"Autocracy of the Shipping Conferences harming the local entrepot trade. Protest by the President of Indian Chamber of Commerce. Independent Line from here to India?

The autocracy of some of the Shipping Conferences was condemned by Mr Mohamed Jumabhoy,"

That was my father, Sir,

"President of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, in his report for 1936 to the Annual General Meeting that was held yesterday..."

and then it goes on, for I have not got the full cutting. It has been eaten by white ants, I think! However, this factor has been very irksome to the merchants. Even Mr Tan Siak Kew, who is not in the House at the moment, has often told me that if the shipping conferences were more reasonable, we could develop our trade better, and I admit that frankly that would be so. However, it is not an easy task to fight these established shipping conferences, because they are very big and our resources are not adequate to fight them. Firstly, there is the financial question. Have we sufficient money to have enough of our own ships to operate in all the oceans where cargoes from Singapore are going? And what is the amount of tonnage required? The Member for Telok Ayer raised a very pertinent question yesterday, when he asked how much does a ship cost. One ship costs millions of dollars. Also when you really go out of your way to fight the shipping conferences, you come to a freight war. When you come to a freight war, what do you find? You find that in the end the merchants for whose benefit you are trying to break the conference will invariably, quietly and, under a different name possibly, go and ship by the conference lines because these conferences lines are able to offer cheaper freight rates. I am sure the Member for Telok Ayer will bear me out, because he has had the experience of fighting the Straits Bombay Conference in the 1930's. It is a tough fight. A merchant does not always look to the long-term advantage. If he can find cheaper freight immediately even with the conference line, he will go and quietly ship by the conference line which has entered the freight war. Therefore, any effort by any organisation or any country to fight the shipping conferences will be a very difficult task, unless they have powerful resources behind them, and it will take at least 10 or 15 years to develop shipping to the amount where they could reasonably hope to have a chance of fighting any of these conferences.

The other question is lack of trained technical staff. We have not got locally trained technical staff. We have not got the Masters. We have not got the Mates. We have not got the Engineers to man ships which we might possibly own. It has been two years since I tried to expand the local trade limits for the local trade masters, provided they take extra subjects and pass them. We have worked long hours to finalise such a scheme. Then we put it to the Federation of Malaya and Borneo territories. But both of them turned it down. In fact, if the scheme had been operated, it would have benefited the Malays, because most of the local trade masters are Malays. But the Federation of Malaya could not see eye to eye with us. Neither did the Borneo territories. The hon. Member may well ask why do we not go alone on it? The answer is that we could not go alone because if our ships get out of Singapore and go to any of these areas, the Borneo Government or the Federation Government could refuse to give it a clearance and the ship would be stuck there. So any action to enlarge the local trade limits and raise the status of the local trade masters, so that they could command bigger ships with bigger tonnages, must have the approval of the Federation Government and the Borneo Government. We cannot do it on our own. That is roughly the position. However, if the hon. Member has any scheme in mind which will be workable, I should be happy to discuss it with him. But I sympathise with him when he said that the shipping conferences do have a strangle-hold effect on our commerce; and they could, if they want to fight us, divert our trade to other channels, as happened in copra recently.

10.15 a.m.

Now, coming to the subject of tourism raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru. He asked what we have got in Singapore. Sir, I had occasion recently to stop for a couple of days in Honolulu on my way to the United States, and frankly what I saw in Honolulu did not impress me at all. The much-publicised Waikiki Beach has nothing except that it is a beach with bathing facilities, basically the same as we have in Changi; except it is a bigger beach. Yet it is the publicity that has made Hawaii today a centre of big tourist attraction. They have nothing else to offer besides that.

Mr William Tan: They have fine hotels.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: We offer shopping facilities here, and I am sure many of the tourists who come here do a lot of shopping in our stores. The Member raised the question of big hotels. There were two proposals I received last year for two big operators to have big hotels here. However, the proposals are still under consideration, and I am afraid that now they are rather sitting on the fence to see what sort of a government is returned after the next Elections before they would put in $5 million in a hotel.

Then again, Sir, hon. Members must have read the comment made by Mr Tan Chin Tuan, Chairman of the Raffles Hotel, yesterday about the raising of electricity rates. Now, that has not been helpful to the hotel industry. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar may very well say that the City Council is responsible for selling electricity at an economic price, without caring what other industries the Government want to develop. That may be so, Sir. But then the City Council's responsibility is to license ice-cream sale only for health reasons, and not to prohibit the entry of ice-cream to encourage local industry. But they have done it, and if they can do it with ice-cream, they might also consider other industries.

The Member for Tiong Bahru went on to say: "Make Singapore a free port." It is a free port, and I do not see how freer I can make it.

Then he went on to attack my Permanent Secretary. Sir, the appointment of a local officer as Permanent Secretary was the subject of an agreement reached under the Malayanisation Scheme. The Malayanisation Scheme was approved by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My present Permanent Secretary has been promoted to that post in accordance with the Malayanisation policy. He has not got any high academic degree, I admit, but then in the case of the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, it has never been found necessary to have high academic degrees. In fact, as a merchant, I hold the view that sometimes high academic degrees are more a deterrent to, than an assistance in, carrying out the right policy, because the thinking of people who hold such academic degrees runs in certain grooves, and those grooves are taught to them on the pattern of the economy of Western countries. For instance, certain economists hold the view that this is the line we should take, because they have learnt their economics according to the pattern of Western economics. But these conditions do not apply here. Therefore, it is better to have a man who has not got a high academic degree in economics, but who has experience in handling the matter. I can tell you that this officer is a very promising officer, and I am sure he will develop into a very good Permanent Secretary.

I have some experience in trade, as the hon. Member must admit, and I am there at least until 5th April, 1959, to guide the Ministry and to do my best to advance the cause of Singapore in commerce and industry.

The hon. Member might also wish to know that it is the Public Service Commission which chooses the man, and when my former Permanent Secretary resigned, we were short of local officers. Sir,I may now add that my Permanent Secretary is a Raffles College graduate, and he has studied the subject of economics. He has a B.A. Honours (Cambridge) degree. This is an administrative appointment determined outside the control of Government. So this point of not having any academic qualification is again wrong. However, I am quite satisfied with the officer concerned. I am sure he will make good in his job.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): The hon. Minister seems to be getting impatient, but I think, according to the time-table, we are still on schedule.

We are very happy indeed to hear that the Minister for Commerce and Industry has confidence in his Permanent Secretary. I think it is the right course to take, and I am very sorry to have to criticise my colleague on the Opposition Side who has criticised the appointment of the new Permanent Secretary, and whose view on this matter shows a certain degree of inferiority complex; namely, if a European is appointed, then there will be no query at all.

Mr William Tan: That is nonsense!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I am happy that the Minister for Commerce and Industry has enlightened us on this point.

Now, coming to the tourist trade. I wonder whether the Minister for Commerce and Industry can let the House know what exactly is in his mind when he says he wants to make Singapore an attractive centre of tourism. Of course, I hope the Minister does not intend to attract tourists into Singapore on the style of the Paris night clubs, the Tokyo geishas, or the Hongkong strip tease. On the question of Hawaiian dances, have we any hula hula dances here? Sir, I did mention last year that, much as we would like to boost tourism, we must at the same time safeguard the moral standard of this city. Therefore, I wish the Minister for Commerce and Industry could give us more details, since a year has elapsed when the question was first raised. What is in his mind when he says that he is confident he is able to make Singapore an attractive tourist centre?

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder what the Member for Changi knows about trade, when he touched on the question of the appointment of the new Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. I pointed out to this House that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry is a very important Ministry. I am not against any type of people - they may be Europeans, Indians, Malays or Chinese - put in charge of this Ministry. What I am concerned is that this Permanent Secretary, according to his past records, has failed in his examinations. He could not even get into the Malayan Civil Service. He actually entered the Museum service as a curator. Later on he was given a scholarship and when he went to England, he wrote a book entitled "Kris".

The Chairman: Order. I think this is completely irrelevant to the debate. The hon. Member is, I think, wrong in criticising an appointment which, I take it, is an appointment by the Public Service Commission.

Mr William Tan: That is what I say, Sir. This is most unfair because this is a very important Ministry. We must get someone with experience, because Singapore lives on trade. Even the Minister for Commerce and Industry has said that this is a very important Ministry. We live or die by trade. We must get someone who knows trade or industry so that the Ministry can be run properly. It is no use putting someone there who has no experience. Maybe the Minister for Commerce and Industry is right when he says that academic qualifications are not sufficient. What we want is a man with a practical knowledge of trade and industry.

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member has ventilated his grievance, and I do not think the subject should now be pursued any further.

Mr William Tan: I was just trying to reply to the Member for Changi and the Minister for Commerce and Industry about this appointment, because it was they who said that I was against the appointment of the present Permanent Secretary, because the incumbent is a Malay and I do not like Malays. It is not that.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I did not say that.

The Chairman: Order. I have indicated that I consider that the hon. Member has had ample opportunity to answer what has been said and that subject should now be closed.

Mr William Tan: Now, Sir, we come to the reply given by the Minister for Commerce and Industry, regarding the question of a merger. He pointed out that we have a surplus population, and asked where this surplus population would go, except to the Federation of Malaya, and that he was looking forward to that. It is just like looking forward to something remote. It is like hoping to win the first prize of the Social Welfare Lottery of $350,000. That is only a dream. We must face facts. We cannot say: we have a surplus population, so where will the people go, unless we beg the Federation of Malaya to take in a part of our population. I wonder whether the Minister for Commerce and Industry is aware that in Singapore today even in the public service, we have Federation people here. Even the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry came from the Federation. Look at the place of his birth. I can tell you offhand of the names of four or five people who came from the Federation of Malaya. There are many more people in Singapore who came from the Federation of Malaya. Yet the Minister talked about a surplus population and that we must have a merger. Sir, on the question of a merger, we have had a reply many times from the Federation - Government officials and the people alike - that they do not want merger. They went so far as to describe Singapore as a diseased hand. Is it not humiliating? Is it not degrading? I am very surprised that the Government does not realise that. The Government must have a thick face not to realise the rebuff we receive from the Federation every time we ask for a merger. The Federation of Malaya was serious when they said that they did not want merger. We have already been repulsed more than once by the Federation.

Look at the student problem. Our students are not allowed to cross the Causeway and yet Federation students are allowed to cross into Singapore. Is it not humiliating?

Also, Sir, we have tariffs imposed on us. When goods go to the Federation we must pay a tariff. When Federation goods come in here, they have no need to pay a tariff. As I said on the Second Reading, it is not a dignified approach. The Government are more concerned with the Federation than with attempting to improve the lot of the people of Singapore. They do not face facts. They are not realistic. They talk about the problem of merger day in and day out until they quit the Government.

10.30 a.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I think the subject of the appointment of my Permanent Secretary has been sufficiently ventilated.

The Chairman: I have closed the subject.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: There is only one little point. It is very difficult to find good officers with enough experience. We have advertised for officers for other posts in the Ministry, for lower posts, and even then we have not been able to get the officers. We have kept on advertising.

I also have plans to try and train a few junior officers as Trade Commissioners, but in our search for them we have not come across a suitable type.

Coming, Sir, to tourism, a point raised by the Member for Changi, it is not our desire to have Singapore follow Paris or Japan with their night life. We want to encourage tourists to come here and study how other people live and to see the world.

I may perhaps give a few figures here, Sir, of the contribution that tourism has made to Singapore's economy. We had a survey carried out for the period 1st July, 1957, to 30th June, 1958 - one year - and we found that of the number who landed in Singapore from overseas, 75,456 persons stayed an average of three days. There are other categories who stayed less than three days, but they are not included in this figure. Those who stayed three days and over spent an average of $100 a day. This amounts to $22,636 000 in tourist expenditure for the 12 months analysed. We hope to get a 10 per cent increase next year.

Now, the countries from which the biggest number of such persons come here are: United States 10,774: United Kingdom 8,751: other European countries 8,223; India 5,486; other South Asian countries 15,123; Australia 4,956; and Indonesia 14,426. The other figures are in the region of a thousand or less than a thousand and I am not quoting them. As I have said, the total number of those tourists who stayed three days or over is 75,456, and their expenditure is over $22,000,000. So you can see the size of contribution that tourism makes to Singapore's economy.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $805,330 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 31-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $109,130 for Head 31 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, touching on Head 31 - Agriculture - I would like the Minister for Commerce and Industry to enlighten us on two points.

The first is vegetable growing. I wonder if vegetable production has increased. Furthermore, because of floods or the limitation of land and, I think, also a lack of knowledge of nursing vegetable beds and shortage of suitable fertilizers, will that affect the production of vegetables?

Secondly, is there any possibility of developing the flower-growing industry in Singapore?

I wish the Minister will answer these two questions.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, we produce about 60 per cent of our requirements of green leaf vegetables in Singapore. That is quite a lot when taking into consideration the size of the island and the land available for such purposes.

We wanted to intensify agriculture on hilltop land, which is not fertile enough for normal methods of cultivation, by getting an expert from India on hydroponics - that is soilless culture. We were promised an expert in 1956. Unfortunately the expert did not turn up. For some reason, I think, his visit was cancelled and we could not obtain his services.

The Rural Development Commissioner spoke to me a few days back. He said he was trying again to get such an expert from India. In fact, he is already trying out experiments in hydroponics in certain areas. If that succeeds, and if it is found to be an economic proposition, we can then increase our agricultural production - vegetable production - by quite a lot.

Hon. Members may be interested to know that in July this year a record quantity of tobacco was harvested - two and a half times the average monthly harvest in 1957. The harvest was 142,816 pounds tobacco. That is not just accidental. That is due to the advice from Ministry officials who go out and encourage the farmers as to the lines of production. We do not force them to take certain lines of production but we encourage them in what lines they wish to take, and that is in keeping with the freedom of occupation.

What I have said shows that the tobacco crop has greatly increased. Our vegetable production is steady and if we succeed in hydroponics, it will go up further.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I think the Minister has forgotten to answer my point about the flower-growing industry, whether it is possible to develop flower plantations here?

As a supplementary question, Sir, is it possible for the Minister to have a long-term policy to provide more farm lands for the professional farmers?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The growing of flowers has also increased, Sir. In fact, the flower industry is becoming quite an export industry. But I am afraid I have not got the figures with me to show the hon. Member how it has progressed.

The provision of more land for farmers - that is a most difficult question, because we are short of land. That is why I say if we have a merger with the Federation we can settle some of them on their land. Land is a commodity which we cannot just create out of thin air. It is a god-sent thing.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: No, no.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: As I said yesterday, there is a lot of land available all over the world - under-populated land - but it is closed to us at the moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $109,130 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 32-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $98,580 for Head 32 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Minister for Commerce and Industry to tell me what are the functions of the Co-operative Development Department and for what purpose it is set up.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: It was not set up by me, Sir. It existed when I took office as Minister, and the hon. Member should have asked this question in 1955, when he first came into this House, because it was a department which had a grant in the Budget then.

However, the Department is set up to encourage the development of Co-operative Societies.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, on this Head - Co-operative Development - I recollect that I filed a question last year whether the Government would be prepared to extend cash loans to certain Co-operative Societies. I remember, Sir, the Minister said they had a scheme to provide a certain amount, say $50,000, to the farmers or fishermen. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to enlighten us, by giving details on the progress of such a scheme, and whether he intends to provide more money for such a scheme.

Furthermore, I wish him to give an answer whether or not he is satisfied with the progress of Co-operative Societies in Singapore. If not, what is the main cause? Is it because there is no financial support?

Mr William Tan: Sir, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, in reply to my question about the functions of this Co-operative Development Department, said that it was going to look after the Co-operative Societies in Singapore.

Sir, we are spending a sum of $98,580 on this Department. What I want to know is why the Department itself is not doing anything, except on paper? To register the Co-operative Societies in Singapore is not enough. I was told that this Department is to look after the interests of the farmers in the rural areas, to help them, but it is only on paper.

I wonder how many times the Minister has said he would look into this problem of co-operative development. It is a mere waste to spend money on the staff in this Department.

If the Minister were to study carefully the working system past and present in this Department, he would have a shock.

I suggest, Sir, that a Committee be set up to look into the functions and duties of this Department. And I can tell you furthermore, Sir, that when this Committee investigate into the functions of this Department, you will be surprised; even the Minister will be surprised!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I myself am not satisfied with the progress made by the Co-operative Development Department. I have not been satisfied since quite some time in the past. There is nothing I can do about it, because we have not got suitably trained officers to run the Department. What we lack are Chinese Co-operative Officers who can speak the language and go out to the farmers and talk to them about the advantages of forming co-operatives. We could not get such men and I even said so last year during the Budget debate. I did my very best to get some officers, but we have not succeeded. Therefore, it is the physical limitation which we have not been able to overcome.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a sorry admission by the Minister for Commerce and Industry that he is not satisfied with that Department. What has he done after all? Why cannot he improve? It is no use saying that he cannot get this officer; he cannot get that officer; he cannot recruit experienced officers. That is not enough.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are spending $98,580 of the people's money at the expense of the people of Singapore. If we are going to pay such a large sum to the staff of this Department, we should see that it is functioning properly and not wasting the money, as in this case.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry just stands here and says, "I do not know. I admit that this Department is not very satisfactory. I have looked into it, but we cannot get the men." That is not the excuse we want.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: It is not a sorry admission, Sir,It is an honest admission. It is not just made today; it has been made a year ago. I do not know whether I can say this, Sir,I have tried to get another officer, but the Public Service Commission would not give me another officer. We are not dictators who could order the Public Service Commission about. And that is the end of the matter. I cannot do anything further than that. The Minister is limited by the appointment made by the Public Service Commission. Though I would like to have a Chinese as the Head of the Department, who could go put to the farmers (who are mainly Chinese) so that the co-operatives can progress further, I suppose the Public Service Commission have not been able to find a suitable man. Probably it is not their fault. Possibly it is because they cannot find a suitable man. That is why we are at the moment restricted, as I have explained.

It is no use the Member on the other side jumping about. It is beyond my capabilities to procure the right type of man.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are very grateful to have such an honest Minister for Commerce and Industry! It is very surprising to hear the Minister admit the standard of this Department called the Co-operative Development Department.

The Labour Front profess to be a Socialist Party. I think it is the fundamental principle of every Socialist to encourage Co-operative Societies. I wonder why this Socialist Government can afford for over three years to waste such a golden opportunity to encourage the co-operative movement - but because the Public Service Commission has failed to supply an officer. The Government just say, "All right, you cannot give me, so I cannot have." Why does the Minister not scrap the Department if he does not have a suitable man to run it? This will save money, instead of allowing it to be placed under a Head in the Budget and telling the people, "We, a Socialist Government, encourage more Co-operative Societies, just not in fact."

Sir, the Minister has failed to answer my question whether he has a scheme in mind to provide more cash loans to the already existing Co-operative Societies. I want him especially to give us a detailed report on the $50,000 which has been loaned to some Co-operative Societies.

10.45 a.m.

The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Sir, I personally do not believe that there is any bright future for co-operative development in Singapore. The only area where co-operative development can thrive and flourish is in the rural areas. In the city, we have had experience of co-operative shops, which were a failure. The only thriving bodies are the co-operative thrift and loan societies and the housing societies. I think the Government should do all they can to encourage such bodies so that thrift can be maintained by the people.

In regard to co-operative development in the rural areas, I am afraid there is very little hope for development. Particularly with the expansion of rural development schemes, you will find there will be no need for any kind of co-operative development in the rural areas.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Why not?

Mr Nair: The farmers in the rural areas, my experience shows, are individualists. They are necessarily individualists because they have little farmland, and whatever farmland they have, they will have to make use of it for their own purposes.

We have no facilities for collective farming - it is completely out of the question. I sincerely believe that if there is right and proper encouragement for rural development and its projects, that would be adequate for the economic advancement of the people in the rural areas. There is no further room for any co-operative development in the rural areas. We have tried co-operative development for many years in the rural areas and yet we have not been able to progress.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Seletar says he has no hope for co-operative development in the rural areas. The Government, Sir, have no money to spend on essential services from which the people can have benefits. Yet they see fit to spend money on co-operative development. The Government should see that they get benefit out of this Department. It is a fact that this Department is set up to look after the problem of the farmers. What actual work has been done by this Department? Only paper work. It only receives registrations or reports from all the co-operative societies in Singapore, and that is done on paper. Nothing else, only paper work.

If the Minister for Commerce and Industry is sincere about his job, he should look into this problem. I pray and urge him to look into this problem.

If he cannot find the proper people to run the Department then close it, rather than waste the public's money.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, my admission that I was not satisfied with the progress of the Department has been misconstrued by the Opposition Members who have urged me to close it down. Sir, I said I was not satisfied with the progress. I did not say the Department was useless. In fact, the Department is doing some work, and the amount of money that is budgeted for it is just the amount required for the amount of work it is doing. If the Department were doing more work, a bigger amount would have been required. Therefore, the amount which we are now budgeting for is the amount necessary for the amount of work the Department is doing.

Sir, I failed at the beginning to give some figures. I thought they might not be necessary, so as not to prolong this debate. But I will give some figures now.

The number of Co-operative Societies in existence in 1954 - before we took over - was 61. Today there are 104, an increase of about 40 societies. So the Co-operative Department is encouraging the formation of Co-operative Societies. But what I said was I was not satisfied with the rate of progress. Instead of 40 more, I would have expected 200 more. But if we could have 200 more, the amount of money required would have been probably doubled, because we would have to have more Co-operative Officers. Therefore, it is a fallacious argument to pin me down by saying. "Why do you not close down the Department?" That is not the way to do things, Sir. The right way is to keep the Department going. Let it do the amount of work it can, having regard to the physical limitations at the moment. But, if you have the Department, you could expand it in the future when you have the right type of men.

Regarding the loan to the Agricultural Society, Sir, I think that was mentioned last year, when I said in this House that the Government had agreed to grant $50,000 to buy feeding stuffs and so on, provided the Society raised $10,000. There must be a partnership. People in Singapore seem to think that if any Government agency, like the Industrial Promotion Board, is prepared to give money, the money is there for the asking, and that they can then pocket the money and do what they like. That is not so. Unless there is a partnership, which makes the person receiving the money responsible for seeing that the work progresses well, I am not prepared to grant a loan.

That $10,000 which the Society promised to raise last year, when the Budget was considered, has not been raised up to now. Therefore, the loan is not given, but the offer is still open. If they can raise the $10,000, the Government will be prepared to give them $50,000.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that he was not satisfied with the progress of this Department. Instead of finding ways and means of furthering progress, he would rather sit in his air-conditioned office.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, how does the hon. Member know I am sitting in my air-conditioned room? I go to America, to Australia, all over the world, on the taxpayer's money, according to somebody from his Party.

Mr William Tan: That is one of them.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $98,580 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 33-

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to mote the amendment standing in my name,

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

I bring up this amendment just to initiate discussion and for the benefit of the incoming Government.

Sir, a merchant judges the state of his business by his balance sheet at the end of the year. We have already judged the Labour Front Government by their balance sheet from the beginning of their period of office to the end of that period now, and I have got very little to say on that subject, because Singapore is in a very bad shape economically. The result is that the taxpayers are suffering, especially the poor.

Sir, my remarks are for the incoming Government, and the Hon, the Financial Secretary with his experience of finance, might be able to suggest what could be done in this matter.

Sir, Singapore is a free port, but it cannot further develop, unless exchange control is fully relaxed. Look at Hongkong. It flourishes because of free exchange. That is, any goods can go in, any currency can get in and can be exchanged on its value from day to day. The result of having a free exchange for Singapore will be that, like Hongkong, she can get her goods anywhere. They will be much cheaper. That will reduce the cost of living, and on the cost of living, trade and industry depend.

Sir, what is happening today? There is a relaxation on a few items because the Federation have done so, but it does not help us very much. The Federation have their own economic policy. They are a free country.

Sir, as long as we are a Colony and if we have any voice in the Government, it is our duty to frame a policy for our own benefit. Of course, that is for the incoming Government to say. This Government has failed.

Sir, the very same goods which are prohibited here can be had from Hongkong, at a higher rate. Actually, the goods do not land in Hongkong. They are just shipped there and, by the same boat, transhipped to Singapore, but the money is paid in Hongkong. A lot of American goods come in that way. If that could be done, Sir, would it be wise to spend so much money on retaining this Department? We could at least reduce the expenditure and save the taxpayers' money and improve the trade of the Colony.

In this House for so many days we have been hearing about a merger with the Federation. All the Parties have agreed that one day Singapore and the Federation will be one unit. But until that happens, we have to frame a policy for our own economic progress, for the benefit of the taxpayers.

Merger will certainly come one day. How? Only when the British can no longer retain this place as a colony, as a result of pressure from other Asian-African nations, or when they have fulfilled their own purpose.

11.00 a.m.

Then the Federation will automatically take over Singapore. So a merger depends on political development. Then why waste time and energy on this empty talk at present? It is an idea which will take shape much later.

Sir, I hope the incoming Government will work out an economic policy. If the Federation should grant us preferential rates of tariffs for goods manufactured in Singapore, we will certainly toe their line. But, so long as we are handicapped and separated from them, and also if we are to toe their line, it will lead us nowhere.

Since it is a financial problem, I hope the Financial Secretary might be able to reply or advise.

Sir, banking facilities in Singapore are the best in the world. Many countries have not got such banking facilities. They can be developed more to the benefit of Singapore by a free exchange, especially in regard to trade with Indonesia, on which we depend.

Sir, in the past from 1945 when the British reoccupied this place till March 1955, there were some of us who did our best to get the Government to relax as much control as possible. At a later stage, there was a majority of elected Members in this Assembly, but the Government were not in a position to exercise their right as to what they should do, because they were in the minority. They had to rely on the votes of ex-officio and nominated Members. At that time, the Government could have resigned and said, "Look, we want this." But they hung on to their posts.

Sir, I hope the incoming Government will pursue this problem of freeing exchange control as far as possible for the benefit of Singapore

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, year in and year out we have had the same debate on the policy of foreign exchange control, and the arguments advanced are the same fallacious arguments about following Hongkong. Year in and year out I have kept on repeating that Hongkong is in a different position. Hongkong is earning dollars. We are not earning that amount of dollars. Perhaps, Sir, hon. Members are not aware that our net dollar earnings per year amount to M$19.3 million and that we are spending far, far more than that on imports.

The hon. Member said that we have made a few relaxations because the Federation Government have done so. That is an absurd suggestion, Sir. I made a statement in this House on the 12th of this month that the Government were going to liberalise 23 items and that that was agreed with the Federation. Sir, the words used were "agreed with the Federation". It was not that we followed the Federation. We "agreed with the Federation". They announced it first because their Council sitting was earlier than ours. Our Assembly sitting was two days later. So it is no use trying to take away the credit by saying that we are following the Federation. It was a parallel decision taken by both Governments.

I can well see the benefit of having a free exchange market here, the same as in Hongkong, where you can buy all the American goods you want and then sell them; but this limitation comes in: that you cannot buy American goods unless you can sell to American areas and get the hard currency, and Hongkong has the hard currency because of remittances. She has a big amount of earnings through remittances from overseas Chinese, from the American States and Hawaii, and so on. We have not got that source of income of American dollars. What American dollars we earn are only from export of goods which do not really belong to us.

The Member for Telok Ayer is always fond of saying, "This Government have failed in everything." Of course, he has every right to hold his opinion. He would have liked to see this Government go out of office; hence his anxiety over the non-resignation of the Government. That is a perfectly democratic opinion, Sir, and I cannot quarrel with him. He said that this Government have failed. Sir, this Government have not failed in safeguarding the economy of Singapore. Hence my announcement of "protection" and various other measures to safeguard our economy and to find employment for our growing population. If we had failed in our duty, Sir, I would not have announced all these measures even though they were introduced at a late date. This Government are very much on the alert to see that we benefit as much as we can. But as regards foreign exchange and hard currency, we must face the fact that we spend more dollars than we earn, and if at any time we liberalise and tell the United Kingdom. "We want to get out of the sterling area," they will say, "Go ahead." Then what do we do? For our own immediate requirement of dollar goods - the essential goods - we will have to find the dollars and where are we going to get the dollars from? It is very easy, Sir, to talk about relaxations, but one has got to face facts; and I warn the incoming Government to be very careful how they go about this. If they go blindly into this, they might wreck the economy of the country. It is not a problem that can be treated lightly. It is a problem that has got to be thoroughly studied before a decision can be taken. I myself. Sir, was all in favour of liberalising before I took office as Minister. Then when I had the facts and figures. I found that we are a big dollar earner only through the dollars earned by the Federation from their rubber. The Member also said that the Federation as a free country have an economic policy and that is exactly the crux of the matter. If tomorrow the Federation decide to have a Central Bank with their own currency and have nothing to do with us, then all our dollar earnings from their rubber and tin will go to the Federation - even the $19 million which we earn now we might not earn. That is not understood by the Members of the Opposition - at least by certain Members.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I do not agree with the arguments put forward by the Member for Telok Ayer. I will go even further and support the explanation given by the Minister for Commerce and Industry as regards the difference between Singapore and Hongkong. I think about US$200 million per year flows into Hongkong. A lot of money comes in also from corrupted Kuomintang officials, the Philippines, and certain unstable South-East Asia territories, because there are no restrictions. It is also easier to settle down permanently in Hongkong than here. Therefore, I entirely agree with the explanation given by the Minister for Commerce and Industry that we do not earn as much American dollars as Hongkong does.

But one point I cannot understand, Sir, is that Singapore and Malaya are known as territories which enjoy a surplus of dollar earnings and now the Minister tells us that it is not so and that we are overspending. As regards the many tons of rubber exported to the United States, whether through illegal channels or through smuggling from Indonesia, I wonder where the foreign exchange goes to. As regards the many tons of rubber exported from Singapore to the United States I wish the Minister would enlighten us whether the dollar payments are made to the Federation of Malaya or Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, I do not support the entire relaxation of foreign control, but I would like the Government and any future government to bear in mind one thing: wisely adapt overselves to the peculiar economic conditions in South-East Asia as we are at the cross-roads between the East and the West and also the centre of South-East Asia. We have always enjoyed a certain amount of invisible trade and because of this there is a lot of invisible foreign exchange. Therefore, I wish the Minister should have the discretion to determine whether such invisible foreign exchange transactions should be overlooked or should be in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Control Regulations.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, there is one point that I missed - before I come to the Member for Changi - in my reply to the Member for Telok Ayer, and that is, he said that the goods coming from Hongkong were more expensive and that if we were in a free dollar area we could buy those goods cheaper. But one must remember the fact that the window of Hongkong which is open to us is a concession, because of our peculiar economy as an entrepot centre. In fact, the other sterling area countries - Burma, India, Pakistan, and so on - do not enjoy that concession. That is a concession given to us because we are regular trading partners with some of the surrounding countries, and it would affect our trade if we were not granted that concession. So a concession was given to us to let these dollar goods come into Singapore through Hongkong - those for which no direct allocation was given. Now, to say that we could buy goods cheaper, if we buy direct, means that we are trying to make the concession as of right. And if it boils down to questions of rights, then I can assure this House that we will be at a loss.

As regards the rights that we have on dollars, they can only be on the dollars that we earn, and what we earn is negligible as compared to our expenditure. The dollars that we earn belong more to the Federation and to Indonesia, from the rubber, raw materials and other things that come from them. Indonesia has a right under the agreement to demand us to pay in U.S. dollars for that portion of goods that we export to the dollar areas. In fact, we are having a liberal policy on the export of dollar goods, except of capital goods to Indonesia. We do not place the same restrictions on the export of dollar goods to Indonesia as we do place on other countries, and that is because we recognise the fact that we are earning dollars from the raw materials which we get from Indonesia.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I thought I could make the Hon, the Financial Secretary say a few words on my amendment, but he has not chosen to do so. Perhaps, this item that we are discussing comes under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. I do not know whether he is going to speak or not but that was what I did request of him.

Sir, the balance sheet shows the failure of the Government. Any householder, any business concern, city or country, knows what it has inherited and how it is living. It is no use talking empty words. As I said, I brought up this amendment in order to give some ideas to the future incoming Government.

11.15 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I think the Minister for Commerce and Industry has not answered a point I raised. Perhaps he may want to consult his Permanent Secretary. Sir, I want the Minister to give me a straightforward answer, whether he recognises that, because of our position today, we have a lot of invisible trade and therefore we are bound to have a certain amount of invisible foreign exchange. Will the Minister admit that that is a fact?

I wish to take this opportunity, Sir, to remind the Hon. the Financial Secretary that the Comptroller of Income Tax should also have the discretion to determine whether to show leniency towards such invisible foreign exchange transactions. Is that possible or is that the case now?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, "invisible" had better remain invisible. If there are any invisible imports, I can assure the hon. Member that they will be quite visible when they are exports, from which we earn the dollars., because any exports to the dollar area have to be fully declared. However, Sr, the term "invisible income" is normally applied to income arising out of services rendered, like freight, insurance, and so on, but the hon. Member has some other type of invisible trade in mind.

Sir, on the Member for Telok Ayer's pet theme about the Government inheriting so much money and squandering so much of it, I answered that fully yesterday, but unfortunately the hon. Member was outside the House. And I do not think that it is necessary for me to repeat here for his benefit. He may look up the Hansard.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: As I said, I brought up this discussion not for the present Government to reply to, but for the future Government to take a few hints from, if they think fit. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $248,720 for Head 33 stand part of the Schedule."

The Chairman: It occurs to me that possibly the whole Head has been touched. If there is any other aspect of that Head which calls for a debate, that debate can now take place.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $248,720 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 34-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $392,790 for Head 34 stand part of the Schedule"

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, on the one hand, tries to protect our local industries but, on the other hand, encourages foreign capital or foreign industries to come in.

The fishing industry is a very essential industry in Singapore. Fish is not only one of the essential commodities of food but the industry also provides employment for about 2,000 people. These people include those employed in the shops as well as the fishermen who use the boats or prahus. If everyone of these fishermen has to look after his family, say, of five people, it means that the livelihood of at least 10,000 people depends on this industry.

Sir, instead of assisting the fishermen, the Minister for Commerce and Industry is helping the Japanese people to come here and compete with our local fishermen. Japanese ships are 1icensed to bring in fish to this place, and the competition is so keen that most of our local fish merchants may have to close down. They are facing a very grave situation, and if they do close down, what will be the fate of these people? They will certainly have to face unemployment, and if there is unemployment, then it will be an additional burden on the State, because the State will have to provide for their welfare.

Arising out of this, Sir, fish merchants intend to guard themselves by forming a company and building some sort of a wholesale market. This wholesale market will sell fish brought in by the fishermen. At the present moment, the fish now brought in is sold in the City Council markets - the Clyde Terrace Market and the Ellenborough Market - and the City Council impose a five per cent levy on the cost of all fish sold through these two markets. With this levy, the price of fish becomes much dearer, because the wholesalers and the retailers have to increase their price. This proposed market will be run more or less on a co-operative basis. The running of the market will be by the fish merchants themselves, and the directors and shareholders will be strictly confined to those who are in the fishing industry. With the establishment of this new market, it will provide employment for more people. This market will also have an ice factory of its own, and more people will again have to be employed. At the same time, this company proposes to supply fishermen with petrol. At the moment, these fishermen get their petrol from the Shell Company, Stanvac and Caltex, and they are charged quite a high price; but if it is bought through this proposed company, the price will definitely be cheaper.

If funds are available, this company also proposes to train local youth in the different methods of fish-catching, so that the industry will be developed very soon. What is most disappointing, Sir, is that the Government are not in the least interested in this project. The company has approached the Government for assistance in the form of money or land, but unfortunately the Government, instead of giving a blessing to this project, has replied that land is not available. So the Government are not able to help this company in establishing the new market. As far as we know, Sir, quite a big piece of land is allotted to the proposed Constitution Exposition in Kallang, and this will last for only a few months. When the Constitution Exposition closes down, there will certainly be a big piece of land to offer. Why can the Government not consider offering a portion of this land to this new company? It is not a question of whether land is available or not. It is a question of whether Government are prepared to give a blessing to this company so that it will provide more employment and, at the same time, cheaper fish for the people of Singapore. I hope that when the Constitution Exposition comes to an end, the Government will reconsider the matter again and offer a bit of land at the old Kallang Airport site to this company, so that it can establish a new market which will be able to provide more employment and cheaper fish.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, before we carry on with this debate. I wish to place on record the distinguished service of the Head of the Fisheries Department, Dr Tham Ah Kow, whose high integrity and efficiency deserve our praise. He is also generally acclaimed by the fishmongers and fish agents alike as being helpful, and he has greatly impressed the fishing industrialists.

Sir, last year I raised the point that the Minister in charge of this industry should encourage or maintain the fishing industry. We know that fishing can be divided into at least three categories: off-shore fishing, deep-sea fishing and the rearing of fish. I think this is the only opportunity for the Minister to give us full details of the progress made so far this year in respect of the fishing industry.

On deep-sea fishing, Sir, the Member for Queenstown criticised the invitation extended to the Japanese, and that there has been very little progress because our local fishing industry has not received sincere and good co-operation from them. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity of reminding the Minister to take careful steps not to cause misunderstanding in the minds of the public that there is an unjustified arrangement already set up.

Now, coming to off-shore fishing, I am sure that the Minister for Commerce and Industry knows about the catches of many kelongs (fishing-stakes) around our island. The yearly catches have been very poor. What advice or what steps has the Ministry offered to the proprietors of such kelongs? Sir, they may invest, say, $10,000 to $50,000 in one fishing stake, and yet the catches are not certain. I do not think that it is proper for the Government to let these kelong proprietors carry on with such a wasteful scheme.

Lastly, Sir, on the rearing of fish, I think the Minister should encourage more fish ponds in Ulu Pandan, Tekong and many other swampy places. I wish the Minister for Commerce and Industry can give us a detailed explanation on the fish rearing industry, the offer of technical advice and also the availability of land.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the curfew in the Straits of Johore has been partially lifted, complaints and grouses are still being made to me about the susah being caused by the police in Johore to the fishermen. Sir, I do hope that the Minister for Commerce and Industry will look into the matter and alleviate these people's hardships.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: First, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Member for Changi's remarks regarding the Chief Fisheries Officer, Dr Tham Ah Kow. He is a very capable officer and one of the best we have had in Government service.

The Member for Queenstown, Sir, raised the question of the application of a local company to set up a central fish market. Sir, while I sympathise with the applicants, it is unfortunate that we have not got the land and therefore we cannot consider the application. We have not got a suitable site. The site he mentioned at the old Kallang Airport was the site Government had in mind for a central wholesale fish market quite a few years ago, but the City Council wanted to make a public park there, because of the big housing development on the other side of Mount-batten Road, and we could not do anything about it. That is why that land is not available for such a project.

He also mentioned that while I am trying to protect local industries I am also encouraging foreign capital to come into the same industries. Well, that is precisely why the job of the Minister for Commerce and Industry is difficult - to try and balance conflicting interests in most cases, such as the conflicting interests of trade against the interests of industry; the conflicting interests of local capital against those of foreign capital; the conflicting interests of importers of eggs from China against the interests of local farmers engaged in the production of eggs. The local farmers want me to stop the import of eggs from China but the importers want me to continue importing. It is all a matter of trying to balance both sides to a fine level so that you reach a point where neither side would be in a position of disadvantage.

11.30 a.m.

Now, there are four joint projects with the Japanese that were licensed and the condition was that the major portion of the capital must be local capital, and that is so. Therefore, there is no question of a foreign element control there, but the local companies - it is local capital in majority - are co-operating with and getting assistance from the Japanese to develop fisheries.

Now, fisheries is a subject which should not only be looked at from the viewpoint of the people engaged in it, but also from the viewpoint of the million and a half customers - the public of Singapore - and a big portion of the public depends on fish as the main source of their protein requirements, because fish is the cheapest source of proteins and is also one which, if tapped properly, can yield unlimited amounts of protein, unlike cattle rearing which is limited by the size of grazing grounds and so on. Therefore, it has always been my policy to try and encourage fisheries in the common interest of the public of Singapore, who could then get cheap fish. At the same time, I do not want to snatch away the livelihood of the local fishermen, as shown by the fact that I have only licensed four enterprises so far. In so doing, I am balancing the requirements of the public for cheap fish as against the question of the livelihood of the fishermen engaged, so that the price of fish, due to bigger catches through these joint projects, comes down to a level where the local fishermen will not die but will just survive; and the public will get cheap fish at a level cheaper than they were getting before, but not as cheap as if you threw open the whole field to any corner, in which case the fish prices would go down further and the public would benefit but then these 4,500 fishermen and their dependants would suffer. Sir, there is no question of Japanese under-cutting. It is local companies that are engaged in it with Japanese assistance. They are not Japanese companies.

Now, Sir, coming to this big tuna project. I think this has aroused a bit of fear in the minds of certain big local operators. The scheme is to use Singapore as a base for tuna operations. Up to now, catches of tuna in the Indian Ocean are taken right up to Japan for canning or for gutting and freezing and then re-exported to America and Europe. Now, I told the Japanese, "If you take your catches to Japan you are losing about two weeks' sailing time between Singapore and Japan - your catches are beyond Singapore in the Indian Ocean. If you use Singapore as the base, you save two weeks of operational costs on your fishing fleet, by saving the sailing time which is wasted. It is the fishing time that is paying, not the sailing time." That viewpoint they thought was advantageous and then we had further discussions, and I insisted that half the capital must be local. The scheme now has been arranged in such a way that 49 per cent of the capital will be subscribed by the Japanese, 49 per cent by the local fishing interests, and 2 per cent by the Industrial Promotion Board. Because neither side would give in to 51 per cent holding by the other side, I called them together and I took the chair at that meeting. They both insisted on 51 per cent, so I said, "This is the best solution. Both of you hold 49 per cent each, and let Government be the referee, holding 2 per cent", and both sides were happy at the solution.

Now, we have said that no catches will be allowed to be marketed in the Singapore market from this tuna project, so that all the tuna coming here will be put into cold storage, gutted, canned, processed and then re-exported; and the other fish that comes in could be sold in fish-ball form or in processed form, also under limitation; but no fresh fish will be allowed to be put in the market to compete with local fishermen until such time as another scheme which I have and which is also tied up with this comes into being.

By this other scheme, which I shall now explain, this company will have to pay a landing fee - a certain percentage of the value of its catches. Now, that landing fee to be collected by the Government will be put into a special fund. This fund will go towards subsidizing those local fishermen who will be affected. Once that fund is of a sufficient amount, we will allow this joint Japanese project to market its other catches beside the ordinary local catches, and that will bring the prices of fish down to a very low level so that the public will get cheap fish and the fishermen who will be affected by the low prices will be subsidized by this fund. Now, this sort of scheme operates even in England where they have a "White Fish Authority", and I think they levy a fee to subsidize the fishing industry. So by this scheme the public will get cheap fish and the fishermen will be happy because they get a subsidy from the fund collected from the company. That, in short, is the scheme.

Then we come to the question of off-shore fishing - the catches of the kelongs have dropped. Sir, I have said that off-shore fishing grounds have been fished to the limit. No more fish is available there and you cannot go round chasing the fish into the kelong. It is impossible. And we have stopped licensing new kelongs entirely. We do not give any licence unnecessarily, because it is not profitable for kelongs to operate. Besides they are choking up all the shipping lanes at the moment. All our surrounding waters are choked up with these kelongs. The kelong operators who put in $20,000 to $50,000 would be well advised to go into a scheme similar to this joint tuna project, where they could set up a new industry from new fishing grounds, new types of fish and new markets.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Did you advise them?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Oh, yes! We called a roundtable conference a week back when the Japanese came here to finalise the arrangements with me. I said, "We have called a meeting of local fishing companies - the Local Fish Merchants' Association where the big towkays are - and I explained the project to them:" The local fish companies had a meeting with the Japanese and they came to loggerheads as to who should hold the 51 per cent capital. I entered at this stage and I said, "Do not quarrel. Both of you hold 49 per cent each and we, the Industrial Promotion Board, hold 2 per cent", and they were both happy. The Japanese have gone back now to finalise the project at their end. The only thing is that the local people should raise the 49 per cent of capital and if they do not raise this amount, the Japanese are not keen to go ahead with the project. They say definitely that unless they can get into partnership with local capital, they will not go ahead with the project. So we might find that this project also fails because the local capital is not interested. So do not blame me for that!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Lim, Sir, I am very glad that the Minister has the interests of the one and a half million people of Singapore at heart, by reducing the price of fish. But the question is this: if he is really sincere in wanting to provide cheap fish for the people, why could he not encourage this wholesale market, because this market is more or less run on a co-operative basis?

An hour back we were discussing co-operative movements and the Minister himself said that he would do his best to help the co-operative movement. This is the sort of co-operative movement which will provide employment and, at the same time, help to bring down the price of fish. So just by giving the excuse that no land is available is a very lame excuse! What is of more concern is the policy of the Government. Is Government prepared to give its blessing to this enterprise? If so, then say that the Government is prepared to help. The question of land can be looked into later. As I have said just now, Sir, the Constitution Exposition may close down very soon, and when it does, there will be plenty of land available. But even if there is no land available, if the Government or the Minister is sincere, the establishment of the wholesale market can be in the sea; it is not necessary that it should be on land. It can be a jetty built out to the sea. I think that will serve a better purpose, because when the catch comes in, it is from the sea and it can also be washed in the sea; all the dirty water runs back to the sea. So the question is: is Government prepared to give its blessing? Do not give a lame excuse that no land is available.

Coming to tuna fishing, the Minister says that those who have invested about $50,000 in kelongs can come into the tuna canning industry. Quite so, but with that $50,000 in a $5 million or $10 million project, what authority or what sort of employment can be offered to these people? But with that $50,000 to start a kelong, the proprietor can feed his family and at the same time provide employment for about 20 persons. With this $50,000 invested in the tuna canning industry, will he be able to provide employment for himself and his employees? Certainly not. According to the Minister, the Japanese are subscribing 49 per cent of the capital, and the local fishermen 49 per cent. The capital from the Japanese is contributed by a Japanese firm, whereas the capital to be contributed locally will have to come from all the fishermen; some may be able to invest $1,000, some $10,000. Now, will this tuna company be able to provide employment for all the investors? The position is entirely different. What the fishermen are having now is that their catch is made here and they sell it to provide employment for themselves as well as for their employees. But if they are to shut down their kelongs, what will be the fate of those who are employed there? If the Minister can assure me that this tuna industry will be able to absorb all the employees employed by the kelongs or fish merchants, well and good. I will assist in encouraging local fishermen to contribute this 49 per cent capital. But the question of employment is of more concern. The raising of 49 per cent is simple, as there are quite a lot of rich people here.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Lim, Sir, I think the Minister has failed to answer my question on the fish rearing industry. I want the Minister to answer whether a survey has been made, a scheme has been implemented, and whether there are any grounds available for fishing.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Coming to the point raised by the Member for Changi, the prawn pond scheme at Ulu Pandan is progressing. We hope to have surveyed the land, and I think lots will be allocated very shortly, probably next month or so. It takes quite some time to get the land surveyed and cut into reasonable-sized lots.

Now, coming to the point raised by the Member for Queenstown, he said that the wholesale fish market proposed by these people was a co-operative fish market and, therefore, it would reduce the cost of fish. I am not convinced, Sir, that that will be so, because the element of a co-operative scheme is co-operation from the ground level, that is, from those who are at the producing level - the fishermen who go out in their boats and catch the fish - and if they are involved in that co-operative fish market, then the hon. Member's argument that that will bring down the price of fish may be correct. But that is not so. As far as I know about this scheme, the co-operation comes from the fish wholesalers who are the middlemen. Now these middlemen are the people who make the most profits out of the fish. It is not the poor fisherman who gets it - he hardly earns $5 a day. The middlemen buy from the fishermen and sell the fish in the City Council markets - they make the biggest profits. Now, it is precisely these middlemen who are going to found the co-operative market. What they want to do is, instead of paying the 5 per cent tax to the City Council for using their markets, they want their own market and so save the 5 per cent. That does not mean that they will sell the fish cheaper. However, I have not gone into the scheme in detail because, as I said, there was no land available, which is the first requirement, and therefore there was no point in my going into the scheme in detail. It is no use talking about jetties being built, because we have investigated that possibility, and it will cost at least a few million dollars to have a jetty built down there. It will block up the entrance to vessels coming into the harbour. There is also the question of draught of the vessels coming in. If the available land were suitable, then the Government would have used it for the establishment of a fish market, because Government has had this project in mind since five years ago.

11.45 a.m.

Then, Sir, on the tuna project again. He says, "Will these $50,000-capitalists be able to have any say in the $5 million - $10 million project?" Sir, the project is only for $2 million, out of which the total capital is going to be only half a million dollars, and the rest has to be found through loans, banking arrangements, and so on. And, therefore, anyone who puts in $50,000 can be assured that he will have quite a good say in the project. And it is not a Japanese firm that is contributing 49 per cent. It is a group of firms who have got themselves together into a new company. Sir, I think there are four or five big Japanese fishing firms who have grouped themselves into a company to enter into this project jointly.

On the question of employment in this tuna project, Sir, we estimate that it will give employment to about 30 persons. It is possible that it might not give employment to all the number employed in the kelongs; but there again, Sir, you come up against this conflict - and this conflict is evident now all over the world. It is a question of automation versus labour power. Efficiency can only be secured through automation, through machinery, and so on, and through big-sized projects. On the other hand, you can have more employment through smaller-sized projects using more labour. However, you will not get the same amount of efficiency, and therefore in certain matters in which efficiency is not of great importance, we just close our eyes and do not encourage automation. But in the case of fisheries, efficiency will bring about a lowering of the price of fish and that will benefit the whole population of Singapore. Now, it is a question of balancing the benefits to the whole population as against the loss of employment of maybe a few hundred. But there again, I have said we will have a fund to subsidize those who suffer by it, and that fund will be paid out of the earnings of the particular industry itself, and not out of Government funds.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Lim, Sir, I am afraid the Minister has misunderstood me. I think I clearly said that in the establishment of this wholesale market, all the shareholders will be strictly confined to those in the fishing industry, and those in the fishing industry do not mean they are wholesalers or auctioneers. Those in the fishing industry mean the fishermen who do the catch, the wholesalers, the retailers and those who are in the fishing line, like selling fishing nets. So it is not only the wholesalers who are going to reap the 5 per cent for themselves, but it is for the benefit of everyone engaged in the fishing industry.

Now, on the tuna canning industry, the Minister said that four or five companies in Japan have grouped themselves together to produce this 49 per cent. These companies do not really depend for their livelihood on the income to be derived from Singapore; whereas the 49 per cent local capital comes from nearly 50 people, not four or five people. I am afraid that even 50 people may not be able to contribute that 49 per cent, because the rich capitalists are not prepared to invest their money in such an industry. It is only those in the line who are prepared, but they do not have sufficient money to contribute to a capital of 49 per cent. Therefore, this 49 per cent will have to be contributed by about 50, 100 people, or even 1,000 people. So just compare the difference - a group of companies of four or five people and another group of company of about nearly a hundred or even a thousand people. That is the difference. And a further difference is that these four or five people in Japan do not depend on their income from this source, whereas the few hundred people who are contributing to the 49 per cent local capital are really dependent for their livelihood on this source.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I think the same argument could be applied to the Member's suggested co-operative scheme. It might be 200 fishermen joining in a co-operative and contributing $10 each, because they cannot afford to raise more money. But you might have 10 big wholesalers contributing about $50,000 each; then the control will rest with them, because they have a bigger amount of money involved in the project, even though you say that the project does involve fishermen and wholesalers and so on. But the wholesalers will be the biggest contributors to the capital.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $392,790 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 35-

The sum of $76,650 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 36-

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Lim, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, my main purpose in raising this question is to bring to the notice of the Minister what the import and export trade means to Singapore. Despite repeated statements that the entrepot trade of Singapore is dying, and cannot even maintain itself, I cannot agree with the substituted solutions.

Sir, as I have mentioned in my speech on Exchange Control, we must wisely and cleverly utilize our geographical position which is at the cross-roads of South-East Asia. We provide one of the best harbour, banking and insurance facilities. Therefore, we cannot blindly follow the import and export control policies of other countries. The person who is in charge of imports and exports should have a very good understanding of and be in possession of practical field knowledge of Singapore's import and export trade. Sir, for example, we have discovered that there is very little chance of re-exporting luxury goods. Such goods are mainly for local consumption, and the person in charge of imports and exports should try to discourage the importation of luxury goods for subsequent re-export.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

The Chairman (Mr R. C. H Lim): On a point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng resumed his seat.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I already have a man in charge of imports and exports, Sir. The Controller of Imports and Exports is not really the Minister. The Minister only makes the orders. But the hon. Member might as well say the Minister!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I beg your pardon, Sir. The Minister should possess wide discretionary powers to determine whether certain goods should or should not be encouraged for import, and, vice-versa, whether such goods should or should not be encouraged for export.

Sir, it is the old story all over again - but it is quite a serious blow. We have to improve the standard of living of our people here. But we must try to buy as cheap as we can from abroad. But then there is the question of dumping, Sir. Why must the Minister take such measures against dumping? Has he the interests of Singapore at heart - to maintain the entrepot trade, to make ii easy for our merchants to re-export such cheap goods, and also to provide cheaper goods for our people? No, because we have to accede to requests from the Federation of Malaya. But the Minister can prove to us that he possesses such discretionary powers by applying them to many other things. Sir, take the case of American-made motor cars. I cannot understand why we are faced with such a problem in the streets of Singapore. Yet we need not. Numerous big American cars get in. Sir, to give an example. Compare my Ford Popular with the Ford Plymouth. I think two Ford Popular cars equal one Ford Plymouth in size. And when it comes to parking, how convenient it is for the Ford Popular! That is one practical suggestion to solve the traffic problem, but that is of secondary importance.

This morning we have heard that we overspend our dollar earnings. I always think that the dollar is very important in any finance. Therefore, why can we not try to control the use of such money by discouraging the import of luxury goods? I have just quoted an example to the Minister: to consider whether he is prepared to exercise his discretion to encourage or discourage imports and exports in the interests of the people of Singapore. 12.00 noon.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, firstly, the Member for Changi is labouring under a misapprehension. All the big American cars that come to Singapore have not been paid in American dollars. The cars come through Hongkong, and we pay in sterling. We do not allow the expenditure of American dollars on American cars, except a few of them that come from Canada. But that is not a big slice of the expenditure.

Then the hon. Member talked about the action against dumping. Sir, at no time have we taken any action against dumping as such. I believe again he is referring to the action we have taken in banning certain textiles from China. I made it very clear that that was a step taken to assist the Federation Government at their request. It is a temporary step which will be reviewed at the end of this month. There is no question of our having taken action against the dumping of Chinese textiles in Singapore. We have never said that there is any dumping like that, and my statement did not contain that word.

The Minister can certainly use his discretion in the interest of the country, by limiting or restricting imports; but every time he takes such a step, the Chambers of Commerce are going to fly at his throat. I know full well how much opposition I am encountering from the Chambers of Commerce in my drive to protect the local industry, which is dying, because they are against any sort of restriction. However, restriction is necessary, and I am going to fight and protect the local industry whenever I think there is a justified case for protection.

There is also another aspect, and that is, the Minister cannot just introduce restriction as and when he likes. Singapore is a member of G.A.T.T. (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), and we have an obligation towards G.A.T.T. The obligation requires that before we place certain restrictions or quotas, we have to inform G.A.T.T. and see if they have any objection. That is precisely why the Federation have not acted on protection policy, but are enacting a new anti-dumping law for countries which are outside G.A.T.T. Japan is outside G.A.T.T. China is outside G.A.T.T. But we cannot do it without at least informing G.A.T.T. of our intention. We can take temporary measures which are of immediate necessity for safeguarding our economy and our essential supplies, but not long-term measures.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Lim, Sir, I think the Minister for Commerce and Industry misunderstood my speech. I did not mention the dumping of Chinese textiles. I only quoted an example to show that the Minister does have wide discretionary powers and whether, in the exercise of his discretion, he is able to determine whether such importation is good for the country - as I have mentioned a while ago, in the case of the request from the Federation. Therefore, I want the Minister to assure this House whether he can exercise his discretion wisely, and with a good sense of timing, and not to obstruct our trading activities. I quoted American cars. Of course, I know they come from Hongkong. But the Government should stop them coming into Singapore.

Sir, we must not allow any American cars to come here, no matter where they come from. We consider them luxurious, and not for local use. They, and a lot of other luxury items, are restricted by many Asian countries, which are trying to encourage thrift. That is, they try to save foreign exchange as much as they can. They try to stop all luxury goods from going into their country. When we were sitting on the Luxury Tax Select Committee, we fully discussed the matter, but we agreed not to implement this Bill because of the desirability to protect the entrepot status of Singapore. But now that the Minister has such wide discretion, why could we not restrict the importation of luxury goods, in spite of G.A.T.T.? I hope the Minister can enlighten us more, and whether he can raise any objection, no matter where they come from, and who pays the money. But we must not allow such luxury goods to be imported here.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, I can give the assurance to the hon. Member that I will exercise my discretion wisely. In fact, I have never exercised that discretion unwisely. If I have done so, I would like the hon. Member to point out those instances, except on the banning of Chinese textiles, which he feels was unwise. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. However, I do not think it would be wise to place any restriction on the import of luxury goods, unless it is necessary for us to protect an industry.

On the question of American cars coming from Hongkong, I am sure the ion. Member did not know that they came from Hongkong. But the right thing to do is to let those who can afford to pay, use the American cars, and let them pay more in local taxes. In fact, that is what is happening now. An American car is liable to a 25 per cent purchase tax as against 10 per cent tax on a car of Commonwealth origin. So, if a man is rich enough to pay the higher tax, and wants to pay for the luxury, let him contribute to the taxes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $274,700 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 37-

The sum of $1,293,700 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 38-

The sum of $235,690 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 39-

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 39 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have given notice of an amendment which I will withdraw now. I will speak on the general Head under Supplies.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $246,710 for Head 39 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have a chance to speak on this Department as a whole, I withdraw my amendment. Sir, what are the items concerned under Supplies? I understand that the main item is the rice stockpile. The war ended in 1945. From 1945 onwards we have had restrictions on many imports or exports, as and when the need arose at that tithe. We, who were in the Legislative Council, tried our best to relax controls, and many items were freed. The only item left when this Government took charge was the rice stockpile. Even on rice, we tried our best to relax controls as far as possible.

Sir, this rice stockpile has been the subject of a motion by me in this House. Facts were pointed out and, if I remember correctly, the consumer pays about a cent or a cent and a half per katty more because of the existence ol this Department. If anybody on the Government side wants to correct that, I would like to have accurate figures from him.

Now, an increase of one or one and a half cents a katty means quite a lot to a poor man who has to support even a small-sized family. The Labour Front Ministers have not been able to do anything about reducing the cost. They have supported this stockpile scheme as a strategic pile for an emergency. However, a period of ten years (1945 to 1955) has passed since the war ended. I am sure they did not expect any war at that time, nor do they expect it in the near future. The second reason possibly is that an emergency might arise in the event of a scarcity of rice. Now, that position was quite clear in 1953 and 1954, when it was seen very clearly that the supplies in each country were increased for distribution to the countries needing them. Not only was this the case, but also those who imported rice increased their own capacity to produce rice in their own country, so that they imported as little as possible because it cost more money. The figures, which I obtained from statistics from E.C.A.F.E. conferences held in different countries, will show that the rice supply position has been easier. If it is easier, why should we continue with this stockpile of rice in this small city of Singapore? I am sure the Government is not going to put forward the argument that it is because there is strategic stockpile in the Federation, therefore we must follow them.

Sir, the Federation produce a certain amount of rice for their own consumption in addition to some imports. As an independent country now, of course, they will increase their output with the latest scientific methods and advice which they receive from other countries.

Sir, if that is the position, is it necessary to continue this stockpile policy, whatever the excuses given, since it has increased the burden of the poor man, who has to pay a higher price for his own daily staple food? This has also been brought to light in my motion which I tabled in this Assembly. Now, Sir, Singapore in -

The Chairman: Order. I shall suspend the sitting now.

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 this afternoon.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Resumption of debate on Question,

"That the sum of $246,710 for Head 39 stand part of the Schedule."

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

Question again proposed.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I continue my arguments started this morning against the stockpile on rice, when the war was over in 1945, and why this policy of the Government was not to the benefit of the people and trade.

Sir, coming to the trade itself. I said that since 1953, 1954 or 1955 onwards, the producing countries had to come to us to sell their surplus rice from the exports of their own countries. The position then was that rice was available in plenty. Why should this Department remain and why was this stockpile necessary? My argument was that it costs a cent or a cent and a half more per katty to the consumer. Sir, a cent or a cent and a half more per katty to a poor family may not look very much in the eyes of Ministers drawing such high salaries, but it is very essential to save even a cent in their expenses on foodstuffs.

Sir, in big countries like India, there were, after the war, rice controls, price controls, this and that, but even with such a huge population - not only in India but also in other countries too - they were abolished. What happens is this. In those big countries if a dealer wants to take advantage of the position, if a shortage occurs, then they bring down the control on price. This could have been done in Singapore - a small city with a population of over a million and a half. If the importers are willing to have enough supplies on their hands - I understand they have been given assurances from time to time to do that - then, Sir, there should have been a free trade. If a shortage occurs, price control can always be brought in to curb exploitation.

Sugar and flour also came under Supplies. A lot of public money was wasted on these items and they were slowly abolished; and the rice question should have been treated in the same way.

Sir, during my motion, if I remember correctly, the Member for Tiong Bahru brought in the point about the corruption that existed. I do not know about this, but I am sure the incoming Government will appoint a Commission of Inquiry to find out whether the stockpiling of rice is necessary and whether any corruption has taken place. There is a likely chance of corruption because, all of a sudden, sometimes exports are stopped, or imports are stopped, or certain quantities from the rice pile are taken out. There is a possibility of corruption and the Government's duty should be to have a full inquiry. I hope that the incoming Government will take up this very important question of having an inquiry, whether this policy of stockpile is necessary and whether any corruption takes place.

Sir, some people argue that it is the merchants rather than the Chambers of Commerce who want the stockpile to be abolished. Why not? Like any other trade which is free, why should not this be free? There should have been no such restrictions, whatever they are, on this trade.

Sir, I am not interested to hear lame excuses by the Labour Front elected Ministers on this. They have enough chances. They have failed to utilise their chances in order to help the public.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I said on the motion moved by my friend, the hon. Member for Telok Ayer - that appears in the Hansard, Vol. 2. No. 18, dated 10th January, 1957 - that rice is the staple food of the Asians and it is the duty of the Government, wherever possible, to allow the people to buy cheaper rice.

Sir, I am saying it again here, that it is the duty of the Government to see that the people of Singapore should have the opportunity to buy cheap rice and not the present dear rice for which we are now paying.

I have brought to the notice of this Government, Sir, the corruption prevailing in the Department, and I quoted the figure of $4,000 per thousand tons of ripe, which would enable a tenderer to get the tender. I am glad that the successful tenderer for the last few years has given way to another.

When I brought out the point about corruption in the Department, I was approached by the Minister for Education and the Minister for Commerce and Industry. They told me that they did not like to see dirty linen washed in this Assembly. They realised the things that went on in that Department. The two words "dirty linen" were used by the Minister for Education.

If they realise that dirty things have been going on in that Department, Sir, it is their duty all the more to see that this Department should be reorganised or that the State's stockpile of rice should be abolished.

Talking about free trade, why cannot the rice merchants be given an opportunity to import as much rice as they like and sell as much as they like?

It is no use to talk about a stockpile in the event of war. I want to ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry this: in the present age of atomic and hydrogen bombs, what can the Government stockpile do for the people? What the people want at the moment is to buy cheap rice for members of their family. I, for one, can say that paying a cent or two cents a katty more for my rice will not affect me, but to a man earning $100 or $150 a month, even three or four cents more a day means a lot to these people, because everyday they must eat rice. And in one month, it will come up to a very big sum.

The Government defeated us on that motion. But now let the people be the judges. I can bet you. Sir, if you were to release or give them the -

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: On a point of order, Sir.

The Chairman: Point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Do you take bets, Sir?

The Chairman: I did not read that implication in the Member's statement.

Mr William Tan: What I want to emphasise, Sir, is this - if we allow merchants to bring in the rice freely, we can get cheap rice; instead of the lame excuse that, in the event of war, we must have a stockpile.

I brought this state of affairs to the notice of the Government and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau when I hit out at the Department then about rice moving out and circulating and coming back to the same stockpile. It was their duty at that time, when I made the allegations here, to make a surprise check on this stockpile. They would then have found that the rice which came back to the stockpile was actually the old rice which had been bought by the dealers. Instead of that, the Minister for Commerce and Industry told me in the C.P.A. room: "Well, Mr Tan, I have already dismissed the Controller of Supplies and an Inspector." That is not what I want. I want cheap rice for the people. It is not a question of dismissing the Controller of Supplies or the Inspector. What do I care about them? The people are very important. What we want is the cheapest rice that the people can get, not the dismissal of the Controller of Supplies or the Inspector.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just heard the remarks expressed simply and sincerely by the Member for Tiong Bahru, who is the champion of anti-corruption and the champion of anti-stockpile of rice.

Sir, it is not easy to come to my conclusions. Every year we come to this item of Supplies. One side says, "Stockpile in case of emergency." The other side says, "We fight to bring down the price of rice." Another champion for the cause of the underdog says, "The person who is against the stockpile of rice is the businessman who wants to make more money." Sir, all these statements are very confusing. I sincerely believe that a responsible Government must try its very best to bring down the cost of living. Why should this Government, year in and year out, be bombarded by the public and in this Assembly on this question of stockpile and yet it so stubbornly maintains the Supplies Department? There must be some reason for that and I know the reason - in case of an emergency.

I wish to point out the following facts. (1) How is it that the Japanese, during the Occupation, could maintain the price of rice at eight cents per katty for quite a long time? (2) Why is there now no control over sugar and flour? How is it that the Government had the confidence to release the control on sugar and flour and not on rice? Sir, is the Government able to say how many tons of rice we export from Singapore every month? We should confine ourselves in this debate on "Supplies" to such facts.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are certain subjects which have become permanent features or landmarks in our debates in this Assembly. These subjects act as pillars without which there is a great danger that the debates might collapse, because there will be no talking point left for the Opposition - subjects like the Family Planning Association, over which we spent quite some time yesterday and the day before, and the stockpile of rice.

The Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, said that the previous Legislative Council - he always dwells in the age of the colonial days - released controls on everything except rice. It released sugar, flour and, I believe, salt - except rice. Perhaps the Member for Changi, who just now asked why it was that sugar and flour were released but rice was not released, should get together with the Member for Telok Ayer (who was a Member of the previous Council) and ask him that and not ask mc. I came in later. If the previous Council thought it not fit to release control on rice, then how can he now turn round and attack this Government for not releasing rice for the same reasons?

The Member for Telok Ayer stated that the rice position had eased considerably and that therefore there was no need for a stockpile. I think hon. Members will remember that it was last year when there was an export restriction on rice from Thailand and that stocks went short in Singapore, and that was the time when I issued an assurance to the public that there was no cause to worry, "We have sufficient stocks of rice in our stockpile. Therefore, do not pay more for your rice if the merchants try to squeeze it out of you because of this sudden shortage in Thailand."

Then the Member went on to say, "Let us not hear the argument that the Federation is having a stockpile." He also said, "The Federation have a certain amount of their own rice," and that is exactly the point. The Federation have about 60 per cent of their rice requirements grown at home and yet they still maintain a stockpile. We have absolutely no rice growing at home, and what will happen to us in case of war? Will the population have to starve? Sir, the merchants would like to see the stockpile taken off, because they want to trade and fill their pockets with profits. It is quite natural. I do not say that it is a bad motive. Everyone in the world wants to make profits, except in a Communist country where you are not allowed to make any profits. But the Government has to look after the wider interests of the population, not after the narrow interests of a certain section of the population who want to make profits for themselves. Now just imagine what will happen if war suddenly broke out and communications were cut off and we had to depend on Thailand, Burma and Vietnam for our supplies. If communications were cut off or if shipping went short - even if the communication lines were open, there would be a shortage of shipping because shipping would be requisitioned by the Government to carry war materials - how would the public of Singapore then fare? That is exactly why a stockpile is maintained - to cushion any shortages.

It is admitted, Sir, that from next year it is expected that there will be a surplus of rice and that there will be an overproduction of rice, but it has not been so until this year. In about August or September of last year, as I mentioned earlies, Thailand had to curtail its export of rice.

Then the Member for Telok Ayer went on to say that the importers were willing to give assurances that they would carry the stockpile. Sir, merchants are willing to give any assurances. The question is: are they willing to carry them out? I say the merchants will not be willing to carry them out because we tried it out already. Three months back, we entered into an agreement with the Singapore Rice Dealers' Association, that they take a guaranteed off-take of 2,500 tons from the stockpile in order to rotate the stockpile, so that stocks would not go bad. That agreement was supposed to last until December. I had high hopes that if they kept that agreement we could have entered into a permanent agreement for 1959. What was the result? They carried out the agreement for 1� months and then they said, "Sorry, we are unable to keep up with this guarantee. We are unable to take the rice." And they requested that the agreement be terminated. That agreement was terminated and the position has gone back to what it was before. It is all very well for the merchants to come round and say, "We are willing to do this." But are they really in earnest about doing it? They only look to their own interests. The Government has got to look after the interest of the public as a whole.

Then came the allegation of corruption. That was taken up again by the Member for Tiong Bahru very vehemently, about the Minister for Education telling him outside not to wash dirty linen. I never mentioned the words "dirty linen", Sir, and I am sure that the Minister for Education must have used different words. Anyhow, whatever was mentioned, the fact is this. What I said to him was that I had not been happy with the manner in which the stockpile had been run, and I had investigated the position. In fact, the question had been referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, but because no proof could be found, I was not willing to state categorically in this House - in which I am privileged and could say what I like, but I am a responsible Minister and I cannot say it - that there existed corruption. I had my own doubts. In fact, I carried out a surprise check two months before the Member for Telok Ayer brought his motion to this House - that was last year, I believe. As a result of this surprise check, I was very unhappy and I suspected that there was something going on, and I dismissed four officers of the Department who were on a month-to-month basis. Because they were on a month-to-month basis, we could give them notice; but I would hate to state categorically that those dismissals were connected with corruption because that had not been proved. We handed the matter over to the C.P.I.B. and they themselves failed to take any further steps.

Sir, it is all very well to shout about corruption, but I think, in the interest of the Public Service and also in the interest of justice, one has got to be careful of what one talks about. Opposition Members, not being responsible, can shout anything they like, but a Minister of the Government has to be careful what he says.

There was an insinuation, Sir, by the Member for Telok Ayer that corruption might go up to a higher level. He did not mention it, but he said, "Imports are stopped and exports are stopped." As a merchant I understand the implications of that. If imports are stopped and exports are stopped, there could not be corruption amongst official circles unless the rice received in the stockpile is bad or of an inferior quality and good money was paid for it; but when imports are stopped and exports are stopped, the insinuation is that there could be manipulation in the rice market, and that manipulation could only be done by a Minister or his associates outside. Sir, I challenge him to bring a motion against me if he cares to and prove it, instead of making such insinuation.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that the Minister is justified in suggesting that there was an imputation. If the Minister thought there was such an imputation, I think it was up to the Minister to rise on a point of order at the time. I suggest that the Minister does not pursue that course.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I defer, Sir, to your ruling and I shall stop from proceeding on this line.

And then the Member for Telok Ayer went on to say that he was not prepared to hear of lame excuses and, as usual, after every item he raises, he walks out of the House and does not listen to the replies.

Then, Sir, the Member for Tiong Bahru raised the point of present-day atomic warfare and asked, "What can a stockpile do?" The stockpile can feed the people until such time as supplies can come in. On top of getting burns from atomic bombs and from radioactivity in the atmosphere after the discharge of such bombs, I am sure that the people do not want to be hungry.

Then there was a plea that the people want cheap rice. Sir, the price of rice is not in our hands. The price of rice is in the hands of the producing countries and the world market of rice. I think what the Member meant was - as the Member for Telok Ayer mentioned - that the public have got to pay 1� cents more per katty for their rice because of this stockpile, otherwise they might have to pay less. I disagree with that, Sir. The difference in price might vary. The normal difference in price between stockpile rice and the ordinary commercial rice is about half a cent per katty and that is because of the expenditure for stockpile operation. It happens sometimes that the price of stockpile rice is higher because there is always a time lag between Government's buying of rice and the release of the same rice from the stockpile. For instance, at the moment, our price is much higher than the price of commercial rice, because we bought our rice three or four months ago when the market was round about �50. About two weeks ago, the price dropped in Thailand to about �46 or �47, and possibly there is going to be a further drop, but the stocks held by Government are at �51 and therefore they have got to be released for some time at that price. The Government operates the stockpile on a no profit no loss basis. Now when these stocks are finished, the Government will start buying cheap rice. When you come to the end of the rice season, the Government has got in stock cheaper rice and the traders are forced to buy end-season rice which is higher in price. At that time, the stockpile rice is cheaper than the commercial rice for a few months. There is always a three or four months' lag in the price factor.

Then the Member for Changi asked me, "Why is it that the Japanese could maintain the price of rice at eight cents per katty during the occupation?" Sir, I was not in the confidence of the Japanese Military Administration and, therefore, I am unable to answer that question.

The figures for the export of rice which he enquired can be found in any of the Government publications which are available. The import and export publications give you figures of the exports of various commodities month by month and year by year.

3.00 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker. Sir, I was rather surprised to hear my name being brought into this debate. I was quoted as having said to the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru that we should not wash dirty linen or something to that effect. I inform this House that I never said those words. What I told the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru was that it was rather unfair to attack any member of the Public Service, especially a Permanent Secretary, without giving him a chance to reply in this House.

I think the principle should be established and observed in this House that we must be dignified and that we should not resort to accusations or to personal attacks on any person, be he a Permanent Secretary, or a simple peon in any office. If any official is proved to be inefficient or that he has indulged in malpractices, his activities should first be brought to the notice of the Minister who would then bring it to the notice of the Council of Ministers. There are many ways of dealing with such inefficiency - there is the Disciplinary Committee; there is the reference back to the Public Service Commission. What I told the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru was that he should not have done that in the House without giving the official concerned a chance to reply to him. I think that is unfair.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really surprised at the reply given by the Minister for Education. He used two words, "dirty linen". I repeat it again. It is not the Permanent Secretary that I was referring to. It is the expression "dirty linen", because he said, "Do not wash dirty linen in the House."

Sir, in the Department of Supplies, we notice that the expenditure is $246,710 and the revenue from it is $596,050. This is the way to squeeze merchants to pay for the running of this Department. We all know that the merchants, when they want to import rice from any country, have to buy 50 per cent of the quantity they wish to import. Why must they buy rice from the Government stockpile? Why cannot they be allowed to have a free hand in importing any quantity they like?

Sir, the Minister went on to say, "What will happen in the case of war?" I can tell the Minister. Sir, in the case of war, one tiny atomic bomb or hydrogen bomb will wipe out Singapore. It is not a question of public health, or rice stockpile - even if you have 5,000 tons of rice stockpiled in the godown. As an elected Member of my constituency, I am very perturbed to say that the merchants, when they are asked to buy 50 per cent against their imports, have to pay more, and the other thing is that they have to pay handling charges to bring the rice to the godown and then back to the merchant's storehouse. And the rice upon circulation will be sold to the public at a higher price.

I am very concerned because it is the duty of the Government to take the interest of the masses at heart. It is not a question of a department to be paid for by the merchants or rice merchants. What do I care for a few rice merchants? But my concern is that in the past, only one man succeeded in getting the tender, year in and year out. That is what I am against. A shopkeeper or a rice merchant could never succeed in getting the tender. There must be something wrong. As an elected Member for Tiong Bahru, it is my duty to point out to Government that it is their duty, in the interests of the masses, to stop this nonsense. I am talking about the rice stockpile.

I remember the time when the British troops surrendered in 1942, there were many godowns in various parts of Singapore. They had thousands and thousands of cases of butter, milk, sugar, rice and sardines. Because they were hungry, the people looted the godowns, in spite of the armed guards. The Minister for Commerce and Industry, when he talked about my friend and colleague on this side of the House, the Member for Telok Ayer, said that when we did something, he had to follow. It is not that. We know very well that one man's meat is another man's poison. If the system adopted by the previous Council is wrong, it is the duty of the Government to correct it. I am very perturbed, Sir, and I am afraid I cannot agree to this sum being spent on the Supplies Department.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I wish to talk a little more about this rice situation. Although I am going to criticise the Supplies Department, my criticisms are entirely different from those of the Member for Tiong Bahru. I wish the Minister will carefully listen to me. I asked him to give the figures of how many tons of rice a month Singapore rice importers re-export to other countries. My purpose in raising this query is to assure the Minister that Singapore always has plenty of rice for trading. I can quote an example. There is one merchant who had a few thousand tons of Burmese rice. Burmese rice is only suitable for Indonesia, because they prefer it to Siamese rice, a preference just opposite to that of the people of Singapore. During the civil conflict in Indonesia, trade suddenly stopped. Yet this merchant refused to sell below the price and he stocked Burmese rice for years. Then two or three months ago he had to engage hundreds of labourers to handle his stock of rice.

Sir, what I want to know is whether the Minister for Commerce and Industry has made any attempts to find a solution to make the rice merchants, instead of Government, spend money on stockpiling. For the first time, I have to say that the clever Minister for Commerce and Industry has proved to this House that he can be a fool too. He has admitted that the contract of about 2,500 tons of the rice stockpile was terminated by the Rice Importers' Association. That is very bad dealing. I wonder why the Government allowed such a contract to be signed between the Rice Importers' Association and the Government without any guarantee. I wish to bring to the notice of this House that last year, or the year before, the Rice Importers' Association had written to Government officially and offered a suggestion. They would guarantee all the requirements of the Government. It is up to the Government to open the door to negotiations with the Rice Importers' Association. If the latter fails to comply with Government's requirements to safeguard our staple food to meet emergency needs, then make it public. Let us state it so that the public will know that the Government did attempt to find a solution to safeguard public funds.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Sir, I only rise to give an explanation to the Member for Changi who, shall I say, admired the way in which the Japanese kept their rice at 8 cents a katty during the war. I can assure him that that was due to no credit of the Japanese Army. It was because the rice was stockpiled before the war by the Governments of Singapore and Malaya, and that stockpile lasted nearly three years. The hon. Member must not forget that we were existing on starvation rations, getting a quarter or even less than a quarter of what the Member for Changi would be eating today.

Sir, if the hon. Member would not bring his class-room lectures here and stop raising these school-children queries in this House, we could proceed -

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member is guilty of two or three unparliamentary phrases, and I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, I beg to withdraw them. I do hope that we shall be able to proceed more quickly with the proceedings.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir I will deal with the points very shortly in order to get on with the debate. The handling charges are not high, they are only half a cent per katty.

The charge made by the Member for Tiong Bahru that in the past only one man got the tender every year is not correct. In the past, the system was that when Government wanted to buy rice for the stockpile, the Government asked for tenders for rice, and different firms got tenders in different months and for different types, according to their quotations. But I believe what the hon. Member has in mind is the tender for looking after the Government's stores. The same firm got the tender for two years or so. After that the tenderer changed, because somebody else tendered lower. In the tender system, you have got to take a chance - you may get the same man tendering cheaper, and unless you have got something against him, you have to give him that tender, otherwise you will be charged with favouritism, and then some Members might stand up and say, "Why was this done? Was there any corruption anywhere in the nooks and corners?" and so on.

Now, the Member for Changi raised the point about how much of the rice held by importers here is being re-exported. There again the figures can be had by him if he wants to, though I have not got them with me now, but they are published. And then he says his contention is that Singapore has plenty of rice. But he forgets that the businessman is after profits. When you have plenty of rice and there is a sudden shortage, you find the rice disappearing underground, and then coming into the blackmarket. The poor labourer and the office worker will have to pay five cents or ten cents more in the black-market. Though we might have 20,000 or 30,000 tons of rice with the merchants, it will all go underground. It has happened in the past and that is why price control has to be introduced, though it never works properly because again it lends itself to corruption.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: It depends on what action is taken!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: And I believe Sir, in not having price control which lends itself to corruption and an expensive machinery to run it. I believe rather in preventive measures, and that is to have a stockpile. If the merchants try to do any black-marketing, well, your stockpile is there to kill it. Now, the hon. Member says the solution is to make the rice merchants spend their money instead of the Government. That is exactly what is happening - the Government spends the money and charges the merchants half a cent more per katty so that the merchants are paying the money and then they pass it on to the consumers. Now, supposing the rice merchants guarantee to carry a stockpile, then whatever expenditure they incur they will still pass it on to the consumers who are the public. It comes to the same thing - in the end it is the consumer who pays. The merchant is not going to pay out of his pocket, and neither is the Government. So whether the Government carries the stockpile, and then charges it to the merchants who again pass it on to the consumer, or the merchants carry the stockpile, it is still the consumers who will pay.

3.15 p.m.

And then the Member said, "Why did we not negotiate with the Association?" I have just now given an example of such negotiations and how it failed. I have spoken many times with the members of the Association. But what they want is, "We will carry a stockpile provided you give us a monopoly of rice imports" - 20 or 30 firms - and they always say, "We will guarantee to carry, say. 10,000 or 20,000 tons as a stockpile, but rice imports should be a monopoly of these 20 or 30 members of this Association." Now, once you give them that monopoly, they can hold the public of Singapore to ransom, and a Socialist government is not prepared to do that. We have the interest of the public first and foremost in our hearts, Sir. And if the merchants are willing to play ball and co-operate with the Government, very good; if they are not, the Government has got to safeguard the public interest first and not just the interests of the merchants.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $246,710 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 40-

The sum of $111,620 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 41-

The sum of $824,030 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 42-

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 42 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

In Mr R. Jumabhoy's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $226,210 for Head 42 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure many Members will agree that the Hon, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing is one of the most distinguished and respected of Ministers, especially as he can also discharge his duties very easily. In the first place, he has a wonderful Permanent Secretary, experienced and a man of integrity. Secondly, his Ministry has overall control, whereas the City Council is semi-independent. The Rural Board again is semi-independent. The S.I.T. is, however, a statutory body. So I think the Minister's post is envied by many ambitious politicians who want to be the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. I am sure that our present Minister for Local Government. Lands and Housing will probably remain in the same post, no matter which Party is in power next year. So I wish to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations, if somewhat prematurely, to the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing.

Now that I have touched on the City Council, the Rural Board and the S.I.T., which are actually not in the hands of the Minister, I would like to raise a small question about the allocation of farmland. Firstly, there is the question of farm lots which we must consider, since Singapore is such a small island and our population is increasing - a matter of heated controversy in the debate on family planning! Therefore, I wish to know what is in the mind of the Minister. Has he any scheme in the Budget to provide for more farmlands, or will it be incorporated in a scheme which will be administered by the Rural Development Panel?

Secondly, if I am not wrong, he has promised to try and select and survey certain lands, and build an attap settlement. I do not know when or where this attap settlement project will come to fruition. Maybe the Minister can enlighten us on this intention to build an attap settlement in order to give the person, who prefers or is forced to choose a house built of attap, a more secure place than he has at present when he is being called a squatter.

Thirdly, I wish the Minister to assure this House that he is fully aware that the housing development projects now being carried out by private owners, and the Government's development plan, are causing many difficulties to the squatters, or, as they are sometimes called, attap dwellers. The Government should see that the compensation paid to them is adequate. However, so far there is no legislation to protect such attap dwellers when they are served with eviction notices by the landowners. Sir, I have raised this question more than once, and I would ask the Minister to find ways and means to protect such people who have been served with eviction notices. If the landlord is good, he will talk terms with the attap dweller. But if he is not, he will say that the attap dweller has no right to claim compensation. So I wish the Minister will consider this point.

Fourthly, I wonder whether the Minister can simplify the procedure when an application is made for repairing or building a house. Also, whether it is possible to simplify the procedure when an application is made to change the name of the owner on the Government's notice of assessment.

Sir, all these points which I have mentioned concern attap houses in the rural areas, where they find it very difficult to have a permit to repair their houses. Why is this? It is because the Department concerned with the issuing of permits requires the landlord's endorsement before a permit is granted. As you are aware, many a landlord these days refuse to help these poor squatters. They would like to see the attap houses collapse so that the tenants have to quit the land. Therefore, they naturally refuse to co-operate with or give any assistance to the attap dwellers who wish to repair or rebuild their houses. This non-co-operation is especially true when it comes to the payment of assessment. When a tenant passes away and the assessment is in his name, the son, when he applies to change it into his name, has to get the endorsement from the landlord. If the landlord refuses to endorse it, the son cannot pay that assessment. So all these things, which hon. Members in this House may consider are trifles, are very important indeed to the poor squatters.

The last point which I would like to raise is the water supply for many kampongs. I have learnt from a member of the Rural Board that, although the Rural Board has approved the installation of many public standpipes in the kampongs, they have not been installed because of the shortage of funds. Just an hour ago, a representative from the kampong of Loyang Loyang (he is actually not from my constituency) came to my office and complained of the shortage of water, and asked whether we could supply them with water. It should be noted that, despite the recent big rainfall, there is still a shortage of water in their kampong. He asked me if it is possible to send any water-wagon to supply that place with water, or install water-pipes, which I have already requested the Rural Board to do, and which have been approved by them about three months ago. The Rural Board replied to me that they could not install the standpipes because of the shortage of funds. So, Sir, I put these five points forward, and I sincerely hope and expect that the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing will give me a reply.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, on your advice I have, on the first day, dealt with the question of salaries under all the preceding Heads, and there was an amendment standing in my name under this Head which also concerns salaries. Of course, since I was not here, the amendment automatically lapsed.

The Chairman: Order. In any event, I think the hon. Member is too late!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I am not speaking on the amendment.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: What I am saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this, that if I am not here and do not withdraw the amendment it will automatically lapse; and I am not speaking on the amendment because it has already been dealt with by me.

Mr Goh Tong Liang: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been told time and again to grow more and more food to help the economy of this country, but I find lots of vacant land in the various resettlements in my Division lying fallow. I understand that these lots were rejected by those persons who have been displaced from somewhere else because of distance, unsuitability, strange environment and probably lack of amenities. But there are people who would want that land. They can make use of it. Instead of allowing these plots of land to remain as secondary jungles, I think it is better to have them made use of for the people to cultivate, if not vegetables, at least tobacco, or sweet potatoes or tapioca.

Therefore, I would ask the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to instruct the competent department or departments to give all facilities to the applicants who apply for land to do cultivation.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I should like to thank the Member for Changi for his confidence not only in myself but also in my Permanent Secretary and other members of my staff.

To begin with, he started by saying that I, as Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, have practically no responsibilities, and that the Rural Board has got its own Board of Management, the Singapore Improvement Trust has got its Board of Trustees, the City Council has got its elected Councillors, and the Mayor, of course! But, at the same time, he has asked me a number of questions which I think are very pertinent, and to which it would he my duty to reply.

With regard to the question of farmlands or resettlement of farmers, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the Report of the Land Clearance and Resettlement Working Party which was published in 1955, wherein Government's policy with regard to resettlement and land clearance is clearly defined.

3.30 p.m.

However, with regard to the actual planning of these resettlement areas, they are at the moment being administered by the Singapore Improvement Trust, of course, with the approval of my Ministry. As I see it, there is very little more that we can do for these f farmers, because, in the first place, there is a great shortage of land in Singapore, although the Member for Bukit Panjang did mention that there are still lands available which are unsuitable for farmlands. But, from the point of view of Government, we have very little Crown land left in Singapore; and for all Government projects - such as schools, housing, hospitals, clinics - Government itself has to go into the open market to buy land.

There are two or three points of criticism relating to the Rural Board. The first one was the question of repairs. Now, as far as I am aware, Sir, there is very little difficulty now in getting the approval from the Rural Board for repairs and also for the change of name. I am sure the Member for Changi is aware that, at the moment, the office of the Rural Board has been decentralised into three different centres, and work is going on in these centres more expeditiously. I think the public do realise that they are getting the help, the lack of which they have always been complaining about in the past.

With decentralisation, we have done a wonderful job in that of the revenue which was outstanding for last year, a total of $1.5 million has already been collected this year, and up to date we have collected more than $2 million from revenue due to us in 1958.

With regard to the water supply, I do not think the Member for Changi is correct in saying that the difficulty there is funds alone. The fact is that funds can and will always be made available for such an amenity, but, unfortunately, it is not the Rural Board who installs the standpipes, it is the City Council. The Rural Board normally - after the relevant Committees have approved the applications for standpipes - refer the matter to the Water Department of the City Council and it is up to the City Council to put up the standpipes at the expense of the Rural Board.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I think there is one point that has to be made clear, and that is, simplifying the procedure regarding the issue of permits, for repairs to and rebuilding of houses.

I fully agree with the Minister that since the decentralisation of the Rural Board into three districts, much convenience has resulted.

I am sure that the three Chairmen. Mr Lim Chuan Kim, Che Hussein Bin Kamari and Mr R. Ramalingam, deserve mention for their efficiency. I know this because I am the adviser to the Rural Residents' Association and I am in a position to receive such information.

What I wish to point out is that the trouble is not because of the complexities created by the Department, but the procedure laid down whereby the landlord's endorsement is required, which involves legal points.

Supposing I want to repair my attap house, I will have to get the landlord's permission; otherwise I will not be able to repair it. I wonder if Government can find a solution to help the poor farmers to rebuild, repair or build their houses without undergoing this troublesome procedure of having to get an endorsement from the landlord.

Regarding the change of name in assessments, that too requires endorsement from the landlord. [Laughter.]

I am sure the Minister for Communications and Works, who is laughing, thinks: "Oh, how can this be? You are refusing to recognise ownership rights." Sir, I am fully aware of that. What I mean is that this is a problem for us to solve.

The landlord who wants to develop a piece of land can refuse to negotiate or talk terms about compensation. He wants to wait until the house collapses. He refuses to endorse an application for house repairs. Therefore, he can have an easy plan to build bungalow houses and his land value will be much higher. We know this - that the price is much different between a vacant piece of land with a few squatters on it.

I wish the Government can find a way out to help the poor farmer or fisherman, who is an attap dweller, to get his house repaired or rebuilt and to change his name on the assessment form when he inherits it from his father or is paying transfer fees for his friends and so on.

That is the point I wish to put forward to the Minister for Local Govermnent's, Lands and Housing. I am sure he has to consult the Attorney-General regarding the legal aspect. But at least I want to ask the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he has sympathies for these people who have such troubles.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Sir, I have lots of sympathies for attap dwellers, because I myself live in an attap house on land which does not belong to me.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes, you are proud of it!

Dato Abdul Hamid: Actually, regarding the question of change of name for assessment purposes, I do not think there is very much difficulty about that. All that a person need do is to bring along his father's assessment together with the Power of Attorney, to the Rural Board or the relevant District Council and change it. But that has got nothing to do with the endorsement from the landlord.

With regard to repairs, I can promise the Member for Changi that I will look into it again.

[Upon the Member for Changi gesturing with his hand-]

The Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to speak or whether he wishes to act.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I wish to speak on this point.

The Chairman: Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, just only two days ago I went to the Katong District Office. It had to do with a fisherman, staying in Siglap, who had a father who passed away quite a long time ago. This fisherman owed an assessment rate of over $100. Also he was sick and I had to recommend him to the Social Welfare Department for public relief assistance.

Now, the trouble is this. He cannot pay the assessment because it is not in his name. His father is dead - he has a death certificate. So I approached the Chairman, Mr Lim Chuan Kim, who had an interview with this poor fisherman.

He insisted that, first of all, this poor fisherman had to swear that he was the son of so and so, who had passed away on a certain day. Secondly, this man had to get an endorsement from the landlord, because there was a form to be filled up and I think somewhere below on the right-hand side, the landlord's endorsement was required. So that is why I have this question in mind.

If the Government really have sympathies for these poor squatters and at-tap dwellers, please simplify the procedure and do not let the landlord have such powers to refuse to endorse the poor squatter's name.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter referred to by the Member for Changi is an exception. I say it is an exception because, after all, the person concerned may probably not be the only son. There may be other members in the family.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: That is true.

Dato Abdul Hamid: Exactly, and that is why I say Letters of Administration must be taken out to satisfy the Chairman of the Rural Board that that particular son is entitled to have the name on the assessment changed into his name.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: How about the landlord's endorsement?

The Chairman: Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $226,210 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 43-

The sum of $1,140,670 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 44-

The sum of $3,491,930 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 45-

The sum of $1,034,160 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 46-

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy -

That the sum to be allotted for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

In Mr R. Jumabhoy's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 29 therein.

Sir, my purpose in initiating this debate is mainly in regard to the education policy.

Yesterday, I think I spoke enough on the question of a merger with the Federation of Malaya and I also touched on a Pan-Malayan economic policy. I wonder if the Government at this juncture has any policy in mind regarding the formulation of a Pan-Malayan education policy.

The Chairman: Order. I would like to put this debate in its right perspective. The amendment is in regard to Grants-in-Aid, not the general policy of education. So the hon. Member should confine himself to Grants-in-Aid. If he wishes to speak on the general education policy, then he must wait until the Head itself is proposed.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I am fully aware of your explanation. The reason why I particularly pick out Grants-in-Aid is because they are linked up with the education policy.

What type of schools do you want to grant money to? Will it benefit our children when we spend so much money in grants-in-aid?

I particularly mention these grants-in-aid because I want to know from this big sum - there is no need to quote this figure - how much of it is to be spent on Malay education? Sir, I especially pick out Malay education, because I have just touched on the question of Pan-Malayan education policy. If so -

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Point of information. I think it will save time if I inform the hon. Member that there is no such thing as Grants-in-Aid for Malay education. Malay schools are being run by Government.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I thank the Minister for Education for his explanation. Sir, the grants-in-aid are mainly given to Chinese schools. I am not wrong in saying Chinese schools.

Sir, we have proudly been telling the world that we are spending nearly a quarter of our total revenue on education.

3.45 p.m.

Now I think the grant-in-aid to Chinese schools will be more than the money spent on Malay and Tamil education. Therefore, I want the Minister for Education to tell us this. What contributions can the students, who graduate from the many grant-in-aid schools, make to this country and how will society benefit by the spending of so much money on these grant-in-aid schools, especially - and this looks like an anti-climax - since the lingua franca must be Malay?

Sir, hon. Members may be surprised and say, "Why does the Member for Changi who always fights hard for Chinese education now suddenly have this query?" Sir, I think this is the right time to let the public know exactly how the money is spent and the results that can be expected especially for the tens of thousands of Chinese school students whether in primary or secondary schools or in the Nanyang University who have to face the future. If the Minister for Education cannot let us know exactly the policy in his mind as regards the future of the many thousands of children in these grant-in-aid schools, then I think that is disastrous.

The second point, Sir, which I want to raise is the question of salaries. There is a general complaint about the difference in salary scales. Many teachers do not understand how their salaries are arrived at, especially when some of them receive much less than their former students who may have just graduated or are receiving training from the Teachers' Training College and whose academic knowledge is not as good as their former teachers'. The student becomes a teacher and he draws a much higher salary than a principal or his form master. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give a clear-cut explanation as to why there is this difference in the salary scales.

The third point I want to raise is about the recognition of Chinese degrees. The Minister always says, "Push it to the Public Service Commission." Sir, I do not think that the recommendation that certain Chinese university degrees should be recognised and those of others should not be recognised comes from the Public Service Commission. Therefore, I wish to know who is responsible for this recommendation.

The fourth point is about the allowances of the principals of schools. The Minister has given an assurance in public on many occasions that he will see that the principals' allowances in Chinese schools will be on an equal footing with those of the English schools. I think it is high time for the Minister to declare solemnly in public when this will come about.

The last point, Sir, is about the new classes to be opened. There are many over-age students who graduate from the senior primary schools wanting to get into the junior secondary schools. If a student is even one month over-age he is told by the headmaster, "I am sorry. We cannot enrol you." I think there is a very big number of such overage students and the rural schools are causing a great deal of inconvenience. Many students from the rural areas are over-age and simply because of this fact, the schools shut their doors to these students. A week ago, I met ex-students of the Chung Cheng High School, a few from the Yoke Eng School, the Sing Wah School and the Min Chong School and when I went to see the headmasters, they said, "Sorry, the students are over-age and there is also no room." But after I had a detailed discussion with them, I was given to understand that actually there are vacant classrooms. There are still a few classrooms in Chung Cheng High School and I also learn that there are a few vacant classrooms in Chung Hwa Girls' School but because of the incidents in 1956, Government decided to cut down the number of classrooms in a few Chinese high schools. I wonder whether such a policy is still maintained or not. In view of the vast number of over-age students who cannot enter secondary schools, I wish the Minister can reconsider the reopening of these vacant classrooms in Chung Cheng High School and Chung Hwa Girls' School so that these students can enrol in them.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Changi referred to the question of the future problem of thousands of children who come out from the schools every year. I must remind him that I am not the Minister for Employment. What I am doing is to give education. The Government is committed to free primary education for all those children who are of the correct age. The question of employment depends on many other factors, not on education alone. Of course, we will have to mould our education in order to suit the employers' needs, but this question arises. Can the employers, that is the trade and Government, take all those students? I doubt if they can, and that is why I have always advocated that children who have finished their primary education should not all the time go for a grammar school type of education in the secondary schools. They should resort to the trade school and learn some other trade instead of merely getting a secondary education which might be worthless to them.

The question of salaries and post allowances to Chinese principals has been dealt with many a time. I have said publicly that they will be paid accordingly. There are certain technicalities still being worked out. I cannot give a certain date for payments. I cannot prophesy how long it will take to resolve all these technicalities, but I can give an assurance that they will be paid very soon.

On the question of over-age pupils, previously the public blamed the problem of over-age pupils on the Japanese occupation. Well, the occupation is over - more than 13 years have passed since then - and this should not be made the excuse for a place in school for overage pupils. We must remember that there are many other children of the correct age who want places in schools and we must look after them first. The over-age pupils from the primary section will be given a chance in the evening classes. Evening classes have been opened and I have stated in this House quite a number of times that they will be given a secondary education if they want a simplified secondary education in the evening classes. This House approved a supplementary vote of $500,000 for this not so long ago. Therefore, that question should not worry the Member for Changi so much.

Coming to the question of capital grants, I think the Member for Changi was referring to the grants to over 80 schools which have not been included in the Estimates. I wish to assure the House, firstly, that everyone of those applications has been registered and dealt with in my Ministry. I am aware, however, that many of these schools will not be able to commence operations in 1959. It would therefore be unrealistic to include them in the Estimates and merely show an impressive figure with actually no meaning in that figure. Secondly, in view of financial stringency, I do not wish to tie the hands of the next government with too many heavy commitments. The next government will have to find the money and I have no doubt that they will have to do so at any cost, for the sake of Chinese education and Chinese culture. The next government might have a policy different from that of mine, but as far as I am concerned, my policy is to assist all schools which come to my Ministry for advice and help. This policy is formulated on the basis of the recommendations made by the All-Party Committee on Education. However, it must not be construed to mean that anybody can get any kind of help or any kind of favour from my Ministry if they will only ask for it. There are certain set rules and regulations to follow, and the public are requested to observe them so that the government machinery can work smoothly, impartially and fearlessly.

On the recognition of degrees, I stated yesterday that the final Report has been -

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 beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress in the consideration of the Bill and beg leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.