APPROPRIATION BILL

The Chairman: We are still on the Question, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein."

3.18 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Improvement Trust have been tackling the problem of housing and planning. They have asked the public to come forward, as the Member for Queenstown said, to help them in the allocation of houses. I have received such an invitation, but I have declined to appear. The reason is very simple. With so very few houses and with so many applicants, it is just impossible to allocate them to all the applicants. No matter how much of a genius you are, you cannot solve that problem satisfactorily if you do not have enough houses. It is like in a state of famine - you have two bags of rice to feed a population of 10,000 people, and you are invited to distribute the rice as best you can. No matter how it goes, there will be a larger number of people going hungry, and only a few are satisfied.

I view the problem of housing in a general way. If the S.I.T. were efficient in its housing and planning, the housing problem would not be so acute. If it cannot build enough houses, I am certain that private enterprise could have been encouraged by the Trust to help build enough houses. The failure of the Trust can be seen by the fact that more than 10,000 unauthorised houses have sprung up. There are a few reasons given for this. One is that anybody who wants to build a house finds it very irksome to go to the S.I.T. to ask for their plans to be approved. In fact, in the minds of the people of Singapore, or anybody who wants to build a house, the building and planning authorities of the S.I.T. are more an obstruction to them than a help! In fact, many of them, when told, "If you want to build a little house, you must first go to this department and then to the S.I.T., and then come back again to the other department," feel, "Well, this is too much for us. We will rather put up a house in any old way possible. We will face the consequences. We will appear in Court after receiving the summons and we will happily pay our fines and live in our houses." Now such has been the attitude of the people and, in many instances, I regret to say personal experience has borne out that fact.

If the Planning Department and the Housing Authority had been sympathetic with the public (one of the officers in the Planning Section is very helpful to the public) the public would be encouraged. Now I will say what is the attitude of this particular officer that the people want to praise him for? You go to him with a problem and he tells you what the situation is. He goes further, and advises you as to the many ways in which you can utilize your land or alter your building or whatever it is to dovetail with the Master Plan. Now, that officer has the support of the people generally. Sir, not all officers in Government or in the Trust are condemned by the people. No, Sir. Many are praised. We have heard in this Assembly praises going out to so many of the Government officers. Of course, if there are praises, there must be grouses too. I would say that if a grouse comes from one or two individuals about one or two civil servants, we will say that their view is probably biased; they probably have an axe to grind. But if it is the general opinion of the people of Singapore, whether supported by facts or not, there must be something wrong! I am not a builder or a developer. I have not put up houses of my own, except public institutions, and yet I speak in this trend not for anything else but merely to point out to Government that if there is a grouse, that grouse must be investigated. In all probability, it might be justified, and if the people are satisfied with Government departments, work can be done more smoothly. I am certain that with more people like the Planning Officer I have mentioned just now, Singapore can build houses much more rapidly than we can imagine.

I know that sometimes it is very difficult for us to say whether the Planning Department is the authority for education, or the Education Ministry is the authority! I have had a case of a school which has to go through that department. This happened to be in the rural area - the burial ground at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. According to the Master Plan, if you have one acre of land, you can only have five classrooms and no more. I happened to be a Member of the Select Committee on the Education Bill, and I remember the Minister said, "We are very short of playing fields and when this matter comes up, we will consider every case most sympathetically." I remember this clearly, because I had his assurance before I withdrew my amendment. Then we have cases where the Government agree, and even the S.I.T. agree. I know that it stares us in the face - the school at Coleman Street with little playground is allowed to carry on with its building. We know that there is another school in Telok Ayer Street that is allowed to run, with practically no playground at all. These are Government-aided schools. Yet I know of another school, a Government school, the Stamford Girls' School that is built on land with almost no playing field. And yet when any plan goes to the S.I.T. for a school building, they insist on large tracts of land as playground for a school, either in town or in the rural areas. I fail to see eye to eye with them, and I fail to see where the co-operation is between the Trust and the Ministry of Education.

Now with so many unauthorised hr uses coming up in the rural areas, Sir, I think there is also another reason, and that is because the public are house-hungry. They are prepared to pay anything in order to have a roof over them. This situation is created, of course, as you know, by the slow planning and slow passing of plans, and this situation is also exploited by many people. I know that landowners with large estates will not stop at exploiting people who want to build houses. I know that they charge something like $800 for permission to be given to the person wanting to build a house, say, 20 feet by 40 feet; or they give that permission based on a fee of a dollar per square foot. The builder has no alternative. He has no money to pay for a big piece of land, because land is always sold in big lots. And he has to build. Again he comes across difficulties with the authorities. He dare not build his house. Therefore, the racketeers come in to cash in on such difficulties. That problem is created by difficulties experienced by the people wanting to build their own houses. The racketeers come in, build the houses and tell them that they have been passed by the proper authorities, otherwise they would not be there. Money changes hands and the person living in the unauthorised house, of course, will receive a summons. He faces the consequences, not the builder.

Sir, I have advocated in this House many times the allocation of land for people wanting to build their own houses. I remember on many occasions I have related what the squatters did - they banded themselves together to pay the land, as in the case of the Union Housing Estate in Upper Serangoon, where they got together and bought the land from the landowner. They subdivided the land into lots amongst themselves and built their own houses or improved the houses that were existing on the estate.

3.30 p.m.

I support, Sir, the move made by the Member for Paya Lebar to get the Government to have a revolving fund to buy land for attap dwellers. If an attap dweller or anybody wants to pay a dollar per square foot for land on which permission is given to him to build, then I see no reason why anybody who wants to build cannot buy that piece of land from Government at $1,000 or $2,000 - probably not at $1 per square foot, but at fifty cents per square foot. It will help when the people have the land, for then they will dare to sink in their money. There will then be less grouse about this housing shortage.

I have always advocated that Government should help the people to help them solve their housing problem. If we have little plots of land laid out properly, plans put up simply and easily, and passed quickly by the authorities, it will go a very long way towards helping the people of Singapore.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all hon. Members will agree with me that we are deeply impressed by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing for his emotional and sincere reply about providing houses for the Malay community. If I am not mistaken, this Government is unfortunately only responsible to the Assembly, and the Assembly does not have direct administrative control over the planning and housing problems of the S.I.T. Therefore, the responsibility is unfortunately in the hands of the energetic and sympathetic Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, who is close to the mass of the people. If I may use an English proverb - the tackling of the housing problem up to the last few years has been just like putting the cart before the horse. Everything was done to provide for the middle class. The middle class, in the mind of the City planner, is a very important group; they are a stabilising factor in our country; and therefore all housing projects (although the taxpayers' money has been expended for this purpose) have been concentrated on building houses and providing for the convenience of the middle class. Sir, I hate to term this the old colonial policy, but it looks exactly like a colonial policy. It is entirely removed from the poor masses, who cry out for a little security and to be able to live in attap houses. But they do not get the chance despite the efforts of the hard-working Department of Information Services Officers who have issued pamphlets and pictures to publicise the Master Plan.

Sir, I am telling the truth. The kampong folks, whether they are Malays or Chinese, are farmers or fishermen. They just could not care less for the so-called Master Plan. What do multi-storey buildings mean to them? Nothing! They know they cannot afford to pay the rent to live in them. I wonder whether the Minister has any figures at hand so as to inform this House of the number of eviction notices that have been served by the S.I.T. authorities on those tenants who have failed to pay their rent. How many summonses have they served? Why? It is just because these tenants cannot afford to pay the rent. The Minister will say that there are thousands of people who are on the waiting list for houses, and if the tenants cannot pay the rent they must quit. The Government do not care where they go. The S.I.T. authorities serve the eviction notices, and if the tenants fail to pay the rent, their furniture is seized and auctioned. The S.I.T. could not care much about the consequences. As long as the tenants are unable to pay the rent, they have to quit. It is not easy to find a piece of land. I mentioned yesterday that the landlord knows that if he wants to make a piece of land valuable, he must not allow squatters to settle on it. If there are any squatters, the price will be reduced to nothing.

That is the problem. That is the main reason why the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has moved to build a Malay settlement scheme. Naturally, Sir, he deserves the full support of this House. I hope that it will be only the first step. Any government and any Ministry in charge of housing should bear this problem in mind. Do not make the silly mistake of supporting only the middle class who can well afford to pay a rent of $20 or $30 a month. But do the Government know that many of the poor ra'ayat - whether Malays or Chinese - cannot earn as much as $20 or $30 a month? I know too well that many farmers in my kampong at Siglap receive public assistance allowances from the Department of Social Welfare.

On the subject of encouraging people to buy their own houses, I have advocated several times that the Government should ask the S.I.T. to sell their flats to those tenants who are willing to buy them. With the money obtained from this sale, Government could build more houses for the lower income group. Of course, the Minister will reply that in some places, low-cost houses have been put up and that there are a lot of houses at Paterson Road for the lower income group. But they are still not sufficient. What I would like to advocate is this: stop building multi-storey flats, which are usually rented to tenants who own cars, estates and have houses of their own. I have already made a statement that the tenants of S.I.T. flats often have two or three wives. Sir, this is, of course, very true. These tenants are able to pay the rent charged for S.I.T. flats whatever the amount. The Government should find ways and means of raising money from these wealthy tenants of S.I.T. flats by compelling them to buy their flats. If the tenants fail to do so, they must quit the flats. The money obtained from this sale could be spent on building more low-cost houses for the lower income group.

My third point is to urge the Government to survey the future. Is it possible for the planners of housing projects to make a thorough survey of the capital income of the population in Singapore, before any planning of housing projects is started? If the Government are sure that the majority of the population belong to the middle class, or that the majority of the wage-earners will be able to pay a rent of, say, $20 per month, then Government should build more houses at a rental of $20 per month. But at present the majority are not able to pay even this rent. So it is common for these tenants of S.I.T. flats to be served eviction notices when they fail to pay their rents.

These eviction notices are also served on those who share their flats with one or more families. The authorities could not understand why the tenants share their flats. Why cannot these families live in one flat? This is an economic problem. It is because the tenants cannot pay the high rent charged that they are forced to share their flats with some other families. The sub-tenants need not be their friends. Any stranger who can help them pay the rent will be accepted as a sub-tenant. This is a fact, and yet the S.I.T. have no mercy on them. As long as they find that there are unauthorised tenants in the flat, they force them to quit. I cannot understand why. Everybody likes a comfortable home; everybody likes to occupy a whole flat if he can afford it. But if he cannot pay or is unemployed, there is no harm in his sub-letting his flat.

I came across a case two weeks ago of an unemployed tenant who had been in receipt of public relief assistance for nine months, and who was sharing his flat with two bachelors - one a teacher and the other a clerk. But unfortunately, these two occupants were told to quit when the S.I.T. authorities discovered the sub-letting. This tenant was forced to sub-let his flat to two other families, one a newly-married couple and the other a family of three - husband, wife and a son. But the S.I.T. officers also discovered this and the tenant was told either to quit the flat or to evict the unauthorised sub-tenants. The tenant was prepared to quit, provided I could find him accommodation that is within his means. This tenant, and many like him, cannot afford to pay even the rent of an S.I.T. flat.

The examples that I have quoted will be sufficiently clear to show to the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that the past housing policy was wrong. The policy was framed not to help the lower income group, that is, the ra'ayat, but to benefit the middle class. Actually the middle class can, with a little subsidy from Government, buy their own houses.

Sir, in conclusion, I wish to extend my hearty support of the move made by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to provide a settlement for the Malays. I only wish that he will erect such a settlement not only for the Malays, but also for the attap dwellers of other races.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree entirely with the remarks of the Minister for Communications and Works that good and experienced officers are difficult to find, and that we must not do anything to discourage them and make them leave this place, especially when we are on the verge of self-government. But I am very shocked at his contempt for this House by comparing the Members here to the inmates of the forests in the Federation!

The Chairman: Order. I thought I did pull the Minister up for being unparliamentary. Once I have done that, I do not think any other Member should comment on it.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Yes, Sir. As regards the one-room flats which I mentioned, there are many such examples put up by the Government as well as by the S.I.T. in Singapore. Take, for instance, the flats in Cross Street, Mosque Street, North Bridge Road, Kreta Ayer Road and, I think, in Banda Street too. All these are one-room flats. They share a communal bathroom and a communal kitchen.

In fact, in the building by-laws, it has been provided, in the case of shop-houses especially which were originally built for renting out to different families, that for every three cubicles you have to provide a bathroom, a W.C. and a kitchen. These are for cubicle flats of not less than 100 square feet, and in case it exceeds that size, the facilities should be increased in proportion. You will agree, Sir, that this is not the ideal way to house the people. But as I have said, Sir, these people have not enough money, so the best way is to spread out to as many people as possible. Even if they have the money, then the question of rent arises again, because the Government is expected to receive rent at least at the normal interest rate, even if, as is said, the flats are subsidised.

The Financial Secretary has just mentioned that the cost of these one-room flats is not very much lower than the two-room flats or the three-room flats. I think he misunderstood me. What he means by a one-room flat is - it has a room, a kitchen, a bathroom, a W.C., all self-contained. What I mean, and what Hongkong provides, is this: you have a one-bedroom, a common sitting room; the approach is by a corridor and a communal bathroom and W.C. are shared.

If the Government are fortunate later and can provide better accommodation for the people of Singapore, there is no difficulty at all in converting, at only little expense, a one-bedroom flat into a two-bedroom flat or a flat with two bedrooms cum sitting room. But we must face realities now. What are we going to do with the people of Singapore now? What is the use of talking, "Yes, you keep quiet now. We will try to solve your problem in 20 years' time. In the meantime, you may die; but never mind, your children will benefit by it."

What good will that kind of talk serve? Also, are we sure that the housing problem will be solved in 20 years' time? I do not see how it is possible to provide accommodation as outlined by the Improvement Trust and other organisations. My personal opinion is that you give those who want houses whatever is possible and then, if you are fortunate enough later, you can provide them with better accommodation. By this means, not only can you provide more housing for more people, but also you can in a way charge them at the rate which they can afford.

Secondly, this question of land. There is no reason why the Government cannot buy some land, although I know the Government have not much land. Buy it and have it laid out. Have drains made; provide approaches, not necessarily first-class ones, and sell or let out to the people who, in turn, can build houses. Or provide them with some standard plans which they can get from the Rural Board, say, for a dollar.

I know by saying this the architects will be angry with me, but this is the way to help the people, so that they can build with whatever money they have - $3,000 or $5,000 - and build to a type which is more suitable to their needs. We have an example of this, Sir. In pre-war days, we had to evict a lot of squatters from the Bukit Berlayer River Basin in the Harbour Board area. The attap huts there were all built hastily. We consulted these people and offered them flats which were built further inland, but they were all of the opinion that they would like to have huts. So what we did was to get the land levelled, drained and had the lots marked out. We said, "Now we give you a lot; you go and build."

The same conditions exist now in Aljunied Road. I think it is the Government which have provided the land there, have it laid out and properly drained. I think they must have let it out to the people who were dehoused somewhere else. They have put up quite decent houses there. I am sure anyone who goes and see these houses put up under such circumstances will agree with me that they are not so bad, for they too provide accommodation like the S.I.T.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very grateful to those Members of the House who have spoken in support of the proposal that I have made this morning. Even the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, and the Financial Secretary have also given my proposal their blessing.

The only doubt that has so far been raised has been the Hon, the Financial Secretary. He says he is not certain whether the $1 million which I have suggested should be created as a revolving fund would indeed be a revolving fund. Sir, from my experience, I can give him that assurance. If 10,000 people have already paid $20 million profit for these houses, is it not possible now for another 10,000 families to find $500 to $1,000 each to pay for a plot of land after which they do not have to pay $10 or $15 a month as rental?

The hon. Member for Pasir Panjang has drawn my attention to the Aljunied Housing Estate. Indeed, Sir, that is within my area and I can say that when it was decided to resettle the people in Upper Aljunied Estate, the original suggestion, I think, was made by the Hon. the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare, that the land should be parcelled out to the settlers in small plots after water had been laid on and road paths made. Half of the lots were issued in that respect. The people were allowed to build any type of houses they liked. Unfortunately, we had a very prim and proper Governor - His Excellency Sir John Nicoll. He happened to pass that way; he saw what was taking place, and he suddenly called a halt to everything and said: "Good heavens! They are now making a slum of that area again by having these ugly houses. They are very comfortable and livable, but they are not pretty, and there is no standard design." So he stopped the scheme half-way and asked the Singapore Improvement Trust to put up blocks of flats, all one-storey houses, costing $3,000 each.

I must say, Sir, on the whole, these $3,000 flats have not been satisfactory. They are very low and everyday I receive complaints of leaks and heat, and there is a tremendous amount of maintenance to be done. Whereas on the other side, where a man was allowed to put up his own house, the Singapore Improvement Trust did not have to pay a single cent on maintenance. The settler there undoubtedly takes in a few more tenants to help him pay for his service charges, but they are all happy and no further demands are made on the Government.

I am quite sure that if the Financial Secretary will seriously study the position, he will agree with me and his doubts will fade away.

Sir, as the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has on the whole accepted my proposal and says that he will take the matter up, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $8,340,000 for Head D22 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I will not be accused of bringing up a very stale subject which was raised by me last year. It refers to the sports stadium. Why I call it stale is because, in the opinion of Members of this House, we have prolonged the debate on the Appropriation Bill -

The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Member please indicate the Head or the subhead referring to the sports stadium?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to Head D22 under Treasury, provision of a sports stadium which is not included in the Budget. I would refer you, Sir, to Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 46, 20th December, 1957, col. 3331, where I was allowed to raise the same question under Head D22.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Minister in charge of that aspect of Government could indicate, or, perhaps, any one of the Ministers could indicate which Minister is responsible? I cannot imagine the Minister in charge of the Treasury would be responsible.

Mr T. M. Hart: I am responsible for Head D22 Treasury, Sir,I doubt very much whether the question of a sports stadium could appropriately be accommodated under any of the subheads of this Head.

The Chairman: Could the Member please indicate his reference again?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Vol. 2, No. 46, dated 20th December, 1957, col. 3331.

4.00 p.m.

The Chairman: I think I must, in that event, allow the Member for Queenstown to comment on that subject.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I am trying to comment on the fact that no provision is being made for the establishment of a sports stadium. Personally, I feel, Sir, that this is a very important issue, because in Singapore we do not have a proper stadium of international standard for the holding of the Olympic Games. As I have said, this question was raised by me last year, but I have not pressed the matter further this year because I expected the Government would initiate a move to arouse public interest. But during all this period the Government has not initiated this move and I have now take in the opportunity during this debate on the Appropriation Bill to speak on the issue.

I fully realise, Sir, that the Government have no money at all to provide a sports stadium, because year in and year out we find a big deficit in the Budget. There is no money even to build schools. A stadium may be considered a secondary matter compared to schools. What I want, Sir, is for Government to initiate a move as a test case, to find out whether the public are interested or not in the establishment of a sports stadium. Frankly speaking, I do not want the Government to provide money for the time being. What I want the Government to do is to find out if there is any response because the Hon. the Financial Secretary and the Hon. the Chief Minister last year said that there was no response from the public and that there was no necessity to build a sports stadium. So what I want now, Sir, is that Government should initiate a move first and then wait for the response. The Singapore Standard started a Cheer Fund and money came in. Many kinds of relief funds were started to collect money for this and that, and money came in. So why not we start a Stadium Fund and see whether we get any public response? If the public are not interested at all in contributing money towards this fund, then let us scrap the whole issue. But if the public are interested, after Government has initiated a move to start this fund, then I think the Government should take a keen interest in it and assure the public that they will provide a dollar for dollar contribution for the establishment of a sports stadium.

I do not like to compare Singapore with the Federation, because the Federation has already got a sports stadium. In fact, it was Singapore which first started the move to have a sports stadium, but today the Federation Government can boast that they have a sports stadium first. When the move for a fund is initiated, Sir, I will ask Government to set up a Board to administer this fund. Sporting personalities such as those who are involved in the Olympic Games, football or other games, can be nominated to be trustees of this fund. When this fund develops to such an extent that the money is sufficient to start looking for a stadium, then only let us look for a site. In the meantime, let us forget about where the site should be, or how the stadium should be built. What we want is let the money come in first.

I hope the Government will take this into consideration and start a fund as quickly as possible.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: May I be given permission to speak on this subject also?

The Chairman: I was just going to remark that my leniency has caught up with me!

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year I spoke a lot on the question of reviving the Stadium Board and I also requested Government to consider having a stadium in Singapore, but I am afraid that all this must have fallen on deaf ears because nothing has happened since then.

To me a stadium in Singapore is a necessity, Sir. First and foremost, we are known today as a modern city and practically all the requirements that we need for a modern city are here, except a stadium. Quite rightly too, as the Member for Queenstown has mentioned, Government started a move first on the question of having a stadium, but unfortunately up to this day nothing has happened at all. In the Federation, there are now three stadiums: one, the Merdeka Stadium, one in Penang and one in Malacca.

Sir, we have been accused in the Press that the standard of sports has generally gone down in Singapore, because we have not got the facilities for international teams or sports organisations to come here and take part in the games. Without a stadium the standard cannot improve. Sports organisations in Singapore have done their bit. Money was lacking, but through the enthusiasm of their members, they have managed to do whatever they could to provide sports for the Colony. But Government has not given the least encouragement at all. The only encouragement Government has shown was that, when our teams were going to the last Asian Games and the last Olympic Games, it contributed the meagre sum of $25,000. It is lucky for the Federation of Malaya that they have a Prime Minister who is a great sportsman and Cabinet Members who are sports-minded. They have now approved a vote of $100,000 to be utilised for sports activities.

Sir, I am still very worried about it. You will realise that, on the one hand, we are spending a lot of money to fight subversive elements, but, on the other hand, we are not trying to stop them because we allow the youth of Singapore to go into dance-halls, cinemas and coffee-shops instead of spending their time on the playing fields. As I have said over and over again the question is this. Are the people really interested in sport and can the sports stadium be filled? I can say, and I have said so before, that there are at least 300,000 people in Singapore directly or indirectly interested in sport; and if we have a sports stadium here and we invite international teams and sports organisations to come here and take part in sports, it will act as an incentive to our athletes to better their standard. As it is now, they can only compete among themselves and the standard is not high. If we have a sports stadium, Sir, the athletes of Singapore will say, "We will have to improve our standard and put up a good show against visiting teams."

For these reasons, Sir, I really beg the incoming Government to consider this matter seriously, because it is a good thing for the youth of Singapore to be of sound mind and to have a healthy body.

Mr Hart: Sir, eleven years have passed since this stadium business first saw the light of day, and my recollection of all the details may not be strictly accurate, but I think the basis of what I now say is accurate.

There were interested parties, I think probably about eight years ago, who thought it would be a very good thing to have a stadium in Singapore. Government thought that it would assist them to form a stadium if they could show that they had a large measure of public support. An Ordinance in connection with the creation of a stadium was promulgated. A Stadium Board was set up. It was then left to the Board to work out plans for the establishment of a stadium. Many years elapsed, but the Board was not able to do more despite the promise of land from Government for a site for the stadium. The Stadium Board was able to put up many proposals for the stadium, but no proposals were put up whatsoever for financing the stadium, other than that Government should put up the money. When the matter was last discussed at considerable length in this Chamber, it was made clear to those people who were responsible for the idea that if they could show that there was financial support in Singapore for a stadium, Government would be only too prepared to assist. So far, no indication has been given of any desire on the part of the people in Singapore to contribute financially towards the cost of a stadium - and there the matter lies. There is no need for Government to start a fund. The Member for Queenstown can start a fund. Or he can start the necessary propaganda to start a fund to show to the Government that the people of Singapore are prepared to support financially a stadium.

Sir, as regards the need for a stadium, we have an excellent stadium at Jalan Besar which, even on its best days, is probably a quarter full. What we are now being asked to do is to put the money to create a vast stadium which will be nothing more than a white elephant. Perhaps on one occasion in four years it may be half full. For the rest of the time it will merely be a liability which Government will have to meet from its own resources.

As regards the statement that there are no stadiums in Singapore for sport, we have an excellent track at Farrer Park We have numerous swimming pools where people can learn to swim and even attain Olympic standards. We have numerous playing fields where the various football leagues can play their games.

As regards the suggestion that a stadium would be a sound measure to counter subversion, it is merely a means of encouraging people not to play games themselves but to attend games - rather like the crowd who attended a display of gladiators in ancient Rome - and to offer them facilities for betting on the outcome.

Even if this money were available for a stadium, Sir, I would much prefer to use it to provide facilities for people to play games rather than to watch 11, 22 or 30 people playing games.

The prospect of getting any international events to be held in Singapore could not take place more than once in four years at the outside, and only on these occasions would the stadium be full.

I think, Sir, the hon. Members who raised this and who are so interested in the matter might be well advised to devote their attention to other matters, and to let this drop. But as I have said, Sir, if they can show beyond a shadow of doubt that they can raise a substantial proportion of the $2 million or more required to create a stadium, Government will be prepared to consider the matter again.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, if Government will make a statement that they will be willing to provide the land and will be prepared to contribute a dollar for a dollar of the public subcription, and to allow the public to have a voice in the administration of the stadium and share in its profits, I am quite sure it is not mere wishful thinking on my part that there will be big support for a stadium. I can tell the House, Sir, that if Government can give that assurance, within one week a hundred thousand dollars will be raised. The question of it being a white elephant will not arise at all, because holding games there will help to pay for its upkeep to a very great extent; of that I am very definite and certain. To say that the stadium will only be filled once a year or once in four years is incorrect. It is not that only one kind of sport will be held there but also other sports too.

What we have today in Singapore, Sir, are only playing fields. We have plenty of them, but no stadium. I think the Hon, the Financial Secretary does not realise that, to invite teams of international repute to come here, there must be some way. But what is that way? I think next year eight international soccer teams are coming to Singapore to compete. Now, what have we got to offer them? A big city of Singapore with a stadium no better than Malacca's! I am not talking about the Federation capital in Kuala Lumpur, or Penang, but Malacca. The Malacca stadium is much better than the playing fields that we have here. Is this not true? I have said we have no real sportsmen on these Benches. The incoming Government, if they have some Members who are going to be Members of the Cabinet and who are sports-minded, will, I am sure, be a great help not only to sportsmen in Singapore but to the City of Singapore, because then we will have a place where healthy and clean-living people can gather together instead of what we now have - a mixed assortment of clubs.

Mr Francis Thomas: I just want to point out, Sir, that to suggest that the Government gives the money is perhaps short-circuiting the argument. It is the people's money, paid for by taxes paid by the people. If money is provided for a stadium, then either less money will be provided for something else - for example, we cut out housing for a few hundred families; or we cut out outpatient clinics; or we cut out the grant to the Nanyang University - some cut has to be made on something for which money is provided: or alternatively, we must increase taxation, and I think the hon. Member should now rise to tell us either precisely what he proposes to cut, or precisely what new taxes he proposes to put on, and to assure us that be is not speaking for himself but for the people of Singapore who would welcome the cut he proposes or who would gladly pay the tax that he wishes to impose.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the attitude of the colonial officer clearly shows how adamant he is on this issue. To attack or criticise a member of the Stadium Board is really uncalled for and unwarranted. I was a member of that Board and it put up several suggestions to the Government. At no time did the Government ever think of considering any suggestions. The Financial Secretary was also a member of that Board, and he was very adamant in his attitude towards the suggestions put up. To come here now and attack members of the Board is nonsense and uncalled for. This Board did put forward suggestions, but the Government was not in the least interested.

Coming to the question of funds, Sir, I am not asking the Government to provide funds right now. What I am asking them to do is to start a fund-put it to a test case, to find out whether there is public response or not. It may take three years to get that money; or it may take five years. By that time a new government will have come in, and there may be an excess of income over expenditure. We may have a surplus rather than a deficit, and by that time the Government could well provide money for the Stadium. Why talk about cutting this or cutting that? If I am insisting that Government should provide the money now, then I will have to put forward suggestions to cut down the building of schools or universities, or to increase taxes. I do not want from the Government any money at this juncture.

The Financial Secretary boasts of the Jalan Besar Stadium and Farrer Park running track. I do not want to repeat what I have said last year. The Jalan Besar Stadium and the Farrer Park running track belong to the City Council, and the Government, which is responsible for the running of this country, cannot even provide a decent stadium of international standard. Are we proud of that? At least the City Council, which is a local government authority, is proud to say that they have a Jalan Besar Stadium and a running track at Farrer Park. Can we boast of anything? To say that the stadium may be half-full is out of the question. If you do not have a stadium, how can you attract foreign athletes to come here? If the Olympic Games should be held here, would other countries be prepared to come here if we could not have a stadium to hold the Games? Why say that the stadium may be half-full, or quarter-full, or that it may be a white elephant? There is no question of it being a white elephant. During certain times of the year, it can be opened to schools, organisations, sports clubs, and so forth. These are the facilities that will attract them here. We talk of tourism; we talk of attracting tourists to come here. Cannot we attract sportsmen to come here if we have a decent sports stadium? As the Member for Cairnhill has rightly said, if international soccer teams come to Singapore, what can we provide them with? Jalan Besar Stadium belonging to the City Council! Not a Government Stadium!

The Member for Cairnhill has also said, "If the Government can assure us now that they are prepared to give a dollar for a dollar, he is quite sure that money will be forthcoming." Why not give it a try? No money is required now. What we want is a Stadium Board Fund and appoint members to administer that Fund. It is not a question of money.

Mr Francis Thomas: I shall be very brief. I am afraid the hon. Member for Queenstown has quite misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that there was a temporary shortage of money. The Member suggested that in five years' time the Government might be called on to provide the money. In five years' time there will be another 300,000 or 400,000 children in the families in Singapore and the Government would then be faced with the problems of education costs, for example. My colleague the Minister for Education has outlined how these costs are going to increase all the time. The need for money will be more acute year by year and, I am afraid, will not be less acute for a very long time to come.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Federation Government can provide $3 million for a stadium and $100,000 for sports facilities this year, I cannot see why the Government cannot begin building a stadium here. I do not think the Government needs more than $1� million, because the other $1� million must come from the public before such a project can be carried out.

Mr Hart: Sir, I thought I made it clear that the Stadium Board of which I was a member was prolific of ideas but not of the idea where the money was going to come from.

As regards the question of Government support, I would refer hon. Members, who have spoken, to an exchange of correspondence which passed between the Government and the Stadium Board and in which the terms of Government assistance were laid down. The last case that I had of assistance to the Stadium was for over $2 million. If it is going to take five years for the public of Singapore to reach their share of the $2 million, I think that, Sir, is indicative of a lack of interest in the Stadium.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $8,340,000 for Head D 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 27-

The sum of $38,810 for Head D 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 37-

The sum of $108,000 for Head D 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 41-

The sum of $280,250 for Head D 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 43-

The sum of $3,500,000 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 44-

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

That the sum to be allotted for Head D44 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein.

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

The sum of $2,288,000 for Head D 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 46-

The sum of $8,228,960 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 47-

The sum of $1,440,000 for Head D 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 49-

The sum of $5,962,000 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 53-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $313,840 for Head D 53 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, another disappointment that I find in this Head is that there is no provision for the building of community halls. With the creation of a new department, the Community Recreation Division in the Social Welfare Department, I think the Government should try and build more community halls for community centres rather than omit this item in the Estimates.

Community centres play a very important part in helping the Government on many matters. These community centres provide out of their funds amenities for their own members and they also help the Government in many respects, like health and citizenship registration. A case of such assistance is seen in the recent polio epidemic where the community centres volunteered their services to register children for polio vaccine vaccination. Another case is the time when the Government introduced citizenship registration. Most of the community centres also offered to help the Government in the registration of alien citizens for Singapore citizenship. This has relieved the Government appreciably. Some centres also have their own volunteer police to guard their areas or estates. This also helps the Police. There are many other kinds of work done by these community centres which help the Government.

There are at the moment, I understand, three types of community centres. One is sponsored by the Government, and assisted by the Social Welfare Department. The second is sponsored by the residents in S.I.T. estates and is provided by the S.I.T. with a clubhouse at a nominal rent. The third type is organized by the residents living in kampongs or villages. Now for the first type of community centre, Government provide money to build its own community hall, and provide furniture and other necessities of the centre.

As regards the second type, the management committee has to raise funds to upkeep its amenities. In most cases, some of these centres cannot be self-sufficient and have to depend on the running of open-air cinemas at 10 cents per head. With this little income these community centres can manage to exist.

The third type of community centre is in kampongs or villages and it does not have any facilities at all. Some of these centres, I understand, do not even have a clubhouse. Such a centre can be found in West Coast Road. They have to function within a Chinese temple. This is not right, Sir, because it is the responsibility and the duty of the Government to provide community halls so that the residents living in the area could gather together. exchange views or to create a closer community feeling. I do hope that the Government will look into this matter seriously and try and assist, as far as possible, the underprivileged - I term them underprivileged because most of them are not assisted.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Hart: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have every sympathy for the hon. Member for Queenstown. I hope that when the Supplementary Budget is brought out it will make provision for community centres.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $313,840 for Head D 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 55-

The sum of $2,416,010 for Head D 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 56-

The sum of $20,500 for Head D 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 57-

The sum of $281,330 for Head D 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 58-

The sum of $80,140 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 60-

The sum of $2,459,150 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 61-

Question proposed,

"That the sum of $3,304,240 for Head D 61 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now four years since I asked the Minister for Communications and Works to look into the communication system in Serangoon Garden Estate. Questions had been put to him; requests had been made; and promises had been made by him. He had promised to widen Yio Chu Kang Road. A new road had been promised to be made from Serangoon Garden to join up with Braddell Heights. That was two or three years ago. Today, I think, with his more intimate knowledge - because he is now living on the fringe of that estate - he should experience the difficulty himself. I am interested to know what the Minister is now thinking about, whether his promises can come to fruition. How long more will the people in that estate, who pay a great deal of taxes, continue to have their amenities not looked after? Will Yio Chu Kang Road be widened? Will the new road leading from Serangoon Garden to Braddell Heights be made up? Or will the Minister consider the crocodile tears that will be shed if they should be moved?

On the question of Unemployment Relief Works, subhead 12, Sir, I would like to know what scheme the Minister has in mind to help these unemployed people, and whether the work that is done will relieve the difficulties of rural people and bring them better amenities in the form of new roads to be made up or bad roads repaired - at least repaired to the extent whereby it is possible to move along them.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): I have had complaints from my constituents that when pipelines were installed, they were not able to get stand-pipes. I just wonder if the Minister responsible for this will explain how the selection was made.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the debate on Development Estimates is about to come to an end, I would like to say a few words about the cost of Public Works building. Public Works building is known to be the highest in Singapore, if not in the whole of Malaya. Much as I want to find out what is the reason behind such high costs, I am unable to do so. Of late, I have had the privilege of examin ing some of the schemes put up by the Public Works Department, namely, the quarters for medical officers in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital.

Mr Hart rose-

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Mr Hart: A point of order, Sir. This financial subject is under discussion in the Estimates Committee. It is inappropriate to discuss it in the open House.

The Chairman: I think the Honourable the Financial Secretary is a Member of the Estimates Committee?

Mr Hart: I am a Member of the Estimates Committee, Sir.

The Chairman: I think the honourable Member for Pasir Panjang is also a Member of the Estimates Committee?

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: If, in fact, the Whole subject is now under discussion in the Estimates Committee, I think it is wrong to debate it in the Assembly until the Report of the Estimates Committee reaches the Assembly.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Public Works building is known to be very expensive.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the honourable Member did not understand me.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: But I am not referring to the quarters, Sir.

The Chairman: As I understand it, the Financial Secretary has pointed out that the whole question of building Costs is now being discussed in the Estimates Committee. If that is so, then it is wrong to debate the question of building costs in the Assembly until the Report of the Estimates Committee reaches the Assembly.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Yes, Sir, I will try to avoid what has been discussed, or what is expected to be discussed, in the Estimates Committee. I have seen the Report of the Estimates Committee for the year 1957. In it the then Director of Public Works was asked for his opinion about the houses built by Ideal Homes in Whitley Road. His reply, Sir, was, "If I had $30,000 I would rather throw it into the Singapore River than buy one of those houses." These were exactly his words. I did not fabricate them myself. Such was the attitude of the Public Works Department officers, and I believe it is the opinion of the public officers now. If these are the type of people who really have no intention of trying to cut down expenditure for the Government, then how can we expect them to reduce the cost? A lot of building schemes have been put up in the Estimates which are very much more expensive than those put up by the public. Sir, there are so many reasons. The Estimates could be very high, or the cost also could have been very high. One reason, Sir, is the corruption of the officers concerned. I am not accusing anybody because I have no evidence to show that the officers are corrupted. Secondly, it is that they put up too luxurious a type of building to suit circumstances and needs. Thirdly, they specify a lot of expensive materials which should never be there. When I criticised the cost of the Polytechnic last year, I was asked by one of the members of the Board of Governors to go and see the opening of the tenders. I refused to go, because by looking at the opening of the tenders, it would only satisfy me that the tenders were not made up specially for the occasion. What I mean is that the tenders were properly sent in and not substituted later. But I had never any intention of seeing it, and it was never my intention to criticise the Polytechnic costs on account of underhand methods of tendering. As I have said, Sir, there are many reasons that could put up the cost of a building: for instance, like putting a $3 - finish to a block of flats at Leonie Hill; the suggestion of putting brass hinges in servants' quarters, because I have examined a copy of the specification of one of the jobs. I have designed many buildings of millionaires, and I have not even on one occasion put brass hinges in servants' quarters. The cost of brass hinges is about ten times that of steel hinges. If the brass hinges last twenty years, and the steel hinges last only two years, then I would say the cost is justified. I know very well, Sir, that a door with steel hinges will definitely last as long as that with brass hinges. So why push up the cost ten times higher? Is there any justification for it?

Every time we criticise the Public Works Department for the high cost of building, they say it is because their buildings are much better than those built by people outside. But have we any evidence to substantiate such statements made by the Ministry? If people can build a flat for $15,000 and the Government's flat costs $45,000, there is something wrong with the Government. But have they, after having inspected the flats and schools built by the public at one-third the cost, come back and made a report on how much difference there is in the costs?

4.45 p.m.

No, they can do no wrong. The white men can do no wrong. The devils are only the Asians. The devils are the Members who come and complain in the House. That is the kind of attitude adopted by the Minister and his colleagues - when I say his colleagues, I mean his subordinates. So how can they expect to cut down the cost of buildings?

If the cost of P.W.D. building is 20 per cent or 30 per cent higher, for instance, we can understand that; but if it is 200 per cent higher and no explanation is given whatsoever except to say, "Our's is the best!" - are the Public Works Department buildings the best? Even if they are slightly better than others, are their costs cheaper than others? Definitely not!

As I have said about the Polytechnic, the squandering of public funds must stop, and stop now. If the Minister thinks that he is unable to set up an inquiry, or bring down the cost of buildings, then I think he should not stay in the House.

The Chairman: Order. It seems something has got into the Assembly! I am being intimidated! But I will ask the Member for Pasir Panjang to consider whether or not what he is saying could appropriately be said in the Estimates Committee. It is a question of detail which perhaps the Estimates Committee can well examine - and the hon. Member is a Member of that Committee. We are now considering policy.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Thank you, Sir. I am very much obliged for your advice on the matter, Sir. What I want to say is not about the details of any building, but I would like to have a Committee set up to investigate the prices of P.W.D. buildings, with members who will not definitely toe the line of the Minister.

Mr Hart: Sir, point of order. The question of Public Works building costs is under consideration by the Estimates Committee at the present time. Under these circumstances, I cannot understand why a Member of the Estimates Committee should suggest that there should be a public commission to go into the matter.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Estimates Committee, it is up to us only to consider the matter, but I think it is necessary to convince the public that either a committee or a commission be set up to make such an inquiry.

Mr Francis Thomas: There are quite a number of matters which were referred to me, Sir, in the course of the last speech or two and I would like to clear them up before I forget what they were all about.

Regarding the high cost of public works, I am sure my colleagues are feeling surprised that the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang feels it necessary to suggest another committee or commission when he has already got the Estimates Committee with democratic representatives of the people sitting on it - he himself is there. I do not think he intends to have that Committee to toe my ministerial line! No, that would not serve him in the least.

The Chairman: Will the Minister please address the Chair?

Mr Francis Thomas: I beg your pardon, Sir,I cannot see the necessity for any more investigation than that. I would like to warn him about turning the question of public building costs into a communal issue by crying that the white man can do no wrong, because he will very shortly be treading on local corns, since the number of white men remaining in the Ministry is rapidly decreasing and very soon he will have to justify his attacks on his own Singaporean fellow citizens and see whether they are inclined to accept his criticisms which he expresses with great vigour.

I am glad at least that he has not accused us of corruption in the P.W.D. That is something to be thankful for.

We had, Sir, one or two remarks about unemployment relief works. The selection of unemployment relief recruitment is done by the Labour Ministry, which has the appropriate facilities, and I would not wish to attempt to outline the methods there.

I understand there has been some difficulty in filling some of the projects initially when they were seeking to recruit in the rural areas where the works are to be carried out. The tendency has been to give more employment to people in the town and move them out to the rural areas where work has to be done. The works in hand so far are improvement of rural roads and tracks.

The hon. Member for Serangoon will be happy to note that some work is starting on the Yio Chu Kang Road improvements. It is not the sector in which he is interested. There will be some very large-scale work in connection with the runway at the Airport. I think I better not prejudice other works by referring to them ahead of the time at which they go into operation, since the developments are to some extent conditioned by the experience obtained as the work goes forward.

The hon. Member for Serangoon referred to the need for improvements of Yio Chu Kang Road or, alternatively, for some other roads to be made up to get the quite heavy traffic out of Serangoon Garden Estate for those who want to get into the City. I have been living just beyond Serangoon Garden Estate now for about eight months and I have had the opportunity of experiencing traffic on this road. It is certainly a very inadequate road for the load of traffic it has to carry, particularly remembering the children, pedestrians, and bicycles in addition to the motor-car traffic and the buses. But I must remind the hon. Member that this is a matter for the local authorities. The money is provided to the Rural Board from the Government, but the decision and the action rests with the local authorities. It is up to them to give instructions to the executive engineer to carry out the works. It is not for me to take upon myself to instruct the local authorities as to what decision they should take.

I can perhaps cheer his anxious heart by telling him that in the months after I had moved into that area, I did take the trouble to time my journey from my house to my office. I filled up one page of my notebook - 16 journeys. From the door of the house to just beyond the traffic lights at the Paya Lebar police station is one mile, and that mile took me the following times:

3 minutes 15 seconds; 3� minutes; 2 minutes 50 seconds; 2 minutes 45 seconds; 3 minutes 20 seconds; 3 minutes 50 seconds; 3 minutes 30 seconds; 3 minutes 20 seconds; 3 minutes 25 seconds; 4 minutes 5 seconds; 3 minutes 45 seconds; 3 minutes 5 seconds; 2 minutes 20 seconds; and 7 minutes and 5 seconds-that was when part of the road was up and there was a considerable block.

I forget precisely what the average speed comes to, but it is obviously between 15 and 20 miles an hour over a one-mile stretch, and there are two traffic lights to be negotiated. So the road is not an excessively slow-moving road on an average. If the unhappy motorist finds himself behind two or three buses, all of them stopping at all the bus stops, he will have a very exasperating time indeed. But, nevertheless, the average of my figures is not a too discreditable average. I am more concerned personally about the danger to human life, or the difficulty to the public in getting across the road without excessive danger. The children, the hawkers and the people who do not own motor cars come much nearer to my heart in this matter than the motor-car owner who loses, perhaps, two minutes of his life in traversing one mile. It will not do him very serious harm.

Question put, and agreed to.

The sum of $3,304,240 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Head D 62-

The sum of $432,520 for Head D 62 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.