to the mouth of the Sarawak River in order to find it.

In that sense it would be true to say that the Pandan Reserve is not ideal, although it is recovering very fast, but it is also true to say that there is no better mangrove in South Malaya and that the only mangrove of comparable quality in Johore is in the Kukup area, where it is completely inaccessible except by boat after almost a day's journey. All mangrove in Johore which is accessible by road is unrepresentative for the obvious reason that it is not left undisturbed.

The great point about the Pandan Reserve from the teachers' point of view is that they know what is in the Reserve and they can bring their students to it without having to search for it.

These are facts from experts who know the mangrove intimately, and I would venture to suggest that if our aim, through the University of Malaya and the Nanyang University, is to produce our own biologists and botanists to fill future posts in the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Botanic Gardens, and to provide teachers for the students and the next generation, why deny them what we have already at hand on our own island.

Turning to another opinion, the Planning Adviser to the Singapore Improvement Trust has stated:

"I confirm without question that we looked upon the Nature Reserve as complementary to the Green Belt, and that they were specifically included in the Master Plan under the designation of 'Nature Reserves' in order that they might be enjoyed by the public in their natural state.

Quite apart therefore, from any protection which may be afforded by the Nature Reserves Ordinance, it is my opinion that it would be entirely contrary to the Master Plan for these areas to be used for any other purpose."

Sir, I hope that I have not wearied the House by pursuing to such lengths what is in fact only a subsidiary argument to my main argument to which I am shortly coming, but it is important to establish this point, namely, that in introducing this motion, the Minister is in effect saying, firstly, that the educational, biological, botanical, zoological and tourist value of this "last remaining piece of typical mangrove" must be destroyed; and, secondly, that he must flout the spirit and intention of the Nature Reserves Ordinance as I have already quoted it.

Let us suppose that we must accept this, although I am not sure that the House will be fully with the Minister in this matter; let us suppose that we must sacrifice these valuable assets of the Pandan Reserve in the interests of more prawns for our markets and more employment for our people, a need on which we can all agree. Is there irrefutable evidence that the opening up of another 800 acres to prawn ponds and the reduction of the mangrove forest to 370 acres will produce this result? The Minister has possibly the authority of the Department of Fisheries to tell you, Sir, that it will, though I wonder whether they are really convinced; but the amount of scientific evidence on his side is practically nil, nor indeed has he produced any.

I submit, Sir, that there is an almost overwhelming body of evidence on the other side, and I would put the proposition that if there is the remotest possibility that by converting 800 acres of mangroves into prawn ponds you will reduce the prawn population, then this motion should be withdrawn and the whole question given further study.

The Nature Reserve Board has stated its views most emphatically on this subject, as follows:

"With regard to over-trapping the Board would emphasise again most strongly the evidence already submitted that a proportion of the prawn population must be at large in undisturbed mangrove to form a breeding nucleus from the fry of which the ponds are stocked. Since the ponds are traps and the prawns therein are caught before they breed this is essential."

The Malayan Nature Society puts the problem in its simplest form:

"Since we include among us two ecologists of more than local repute, we think our opinion on the proposed scheme may be worth giving. We believe that it would actually lead to a drop in prawn production rather than a rise, for the following reasons. These prawns are really mangrove animals; that is their natural habitat where they feed and grow. They follow the tide up, thus entering the prawn ponds at the inner edge of the mangrove and being caught at low tide when the sluice gates are opened. If however, the mangrove is removed and the whole area is filled with prawn ponds, then the prawns' natural habitat and feeding grounds are destroyed. The inevitable result would seem to be a rapid fall in the catch of prawns, as they will go elsewhere in search of the right habitat."

At this point it is only fair to say that, quite unwittingly, I may have misled the Minister-as indeed I misled myself-when I asked the following supplementary question on 22nd May of this year, namely, whether the Minister was aware that it had now been discovered that prawns breed in the mangrove areas. I should in fact have said "feed" and not "breed", a very different thing. It is in fact agreed by the experts that the prawns of commercial importance breed somewhere out to sea and not in the mangrove, but where is not yet known.

The Minister somewhat naturally seized on this point, and I do not blame him, when he wrote to me on 3rd June as follows:

"There are two kinds of prawns, one belonging to the family known as the 'Carideans' which breed in mangrove areas and the other belonging to the family known as 'Peneids' which do not breed in mangrove areas. The former are only useful as pig and duck food whilst it is on the latter 'Peneids' that our present prawn rearing industry is based."

Actually, according to Mr P. N. F. Hall, a prawn specialist who left Singapore when the Fisheries Research Station collapsed - and it is a pity he is not here to help us over this problem - according to Mr Hall who has been contacted, there may be 14 species of prawn present in a catch, of which seven species rarely constitute less than 95 per cent of the total. And this 95 per cent are the Peneids which, according to Mr Hall, "breed offshore and spend their juvenile growing life feeding in the mangrove swamps or in the ponds".

And now if I may revert to the Minister's letter to me, we will find, Sir, that his information is exactly similar, expressed though it is in different words:

"Almost all members of the family known as the Peneids breed at sea and the young larval stages are brought into the mangrove swamps by the tide. As soon as they have reached the mangrove swamps or perhaps a little earlier they settle down on the bottom to feed and grow up. When they have reached a length of from two to three inches they have a natural urge to swim out to sea again, to mature and breed. It is during this stage of their life history that they are caught by our prawn cultivators."

In view of this admission that from the young larval stages until they reach a length of from two to three inches they are living and feeding - not breeding - feeding in the mangrove, how can the Minister contemplate with equanimity the cutting down of 800 acres of it? His own letter to me proves my case, and not his.

Let me put this all once again in my own words because it is the crux of the whole problem. The prawns breed out to sea, but how far they travel and where they breed is not yet known. In their early larval stages they come in with the tide, either into the mangrove or into the prawn ponds, where they sink into the mud and feed and grow and fatten. When they have reached a certain size - about two or three inches - the urge comes to stir themselves and to go out to sea again and breed. Those feeding in the mangrove swim out to sea without restriction; those that have fattened in the ponds cannot get out but are caught in the nets at the sluice gates and find their way to the market.

It seems to follow quite logically, therefore, that if you reduce your mangrove to a small area and increase your prawn pond area by the amount by which you have reduced your mangrove, too many prawns will be caught, too few prawns will swim out to sea to breed, and the law of diminishing returns will operate.

The facts proclaimed by the Minister that the prawn catch in the Government experimental ponds has increased in the last three years to one-third of a ton per acre per annum proves nothing. But if it proves anything at all in the Pandan area, it surely proves that the mangrove should be left undisturbed, and not the reverse. Indeed there is some evidence, though not conclusive, that there is already a falling off in the prawn catch in the Pandan and Ponggol areas, that these areas, in other words, are being fished to the limit.

There is one further important point to be remembered regarding this Pandan or Sungei Jurong area, and that is this: the 1,370 acres of mangrove of this Forest Reserve is the only mangrove left on the southern shore of the island; if it is cut down to all but 370 acres, there is no alternative mangrove in this area at all to which the prawns can turn for the feeding ground.

As the prawn population diminishes through the stripping of the mangrove along the banks of the Sungei Jurong, as is intended, the first people to suffer hardship will be the poor Malay fishermen who, as you probably know, Sir, eke out a precarious living by wading up to their armpits in the mud with their nets for a meagre and fortuitous catch of prawns and other crustacea, and whose catch - and therefore their living - will be reduced still further, and the co-operative scheme for them will be of no avail. If that were to happen, the Minister and the present Government will have a great deal to answer for.

As I have stated, there is little or no scientific evidence on the side of the Minister to support the action he proposes to take, and one can only hope that, having taken the stand that prawn ponds in the area are to be increased, he will not feel that he cannot withdraw from that stand even in the face of facts.

Let me give you one more quotation, and it is from the findings of the Malayan Branch of the Institute of Biology:

"Not one single member of the Institute who has been contacted has given even qualified support to the proposal for alienating the reserve. If this proposal were to go ahead it would thus be in the face of the overwhelming majority of Malayan professional biologists, and of the only body in Malaya which is competent to express the views of Malayan professional biologists."

In the face of that statement, is the Government not prepared to pause and think again?

Mr Speaker, Sir, are we then to abandon ideas of increasing our prawn supplies? That is certainly not the case. The Nature Reserve Board has pointed out that there is considerable acreage of tidal swamp on Crown Land suitable for development around the coast of Singapore. The Tuas area, for example, is particularly promising, and it might well be that, after experimentation, a considerable area could be opened up to prawn ponds without damage to the necessary mangrove feeding areas; because on the west coast there are considerable stretches of mangrove, not only on the Singapore side, but on the Johore side as well, and it is not straying too far into the realms of conjecture to suggest that the Johore coast can and does provide the feeding grounds which benefit Singapore prawn ponds in the Johore Straits even today, and that the feeding grounds utilised are therefore something like twice the area at present calculated. Certainly it is something requiring further research.

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry have put forward the curious argument that areas such as the Tuas area cannot be developed as prawn pond areas because of the objections of the fishermen in the area, whose plight is desperate because of the curfew in the Johore Straits. Apart from the fact that I believe that the restrictions have now been eased, I fail to see why the fishermen would not welcome the development of their own area through the enrichment of prawns.

Now, Sir, I am not going to say to this House that the views of the Nature Reserve Board or of the biologists must be correct and those of the Minister's and his advisers are not. I am sufficiently imbued with the scientific temper to say no more than that there are at least two points of view, and that the Government should proceed with extreme caution until further research has taken place.

But what seems to me unfortunate is this: that it appears that the data and the research work of the Department of Fisheries has never been published or revealed so that the other experts in Singapore can also work on it. The Department has worked in isolation. Its views may be right - I am not denying that-but with so much conflicting opinion they should not be accepted until they have been expertly examined by other authorities in the same field. Why is it that the Minister has never called together the members of the Nature Reserve Board and members of the Institute of Biology to discuss this whole problem with the Fisheries Department, so that if there are conflicting theories, they can be thrashed out? Is this not the proper course even now, instead of the leap in the dark which the Government is proposing?

Why has the Minister never consulted the Department of Zoology at the University, which is there in our midst to give advice? Is it because the Minister fears that he will get the answer he does not want? - because I come back to the point I made at the outset: that you can cut down 800 acres of mangrove trees in a short space of time but if your theories are proved to be wrong, it will take some 30 years or more to grow them again.

Earlier, I referred to Mr Hall who was with the Research Station at Changi and who did a great deal of work on prawn biology while he was here. It is betraying no secret for me to say that his treatise on the subject is in the press and due for publication in one of the scientific journals. He may be able to throw a great deal of light on the importance or otherwise of mangroves, on the effect of the currents round the Singapore coast which must have some influence on the breeding areas. If the migratory movements of the prawns were properly understood, it would be much simpler to formulate efficient schemes for commercial exploitation, and to avoid the error of killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. Would it not therefore be wiser to obtain Mr Hall's data, or await its publication, instead of plunging into the unknown? As this is a purely scientific problem, is there any reason why the Government should not adopt a scientific approach towards it?

Sir, I have, I think, said enough to explain why we are not happy about this motion. There is still more, nevertheless, which I could say. I might mention that the Rural Board is unanimously opposed to this move, having heard from one of its own Health Officers that a large scale clearing of the mangrove is likely to create breeding sites for the malaria-carrying mosquito called Anopholes sundiacus.

I might pause to wonder why it is that the Minister for Commerce and Industry, and not the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, is introducing this motion, as the Nature Reserves come within the latter's portfolio. I might pause to wonder why it is that the Minister for Commerce and Industry is so desperately keen to press this issue at this particular time.

My own belief is this: that if all the experts oil the subject in the country got round one table to go into this matter and pool their knowledge - as should have been done before - it would be found, firstly, that the area of land alienated for prawn ponds could be increased beyond the present area; secondly, that a sufficient but different area of mangrove could be retained at the Pandan Forest Reserve as a feeding area for prawns and as a self-propagating area for biological study; and thirdly and finally, the proper balance of nature could be achieved. That would be the best possible results, while at present the Government may get the worst of both worlds.

I will only conclude by urging the Government and the Minister, in the light of all the present evidence, to have the honesty and courage to think again. I do not know whether the Minister will in fact consider withdrawing his motion but in order that all Members on both sides of the House may be able to consider this question more carefully, I wish to move, under Standing Order 20 (1) that the debate be now adjourned to a later date to be fixed by the Minister.

2.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Under Standing Order 20, a motion should read, "That the debate be now adjourned." If that is agreed to, the date will have to be named by the Member in charge. Will the hon. Member please move formally?

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move under Standing Order 20 (1),

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Sir, I second the motion.

Question proposed.

2.54 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party has no bird-watchers, or prawn admirers, or mangrove swamp special-lists in its midst. I do not wish to appear to be a Philistine but I found the earnest arguments so academically put forward by the hon. Member for Tanglin as to why

Mr Speaker: Order. The procedure is a bit complicated, I do admit, but the motion now before the House is, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was leading to my point on this motion, and if you so wish it, Sir, I shall come to my point first and then elaborate on it. And the point is this: the only argument which carries weight - if it were true - is that if you open up these 800 acres you are going to diminish the prawn production. If that is true then I say the whole purpose of this scheme will be defeated. Obviously the Hon. the Minister cannot have been so ill-advised and we would like to know if he has second thoughts on the matter after hearing the very lengthy and detailed arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Tanglin. If there is the slightest doubt as to the possibility of increasing production by diminishing either the feeding area or the breeding area by 800 acres, then I say the debate should be adjourned, and on that motion alone we might have the information that is available to the Minister for Commerce and Industry.

2.56 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am speaking on the second motion, Sir. First of all, the Minister is not "a single man". The Minister is not expected to be a man with academic knowledge of fisheries, swamp land, mangroves, stunted mangrove growths, centipedes, serpents and whatever else that grow in the man-groves, or that live in the mangroves. The Minister has to rely on advice from the head of department, who is the man who should know his job and what is going on. According to the advice that I have got from my Chief Fisheries Officer, there is no danger that there will be a diminution in the breeding of prawns because of this scheme.

Perhaps hon. Members may like to know why there is no such danger, and I will give the answer in brief. With the Peneid variety of prawns, the full grown ones live out offshore, far out at sea, more than five miles away from the coast. When they breed, the larvae come into the inshore waters. They remain and feed in the inshore waters and grow until they reach "young hood". That is when the prawn operators open their gates and get them in. But it does not follow that the whole lot of larvae in the inshore waters will be caught by the pond operators. Quite a big number are not caught because there is the urge in these young prawns to swim out to sea, back to offshore waters. Therefore a lot of these prawns are not caught.

This talk of breeding in the inshore areas of Singapore - it has been fished by local fishermen for the last 50 years and yet there is no evidence of over-fishing so far. The Peneids are not caught until they reach near maturity and the prawn ponds are feeding grounds so that the prawns will grow faster. But as I said earlier, a good portion of the prawns manage to get far out into the sea from the inshore waters, and when they go far out to sea they breed again and the larvae come back into the inshore waters to grow.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of clarification, Sir, could the Hon. the Minister explain to us what is the significance of his argument that there has been fishing for 50 years without a diminution in the amount of prawns available to be caught, with respect to the argument that if you cut down the 1,370 by 1,000 acres there will be a diminution of the area in which these larvae can grow to "youth-hood" - as I think it was put by the Minister?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I was answering the argument of the hon. Member for Tanglin when he suggested that there might be over-fishing, that is, too many of these young prawns may be caught by the prawn ponds so that there will be insufficient numbers to go out and breed. But that is not so, as I have explained earlier. As regards the area that may be cut down reducing breeding area, I think there is no danger of that because the prawns breed in offshore waters and we have offshore waters on all sides of the island.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a further point, Sir, as I understand it, the larvae come into the inshore waters and into the mangrove. There it feeds for three months or so until they are ripe for the catch. Then the sluice gates are opened, the prawns are caught and fed in the ponds and are ready for the market. The argument of the hon. Member for Tanglin, which should carry considerable weight if it is true, is that if you cut down the feeding area, which is at present 1,370 acres, by 1,000 acres (although in fact it has already been cut down by 200 acres, so that there are another 800 acres to be cut off), then there will not be sufficient space in the mangrove for the larvae to feed on.

Mr Speaker: It would appear that we are entering into a debate on the main Question. The Question now is, "That the debate be now adjourned." From the debate within the debate that has taken place it seems to me that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar seeks to make further investigations into this problem.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No, Sir, we do not wish to delay the purpose of the Liberal-Socialist amendment to postpone the debate. We are not very anxious to postpone the debate unless we can be sure there is a valid reason. What we want to be certain is that there is no valid reason, and the enquiries that I have put to the Minister about this cutting down of the breeding or feeding area is to find out whether or not there is a danger. If there is then I suggest the debate should be adjourned for proper consideration to take place; if there is not then we go on with the debate on the merits of it.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: There is no such danger, Sir. The inshore area is infinitely larger compared with the 800 acres that we propose to cut down.

3.03 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, the crux of the matter has not been explained away by the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry. What will influence our vote as to whether this debate should be adjourned or not is the usefulness of having these extra 800 acres as a natural reserve. From the answers which the Minister has given to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, it seems that the Minister is himself in considerable doubt as to what the answer ought to be. We want to know definitely from the Minister before we cast our vote whether he has considered this question from all the scientific and biological information from the experts who are on hand and whose opinions have been given by my learned colleague, the Member for Tanglin. Unless we have the Minister's assurance that he has fully considered it and is prepared to demolish 1,000 acres of land dedicated for the last 100 years in 10 minutes or 20 minutes debate, then I am sure we are unable to cast our votes even on the motion for adjournment.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of clarification, Sir, It seems that the hon. Member wants my full reply to the points raised by the Member for Tanglin. I was reserving that for the reply to the debate on the original Question. Can you please guide me?

Mr Speaker: As I understand it, the motion, "That the debate be now adjourned", was moved because the mover urged that there should be closer investigation into the whole matter. I think that if debate is entered into on that Question, and if hon. Members will confine themselves to whether or not they think closer investigation ought or ought not to be made, we will be able to complete the debate on that particular Question and then go back to the original Question.

3.05 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, suppose we do have the debate adjourned now and postpone it to say another three months-or longer than that-how much prawns will we have caught during this period or these few months? Is it not possible that for a consideration of a small amount of prawns that may be caught during that time, we could adjourn this debate and think carefully on the pros and cons of this subject? I think there should be no loss whatsoever, but if the Government, after hearing all this argument, would still want to use its Nominated Members to bulldoze this issue through, then I think-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does understand that he must not impute improper motives?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I believe, Sir, that when arguments are put forward - and strong arguments, too - in support of a motion not against what the Minister has proposed, but just to ask for reconsideration of the matter, the Government should consider the case. I think anybody wise enough should accept the motion, because, if the evidence does point out that it is harmful to do away with the nature reserve, we would not have done away with it yet; but if the evidence shows that it will be profitable to carry on making the whole area into prawn ponds, then it will not be late, even though it may take place a month or two later.

3.07 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand the mover of this motion - or emotion - correctly, he essentially seeks to get more expert advice on a matter on which expert advice has of course already been given. It is not a matter on which I can give expert advice, except some experience in administration: but the more experts you have, the more differing opinions you will get. I do not think it will be helpful, after the Ministry has made a thorough study and come forward with a proposal, to throw it all back for a lot of further ex-parte expert advice. I cannot help recollecting the question of floods and water storage in which the City Water Engineer put up an expert scheme first and then my drainage adviser put up another scheme and when they were in conflict we had a special expert out from the United Kingdom to put up a third scheme. Meanwhile the Water Engineer was changed, and there was a fourth scheme. That was the result of going to too many experts. You have got to take your experts and stick to them, Mr Speaker, and I think this motion must be resisted because it is a time-waster.

3.08 p.m.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, it will probably interest the hon. Member for Serangoon to know that I am in favour of adjourning this debate. I do not know very much about mangroves, and I certainly know very little about the habits of prawns. When I was a young man there was a song which ran, "Do shrimps make good mothers?", but the evidence was inconclusive. And I would certainly like to know a great deal more from the Government side as to whether or not the cutting down of the mangroves would indeed interfere with the fecundity of the prawns.

3.09 p.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the stand taken by the last speaker, and I am really surprised to see that the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry and the Government are pressing on with this motion. Expert views have been put up by the hon. Member for Tanglin and I think it will be in the interests of the Members of this House and the people of Singapore in general if the debate on the motion is adjourned.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Speaker: I think the Hon. Minister has already spoken.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have spoken in reply to points on which clarification was sought.

Mr Speaker: That is not so.

Mr John Ede: Have I the right of reply, Sir?

Mr Speaker: No, I am afraid the hon. Member for Tanglin has no right.

Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr John Ede: Division, Sir.

3.10 p.m.

The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 18; Absent, 5; Paired, 2. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Lim Choon Mong. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ong Piah Teng. Braga, A. J. Soh Ghee Soon. Chew Swee Kee. Sutherland, G. A. P. Goh Chew Chua. Tan, William. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Absent Abdul Hamid. Jumabhoy, R. Nair, M. P. D. Lazarous, A. R. Stewart, S. T. Lee Choon Eng. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Ching Siong. Thomas, Francis. Seah Peng Chuan. Winslow. A. V. Paired Lim Koon Teck. Wong Foo Nam.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: The original Question as appears in Item 2 of the Order Paper is now before the House.

3.17 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, it is indeed with great regret that Government is forcing through this measure. I have to protest because we only received this motion less than a week ago on a matter of vital importance to Singapore, in the respect that we are changing a dedicated area of this country in so short a time and after my learned Friend has brought forward considerable evidence and scientific data to raise doubt even in the mind of the leader of the People's Action Party. It is a very inopportune moment for us to resist this motion at a moment when elections to the City Council are imminent. Unscrupulous politicians-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not see how a speech of that nature is relevant to the Question.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, the very fact that somebody said "platform" induces me to say that we will be accused of trying to prevent people from getting more food when our sole idea is to have the proper investigations before we leap in the dark. I for one and my Party have always advocated more work, more food, and if we are certain that cutting down of 1,000 acres would improve the prawn feed and the prawn population, I say cut down 10,000 acres or whatever you have.

But it is not clear and it has not been proved, and we will not accept the word of just one expert when the scientific data are against it. Sir, if this goes on, why not cut down the Botanic Gardens too and plant tapioca or whatever you like? There must be a certain balance and careful deliberation and thinking before measures like this are forced through within a few hours.

3.20 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, I think there is one point on which the Opposition is being a little unrealistic - the assumption that if this is not done now, it will never be done. If we look at the increase in population of Singapore, it makes it absolutely certain that if things go on as they are, in the end even the Botanic Gardens will have to go, unless you put guards around them and fence them with double reinforced concrete and all the rest of it; for there will be no space on the island which can be left vacant if we go on breeding at the present rate. It is a matter of ten, fifteen or twenty years. We have already got six to seven thousand people per square mile of the island and it is impossible that you should be able to preserve any space that is not fully developed and put to the maximum economic use.

If you try to preserve this area as a sanctuary for prawns or crustacea or snakes or any other flora and fauna - I have the greatest sympathy with those who care for them and find educational benefits in them - nevertheless they will go quite soon. People will start cutting the mangrove for firewood; you will not be able to stop them; they will be in there in every possible way and you will be rooting out squatters from the area. It is illusory to imagine that with the population pressure of Singapore, this sort of area can be preserved in perpetuity. The most you can do is to delay it for a while but its development is inevitable in the end.

3.22 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Labour Front never liked experts - the Minister for Communications and Works said that. But I find that it imports one expert after another one for water, one for transport, one for local government, and one for every other thing it can think of. But in this matter it will say, "No, it does not like experts." It is one of the funniest things to apply the argument only when it suits the Government.

On another point I would like clarification, Sir. Out of those 2,000 acres of mangrove swamp you would want to cut down 1,300, leaving only a small acreage as a nature reserve. If we do really want to have that place developed as prawn ponds, then why not cut down everything? Why leave that little bit? If it is not going to contribute towards the breeding of prawns, then by all means take off the whole area; do not leave anything. Why leave a little bit here and a little bit there serving no useful purpose?

And if we come to a case in which, as the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works said, people will chop down the trees as firewood, and when only such a small area is left, I definitely think that it will vanish in no time. So again this is a case in which Government is doing things half-heartedly. Does it think that that little area will be good enough as a nature reserve? Or does it think that it will produce more prawns? Whichever way it is, the decision of the Government is wrong.

I would like to point out to the Government this matter of food production. Here we have the Pandan Nature Reserve, but elsewhere around Singapore we have many more areas of mangrove. Does the Government encourage prawn fishing in those areas? Does it give licences freely? In some cases it would say that it is looking after the interests of the Malay fishermen; in this case it is going to over-rule them. In some instances Government would go out of its way to consult the fishermen. I am asking Government whether it has done so in this case. If not, why not?

Again on a matter of food production, in Singapore we do not just produce in the swamps. I think the Hon, the Minister for Commerce and Industry is also concerned with agriculture. Just look around Singapore and note the various areas where there is waste land. What has he done about such land? Has he converted it into useful food-producing areas? I would like an answer to that.

Then again I would say that, in conflict with another Department of Government - the Health Department - the Government has not seen fit to allow Kallang basin to be developed for the purposes of prawn fishing - Kallang basin, not fit for building, not fit for any other purpose, yet the Government will not issue licences because the health authorities say no. Now in this instance again, what is the view of the Health Department? Has Government considered it? If not, why not?

I have heard very interesting quotations right at the beginning of this debate. Many people can quote Scripture but many people can also get their facts wrong. Devils can also quote Scripture and also devils can get their facts wrong. Singapore is a nation. We do not have a representative at the United Nations Organisation. Singapore has a thick population. Yes, it is very thick because it is a City and I do not see how all these things can help the debate when it just concerns a few hundred acres where we can catch prawns. I would ask Government to think of better ways of increasing food production by deep-sea fishing. I think Government has been most obstructive in the matter of encouragement of food production when it first refused to allow freely deep-sea fishing-boats to be licensed to go out. And here it is squabbling over some little bit of swamp land, and even that half-heartedly.

3.27 p.m.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a great pity that in a debate such as this we do not have an opportunity first of hearing the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry in reply. I quite realise what the situation is. But obviously he held back a great deal of his fire and so we have not heard what he has to say.

But in the meantime we have heard the most cogent arguments put up by the hon. Member for Tanglin. Now I would like to say, with reference to remarks passed by the hon. Member for Paya Lebar and the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works, that I personally am not in the slightest degree interested in the preservation of a Nature Reserve as such. I think the very fact that there are in Singapore large areas under mangrove is a little bit out of place in this age. What I want to hear from the Minister for Commerce and Industry in reply is scientific refutation of the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin, that the destruction of the mangroves is going to lead to lesser breeding of the prawns. That seems to me the only argument of any substance.

3.29 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we voted against the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Tanglin because he sounded like a Catholic on birth control. They come to you and they say, "Well, you know it has really nothing to do with Catholicism; it has to do with the nervous system of the woman and the man and everybody else. But do not vote for the F.P.A." Sir, I was very interested to hear from the Member for Tanglin that there were peculiar plants, and insects, the flora and fauna, in these mangrove swamps which may be of some benefit to those who have the leisure to go and take pictures at long distance of birds and bees and snakes and prawns and other things. But it seems to me completely unrealistic to talk about nature reserves in the island of Singapore. If you want to talk of nature reserves in the Federation - like King George VI Park - then I say there is some sense of proportion; but if you think nature can be saved from the teeming population, and mangrove swamps at that, saved for some doubtful benefit, I think it is completely and utterly mad.

But I was sorry that the Minister did not have at his finger-tips the data with which to destroy the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin - not the argument which he really believed in, but the argument he put forward to preserve his main point, namely, that it should be a nature reserve. Now, very simply, it is this: if there is the slightest possibility of the total prawn population going down as a result of mangroves disappearing and ponds appearing, then I say it should be stopped.

Now there is no danger of this happening if the scheme is put into operation in several phases. If we do not have the 800 acres suddenly cut down and ponds appearing, but it is done in phases, we can see the way the prawn population is going - whether it is dying off, like the aborigines in Australia, or whether it is multiplying, like the Negroes in America. It is on that basis that the Government is going to use its common sense and put the scheme through in several phases to make sure that the scientific calculations, or the calculations of the scientific experts quoted by the Member for Tanglin, are not proved correct.

So far as we can make out, if we already have 200 acres of the 1,000 acres you want set aside for prawns, in fact fish ponds, then do it in three phases, and as you finish each phase you can see the "state of the nation" as far as prawns are concerned, and go on with it if prawns keep on multiplying. And it is on that basis that we objected to the adjournment, particularly when the hon. Member for Serangoon suggested three months. This is one of the election issues which is bound to crop up in Ulu Pandan. We, the P.A.P., are not interested; we are just spectators there, but the Liberal-Socialists are not just mere spectators. But I would say this, it is very close to the City area. The moment I receive a letter which contains all the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin, signed by a person who has large acres of fish or prawn ponds in that area, I view the matter with some pardonable suspicion. When I find a big owner of fish ponds putting forward all the biological and zoological reasons why this thing should not be turned into ponds, I think the matter should be pursued with even greater vigour.

3.34 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, I think it is quite clear from the arguments we have heard from both sides that all agree that it is the duty of Government wherever possible to increase food production, particularly, when one looks at the reports and the statistics which show that the population is fast growing. Now prawns are very expensive in the market and everything that can be done to increase prawn production of course should be supported. Therefore on balance food production comes foremost against Nature Reserve. The biological, zoological and other "ological" reasons do not move me one bit.

I am particularly concerned with the ability to increase food production, and the only argument that was advanced by the hon. Member for Tanglin, on the important question raised by Mr Sutherland, whether the cutting down of the mangroves is going to reduce the prawn population, the only argument advanced by the Member for Tanglin seems to me absolutely contradictory. He says in one breath - and I speak subject to correction, I may have heard wrongly - that by destroying and demolishing mangroves, you are demolishing and doing away with the food which the prawns require in order to grow up. In the next breath he says, quoting from another expert, that the prawns, the larvae, go into the mangrove swamps and bury themselves into the mud for a period until they grow in size to two or three inches.

Mr John Ede: On a point of explanation, Sir. The biological problem is simply this: prawns feed in mud, mangroves or ponds; when they are ready to breed, they leave the mud, mangroves or ponds for the sea. If too high a proportion of an area is pond, then too high a proportion of prawns is trapped and there are not enough left to go out to sea and to breed.

Mr Braga: That is still contradictory, Sir, because I cannot see how the demolition of the mangroves themselves as mangroves is going to reduce the food for prawns. These larvae feed on the molecules that are in the mud, and whether the mangroves are there or not they still have their food in the mud for a certain period. That is how I see it.

Therefore I cannot support any argument which says we must preserve the mangroves, for botanical reasons or for zoological reasons or for biological reasons, and also that mangrove is food for the prawns. Someone remarked about the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens, as I see it, is a place which is particularly set aside to grow and preserve such flora as are found in one's country in a particular site, and anybody who wishes to study that flora can go there at their leisure.

On those grounds, Sir, I am not satisfied with any argument advanced by the Member for Tanglin that by destroying the mangrove we are going to do away with prawn food and thus reduce the population of the prawns. As no argument has been advanced I must accept the expert advice of the Fisheries Officer on this question, and I support this motion.

3.38 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I did not have a proper reply when the motion was moved for the adjournment of the debate. It was because I was holding my guns for the reply to the debate on the original Question.

Sir, I must assure this House specifically that all these arguments which the hon. Member for Tanglin has put up have already been put up to the Ministry by the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board, with supporting evidence as put forward by the Member from the various other professors and people of high academic qualifications, and they have been considered by the Ministry. The Ministry feels that, as far as fisheries is concerned, it is its Fisheries Officer who is best qualified to speak on the subject and who should know his job. If the House feels that the opinion of the Fisheries Officer is wrong, then the House can vote against the motion.

Sir, first of all, the Member for Tanglin ended his long academic speech with the remark that he paused to wonder why the Minister was so keen to press this issue. Sir, I can assure the House there is no sinister motive behind my pressure to get this motion passed. It is the job of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, besides his various other jobs of expanding industry, commerce, agriculture, veterinary services, keeping an eye on the foreign exchange and what not, to expand the economy of the country, and if he does not carry out that job, then he is not an efficient Minister.

Sir, it was not so very long ago that the hon. Member for Tanglin, speaking in the debate in Committee stage on the Appropriation Bill last year, made this remark:

"...I have no doubt that, through more research, it should be possible to increase the yield of prawns per acre; thus increasing the return to the fishermen and, at the same time, reducing the market price."

And, Sir, he went on to advocate that there should be more prawn ponds and so on.

And then the hon. Member for Serangoon, the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party, had this to say:

"Land must be granted by the Land Office and then sanctioned for fishing by the Fisheries Department. As far as I know, a great deal of our marshland is still not being made use of, and most of such land is being given under Temporary Occupation Licences..." .

Then he went on:

"When the marshland is brackish in nature, very little will grow there except mangroves, and I think that the department concerned should reconsider granting such land for purposes of fishing as this has been considered as most important by so many Members."

Now, Sir, like a true democratic Minister I took heed of what the Opposition Members remarked and I governed myself accordingly and tried to find land for the purpose of growing more food. And now I am under censure for trying to carry out what they had in mind.

Coming back, Sir, to the first argument of the Member for Tanglin that it is against the very nature of the Nature Reserves Ordinance to move such a motion, it is remarked that the words "dedicated", "set aside and reserved for purposes of propagation, protection . . .". etc, have been used in section 3 (1). But I hasten to point out that it is not dedicated in perpetuity. There is also provision, Sir, in the same Ordinance; under section 4 (1), "the Legislative Assembly may by resolution amend the Schedule to this Ordinance by either the addition to or deletion from the said Schedule of any area or may make any modification" and so on. That shows that the intention was not that this area should be a final dedication in perpetuity, but that this area was reserved and that the Assembly, which is the highest authority in this country, should have the power to make any amendments to it if it wished. Evidently what was in mind is that circumstances may change when we cannot afford the luxury of having such reserves. And in accordance with the machinery provided by the Ordinance, I am bringing the matter up to this House for the decision of hon. Members.

Now, Sir, talking of experts; you always have two opinions on any subject. You have the Liberal-Socialist opinion, you have the P.A.P. opinion, and you have the Labour Front opinion which in this case is coincidental with the P.A.P.'s. You have the opinion of one expert, you have the opinion of another, but somebody has got to decide which to follow, and that somebody, according to the democratic set up, is the layman, because the Ministers are not experts in the field. You do not have a doctor as a Minister for Health. Therefore it is the layman who decides. He does not decide only from one angle, and that is the technical angle, but he decides from the common man's angle, and that is: what is most important and good for the country. And basing my decision on that, I - being in the position to make the decision - now have brought it up to the House because I feel that it is important that as much area as possible is opened up to the people of Singapore for food production. It is now a matter that rests with this House, for Members to decide, and all Members in this House are laymen in this respect.

Now, Sir, a lot has been said about the Nature Reserve Board saying this and the Nature Reserve Board saying that. The Nature Reserve Board is not an expert body. Except for one or two persons on the Board, and that is the Director of Botanic Gardens and the Professor of Botany (I think) of the University, the rest of the members of the Nature Reserve Board are laymen. And therefore when the hon. Member says the Nature Reserve Board says this, what he really means is what the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board says. The rest of the members are laymen, just like you and me, and they cannot express a technical opinion on the subject.

Sir, it is a pity that Sir Stamford Raffles, when he founded Singapore, did not see the paramount need of preserving the flora and the fauna of the island but opened up the island to commerce. If he had seen it he would probably have kept the whole island as a nature reserve, in which case of course the Member for Tanglin and his colleagues would not be here today.

The Member for Tanglin also said, 'Don't you want to preserve this Reserve for our University students to study and produce Directors of Raffles Museum. Professors of Biology, and Directors of Botanic Gardens, and Fisheries Officers, and so on?' These nature reserves have existed since the time Singapore came into being. Whether they were dedicated by Ordinance or not, they were there. How many Directors of Botanic Gardens have we produced? How many Directors of Raffles Museum have we produced from our local boys? None. Why not? Luckily today we have one, a local officer, who is Chief Fisheries Officer today.

Sir, I have got to take the advice of my expert, and that is the Chief Fisheries Officer, on subjects connected with fisheries and prawns, as against the advice of the Nature Reserve Board. But this I think will help to convince hon. Members that not all the arguments put up are absolutely correct and unchallenged. Here is a letter from the Director of Fisheries, Malaya, in which he says:

"I have spoken with Messrs. G. C. Maddock, F. G. H. Allen and Dr B. D. Molesworth about the birds, and they say there is no rare species at all there. One species of pittu has nested there and that is the only place on Singapore Island from which it is recorded . . . I also understand there are no rare botanical specimens. It has no specific attributes and is in no way unique..."-

speaking of this Ulu Pandan Reserve.

Then again, Sir - and this is the expert opinion expressed by the Fisheries Officer:

"The prawns which are of commercial value found in the Ulu Pandan prawn ponds belong to the family Peneids and are known as Peneids to scientists. No conclusive research work on the breeding of Peneids in Malayan waters has been carried out. The present state of knowledge based on the research work done in the United States of America and elsewhere on this group of prawns indicates that they breed fairly far out to sea in clear water. A review of this work by three U.S.A. experts on prawns, namely, W. N. Anderson, J. E. King and M. J. Linder, may be found in the Biological Bulletin of 1949, and this work has been accepted by biologists all over the world as accurately representing the position, so that we may until such time as proof to the contrary is available, assume that our Peneid prawns spawn fairly far out to sea and that their larval stages are brought into the ponds by the tide from spawning grounds which may be ten miles or more from the Ulu Pandan area. These larval stages then grow up in the ponds until they are large enough to spawn. They then migrate back to the sea. It is during this migration that the prawns are caught by the filter nets of the prawn pond operators.

But a sufficient number of prawns will always go out to sea for breeding, and the prawn ponds can never catch the whole lot that is growing up in the inshore waters, and that is the reply to the argument of the hon. Member for Tanglin.

And then he (the Member for Tanglin) has quoted an expert who actually is a carsinologist. The term denotes a person who is expert in the classification of crustaceans, which includes crabs, prawns and a host of other shrimp-like animals, into families, genera and species. A carsinologist need not necessarily be an expert on the biology of crustaceans such as prawns. Sir, indeed many carsinologists are not biologists in the accepted sense of the word and therefore do not know sufficient of the biology of prawns or crabs to offer expert opinion on whether or not the continued productivity of the Ulu Pandan prawn ponds depends on the utilisation of this Nature Reserve.

Now there you have an expert speaking out his mind. I do not know whether hon. Members wish to accept it or not but the fact is that cutting down these 800 acres is not going to affect the breeding of the prawns.

I have a lot of other arguments, Sir, on points which I could answer but I think the time is running short. There is one other thing, Sir; the important question of Malay fishermen has been raised and I assured the House earlier that we would try to form them into a co-operative so that they will not be the losers because of this, and we will guarantee them a quarter of the area, to be run by the co-operative. Now let me give some figures on the economics of pond prawn cultivation. Supposing there are 200 Malays in this area now and their catch value is an average of $5 per day per family, their cash earnings probably come to only about $1,000 a month or $12,000 a year because not all sell their catch. If you have 200 acres, at the Fisheries rate of production, that is 5 piculs and 70 katties per year per acre, you get $114,000 per year if you sell your prawns at $1 a katty. So now you have 200 Malays earning about $12,000 a year; if they co-operate and join this scheme, and develop 200 acres, they could stand to gain $114,000 per year if the production is at the maximum rate of the Fisheries Department. But if the production is at the minimum rate, as alleged by the Nature Reserve Board, and that is 200 katties per year, even at that rate, they could still get $40,000 a year. So they will not be the losers by this. And of course you get a vast increase in the quantity of prawns in our markets, and that means a relief to housewives, who could get their prawns cheaper and more readily whenever they want.

Sir, in other mangroves, wherever it is possible Government has encouraged prawn ponds. Only in the Straits of Johore does Government not allow prawn ponds at the moment because of the curfew and the restriction on fishermen to fish there at night. If later on these curfew restrictions are lifted, then of course Government will look into the matter and probably allow them to have prawn ponds there.

Sir, finally I want the House to consider this aspect. Does it wish to preserve the flora and the fauna - maybe thousands of centipedes and snakes and ferns and stunted dwarf trees that grow in mangrove swamps such as this one - or does it wish to preserve the human species?

Original question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted there-for:-

"All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in parts of lots 136-15 and 136-17, Mukim No. V, Pandan, and in part of lot 94-13 Mukim No. VI, Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 236 a. O r. 0 p.,90 a. O r. O p, and 45 a. O r. O p. respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged red on Certified Plan No. 7499 filed in the office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.".