SINGAPORE'S INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (Expansion) (Statement by the Minister for Communications and Works)

10.41 a.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to a question by the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) at the last sitting of this Assembly, I promised to make a statement on the expansion at our international Airport. I must start by giving you, Sir, an explanation in connection with certain reports on this subject which have been published in the local press since I gave that promise.

Having promised to make a statement in the Assembly, I felt myself bound to make it to the Assembly and not to enquiring reporters beforehand. Consequently, I refused all requests by reporters for a preview of what I proposed to say, telling them to wait until my statement.

Nevertheless, some reports anticipating my statement did in fact appear in the press. There is no objection to that. Newspapers have a right, and indeed a duty, to collect information, to disseminate it and to comment on and even to guess about information.

Unfortunately, some reports went beyond this. One newspaper, in particular, tried to present itself to the public as having had prior access through official sources to the information I am this morning going to give the House. It said that it had 'learned that the Council of Ministers took a decision on Tuesday' to go ahead with a new Terminal building. In the same report, this newspaper attributed to 'a Civil Aviation source' alleged information about Council discussions on the matter and it also made a reference to the Director of Civil Aviation in the same report.

Sir, if I had given secret information about Council affairs to a newspaper, or if any senior officer had done so, the strictest disciplinary action would have been deserved. I have, however, made the most careful investigation and I do not believe that this newspaper had any access to such secret information, nor any information at all about the matters in my statement. I believe that its report was no more than what reporters call 'intelligent guesswork' plus a rehash of information already available to the public.

I am not concerned, Sir, to express an opinion of the journalistic morality of a newspaper proceeding in this way. Hon. Members can judge that for themselves. I do wish to make it absolutely clear that I have not derogated from the proper dignity of this House by giving to the Press prior access to information which I had promised to give to the House. Such action could only be justified in circumstances of grave urgency, such as have not arisen in this matter.

Sir, successive governments, both before and since the outbreak of that international insanity usually called World War II, have recognised the importance of maintaining Singapore as a centre for air travel. The result, based on wise and forethoughtful planning and fruitful consultation with the airline operators, is that today Singapore has a first-rate basic Airport with heavy and increasing traffic. We have a good, though not a final, picture of the probable traffic developments over the next few years. Planning is quite up-to-date. We know the suitable next steps to take. We propose to go ahead according to plan.

We had intended to let tenders for the next stage of development during May of this year. Owing to the recession, I decided that letting should be deferred for a short period. I did not like doing that; it imposes a hardship on the contractors who have tendered. It was necessary to give time for a re-examination of certain technical and accommodation aspects. Following re-examination, we are going to defer for a while one section of the building proposals costing approximately $375,000. Apart from that, we have found nothing that ought to be varied or deferred.

We have, of course, lost two months of development rime, which I regret. When one is dealing with very closely-knit plans, it is not safe to excise one part without most careful examination of the whole. Such examination takes time, which has reduced our margin, but that must be accepted as one of the results of the recession.

The proposals now to go forward are the erection of a building from which the operational control functions of the Airport will be exercised, together with the installation of the necessary equipment. Hon, members had better understand the context in which this takes place. Operational controls cover two fields. The first is the Flight Information Region, an area of about 140,000 square miles, centred on Singapore. All aircraft movements within this region, both Civil and Military, are rigorously controlled so as to maintain safe aircraft route-patterns and to avoid the generation of aerial hazards. The second field is the Singapore Terminal Area of about 150 miles radial distance from Singapore, in which even more precise and positive disciplines have to be imposed on the movements of aircraft. The average number of movements in the Area is approximately 10,000 a month. In peak periods it may rise as high as 50 movements per hour.

The existing system of control has worked well, but will not much longer be adequate to cover the increasing frequency and rapidity of movements. Civil and military planes using our airspace and the area around continually progress in numbers and speeds. Hon. members will appreciate that if a plane flying south at 500 miles per hour confronts another plane flying north at the same speed, they approach each other at 1,000 miles an hour. This leaves no margin for emergency decisions and introduces an element of risk that cannot be accepted. The risk can only be avoided by having a first-rate system of controls operating through first-rate equipment. This we mean to have.

We are going to provide a new Control Tower approximately 120 feet high, plus a seven-storey building giving rather more than 40,000 square feet of floor space. Very roughly, 50 per cent of this space will be used for installation of, operational equipment; 15 per cent will be used for the officers dealing with the equipment and its product; and 35 per cent will be rentable space for the Operations Rooms of the airlines.

The building will house the Area Joint Air Traffic Control Centre, the Area Communications Centre, the Air Information Centre, a Military Air Movement Section, and the main Aviation-Meteorological Office in South-East Asia. Its equipment consists of a completely overhauled, integrated and up-to-date Air Fixed Telecommunications Network, an Airport exchange, and the terminals of the operational aids installed at the airport's periphery. These aids include a Visual Omni-Range beacon, which gives a pilot the assurance that he is precisely on the course given him, and Surveillance Radar, which tells the Airport if he gets off this course so that they can correct him.

Approximately and without allowance for unforeseeable de1ays or circumstances beyond our control, construction of this building will be complete about the third quarter of 1959, and installation of the equipment about four months later. The whole project should be in operation about February, 1960. As near as I can forecast, this is about the date that our present control system will become inadequate for traffic needs, and the new system will be needed.

The cost of the building will be about. $2,000,000. This includes special feature necessary for the technical installations. It works out at about $25 per square foot of total floor space.

Cost of the equipment and plant of all kinds to go into the building and at the periphery will be about $2,000,000.

An important point which has been provided for in this building is that one roof houses both the airlines' operational teams and the specialist departments on whose services they depend. As the time available for flight-planning and for briefing of air-crews is limited, especially for jets whose economic operation calls for minimum time on the ground, this is an important factor of efficiency. The building is designed to enable the fullest co-operation of the airport staff and of the operators with offices in the same building.

Besides this development which I have described in some detail, we must also provide additional length for the runway, additional taxi-tracks, and special aprons. These are under engineering study, and I am not going to be specific about them. I can say that we may not be able to keep their cost below $2,000,000; the cost could be a good deal more.

These works and installations may be called Phase II of the current development at Paya Lebar. Phase I was the International Posts Building. When we deferred letting tenders for Phase II Part One, some ill-informed rumours got round that the Government was going to postpone development indefinitely. I do not think anyone who knew anything about the matter thought these rumours were true or were likely to be true, but they were repeated in the Press. I therefore issued a release on 25th June, in which I said:

"The Airport is essential to Singapore's prosperity and the Government will see that it fully meets the needs of our expanding air traffic. Rumours to the contrary are damaging to Singapore and I categorically deny them".

In case similar silly rumours get about again, I repeat that denial and I reassert Government's intention to see that our international Airport is equipped to provoke adequate services.

At Question Time, the Member for Tanglin asked about new construction for expeditious handling of passengers and freight, that is for what we may call Phase III, that aspect of the Airport which deals with the people and goods once they have through the Operational Controls been brought safely down to earth. For this aspect, we must have airline processing offices; accommodation for Customs, Immigration and Health controls; public concourses, restaurants, lavatories and enquiry desks; shops and stands; Press and V.I.P. rooms; and a mass of similar accommodation.

The buildings at present used for these purposes were designed for early transfer to engineering and stores use, with a new Terminal Building to take their place. This transfer cannot be indefinitely deferred. The present buildings are getting to be chock-a-block. Plans for the new Phase III buildings have been kept continuously up to date, with considerable modifications from the first proposals, chiefly in the direction of simplicity and economy. It may be possible or desirable to modify them further. In their present form, they would cost between 2 and 3 million dollars to erect.

Hon. Members understand that we are faced with a possibly serious diminution of national revenue due to the recession. In such circumstances, all investments on public account must be carefully scrutinised and their desirability weighed against other possible investments of limited funds. Hon. Members will also accept that large sections of public spending ought not to be cut down, and that certain types of investment - different Members may favour different types - must go on. An investment of 2 or 3 million dollars for Phase III at Paya Lebar will have to be weighed against other needs and given priority within the context of available funds. I am not going to be more specific than that at present.

I should like now to make a point about the value of the Government's investment in the International Airport. We can describe ourselves as being in the entrepot business for passengers in much the same way as we are for goods. We receive passengers in bulk and distribute them in small parcels throughout South East Asia, and, similarly, we collect small parcels of passengers and bulk them for delivery to major points overseas. That is the major business at Paya Lebar. The proportion of through or transit passengers, that is those who stay in Singapore only for an hour or two, is about 15 per cent of the total. The other 85 per cent stop over in Singapore for varying periods, and thus bring us a valuable inflow of cash. The volume of passengers is steadily increasing and during the first six months of 1958 was 134,124, an increase of 15 per cent over the same period in 1957. This is a very valuable item in Singapore's balance of payments.

Hon. Members will also be aware of the direct revenue aspect of our Airport - indeed, a question earlier this morning has focused attention on it. Returns on our large investment at Paya Lebar need not be measured solely in terms of tourist revenue. We can also set off direct revenue received at the Airport against its recurrent costs. Items such as landing fees, concessions and rents bring cash which helps to meet the costs of running the airport. I do not know that we can at present expect that we can from this source look for to a direct profit on our investment. To set direct profit on the investment as an objective might defeat the objects for which the investment was made. We are, however, aiming to get a revenue sufficient to cover the costs of operating the Airport, that is to ensure that, taking one year with another, we do not have a loss on working account. We have not reached that point of revenue yet, and in order to reach it, we must have, as in the Phase II building, investment in the sort of accommodation that makes it possible to earn revenue.

It is an interesting point of public finance to argue whether in a period of financial stringency one should make one's national investments in directly wealth-producing projects or in others of greater social value. I am not going to argue that point here and now. I only want to assure hon. Members that in considering the future development of our international Airport that aspect has not been forgotten and will not be neglected.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his lengthy exposition but I would like to ask him whether - you will agree it is a fact that the Airport is a revenue producing asset - Phase III of the operation is more important or just as important as Phase II and is it proper that it should be delayed?

Mr Francis Thomas: This is indeed, Sir, the very point to which I referred in my peroration. It is a question of in what you should invest, possibly in social investments which have a very long term fluctuation period or in immediately productive investments by which you can perhaps reduce the amount of taxation that has to be imposed and I do not think it will be helpful to discuss those points now.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it will be extremely helpful. The Minister has posed the question; will he give the answer?