APPROPRIATION BILL

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:

Resumption of debate on Question (16th December, 1958) proposed to Head 30 in the First Schedule of the Bill,

"That the sum of $805,330 for Head 30 stand part of the Schedule."

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

FIRST SCHEDULE

Head 30-

Question again proposed.

10.03 a.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to subhead 11 in page 190, Singapore Tourist Promotion. I notice here that we are to spend a sum of $369,730.

Sir, I want an answer from the Minister for Commerce and Industry as to what Singapore can offer to tourists when they come here, as we are spending such a big amount on this Tourist Promotion Board. After all, we do not have in Singapore a snake temple or the Ayer Itam Temple, as they have in Penang, or in Hongkong where they have the Amarok. What we have are only swamp land and some fine buildings.

People who come to Singapore are not interested in our fine buildings and roads. What have we got anyway? If we are going to spend such a big sum of money to attract tourists, we must also develop our place here in order that more tourists can be induced to come to Singapore.

I am very perturbed to learn that the tourists, whenever they land in Singapore, are shown places like the death houses at Sago Lane. It happened on one occasion at these death houses, there were many bereaved families crying over their beloved ones who had passed away. The tourists entered the death house. They tramped in and out. They climbed up and down the stairs. Is it not pitiful? Why must the tourists be brought to that area?

Sir, I would like to say this. Many people have not visited the death house. My father was in the death house one day, and I can say that on that same day tourists came to the house. It was really pathetic to see a bereaved family in those circumstances. They had lost someone very close to their hearts, and these tourists, mostly foreigners, when they went there, smiled, giggled, and shook their heads.

If we are going to spend this money, we must develop Singapore. We must get some fine beaches or big hotels. At the moment, Sir, what have we got? We have only a few small hotels. The hotels which I visited, when I travelled in Europe and Japan, were very fine ones. They were big and had hundreds of rooms. This amount that we are going to spend is most ridiculous, unless we are going to develop our place here so that more people can come to Singapore, because tourism is another invisible export from which Singapore can get more income besides trade.

Trade is very important. I have said on the Second Reading that we must allow all types of goods to come in. Make Singapore a free port whereby goods imported here can be re-exported to the various neighbouring countries. We can earn money on them. But the Government is not very concerned about the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Let us take a look at it. What experience has the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry got? Sir, this is a very important Ministry. Trade is the lifeblood of Singapore. Yet, at the present moment, the Permanent Secretary in charge of this important Ministry has no qualifications and no experience. Neither has he any academic qualifications regarding trade or commerce, except an Honours degree on the Malay Kris.

Sir, I am a merchant. I know that about three-quarters of the revenue is derived from trade. We live on trade. So if we are really interested in seeing that Singapore should get more dollars into the Treasury, we must develop trade. Put someone in charge of the Ministry who has the necessary qualifications and experience, not a man who knows nothing about trade or commerce, particularly industry. This is a shame. When I look through all these records. I am very perturbed to find that Singapore is not paying particular attention to this matter, in spite of the fact that we are spending the colossal sum of $805,330 on this item.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): At the close of yesterday's sitting, the hon. Member for Serangoon interjected to say that I had not given him a detailed reply to his point about shipping and shipping conferences. Sir, my failure to give a detailed reply was because of my desire not to prolong the debate unnecessarily. As I had pointed out, it was getting rather stale, and we were reaching almost the moment of interruption. However, since I have an opportunity this morning, I shall give a reply.

It cannot be denied, Sir, that certain shipping conferences at certain times do exercise a strangling effect on our trade. This is not a new factor in our trading circumstances. It is a factor that has irked merchants many years. I am reminded of the same outcry against shipping conferences even before the war.

I have got a cutting of the Singapore Free Press of 8th March, 1937. It was a morning paper at that time.