"GRADUATION MEANS UNEMPLOYMENT"

Why I purposely wish to quote this feature article is that I want to emphasise the line along which our education policy is taking in this country. The education policy cannot be separated from language and culture. One curious thing about this country is that, as I have already explained once or twice before, on the eve of the Rendel Constitution there was a controversy on multilingualism. It was argued that multilingualism should be introduced into this Assembly, with equal treatment for all languages; for example, by adopting a bilingual system of education in this country. Now, on the eve of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, we have a most serious question on language being raised. It is that Malay should be the lingua franca of this country. Sir, I wonder why all political leaders who champion the cause of making the Malay language the lingua franca are not interested in this debate so that we may be given a more detailed explanation, especially from someone who has sat on the Education Committee. This Committee has decided and formulated our education policy - a policy which gives equal treatment to all schools; in other words, English schools, Malay schools, Chinese schools and Tamil schools. Now suddenly on the eve of the elections, we have this serious question of language being raised, that is, Malay must be made the lingua franca of Singapore. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Education whether it is a political move or whether it is actually a necessity for this country, especially when we consider the Budget lying in front of us. We can see how much money is going to be spent on Malay education and how much money is going to be spent on English, Chinese and Tamil schools.

I wish also the Minister for Education to answer this question. What improvement is expected in introducing various languages in English schools'? We learn that Chinese is being taught in English schools, Malay in English schools, Tamil in English schools. What progress has been made? I do not know whether he has at hand any figures of any survey to show the extent of the cultural stream of this country, and the various cultural influences which have an important bearing on our life. Has the Government failed to tell the people and the leaders (of course, not much blame should be attached to the Education Ministry alone) that multilingual education has already been accepted in this country as our education policy? Why is it that on the eve of the elections the question has been raised to make Malay the lingua franca in this country?

Sir, I have figures supplied by my friend, Mr George Thomson, about the various newspapers circulating in Malaya and Singapore. A large figure of about 400,000 copies a day is given as being in circulation. But, Sir, you will be surprised that among these 400,000 copies of various newspapers of various languages, the Chinese newspapers have 210,000 copies, excluding magazines, and those which we call "mosquito" papers. We are judging only from the Chinese language newspapers. Of the English language papers, the figure given is about 130,000 to 140,000 copies a day. Malay is about 30,000 to 40,000 copies a day. Tamil is about 7 per cent of the total. Therefore, judging from the papers, we can know which language is influential and which language is popular in this country. Yet, Sir, at this juncture when we are just coming towards self-government, we have this language question being raised again. I want to know why. If I am not wrong, even in the Federation of Malaya, the Chinese Schools Conference on Malay have forced the M.C.A. to have a big conference in Ipoh not long ago to fight for the Chinese to make Chinese an official language in the Federation of Malaya. On the contrary, Sir, in Singapore we see some ambitious, selfish and shortsighted political leaders who want to confuse the issue again by bringing up this controversy, since they have already said that the Progressives were strongly against multilingualism. Now where are the Progressives?

This language problem arises again on the eve of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. I wish the Minister for Education can give us a clear-cut analysis, so that we can recollect what we have agreed in the All-Party Committee on Education, and whether this Government is now prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to make Malay the lingua franca of this country, and deny the Chinese language, the English language, the Tamil language, the status of official languages. What we have agreed to have in Singapore is multi-lingualism.

Sir, you may be surprised at what connection all this has with our education policy. I have quoted from a newspaper which says that "graduation means unemployment". A student, either from the primary school or from Nanyang University, does not know what to do or where to go after graduation. After he has spent, say, 17 years of his education in Chinese, he is told suddenly to take up Malay because this country has not accepted the Chinese language as the official language. That would mean more unemployment. There would be no chance to find employment. Therefore, to me the education policy, especially one that has a Pan-Malayan outlook, is of vital importance to this country. Every language in this multi-racial country should be respected.

I am a very poor linguist, and I know very little of languages. Yet I do not care. Language is only just an instrument of expression. The language itself is, I should say, a dead or lifeless instrument. It is only our feelings and thoughts that make the language lively and beautiful. Why must we deny the Chinese language and the English language their proper place in our culture? Why should we elect, on the eve of the elections, to hail the Malay language, and make it the lingua franca of Singapore? We do not have the courage to tell our people here that language itself is nothing; that it is lifeless. It is the person (his thoughts, his mind and his feelings) who controls and exercises it, and who uses it to express himself, that counts.

How many Englishmen in this world today can challenge the beautiful English, either in speech or in writing, of Mr Nehru? How many English poets dare to deny that the Indian poet Tagore is not great? Who can say that, because Tagore and Nehru are so expert in the use of the English language, therefore they are traitors? That they are not genuine nationalists? Nobody dares to deny that. In this country, I think none of us has made so much sacrifices as Mr Nehru had when he fought for his country's independence. It is a shame to the national leaders in this country who have achieved high positions. I am not excluding myself. I include myself! It is a real shame! We have not been imprisoned for one day. We have not shed a single drop of blood. Yet we say we are the champions of nationalism! We must abolish the English language! We must deny the Chinese language! Instead, we must hail the Malay language!

I have full confidence in and great respect for Tunku Abdul Rahman's wisdom, sincerity and honesty. I bet you, Sir, the U.M.N.O. leaders never fool the Malay ra'ayat. The Malay ra'ayat have never been fooled by opportunists who say that if we hail Malay as the lingua franca, there will be a merger and all the trouble in this country can be resolved.

Sir, I would like to go a bit deeper into this subject. We have read from the Press that there were riots in Ceylon, Bombay and Calcutta - three big cities. Over what, Sir? Over the language and cultural issues. After that, racial clashes followed. So this is a serious warning for this country. I hope the Minister for Education can give us an assurance that he will not make Singapore a second Ceylon and have language and cultural conflicts just over the question of language.

11.00 a.m.

Let the students in all schools have a full assurance that what they learn in school will be useful to the country in future.

In concluding my speech on the general aspect of language, I have two questions to ask the Minister. Has he decided to open all available classrooms in all schools? From information I have gathered, there are vacant classrooms in Chung Cheng High School and Chung Hwa Girls' School.

Secondly, what is he going to do about the large numbers of over-age students, especially those from the rural areas? The Minister assured us that they were going to secondary evening schools. But the rural residents have to attend evening schools in town. I think it is quite difficult for them to attend evening schools in town. Therefore, I wish the Minister will find a solution for those over-age students who attend schools in the rural areas and who are denied the right to attend secondary schools here.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to see that the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru is absent.

The Chairman: Order. I have requested honourable Members not to make any personal references.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I am making that reference because he is not here to listen to the reply that he is after.

The Chairman: Order. I think the Hon. Minister knows that Members of Parliament do not sit right through Budget debates. I think the honourable Member for Tiong Bahru will have ample opportunity to read the Hansard.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: As you please, Sir, I am bound by your ruling. Sir, the hon. Member for Serangoon has asked me several questions. I will answer them one by one. Evening classes are meant for all those who have, either for one reason or another, failed to get into the secondary section because they are over-age or because they have failed the entrance examination to the secondary schools. There will be places for all these people. There are, of course, exceptions. I will not make places available for those who are already attending day schools or private schools and wanting to attend evening classes just to brush up on their studies. These evening classes are the same as the day schools. The pupils in these classes will be given, as I have stated in this House many a time, education leading up to the Senior Middle III examination, the Royal Society of Arts, and the Senior Cambridge.

The hon. Member also referred to the youth movement and playing field facilities not being made use of. I wish to inform him that there is already a section called the Youth Recreation Section in the Ministry of Labour and Welfare under a Director who has been seconded from the United States of America. He is working in close liaison with my Ministry to see that all the playing fields are being made use of and not being left idle; and he is to co-ordinate all youth activities in this Colony.

As regards Tamil education, I take this opportunity to inform the House that Government has taken over two Tamil schools as Government schools. One is the St. George's Road Tamil School and the other is another Tamil school near the Hospital quarters.

The question of giving better salaries to Tamil teachers with the requisite qualifications is also being pursued vigorously, and I think the Tamil teachers will have no qualms about their salary scale.

The question of further Tamil education will be the subject of discussion by the Education Council which is being set up under the new education law.

The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru insisted that we must have teachers at any cost. I hope he can, by magic, produce them out of a hat! Teachers must be trained and it takes time to train them. To staff the secondary schools, we must have graduate teachers and it is difficult to get them because there are other professions which they would like to join. The Ministry has been trying to make the teaching profession as attractive as possible for University graduates, in order to get them to become teachers or Education Officers. We have not been very successful. Therefore, we just cannot say the word and the teachers will be there.

The hon. Member also deplored the provision for free textbooks. He accused me of reducing the grant for free textbooks from $300,000 this year to $151,000 for 1959. I wish he had made some efforts at getting the facts. It is true in 1958 we have provided a sum of $300,000 but up to this very day - in fact, up to the end of the year - only about $131,000 has been expended under that item. I think hon. Members of this House will appreciate that we must have a realistic estimate. We cannot come to this House and ask for $500,000 just to make it impressive when the expenditure will only be about $100,000. Based on the experience of providing free textbooks for 1958, we have put that figure at $151,000, which is more realistic.

The hon. Member also mentioned that pupils are being thrown out of classrooms or schools just because of free textbooks. I wish he could produce facts and give me evidence of students leaving school just because they have no textbooks. In my three years and nine months' experience in the Ministry of Education, I have never come across one single case.

The hon. Member also mentioned something about the leakage of examination papers and that I should be responsible. I gave a statement to this House not so long ago regarding the leakage in the English entrance examination. We know the source of the leakage. I cannot certainly be held responsible just because a man became dishonest. I cannot be responsible for the workings of the minds of people, much less the workings of the mind of the Member for Tiong Bahru!

He also deplored the fact that children had been posted to schools far away from their homes. Well, this system of placing children close to their homes was instituted by me in 1955 or 1956. The Ministry has been working under great pressure, and it is almost inevitable that there must be some children who will have to travel a bit further from their homes.

I myself, when I went to school, had to walk six miles through an estate road to go to school. I never complained; neither did my parents complain. I think the public should not be pampered too much. They want schools right at their door-step! They must make an effort to go to school. For a person living in Tiong Bahru to go to Kim Seng Road, less than half a mile away, I think that is a very lame excuse indeed to make in this House.

The hon. Member also mentioned that out of the 15,000 children who sat for the entrance examination, about 7,000 would be able to get into the secondary section.

I think I made a public statement through the Press that anyone who passed that examination would be given a place in the secondary section and those who failed would be given a place in the evening classes.

Well, that leads me to the question of secondary education, a subject on which the Member for Tiong Bahru laboured for a long time. I think in this country we are putting secondary education on a basis which far exceeds that of other countries. Even in very advanced countries like the United Kingdom, the percentage is only about 25 to 27 per cent of the primary section going up to the secondary section. Now in this country we are promoting about 46 to 50 per cent of them. The crux of the matter is - can we afford it? When the Government raise taxes, people shout at us. We have criticisms from the Opposition. Now what is that money for? The money is for providing education. Yet, in view of the financial stringency, we cannot afford to give everyone a secondary education merely because he needs it, he wants it, or he demands it. The Education Ministry is responsible for seeing that those who can benefit by it will get it.

The hon. Member for Changi touched on the question of a Pan-Malayan education policy, Malay being the lingua franca. I cannot voice my policy here in that regard. I have been faithfully carrying out the recommendations made by the All-Party Committee on Education of which I was the Chairman and of which the hon. Member for Changi was a member. If I had not faithfully carried them out, I would have heard murmurs of protest. But not one murmur have I heard from any member of that Committee saying that I had failed in my duty in carrying out those recommendations. Everyone of the recommendations has been implemented.

As regards the question of Malay being the lingua franca, I think that is a political matter which must be decided by the political parties in the coming elections. I am not competent to formulate my own policy on that matter.

As regards the vernacular classes being carried on in the English schools, the hon. Member for Changi asked whether there was any progress. I told him, I think, in this House and in private, that there is progress. The teaching of vernacular languages in English schools is made compulsory, and the marks obtained in this examination count in the record, and every child has been made to take his own vernacular language.

11.15 a.m.

As regards the vacant places in Chung Cheng and Chung Hwa Schools, about which the hon. Member for Changi is anxious, I will say this: I will not allow them to be opened merely because of over-age pupils. No. Over-age pupils can get, as I say, into the evening classes for which they are meant, and I will not open them merely because there may be a few over-age pupils who want to study in those schools. The over-age pupils can get into the evening classes, including those over-age pupils in the rural areas to which the hon. Member referred. If the need arises, I will open evening classes in the rural areas to suit the convenience of those over-age pupils. I think those are the points that I have to answer, Sir.

Mr A. R. Lazarous: Just a clarification from the Minister, Sir. The Hon. Minister has just said that in the United States only 26 per cent are able, after passing the primary school examination, to go to secondary schools, if I heard him correctly.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: The United Kingdom!

Mr Lazarous: Then in Singapore almost 50 per cent of the primary school students are able to go to secondary schools. When I quoted my figures, the Minister did not contradict them. My figures are - in English schools we have 145,000 children; in Chinese schools 135,000 children; in Malay schools 15,000 children and in Indian schools 2,000 children. There are approximately 300,000 school-going children. Out of this number, we have in primary schools 250,000 children, taking it as a whole, and in secondary schools only 42,000 children. That is the 1957 record. In the technical schools there are only 2,000 children and in the universities there are 3,000 children. So, from among the 250,000 children in the primary schools, only 42,000 children are going to secondary schools. How does the Minister reconcile his statement that 50 per cent of the children are being given facilities to go to secondary schools?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: The hon. Member for Farrer Park must not confuse himself with those figures. The 300,000 children now in school - they have been there since the last six years and the increase in the intake in the last few years has been phenomenal. Each year we take in about 20,000 children. The children take six years to reach the Primary VI stage where they will have to take the entrance examination.

I have said that 46 to 50 per cent of the children who gain admission to the secondary section are those who have sat for the examination. That means not all the 300,000 sit for the examination surely, but those who sit for the examination are the Primary VI classes. The hon. Member must not confuse this with the total figure of 300,000 in the schools.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I just want to ask about the progress of the reorganisation in the Ministry of Education since the appointment of the able Permanent Secretary to the Ministry. I understand that the Chinese Section of the Ministry has been abolished entirely and absorbed into the administration. As a result, there have been many complaints of inconvenience raised in the editorials of the daily newspapers and also in the column "Man-in-the-Street". I wonder if the Minister can enlighten us on the progress of the reorganisation in the Ministry.

Chinese school principals who receive notices, although they are now being written in Chinese, do not know which officer to go to. Letters have been missed and some files have been mislaid. They cannot directly go to the officer who controls the matter.

I hope the Minister for Education will take this opportunity to enlighten us on the complaints and the inconveniences caused.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to have been given this opportunity to answer the question as regards the reorganisation in my Ministry. It is not the result of the appointment of the present Permanent Secretary. That idea was mooted just before he became the Permanent Secretary.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: It was not.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Thanks to reorganisation, we have been able to streamline the administration.

Previously, the Chinese section only knew the Chinese Inspectorate. Only the Chinese Section knew everything about the Chinese section, and matters never went further than that section. Now, it is being streamlined and administrative duties are being separated from professional duties. I think the accusation that Chinese school principals do not know where to go to get advice in the Ministry is utter nonsense.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: It is not nonsense.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: It is utter nonsense because they have been told where to go to. We have Chinese officers who speak Mandarin and other dialects in the various Sections. For instance, in the Staff Section, we have a Chinese Inspector of Chinese schools helping the Staff Officer to interview all the Chinese school principals.

In the Professional Section, there are also officers who know the Chinese language dealing with professional matters. So the complaint that the Chinese school principals do not know where to go to is sheer utter nonsense, uttered without any responsibility at all.

The irregularity of files missing is another bit of sheer nonsense. Because of the previous practice of having one Section dealing only with a special section of the public, there was no co-ordination at all between the professional side and the administrative side. That is why the files were missing. It is not because of reorganisation, but it is because of the pre-reorganisation practice.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $63,539,180 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 47-

The sum of $289,060 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 48-

The sum of $135,450 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 49-

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

That the sum to be allotted for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Sir, I have already dealt with what I wanted to raise in Head 7. Therefore, Sir, I withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not moving. Will the hon. Member indicate whether that also applies to Head 50* and Head 54+?

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

• Head 50-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

• Head 54-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 54 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: We will then delete the amendments from the Order Paper.

Question proposed.

"That the sum of $34,362,690 for Head 49 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I want to make a few remarks for the benefit of the incoming Government. This is the Department of Health - there is one run by the Government and another run by the City Council. If this can be made into one, either under the City Council or under the Government, the taxpayer will be saved the cost of administration. Further, there will be co-ordination. This has been clarified by my colleague, the hon. Member for Tanglin.

I want to emphasise that the incoming Government should do its very best so that administration costs come down, but with co-ordination remaining, of course.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $34,362,690 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 50-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $782,560 for Head 50 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, this is a department which exists not only in Singapore but in many other countries as a result of what happened during the war and after the war - that is the misery brought about by war - and it has become a very essential department, costing the taxpayers a lot of money. We do not object to that.

What I want to suggest is this: that, as far as Singapore is concerned, unemployment has grown to a very, very large extent. I would suggest that the incoming Government should formulate a policy that at least one member of a family should have some sort of employment. If that is done, the cost of giving support from the revenue to the unemployed will be greatly reduced. At the same time, the head of the family, or the bread-winner, will be proud that he is not living on the dole or at the mercy of charity. That is all I have to say under this, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $782,560 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 51-

The sum of $1,106,620 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 52-

The sum of $888,530 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 53-

The sum of $11,664,400 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 54-

The sum of $150,870 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 55-

The sum of $3,293,000 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 56-

The sum of $972,500 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 57-

The sum of $10,350,430 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 58-

The sum of $3,859,220 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 59-

The sum of $7,847,200 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head 60-

The sum of $4,948,410 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

11.30 a.m.

SECOND SCHEDULE-

Head D 11-

The sum of $415,000 for Head D 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 15-

The sum of $719,100 for Head D 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 17-

The sum of $1,501,500 for Head D 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 22-

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, it is very regrettable that the amount for the building of houses for the public should be reduced next year under this Head to $7 million when we have spent $21 million for building these houses this year. Only one-third of the amount will be spent on providing houses for the public next year, and it is all the more regrettable because there are 15,000 people on the waiting list. It is very sad for me, Sir, to have to inform those who come to seek my aid to get a Singapore Improvement Trust house for them, that unless they were registered a few years ago their hope of ever getting one for the next ten years is exactly nil.

Sir, this situation is aggravated by the private housing estates having come to a grinding halt: firstly, because they are now unable to obtain loans from building societies; and, secondly, because the City Council has suddenly changed its policy by demanding payment for electricity and water mains leading to the estate. These charges up to a few months ago were paid by the City Council based on a consumption rate of a period of five years. Now, developers are asked to pay for public mains leading from the last section on the main road to the estate - and it may be half a mile. To do this for an estate of just over 100 houses may cost $150,000, and this money must be paid to the City Council before the water and electricity mains are laid and taken up to the boundaries of that estate.

Sir, housing, next to employment, is the most important need in Singapore today and we cannot possibly sit tight and do nothing about it. To my mind, there is one solution to that problem, and that is by studying the growth and position of the illegal houses that have sprung up during the past three years. These houses are built with plank and zinc out of the poorest material - in many cases of waste timber, and the zinc is of the thinnest gauge and will rust and leak within two to three years. It is no use closing our eyes to the defiance of the law by people who have just gone right ahead to build these houses, and exploit the unfortunate people who are short of housing, without submitting plans, without trying to subdivide the land and provide proper drainage or roads. They just go on to the land and build. There are now today about 9,000 to 10,000 of such houses and they are inhabited by people who have paid from $3,000 to $8,000 per house, the price depending upon the distance from the main road. In addition to this cash payment, they have to sign leases of 20 to 30 years, under which they have to pay to the owner of the land or to the lessee (the developer) $10 or $15 per month, and at the end of the period they will have to vacate the land.

Sir, I have studied the position carefully because many people have come to ask me to try and get these houses approved by the City Council or the Rural Board. I have spent much time going and seeing these houses and interviewing the people who have bought them. From my own investigations, I have found that the illegal speculator has made at least $2,000 per house, and taking an average, say, of $2,000 per house on 10,000 houses, these people have cleared a fortune of $20 million. No wonder, Sir, this racket is now spreading like wild fire, and hundreds of such houses are going up every week. No one can be so blind as not to notice them on the roadside in the course of construction, row after row and street after street. If you will only take the trouble to look behind these houses, you will see rows and rows going right into the hinterland. What better business can you have than this one? It is better than running a gambling farm or even smuggling.

Sir, the dreadful part of it is this. When these operators run out of land, which they have obtained with the consent of the owners, they simply go on to any vacant land and build without the permission of the owners. We know two or three cases where the owners protested; they took action, and a murder was attempted. These operators protect themselves by making purchasers sign receipts that the houses have been built by the purchaser at his request. To my astonishment, there are many people who are willing to pay for such flimsy houses which require constant repair, without light or water, and sometimes no drainage, and they are liable to be pulled down over their ears.

Let us examine the legal aspect as I see it. The owner of the land and the speculator have committed three offences under the law. First, by subdividing the land without the approval of the Competent Authority; secondly, by granting a lease of more than seven years without subdividing the land; and thirdly, by building houses without approved plans. For each of these offences, the builder is liable to a fine of $1,000, and/or a fine of $50 a day for a continuing offence until the houses are demolished. Sir, this is indeed a severe punishment and I understand some owners of the land and some speculators have already been before the Courts, but this is not all. In my humble opinion, there is no legal liability for any of the occupiers or tenants of such illegal houses to pay the $10 or $15 rent under the lease, for it is a fundamental principle of law that anyone who comes to Court for justice must have clean hands, and I cannot see any Court granting judgment or a writ of distress to people on contracts which are based on such breaches of the law. The legal position is that if such tenants, who have already been extorted to the tune of $2,000 to $5,000, refuse to pay any further for the right to stay in their houses, they cannot be brought to Court.

Sir, we must now face the situation squarely. Are we to punish those people who have parted with their savings because they were so desperate for a house that they have had to pay for something which they knew to be of no value, taking the risk of being prosecuted in Court and having their houses demolished? Are we not in part to blame for it? If the Singapore Improvement Trust had not broken down in its programme in 1955 and 1956, many of these people would have got a roof over their heads. What have we done to discourage the unscrupulous people from flouting the law? Clearly, Sir, no government in power and none of us in this House can have the heart to see 10,000 families thrown into the streets. It is a situation which we must accept but which must not be aggravated under any circumstances. The situation is like a reservoir that has burst its darn. There is no way of stopping the raging torrent. We can only control its course or contain it by letting the flood run into proper sites.

I therefore make the following suggestions. First, accept illegal houses which were constructed and inhabited prior to the 31st of December, 1958. All such houses, except those which have been built against the wishes of the owner of the land, should be given temporary permits. Secondly, encourage and approve with all possible speed schemes of private building estates for the construction of low-cost houses for sale under $6,000. Thirdly, use all the land that is earmarked for satellite towns in the areas of Woodlands, Sembawang and Jurong for subdivision into small lots, and sell it to the people who will then be able to build their own houses according to approved plans. Fourthly, take drastic steps to prevent any further attemps to build after this year by imposing maximum fines.

Sir, punishment is not enough. Such illegal development must be contained, and it can be done if the Government acquire land around these settlements and then proceed to cut up this land into small lots after providing drains, roads, light and water. These lots can then be sold to the people who will have houses to live in. By doing this, you will have stopped the extension of these illegal houses and will have saved private owners from the headache of putting watchmen on their land.

11.45 a.m.

The first reaction to my proposal will be that it infringes upon the Master Plan, but this is not so. It is provided for under the Report of the Land Clearance and Resettlement Working Party issued as Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 27 of 1956. At page 13, I read:

"It is emphasised that considerable reliance is placed in the Master Plan on the continued erection of temporary dwellings on `tolerated' sites in the Urban Area and on rural resettlement in the Rural Area. They make a significant contribution to the overall housing problem, and the estimated requirement of 10,000 permanent houses a year to be built to solve the housing problem over the next 20 years, which is a basic assumption of the Plan, would have to be revised if this contribution were not made."

There is under this paragraph a table giving the names of 16 kampongs where such houses could be built together with areas and the numbers of families which can be housed. I do not propose to read the figures, but I would like hon. Members to hear the names of the Kampongs: 1-Heap Guan San; 2-Radin Mas; 3-Geylang Serai (Malay Farm); 4-Bukit Arang; 5-Bartley Road; 6-Chantek; 7-Bukit Theresa; 8-Woodleigh; 9-Kallang Pudding; 10-Bedok; 11-Paya Lebar; 12-Tampenis; 13-Serangoon; 14-Jalan Eunos; 15-MacPherson Road South; and 16-Wak Tanjong, covering an area of just over 2,000 acres where a population of nearly 100,000 already live, and where there is a site capacity for a future 9,000 families which is about the number of families already settled there by this illegal housing system.

Sir, it will be noticed then that most of these houses have been built in the "tolerated" sites, and if the developers had chosen to bide their time and submit plans to the Competent Authority, these houses would have been approved; but being unscrupulous businessmen they could not afford to wait for the time. It has taken me, in some cases, nearly two years to have plans approved for 100 houses, and at that rate, for 10,000 houses it will take an eternity. Therefore, who can blame them for building before the plans are approved?

Sir, why should we then not decide to accept the houses already built, but from now to decide that anyone who chooses to try and build houses for the public must conform with the law and provide houses at a reasonable price and not at an extortionate price? The time is now ripe because I consider illegal houses have reached a saturation point. Some builders are finding difficulty in disposing of hastily built houses. Buyers are more selective. Now is the time to move in and build a dam so that the torrent which has now subsided should not be allowed to run wild again. Let us give notice to intending breakers of the law that after the end of this year we shall no longer tolerate any further action to build without plans being approved. Are we so blind that we cannot make use of the clear indication given by these 10,000 houses? They show that people will help themselves if Government will not, that they do not have to be pampered and live in ten-storey flats with modern facilities; that the Government do not have to spend $60 million on Singapore Improvement Trust houses, and after having spent $60 million, to have to subsidise half the rent again, thereby running into many millions more. They show that the people are prepared to pay thousands of dollars for a shack, maintain and repair it, and live for years without light and water and even drainage. All they want is Government to provide the land, subdividing and selling it to them in small lots, and they will do the rest. By using a revolving fund of $1 million, Government will not have to spend a single cent to enable another 10,000 houses to be built by people who are only too anxious and waiting to help themselves. Sir, this $1 million can easily be raised by selling some of the Singapore Improvement Trust flats to the people who live in them and who can well afford to pay. I believe there is a block built for the particular purpose of being sold to tenants. I think it was at Dawson Road. Surely that block should be sold to provide the money for this scheme. This is not the first time that I have brought to the attention of this House this very difficult position. It has caused me considerable worry. I have spent much time and trouble studying the whole position and I think I have presented a case to this House which is reasonable and which can be accepted by all Members.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein." The hon. Member has ranged far and wide in his speech. I have allowed him to continue, as I take it that housing is remotely connected with this grant for the Singapore Improvement Trust. The motion is now open to discussion and there may be a debate on housing in general.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support every word spoken by the Member for Paya Lebar.

In my opinion, Sir, the two main problems which face Government, and for that matter any future Government, are education and housing. Since I was elected a representative of the people in 1950 to this very day, the main work that I have got to do for the people of Singapore, especially in my ward, is to get housing accommodation for them. I have been a constant nuisance to the Singapore Improvement Trust, visiting them practically every week and trying to find out for those who have applied for accommodation for the last three or four years, whether they could get it, and the answer that I receive week in and week out is practically the same, "Be patient, and you might hear some favourable results in the near future."

I think the Singapore Improvement Trust has not been successful in tackling the housing problem. As has been said by the Member for Paya Lebar, we now see a lot of illegal houses being built, in spite of the fact that the people who buy them and live in them know very well that there is no likelihood of staying in them permanently. This shows very clearly that there is a pressing need for housing. I am just wondering why, apart from the suggestions put up by the Member for Paya Lebar - that is, to legalise these illegal buildings; to encourage private enterprise to build low-cost housing of not more than $6,000; and to sell some of the S.I.T. houses - Government has not also considered raising loans from the public. Is it because Government is afraid that if a loan were to be raised, it would receive the same response as the City Council received some time back, Sir? Personally, I maintain that in spite of the criticisms made by Members of the Opposition, this is a good Government and it has got the confidence of the people. I believe that if a loan were to be raised, it would be fully subscribed, if not over-subscribed. The people of Singapore, especially those in responsible positions, have a high sense of duty and any stable Government's project to help the lower income group in a big way will have the support of these people because, if they have made their money in Singapore, I am quite sure they will consider it their duty to help the people of Singapore.

I hope, Sir, that the Government, which is asking for $7 million, will not stop at that but that it will find ways and means of providing more houses for the people of Singapore.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at Head D22, I am surprised at the low figure that is earmarked for housing for next year. According to the Estimates, the amount approved for the three schemes totals over $91 million. In 1957, $30 million was paid out; this year, $21 million is to be paid out; but for next year the amount to be paid out is only estimated at $7 million. I cannot see why this figure should be reduced from $30 million in 1957 to $21 million this year and then to $7 million for next year. It appears to me that the S.I.T. is not pushing ahead with its housing schemes and that it is rather backward with its housing schemes. To combat this, I am glad that the Minister has made an announcement in today's Singapore Standard that the Government will build low-cost houses. I quote from today's Singapore Standard:

"Singapore Government will early next year sell 100 low-cost houses to Malays whose monthly income is below $400."

12.00 noon.

This is very good news indeed because this will help quite a number of people, who have applied for S.I.T. houses, to be housed under this low-cost housing scheme. But I am disappointed that this low-cost housing is only for the benefit of the Malays. I would prefer that the Government, in introducing this scheme, looks after the interests of all communities rather than only one community, because the Government is responsible to the whole of Singapore and not to just one particular community. As I say, if this scheme is open for allotment to everybody then everybody will have a chance to apply for these houses at low cost. At the moment I am told that there are more than 14,000 on the waiting list for houses. How is the S.I.T. going to house all these 14,000, when only $7 million is earmarked for next year? This is really too slow.

The S.I.T. has been attacked on many occasions for its allocation system. A special committee was recently set up to call for suggestions from the public, Assemblymen and City Councillors, and all other organizations and political Parties. It is very disappointing to note that only 21 sent in suggestions for allocation of houses. If there are criticisms against the S.I.T., it is the duty of the critics to send in suggestions for consideration. I cannot understand why the public or political organisations are not interested in making any suggestions.

I can only hope that, with the introduction of this new scheme, it will beat the racket of illegal houses, as quoted by the Member for Paya Lebar. It is a known fact that illegal houses have sprung up everywhere - in the Amber Road area, in the Bartley Road area, and many other places. Cases have gone to Court, as quoted in the papers recently, and certainly I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar that it is not the occupants who break the law, but the racketeers. Unfortunately, the law is such that although the buildings of the racketeers are considered to be illegal, the landowner, ignorant of the law, is also brought to Court. This is really unfair. When the City Council was considering the question of housing in the attap areas, which was reported in the newspapers, a few racketeers get themselves together and started building houses either on their own land or on other people's land. As quoted by the Member for Paya Lebar, these unscrupulous racketeers take advantage by selling these illegally erected houses to people who are looking for houses and who are prepared to move in, not knowing that the houses are illegal. And when these people apply to the Council for assessment after a few months' occupation, they realise that these houses are illegal, and the poor tenants are thus victimised.

I cannot see why the Government should not stamp it out now. As the Member for Paya Lebar said, "This is now the time to step in and stop further illegal houses." He has put forward three suggestions one of which is: accept illegal houses which were constructed and inhabited prior to 31st December, 1958. All such houses, except those which have been built against the wishes of the owner of the land, are to be given temporary permits. I fully agree with him, but not with the date, because there are about 12 to 13 days between now and 31st December, and when this debate gets into the papers after today's sitting, and if the Government really considers this scheme acceptable, I am afraid the operators will again start building illegal houses within this short period. We have known that such houses can be built within a day or two or overnight, as in the case of Amber Road. So within these 12 days if about 100 houses can be built overnight, we will find another few thousand houses springing up within this short period. We should take action against those who build after today, and that is quite fair. We have relaxed the law so much that such operations have been going on and on, and I think the Government should stop it as from today. Only then are we able to protect the occupants of such illegal houses. They had to borrow money to buy them and, after having borrowed money to pay for them, they find that the houses and the land do not belong to them, nor can they stay in the houses. If the Government is really accepting this scheme, I hope it will not be the 31st of December, 1958, but it will be from today, and drastic action should be taken against those who build houses as from today onwards.

The Member for Paya Lebar said that a fine is not sufficient. I agree. What is the use of imposing a fine on a man who puts up a house illegally and benefited by it by a few thousand dollars? Apart from the fine, the house should be demolished. Concrete action should be taken, not on paper only, or mere words. If a demolition order is issued by the Court, action should immediately follow and the house pulled down. But for those who have already received demolition orders, as quoted by the Member for Paya Lebar, I hope the Government will try to introduce something so that the Court could be given the powers to withdraw those demolition orders and that they be given assessment, or given the authority to stay. This requires some amendment to the law, and I do hope the Government will consider taking quick action to do so.

The Minister for Housing made a statement to the Singapore Standard, which I now quote from that paper of today's date:

"He said that as far as the Malays were concerned, Singapore Improvement Trust houses are a failure.

The majority of them, he said, could not afford to pay the rent for S.I.T. houses."

But where I am concerned, I think the S.I.T. is a complete and a total failure. It is not only the Malays who consider the S.I.T. a failure, but all the communities in Singapore - the Chinese, the Malays, the Indians, everyone who requires a house - consider the S.I.T. is a complete failure. So the sooner the Housing Authority comes into being, the better it is for all.

The Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Mr Tan Theng Chiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the hon. Member for Paya Lebar's views with great interest, because they are of considerable merit and because my Ministry is in fact already working along lines similar to those he has outlined. As my Ministry is in charge of housing, Sir, I am still convinced that the best policy for Government in the long run will be to provide permanent housing, as the saving in the cost of repairs and maintenance will eventually offset the additional expense of erecting permanent buildings and as in "land-short" Singapore, the maximum ultilization of land is desirable.

However, in view of the present economic situation, limiting the number of permanent houses which can be built, and on the other hand, taking into account the alarming number of unauthorised temporary houses that have sprung up, it has become clear that a fresh approach to the problem has to be made. Our main problem, therefore, is how the present monies allocated for housing can most profitably be used for permanent housing needs, as well as take account of this emergency situation. The present policies my Ministry is following and the new approaches being explored to solve this problem are:

Squatters on land required for permanent development are either offered S.I.T. accommodation or, alternatively, they are offered a plot of land and a temporary house. One of the hon. Member's solutions is an extension of this alternative scheme of resettlement;

My Ministry is now working on a small pilot scheme, whereby Government will provide the main services including road access, layout into building lots and will invite applications from the public;

The suggestion of facilitating the private development of low-cost housing is already being studied. This involves two main proposals:

(1) S.I.T. planning approval in respect of densities, layout, sub-division, and

(2) local authority approval in respect of building requirements laid down in the building by-laws.

The hon. Member may be aware of a prototype scheme which is already under consideration, having been carefully examined by both the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Rural Board. We shall be better able to judge the merits of this scheme once it has been completed.

The hon. Member will appreciate that temporary solutions often give rise to greater problems in the long run. Minimum standards of density, open space, community requirements would also have to be agreed in each case. There are also fire, health and social hazards to be considered. Access roads, layouts and building standards are also important. It is essential that the greatest care must be taken unless we want to add to our problems instead of solving them.

From my foregoing remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Paya Lebar can feel assured that housing in all its aspects is receiving the closest attention by my Ministry and that his views will be followed up.

Sir, in reply to criticisms about the delays in respect of applications for approval of plans, I wish to tell hon. Members in this House that all applications received up to 19th March, 1958, are being dealt with on 6th May, 1958, and those received on 1st April are being dealt with by 20th May. The latest lot that the S.I.T. received on 8th October are being dealt with on 4th November. Sir, from these, hon. Members will know that plans received by the S.I.T. are now dealt with with the minimum delay.

In reply to the hon. Member for Queenstown, I have to tell him that the $7 million estimated to be paid in 1959 is a standstill figure, and we have got $2 million more in addition to this $7 million estimated for 1959, and it is up to the next Government to plan for any additional expenditure.

12.15 p.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of the growing population and the 15,000 applicants who are still without accommodation, the Government has allotted much less than the previous year for housing. Although $7 million has been allotted for the Singapore Improvement Trust for the building of houses, I have not seen any other allocations on this item.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will probably take some time?

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: Then it is time to suspend.

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

Mr Speaker: I suspend this Assembly. I will take this Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.17 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 to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein."-[Mr Lim Koon Teck].

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

Question again proposed.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Mr Speaker, Sir, during the interval I was reminded by a Member of this House that I should have read the Budget and the Budget speech. I have read the Budget and the Budget speech. I realise the difficulties of the Government, the difficulty of geting more revenue and the difficulty of meeting more urgent needs, such as education, medical and other necessities. If we cannot allot more money to housing, that does not mean that we can just forget about it. We must start finding some remedy to improve the situation where practicable. When we mention housing, the people of Singapore automatically think of the Singapore Improvement Trust. The Singapore Improvement Trust has two duties to perform - one is housing and the other is planning.

I have seen the Singapore Standard this morning, where the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing was quoted as saying that, as far as housing for the Malays is concerned, the Singapore Improvement Trust is a failure. I would like to go further than that. As far as housing in Singapore is concerned, the Singapore Improvement Trust is a, failure. When I say that, Sir, I do not mean that the houses being put up are bad. What they have put up is, I think, as good as is expected of them. But the Singapore Improvement Trust is not the only body which can carry out housing development in Singapore. Other countries which do not have an organisation like the Singapore Improvement Trust manage to solve their housing problem. The private individuals of Singapore have also contributed towards solving the housing problem. If I remember correctly, Sir, I think the number of buildings put up by private individuals is more or less what the Singapore Improvement Trust has built in all these years.

The approach of the Singapore Improvement Trust to the housing problem is entirely wrong. It thinks of ideals. If we can, we all like to have ideals. But if we cannot, let us be practical. Housing is one of the three primary necessities of life. The other two are, of course, clothing and food. If a person cannot find a nice flat in which to stay, he ought to be satisfied with a room. If he cannot even get a room, then he should be satisfied with, say, a shack or a portion of a shack. If he cannot get even that, then he should be prepared to accept even a shed, whether there is any enclosure or not. On that question, I think the Singapore Improvement Trust's policy as regards housing is a failure.

In this island, Sir, there are hundreds and thousands of attap huts. I do not think these people would like to stay in them. On the question of attap houses, Singapore is not the only example. All over Malaya, in fact, most countries of the world have this problem. I do not think any country, however fortunate it may be, can say there are enough houses for its people. I have mentioned the example of housing in Hongkong some months ago in this House. I was told by the Minister that is not good for Singapore. I have personally examined those buildings, and I have also examined those shacks built by them before they vacated to these apartments, with some of the Ministers of the Federation. I do agree that living in one room in a block of flats with five or six storeys with no elevators, is not ideal for anyone, and if possible, we should never do it. But necessity is really important in this matter. If you cannot afford to let them have bigger flats, with one bedroom, one sitting room, or even when the bathroom and W.C. are attached, then they should at least have a room where they can be protected from the weather. That is the reason why the Hongkong Government put up those flats. That is the reason why the housing officers in Hongkong told me to do the same.

Today, there are 15,000 people on the waiting list for houses, and there is no chance in the near future that they all could be satisfied. So, as I said, we must try to find some other solution that can ease this housing shortage. I think I can safely say that I have been studying the housing problem for the last twenty years. Whenever I visit any foreign countries, whether in the East or the West or anywhere else, my primary concern has always been housing. Although I am an architect, I take more interest in trying to solve the problem of the poor man, by trying to find out how we can provide him with the maximum shelter which he can afford, than the problem of how to make the millionaires' houses more beautiful. The millionaire's house may be less beautiful but he will not suffer as much as the poor man.

So, in this respect, the question of housing the poor is always close to my heart. From my experience for the last twenty years, it seems to me that the officers of the Singapore Improvement Trust who are responsible for planning are more concerned with how to make the gardens of the millionaires beautiful, rather than how to meet the necessities of the poor man. They possibly think that the sweat of the poor man could contaminate the air which the millionaire breathes, and as they are there to protect the millionaires and not the people of Singapore, they must turn down whatever reasonable schemes are submitted by the people. They are not the officers of the people. They are there to protect vested interests! They are there to protect the millionaires' gardens! They are there to protect the investors! Even today, having a small house or a semi-detached house next to a bungalow is considered a disgrace to them. It would automatically bring down the value of that district. Such is the type of officers we have in the Singapore Improvement Trust.

I can say, Sir, that personally they have done me no wrong. But I am not here to speak for myself. I am here to speak for the people, and as far as the people are concerned, all these officers can go. When carrying out their duties, they may think, "I have created a few ideal towns. I have a few ideal planning schemes." They might even get some medals from the Town Planning Institute. But I can assure the officers concerned that these medals which they may have are stained with the blood of the people of Singapore. Their children would be only too pleased to get rid of them as a reminder of their forefathers' crime to the people of Singapore.

When you ask the S.I.T. officers concerned, "What is wrong with my plan? Why do you not approve it?", they will reply, "It is not we who do not approve it. It is the Committee appointed by the Governor." I do not know under what qualifications these so-called committees have been appointed. But to me I can only conclude that they are appointed because they know nothing about housing so that they can be fooled by the officers of the Singapore Improvement Trust. I am not exaggerating when I say this.

With your permission, I wish to quote a case which occurred only two weeks ago. I attended a meeting to consider some of the plans. They concerned a semi-detached house in Holland Road. The officers objected to it. Naturally I asked them what was the objection. They said that the area had nice residences, and the bungalow was a semi-detached house. I asked what was wrong with it. They said that it did not conform to the amenities of the area. I asked them what amenities they were referring to, since opposite there was a graveyard and there were a few bungalows. Then I asked the planning officer at the meeting whether he agreed that the plan conformed to the density in the Master Plan. He replied that he agreed, but said that it still did not conform to the amenities of the area concerned. So I asked him what he meant by amenities and whether he could explain to me clearly. He said it was very easy. Since my house was a semi-detached one and the others were detached houses, I was not conforming to the amenities. For example, if a house was a two-storey building and the other a one-storey building, that was not conforming to the amenities. This was the reply I received from one of the officers. So I turned round and asked him to consider the whole lot of bungalows at Meyer Road and the six-storey hotel, whether he considered the six-storey hotel conformed to the amenities as reflected by the bungalows in Meyer Road. He said no. I was on the point of telling him that maybe it was because he had been so influenced by string-pulling that the word "amenity" had already changed its meaning. But I thought that it was no use talking to this type of people.

They do not listen to your arguments. As I have said before, they have already made up their minds before you go in. So what is the use of talking?

In another case, Sir, I went with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. After long consideration, they said: "Well, I have no objection now, but what about the future? You may change." That is the attitude you get from the Trust. About the future, Sir, who can foretell? Who can foretell what will be in 10 years' time? Could we have thought, 10 years ago, that we could have such political advancement in 1958? We never thought of it. We may plan, but really there is no way of foretelling the future. Such is the type of argument and obstruction put up by the Singapore Improvement Trust.

Sir, every time I go to Hongkong, I am stunned - there is so vast a change that I sometimes think whether I have gone to the right place. They have apartment houses or flats, as you call here, 10 and 20 storeys high on the main road. But if you ever try to put up such sort of scheme in Singapore, they will ask you first, "Where is your car park?" Even if you tell them, "Oh, these are poor people; they do not have cars. They do not need car parks", the reply, Sir, will be, "Oh, these people will be rich one day. They will then have cars. Where is your solution?" I told them, Sir, and we also discussed this fully in the Building By-laws Revision Committee in the City Council some years ago.

The question of a car park is not the responsibility of the individual. It is almost the universal practice all over the world for Governments to solve the question of car parks. If you consider that there should be no parking in the streets or side streets, then you should prohibit parking. If you are thinking of a way to prevent people parking, then the only thing to do is to impose a fee on it. You find it all over America. I think you can probably find it even in Hawaii.

So, money alone is not sufficient to solve the housing problem. We must have an atmosphere in which sympathetic consideration is given by the Government officers concerned. It is then that we can attract not only foreign capital but also a lot of other capital which is now either in the bank or somewhere else.

2.45 p.m.

Another point about the S.I.T. policy. The Member for Paya Lebar has suggested that S.I.T. flats could be sold to the people staying there and the money could be utilised to build more flats. I am strongly in support of that proposal, Sir,If the flats in town could be sold, why should not the fiats built by the S.I.T. be sold too?

Another suggestion I would like to make is this. Governments all over the world, especially the United States, are subsidising housing in another form. They have made available to the people loans at a nominal interest.

In that respect, Sir, we do not only solve the housing problem of that particular person, but also it can be used as the best weapon against Communism. If a person owns a house or owns property here, I am sure he is more attached to this country. He will also have less hatred and enmity towards those who have property and houses.

We know very well, Sir, that we collect a lot of money in the Employees' Provident Fund from the public. Instead of investing this money somewhere else - I do not know whether they have or not, but I do know that a lot of money in Singapore has been invested somewhere else - I would suggest that this money be made available to housing estates towards solving one of the problems.

The third question, Sir, concerns squatters. We are very sympathetic towards them. Whether they have the right legally or illegally to the land, they are there. Although there are some squatters who occupy the land and build houses for profit, most of them, however, stay there, not because they like to stay there but because that is the only place available for them to stay. The Government had recommended certain scales of compensation for these squatters, but every time it approached the squatters with this scheme, it was always turned down in the hope of getting something else. I think it is high time the Government should step in to solve the squatter problem. Without solving this problem, housing estates could not be built. If it is considered by the Government that those developers should contribute towards the cost of solving such a problem, I am all for it. This is a problem that is facing not only the developers but the Government as well. So I think the Government should formulate a policy and try to assist the developers.

In the past, Sir, the question of private housing seemed to the Government to be a matter not worth considering. They would insist on what they wanted, although it could easily be relaxed under the circumstances. So, in this respect, I hope the Government will consider all these points, not as points of attack but as points of suggestion. I hope the next Government will take heed.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Sir, since my hon, friend has brought up Hongkong as an example - I was not quite sure whether he was advocating that Singapore should adopt the same policies for relieving the housing situation or not - but, since he has brought it up, perhaps I might advise the House of the size of the problem in Hongkong, with which the Hongkong authorities were confronted in comparison with the size of the problem here, because I think it is necessary that this matter should be put into perspective.

In Hongkong, they were faced with an influx of population in 1949, 1950 and 1951, of round about three-quarters of a million people and they set up their attap huts and structures, little leantos, wherever they could find a space on the hillsides, in the open areas, on the pavements of the roads, in the streets and on the rooftops.

In December 1953, a very severe fire broke out which rendered something like 50,000 people homeless. When I say homeless, I mean they lost just the attap shacks, the leantos in which they had been living.

It was at that stage that the Hongkong Government decided that it was necessary to take the matter in hand in a big way, and in view of the size of the problem, it could only be solved by speed and by providing sub-standard housing.

The squatter resettlement housing units to which my hon, friend has referred are seven-storey blocks, and each floor has communal bathing and latrine facilities, and the rooms are, to the best of my recollection, 10 ft. by 12 ft. in which a family of five are permitted to live.

And they pay a rent of HK$14 a month.

Through this means of putting up substandard basic subsistence housing, it has been possible for the Hongkong Government to house at the time I left, about a year ago, between a quarter of a million and 300,000 people who have been accommodated and taken off the streets.

The size of the squatter problem still remaining was roughly the same number, about a quarter of a million to 300,000, and of those, some 60,000 to 70,000 were squatting on rooftops and there were still a certain number in the streets.

Sir, I do suggest that in considering what has been done in Hongkong and what is desirable and appropriate for the people of Singapore, particularly in regard to the standard of housing, it is necessary to remember and put into perspective the respective problems confronting the two Governments.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, in the jungles of Malaya monkeys swing from tree to tree with their long prehensile tails. In this Assembly the debate swings on from day to day with the long prehensile tongues of our Assemblymen.

The Chairman: Order. We had some reference to a monkey god, I recollect, and now I think the hon. Member is drawing a comparison between monkeys and Members of this Assembly. I suggest that that is unparliamentary. The Minister should withdraw that comparison.

Mr Francis Thomas: I will certainly withdraw it, Sir, if you think it is an uncomplimentary comparison to make. I was really applauding the vigour with which this Assembly pursues the debate and the flood of oratory which has been poured forth!

However, I come to the point I wish to make. I do not agree with the attacks made on the S.I.T. The matter has been discussed very frequently before. I would just remark in passing that, by quoting particular cases, or a selection of cases, you can make anything appear good or anything appear bad. You must have a much more thorough examination than that.

But what I want to point out are two dangers which appear to me to follow possibly from the sort of speeches we have had made about the S.I.T.

Even if all the faults alleged against the S.I.T. were true faults, then we would still need to have the services and the controls which the S.I.T. provides.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Not these men!

3.00 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: It may well be that in any public service there are defects. They are operated by human beings, and human beings have defects; but you must not sacrifice the services for that reason, particularly in this matter. The housing and development matters of Singapore are absolutely vital for the poor people of Singapore - for the workers. And they must not be sacrified to ruthless exploitation by private property and private profit-making interests. That is the thing we have to guard against. That is why we have to have controls of all sorts, because the pressure of population on the land and housing resources is so great and the chance of exploitation is so great that you must have the best system of controls you can. Inevitably whenever you have controls, you have people who do not like them and there will be hard cases and there might even be injustices. This has to be accepted. But you cannot do without them all the same.

The other point I wish to make is that you must have public services in Singapore. We have heard a great deal, as democracy has become more powerful here, of violent attacks on public servants. I am not referring to expatriates - whether they are European expatriates, or Indian expatriates, or Japanese expatriates or whoever they may be - I am referring to local boys and girls, educated here, born here, brought up here and serving here, and these are the people who are now already beginning to say, "Perhaps I had better move to another place because this is an intolerable town to work in." If you are a public servant, your mouth is shut, you cannot reply and you have got to listen to endless public noisy attacks on you. If those who attack our public servants succeed in driving them out of the territory, they will have nothing to replace them with. You cannot replace, at short notice, the experience and skill acquired over a period of years. I do see the most serious danger that if these attacks go on for the next few years, there will be a serious rundown in the already hardpressed local officers who have got to carry on the public services of Singapore.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I will be allowed to clarify one point which has been raised in connection with the Estimates.

We have been criticised for making only $7 million available for housing this year. I thought, Sir, that I had explained the situation when I presented the Budget. There are three reasons. The Development Estimates provide only for the completion of work in hand. These reasons were, firstly, the amount which we could still make available from reserves was limited. In the second instance, development in the future would have to be financed mainly from loans, and we did not know how successful we would be in this respect in 1959. Lastly, we did not wish to tie the hands of the next government by commencing too many costly public works. These are the reasons why no more was provided for housing. We merely provided enough to allow the S.I.T. to complete the contracts in hand. It is not that Government does not appreciate the importance of housing. I think the expenditure over the past four years indicates just how much importance Government does attach to housing. Over 25 per cent of all development expenditure was spent on housing. I am sure that the next government will feel much the same way about it as the present Government. It is a most important matter. I should imagine that one of the first things that the new Government will do will be to consider housing in connection with the Supplementary Development Estimates which will be put forward once they have decided when and how much they will obtain from a loan.

At the same time, I must again draw attention to a point which I made before, and that is that, with the best will in the world, it is doubtful if any future government will be able to make as much available for housing as we have been able to do in the past. The money will just not be there. It would therefore be necessary to make what we obtain for housing go as far as possible, and to think out alternative and complementary schemes to meet the demand for it. It is for these reasons that Government welcomes all the suggestions which have been made today. I can assure hon. Member's that all the suggestions which have been made will be examined with great care. Some of them, of course, have already been examined, or are in the process of being examined by Government. I have much sympathy with some of the suggestions. I have felt for some time that we should explore the one-room flatlet concept more thoroughly than we have done. At the same time, I must point out that our examination of the problem to date has indicted that it is not as easy as some hon. Members would suppose. In point of fact, Sir, the cost of a one-room flatlet which would be acceptable to the people of Singapore is not very much different from the cost of a two-room flatlet. But I think we should examine the matter yet again and again, because I feel there is some solution which will enable us to meet the housing problem.

With regard to the suggestion from the Member for Paya Lebar that we should create a revolving fund, I would like to be certain that the fund would revolve and that the people who would benefit from it would be able to repay the sum which they borrowed from the fund. Even if we could have an assurance on that point, there would still remain, at this particular point in time, the trouble of finding money for the fund. But then again, Sir, if this scheme were to offer a part solution to the housing problem, I am sure the Government will go a very long way to try and provide facilities for the scheme.

One hon. Member did mention that he saw no trouble in floating a loan for housing. With respect, I doubt whether that is the case. I think we will find it extremely hard to float a loan for housing specifically and, in any event, Sir, the proceeds of any loans which we have to float in the future for development will have to be divided amongst all the projects to which Government attaches priority; one of which, of course, is housing.

Another hon. Member, Sir, said that the money subscribed to the Central Provident Fund should be used for housing. I think he also said that the money in the Provident Fund should be invested in this territory. On that latter point, Sir, I have every sympathy and I would say that I hope that the Board of the Provident Fund will in the future see their way to invest rather more locally than they have done in the past.

On the other point Sir, I would say that we will have to rely to a very great extent on the support of the Provident Fund for any future loan which is floated in Singapore and, as I said, we cannot devote all the subscriptions from that fund to housing. It would have to be apportioned amongst the other projects to which Government attaches importance.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the Member for Pasir Panjang has brought up two points. One is the question of money and the other is the question of building standards.

With regard to the allocation of money, I think the Hon, the Financial Secretary has replied to that. With regard to the lowering of standards, I think this morning the Assistant Minister has already spoken on this point in his reply to the Member for Paya Lebar. The prototype scheme is being studied and when it has been completed, we shall be able to come to our conclusions. For the purpose of this scheme, the standards are being reduced in many ways. Maximum densities are being allowed, and certain local government building by-laws with regard to room space, height of ceilings, foundations, roads, drains and sewerage are being waived to agreed standards. However, this scheme is only in respect of low-cost housing, that is, for houses which can be sold for not more than $5,000. This does not mean, of course, that the standard of all types of houses should be lowered.

Earlier this morning again, Sir, I think the Member for Queenstown did ask why there should be preferential allotment of money for housing the Malays. Sir, Members are aware of the poverty of the members of my community. If we were to look at the social strata of the people of Singapore, we will find that in the case of the Chinese community we have the capitalist class, the professional class, the upper middle class, the lower middle class and the workers. The distribution is the same with regard to the Indian community. But when it comes to the Malay community, we have no Malay capitalists, no Malay professional class, no Malay upper middle class, very few in the lower middle class; the majority of them are workers. In fact, I can say that in Singapore 99 per cent of my community come from a class drawing a salary of not more than $120 a month. It is for this reason, Sir, that we on this side of the House feel that the time has come for Government to come forward and help the Malay community with regard to housing. Of course, I know that there are also members of other communities faced with the same difficulties, as poverty knows no communal barriers, but to them the housing provided by the Singapore Improvement Trust built on long-term loans, at lower than normal rates of interest, provides some relief. Generally the Malays find the Singapore Improvement Trust houses unsuited to their requirements, as is evidenced by their very sparse representation in the Singapore Improvement Trust rentals and on the housing register. The Trust tenant is not asked to provide any capital contribution towards his own housing, and it is considered equitable that the Malay settler should be assisted in the provision of such housing.

We must not forget, Sir, with regard to housing in Singapore, that for years now the Government of Singapore has spent millions of dollars on resettlement and compensation; but there again, unfortunately, the Malay community has not benefited at all and I think, Sir, it is the duty of this Government, or of any government in the future, if it wants to be honest and fair to all, to see that every citizen of Singapore gets a fair share of the country's wealth.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that the Minister has misunderstood what I said this morning. As a matter of fact, I congratulated the Government for introducing such a scheme for the Malay community. What I said this morning was that I would be far happier if the same type of scheme could be offered to all other communities instead of introducing it for a particular community.

3.15 p.m.

Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary gave reasons that the Government did not want to tie the hands of the next government when budgeting only $7 million for housing next year. By such an explanation, do I take it that whilst this $7 million was provided for in the Budget, he took into consideration the life of this Government which may be up to next April or the life of the S.I.T. which may be a matter of two or three months, or is it budgeted for a whole year? If it is for a whole year, then that $7 million is inadequate. I would also like to know how many housing units will this $7 million provide in Scheme No. 6. Scheme No. 7 and Scheme No. 8.

Mr Chew Swee Kee rose-

The Chairman: Is it a business motion?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Yes.

The Chairman: Order. I will then suspend the sitting of the Committee to enable a business motion to be moved.

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