PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask this House to turn its eyes for a short while on some of our sores.

I want to draw attention to the plight of some of our poor.

What is the definition of "poor"?

In 1956 a Report on Urban Incomes and Housing was drawn up by the then Assistant Director of Social Welfare who is now our Minister for Finance. It was an excellent, a carefully prepared document - if I who am a novice on these matters may be permitted to express an opinion. It referred to the definition of "poor" (at page 113) as meaning those persons who live in conditions below the minimum physical needs to maintain health.

And the Report arrived at the conclusion that in the period 1953-54, the minimum income for a husband, his wife and two children was $101.85. This was eight years ago. The cost of living, the Minister will admit, has not gone down. It has risen.

Now, Sir, another statistic from this Report is that about 30 per cent of our population lived below that minimum standard and are poor. Thirty per cent lived in poverty in 1953-54. I do not know how much the position has improved in the intervening years. I should like to believe, Sir, that they have improved in spite of our increase of population. But it is not on this very large group that I ask the House to concentrate its attention tonight. I would like hon. Members to concentrate on a small portion of this group living in poverty. I would like the House to concentrate on those who may be officially presumed to be starving - those who draw public assistance.

Sir, I have sought from the Ministry of Labour information, much of which was courteously granted, but when I asked for figures which I could not find of those who were drawing public assistance, I was courteously but firmly refused that information. It is my hope that this top-secret information which the Minister is so unhappy to disclose to a Member of the House, will be disclosed to all Members of the House and we shall have the figures for 1956, 1960 and for the end of October 1961, of the number of human beings in Singapore who are living well below subsistence level. I might say. Sir, that the Minister for Finance in his Report on Urban Incomes and Housing said that one-fifth of the households of the poor was living on public assistance, but that was a long time ago and it is not proper that this House should work on statistics so old.

What is public assistance, Sir? It came into being - so far as I can trace it - immediately after the occupation period when a large number of our people were in dire economic need and temporary relief measures were instituted and were later administered by the newly-formed Social Welfare Department which was formed in 1946. At that time, Sir, grants were given of $5 per man, $4 for a woman, and $2 for children per month. The neediest recipients, however, could get free meals and additional assistance. Five years later, in 1951. the public assistance scheme was established and the rates to those who were fully eligible were $15 for the head of a household, $5 for each dependant, with a maximum of $40 for each family. That is extremely low, Sir, but let us, in fairness, recognise that at the same time there was an equal amount given to those who were sick, so that the person receiving public assistance if he was sick got a double allotment. Even then it was generally recognised that the double allowance itself was well below subsistence level, particularly in respect of families with young children.

Sir, in June 1953, there was a further change and all degrees of eligibility were abolished. A residential qualification of one year was introduced. The scales then established were $15 for the head of a household, $5 for the wife, and $5 for the child, with a maximum of $90. You had to have a huge family of some 12 children to get it. Sickness allowance was also paid at the same rate as public assistance, and it is to be recognised that this was very important to those who were sick. Also the wife herself, if she was sick, did not merely get a sickness allowance of $5 but she was given $15.

Sir, what was the cost of this scheme which in its way indicated our awakening conscience and our awakening humanity? In 1958, Sir, the scheme cost $7 million. In 1959, it cost 7� million. Late in 1959 - the year this Government took office - public assistance rates were altered by the Government. At first it was not recognised to what extent the alteration was adverse to the most defenceless and most needy of the human beings who populate this island, for the P.A.P., with its unerring instinct for the propaganda point, increased the allowance to the head of the household by $1 and made it $16. It increased the allowance to the wife to $10 - all to the good, Sir, every little bit; I am not complaining - and the child over 16 to $8. That is good, Sir. Wherein lies the complaint? Sickness allowance which quite materially affected a large portion of the people receiving public assistance - sometimes as much as half their income - was abolished altogether, bringing about acute hardship to a group already recognisably and officially unable to work and requiring special nourishment because of their illness, let alone the minimum necessary for maintaining human health. In addition. Sir, non-citizens, no matter how long they lived in this country, were refused all public assistance. However, in fairness, let me add that to the head of the family, only if he was so sick that he could not work - and it was a grave and lengthy matter - he was given a disability allowance of $10 per month. Other cuts were made. Persons who are not married cannot receive public assistance, no matter how long they are unemployed, no matter how sick they are. Sir, let me correct that. If the unemployed single person has been sick for more than a month, then during his sickness he can get his public assistance. Non-citizens of whatever length of residence are completely ineligible, and those living in households where there is regular income are barred. You might say that that is reasonable. I put it to you. Sir, you are conscious that not only amongst the Chinese but in all races there is a strong attachment and fixed family ties; and you can appreciate that these things do happen - that a brother takes in his widowed sister with six children, but because he is a clerk who earns $150 a month, the widow and the children get nothing. There is a regular income in that household.

One other matter, Sir. Tuberculosis allowance was discontinued in respect of those who are non-citizens, whatever their length of residence. Mr Speaker, Sir, at first view, this might seem a very reasonable political move. We must conserve our resources for our citizens. But what the Government has failed to recognise is that the tuberculosis allowance which is above subsistence level and assists tuberculosis patients to improve their health prevents them from becoming a continuing focus of infection. Non-citizens who have tuberculosis do not limit their infection to non-citizens, and the economy which the Government has sought to make is a false economy because, by leaving the unemployed tuberculosis patient who is a non-citizen without any resources to improve his health, the Government encourages and assists the additional spread of tuberculosis amongst our people, because these people continue to be a focus of infection to our healthy citizens.

All these cuts, Mr Speaker, Sir, were presumably enforced in the name of economy, but I would suggest that the result has not apparently been no ticed. It has not been recognised, Sir, that such action increases the hardship of a major group in Singapore - those who are unable to work because of illness and where the very existence of poverty has led them to be vulnerable to illness.

Mr Speaker, I will not go back to the Report of the gentleman who is now our Finance Minister, but I will give you one other statistic which I am sure he will accept as valid and which he will be prepared to respect. I am reliably informed, Sir, that the Department of Social Medicine of the University has carefully investigated and finally ascertained that the sum of $22 per month is required for the cheapest reasonable diet to maintain the minimum standard of health on the basis of scientific marketing - and this $22 per month does not take into account clothing, rent and other basic human needs.

This means, Sir, that those who are recipients of public assistance in their thousands and tens of thousands are today living, in truth and in fact, at a level where their health is actually rapidly deteriorating.

Every government with an eye to the long-term welfare of the people must recognise that the effect of this extreme malnutrition over a prolonged period will have a very considerable bearing on the public economy. I speak of economy, Sir, because that seems to be the important aspect. apart, it seems, from other aspects which have or seem to have a little validity to hon, gentlemen opposite, such as human values and humanity. If it is economics that the P.A.P. Government is interested, Sir, then I say it is false economy to save money from the sick and the starving.

What has been the effect, Sir, of these measures introduced by Government of economy in the realm of public assistance?

The Ministry has been good enough to supply me with figures, and, as I have indicated, in 1959 we spent $7,746,000; in 1960 we saved $350,000. That was the economy in 1960. In 1961, on the basis of the figures supplied up to the end of August, the total we will spend for the whole year is $6,400,000. In 1961, Sir, we will have saved $1 million from the poor and the starving as compared with 1960. Is this the type of economy that this House, being made conscious of it, would really approve?

Sir, even if these human beings who are our citizens are to be deemed expendable and their death is to be welcomed as saving the State some money, from the point of view of the community, this is an unrealistic and uneconomic approach. Starvation and poverty of the nature indicated takes its toll on the whole community, not only on the women and children who immediately suffer, but on all citizens, through increases in the rate of crime, the rate of illness, and the very degrading atmosphere in which such matters can happen.

Children, Sir, who have to suffer malnutrition during their tender and formative years, because their parents have only $5 to spend on their food - one-fourth of the basic minimum required

• cannot be expected to grow up healthy, employable, balanced or good citizens. They must necessarily grow up distorted, sick burdens on the community.

Mr Speaker, this is not and should not be a political or party matter. No citizen can be comfortable so long as there are those who starve. Sir, it is a question of money. Money must he found. Let us resolve: "In Singapore no man shall starve." And then let us set about finding the means.

Sir, one more. In 1957 there was tabled in this House the Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood. I refer to two paragraphs, paragraph 203 and 204.

`203. We think that the Public Assistance scheme should be put on a formal statutory basis and that the rates of allowances and categories of need covered by it should be approved by the legislature and should be subject to amendment by the legislature from time to time as occasion may demand.

204. We think that the existing rates of allowance should be increased ...'

I will be through, Sir. These recommendations have been ignored - the Report shelved.

There are other aspects, Sir, I would like to deal with very briefly.

The delay in investigation of cases seeking public assistance has increased under this Government. It is said that more time is required in order to exclude fraud. But, Sir, a delay of three to four weeks is indefensible in emergency cases where human beings are starving.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has exceeded his time of twenty minutes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the subject of poverty and human suffering is a touching one, and the Member for Anson has excelled himself in dealing with such a subject.

May I say at once, Sir, that surely every reasonable man will agree that poverty is a bad thing and should be eliminated if that is possible? But, Sir, while it is legitimate to express discontent over the rates of public assistance that are being paid to Singapore, let us not forget that this is one of the highest in Asia, in fact the highest known to me. Let us not forget that the income earned by the average family in receipt of public assistance is about as much as what most families in other undeveloped countries of Asia earn in their full-time jobs.

The question of poverty is not peculiar to us. It is a general problem of all under-developed countries of the world. Public assistance is feasible in a city trading economy like ours; because it is compact and because we have the administrative machinery to give our assistance to those who are needy. But they are only palliatives; we can only reduce the degree of destitution. But if we aim at eliminating poverty completely, as the wealthier industrialised countries in the west have substantially succeeded in doing, then it is absolutely vital that we expand our economy, increase our national income in order that we can afford to cream off surplus resources for our less fortunate brethren.

Sir, I would just like to mention this before concluding. That the decision to review the rates of public assistance was to make the whole scheme more rational. It has been discovered that for many years the payment of sickness allowance was subject to grave abuse. There were no proper checks that those in receipt of such an allowance were, in fact, properly entitled to them. There were no regular medical check-ups; and in the nature of things, because of the shortage of medical personnel, it was not possible to have the number of examinations to be conducted.

We have increased payment rates in other respects to compensate for the withdrawal of this allowance. Next year we shall make a further increase in the rates of public assistance. The proper way, of course, to deal with the problem is to have a contributory insurance scheme to cover the barest risks to life which overtake urban workers - the risk of unemployment, the risk of death of the wage earner, provision for a steady income after retirement. A lot of work has been done in the past years, but there are certain difficulties in carrying out this insurance scheme which I think this House can very well discuss at the appropriate time.

The Minister for Labour (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, in fairness to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, since the Member for Anson has made reference to the time when he was in the civil service, I thought it only proper to give him a few minutes to reply. I think he has more or less covered some of the proposals and suggestions made by the Member for Anson, but I would like to touch on the figures which the Member claimed that he was courteously but firmly refused by perhaps an official of my Ministry. I would like to disclose these figures to him now, indeed to all Members of the Assembly.

In the year 1958, the number of persons of public assistance per month is 72,604; 1959, 81,840; 1960, 89,548; for the months of August 1961, 89,244; September 1961, 89,060; October 1961, 89,432. From these, you can see. Mr Speaker, that the average amount of public assistance disbursed per month ranged from $576,867 to now $602,583.60.

On the other point raised about non-citizens, which I am sure hon. Members of this House will recall during the by election in Anson, the same question, I think, was raised by the Member for Anson. But he must at the same time understand the conditions prevailing in our State on the question of public assistance.

I must say here, Mr Speaker, that the Government is spending nearly $7� million a year, on public assistance, and this figure would have increased had it not been for this qualification of non-citizens. To grant public assistance to non-citizens would encourage people from surrounding countries which have no such scheme or have a less favourable scheme to take advantage of the allowance payable here. This is a substitute for residential qualification, and most countries in the world have either a citizenship or a residential qualification for a non-contributory scheme such as that of public assistance. In the case of a social or a national insurance scheme, no such qualification is necessary, as the beneficiary has contributed towards the scheme and, subject to the satisfaction of the contributory qualifications, he has an absolute right to the payment of benefits.

I must say that the rates which we are paying now are the highest payable in respect of relief allowance in this part of the world. It is proposed, as from 1st January, 1962, to increase the rate of allowance for a head of household from $16 per month to $21 per month. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the P.A.P. Review Committee. In 1959, after the P.A.P. Government took office, the head of household allowance was increased from $15 per month to $16 per month, and the wife allowance -

5.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time appointed for the termination of this sitting has arrived.

Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock p.m.

Thursday, 16th November, 1961

Appointment to Public Bodies

Mr David Marshall asked the Prime Minister to state the number of persons appointed since 1st June, 1959, by Ministers to public bodies, the names of such persons, the offices to which they were appointed, and their political affiliations, if known.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The number of persons appointed since June, 1959, by Ministers to public bodies is 527. Their names and the offices to which they were appointed are given in the list tabled in this Assembly. Their political affiliations, if any, are of no relevance to the duties they perform. Some are known to be members, and some are publicly reputed to be members, of both the Government party and Opposition political parties in this Assembly.

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE Appendix A(Cols 0083-0090) DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE Appendix B(Cols 0091-0092) MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LAW Appendix C(Cols 0093-0102) MINISTRY OF FINANCE Appendix D(Cols 0103-0106) MINISTRY OF LABOUR Appendix E(Cols 0107-0116) MINISTRY OF CULTURE Appendix F(Cols 0117-0120) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Appendix G(Cols 0121-0130) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Appendix H(Cols 0131-0134) MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Appendix I(Cols 0135-0136)

Strikes

Mrs Seow Peck Leng asked the Minister for Labour how many strikes were there since 1st September, 1961.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: There were 27 strikes from 1st September, 1961 to 1st November, 1961.

Trade Unions: Cancellations

Mrs Seow Peck Leng asked the Minister for Labour how many trade unions or Federations of trade unions have had their registrations cancelled since January 1961.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: The certificates of registration of five employee trade unions had been cancelled since January 1961, but no certificate of registration of any federation of trade unions had been cancelled since January 1961.

Working of the P.P.S.O.

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will publish a report on the working of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, since its inception.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The Preservation of Public Security Ordinance was passed in 1955 by Mr David Marshall, then the Chief Minister of Singapore. The present Government came into office on 5th June, 1959, and therefore does not feel the necessity to publish a report on the working of an Ordinance dating back to 1955 and used by previous Governments, including that of the Member for Anson who, more than anyone else, should be well versed with the working of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.

P.P.S.O.-Issue of Orders

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, were in existence on the 1st June, 1959, how many orders have been issued since then, and how many are still effective.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The information asked for is contained in the following table:-

ORDERS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY ORDINANCE, 1955 ON 1-6-59 AND AFTER, AS AT 16-11-61

Communist, Communist KMT, Cancelled Sr No. Orders and other ARTIS lapsed or Total on subversives and other suspended 16-11-61 on 1-6-59 subversives after 1-6-59 since 1-6-59 Detention Orders 1. On 1st June, 1959 61 - 43 18 2. Since 1st June, 1959 - 30 26 4 Suspension Orders 3. On 1st June, 1959 24 - 23 1 4. Since 1st June, 1959 - 31 12 19 Direction Orders 5. On 1st June, 1959 - - - - 6. Since 1st June, 1959 - 16 1 15

P.P.S.O.-List of Orders

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he will a list of the persons who are still subject to orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, the history of the orders from the date of commencement of detention of such persons, and the reasons for the continuation of these orders; and (b) how many of these orders will be wholly cancelled within the next two months.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (a) A list of the persons who are still subject to orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, and the history of the orders from the date of commencement of the orders of such persons is given in the attached enclosure.

Persons subject to Orders under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, are made aware of the reasons for the making of such Orders and where applicable reasons for the continuation of such Orders and are also given the opportunity of making objections to such Orders.

(b) Since the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Assembly on 20th July, 1961 with regard to release of detainees in batches from time to time, a total of 21 detainees have been released, 20 on Direction Orders and Suspension Orders, and one unconditionally. In addition, one person on a Direction Order and six persons on Suspension Orders made before 20th July, 1961 have had their Orders wholly cancelled. PERSONS UNDER DETENTION ORDERS(Cols 0139-0144) PERSONS UNDER SUSPENSION ORDERS(Cols 0145-0146) PERSONS UNDER DIRECTION ORDERS(Cols 0147-0148)

Housing and Development Board

Mrs Seow Peck Leng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what rents are being charged for the houses which have been built by the Housing and Development Board; (b) the floor space available for living purposes for the different rents; (c) how many units are there in each category; (d) how many of these were vacant as at 31st October, 1961; and (e) what are the requirements of the Board in order to qualify for the different types of houses.

Mr Tan Kia Gan: (a) The rents charged by the Housing and Development are as follows:- Locality Rent p.m. $ c. Bukit Ho Swee 1 room 20 00 Kampong Tiong Bahru, Communal Tenements 40 00 Kampong Tiong Bahru 2 room 55 00 terrace house (3 room) 68 00 Clarence Lane 2 room 60 00 3 room 90 00 Queenstown 1 room 35 00 2 room 55 00 3 room 75 00 Queenstown, Neighbourhood V 2 room 46 50 (with lift) 3 room 45 50 (without lift) 66 50 (with lift) 65 50 (without lift) MacPherson Road 2 room 46 50

(b) The floor space available varies from 178 sq. ft. to 244 sq. ft. for one room units, 370 sq. ft. to 426 sq. ft. for two room units, and 492 sq. ft. to 579 sq. ft. for three room units.

(c) There are 1,340 one room units, 3,794 two room units and 553 three room units.

(d) As at the 31st October, 1961, 244 one room units were vacant, 601 two room units were vacant and 34 three room units were vacant.

(e) The basic requirements for all Board accomodation is as follows:-

Singapore Citizen of not less than 21 years of age with a compact family of at least five including the applicant and with no member earning more than $500 p.m. and the total family income not exceeding $800 p.m. A Supplementary Register has been opened for Queenstown where untis will be available for families of four persons and conditions for registration have been relaxed as regards relationship of members of the family.