FIRST SCHEDULE

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 25 -

Question again proposed.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the limited time allotted, I propose to go direct to the point to give the others a chance to speak.

Sir, this is the third time I have to announce to the people of Singapore the Government's wasteful policy in coming here and asking for a grant of a large sum of the ratepayers' money for a useless purpose like family planning. I say "useless" because to a Question I put to this House last month asking for birth statistics for two periods, I got a reply which showed that births had increased instead of decreased. In other words, family planning is a failure. Indeed, Sir, the Family Planning Association admits it in page 5 of their Seventh Annual Report which reads as follows:

"No one is more conscious than we of the fact that family planning cannot hope to provide a solution to the problems which face Singapore with a population which is likely to treble itself in less than 30 years."

Sir, knowing this, I think the Association should have the conscience to give up and make a retreat. Instead of that, they come to ask for money to be wasted. I now await to see what the attitude of the Government is. As for myself, I strongly object to the grant.

The Chairman: I think the Chief Minister did announce that there is going to be a free vote.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Yes, that is right.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): They still rule.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it will be extremely unfair not to make this grant to the Family Planning Association. It will not only disorganise that Association and may render the members thereof liable for damages for one month's pay in lieu of notice, etc., but it will cause great hardship to those women who have been accustomed in the last few years to come to "the Association" for advice and for other forms of assistance. We must at least make this grant this year.

During this present Session of the Assembly, we have had the Estimates Committee sitting and, if some Members are not satisfied with the way in which the Association has spent the money, the matter could be referred to the Estimates Committee for the next Session to investigate into how the money was spent and a report will be made. If, as a result of the investigation by the Estimates Committee, we find that the money had been wasted, then we can reconsider the matter next year but it would be very unfair indeed to refuse this grant without notice this year.

Sir, I therefore appeal to Members to take these two points into consideration when deciding whether this grant should or should not be made.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was rather a funny argument by the hon, nominated Member Mr R. C. H. Lim. He said that it would cause hardship to families. Have we not got our hospitals? Have we not got our clinics? Can these people not be attended to there? How much is one month's pay in lieu of notice? Is that not better rather than to keep on paying $120,000 a year?

But, Sir, yesterday, I said that I moved this amendment with an open mind and pointed out that I did so on certain principles. I mean no disrespect to the honorary workers of the Family Planning Association who are giving of their time and not money because they only contributed $1,000, as laid down in their own pamphlet.

Now, Sir, the question was raised yesterday about the Jams. It is a very important religion which is one of the recognised religions of India in the world. Why should we not show respect to its followers if they raise certain objections? One of their beliefs is that you should not kill even an ant if you can help it. Now, Sir, there is also a religious body here which is an inter-religious body consisting of various religious heads. Have they been consulted as to whether they approve of it on religious grounds? Has the Muslim Chief Kathi of Singapore been consulted?

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): I have.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Now, Islam is definitely against unnatural practices but it also stresses that if a woman does not want to have children for reasons of health, she can take all the precautionary measures possible. There is no question about that. The main reason of the objectors is that their money should not be spent or given away. Let me also say, Mr Speaker, that possibly due to the prayers of these religious objectors, the Labour Front has lost four of its Members including the ex-Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall). Possibly they may lose all; the time is not far off.

Now, Sir, I said that there is strong objection to family planning on religious grounds but my objection is this, that you are giving away $120,000 to a body for a purpose which may be good but how much are they raising themselves? It is only $1,100. Now, has the Government any control whatsoever over the administration? We have received another pamphlet from the objectors giving us the number of hours they work in the Association and so on, and informing us that $83,000 was spent on salaries and provident fund. Now. Sir, if the Government is giving so much money, why not run this department on their own in the interests of the public? We are not against that because with the increase in population, Singapore may not be large enough to accommodate everybody. No taxpayer then can object to that but what they are objecting to is giving away $120,000 to this particular body which can only raise $1,000 itself. But it seems that there is to be a free vote. I would still like to hear arguments in favour of why Government should give $120,000 to a body which raises only $1,000 through subscriptions and maybe through other sources. That is a different thing altogether.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the third year in which this subject has been raised in the Assembly. Everything that could be said one way or another has been previously expressed most forcefully and must be clear in the minds of those present, because the set-up of this House is the same as has been during the last two years with the exception of the new Member for Cairnhill (Mr Soh Ghee Soon) - I am sure that he has taken an interest in this matter and read up our local Hansards on what has been said on this subject in the past. I agree with Mr R. C. H. Lim that no further time should be wasted on detailed arguments. My stand however in this is quite clear. I can only repeat what I have said in the past and that my stand on this subject in supporting the mover of the amendment is the same as it was and ever will be.

While I agree with the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) that there should not be discrimination on the question of religions, when he was discussing the ecclesiastical votes, I would like to point out that this is not a question of religion and religion should not be an issue. The two issues as I see it before the House are (1) the complete deletion of a vote for $120,000 to the Family Planning Association and (2) whether the increase of $20,000 is justified. I am in full accord with all those who say that the taxpayers' money should not be used in something that is against the very tenets of their religion or against their conscience and Government should not bulldoze through its policy by compelling the taxpayers to contribute to something which they think is really wrong. On that point, everything that could be said has been said.

10.15 a.m.

I can furthermore see no justification whatsoever for this increase of $20,000. The increase of grants to this Association has gone up from the paltry sum of $5,000 to $10,000, $30,000, $45,000, $60.000, $80,000, $85,000, $100,000 and now it is going up to $120,000. I would like to know where this will all end when there are other most deserving charitable causes like the Home for the Blind, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Ramakrishna Mission and several other missions whose needs are far greater than those of the Family Planning Association which could, with voluntary effort, raise their own funds, as pointed out by the Member for Telok Ayer. I think that it is a wasteful act to allot such a vast sum to an Association the majority of whose sister bodies in other parts of the world are self-supporting.

I support the motion which was moved by the Member for Telok Ayer.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to continue with my reply to the speech of the Minister for Communications and Works yesterday.

I agree that we should not repeat and repeat the same old story again on this controversial subject but I would like to raise three points for the House to consider. Firstly, on this issue are we not defeatists? We have no hope to provide for what we have to provide. The Minister for Communications and Works has warned us that there is a rapid growth of population in the whole world and that therefore Singapore should be on the safe side to be able to provide the means of livelihood for the people. Sir, I stated yesterday that we are in the age of the hydrogen bomb and that we are about to conquer space. I mentioned also that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has hopes of drawing power from the sea instead of from coal dug by miners. In the old days travel from the United Kingdom to Singapore took months but now it takes just over two days by Comet. Therefore, in the same way, we should strive through hard work to produce an ideal system of society. Sir, I strongly object to the unnatural practice of birth control and one must have strong faith in an ideal social system with a fair distribution of wealth. I am sure that many office-bearers of the Family Planning Association have a so-called small family. To them, two or three children are really sufficient and more would be troublesome but I am sure that their houses must have many rooms. Sir, I think the Minister for Communications and Works knows where I stay. I have a room which I occupy and based on the standard of the houses of those office-bearers it would qualify as a servant's room. But I have five children and I am very proud of them. Sir, if one has hopes of conquering space in the future and of many scientific improvements, we should not therefore worry about the rapid increase in population. We must not think that if we limit the growth of population, there will be less delinquents and illiteracy in society. We should build more schools and more hospitals rather than say, "We should limit the number of patients to the hospitals or limit the number of new pupils to the schools."

Secondly, Sir, the argument is that Singapore is a small island of 224 square miles and that the population in 1965 will be about 2 million. Sir, why can we not look forward to a merger with the Federation of Malaya? The all-Party agreement in this House is that we must merge with the Federation of Malaya. We may be citizens of the Federation of Malaya in the future and therefore the over-population problem of Singapore could be solved. One could admit that a merger with the Federation of Malaya is a long way off but, Sir, I say, "No, it is not so."

Thirdly, I think the Government has shown some favouritism in its generous grant to the Family Planning Association. The Member for Telok Ayer stated that there is a tendency to instability in this country which is mainly due to the high population of youth but when the Chinese Young Men's Association asked for a grant from the Government to help to solve their financial difficulties the Minister for Finance said that he will consider the matter - consider for many, many months! I cannot see which is more important, the Chinese Young Men's Association or the Family Planning Association. Everybody agrees that family planning is a controversial problem. I am sure that everybody would like to support the Chinese Young Men's Association, and yet the result for the Chinese Young Men's Association has been adverse.

Sir, I strongly support the mover of the amendment.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, until we can live in space and drink sea water, we must come down to earth and face facts as they are. The only objection so far as I can see to this vote for family planning is the question of $83,000 having been spent on salaries and provident fund. When we look at it from this point of view - that there is hardly any other expense except the hiring of people to do the work of helping and giving advice to women then it must necessarily be so that three-quarters of the funds of this Association has been spent on salaries.

Another remark was, "Why was such a little amount raised by private subscriptions?" That is because most people feel that this work should be done by Government. It is really a Government responsibility and this has been adopted by many countries. I can say that it is now being supported by Governments in India, China, Japan and Pakistan but I say that if this branch of work were to be carried out by the Government and its hospitals I am afraid that it will achieve less than half of what can be done by voluntary people who without selfish reasons come forward to work hard because they feel that it is essential for the welfare of our state.

Sir, the Federation last week voiced great concern over the difficulties of finding employment for an extra million workers in the next ten years. Their population is now nearly eight million. With our population of about 1½ million, we are going to get nearly 400,000 people seeking employment in ten years time and we in Singapore are suffering from lack of space with no new lands to open up. If the Federation with its huge hinterland could worry about this increase in the workers and finding employment for them what must we in Singapore think? Shall we get into the position of what Japan and China are in today where abortion is legalised? In Japan, any medical practitioner can perform an abortion for two reasons: one, if it is for health reasons of the mother; and two, when it is economically essential for the family to have the abortion performed. Is it not better Sir, for us to plan to avoid the abhorrent position that may and will arise if we do not support the Family Planning Association and the very good work that it is doing today?

10.30 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I usually have the greatest respect for the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) for his reasoning and his way of tackling a problem but my respect for him this morning has been somewhat shattered because the arguments he put forward in support of the motion before the House are actually arguments in favour of the grant to be given to the Family Planning Association. He speaks of the youth problem and the delinquents that we are facing now. If we do not have family planning on a voluntary basis to restrict the birth of young children how can we ever provide places for the children in schools? As it is, I have to revise my estimates every six months. I have to see that more buildings are being constructed to provide places for the children going to secondary schools and if we allow things to go on as they are, we will never be able to introduce compulsory education. No government, as far as I can see, will be able to do that if the increase in population is allowed to go on without a check. I am glad that the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) mentioned about Japan where abortion is legalised for two reasons.

For the third time, I think I have to contradict the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) who describes the Family Planning Association as "useless". I say for the third time that it is useful and I take off my hat to many of the voluntary workers of the Association who are doing a useful job. Instead of condemning them, I think they deserve all the praise from us.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Sir, I am a new Member of this Assembly and I must confess that until lately I did not know how much good the Singapore Family Planning Association had been doing for the public of Singapore. They must have been in existence for at least eight years now. I am glad that I received a report lately giving me a clearer picture of what the Singapore Family Planning Association had done. When I received the Estimates, my first impulse was to vote against family planning. I feel that a project like this should be supported by the public and not by Government. On going through the report, I found that the Association had done very goo4 work and, if given a chance, I think they would do better. It is nonsense to say that it is a pleasure to have many children and that the Chinese are proud to have many children. We realise the hardship of the people who have too many children and not being able to give them a good education. It is a sin and by not giving such children a good education, we are encouraging them, to join bad elements. We are fighting against such things.

It is not true to say that Singapore is not over-crowded. Only lately, I heard-if not in this Chamber it was somewhere else-that Singapore is one of the most populated areas in the whole world and that it will be very much so in another 10 or 15 years. At the moment we cannot cope with the housing problem. Look at the Singapore Improvement Trust. Thousands and thousands are still on its waiting list and the situation has not improved although many buildings have been put up; about the same number of applicants for houses are still on its waiting list. It shows that we cannot even house them.

I therefore feel that family planning must be strongly supported by Government and I even think that $120,000 is not sufficiently enough to do the good work that they are doing for Singapore.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) has clearly indicated to us this morning that this is the third time we are debating this subject It appears to me that this subject has become very stale and it will carry on and on year by year if we are going to continue debating this subject every time it comes up during the Committee of Supply. Last year, the Member for Bukit Panjang was defeated for the second time and I told him that he was trying to flog a dead horse. Now this morning I am not going to repeat that same phrase again. The mover of the amendment may expect to succeed after some canvassing or so outside this Chamber. If he succeeds with his amendment, good luck to him.

But what I notice, Sir, is the question of the increase in the grant. I think we should concentrate more on the increase in the grant rather that on the actual grant itself. In the year before last, the Association was granted $80,000. Last year, it came up to $100,000. It is now $120,000. As one Member pointed out just now, where is this all going to end? Are we going to increase again the grant next year to $140,000, and so on? As I said, then year after year we will have to debate this same subject. Now if this grant is going to increase year by year, would it be fair to the other charitable organisations? As I go through the list, I find that some of the grants to these organisations have decreased rather than increased - apart from those which remain with the same grant - such as the grant to Voluntary Institutions for Children which has come down to $295,000 from $350,000, the maintenance of St. Andrew's Orthopaedic Hospital from $5,000 to $3,000, and many other items (I have not gone through the list carefully). So, Sir, I think that now is the time we should stop the increase in the grant rather than to stop the whole grant.

If the Government is going to grant $120,000 and increase it every year, what about the application of the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association? I believe that the Hon. the Financial Secretary said that it is still receiving consideration. How long is the application going to receive consideration? As far as I know, the application was submitted early this year. I brought up the issue last year and the Hon. the Financial Secretary promised to look into it last year during the Committee of Supply. One year has elapsed and nothing appears in the Estimates for the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association? Why is that, Sir?

Sir, it would be very unfair to cut out the whole grant altogether. As the hon, nominated Member Mr R. C. H. Lim pointed out, how is the Family Planning Association going to function? Also we would be subject to legal expenses in paying extra salaries to the staff of the Association on the termination of their services. Are we prepared for that? I understand that the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Soh Ghee Soon) said that this Association has been going on for eight years and that we have been giving a grant to it for quite a number of years. The thing to do now, I think, is to stop the increase. If Members are not satisfied with the functions of the Association, let us get a Committee going then and investigate into the actual functions of the Association. If the Association is doing pretty well and doing good work as the Member for Cairnhill said, then let the Committee recommend to the Government that there should be an increase in the grant rather than stop the whole grant. If the Committee feels that the Association is doing work which is against the interests of the public, then it can either stop the grant or stop the increase in the grant, Sir,It will be unfair now to cut off the grant altogether to an Association that has been going on for years. I do not think that it is right, Sir. Last year, I abstained from the issue, because I was neither for or against. I am quite happy so long as the Association carries on and maintains itself and I think, to be fair to the Association as well as to the Member who moved the amendment, we should cut off this increase in the grant. So may I have your guidance if I can move an amendment to the amendment, Sir? With your permission, Sir, I intend to move it to debate-

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member no doubt knows Standing Order 69 (7) which reads:

"Any Member may move an amendment to the schedule to reduce by $ the sum to be allotted for any head of expenditure in respect of any sub-head or item therein, but at least two clear days' notice of such amendment shall be given."

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not trying to move an original amendment as the amendment appears on the Order Paper. My intention is to amend the amendment and I wonder if that is in order. My intention is to leave out "$120,000", and insert "20,000" which would retain the old grant of $100,000.

The Chairman: My reading of financial procedure as a whole is such that I think I must disagree. I cannot allow an amendment to an amendment of that nature because, if the hon. Member will look at paragraph (8), it reads:

"When several such amendments are proposed to the same sub-head or item, the amendment seeking the smallest reduction shall be first proposed and an amendment to omit the sub-head or item shall only be proposed after all motions for reduction have been disposed of."

It follows therefore that the financial procedure presupposes that there should be specific amendments to each sub-head or each item. Therefore, I cannot allow an amendment to the amendment.

Mr Braga: On a point of further clarification, Sir. If no amendment can be moved to the original amendment, I would like to enquire whether the mover of the original amendment could amend his amendment.

The Chairman: The principle is still the same.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, since I am ruled out of order to move my amendment to the amendment, may I then, Sir, ask the Government to look into this suggestion of mine that a Committee be formed to investigate or to look into the functions of the Association and then recommend either to this Assembly to the Government next year the grant that should be made?

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, as the Deputy Speaker stated just now, the Estimates Committee could go into that matter.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Thank you.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to adduce any arguments in support of my view which is unchanged because I do not want to bore the House with reiteration but one thing that has stiffened my resistance is the amount of lobbying I have had from religious bodies who emphasise that they are putting forward their point of view from a secular and an economic basis and not from a religious basis.

One is indeed either in favour of family planning or against it. I do not believe that any amount of debate would change anybody's views on the subject. One either holds the scientific point of view or the superstitious. For myself, I am inclined to the former.

One point, Sir, that occurs to me in connection with the remarks made by the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng): it may not have occurred to him that in looking for greater Lebensraum in interplanetary space, he might find perhaps that the population, if any, of Mars and Venus - especially Venus - might be more advanced in birth control than we are.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): This item has not been placed in the estimates in order to provoke a debate but because Government thinks that the grant should be made and it would perhaps be appropriate for me at this stage to give the reasons why.

I think, Sir, it is generally accepted, as a matter of policy, in most civilized countries, that instruction and advice in matters connected with family planning should be available to all those who wish to obtain it. As will be seen from the voluminous correspondence which has been exchanged between the various organisations interested in this matter, in most countries, the state either undertakes the task, or gives financial assistance to voluntary bodies, or does both, to promote the cause of family planning. There is no doubt in the mind of the government that family planning is, under modern conditions, an essential service and one which does a very great deal to dispel ignorance, to alleviate misery, poverty and hardship, and to promote a full and happy family life. Al, though this advice can be obtained on request from Government hospitals and clinics, it is considered preferable, in the conditions which exist in Singapore at the present time, that the ground-work in what must be an expanding service should be done by a voluntary organisation like the Family Planning Association which can, I think, make a more personal contact with the population than can an impersonal Government department.

10.45 a.m.

In one of the letters in the barrage of correspondence which has been laid down, criticisms were made on the inefficiency of the Family Planning Association. I have been into the affairs of the Association with considerable care knowing that the matter would come up once more for debate in the Assembly and I can say that I am satisfied that the Association is a very efficient organisation run on professional lines. Its overhead expenses are low. I think perhaps this is because so much voluntary assistance is given by a dedicated band of women. The salaries of its paid staff are in no way excessive when compared with the emoluments of comparable Government officers. In this connection, I should say that the proportion which emoluments bear to total expenditure is in no way out of the ordinary for a body which does nothing but render services to the public. I am satisfied that the grant which Government makes to the Association is well and properly spent. It is a fact that the Government grant does make up a large proportion of the income of the Association and that these grants have increased considerably over the years but the increase in the amount of the grant has been met by a corresponding increase in the activities of the Association as an examination of the statistics provided in the Annual Report will show. At the present time, it will be seen from the Annual Report, that the Association conducts four daily clinics, one weekly clinic, eight bi-weekly clinics, nine fortnightly clinics and three monthly clinics and that the attendance at these clinics now averages close on 15,000 persons a year. I am satisfied that any addition to the grant will result in a further expansion of the very desirable activities of the Association.

I feel, Sir, that this question of whether a grant should or should not be given is a matter which should be decided on what I might call practical humanitarian grounds, and that religious considerations should not be taken into account. I feel that if hon. Members will weigh the pros and cons of the matter, they will come to the conclusion, as the Government has done, that it is the duty of the state either directly or by financing an agency or by both means to make available to all those who wish to obtain it in whatever walk of life they may be, information about the planning of families and kindred matters.

I would also like hon. Members to ponder the consequences which would befall if this grant were not to be made in the coming year. It would mean that the activities of the Association would have to cease and it would cause untold misery to all those who have voluntarily gone to it for assistance.

With regard to the suggestion that the affairs and activities of the Association should be examined by a Committee, I would repeat what the nominated Member Mr R. C. H. Lim said, namely that this is a matter which can properly be gone into by the Estimates Committee of this House.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that the Association is doing very good work but my point is that when Government is paying 85 or 90 per cent of the money, it is the Government's duty to run this Association or an agency. What Government control is there over such an agency? That answer has not been given at all. The Hon. the Financial Secretary said only that he was satisfied. There has been some objection to the grant as it is public money.

Sir, during the debate on this subject, I promised yesterday to get the dates of the letters addressed to the Government from the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association. A letter was addressed in February 1957 and a reminder was sent in May 1957. It was to the fact that they were owing over $350,000 and paying interest on it. It is December now and yet the Government has not come to any decision so far. It is most disgusting.

Sir, the Ramakrishna Mission wrote also in February but the Hon. the Chief Minister explained yesterday that they were asked for some particulars and that the onus lay with the Mission to furnish such particulars to the Government.

Then the Trustees of the Sultan Mosque applied for a grant on 20th May, 1957 for repairs. I was told by the Hon. the Financial Secretary that he did not receive that letter. The letter was dated 20th May, 1957, addressed to him. Now, Sir, the Government is paying Ecclesiastical Grants and yet when the main mosque for all Muslims, irrespective of any sect, is asking for repairs, the application has not yet been considered or the letter has not been received. We are spending a lot of money on St. Andrew's Cathedral. I have got no objection to that. Spend if you want to but give equal treatment to everybody.

Mr Hart: I had intended to speak on this matter with your permission, Sir, when there was an opportunity for debate on the whole head and perhaps I might be allowed to keep my remarks until then?

The Chairman: It might be convenient to carry on, Mr Financial Secretary.

Mr Hart: It was my intention to inform the Member for Telok Ayer that I wished to correct a statement which I made yesterday, Sir, and to ask him to accept my apologies but as I was late in coming to the Assembly, I had not the opportunity of speaking to him beforehand. I think I said yesterday that, to the best of my knowledge, no application for financial assistance had been received from the authorities of the Sultan Mosque, the Ramakrishna Mission and the Young Men's Muslim League. The Hon. the Chief Minister said that he had received an application in the Social Welfare Department from the Ramakrishna Mission. I have made enquiries, and I find that in June last year, we did receive an application from the Sultan Mosque for money for repairs to the mosque and I must confess that I myself saw the letter in October. Due to preoccupation with other matters, I forgot all about it. The Ramakrishna Mission did apply for some assistance as far back as 1952 and the Young Men's Muslim Association applied for assistance in 1947 but the reply in each case was that it was contrary to Government's general policy to make financial contributions to religious organisations and that in the circumstances it was not possible to agree to the application. I should like the hon. Member to accept my apologies for being so categorical-

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Thank you.

Mr Hart: - in my rebuttal to him yesterday.

In a place like Singapore where so many religions are practised and where so many different branches of religions flourish, it would be extremely difficult for Government to admit the principle of giving assistance to religious bodies. As I said yesterday, the case of the St. Andrew's Cathedral is rather a special case.

With regard to organisations like the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association and other similar bodies, it has always been the policy of Government to avoid as far as possible giving direct financial assistance to organisations which are connected either directly or indirectly with particular religions. Assistance, of course, has been given in the matter of sites. In the case of the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association, we gave a most valuable site in the Telok Ayer area and I think that the Y.M.C.A. has also had assistance in this connection.

Recently, we received an application from the Young Women's Christian Association and, as I said yesterday, there were special considerations in connection with that case and we dealt with it on a special basis. I think, Sir, you will agree that the education of young women gives rise to special problems in a city like Singapore and in this particular case the Young Women's Christian Association proposed to erect an institution in Outram Road which would provide instruction in domestic science, home craft and kindred subjects. Now these are matters which the Education Department, due to preoccupation with other matters, have not been able to develop as much as they would have liked and again there are no facilities as far as we are aware in that particular part of Singapore to teach these subjects to young girls. For that reason, it was decided to give the Young Women's Christian Association a dollar for dollar grant, although it was a denominational organisation, on an undertaking from them that the institution would be used for the dissemination of instruction in domestic science and would be open to young girls of all races and creeds. This decision of course, Sir, opened the door for applications from other organisations for assistance from Government. The Chinese Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Men's Christian Association both applied for grants. The Young Men's Christian Association wish to build hostel accommodation but have not yet obtained a suitable site and have not yet considered in any great detail the financial implications of their proposal. The Chinese Young Men's Christian Association has indeed built a hostel and club premises in the Telok Ayer region on a site provided by Government but they have, I think, rather exceeded their resources and are in debt to the bank to the tune, as I understand it, of $320,000. The Government is sympathetic towards both these cases and they are actively under consideration at the present time and I hope that early in the new year we will be able to come forward with certain proposals in connection with both associations but I should warn the House. Sir, that there are still certain financial difficulties which have to be examined with some care before we are in a position to make recommendations.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to make some remarks on this family planning vote.

I have been, as I said yesterday, showered by an endless number of pamphlets and letters bearing five or seven seals and signed by seven different persons. It struck me that the Catholics are a very efficient pressure group. They do just what we hear the Communists do. They never give up. They know that it is a hopeless fight. They know that it is not going to get them anywhere but they keep on trying.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Nonsense.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yesterday, in the Chamber, I received a letter marked 'Urgent' in red, treble underlined. I slit open the letter and I saw a familiar signature. I knew what it was going to be about. Yes, there it was at the top of the letter "Please Vote Against" with the word 'Against' treble underlined. Sir, never had I been more determined that it is necessary to tell such people that as much as we admire their persistency, determination and obstinacy, the freedom of one's views cannot be curtailed by such high-pressure tactics. There is only one point on which I agree with the Catholics and that is that perhaps the Family Planning Association is not efficiently run.

In this dialectical exercise, what the Catholics want - I do not think they will deny it - is to stop any aid that will increase the practice of birth control, because it is against the teaching of their religion. But that not being accepted by others who do not accept the teaching of their religion, they try to find every conceivable reason why we should support them to achieve this objective. That is part of the practice of dialectics. They say, 'Well, never mind, let forget about the religious point of view'; they mention damage to health. They say it is contrary to the principle of spending money contributed by everybody to use it in ways which offend somebody, and so on, ad infinitum. They even go so far as to suggest that we should stop the Family Planning Association because it is inefficient.

11.00 a.m.

In my spare time I sometimes ruminate through these letters and I was very much tempted to write back and say, 'Well, all right, we will have a real efficient branch of the government or some really efficient institution to make family planning a great success' - which is just what they do not want. Well, Sir, I agree with them. However, its criticism has not much of an impact.

Sir, great respecter as I am of established standings in society, I find it difficult to believe in an Association with all these honourable names as patrons, presidents, eight vice presidents, and no less than eight patrons. What they do nobody knows. I am sure they do nothing, otherwise none of these persons would have the time to be patrons. Lord Sheppard of Spalding, Dato Sir Cheng-Lock Tan, K.B.E., D.M.M.J., J.P., Mrs W. A. C. Goode (I think that is out of date, but never mind, they will change it next year at our expense!). Sir Percy McNeice, K.B.E., C.M.G., O.B.E.; and there are eight vice-presidents. None of them is ever likely to bring this family planning idea down to the people. They are people who live right on top in the clouds. They do not know what is happening in Singapore. They are not ever likely to. And as long as it is run by people in that particular sector of society, family planning will be what it is: a very laudable, praiseworthy and Sunday-school type of project - one does it because it is a good thing to spend a little bit of time on helping others.

But if you want to make it really work, then get the organisation on the ground, sell it, and sell it hard. The Indian Government, and the Chinese Government now, are embarking on birth control and the propagation of simple birth control methods on a scale unparalleled anywhere else in the world. They know that if they want to raise the standard of living of their people, there must be some check on the tremendous and rapid growth of population. I do not think we will be faced with the same acute difficulties facing either the Indian or Chinese Government, but I do suggest that we should make a better effort than just through the Family Planning Association.

Sir, we give it this $100,000 but, at the same time, we had better spend some time thinking how the Minister for Education's worries should be not further increased, or the Minister for Housing's worries should not be too greatly enlarged, by an unrestricted growth of population.

Question put, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $120,000 in respect of subhead 33 therein.'.

The Acting Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart): Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 16; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 2. Ayes. Noes. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Jumabhoy, R. Ede, John. Lazarous, A. R. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Cher Kheng. Hart, T. M. Lim Choon Mong. Lee Kuan Yew. Stewart, S. T. Lim, R. C. H. Tan, William. Lim Koon Teck. Goh Tong Liang. Lim Yew Hock. Nair, M. P. D. Abstentions Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Abdul Hamid bin Shanks, E. P. Haji Jumat. Soh Ghee Soon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Sutherland, G. A. P. Jumabhoy, J. M. Tan Theng Chiang. Lee Choon Eng. Thomas, Francis. Mak Pak Shee. Mohamed Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Absent Lim Ching Siong. Wong Foo Nam.

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6. therein.

Sir, every year for the last three years we have had this sum recurring - $2,400 for the Singapore Civil Service Association. I would like to know from the Hon. the Financial Secretary - because this is one of those things "Subject to Treasury sanction, (6244/53)" - whether he thinks this particular contribution should go on year after year in perpetuity, or whether at some time or the other we should put a stop to it.

Mr Hart: This, Sir, is a grant which we propose to make to the Singapore Civil Service Association to enable it to upkeep its recreation grounds and clubhouse. I do not think I need explain to the hon. Member what the Civil Service Association is. I think he is very well aware of that. Government has given this Association considerable assistance in the past. Before the war, it made gifts of a playing field and clubhouse. I think shortly before the war, the Association found itself in financial difficulties and unable to upkeep the grounds and clubhouse in the manner in which they should be kept, and on representations being made, Government agreed that the rent accruing from the canteen behind the Government Offices in Empress Place should be made available to the Association to enable it to meet its recurrent expenditure. That practice has continued up to the present time.

In 1953, however, the Staff Side of the Council of Negotiation recommended to Government that the collection of rents from the staff canteen should cease and that the control of all canteens should be placed in the hands of a Coordination Committee, the object, I imagine, being that the charges made by the canteen operators to Government servants would be reduced. The effect of that decision would be that the Association would be deprived of the $2,400 a year income which it received from the canteen rent for the upkeep of its grounds, and it made representations late in 1954 that, in these circumstances, Government might replace the loss of revenue from the canteen by an annual grant.

11.15 a.m.

That was put to the Finance Committee at that time and was approved by the Estimates Committee of the Legislative Council, and in the Estimates for 1955 the sum of $2,400 was placed in the Estimates, subject to Treasury sanction. It has so happened that effect has not yet been given to the recommendations of the Council of Negotiation, the Co-ordination Committee has not yet called upon the canteen operator to cease paying rent, and the Civil Service Association has not yet had to call on Government to make this grant. Consequently, this item has been repeated in the Estimates this year subject to Treasury sanction. If and when application is made by the Association for the payment of this grant, I will of course go into the whole matter to see whether there is any reason to upset the previous decision of the Legislative Council that this grant should be made.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, we are not against giving assistance to employees of the Government to seek healthy recreational activity. But it does seem to me a little bit too much to say, 'First of all, let me stop collecting rents from the canteen in order that the prices it charges can go down and I can get the same thing for less; then give the money to me as a grant of $2,400.' There are thousands of clubs - football, cricket and badminton clubs - in which people get together on a voluntary basis to seek recreation. There is enough drive and verve in them to see that it is done on an economic basis, that income balances expenditure. It is a sad thing to notice that every time you come across people in the English-educated field, whether in boys' clubs, or other recreational clubs, they need crutches to survive. They have been molly-coddled and expect to be aided somehow or other, so that they do not have to make so much of an effort. I would like to say that although I propose to withdraw this amendment (not because I am fully satisfied but because we do not want to make it an issue just yet), if any association, be it of Government servants or any other voluntary organisation, expects a grant in perpetuity (that is what it more or less does amount to), then it is greatly mistaken.

That is not the purpose of Government. We can give grants to set some thing on its course, to launch a movement, but if that movement, organisation or society is not strong enough to sustain itself on its own, then it does not deserve to survive.

Mr Hart: Sir, I find much in what the hon. Member says which strikes a chord in my own heart, and when the matter comes up for consideration I shall bear most carefully in mind what he has said about the necessity for clubs of this nature being self-reliant.

Mr Braga: On a point of clarification, is the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar withdrawing his amendment?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I said so, Mr Speaker. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 46 therein.

Subhead 46 is listed as "Leeson Park. Dublin . . . subject to Treasury sanction". I understand Leeson Park to be a kind of students' hostel for Malayan students in Dublin. Now, Sir, I do not want to let this grant go unnoticed and I hope in particular that those students will either read the Straits Budget or some such newspaper and remember that if they expect always to be the privileged godsons of the Singapore and Federation Governments, then they are very mistaken.

Sir, both in London and in the other big cities where university students from Malaya are studying, there is a prevailing sense of calculated importance, partly because visiting Ministers tell them that they are the future leaders of Malaya. To my mind, nothing is further from the truth. From what I see of them, in free and open competition with other groups vying for leadership in Malaya, they would perish, most of them. It is only the very few in London and other towns in Britain, and in Australia, who are likely to survive competition for leadership here.

But all these students, particularly in London, get used to the idea that there must be a vote for something or the other - like a billiard or ping pong table, or there must be nice and comfortable chairs for them and a common lounge room. They never cease to ponder why it is that hundreds or thousands of their fellow-countrymen are living in slums and do not get such favoured treatment from the Singapore Government. I do not think that they are the future leaders of Malaya. They may be the future technicians of some government in Malaya. What worries me is that many of them will, in fact, be not very efficient technicians at that.

The first thing that must be brought home to them is that they must understand that the Government is doing this, just for the time being, in the hope that it will be diminished, in the hope that all these intellects will be of use to the future Malaya. Unless the returns are there, then all this subsidy should go.

In a way it was better when I was a student there, because we did not have these subsidies in Malaya Hall. We survived for ourselves but perhaps it was too rigorous. When University closed for the vacation we just roughed it out. We either roughed it out in the country or went down to London and roughed it out somewhere. Nowadays they expect to write to the Warden of Malaya Hall and say, 'Dear Sir, please book me a room at 7s. 6d. and let me have running hot and cold water, and central heating turned on.' Anyway, three-quarters of these students are sons of wealthy parents who can afford to give their children a bit extra to make sure that all this comfort that they require is paid for, it is only the one quarter of scholars, either state or otherwise subsidised, who get this favoured treatment. However, no system has yet been devised whereby a man first produces his scholarship card and then gets entry at special cut rates.

Let these students remember that we are giving this subsidy in the hope that it will produce the kind of cadre or material that will be of some use to the Malayan society to which they belong. If it turns out that this is all a great loss of money, then we shall put a stop to it in the very near future.

Mr Hart: I am not quite sure what the point is I have to answer, Sir, but if it is on the question of expenditure on these hostels for Malayan students, I would say that it is scrutinised with the same care with which spending in Government departments is scrutinised. I can give that assurance. No doubt students there ask for hot and cold water, they ask for -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Central heating.

Mr Hart: - central heating, and of course chairs, but I am pretty certain, Sir, they do not get all they want.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Could the Financial Secretary tell us the details of expenditure of this vote for the Leeson Park hostel and the accommodation available? I myself have not been to Dublin.

Mr Hart: I am afraid I do not have the details here, but the vote is for the Singapore share of the estimated recurrent expenditure for the forthcoming year.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $1,616,690 for Head 25 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, referring to Head 25, subhead 30, would the Hon. the Financial Secretary explain the reason why there is a decrease in the grant to voluntary institutions for children?

Mr Hart: If I may draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact, I think the answer is in the footnote.

Mr William Tan: Sir, if you compare the relevant amounts, you will still find that there is a decrease of $30,000.

The Chairman: The Financial Secretary of course could supply the information later on if he does not have it flow.

Mr Hart: Yes, Sir, I shall look into the matter and give the hon. Member the information later.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $1,616,690 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 26 -

The sum of $1,290,370 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 27 -

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 27 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, I have chosen the first item merely to initiate discussion of this Department, the Customs and Excise. I do know that it is being run very efficiently and that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry is also very efficient. The remarks I am making are suggestions on whether we cannot improve the service in the Customs.

11.30 a.m.

Sir, I have been to several countries. As a tourist, my first impression of a city will be gained from how I am received on landing, at the airport, railway station, or docks. Now the treatment given to a visitor is of paramount importance because of our position. Singapore is centrally situated and we have to depend on our wits for our income. We should welcome as many people as possible to visit Singapore and spend their money here.

Singapore is also a free port and there is no duty on imports except some items. Vigilance is necessary, no doubt, against smugglers of dutiable articles. I must at this stage pay a tribute to the work being done by the marine branch in arresting smugglers or preventing the smuggling of tobacco and other contraband. It is doing wonderful work. But I think improvement is needed at out airport, Clifford Pier, the railway station and the harbour board. This can be achieved in a very easy way by having an experienced officer in charge of the customs officers stationed there. In recent times I think they have improved a bit but not yet sufficiently.

Now, Sir, if one goes to London, Hongkong, Japan or any other country, one sees experienced customs officers who can tell from the face of the traveller what type of person he is and what he is carrying. Sometimes they open the luggage at random, sometimes they pass them. Experienced officers in charge of the customs can do a lot to earn the goodwill of visitors. In Singapore, there are certain articles on which duty is levied and sometimes strict examination is necessary. But when a person leaves Singapore, what examination of his luggage is needed? I cannot understand the need at all.

In Hongkong if you are leaving, they "O.K." you. You can buy and take out as much as you want. In Japan too, a country where import duties are levied, only a limited examination is carried out and with most courtesy on entry, but when you are leaving, off you go, buy and take as much as you want, and no examination is necessary. In Singapore we are in the position where no tax is levied on goods bought here and taken away. However, when you step on to Clifford Pier to board a ship the Customs say, "Buka ini". What for? Why? Go to the airport to leave for Penang - "Oh, misti buka ini."

Is this rigid procedure necessary? I think it is due to lack of supervision of young customs officers. It does leave a bad taste. The Customs must know where contraband usually comes from, or what is usually smuggled out and to which country. Certainly there is no smuggling to and from all countries. Instructions should be issued to be very courteous to tourists and visitors because we want the goodwill of the tourists and should avoid unnecessarily annoying them.

All this is by way of suggestion out of the experience I gained in other countries.

Mr Hart: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I much appreciate the confidence which the hon. Member has expressed in the Customs service. I am grateful, Sir, and I sure members of the Customs service will appreciate it as much as I do. Thank you very much.

I appreciate everything he has said about the necessity for a proper welcome being given to visitors to Singapore, that their treatment by the Customs should always be courteous and as expeditious as possible. It may conceivably be that there have been instances where people have been held up unnecessarily, that perhaps have not been treated as courteously as they might expect to be treated, but I think these cases must be very few and far between. However, I shall take note of the hon. Member's remarks and pass them on to the Customs Department. Quite obviously we should be above reproach in these matters.

We are indeed, Sir, a free port. We collect duties only on a very limited number of commodities, and so of course we might say that, prima fade, there is no reason why there should be any examination of the baggage of passengers leaving Singapore. But I think the hon. Member forgets that we are a part of the sterling area and, as such, it is necessary to ensure that travellers leaving Singapore do not take with them valuable securities, cash and things like that. Speaking from memory, I think that one is shown a list by a Customs officer when one leaves Singapore and is asked. 'Have you any of these commodities?' and these items do figure fairly largely on that list; but I am subject to correction there.

The main thing here, I think, is that the hon. Member has made a very good point. We are a centre of communications and we do hope to encourage tourists. We do hope to encourage people to come to Singapore and it is, I think, of vital concern that when visitors do come here, they should be shown as much courtesy as possible and that their entry and exit from the Colony be made as easy as possible.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Lim, Sir, I wish to support the two points, one made by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer and the other by the Hon, the Financial Secretary, on the efficiency of the Customs in this country and on the need for Customs officers to extend courtesy to tourists. But, Sir, I wish to point out one further important point touched on by the Financial Secretary in his Budget speech, I think the other day, about the smuggling of tobacco into this country.

Sir, I wonder how much information the Government has gathered on the big-scale smuggling of tobacco into this Colony since we increased the duty last year. As far as I am concerned, I have received several pieces of information about a few personnel in the Customs being involved in big-scale smuggling and about their integrity being doubted. I take this opportunity to point out to Government the need to screen or observe whether there is a possibility of big-scale smuggling involving Customs personnel, or its existence already.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I just want to say that the Singapore Harbour Board has built a terminal for the comfort of passengers coming in and going out, and that this terminal will be opened shortly.

Mr Hart: I am afraid, Sir, that I did not follow very clearly the remarks made by the last hon. Member

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Me?

Mr Hart: I beg your pardon, I am referring to the hon. Member for Changi. He may possibly have suggested that the members of the Customs service were acting in collusion with smugglers. I must say that if the hon. Member considers that he has any evidence to that effect which he considers can be substantiated, it is his duty to give it to the Comptroller of Customs. It is the duty of every citizen of Singapore to give information to the appropriate authority of any breach of the law, and I hope that he will do so. At the same time, I must express doubt whether there is any substance in any of these contentions.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $4,632,444 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 28 -

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 2 therein.

I move this amendment just to get information from the Hon. the Financial Secretary. The vote for this year appearing in last year's Estimates was $900; I see that it is now $2,000, an increase of $1,100. This is more than a 100 per cent increase. Will the Financial Secretary give an explanation why such an increase is necessary?

Mr Hart: My friend the Attorney-General has pointed out that the explanation is given on page 450 of the Estimates. The answer is in two words "fruit machines." The Collector of Stamp Duties now has the duty of going to various clubs and associations where fruit machines are in situ to examine the contents of the machines, to check the contents of the machines. As a result of the duties, which will increase in the coming year, it has been necessary to increase the vote for travelling expenses.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the explanation given in page 450 of the Estimates, it would appear that Government is trying to encourage more fruit machines to come in, and to see that all clubs and associations are equipped with such machines for the benefit of the members and, I suppose, to collect duty on.

11.45 a.m.

Mr Hart: Sir, that is not the case. In the past the Collector of Stamp Duty inspected machines in clubs when there has not been a paid official. Recently, all fruit machines have been fitted with padlocks and the keys are in the possession of the Collector of Stamp Duty, and it is now necessary for him to make a trip to every club or association where a machine is situated in order to examine the contents of the machine.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, a small query - the Hon. the Financial Secretary has just said that the keys to the locks of these fruit machines are with the Department concerned. I am just wondering how often and when these locks are opened and how the tax is collected.

Mr Hart: I have no information about that, at the moment, Sir, but I shall try to get it and give it to the hon. Member later.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $140,750 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 29 -

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 29 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, I select this item also for initiating discussion under the whole of Head 29. Income Tax is the most important department collecting revenue. The sum collected or to be collected seems to be $65 million, even after the tax on individual incomes was increased. This is a Department which should take more rigid steps so that evaders of taxation can be brought to book and the full amount of tax due to the Government for running the Colony is collected.

I will leave further discussion to others, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,972,900 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 30 -

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

That the sum to be allotted for Head 30 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 11 therein.

Sir, we are perturbed at the slow rate of progress being made by the Minister in promoting the tourist industry, and we want to know rather more about what is being done. I urged this matter in this House first two years ago, in November 1955. I raised it again a year ago in Committee of Supply, when it was gratifying to find unanimity from all sides that tourism as an industry should be actively pursued.

After further prompting from me in May this year, the Minister announced on 19th June that Government had decided, as a first step, to recruit an expert in tourist promotion work from overseas, to appoint a Director of Tourism under the Minister for Commerce and Industry. Six months later, no step has yet been taken. No Director of Tourism has been appointed, as the Minister told us yesterday. But the position is this: that anybody who is now selected will, one imagines, take another six months to reach Singapore.

Singapore is to be host in February 1959 to the Pacific Area Travel Association's annual conference, a target date which everybody interested in tourism is aiming at. Singapore has to be on display, as it were., in a big way by then, if we are to make the most of our opportunities with overseas people coming here in large numbers; and the Director of Tourism is not even selected.

The other step which the Minister has taken is to appoint an Advisory Committee, to use the Minister's own words, "to give advice and guidance to the Director of Tourism". So long as the Director is not there, the Advisory Committee is hamstrung.

I would remind the House that this Committee is advisory. The Minister is in executive charge. He has taken on that responsibility himself, and he is not administering it as we would like to see it. He cannot hide behind the Committee. Sir, we want to know what is going on. We want to know how this sum of $300,000 is being allocated for 1958, and we want to know, because of our dissatisfaction, what statistics the Government has regarding the present rate of tourist spending in Singapore in 1957.

I think it is not unfair to say that we are lagging behind neighbouring countries - Hongkong and Ceylon, for example. There is going to be enormous competition in the next few years to attract the tourists, and we have a big leeway to make up. Let me quote, as an example, figures of what is going on in Ceylon. In the whole of 1956, tourists spent Rs. 8.3 million while in the first five months of 1957 - this year - they spent Rs. 6.2 million. This means that Ceylon this year may go very near to doubling its revenue from tourists. In Ceylon they believe that, properly organised. Rs. 50 million can be received from tourist spending, or four to five times the present figure. Therefore we would like to know from the Minister what figures he can hope for Singapore and what our position is.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: First of all, Sir, I would like to refute the suggestion or the inference contained in the hon. Member's prepared speech which he has just made, that it was his prompting which got the Minister to do something for tourism. That is not so. The first initiative was taken by the ex-Chief Minister and myself, when I presided over a meeting in 1955 of those interested in the tourist trade. I put it squarely to them that Government was prepared to contribute dollar for dollar to what the trade contributed. But there was no response at all from their side. They wanted the Government to spend all the money and they to get the benefit.

Then we had an expert from New Zealand and he submitted a report. That report I considered did not go far enough, and therefore it was on my initiative that I recommended to Government that a sum be set aside - $300,000 - so that we would really go in a big way to attract the tourists here. In between, of course, the hon. Member did ask several questions, but they were just incidental. If I had thought that it was only a waste of money, no prompting on the part of the hon. Member would have made me recommend this sum.

Again, the inference is that I am hiding behind the skirt of the Tourist Advisory Committee. That again is not so. I am actively watching what it is doing. In fact, I spend a lot of time reading its minutes, discussing things with its chairman and the members themselves when I meet them outside; sometimes they come to my office to discuss these things.

I admit, Sir, that Government machinery is a little slow in certain matters and we had to take a bit of time to get the director's salary fixed up with the Establishments Branch and the Treasury. There again we had of course to satisfy the Treasury and the Establishments Branch. We have at last been able to persuade the Establishments Branch and the Treasury to create the post and to fix the remuneration of the director.

In the meanwhile, time has not been wasted. We have been receiving applications from various persons overseas who are interested in the post, and these applications have been sent to the Tourist Advisory Committee for its consideration. The Committee has been considering the applications and, as I stated yesterday, it has now made a short list of eight or ten names. But the information given in the applications is not sufficient and therefore the Committee has written back to the applicants asking for further information. As soon as that further information is forthcoming, it will be in a position to make a choice.

There again, Sir, if I had on my own initiative chosen a man from the big number of applications, probably the hon. Member would have had a chance to stand up and say, 'The Minister is favouring so and so.' In order not to give the hon. Member that chance, I have referred the whole thing to the Tourist Advisory Committee.

12.00 noon.

However, I must stress that the final authority is in me whether to choose or not to choose a particular man. If I think the Tourist Advisory Committee's choice is the wrong one, I will say so and refer the matter back to it. However, I do not envisage that there will be trouble on this score. I believe the Tourist Advisory Committee has been doing a lot of work. It has been very active. In fact, it is one of the most active committees that I have got in my Ministry. I have the Trade Advisory Council but the Tourist Advisory Committee has exceeded all expectations and I must say that it is ably guided by its chairman, and the members are very enthusiastic.

Now what has the Tourist Advisory Committee done besides considering applications for the post of director? It has been actively pursuing a research programme into all aspects of tourist promotion. This includes production of brochures, guide-books and literature, the extension of amenities for tourists, overseas publicity by film, television and feature articles and so on, statistical surveys, transportation facilities, etc.

The Committee is also preparing the groundwork for the formation of a tourist association which will take over tourist promotion. At the inaugural meeting of this Committee I stressed very strongly that Government was not going to shoulder the burden of tourism for ever, and that it was my intention that Government should get out of this as soon as possible and hand it over to the trade in a true democratic manner. Government acts as a midwife; it sets up something; then the trade sets up a tourist association in which all those interested in promoting tourism can join, because different scales of fees can be fixed so that it can take in the smallest tradesman and shopkeeper, as also the air and shipping lines. As soon as I have the tourist association going, I will see that a statutory tourist promotion board is set up by legislation with the association having majority representation on that board. Thereby, tourist promotion work will slowly pass from the hands of the Minister (who is normally a much maligned person) to the people who are interested in the trade.

Finally, I hope that, in a couple of years, or in three years, this tourist association will be able to raise the entire funds, not only by subscription, but probably also from advertising rights in certain areas (it can issue pamphlets, guide books and so on, and carry advertisements in them), and from lots of other ways. Then the whole of tourist promotion work will go into the hands of the Tourist Advisory Board which would be a body controlled by the tourist association. The people interested in the trade would then control their own promotion work and Government would step out. That is how I see the future.

Singapore has taken the step of inviting the PATA to hold its 1959 annual meeting here. I am going to set up a committee shortly (probably early in the New Year) to get down to making the arrangements for the conference. This committee will contain members of the Tourist Advisory Committee and others who may be able to help.

I do not think that it will take as long as six months to get a director. We hope we will be able to recruit one and get him here probably within three months.

Now the hon. Member quoted figures about the contribution of tourists to the revenue of Ceylon and various other territories. If I start giving figures to this House, I could go on ad infinitum and probably occupy all the time allocated to this vote, and I will not have the bother of having to listen to criticisms from my hon. Friend opposite who is ready, I see, to lash away at me on other spheres in my Ministry which are more important. I will confine myself, therefore, to stating that the figures we have show that American tourists alone have spent U.S. $2 billion a year in travel (excluding cost of passages). If we can attract even 5 per cent of this figure to the Pacific area, and if Singapore could get one or two per cent, it would run into millions of U.S. dollars. Therefore I am quite sure that tourism has a good future and that Singapore can hope to attract a good number of tourists who come into the Pacific area.

One other thing - I have been very heartened, Sir, in the last week or two, to read that the Federation of Malaya is also interested in tourist promotion, and that some arrangement might be arrived at between the Federation and ourselves. I do not know enough yet at this too early a stage to comment, but both territories could benefit by the influx of tourists.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I merely wanted to stand up and say, 'Hurray for a good Minister!'-

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Thank you.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: -when he said that it was not the idea of the hon. Member for Tanglin or anybody else but his own. I was pretty moved when he said that the credit should go to his ex-chief, the ex-Member for Cairnhill, who had the drive, the ideas and the foresight. But with his ex-chief now out of this Assembly, the drive also seems to have gone out with him!

I heard a lot of outpouring, but for all that the result is nothing. Words, words, words, nothing but words - Meetings, decisions and indecisions. We have to get a director of tourism, we cannot do anything until then. No, we must wait for applications; we must scrutinise them. We must wait six months for the director to come; in the meantime we cannot do anything! Oh yes, we are still doing something, looking into the information coming in and going out, and so on. Yes, we can do one thing and cannot do another. The net result, however, is that nothing concrete has been done. Sheer waste of time!

I think the Minister has taken the credit and said, 'I am the executive. I will do everything. I will make the decisions.' Show us something! Show us; tell us what you have done. Does anybody outside Singapore know that it is a place where tourists may stop over?

I have not heard anything concrete from the Government. I know that expenditure will arise and that any benefits ever likely to accrue from such expenditure will only be lost in time.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Lim, Sir, I am sorry to speak against the Opposition Members for rushing Government to implement the policy on tourism. To me, boosting up tourism to increase our national revenue is one thing. We must be interested; then, as suggested, we can divert one per cent of the U.S. $2 billion into this Colony. How much benefit it will be to this country!

But is money more important than morality? Have we ever in this House, or have even the people connected with the tourist trade, advisers or experts ever think what American tourists are most enthusiastic about and interested in? Tokyo, Paris - are they interested in the scenery or culture of those places? No; I am sure it is wine, women and song attracting more tourists. It is in most cases the night clubs they want.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: He has been there!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: If one has stayed in Paris and Tokyo, perhaps like the hon. Members for Serangoon and Tanglin and others, and one returns to Singapore, what is his answer if a friend should ask him, 'Do you find any place better than Singapore?' His answer will be, 'No. The best place to live in is Singapore.' Why? They see the pleasant night life of Paris, even New York and Tokyo, and Manila, but still they prefer Singapore.

Therefore I wish to put forward this paramount important point to the Government: the policy of the tourist association can be to boost tourism in this country but it should not forget to maintain the higher moral standard of this city. We prefer to starve than make dirty money. We prefer to tax liquor and other luxury goods to maintain our expenditure on social services, but do not expect that we are going to woo the tourists, especially the American, to come here to enjoy the night life in Singapore, which I think is the doom for the people here.

I hope therefore that all Members in this House will remember that the people of Singapore would really prefer to starve than to earn filthy money. I am not opposed to the principle of exploiting the possibility of tourism in this country, but do not rush our Controller of Immigration into admitting beautiful entertainers and telling him, 'The most beautiful and most famous Paris Folies Bergere must be allowed to come in', or a whole team of entertainers from a Tokyo night club which must be classified as eligible immigrants! The Controller will not have to be busy on how to maintain our moral standard if we will not allow such so-called 'highly civilised artistes', to come in.

Sir, I strongly support the principle of tourism but I prefer the Government to be very careful not to be rushed and misled into believing that in boosting up tourism we must be prepared to lower our moral standard.

Mr John Ede: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to learn that the Hon. the Minister accepts all responsibility regarding the expansion of tourism, even to the extent of having thought about it before anybody else did. But having thought of it before anybody else, somewhere back in 1955, we would like to know what expansion since that date he has achieved, whether he has achieved any increase in revenue. If he has done that, I would be the last person to malign him. Sir, we shall continue to prompt him on the question even if he proposes to ignore our suggestions (as it seems he will) and he does not like them.

He talks about democratic procedure in running tourism but he has still to learn to be democratic himself. We still ask for statistics regarding the expansion of the tourist industry on which he has been working so hard in the last two years.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my comments-

12.15 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr R. C. H. Lim): Order, please. I think it is an appropriate time to suspend, to 2.30 p.m.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr R. C. H. Lim): The sitting will be resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Resumption of debate on Question,

"That the sum to be allotted for Head 30 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 11 therein."-(Mr John Ede).

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

Question, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 30 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 11 therein," put, and negatived.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: This also disposes of the next amendment, which is similar in content, standing in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $760,490 for Head 30 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to revert to the question of the expansion of industry in Singapore. The Minister says that the number of new industrial companies registered in Singapore in 1957 is at the moment 129, while our criterion of industrial expansion is based on the number of people who work. I am sure that it is no comfort for the unemployed in Singapore to be told by a Labour Government Minister that more companies have been registered. The fact is that the number of labourers employed in manufacturing industries dropped by 2,321 between March 1956 and March 1957. The Minister claimed that a vegetable oil refinery, with a capital of $1½ million, was registered and is operating. But, Sir, if you look at the figures of employment in the Malayan Statistics Digest of Economic and Social Statistics issued in November 1957, that is the latest issue there is, under the head "Manufacturing of non-metallic mineral products except products of petroleum and coal" - and I take it that that covers vegetable oil refineries - I find that in March 1956 the total number of persons employed was 3,131. In September 1956 it dropped to 2,969, and in March of this year there was a further drop to 2,644.

The Minister also stated that a million dollar biscuit factory had been set up. But if you will refer to the same statistics under "Food manufacturing industries except beverage industries" you will find that in March 1956 there were 4,099 employed. The figure dropped to 2,818 in September 1956. There was a rise in March 1957 to 4,062. But there is still less employment in March 1957 than in March 1956.

Those are two of the examples which the Minister gave us a few days ago. The rest of his claims lay in the future. We are concerned with what has been done in the past two and a half years, not with what will be done when the Minister is no longer in office. The fact remains that while new companies may have been registered, there are less opportunities for work. I will therefore seek clarification from the Minister on three questions:

Firstly, will he state how he reconciles the declining employment figures with his claim that industry is expanding?

Secondly, will he give us the figures of how many industrial concerns have closed down in the past two and a half years? And

Thirdly, will he state how many people will find work as a result of hush-hush schemes which belong to the future?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I give figures of industrial companies that have been registered and those that have closed down in the past two and a half years:

In 1955, 74 new industrial companies were registered and 75 closed down.

In 1956, 93 new industrial companies were registered and 54 closed down.

For the 11 months in 1957, 129 new industrial companies were registered and 45 closed down.

So, on the whole, we still have an increase of industrial, companies.

Sir, the hon. Member said that what is of concern is what is happening now rather than what is going to happen after I am no more a Minister. I hope, Sir, that the Member does realise that laying the foundations of a sound economic policy cannot be done overnight. It has to take time. We are laying the foundation stone for a sounder economy for the future and I am sure that succeeding governments will benefit by the planning that the present Government is doing and perhaps they may even get the credit, because they are going to reap the fruits of our labours.

I am also sure that the future people of Singapore will benefit as a result of our planning today. We are today in the transitory stage. Our past economy has predominantly been a trading economy. We now want to encourage industries. This takes time. It is not our capital that will be involved. It is the capital of outsiders and we have to give them confidence in order to induce them to come here. Once they come here, it takes time - maybe a year or two - to plan and build a factory, and so it can only go into production after a year or two when it is built. Therefore it is not a matter of reaping the fruits today, but it is a matter of planning today to gather the fruits next year or the year after - possibly during the time of another government. Probably that government would claim the credit for it, but I am sure the people of Singapore will not forget - their memories are not short - and they will understand who planned these things.

Sir, there has been a lot of grouse that industries are closing down and what is the Government doing about it. The inference from the Member's remarks just now is that more industries are closing down. Sir, there is a tendency today in Singapore for people to run to Government for spoon-feeding. This is a very bad sign, because when they run to the Government for spoon-feeding, they lose their initiative, and if the initiative is lost, industry cannot flourish. Industry has primarily to have its own initiative. Government can only give a helping hand. It has been so after elections. In many fields, not only in the industrial field, but also in other fields too, you will find that whenever every little thing happens, people run to the Government. That sort of attitude has been encouraged to a great extent by Members of the Opposition. What is the Government doing about this and that? Why is the Government not helping? They have even gone to the extent of asking me to use my influence with the Industrial Promotion Board, which is an independent statutory body, to get them to make a loan to the Beehoon Cooperative, when the Board did not consider it to be a sound investment.

Of course, the big factor is the creation of confidence, Sir,It has been remarked in this House that the "unholy alliance between the Labour Front and the P.A.P." has been responsible for the loss of a certain amount of confidence. But, Sir, it is not only that. Members may feel that the manoeuvring of political Parties is responsible for the loss of confidence, but the Labour Front and the P.A.P. are not the only Parties to blame. You have today the ex-Chief Minister shouting his head off on a lot of things-perhaps not to detain subversive elements, or not to banish people and so on and so forth. Perhaps he is embittered because of certain failures during his political career. But, Sir, you have no excuse for the Liberal-Socialist Party encouraging David Marshall to form the Workers Party, and [Interruption.]. Here it is, from the Torch issue of 31st August:

"We must also encourage splinter groups, e.g. David Marshall's Workers Party and C. H. Koh's Youth Party, etc, to split the Labour vote."

Now here is a Party which claims to act in a responsible manner, which claims to represent the capitalists, encouraging the formation of a subsidiary Party to itself to split the Labour vote - the Workers Party. Is that a responsible Party's job? The Torch issue goes on:

"We must encourage the left to merge" - it has been achieved more or less - "and then condemn them for seeking immediate political gains by an electoral alliance."

First encourage the left to merge. When they merge, you condemn them.

Mr John Ede rose -

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Mr John Ede: Sir, I was just wondering whether the remarks of the Minister were relevant to the question of the expansion of industry, which I was asking.

The Chairman: I was, in fact, waiting for that point of order to be raised. I think the Minister has gone a little too far. He is becoming completely irrelevant in his remarks.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sorry that you have ruled me out. I thought the matter of confidence was of great importance to my Ministry in encouraging industrial development in Singapore. It is how the political Parties behave that is going to gain or lose the confidence of outside investors. Sir, I was pointing out how they have been responsible for the loss of confidence in Singapore by making such remarks in their official bulletins, and by creating an offspring to split the Labour vote.

Mr John Ede: Point of order, Sir, I was just wondering whether the Minister has regained relevance?

The Chairman: I think the Minister was trying to explain how he was relevant as against being irrelevant. I think the Minister ought to switch on to another topic because, if he continues in that strain. I will have to pull him up as questioning the ruling of the Chair.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Far be it from me, Sir, to question your ruling. I will be content with the remarks that I have made on this matter.

Sir, the hon. Member stated that in March last year there were so many labourers employed in industries, but in March this year there were 2,000 less; but as I mentioned earlier, you cannot take one month as the criterion. You have got to plot the graph over a period of years to see the trend of events, and therefore it is completely illogical to take any one month out of context and pinpoint it and say, "Here you are, you have lost so many workers this month," or "you have done this or that."

2.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are going to have up to 3 o'clock to thrash out this important question of commerce and industry. During the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill I never had any satisfaction from the replies of the Minister. I will put some questions to the Minister and I hope he will give me the answers.

About the oil milling industry. What is he doing in order to prevent it from closing down?

The shoe industry. There is keen competition from Japan

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Tariffs!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: What steps is he going to take? We have never been satisfied with what he has been doing.

The soap and biscuit factories - dwindling manufactures, and moving of factories from Singapore to the Federation. What is he doing to prevent all this?

We are today not grousing but presenting to the Government the very serious situation with which we are now faced. There is no consolation in having so many factories registered since more factories have to close down. The Minister has admitted that it takes quite a lot of time for a factory to start functioning; but when a factory is closed down, it means that the people employed therein have lost their jobs. That is indeed very serious.

Nobody is going to take credit for the planning done by the Labour Front Government. I think we cannot get anything from that source. Everything, they say, needs planning. They plan and plan and they are still planning. May I suggest to them that planning should have started before they contested the elections in 1955, and that from then on up till now there should have been enough time for planning? If nothing materialises, it means either they have never given the thing a thought or all the plans as usual have gone wrong.

Now we hear from the Minister about his idea of initiative and a helping hand from the Government. I am wondering in what way government has helped. There is the Master Plan that has not even come before the Assembly. You can only site your factory here. You can only site your factory there. Nowhere else can you site your factory. What help has Government been extending to industry regarding power and all other allied matters? Has Government helped in accelerating the approval of plans of factories? Let me hear from the Minister how long it will take a person wanting to build a factory to have his plans passed? I think my colleague was right when he said that it takes longer to have the plans passed than to have the building built. If that is encouragement from the Government, I think I must differ. That is not helping trade; it is discouraging it.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to agree with the views expressed by the hon. Members of the Opposition on this most important Ministry, Commerce and Industry. During this debate, many speakers have emphasised one way or the other that the political stability of Singapore is dependent on its economic stability. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has been to Saigon and other foreign countries. He has attended Colombo Plan conferences. But I do not know how much knowledge he has gained as a result of these trips abroad and what he can do to boost up industrialisation. Sir, time is running short, and I wish to say this: One of my friends from abroad joked with me and said, "Singapore is lucky. She prospers by the instability of South-east Asia". He did not envisage that if the neighbouring countries of Singapore are once stabilised, then how will Singapore fare? In other words, Singapore today lives and prospers because of the instability of this region. Is it not?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Member for Serangoon again raised the same point about certain industries that are suffering at the moment because perhaps of Federation tariffs. Sir, the oil industry is not suffering because of tariffs; it is suffering because of the shortage of copra at the moment. Sir, if we put a quota on the import of Japanese shoes, the Member for Telok Ayer (he is also a Member of the Liberal-Socialist Party) will say that we are going against the free port status of Singapore. Conflicting views from the same Party!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Bad management!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, we cannot have a free port and yet have a range of tariffs on all items. Therefore, I told the oil industry that I would take up the matter of reducing the freight rates from Singapore to Europe. Sir, it was also as a result of my representations that the freight rates on copra had been reduced by the Straits/Homeward Conference. The previous rates were much higher until I met one Conference member and told him, "You are not giving us any attention." They then reduced the freight rates on copra. Now we are taking up the matter of getting a reduction of freight rates on coconut oil to Europe.

The rubber shoe industry: I referred this matter to the Industrial Promotion Board and asked them to investigate whether there are any other possible methods by which they could cut down the cost of production. Tariff is not the answer, Sir. You cannot impose a tariff or quota just for the asking. You have first to find out if there are any other methods. When you are satisfied that there is no other method, then you can think of tariffs; otherwise your entrepot trade is going to suffer and I am sure the Member for Telok Ayer will agree with me in this - he is so keen on maintaining the free port status, as he has mentioned earlier.

I might also mention this, Sir, that the oil millers approached me and said, "We cannot sell our copra cake because of the flood of copra cake from Indonesia. Would you please put a restriction on the import of copra cake?" And I said, "Go slow, please. Do not just rush me. Let me investigate what your case is." And while the investigation was going on - it was not even a month - they came back and said, "Our problem is solved. Now we are able to sell our copra cake. There is no need for you to put a restriction." So you see, Sir, immature minds only will rush to do a job quickly without planning and without thinking of the repercussions. Ministers cannot do that. They have to think of the future, and not of today only. What they do hastily in order to get results might mean upsetting something else. It is all right for the Opposition to shout about it.

Sir, the Member for Changi has harped on the problem of Ministers travelling far and wide - he mentioned Saigon - and asked what they have achieved. His speech was in line with what the Member for Telok Ayer has often mentioned in this House. Sir, I went to Saigon and met Ministers from other countries. I had a discussion with Mr Casey. I impressed upon him the need for an animal feed mixing plant for Singapore in order to encourage the farmers. I am glad to say that I have received agreement in principle from Australia to give us an animal feed mixing plant worth Australian £15,000, with the necessary technical assistance to set up that plant. That plant is going to provide our farmers with a balanced mixture of animal feed which has been recommended by Dr Kelly, who is carrying out research on the best type of food for pigs and poultry. So you will have a saving because the middle man will. be cut out when you buy the feeding stuff and farmers will therefore get the mixed feed cheaper than what they now pay for individual feeding stuff. Also poultry and pigs will be growing at an accelerated pace because of the nutritional value of this balanced feed. Therefore one advantage has been achieved by my going to Saigon - a trip which cost about $825.

On my return, I stopped at Bangkok and made a rice contract with the Thai Government. We were not getting enough rice and there was also an uncertainty about getting it. So I made a contract with the Thai Government for 18,000 tons at a price of about one and half to two pounds a ton cheaper than the market price and thereby saved the colony $200,000 to $300,000. That is another example of what Ministers can do.

Sir, we had unofficial Members of the Legislative Council visiting foreign countries in the past. Mr Tan Chin Tuan and Mr Yap Pheng Geck made trips abroad. Mr C. C. Tan went to London, Karachi, Ottawa, and New Delhi. And the hon. Member for Telok Ayer visited Rangoon, Bandung, Manila and so on. But no concern was expressed then of the taxpayers' money being spent by Unofficials who were not in a responsible position and had no executive powers. But today we are Ministers with executive powers, and when we go out to discuss matters with other Ministers at a high level, we achieve something. So you can see the mentality of the Opposition today.

To continue, Sir, with these allegations that my Ministry has not been able to encourage industries. The soap and biscuit factories, Sir: we are now taking up the question of tariffs with the Federation. We have had discussions with them on this matter since the past one and a half years. We have decided that there will probably have to be a joint meeting of the Economic Committees of both the Governments to discuss this tariff issue; though I have all along felt that the economic problems of Singapore and the Federation are complementary and therefore there should be no tariff barriers between us. It is, however, an idea which we have to sell to them, and it is not easy to do so. It is very easy to say, "Why do we not merge with the Federation?" If we are willing but they are not, you cannot do it. And we cannot declare war on them and say, "If you do not remove your tariffs, we will fight you." You cannot do that sort of thing. You have to talk to them and try to persuade them. You have to show them the advantages of removing trade barriers, and that takes time again. It is very difficult for hon. Members on the Opposition side who have not got to shoulder responsibility to understand these things. They can shout here at random as they like, but it is we who have to do the job and who know the difficulties of doing this job and the time that is required to carry out the operation.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: There is only one minute left. When I spoke of the jolly rides of the present Members whilst in the previous Councils, Singapore was more politically advanced than the neighbouring territories. Today we are still a dependent territory, but the Federation is independent. However, Sir, the time is short and on some other subject I will deal with it and I hope a seasoned man on the Government side will reply.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Just two seconds, Sir, to sum up the Minister for Commerce and Industry's speech, and that is "Carry on, sergeant!" For the oil affair he is taking up the matter; for the shoe affair, the Industrial Promotion will investigate, and for all other matters, "Carry on, sergeant!"

The Chairman: Order. Time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $760,490 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

3.00 p.m.

Head 31 -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, we know that in Singapore the available land for farming is dwindling. This is because most of it must be taken up for building and other projects. However. we still find that Government is expending a lot of money on experimental farms. I have a feeling that just as in the case of the other Ministries which are putting up plans which will never be realised, in all probability these experimental farms, when they pass the experimental stage, will leave us with very little land worth talking about.

My main point about agriculture, Sir, is that at present we have farmers. There are two departments which deal with farmers - one, the Health Department; and the other, the Agricultural Department. The health authorities will go to the farmers and tell them, "You cannot put up pig-sties. There are flies. You cannot have ponds. There are mosquitoes." The farmers are faced with such troubles. We should have expected that farmers would have been able to get help from the Government. They want a lot of insecticides. They want a lot of fertilisers. Do I see Government purchasing large quantities of fertiliser and then passing them on to the farmers at wholesale prices? Today I still see the farmers having to run along to the shopkeepers for their fertilisers. Even the use of modern fertilisers has not been rammed home to the farmers as being more effective and sanitary. So far as I understand, the Agricultural Department has been of very little help and this sum of money spent on agriculture, other than decorating government departments, is of no direct help to the people engaged in that industry.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise only one point, and it is very closely connected with the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. Sir, as Assemblymen we have received complaints and pleadings for help in regard to resettlement from people who can be termed professional agriculturists. These people grow vegetables, but there is no security of land tenure for them in a period when Singapore is developing fast. They are merely termed as squatters although in the official records, and even during the occupation period, in their identity cards they are put down as farmers. But, Sir, they are not farmers. They do not have farmland at all. So I wish the Minister for Commerce and Industry will look into the matter of how to provide security of tenure for these people. Give them security of tenure for at least 80 years so that they can make sure that they can make a living from the land. At present the private landlord has every right to serve eviction notices on any whom they call squatters. They do not know that such people render a great service to this country by growing more food, thus easing the food problem. Sir, I sincerely wish the Government can give us an outline of their long-term policy to protect the farmers with more security of tenure.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, for once I am in agreement to a certain extent with the Member for Serangoon, and that is, we can do much more for the farmer in providing him with fertilisers and teaching him how to use them. Although we are doing this to a certain extent now, I myself am not satisfied that that is enough. But the reason why we cannot do more is because we have not got the facilities. Members must realise we have taken over a transitory stage; we have taken over a machine which has to be adapted to the needs of an elected government. The adaptation takes some time. It is like converting a motor-car - it takes some time.

In the past, not much attention has been paid to the rural areas. With an elected Government taking over, that attention has been stepped up. Members will have seen figures of the increase in poultry and pig production. This experimental station which I have been talking of is going to help a great deal in this line. When the station is ready - and I hope part of it will start functioning somewhere in the middle of next year at Sembawang - the Agricultural Department will be able to develop and extend its services which will include provision of better seeds, fruit trees, tobacco plant, fertilisers, treatment of pests and diseases, and studies of mixed farming methods. We can teach, and if the farmers are willing to learn and to follow what we teach, they will benefit. But I must confess that I myself am not satisfied that we are doing enough at the moment. There are however limitations and we cannot do more until we have this experimental station.

As for the tenure of land, Sir, that is entirely a separate question. It is now actually receiving attention from me and from the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Sir, I do not know whether it is in order for me to touch upon the speech made by the Member for Changi. It is about the security of tenure in resettlement areas. I can say this. Sir, that the hon. Member will probably be glad to learn that during the first week of January 1958 Government will be giving out 61 land titles to 61 farmers for leases of 60 years. We are also proceeding with our survey of 2,652 farm lots and we hope, if the farmers comply with the conditions, all these 2,652 farm lots will similarly be allocated to the farmers.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I would like to seek some information from the Minister. In Singapore we have, on the one hand, large rubber estates, large coconut estates and probably some large pineapple estates, but all these belong to large companies which can look after themselves. I want to know how much agricultural land there is left in Singapore. How long will such land remain as agricultural land? At what rate will the availability of such land dwindle?

My next point is: instead of having to experiment with mixed farming, with fertilisers and this and that, is there not an agricultural station in Serdang now belonging to the Federation of Malaya? The Federation of Malaya is still a friendly neighbour and if we can obtain information from them, would it not save the Minister the trouble of having to experiment with mixed farming, etc.?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the primary function of Serdang is to train officers in the agricultural field. We have sent trainees there. We do get information from there too. But it is not just a question of experimenting in our station. It is rather a question of bringing our farmers to the station and saying to them, "See for yourselves what we can do with this and that." You cannot take them to Serdang for that, because it will cost too much, and Members will grumble about travelling expenses. I think the hon. Member has also raised another point, but it has slipped my mind.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: We are indeed very pleased to hear the statement just made by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing regarding the impending issue of 61 land titles to farmers, Sir; but one thing he has omitted to mention: I think these farm lots belong to Government. I wonder whether the Minister will consider compelling the private landlord to provide the same compensation facilities as the Government.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just wondering why the figure of 61 titles is so small.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Sir, the reason is this: we started surveying land a year and a half ago and it has taken some time to get the proper measurements for the areas occupied by these squatters. It has also taken us quite some time to get the survey corrected, but I have promised that when all these lots are properly surveyed, there will be a further 2,652 lots for distribution to the farmers.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for Changi, I think that was the one which he raised in the Assembly 3 days ago - although he was not present when you called out his name, Sir,I have already provided the Member with the answer. He asked whether Government would compel private landowners to make ex-gratia payments when they evict the tenants; and my reply was that it was not possible for Government to compel private land owners to make ex-gratia payments to the settlers because if it is ex-gratia, then there can be no compulsion.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, another point that was raised by the Member for Serangoon - a survey of all lands. We have up to now no real detailed survey of all the available land. We have had a general survey, but I do contemplate - Members will be glad to hear about this - having a proper survey carried out so that we will know exactly where vacant lands are and what lands are not utilised or put to economic use.

The Chairman: Order. Time has elapsed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $105,990 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

3.15 p.m.

Head 32 -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

I move this amendment in order to seek more information. So far as cooperative development is concerned, it is still an unknown affair with the people. Very few people know that this is a government undertaking. So far as I can gather, many people believe that co-operative movements are run by the P.A.P. This really surprises me. So I would like to seek this information:

How many co-operative societies are there? What is their total membership? What is the work of each of these societies? How much good have they done for the people out of the money voted for them?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of information to this House on the point just raised by the hon. Member for Serangoon that the cooperative movement is quite unknown to the people of Singapore, and that even some people mistake it for a movement encouraged by the P.A.P., I think that is not true, Sir. As far as my personal experience goes, when I founded the now dissolved Farmers' Association, I did formally suggest to the Association to carry on and go all out in its cooperative work; but there was strong opposition from the P.A.P. clique, and so this co-operative movement died. The P.A.P. said that the co-operative movement is just an instrument of Government and a colonial method to woo the people. However, all this is not a matter of concern to this House. It is, I think, the responsibility of the Minister for Commerce and Industry to find out why the people are ill-informed of such a wonderful administrative machine in the Government. Every Party in Singapore now styles itself as Socialist and I am sure that the co-operative movement is one of the most important of any socialist movements. Why is the public still unaware of such an important movement existing in Singapore? I think it is because they do not know what benefit they can derive from such a movement. Therefore I formally make this request: whether the Government will consider extending a cash loan, or even set up a co-operative bank, to help the poor farmers and hawkers and even small business men.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The Ministry of Commerce and Industry is indeed a Ministry of Shoes - even though they may be made of rubber - and we concern ourselves with ships and sealing wax, and even cabbages from our farmers!

Sir, with regard to the request for figures from the Member for Serangoon, there are 30,000 members in the 96 cooperative societies in Singapore today.

3.15 p.m. Thrift and loan societies - 37. Thrift and investment societies - l7. Stores and shops societies - l2. Marketing societies - 10. Housing societies - 2. Rural credit societies - 4. Co-operative credit societies - 3. Labourers' co-operative credit societies - 2. Co-operative unions - 2. Miscellaneous societies - 5. Banking societies - 2.

The total is 96 societies out of which 13 have been formed this year. I have not been caught napping, Sir, by the Member for Serangoon. I have the figures.

In regard to the hon. Member's allegation that the co-operative movement is unknown, that may have been so a couple of years ago, but it is becoming more and more known now, and I am sure it will become much more known in the future as more propaganda is being spread about this movement in the rural areas among the farmers. But we are at the moment suffering from a lack of suitable officers. We advertised in Hong-kong, I think it was the year before last, for a Chinese to be the head of this department - essentially he must be a Chinese, because we have to make propaganda amongst the Chinese farmers since they constitute the majority of the rural population - but we could not get a suitable man, with the result that we had to have other officers.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Another six months.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Frankly, if we cannot overcome this problem, then the co-operative movement will not be given a push forward. We must have more Chinese officers trained in the co-operative movement and they are very difficult to get.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for Changi about a rural bank, I do not know whether Members have noticed that there is a vote in the Estimates for $50,000 to the Agricultural Co-operative Union. That vote is given on the understanding that they raise $10,000 themselves. It must be a partnership - even though they may be junior partners - between Government and them. They cannot have complete spoon-feeding from the Government. They must make an effort also, but they have up to date been unable to raise this $10,000 because of jealousies amongst their own constituent societies. That is the plain fact, Sir, and I am not prepared to recommend giving the $50,000 unless they agree to abide by the terms to which they have agreed with us at the beginning when they said, "Give us $50,000 and we agree to raise $10,000.".

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I thought my question was, what work have these societies done and what benefit have they brought to the people? I just do not want figures. In regard to the housing societies - how many houses or fiats have they built? What have they done?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I have just a minute and a half, Sir. The Public Services Co-operative Store is a landmark in the drive against indebtedness - that I think the hon. Member knows. This is an urban co-operative society.

In regard to the request for more information from the hon. Member, Sir, 79 new houses have been built at Paya Lebar by the Government Officers' Cooperative Building Society - I do not remember the name correctly, Sir. Then, Sir, the Malay Co-operative Banking Union has already saved $16,000. Then there is a Fishermen's Society trying to co-ordinate the sale of fish.

Of course, the hon. Member can go to Seah Street and buy eggs cheap from the Agricultural Union. They are selling eggs cheaper than what we can get in the market. So that is a benefit which even the hon. Member could derive from the activities of this co-operative society.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $117,430 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 33 -

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

That the sum to be allotted for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead I therein.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have chosen this item to initiate a discussion on Exchange Control in general.

The Chairman: Order. Can the hon. Member explain why he has chosen this particular item (5) to initiate a debate on the policy as a whole?

Mr R. Jumabhoy: The reason why I have chosen this item (5) is to initiate a debate on the whole policy.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until I have proposed the question on the whole Head and then he will be in order. His amendment is out of order. The Question now is, "That the sum of $262,420 for Head 33 stand part of the Schedule." Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, you have ruled that my amendment is out of order. What item would I have to move an amendment to, Sir, in order to initiate a discussion?

The Chairman: The proper item would be item (1), referring to the head of the whole department.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. My idea is to discuss Exchange Control as a whole. This is a subject which I have raised for many years in the previous Legislative Council and in this Assembly. I asked the Financial Secretary then and I have asked the present Financial Secretary about Singapore's earnings of hard currency. I have never received a direct reply that Singapore's earnings have been so much for so many years, year by year. Our surpluses have been for somebody's benefit. The only reply I have received all this, time has been rather evasive. Possibly the view is taken that, being a joint concern (the Federation of Malaya and Singapore), the hard currency earnings, are lumped together and not separated.

Sir, we are today still a colony, while the Federation is an independent country enjoying equal rights as any other Commonwealth country. I have always, pointed out that we are buying hard-currency goods at black market rates from Hongkong, and the colonial power has always tolerated that at the expense of the taxpayers. Sir, one cannot deny that the most important factor in entrepot trade is the relaxation of exchange controls as far as possible or make Singapore as free as Hongkong. That does not mean that Singapore will be taken away from the sterling area. No. Hongkong has the maximum relaxation of exchange controls and it is still tied to sterling. Sir, Hongkong is flourishing because of its free exchange. There is enough capital from various countries lying there. Capital is without fear about putting in money in the Hongkong market or in Hongkong wares; so in turn, there is enough capital [Interruption.].

3.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. I know that Ministers may need to have private conversations but if they are of some length I suggest that the Ministers retire behind the bar.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I do not blame him, Sir, he is the senior man on the-

The Chairman: Order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, to continue on this subject, what I want is to see development, and more development, for our vast population, and to see our entrepot trade flourish. We have connections with Indonesia and Thailand; we have connections with Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and various other surrounding countries for trade. If there is less control over all these transactions, we are sure to gain.

Time at my disposal is rather short, Sir, but I would like to ask a question of the Hon. the Financial Secretary, the expert who deals with exchange finance, to let me know if it is possible for him in the short time available - notice of my motion has been given and I have been talking on this pet subject for many years - to give figures at least of the past three, four or five years showing Singapore's hard currency earnings and how we have spent them.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland: May I ask a point of elucidation of the hon. Member who has just sat down, Sir? Is he advocating a free market in Singapore? Is that what he is advocating, or is he advocating a greater relaxation of exchange controls? I think he ought to make that clear.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Well, that is a surprise question for an experienced banker. He may possibly be right about sterling. What I worry about is Singapore's trade for the sake of the people here and at the present moment I shall be quite satisfied with a relaxation of controls before complete freedom from it. I hope he will be satisfied.

Mr Sutherland: In that case, Sir, I do not understand why he brings Hong-kong into the picture at all. The exchange control regulations in Hongkong are precisely the same as they are here, but Hongkong has a free market. If he would like me to say something on that, I shall be very pleased to do so.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I was really quoting Hongkong as a flourishing colony because of its free market. We should start first with a relaxation of controls and if that succeeds, we can in future be in the same position as Hongkong.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a great deal of loose talk on this subject. As recently as November 30, the Singapore Standard said in a leading article:

"The present foreign exchange restrictions should be lifted because these militate against the interests of Singapore. It is illogical that, although all foreign currencies can be bought in Hongkong. Singapore is tied hand and foot. If British trading interests in Singapore wish to continue their trading operations, the British Government should remove currency restrictions and put Singapore on a par with Hongkong."

Now I think that is actually what the hon. Member has in mind. But this article, Sir, does not state the whole truth. The fact is that Hongkong has precisely the same exchange control restrictions as we have. Its foreign exchange arising from exports is subject to precisely the same controls, but Hongkong has a free market. Now this free market is something that has accidentally developed. It started from gold and silver being freely traded in Hongkong before the banks were re-established after the war. Again, it has a tremendous influx of United States dollars - I saw a figure mentioned of $200 million a year - coming from Chinese residents in the United States, and from all sources including U.S. dollars which virtually was the currency of Nationalist China after the war. It has this tremendous store of dollars to draw upon.

It is from these sources of free dollars that the importer finds his foreign exchange. Tourist dollars also find their way into this market. Most people, and I think actually the hon. Member for Telok Ayer also, think that we can start a free market in this country by freeing foreign exchange here. Incidentally. Singapore does not earn any U.S. dollars; it has a deficit in its balance of payments with hard currency areas; but they think they can start this market by freeing foreign exchange arising from exports. That would be a leak in the sterling area. That would do absolutely no good at all.

There are considerable advantages in belonging to the sterling area, and it is necessary that the central reserves of the sterling area held in hard currency should be controlled by the United Kingdom. The Straits dollar cannot fall below its statutory limit because it is 100 per cent backed with sterling; and it is well to remember that the pooling of hard currencies strengthens sterling and, therefore, strengthens the Straits dollar.

In Hongkong, the supply of hard currency, of U.S. dollars, is adequate. There are sufficient U.S. dollars finding their way into that market for purchasers of U.S. dollars to find them there. But such a situation cannot arise in Singapore. If we establish a free market here, where will the U.S. dollars come from?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: From the air!

Mr Sutherland: I will tell you one thing, Sir, and that is that if we do establish a free market here, if we take steps to establish a free market and say, 'All right, let the U.S. dollars come in', there will be a tremendous demand for them and the result will be that the free market will collapse in a very short space of time.

There are simply not the sources of supply in this part of the world. There is no analogy between Hongkong and Singapore.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the hon. Mr Sutherland has admirably put up the arguments against a free market here. There are some who consider that if we establish a free monetary area here in Singapore, we will probably attract dollars from Hongkong but that will not be the case because Hongkong will then restrict the export of its dollars. It will see to that because it will be going to lose the trade which it is doing with us. If we get its dollars, we will then use them to import goods direct; it will therefore see to it that it restricts the export of dollars to Singapore. We will not be able to attract dollars from Hongkong; and as for attraction direct from the source, there is none here.

At the present moment, Hongkong is a sort of shop through which we purchase American goods, sometimes at four per cent, sometimes six per cent above the price, depending on the free market rate of exchange for dollars in Hongkong and the little commission of the middleman. But Hongkong has placed one restriction on us, and that is that whatever goods we import from it with its free market dollars, we cannot export at will to any other country - although to help us, we are allowed to re-export to our traditional entrepot markets, and that we are doing now. But that gives you an indication of its attitude: if it will not allow us to re-export to any country goods purchased with its free market dollars, it will further still not allow its dollars to be exported to Singapore and be utilised by us to cut its own trade. Apart from this possible source from Hongkong, I cannot see any other source of dollars for Singapore.

I have gone into this question at great length, Sir, for months and months, to see if there is any possible method of establishing a free market here, and I am convinced that there is none. We do not earn sufficient dollars for our own consumption, and in fact by remaining in the sterling area and having this control, we stand to benefit rather than to lose. The moment we have a free market, our imports will be restricted very greatly and we will not be able to import all we need from any dollars officially earned by us.

The Chairman: Order. Time has elapsed.

The sum of $262,420 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 34 -

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $401,220 for Head 34 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to vote against this Head. It is regrettable that I have to revert once more to the subject of prawn ponds. If I do so, the Minister has only himself to blame. He held back his information and arguments when he spoke in reply to his motion on 4th December.

It is generally agreed on this side of the House that if there is the remotest possibility that the supply of prawns will drop with the cutting down of 1,000 acres of mangroves and replacing the breeding area by similar trapping areas, then the Government should not proceed. Now, Sir, the Minister admitted, a little late, that he had to reply on his Fisheries Officer. He said:

"If the House feels that the opinion of the Fisheries Officer is wrong, then the House can vote against the motion." The Minister then read out the Fisheries Officer's expert opinion, rather rapidly, I thought, for it was not easy to follow; in any case, I had no opportunity to reply. The expert opinion on which the Minister solely relies - he is not prepared to listen to any other expert opinion - is to be found in column 2884 of volume 2, No. 40 of the Official Report. Perhaps I may read it just a little more slowly? The second sentence is:

"No conclusive research work on the breeding of Peneids in Malayan waters has been carried out."

That is a significant point - the Chief Fisheries Officer has no conclusive evidence. So we will, according to the Minister, cut down 1,000 acres of trees first and then come to conclusions later.

To go on, the third sentence reads:

"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 ...".

Now I looked up this work which actually is in volume 96, on page 168 and the following pages - I have it with me here. The actual title of the paper is "Early stages of the life history of the common marine shrimp Penaeus Setiferus (Linnaeus)", and this edible prawn is to be found in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico region of the United States. So that when we are told that this paper refers to the group of Peneids, it is not in fact the case; it refers to a single species in the family of Peneids - and I have it on other expert authority that this prawn is not to be found in Malayan waters. And even if it does, perhaps the Minister will ask the Fisheries Officer whether he can state positively that Penaeus Setiferus (Linnaeus) is to be found here. That is the reason why I asked what research had been done by the Fisheries Department.

The following are nevertheless conclusions made by the three Americans:-

"The relationship of nursery grounds to commercial catch [which is the summary of the paper]:

We conclude that the number of openings to the outside waters and the extent of favourable nursery grounds are two of the major physical factors influencing production of shrimps. Secondly, in addition to the number of passes to the area of the nursery grounds, coastal or nearby offshore areas with relatively shallow water, high salinity and mud also seems to be a requisite."

3.45 p.m.

And if you were to search these four pages, you will not find a reference anywhere to the breeding of prawns 10 miles out to sea. There is no mention about any distance whatever. In fact, if anything, the reverse is hinted at, and this work also does not pretend to be conclusive even about the movements of this particular South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico prawn.

"The factors responsible for the inshore movement of larval and post-larval Penaeus Setiferus have not been determined. We believe, however, that for the young to reach the nursery grounds, they must encounter a favourable incoming current."

That was the point which I did refer to very briefly the other day in this House, that the question of currents was a most important one with regard to the movement of prawns to or from the breeding areas, wherever these may be, and to the feeding grounds in mangrove, and quite clearly I think the House will agree that the currents around these islands are pretty tricky ones and I think it is quite true to say that not enough is known about them to make it quite clear what the movements would in fact be.

And so, as there is not a shred of evidence in this paper in support of what the Minister said was in it, I cannot but come to the conclusion that the Minister has not, in fact, read the paper himself. So, Sir, we are satisfied that the Minister has not proved his case from the biological point of view. If he will only look at the evidence with a little less prejudice, he must come to the conclusion that the action he proposes to take may do more harm than good. I say 'may do more harm than good': it is open to doubt.

Now let us turn to two other points. Firstly, I have a written answer to my question regarding the extent of other areas of mangrove suitable for the development of prawn ponds. The estimated present acreage of prawn ponds is 1,883 acres, and there are still 5,945 acres approximately of Crown land suitable for production. Why cannot these be used instead of the area in question?

The only argument against the development of prawn ponds in the Johore Straits, which comprises the bulk of 5,945 acres given by the Minister, is because of the curfew and the restriction on fishermen to fish there at night. This argument, Sir, does not seem to me to make sense. Prawn ponds are on land and not out at sea. If fishermen are restricted from fishing out to sea, there is all the more reason for developing prawn ponds as an alternative or additional livelihood. Why not make a start of increasing the prawn catch on this West Coast instead of at Ulu Pandan? And there are other factors which should make us hesitate before changing conditions at Pandan because two other big changes are already being made. I refer to the affluent of the new sewerage purification plant being built in Ulu Pandan which would discharge into the Sungei Jurong and which could possibly upset salinity; and there is the new Caltex oil depot and jetty being built at the Southern extremity of the Nature Reserve, with the danger of oil discharge - two factors above and below the Nature Reserve. Why add a third and possibly fatal disturbance when there is other land available?

Sir, the Minister has told us it has not yet been decided by what method the 800 acres are to be let out for development as prawn ponds. That is all to the good and gives a further chance to the Minister to pause and think again. But I would say this, that if he persists in going on with the scheme, will he give an undertaking to this House that he will invite applications to operate the scheme by public advertisement and public tender? I mention this because I and my colleagues have heard rumours - and rumours should be scotched quickly if untrue, as I am sure they are untrue - that applications for these acres were made in January and February of this year, and that promises were made.

In conclusion, will the Minister and the Government agree to review this whole matter again? In view of the evidence, it is their plain duty in the public interest to do so.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I must confess I have not read that learned treatise to which the hon. Member has found access.

Mr John Ede: I will lend it to the Minister.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Thank you, but I must also say that if Ministers have to read all that sort of academic books and volumes -

Mr John Ede: On a point of information, Sir, the paper is only four pages long.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, if they have to read all that, they will not be able to carry out their ministerial duties without having another three assistant ministers, especially in a Ministry where, as I say, we have got to deal with cabbages and prawns, foreign exchange control and ships, and all sorts of other things -

An hon. Member: And rubber footwear.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Besides rubber footwear. On technical matters, Ministers have to rely on heads of departments who have the technical knowledge, and as I said, I was prepared to accept the advice given by my technical officer on fisheries. The hon. Member in the debate earlier this month cited technical opinion given by professors against the Scheme, but then they were not professors of fisheries, whereas my technical officer is an officer qualified in fisheries. Evidently I have to take his advice.

This work of the three United States professors is accepted by all biologists as an authentic work, and their paper also contains a review of the work carried out in other countries such as Australia and India, which the hon. Member might have failed to notice. If the hon. Member wants to have a review of the total published knowledge on prawns, that can be prepared by the Fisheries Department for him.

Then the hon. Member harped on the point that there are 5,945 acres of land not utilised for prawn ponds but which could be used. That is precisely the point-out of these 5,945 acres of land, I am taking away 800 acres, which happen to be in the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve. The land there is not being used and therefore I am taking away a portion of it for use as prawn ponds, and that is what the hon. Member is protesting against.

The other pieces of land, Sir, enumerated in my reply we cannot utilise because the fishermen object as they are fishing in the swamps at the moment. Some of these lands, as you know, verge on the Straits of Johore. There is a curfew in that area on night fishing and therefore it will affect the livelihood of fishermen in that area. That is why we are not using the land there, but as soon as the curfew is lifted we will certainly consider doing so.

The Member mentioned the point that he understood applications were made in January and February, and that promises were made. That is not correct. No promise has been made to anybody and none will be made. If an applicant is successful, he will get it; there will be no promise that he will get it and then things are moved in that direction. Applications are in fact coming in right now, every day. I have not yet decided what method' to use to allocate the prawn ponds resulting from these 800 acres. As soon as I decide on it, the applications will be judged, but if the Member so wishes we will certainly give a press release that anyone who wishes to apply can do so. There is no harm in that. In fact the people know about the matter already, from the publicity that prawns have received since they have "sprouted wings".

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir -

The Chairman: There are only 10 seconds left.

Mr John Ede: Perhaps I could just ask the Minister whether he would review the matter again owing to the biological doubt, which I think I have made quite clear to the House.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I certainly shall read that paper.

The Chairman: Order, time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $401,220 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 35 -

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $74,940 for Head 35 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, with the Ulu Pandan Forest out of the way to be used as prawn ponds, we are left with a little patch of forest in Bukit Timah and another little one in the Reservoir Reserve, yet we are still going to expend a lot of money on the Forest Department, with a staff of a Forest Officer at $17,000 per annum and other forest officers. I ask the Government whether we are getting value out of this expenditure. I think with such small forests as are left now in Singapore, it is time Government think again on the matter of expenditure. The total area is small, probably only a few square miles, and if we want to get any information on forests we can get it from the Forest Department in the Federation. It would be cheaper paying for its advice. I think that for an area of such small size, only a warden will be necessary to keep the forest in order and to prevent people from pilfering wood or damaging it, but I see no reason why we should expend a large sum of money for a very small area of forest.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Forest Department was set up years and years ago as a pan-Malayan department, and in fact at the moment the Forest Officer in Singapore is the head of this pan-Malayan department. Half of his salary is recoverable from the Federation of Malaya.

The work that Singapore does is more in the field of timber grading and certification for export. Most of the timber export business up to now has been via Singapore, though the Federation is now getting a bigger share, and actually this Department could be properly renamed the 'Timber Exports Department'. But since the set-up has been there from previous days, the old name has been used. Most of its work is to encourage exports, to give technical advice on the Malayan timbers to importers in other countries. I have many times seen letters from the Forest Officer to Australia or to the Trade Commissioner in the United Kingdom setting out the advantages of using certain types of Malayan timber.

Mr Francis Thomas: I may just add one point from my Ministry's point of view. For certain purposes, teak is very largely used in this country. It is of course a very costly wood which has to be imported - you pay not only for the wood but also the cost of transport from the teak forests. Alternatively, other Malayan woods are used which are often not properly seasoned. I have been anxiously seeking to get co-operation from the timber trade for we should be able to use more of our Malayan woods, and the Forest Officer has been of great assistance in this. Though we have not succeeded in getting all the co-operation from the industrialists we would have hoped for, there is a potentiality of very considerable savings through the services of the Forest Officer - the timber adviser, as I would call him - who has the expert knowledge which is not available otherwise in Singapore.

4.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

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

Mr Hart: Sir, I have to report that progress has been made in the Committee of Supply and beg leave to continue tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.