DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES FOR 1964

Order read for consideration in Committed of Supply [Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.50 p.m.

The Chairman: For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total of each Head as it appears in the third column of the summary of expenditure on page 7 of Paper Cmd. 31 of 1963. We will now deal with Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper.

Head D7 -

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

Mr Speaker, I merely wish to know from the Prime Minister whether this vote includes the purchasing of land at Kampong Eunos, Jalan Ladang, Jalan Ang Teng and Jalan Eunos for the purpose of building community centres in these places, as he has announced during his visit to Kampong Kembangan lately.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I first clarify the purpose of this particular development vote? The provision envisages expenditure under the following categories:

(1) Prompt acquisition of fire site.

(2) The purchase of land excess of actual areas required for a specific project in circumstances which reduce the overall cost of acquisition.

(3) Taking up of surplus land held under title and offered by the United Kingdom Armed Services.

(4) The acquisition of large areas of vacant private land ripe for development whose availability in the open market is known in advance,

(5) Expected and foreseen expenditure by each particular Ministry for development purposes includes the purchase of land required for development projects. The matter that has been raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan strictly relates to the development vote under Social Affairs. However, whilst I am unable to give him an undertaking now on the details of the request for community centres which will entail acquisition of land in Kampong Eunos, Jalan Ladang, Jalan Ang Teng and Jalan Eunos, I can say that it is the policy to site the community centre in the rural areas most convenient from the population point of view with regard to transport and rural tracks and footpaths. In the specific instances that he has in mind, the situation is being studied with regard to the community centres already erected, and should a case be made out for more centres near where the concentration of population in the kampongs is now sited, acquisition of the various pieces of land indicated by the petitioners will be considered.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we can see that the provision amounting to $10,700,000 in respect of the Government's policy of land acquisition for development purposes is quite a large sum of money. But judging from the achievements during these few years and up to the end of 1963, we see that the sum spent on acquisition is only $1,450,000. In other words, the sum for the acquisition of land for next year has been greatly increased. We can also see from the other heads in the Development Estimates that there is provision for land acquisition for development purposes. I do not know whether, when drafting these Estimates, the Government have considered the necessity for such a large sum of money for land acquisition.

Another question I would like to ask is how the price for land acquisition is fixed. Is it based on the price obtained in January 1961? Not long ago we read in the newspapers that there was a piece of land in Jurong amounting to 1,020 acres belonging to a foreign company - Bajau Rubber and Produce Estate Company. This is owned by big foreign capitalists. As a result of the development of the Jurong industrial site, the value of that piece of land has increased very greatly. In other words, the Government have used public money, through taxation, to develop the Jurong industrial site. As a result, the value of the land in this area has increased. This will only benefit such foreign capitalists as the Bajau Rubber and Produce Estate Company. This has enabled this particular company to make a profit of $8 million. According to the market price, the price of land should not be more than $1,000 per acre in that area. If the Government are really sincere in wanting to look after the interest and welfare of the people, then it should not use public money to develop land in such a way that in the end it is the foreign capitalists who benefit. I do not know what measures the Government will take in regard to this particular land.

The Government have also acquired land from the Hokkien Huay Kuan. The price paid to them at that time was very low. It was about $1,000 per acre, as I have just now mentioned. But what price do the Government intend to offer for this particular piece of land owned by a foreign capitalist? Is it a high price? How? Or will the Government allow the price of land to increase so that it will get higher and higher in the course of time. I hope the P.A.P. will not try to do things in such a way that in the end it is the foreign capitalists who will benefit.

The Prime Minister: Sir, those of us who are new in this Assembly will soon have to get ourselves accustomed to the regular drivel that is churned out by the ghost writers and the mentors on the other side.

3.00 p.m.

The Member's last point, if I may take it first. The implication is that here is a Government which goes out of its way, either willingly or stupidly, to assist foreign capitalists and who treats its own capitalists harshly. He referred to what has already been printed in some political journal of the Barisan Sosialis about the Bajau Land Company.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take advantage of the mathematical virtues of the Member for Jurong at some stage in this session of the House when a Bill with regard to land acquisition and development charges is raised before this Assembly. We are not concerned with whether the land belongs to European capitalists or local capitalists. We are concerned to see that no private land owner benefits as a result of capital expenditure made by the Government - the building of roads, the laying of services, water, gas, electricity, railroads and, in any case, the general increase in the price of land, because land is limited and population increases. The amount of currency increases with the population increase and the increase in wealth; but land does not. All over the world, this is a problem which is faced in all growing communities. Of course, if we were a community falling backwards and land values collapsed, and population dispersed into the hinterland of Malaysia, then different considerations would apply.

I want to put to the Member for Jurong certain broad principles which we are trying to apply in a Bill which we shall introduce in this House. The first principle is that nobody should get a windfall because of development at public expense.

The second principle is that whenever land is required for a public purpose, the price to be paid for that land should not be higher than what it would have been worth had the Government not contemplated development generally in that area.

With these two principles, we are then faced with a constitutional difficulty in that, in the Constitution of Malaysia, there is a provision which says that no land or property can be acquired or requisitioned by the State without adequate compensation being paid, and one has to reconcile the two broad principles I have enunciated, namely, that nobody should benefit as a result of government expenditure and development; and secondly, the principle enunciated in the Constitution. This is a highly complex matter. I am quite sure the Member for Jurong, if he is sincere, will spend some time in Select Committee in working out an ingenious way whereby concerns like the Bajau Land Company, or whatever realty company, does not profit at the expense of the people of Singapore.

If the Member is interested in real estate values, one of the ways in which it is possible to control land values is that suggested by my Chief Planner, that land should no longer be freehold and that all land should be leasehold, say, for 66 years or 99 years. So that at the lapse of every 66th or 99th year, as the case may be, the land reverts completely in toto to the State and is then again sold or otherwise disposed of to the public. That is one of the techniques which we could employ.

There are certain difficulties as to how and what development charges should be apportioned. One develops Jurong at the cost of several million dollars. How does one apportion the development costs against all the contiguous frontages? The people who own land around the area will naturally profit because the whole of that area becomes a developed area. Certain schemes have been tried in Britain unsuccessfully and have been abandoned. We are studying other schemes which are in operation in Australia, where the technique of the short-term lease has been employed. But the disadvantage there is that nobody builds any house worth while because the land very soon reverts back to the State. Somehow between these two we have to strike a happy mean. But I would like to assure the House that it is our intention to see that no private owner benefits out of public expenditure on land. That is the first principle.

When the legislation is passed, it will have retrospective effect.

Sir, as to the price that will be paid, the reason why we have increased the sum to $10 million is that there is a contingency of several large purchases for the coming year. We are sanguine enough to believe that after the exposure that the Barisan Sosialis suffered at the hands of the electorate in September this year, they will find it more difficult to try to block our resettlement schemes. There is also a resettlement scheme which the Minister for National Development will soon be announcing, generous terms of cash payments or substitution in kind. That is because we are sanguine enough to hope that - whatever may happen in two or three years' time as the situation develops and the Barisan become more skilful in their techniques of blocking development - they will have considerable difficulty. One, because of the generous terms which we will be offering, and, secondly, the fact that they are suffering from a nervous feeling that they will not be so successful in preventing our redevelopment projects. The price of the development in most of these cases - the market value as at the time of acquisition - will have to be taken into consideration during the passage of this Bill.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I would like to inform the Member for Jurong that there is no time for him to move the second amendment* as it is nearly 10 past 3 p.m. In fact, I believe he has spoken on the amendment although he has not moved it. It amounts to the same thing.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, in view of the time factor. I am not moving my amendment*.

• Amendment (2) reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head D7 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $10,700,000 for Head D7 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D13-

The Chairman: We now move to Head D13 - Ministry of National Development. Mr Chio Cheng Thun or Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.+

+The same amendment also stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi.

I would ask the Minister for National Development about the loans given to the Housing Board; whether there is any interest borne by the loans given to the Board, and at what rate of interest? How much will Government get from the interest per year? For what purpose will this interest be used?

Why is there a difference in rentals for two-room flats built by the Housing Board? Another question is - how many units of the $20-rental flats built by the Housing Board are vacant at present? Have the Government laid down the maximum income for applicants of one-room and two-room flats?

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with the loans to the Housing and Development Board, I believe the programmes implemented by the Housing Board cannot be denied by anyone, that the Board has used these loans to the best advantage and thousands of flats have been built quickly. The Barisan Sosialis have made continuous efforts to obstruct the programme of construction of these flats to be implemented by the Housing and Development Board. For instance, the Housing Board attempted to acquire land at Toa Payoh for the purposes of putting up flats, but the Barisan Sosialis instigated the settlers there to obstruct the good work of the Housing Board. Unreasonable demands were put up by the settlers there.

Also, Mr Speaker, the S.P.A. claim that the plan of the Housing Board to sell flats to occupiers is their plan, whereas, in fact, they could not even proceed with the construction of flats during the Lim Yew Hock and Company regime since 1955.

3.15 p.m.

The Housing Board scheme to sell flats to the occupiers is a novel scheme for the lower income group so that they may own these fiats, as has been stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

So I hope the Minister in charge will explain to the House when such a scheme will be implemented and the areas in which work will be started, so that the occupiers of flats will be able to make the necessary preparations for the purchase of such flats.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, first I will answer the Member of the Opposition as regards loans to the Housing Board. I will say that the rate of interest charged by the Government is an effective rate: that is, if the interest on loans in the market is about 5� or 5� per cent, the Housing Board will be charged accordingly.

On his next question - what do the Government do with the rate of interest that is charged to the Housing Board? I will say this, that the Government will have to raise loans also from the market for their development projects. Therefore, these interest rates are in payment for the loans which the Government raise in the market in order to lend to the Housing Board.

The next question is: how many one-room flats are completed? Our Five-Year programme calls for the completion of 51,000 units of flats. We know that the people of Singapore have various rates of income: some of them earn $100, $200, $300 up to $800 a month, or some of them are millionaires. Therefore, in our building programme, we take into account tenants in different categories of income and we work it out so that 30 per cent of our programme will be for a one-room unit, 30 per cent of the units built will be for a two-room unit, and 40 per cent will be for a three-room unit. Now it is usual all over the world for housing authorities to calculate on the basis that a family or wage-earner should set aside between 20 and 25 per cent of his income as rental. Therefore, our flats cater for people with an income of as low as $100 a month, because 20 per cent of $100 is $20 and that is the rent of a one-room unit. Last year, we completed about 12,000 units and out of that 3,000 are one-room units.

As for the number of vacant Housing Board flats, at the moment it stands at 2.87 per cent of about 40,000 units that are under our control.

Now to come to the question raised by one of our Back-benchers with regard to the selling of houses. We are looking into this question now because it involves pricing, terms of payment, and, most important of all, the maintenance of and titles to these units when we sell. There is a team looking into it and I expect to be able to make an announcement after it has made its findings and recommendations with regard to the selling of houses built by the Housing and Development Board.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add to what our Minister has said just now.

The building experts give credit to the Government for their ability in building such cheap flats in Singapore. The flats are considered to be one of the best in the world. The experts also say that no one can build cheaper flats than those built. These flats are built to suit the various lower income groups. They are offered to the people at rentals of $20, $40 and $60 per month in respect of one-room, two-room and three-room flats.

At present, I understand there are no more one-room flats. We had a few thousand of them, and since there has been such a great demand, we have to build several thousand one-room units at the Redhill industrial site.

We now have only 2.87 per cent of flats vacant and this is considered by building experts to be a very small figure. This is because the people pick and choose the flats.

Now I have this to say. The Communists always exploit the poor because in a prosperous community Communism will not survive. This is a lesson the Barisan Sosialis must always learn and not forget.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, there are several points on which I am not clear and I would like the Minister to explain them. The Minister says that the rate of interest charged is 5.75 per cent. I would like to know the total sum involved on this rate of interest.

There are 2.87 per cent of flats vacant, I would like to know the actual number of such vacant flats.

Another point is this. Are the Government still building flats in spite of the fact that there are these vacant flats? Are the Government still contemplating flats with monthly rentals of $20?

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand the Member for Choa Chu Kang correctly, he wants to know the total amount we have paid out in interest. Well, this loan is a loan for 60 years. It is possible to compute what we will be paying in 60 years. But I see no relevant point in asking that, because it is a 60-year loan and we pay both principal and interest at the same time.

As regards his question on the number of vacant flats in existence, I can say that, from the last census, it is 2.87 per cent. His reasoning is that if there are empty flats, there is no reason why the Government should go on building flats. I have already explained a few days ago why there are about 1,000 flats vacant. We complete about 1,000 flats a month and it takes some time for the people to take up the flats which have been allocated to them. This is also a measure of our success because, at this stage, out of every 1,000 fiats allocated, about 30 per cent of them are rejected by the successful applicants because they feel sure that if they were to wait a little longer, the Housing Board would be able to allocate them flats in the locality which they desire.

The Member asks why we should build more flats. I do not know whether it is his desire, but I feel that it may be his desire to see that the people of Singapore are not better housed and do not have a better standard of living. On the other hand, we are making long-term plans so that not only the present generation but also the future generations will be housed in healthy and sanitary surrounding. Now our population increase is estimated at 60,000 per year and if we average five members to a family, we will have to build 12,000 units a year just to cope with the increase in population. Therefore, the Government programme is to provide for this increase in population for the years to come.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clarify what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said about the 2.8 per cent vacant flats, which is equivalent to about 10,000 vacant flats. These flats are vacant not because there are no applications for them. These fiats include those newly built in Bukit Ho Swee, Aljunied and Redhill, totalling more than 9.000 units. So actually the vacant flats do not number more than a few hundred. I can tell the Member that the flats built by the Government cannot cope up with the demand. The flats in Selegie House are in great demand. I hope I have clarified the position.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.30 p.m.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2; * and

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.*

*The same amendments also stood in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng.

I would like to take the two amendments together. On the provision of $4,738,000 for resettlement, how much is provided for each resettlement area? I would also ask whether the Government have the intention of revising the compensation rates which date back to the Lim Yew Hock Government.

I would also ask whether those rural people who have been asked to move out are given alternative sites, what is the period of lease given to them, and whether there is any security or safeguard to protect them.

The other point is whether Government will allow them to assign the land given to them to others if they find that the land given is not suitable for their purposes. In the past, the Government practice usually has been to allot one to two acres of land to these affected rural people. But usually the alternative sites given to them are not quite suitable for agricultural purposes. So I would like to know whether Government would consider giving either interest-free loans to these farmers or loans at a very low rate of interest in order to help them in their cost of production.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2."

The Member for Choa Chu Kang has also moved his amendment to subhead 3, so that the debate will range over both these amendments.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is expected that about 1,200 families will be moved into this area for development in 1964. The provision of $4 million is in respect of land acquisition of suitable farming land so that these farmers can be given alternative sites on which to carry out their activities; compensation $1 million, cost of development work in the resettlement area $1,100,000, administration $261,000, and personal emoluments $310,000.

I think the Prime Minister has said earlier that the Government are revising the compensation rates, and it is likely that the settlers will be given better compensation or alternative sites. Details are now being worked out and, as the Prime Minister has said, an announcement will be made later.

We have found that in the past where these squatters may occupy illegally about ten acres of land, invariably in no case have we found that they were able to farm more than one or two acres. Therefore, in our resettlement scheme we do not give them more than two acres because, as you know, Mr Speaker, land is very scarce and valuable in Singapore and it should not be given to someone when it is not being made full use of.

As regards assignment, we try as far as possible to stop assignments because in the past we have found that this practice has been abused. It is done this way. A squatter is resettled. He is given a piece of land. He is given compensation. In the next month or so, it is sold to someone else and the squatter is back somewhere else squatting. In order to prevent such things, we have put a stop to assignments.

We have no scheme to lend money to the resettled family because from the compensation they get we expect them to be able to start life in their new surroundings.

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Four-Year Development Plan is a great failure in respect of rural development. There have been no results whatsoever. If we compare the figures in the Estimates with those contained in the P.A.P. Government's Four-Year Plan 1961-64, they will show whether or not there are any improvements in the rural areas. The Four-Year Development Plan blue book gives the amount as $53,700,000 and the sum provided for rural development was $26,100,000. But these figures, it seems, are quite different from what the Minister for Finance said in his recent Budget statement. He said that $1.77 million was allotted for rural development. That is a decrease of $24.3 million. According to the Government, 97 per cent of the development has been achieved. In fact, it is not even up to 4 per cent. According to the Four-Year Development Plan, the Government intend to develop about 1,000 acres of arable land, 1,000 acres of prawn ponds, and 2,000 acres of fish ponds. I do not know where these ponds can be found.

The Minister has just now mentioned about resettlement, saying that at present there are many problems relating to the question of resettlement and that these problems need solution. I hope that a solution is forthcoming in the near future. I also welcome the Minister's assurance that he has a plan to improve the resettlement areas. I hope the project will also include loans to the resettlers.

In the past those people affected by resettlement were not willing to settle down on the alternative sites offered. The reason is that they could not get loans. Most of the resettlement areas are far away from the town where there are not many social facilities. If the Government force them to move into these resettlement areas, of course, they will meet with opposition. For instance, if farmers living in the Geylang area, which is arable land, are asked to move into Kallang where the land is not suitable for agricultural purposes, then, of course, they will oppose such resettlement. If a farmer has two acres of land originally, and he is compensated with only one acre, he will also not agree to the plan.

The other question is about transport, which should also receive Government's consideration. If farmers in the Toa Payoh and Geylang areas are forced to live in Choa Chu Kang or Lim Chu Kang, which is about 12 to 14 miles away from town, they will have difficulty in transport. Perhaps the land there may be quite suitable for cultivation, but the cost of production to them will be more than the actual cost because of the added and higher cost of transport. So this question should be considered in order to reduce the burden on the farmers concerned.

Another point is medical services which have been very poor recently. Also connected with these services are veterinary services, agricultural services, inoculation of chickens, which have also been poor. Up to now the Government can only provide tractors to help the farmers. Since the alternative land they occupy is not very extensive, the tractors are therefore of no great value to them.

3.45 p.m.

I would also like to talk about the water supply which is a very serious problem to many people. There are lots of land which are very low and marshy and not suitable for agricultural purposes. Judging from the Government's resettlement area in Geylang, the land there is not suitable for agriculture.

I hope the Minister will consider these problems and that he will do something to improve the situation.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot reconcile the fact that the farmers want - at least he says they want - to be farmers and at the same time want to be in town and enjoy all the facilities in town. I should be very happy if he would indicate to us where we can get a large and suitable farm tract in town so that these people can have all the modern facilities of town life and, at the same time, do their farming. I would straightaway advise the Government to acquire this land and give it to the farmers. You have either to be a farmer or an urban dweller. That is all there is to it. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Lim Kim San: He says that the rural development project of the Government was a failure. He has perhaps forgotten that before 1959 we had to import our pigs from Bali, Indonesia. We had to import our eggs. But because of our rural development project, because of the scientific advice given by members of the Primary Production Department, and because of the veterinary centres that have been put up, we are now able to export pigs and eggs. That is a criterion whether our rural development project has been a success or not, and not just empty talk.

There is an allegation that people are not willing to accept the alternative site provided by the Government in the resettlement scheme. My figures show that during the last three years, there were altogether 2,286 farmers who had accepted alternative sites and had released their land so that we could carry on with our development projects. I would take a long time if I were to read the schemes that we have in hand for the improvement of the farmers. But I believe the Member for Bukit Panjang knows as well as I do that a lot of projects are being undertaken at the moment. Since this is an era of science, if you want to have progress you must have scientific aid. We are, therefore, increasing the provision in the Estimates for more laboratories and technical equipment for the guidance of the farmers in the nutritional, diagnostic and other spheres.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree with what the Minister has said. He says that if you want to have facilities in the city, you cannot expect them in the rural areas. That is to say, people in the rural areas cannot enjoy the facilities which the people living in the city area are now enjoying, and vice versa. I cannot understand this kind of talk. City people are having free medical services, free veterinary services, water and electricity supply. Does it mean rural people cannot enjoy these facilities? Does it mean that the Government have a double standard, one for people living in the city area and one for people living in the rural areas? The P.A.P. Government have said that whatever facilities are available to urban dwellers will also be available to rural dwellers. Now the Minister has turned round and said that whatever facilities urban dwellers have may not be available to rural dwellers. He says they cannot have it both ways. I have mentioned just now something about medical services, transport and other things. The Government could provide all these facilities. For instance, they could provide better transport and communications, better medical and veterinary services and so on. All these are problems which can be solved in a practical way. As far as I understand, there has been no export of pigs. Does the Minister know that in the past two months we have imported several thousand pigs from the Federation?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to refute the allegations made by the Member for Bukit Panjang with regard to rural development projects. Whatever he has said is not true. For example, some of the main arterial roads in the rural constituencies have been metalled. These roads have been metalled because they link up with the main roads. In a way, transportation in the rural constituencies is now much better.

With regard to electricity supply. I know - being myself a member of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee - that we have approved many kampong electrification schemes. This shows that what he has said is not true.

We have also installed many stand-pipes and water mains for the kampong folks. More community centres have been built. At the same time, we have built several veterinary centres in the rural constituencies. For example, there is one in Tampines, one in Jurong and one in Thomson. All these belong to the Barisan constituencies. The Primary Production Department give free advice to the farmers in respect of agricultural and poultry farming and so forth.

What about communications? We have also installed many public telephones. I am sure if they were to go to the rural constituencies, they could see for themselves whether the rural development projects carried out by the P.A.P. are a success or not. I say it is a tremendous success.

With regard to prawn ponds, he says he does not know where they are. It is up to him to go to the constituencies, at Jalan Kayu and Punggol, for example, where he can see these prawn ponds. Do not ask silly questions. He has asked, "Where do you find prawn ponds?"

3.55 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time is up. Would the Member for Choa Chu Kang indicate whether he wishes to withdraw his amendments or have a vote?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: I want a vote.

Question on the amendment* put, and negatived.

Amendment (2)* reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2.

Question on the amendment+ put, and negatived.

Amendment (3)+ reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.

The lime allotted for Head D13 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh, was not proceeded with:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 9.

The sum of $102,607,400 for Head D13 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D17-

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D17 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.

I would like to ask the Minister for Health about school dental clinics. There is only one clinic. Have the Government any plans for the building of more school dental clinics for school children? At present there is at the Outram Road Institute of Health, only one school dental clinic to cope with all the school children in Singapore. It is not convenient for school children living in the rural areas to attend this Institute of Health. Some of them do not even know how to find their way there. It will be too expensive for them to go by taxi. With that money they can very well go to a private dental surgeon. This is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. So I wonder if the Minister for Health would consider building more school dental clinics at more convenient sites instead of spending money on community centres which are not very important. The building of community centres would only be used by the P.A.P. for propaganda purposes. [Interruption] I do not know what Doctor anti-Communist is talking about! The vote envisaged in the Budget for works and buildings under this subhead is $150,000. There is another item for $162,000 for furniture and equipment. I would like to have more details concerning these two items.

4.00 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the subject of the development of dental services, the Member for Thomson has indicated that there is only one dental clinic available for school children. That is a matter of the past. There is a new dental clinic at Pegu Road, which is just next to Middleton Hospital, and which was opened very recently with 13 dental chairs solely for school children. So in addition to the school dental clinic at the Institute of Health, Outram Road, which the Member for Thomson was talking about, where there are only eight chairs, there is, as I have said, a second one, which was opened just a few months ago. I hope it meets his question on the building of more than one dental clinic for school children.

But I would like to say that that is not all. In fact, the Ministry of Health's dental service section has been very fortunate in that in the last Four-Year Plan about 90 per cent of achievement has been reached in that there are a number of school dental huts. Therefore, for 1964, we will be building the remaining 10 dental huts; six will be in primary schools at Tanjong Katong, Bedok Boys' and Girls' School, Dunearn School, River Valley School and Newton School which is the one covered by the 1964 project. In addition, there will be 12 new dental clinics in 12 new integrated Government schools. But during the past year, we have been able to build 12 school clinics in new integrated schools and there are also four dental clinics at maternal and child health centres at the Yio Chu Kang Maternal and Child Health Clinic, Ama Keng Maternal and Child Health Clinic, Buona Vista Maternal and Child Health Clinic and Bukit Panjang Outpatient Centre. So an attempt has been made to spread out dental clinics throughout the island as far as possible. I think this answers the request of the Member for Thomson for a spread of dental clinics to look after the dental caries of our young children. I do not agree with him that it is preferable to build dental clinics in place of community centres. I think each has a function to perform. Community centres have a function to perform for adults ---

Mr Koo Young: For the P.A.P.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: --- as regards their leisure hours, and I am quite satisfied that in respect of dental attention

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): What, in community centres?

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: --- our school children are very fortunate.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Thomson indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

Mr Koo Young: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $412,020 for Head D17 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D18-

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5;

and

That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

They are both related. Can I take them together?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): In the Development Estimates, we find that there is no provision for the Orthopaedic Unit and the Radiotherapy Unit this year. In 1963, the estimate for Works and Buildings (Orthopaedic Unit) was $117,000 and for Furniture and Equipment, there was no provision; and for the Radiotherapy Unit, there was no provision for Works and Buildings and Furniture and Equipment. For next year, there is only a token provision of $10 for these four items. I would like to know whether our Government hospitals have adequate equipment, or whether there is a shortage of qualified doctors, so that expansion cannot take place, or is it because of other reasons that we do not have enough provision for these few items? I find that in the Development Estimates in the Ministry of Health, the provisions for the Ministry have been reduced for last year. It is a very strange state of affairs in view of the rapid increase of population.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has an eagle eye when he noticed the token vote of $10 for the two subheads concerned. May I refer you to Hansard, 28th November, 1963, Col. 98, when the Minister for Finance made his Budget speech? In referring to the 1964 Development Estimates in the second paragraph, he stated:

`There are three matters of note. First is the deletion of a number of projects entered in the original plan.'

The original plan is the Four-Year Development Plan of the Government for the years 1961-64.

`The two Heads under which a significant number of projects have been deleted or deferred are Head D18 Hospital Services and Head D37 Fire Brigade [which does not concern us this afternoon].'

He went on to say:

`The second District Hospital has been deleted from the present plan as also has been the second Maternity Home and the Chronic Sick Hospital. Similarly all proposed clinics for 1964 have been deleted. The second District Hospital and the Chronic Sick Hospital have never got off the ground. These are matters which may be raised again in the second Five Year Plan or some other Five Year Plan.'

Now comes the relevant sentence:

`The Orthopaedic Hospital [I think it should read as the Orthopaedic Unit in the hospital] and the Radiography Unit [this also should read as the Radiotherapy Unit], for which there is more justification than the other projects, may be reconsidered in the second Five Year Plan. It will be necessary to assess the availability of doctors when these major projects are reassessed.'

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the explanation that these items were originally in the Four-Year Development Plan for the Ministry of Health for the years 1961-64. Therefore, the token votes for 1964 development indicate that the matters will be reviewed. After I have been given the opportunity to study the two projects in my Ministry, it is very likely that the green light would again be given and we would then have to seek the permission of the House for an allocation of funds. I trust that when that time comes, our friends in the Opposition will support the request for additional funds required.

The Chairman: Could the Member for Thomson indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendments or have a vote?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am still not clear on the answers given by the Minister for Health because for the projects, the plan provided for $1,700,000, and for the Radiotherapy Unit, the sum provided was $1,300,000. But for next year the provision is only $10 - a token vote. I do not know whether in drafting these Estimates he was hiding in his air-conditioned room and had not taken reality into account. If that is so, it is not surprising that they have accumulated such a big surplus. Since we have this plan and since the Finance Ministry has provided such an amount of money, why should these projects not be carried out; why should they wait for a further development plan? If this is a way of saving money, then I say this Government is not competent.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I thought the Member for Thomson is a reasonable man, but evidently ---

Mr Rajaratnam: He is like the former Member for Thomson.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Yes. The Member for Thomson runs true to course. Perhaps he has not had the advantage of serving in the Government to realise that before drawing up a Budget it was necessary for estimate figures to have been decided earlier on. For example, for 1964, the estimated figures should have been submitted sometime in February/March of 1963 before you can produce the 1964 Budget. It has already been explained that it is one thing to draw up a plan, but then you might encounter difficulties when the Development Planning Committee may not approve certain projects, although they have gone into the plan, because there are other items of higher priority which have to be proceeded with first. So I have tried to explain that the Minister for Finance has already revealed that in the first Four-Year Plan (1961-64) for the Ministry of Health the percentage of achievement - if we turn to col. 112 of Hansard of 28th November, 1963 - showed that capital development for Health reached only 28 per cent. There have been a number of plans which just did not take off from the ground. But the Minister for Finance was kind enough at least to me as the new Minister for Health - to indicate that there were certain big projects which, although scrubbed out from the 1961-64 Plan, could be reconsidered for the next Five-Year Plan; in other words, 1965-69. But after I have had the opportunity of reviewing the position, there is no reason why I will not be able to satisfy my Minister for Finance that this is an urgent project which must get the green light in 1964, by which time I can come back to this House again to seek additional funds to proceed with this project. That is why I have said that when that time comes, I hope the Opposition Members opposite will support me.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister for Health has explained matters clearly to the Member for Thomson. I would like to give them a bit of fatherly advice, Sir. They have been here in this Assembly for just one week. The Budget is a very complicated business. This process of a token vote is obviously a mystery which. I think, they should try to understand instead of launching out on tirades against the Government without evidence of Government failure. As far as they are concerned, Sir, they should regard themselves as wolf cubs and girl guides ---

The Chairman: Order. Let us have a debate on the matter under discussion, and no comments on how the Opposition debates whether they are girl guides or wolf cubs. This takes us nowhere. I have asked this Assembly right from the start of this Session not to indulge in these personal attacks. One attack leads to another, and we will never get anywhere except that some Members may lose their temper. I ask the Minister for Culture to bear that in mind.

If there are no other speakers, I will ask the Member for Thomson whether he wishes to withdraw the amendments or put them to a vote.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the Minister for Health say that in the next Five-Year Plan these matters will be discussed, and I hope they will take effect.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish to withdraw the amendments or take a vote?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I beg to withdraw.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: We are still on Head D18. Amendment (3)* which stands in the names of Mr Koo Young and Mr Chio Cheng Thun. Do Members wish to proceed with their amendment?

*Amendment (3) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 11.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to move.

The sum of $2,884,550 for Head D18 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D19-

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D19 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.

From the Development Estimates, we find that the progress in respect of Maternal and Child Health-cum-School Health Clinics and Midwives Centres has been very poor. For example, in respect of Works and Buildings the original Plan Cost was $1,900,000 but up to the end of this year only about $200,000 has been spent, i.e. the work carried out amounts to about ten per cent of the provision. For next year, the expenditure is estimated at $105,000, and the work yet to be completed is estimated at about $1� million. In respect of Furniture and Equipment, the original Plan was to spend $300,000 but up to the end of this year, $90,000 only has been expended, i.e. roughly about 30 per cent of the original estimate. For next year, this estimate is only $12,000, which is an even less figure. I do not know whether the Government consider that these Maternal and Child Health Centres are not important for the welfare of the people. The rural people including mothers and school children have to travel far for medical care. They have to spend money and find time to go to the clinics, and if the clinics are crowded, they have to queue up. This is a great inconvenience to them. Why do the Government not take care of them properly?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not agree with the Member for Jurong when he states that we are not doing enough in respect of Maternal and Child Health Centres in Singapore. It is just like the opening of out-patient clinics throughout the island. It is true that Maternal and Child Health Centres need not necessarily be staffed by doctors, but we still require certain doctors to supervise the work of nurses and midwives. So here is the question of whether there is an adequate supply of staff. I think the shortage of trained staff, be they doctors, nurses, midwives, health nurses, and so on, is a matter that has to be put right. An attempt was made to put it right, but I think we can still make greater efforts in that direction.

There are, in all, something like 58 Maternal and Child Health Centres throughout Singapore as distinct from out-patient clinics which, I have previously said, number 32. There are ten, what are known as urban type clinics in the city area. But I believe the Member for Jurong was talking about poor rural folk having to travel long distances as the centres are so far away. There are 24 clinics in the rural areas. I will now call them out to satisfy the Member for Jurong - they are all over the island and not close to the city area where they have to travel by bus over long distances: 14� m.s. Changi Village 9 m.s. Bedok 7 m.s. Ulu Bedok Jalan Eunos, 5� m.s. Changi Road 6� m.s. Upper Serangoon Road (Lim Ah Pin Centre) 10 m.s. Yio Chu Kang Road 14� m.s. Sembawang Road 10� m.s. Mandai Road 10� m.s. Woodlands Road. That is only nine, mind you. Shall I go down further: 7� m.s. Bukit Timah Road 5 m.s. Holland Road 6 m.s. South Buona Vista Road 10 m.s. Kay Hai Road, off West Coast Road 12� m.s. Jurong Road 18 m.s. Jurong Road - Tuas Village

4.30 p.m.

I think the Member for Jurong calls there very often! Ama Keng 17� m.s. Lim Chu Kang Road 5� m.s. Thomson Road Kim Chuan Road, off Paya Lebar Road Clinic at junction of Kranji and Woodlands Road Still Road 18� m.s. Lim Chu Kang Road at Tong Hoe Village Clinic at the junction of Airport Road

There are two more in the islands. Kampong Kopit, Pulau Brani Kampong Ladang, Pulau Tekong Those are the rural Maternal and Child Health Centres. In addition, there are another 24 Maternal and Child Health Visiting Centres, Rural. I suppose I will not be taking too much of the time of the House if I repeat another 24!

Hon. Members: Go ahead.

The Chairman: We have two minutes.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: It looks as if that is the desire of Members of both sides of the House, and not only of the Opposition. May I proceed: 12� Tampines Road (This is the Loyang Centre) 10 m.s. Upper Changi Road (Somapah Centre) That is close to one of your friends! 10 m.s. Jurong Road Kampong Ayer Gernuroh, off Wing Loong Road 11 m.s. Changi Road 6 m.s. Yio Chu Kang Road - Chia Keng 9� m.s. Punggol Road 13� m.s. Choa Chu Kang Road - Bulim Kampong Loyang, off Tampines Road Lazarus Island, or Pulau Sekijang St. John's Island Pulau Sebarok Pulau Sekin Pulau Bukum Kechil Pulau Semakau Pulau Sudong Pulau Damar Laut Pulau Seraya Pulau Ayer Merbau Pulau Merlimau Pulau Semulon. Then launches go to these islands. They are off the North-West coast of Singapore. Kampong Bajau - North-West Coast, off Singapore Kampong Belukang Kampong Tanjong Murai Pulau Ubin. Sir, I could go on listing the attendances. For the year 1962, these infant welfare centres had to deal with 427,000 infants of the age when they were born till one year old. For children over one year old. the number attending was 733,000. There were tens of thousands of mothers. I am sure there are always worried fathers who come along to these clinics. I have visited some of these Maternal and Child Health Centres during the present cholera inoculation month, and I know how the people crowd there. There are a number of yelling babies and distraught parents - mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunties and all - who turn up at our centres. It is true we could do very much more. But this is the best that we are able to do. I think our people know the situation well enough, that this is a Government which has done its best to provide medical services to its people. I, therefore, hope the Member for Jurong is now satisfied that far from being unsatisfactory, the medical services of Singapore are something of which we can well be proud.

The Chairman: Would the Member for Jurong indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, while I was listening to the Minister for Health, he was reading a list of the names of roads. Perhaps the reason why work has not been properly done in the past is due to the shortage of doctors and nurses. This is the impression he has given me. I therefore urge him to take immediate steps to remedy the situation and do a better job in the future. In view of that, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,147,000 for Head D19 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D21-

The Chairman: We now proceed to Head D21 - Ministry of Finance. The first amendment stands in the name of the Member for Jurong.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not moving the amendment*.

*Amendment (1) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D21 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

The Chairman: The Member for Jurong is not moving the first amendment shown under Head D2l. The second amendment stands in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D21 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

This item concerns the $30 million loan for development in Sarawak and Sabah. I wish to express my dissatisfaction with regard to this provision. Mr Speaker, I will give my reasons for moving this amendment. First of all, I am of the opinion that the White Paper on merger was drafted as a result of the intrigues of the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya in conjunction with the British colonial power. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Please allow the Member for Tampines to continue in silence. I do not want any more interruptions. Please continue, Mr Poh.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are the facts. Our economic interests have been sold out. According to the Finance Minister's Budget statement, it is 40 per cent of the national income, that is, the loan amounts to $120 million. The ruling clique in Singapore and Malaya have not only ignored the wishes of the people of Singapore, but they have also wanted to confiscate the income of the people of Singapore. The M.C.A. of Malaya was also a party to this arrangement. Thus, as a result of this arrangement, the small power that still remains in the hands of the Government of Singapore was taken away.

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of order. I do not think the Member for Tampines is reading the right speech because this Head refers to loan for development in Sarawak and Sabah. His speech is obviously intended for the White Paper on merger.

The Chairman: Surely the Minister will know that the loan for development in Sarawak and Sabah came as a result of Malaysia. I think the Member is being relevant. Please proceed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): On a point of order.

The Chairman: Point of order? The Minister for Culture has just risen. What is the Parliamentary Secretary's point of order?

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Mr Speaker, the amendment should be such that it reduces the sum by $100 and not $10. If the Member wishes to speak in broad and general outlines, then he should have reduced the sum by $100 instead of $10 only.

The Chairman: This is an item under subhead 6, it is not the main heading D21. If it were under the main Head D21, the amendment would be to reduce the vote by $100. But here it is under subhead 6. The hon. Member is correct. Please proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): The purpose of the P.A.P. in doing so is to facilitate the achievement of its purpose. But now the Alliance is running over the heads of the people of Singapore. This sum of money is put forward as a sort of cover in the name of aid to the Borneo territories. Without this the P.A.P. would not be able to cover up its deceit. We can also see the split sometime ago between the M.C.A. and the P.A.P. The differences between the M.C.A. and the P.A.P. that have arisen sometime ago have been caused by the P.A.P.'s device and intention. Otherwise there would not have been such an agreement like this.

4.45 p.m.

At that time the P.A.P. claimed that this sort of arrangement was a victory for them. The power struggle between the M.C.A. and the P.A.P. had been published in the newspapers and much dirty linen had been washed. Today, the difference between these two cliques, which are both anti the people, cannot be resolved.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of order. What has this M.C.A. and P.A.P. struggle got to do with the loan?

The Chairman: The Member is making passing references.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: He is wasting time.

The Chairman: We have only got about 12 minutes. At 5 o'clock this particular item finishes. Will the Parliamentary Secretary allow him to proceed? Mr Poh.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. They both tried to become rulers and arbiters of the fate of the people in these areas. They tried to get hold of this surplus from the people to benefit themselves. Both sides did not want to yield, but as a result of the conciliatory efforts of the Tunku, they came to terms. But in the end the Tunku was still on the side of the M.C.A., Malaya, because the M.C.A., Malaya, had been more useful to the Tunku than the P.A.P. in Singapore ---

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of order. I am still trying to find out how Lee Kuan Yew being the father, the Tunku being the father of Lee Kuan Yew and the M.C.A. politics relate to this particular subject. I also notice the paper from which the Member is reading; I am quite sure it is intended for a different speech.

The Chairman: The Member for Tampines is drifting away from the loan. I have allowed him to do it a little way, but I think he should come hack to the particular item, which is "Loan for Development in Sarawak and Sabah". He can make passing references to merger, the Tunku and the Prime Minister, but he should try to confine his remarks, if possible, to the loan.

Mr Rajaratnam: I suggest he read the last page.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Change to a new speech.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, firstly, I mentioned that this provision had not been entered in the White Paper on merger; and, secondly, I told you that this had been agreed to by the P.A.P. The P.A.P. had agreed in their type of merger arrangements to give $30 million to the Borneo territories. According to them, both sides had won in the struggle. According to calculations, the 40 per cent surplus in national income amounts to $120 million. According to the agreement, an additional $30 million will be given. When can this sum of money be given hack to the people of Singapore? There have been no stipulations in the merger agreement. This is the way the P.A.P. give out loans freely. The Minister for Finance said that we could get back this loan. But when are we going to get it back? Mr Tan Siew Sin also said that $50 million would be given as aid without interest. So the loss on interest would be $55 million. According to the P.A.P., by using our loans the Borneo territories must use the labour coming from Singapore. But is this a fact? The Minister said that although the Sabah Leader had told the Press that he was not going to admit our workers from Singapore, but then under Sabah laws the Minister had the discretion to admit anyone ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong rose ---

The Chairman: I think the Minister for Labour must give me a few seconds to listen to what has been said by the learned gentleman before he objects; otherwise, I cannot rule.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes. I know he is tapering away. I think it is only fair that the Minister for Finance should be allowed time to reply to what he has been alleging because this will stop at 5 o'clock.

The Chairman: The Minister has a point there. I was about to ask the Member for Tampines myself. But that is not a point of order. That is the discretion for the Speaker and the Member on the Floor. I assure Members of the Government that I will give them a chance to reply. Perhaps the Member for Tampines will indicate how long he will be. Could he wind up his arguments quickly? We stop at 5 o'clock and I am sure he would like to give the Minister for Finance a chance to reply to his allegations.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Read the last sentence.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I will wind up my speech as soon as possible. At the moment the Government should note that the trade unions in the First Division of Sarawak and The Stevedores' Union have reacted very strongly against the suggestion that workers will be imported from Singapore for development projects. If the Borneo territories cannot find workers and have to import them from other countries, it will be a great blow to the workers in the Borneo territories. I do not know whether the P.A.P. wish to create disharmony among the workers in the Borneo territories and workers in Singapore. On the other hand, we do not believe that Singapore can send workers to the Borneo territories, since the Minister for Finance has admitted that it is not easy to send our workers there. Under such circumstances, how are we going to deal with this problem? The best policy is to make use of this loan to invest in our own country so as to solve our unemployment problem. On the one hand, we have to beg for loans from the World Bank at 5� per cent interest, but, on the other hand, we seem to be very generous and charitable to be able to lend money to other people.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing new in what the Member for Tampines has said. Dr Lee Siew Choh, his leader, was making this point in the last Assembly, sometimes spending eight hours saying how merger was a sell-out, the White Paper was bad and the financial arrangements were against the interests of the people. The Barisan said that. What is the result? In the general elections they got whacked ---

An hon. Member: Answer the question.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What for this rubbish --- [Interruption] They have a bad habit, Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Kow Kee Seng: Come on. Why do you not answer the question?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, will you please silence this gentleman [Laughter] No manners.

The Chairman: Order. There are interruptions from both sides of the House. Please proceed, Mr Minister.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: Allow the Minister three minutes to speak in silence.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Tampines has the audacity always to say not only people, but the broad masses - "Kwang Ta Ren Min". That fellow just scraped in by a minority vote and he says, "I represent the broad masses." How can they say so?

An hon. Member: Answer the question.

Another hon. Member: Lies!

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, there is nothing for me to answer because he is always talking rubbish. He brought up the point of what will happen if the Borneo territories do not want to use our workers. If they do not want to use our workers, they do not get our money. It is as simple as that. We are not going to force this loan on them. So if the Governor of Sabah or the Member's colleagues in the pro-Communist unions in Sarawak do not want our workers, then that is settled. Use the money here. I do not see any problem ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Unity of the working class.

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: As to whether the loan is of benefit to the people of Singapore. I say it will be of immense benefit. My calculation is that under the terms of the merger agreement, signed and agreed to by the Governments of Singapore and the Federation, we should provide jobs in Sabah and Sarawak to the extent of something like 6,000 to 8,000 workers. This is a substantial contribution in the way of solving our problem of unemployment.

Has he raised any other points?

An hon. Member: No point.

Another hon. Member: 50,000!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why cannot we borrow money from the World Bank, Mr Speaker, Sir? Their adopted fatherland, the Republic of Indonesia, tries to borrow money from the World Bank, and they cannot get one cent. [Laughter] They cannot get one cent. So may be that is why they are a bit envious that we have been successful in borrowing money from the World Bank --- [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Only countries with sound financial standing can get loans from the World Bank. Any other points? ---

Some hon. Members: Sit down.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, they were talking so much nonsense --- [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: --- about the M.C.A. and the P.A.P. and the Tunku. I do not think that part of his speech calls for any reply. Therefore, the main substance that this loan is not for the benefit of the workers, I repeat, his leader, Dr Lee Siew Choh, said it time and again. And look at his fate. He lost.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Tampines indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to have it put to the vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head D21 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Koo Young, was not proceeded with:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D21 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7.

The sum of $89,320,010 for Head D21 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Order. It is time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I shall resume again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.31 p.m.

Head D32 -

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

I would like to ask: since the State will spend $4.38 million for the Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House, when will the work be completed?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): The answer is very simple. The Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House will be completed by the early part of November 1964.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I have a question to ask about the Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House. After its completion, may I know whether trade unions which are not under P.A.P. control can also make use of the Hall?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy on trade unions is very clear. We want to offer the trade unions every help and assistance so that they can develop in the proper way. But as for those trade unions controlled by the Communists, we will try to give them blows until they are eradicated. If they, however, choose not to be under Communist control, then I can assure them that they will enjoy all the facilities and benefits of the Trade Union House.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for Labour, what is meant by a "Communist controlled" union? Is a union which does not support the P.A.P. considered a Communist controlled union?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Not necessarily so. That is not the definition. All those trade unions which are not for the benefit or the true interests of the workers and which are engaged in non-union activities are Communist controlled. If, instead of serving the genuine interests of the workers, we find that they serve the interests of the Communists, that these Communist elements, whether they be big or small in the Communist trade unions - though they deny that they are Communists, but through our observation and experience in the past few years, we have found that they are actually Communist elements and their presence in the unions is to carry out their Communist activities - are making use of the trade unions for other than legitimate union purposes, to do things detrimental to the interests of the workers and to endanger the security of the State, then I assure the House that the Government will not evade their responsibility to take proper steps to deal with them in order to safeguard the interests of the workers.

We cannot allow these trade union traitors to ride over the heads of the workers under the pretext of working for the people, no matter how they style themselves as "heroes of the workers" or "champions of the workers' interests". We will not allow them to make use of this cover to do things harmful to the workers and detrimental to the State.

On this matter, the P.A.P. Government have a pro-labour policy, and the Singapore Conference Hall is a concrete symbol of our policy. It was only after the P.A.P. came into office that the Singapore Government allotted millions of dollars to build the Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House to foster the growth and development of the trade union movement, that is, of all healthy and democratic trade unions. We cannot allow a handful of undesirable and illegal elements to carry out their activities to ---

5.40 p.m.

The Chairman: I am afraid time has expired. Will the Member for Paya Lebar please indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote taken?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I beg leave to withdraw, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,241,000 for Head D32 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D34-

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D34 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 3.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since television was inaugurated in Singapore at the beginning of this year - at first there was only one channel but now there are two channels (Channel 5 and Channel 8) - it seems to me that the programmes are still limited in scope. Therefore, I should like to know whether the Ministry of Culture will increase the scope of T.V. programmes so that they will be at par with radio broadcasts in each of the language streams, as is the case with Radio Singapore, so that the Malay programmes on T.V. can be increased. At the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are practically no Malay films shown on television, and although T.V. Singapura telecasts quite a good number of Indian and Chinese films, for the Malay service only Kalong Senandong and Dondang Sayang are telecast. I would ask the Minister for Culture whether more Malay films could be telecast in future.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, Television Singapura is quite conscious of the fact that at the moment there is no adequate provision for programmes in all the language streams, in particular, the Malay and Indian programmes. Of the 61 hours a week that we broadcast over T.V. Singapura, only about one-fifth of that time is devoted to Malay programmes. Now, the reason for this is that very few feature films in Malay are available. In fact, some time ago, we tried very hard to get some feature films but only succeeded in getting some very old films of such poor quality that there were protests from the listeners and we had to withdraw them from exhibition.

5.45 p.m.

As you know, Sir, unlike English and Chinese films which are produced extensively both in Hong Kong and Singapore, Malay films are produced only in two studios in Singapore, and they cater for a limited and competitive market in the country. It is not possible for these two studios to provide recent and up-to-date Malay films at low rentals for use by our T.V., as this will spoil their cinema market. They do spend a lot of capital in producing these films. However, the film companies concerned have now agreed that Television Singapura can show films which are more than five years old, provided a reasonable price is paid. At the moment, negotiations are in progress. A further difficulty which may be of interest to the Barisan is that, as a result of confrontation, we are not able to get the more wholesome Indonesian films for exhibition in this country.

The Ministry of Culture is conscious of the shortage and is trying to rectify it in two ways. One is by trying to produce more live entertainment in Malay, and when we have extra studio facilities and more equipment, I think we should be able to provide more live entertainment in Malay for our Malay listeners. At the moment, out of six hours of programme entirely in Malay, half of them are entertainment features produced exclusively by Television Singapura, and these exclude sub-titling of other films in Malay or commentary in Malay over the second sound channel.

Another reason why this position may be somewhat rectified is that with the introduction of television in Kuala Lumpur, and later in all the principal towns in Malaya, it will be possible to exchange programmes to increase the output of Malay films which will be made available to Television Singapura. I also hope that with the introduction of commercial television, we may be able to prevail upon certain firms to sponsor live shows in Malay and in other languages to meet the inadequacy of films.

One of the things I would like to point out is that, I am told, to have one minute showing on Television Singapura - a feature or a film you see for one minute - involves work up to 8 hours to 12 hours. So you see, Sir, the difficulty of our being able to produce enough entertainment to fill 60 hours a week. I hope this explanation will satisfy the questioner. I would like to assure Members that, on its part, the Ministry of Culture will try to concentrate on increasing the programmes in Malay and Tamil.

5.50 p.m.

The Chairman: Time is up. Will the Member for Kampong Kembangan indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote taken?

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Sir, I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The time allotted for Head D34 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak, was not proceeded with:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D34 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.

The sum of $4,593,600 for Head D34 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D37-

The Chairman: We now proceed to Head D37 - Fire Brigade. The amendment stands in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving my amendment*.

*The amendment reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head D37 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $131,010 for Head D37 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D39-

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D39 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.

In the Development Estimates the Government on this item are providing for $1,000,000 for next year to carry out their so-called "Youth Leadership Training Centre". We can see that the money spent on the Youth Leadership Training Centre under Social Welfare is far more than that on other items in the same department. This shows that the P.A.P. Government are very much concerned with the project which will serve their Party. As regards other items which are beneficial to the people, the Government are not very much concerned. We can see that the people in Singapore are facing difficulties. The unemployment problem is very grave. Those who are in need are receiving a very small sum of money from the Government. The Government should pay more attention to these people. The Government, on the other hand, are spending a big sum of money on the Youth Leadership Training Centre and very little on other items which are really beneficial to the people.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. May I remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the Development Estimates and not the Ordinary Estimates? Therefore, expenditure on unemployment relief does not come under the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: I see the Minister's point, but I believe the Member for Jurong is making comparisons. He says that the Government is spending $1 million on youth leadership whereas it should spend this money on other pressing problems.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, you are right if you pursue this line of argument. Would it not be the proper thing for him to point out how the Social Welfare Department can spend more money in capital projects in which unemployed people can live or stay or be housed? The point I am making is that we are discussing the Development Estimates, and if he were to say that we are spending too much on one subhead as against the other, then he must say what capital expenditure can be made in the other alternative subhead.

The Chairman: I think we can allow him to make passing references, provided he does not discuss unemployment under this subject, and nothing else. Can you proceed, Mr Chia?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): In the Development Estimates the Government are spending a big sum of money on the Youth Leadership Training Centre. Will this really bring benefit to the people? We have learnt from the newspapers that our Doctor anti-Communist, Mr Rajaratnam --- [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order. The Member should not refer to the Minister by name. He should give him his proper designation - the Minister for Culture.

An hon. Member: Doctor Minister for Culture.

The Chairman: Order, order.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): We have read from the newspapers that the Minister for Culture had given a lecture on "Youth Leadership Training". He talked about anti-Communism. The P.A.P. are using the people's money to carry out activities which are not beneficial to the people. The sufferings of our people at present are due to the P.A.P.'s betrayal and their activities which do not benefit the people. Today, what the people want is that the Government should really look after their livelihood and to improve their livelihood and not talk about anti-Communism in order to serve the P.A.P.'s interest.

An hon. Member: Are you a Communist or not?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): We would like to ask how this training of youth leadership comes about. The P.A.P. have been using the people's money to train their own Party's cadres. We have no doubt that the P.A.P. are using this $1 million to train their own Party's cadres. And we condemn them for using public money for their own purposes.

6.00 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can well understand why the Members opposite are getting very annoyed at the expenditure on this Youth Leadership Training Centre. It is because they see the long-term danger to themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore the number of youths amounts to something like 300,000 and out of this number of young men and women, only 10 per cent are under some proper form of organised youth movement, 90 per cent are not; and it is in this 90 per cent that the Barisan Sosialis, their stooges and other Communist-front organisations have been working and, to give them credit, working very effectively - young boys and girls coming out of primary schools, youths of ages 16, 17, at a loose end, their minds seduced by evil men. This is coming to an end, Mr Speaker, Sir. Their supremacy in that sector is now being directly threatened by us. We are not going to apologise that we use public money, of course, $1 million; if necessary, $10 million will be put forward for this. Not for the P.A.P. This is a democratic youth movement. We are going to put the whole resources of the State; money will not be spared; personnel will not be spared, and it is going to be a roaring success as we move into their enclave and destroy one outpost after another. That is the way to fight the Communists. True, if they step over the limit they get nabbed, put aside, put out of harm's way. That will go on. There is enough of them to keep our Special Branch in Singapore and the Special Branch in Kuala Lumpur busy for some years to come. But that is not the decisive method in the long run. If one can employ a mathematical jargon - that is necessary but not a sufficient condition of success.

It is necessary to go further than this, not only to use the prophylactic method of cleaning up the field whenever it gets contaminated, but it is also fundamentally necessary that we should provide our young men and women with healthy activities in a well-run, well-managed and well-led youth movement. We have spent some time thinking of the programme. The first training programme is already running in the form of the Buona Vista Community Centre. That is not to train youth leaders but to train people who will train youth leaders. And so the thing will go on. Eventually we will have something like 10,000 trained youth leaders and we will deploy them in all fields, winkle out the Communists from each and every enclave, be it in the trade unions, be it among the farmers, be it in the schools. We have the resources, we have men of ability and intelligence to destroy the last vestiges of their influence among the young in Singapore. That is why they are worried. That is why they say it is of no benefit to the people. It is of no benefit to the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not in power to do things for the benefit of the Communists. We are here to see that they are totally destroyed and irrevocably removed from the political stage in Singapore.

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, to add to what has been said by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, let me explain that the training undertaken at the Buona Vista Training Centre mentioned by the Minister for Finance is not to train youths in connection with party politics or the P.A.P., but it is to train people who in turn will train youth leaders. This training will be taken through a concentrated four-month course in matters of civics, methods of instruction and organisation, recreational activities for youth, youth education, the national language, physical fitness, technical skill in audiovisual aids and vocational activities; and finally first aid. Those people who are undergoing this training live in this centre. The total number of youths taking part is 100 at a time and this training will be conducted in all language media - English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. As explained by the Minister for Finance just now, the training has already been undertaken.

Just now the Member in moving the amendment has said that the Singapore Government ignore the welfare of the people, that the people are confronted with difficulties, that the aged do not receive adequate social assistance, and that Government are giving priority to youth training to the amount of $1 million. The reasons have been given by the Minister for Finance. I merely wish to emphasise that during a month the Social Welfare Department spend about $1 million in the form of social welfare and aid to the needy and aged. If the Members opposite wish for further information, I can outline it in detail, but because time does not permit it will take me about 20 minutes - let me say that the Government have never shirked their responsibilities towards the needy and the aged. We constantly give attention to needy cases irrespective of race.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the question on the Youth Leadership Training Centre. I think there is grave doubt as to whether the P.A.P. Ministers are able to train proper leaders in the youth field. In the Minister for Labour's speech he has used vulgar and abusive language. In spite of our challenge as to whether they can say that our Party is controlled by the Communists, he has not accepted our challenge. Instead, he is dumbfounded at our challenge. On the other hand, however, he is trying to make use of the case of public assistance to refute our allegation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs said a few days ago that he wanted to produce evidence to show how much the Government had done. But I told him that if he really had the guts, then he should make use of his so-called evidence against those arrested in Court to prove beyond any doubt that they are Communists. If they really can do it, produce sufficient evidence. But they mention Communism just to call a dog a bad name and hang him. Apart from this, they are unable to produce further evidence.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are debating the Youth Leadership Training Centre and not Communism.

The Chairman: Yes, we have gone off the track, but it was the Minister for Finance who, I think, in discussing the question of youth leadership, referred to his idea or object of training youth leaders to smash the Communists. So I think the Member for Tampines can, if he objects to it, speak about it. Please proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (In Mandarin.): Mr Speaker, we are actually debating the question of the Youth Leadership Training Centre. We do not oppose the idea of training our youths to become useful citizens of the State. But from the incompetent behaviour and attitude of the Ministers, such as the Minister for Labour, we can see that they only make accusations against us, calling us Communists. That shows their incompetency and inability, they are politically ignorant. When they are at their wits' end, they will call us Communists just to find a way out.

The Chairman: The Member said "the Minister for Labour", but the Minister for Labour has not spoken on this particular subject. It was the Minister for Social Affairs, but I do not think he made any allegations against the hon. Member. Can we come back to the debate and forget these personal attacks?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am making my points in reply to the views expressed by the Minister for Finance. I am trying to say that the Minister for Finance has been incompetent and, therefore, I have grave doubts of their capacity to train youths to become useful citizens. As we can see from the past few days, all that they can do is to abuse us, call us Communists and try to challenge us to a fight. That is all they are good for. But if they really are capable, then they must face up squarely to the problems and go according to parliamentary procedures to show that not only are they capable of training others, but they are also capable of dealing with our questions. But during all these days, all that they can do is to interrupt our speeches, intimidate us and call us Communists. Apart from these, they are incapable of showing any more of their ability. So that is why we have grave doubts of their capacity to train youths. This amount of $1 million for their purpose is just as good as being thrown into the sea.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why is the Member trying to bluff? Why try to bluff? His Woodhull was there, an old friend of mine - he has let the cat out of the bag. Puthucheary has said Lim Ching Siong is a Communist. I mean, why try to bluff? Does he think we are children? When they say they are not Communists,, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is like a seasoned whore pretending to be a virgin. It is not something anyone would accept.

Now, as for capacity to run this more effectively, I can assure the Member for Tampines that we are going to get the best experts to run it. I personally spend half my time away from the Finance Ministry to make sure that this will be a roaring success. If he doubts my ability - he is entitled to doubt it - but we will see in five years' time that they will be winkled out of all their pockets. They have no chance. Let them give up the ghost now. Not a chance will they have.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Jurong indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or vote?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: Vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head D39 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Chin Thye Poh, was not proceeded with:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head D39 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $1,665,000 for Head D39 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

6.15 p.m.

Head D40-

The Chairman: We proceed to Head D40 - Ministry of Education. There are five amendments in the name of Mr Koo Young, the Member for Thomson.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13.

I would like to have your permission to range over subhead 14, subhead 15, subhead 16 and subhead 17. I wish to take all these amendments* together because they are more or less the same.

*The amendments read as follows:

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14.

(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 15.

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 16.

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 17.

The Chairman: I think it would be convenient for the Member to debate all the five proposed amendments.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Before we debate on the Budget statement the Minister for Finance said in his speech that this is the worst debate on the financial statement that we ever had in five years in this Chamber, but he seems to have failed to understand how this should come about. It is because his financial statement is the worst ever. So you have the worst Estimates, followed by the worst debate.

An hon. Member: A worst Opposition.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I wish to say there is ample evidence in the Development Estimates of 1964 as produced by the Minister for Finance. In these five items, that is, from subhead 13 to subhead 17 we discover that, in so far as the school building programme is concerned, it has not been implemented satisfactorily and to the fullest possible extent. Why? Perhaps it is because the Minister for Finance, in making the estimates, only wants to have some big figures to impress others. For example, our Minister for Education has been boasting about the fact that one-third of our expenditure goes to education. But what are the facts? The facts are they are only able to produce big figures but they are not able to complete the programme. We have already calculated that in these five sub-heads a total provision of $46 million has been made. But let us calculate some more figures. In the past four years what has been spent? The Government has only spent $11 million against the total figure of $46 million. And what about next year, 1964? Well they are going to have an estimate of $13 million for the building of schools. In the past four years they were only able to use $11 million. Next year they are going to make use of $13 million. Now, even if we assume that the programme for next year will be achieved and completed to the fullest extent, the provision for school building can only be used up to only half the total amount provided, and that is $22 million. We wish to know why this should be the position. Is it because they want to bring up big figures - impressive figures - to show that they have achieved a great deal? But, in fact, they do not have an overall plan to utilise the money provided to the fullest possible extent. They cannot fulfil the programme. So this development estimate is, if I may use a Chinese proverb, "to smack your own face so that you will appear to be normal when, in fact, you are swollen." Then he will have some plaster put on the muscles of the Minister for Education and he will then start showing the people his artificial muscles. In the end when he moves his arms the plaster will fall. This is the analogy that I wish to draw, the fact that they are able to make use of one-quarter of the amount provided in the school building programme. I doubt very much whether they can do any more in future.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13."

As I have indicated before, the debate will range over all the first five amendments as shown under Head D40 - Ministry of Education - on the Order Paper. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has alleged that I was trying to put on some false muscles. Fortunately, I am not a woman. I do not have to use falsies. But I can tell the Member for Thomson to refer back to Hansard of 29th November, 1963, col. 132, wherein it was stated that the back of the problem of inadequate schools and teachers, of the shortage of homes, houses and flats, had been broken. Sir, if he will now turn to the Hansard again, to the Minister for Finance's Budget address of 28th November, 1963, col. 112, Table VI, under Social Development, item 2, Education, Capital Outlay, the Plan Provision was $94.48 million. I believe the Member said only $48 million, so it is only one-half. So he has his facts wrong by 50 per cent. The Plan Estimates came to $73 million, the Actual Outlay $32 million, which was only 44 per cent of achievement.

Sir, if the Member for Thomson is true to himself and true to the people of Singapore, and knows how to use public money, far from making fun of me, he should congratulate me on the fact that with 44 per cent achievement I have broken the back of the school problem in Singapore. There is no question of falsifying figures and pretending to be bigger. Naturally, we would like to be bold to make estimates for a country that attained self-government 4� years ago, in 1959, for a popularly elected government to shoulder the whole responsibility for education, which was never done in the past, and that it was possible to achieve it with only 50 per cent of what we wanted to do.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: It does not mean that, if one becomes the Government and there is a provision of $90 million, one should just spend $90 million. One must always consider that this is public money, and every cent must be carefully accounted for, and if it is possible to achieve it at half the cost, then I think it is time that they woke up and be responsible and not say time and again that they are unsatisfied, that everything is wrong. It is far from me to claim credit because it is the teamwork of this Government which is dedicated to serve the people, the true interests of the people of Singapore, and not the disloyal manner in which the Barisan have claimed that they would speak for and represent the people.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the ex-Minister for Education, namely, the present Minister for Health, when we were discussing questions relating to the Health Ministry, was quite calm. But now he appears as though we have wronged him. And he used excitable words - words of feeling and emotion - and he spoke with emotion, and vociferously attacked us in his reply. But there are a few points I would like to clarify, namely, the development expenditure on education. First, the Minister for Health was wrong in listening to us. I said that $46 million was used in building - Head D40, subheads 13 to 17. I was talking about school building, and not on the whole development programme for education. So the Minister was wrong in getting at me. I only talked about capital expenditure on building schools. As we have said, you cannot show that you have any achievements by giving out figures. The Minister for Health told us that the P.A.P. Government have achieved much in the field of education and the money has been put to practical use. I would like to ask this. Recently there was a news item in the newspaper that, from next year onwards those students wanting to go to secondary grammar schools would have no place and they would be given accommodation in technical schools instead. On this I would ask why the Government have not made full use of the money to build secondary grammar schools to enable these students to study. Why should there be no places in such secondary grammar schools? This is not the way to save money.

6.30 p.m.

Next year $13 million will have to be spent on building schools. A remaining sum of $22 million from the past Five-Year Development Plan has not been used. What is the use of voting for this amount if the money is not put to full use? As a result of this, students next year will have no schools to go to. Now this is a fact. I would like to ask the Minister to answer this.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Thomson tries to pick on a little technical point, which is to say that just because it was necessary for the Ministry of Education to state that some of those who had passed the Primary VI examination in 1963 and wishing to join secondary academic schools in 1964, but are being posted temporarily to secondary technical schools, secondary vocational schools, therefore, it is badly planned. This is just utter nonsense because a secondary school, whether it is vocational, academic or technical, is a secondary school and they will be learning common subjects most of the time, in addition to other subjects, specially for vocational, academic or technical schools. The buildings, the facilities, the laboratories and the teachers will be there.

When we have to deal with a secondary school population that has increased by nearly 100 per cent within four years, surely it is just like asking the Member for Thomson to buy a new pair of shoes. Sometimes when it twitches the little toe, it does not mean that you should throw the shoe away. I mean with a new pair of shoes it will be necessary to break it in and, in course of time, when other schools are built - it takes almost a year to build a new school - then they could be sent to the new schools. But what is important is that every child leaving a primary school has at least another two years of secondary education. In Singapore for the first time in its history, it is possible for every school-going child to be in school right up to the age of 15 plus. And even in advanced countries like the United Kingdom with compulsory education for umpteen years, they have not been able to raise the school leaving age from 14 plus to 16 plus. So it is such a small technical point to say because the children are being posted not to a secondary academic school but to a secondary technical school and to a secondary vocational school, therefore the Education Ministry has failed. This is just wasting time.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there was one question which received no answer. The Government has been allotted so much money for education but they use the money for propaganda purposes. Why are the Government trying to show that they have been using the money on education instead of making a full admission that the money has been spent on propaganda purposes? This only goes to show that the plan is merely a plan which is not drafted according to practical needs, because we cannot deny that certain students will not get a place in school next year. This has been printed in the newspaper. It is a news item. When the Minister is unable to give a reply, he will say nonsense. His reason is one which amounts to nonsense. Those are all the reasons he can advance. I was quoting from a news item. I wish to know whether the Government in drafting this plan wanted only to make use of it as a means of propaganda when, in actual fact, they did not know how to put the money to good use.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): I think the important thing is whether every child in Singapore who wants to go to school can find a place in school. I say for the last 4� years we have managed to expand the building programme to such an extent that we are able to find a place for every child who wants to learn. Everyone who passes the primary school leaving examination is given a place in a secondary school. For the Member for Thomson to allege that there are not enough secondary schools for the primary school leavers is just not true.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the important thing is to satisfy the needs of school children - if we can spend 50 per cent of the provision in the Estimates and yet satisfy the needs of the people - that proves that we are more efficient, we can effect economy. So the Member should give us the credit. Instead, he is running down the Government. And Mr Speaker, Sir, following his line of argument, it would mean that the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Socialist Republic are most incompetent and inefficient, because their Five-Year Plan has been subject to revision year after year.

The Barisan Sosialis never like figures, I mean, statistical figures, for these figures always nail the lies of the Barisan Sosialis. There are in Singapore today 464,000 children in our schools and there will be more next year. And of this figure 25 per cent are in our secondary schools. Now, this means that one in every four of our population is in school. This is a record not to be surpassed in any of the emerging nations in South-East Asia. 48 new schools with 1,035 classrooms and accommodation for 85,000 pupils have been built since 1960. Of these, 30 are primary schools and 18 secondary schools. In addition, eight primary and secondary schools were further extended. Today there is a place for every child who registers for admission in primary schools. Similarly everyone who passes the primary school leaving examination will be found a place in secondary school, an achievement that the Barisan Sosialis' country of adoption can only dream of. Confrontation notwithstanding, Mr Speaker, Sir, a further 26 new schools are due to be constructed next year. In addition, 12 new schools, five primary, three vocational and four secondary technical schools, will be functioning in January 1964.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministers of the P.A.P. are wont to use figures and statistics to argue against any reasons or talk advanced by the Opposition. But these figures and statistics are not based on facts. Now let me base my speech on what I have seen for myself in my own constituency to rebut and to expose the Minister's figures. I would challenge the Minister for Labour to a debate with me either over Radio Singapore or at a public forum, anywhere he chooses. You are not interrupting me. If you want, you can accept my challenge to a debate anywhere, any place. [Interruption].

The Chairman: Would the Minister for Labour allow the Member for Tampines to proceed in silence? When he had the Floor, he was not interrupted. The Member for Tampines has not been on his feet for two minutes when I had occasion to shout order, order. Please proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now I will try to expose the Minister's statistics by facts, no matter how he boasts of his achievements in education. Boasting that every child who wishes to go to school will have a place. Boasting that the money has been put to full use. Let me now recount what I have seen in my own constituency, the situation and conditions in certain schools in my own constituency.

At the 8 m.s. Tampines Road, there is a school called Ling Long School which has already been established for 40 years up till now. But when the P.A.P. came into office, the principal of this school was sacked. This happened in 1961. In 1962 this school was dissolved by the Ministry of Education, the reason being that the school did not conform to sanitary and hygienic conditions and the Ministry of Education has been wont to do such things as a pretext to dissolve a school. But why did the Ministry not allot some money to improve the conditions of such schools? This particular school, after being dissolved for this reason, was absorbed in 1963 into an integrated English school. When the Prime Minister toured the rural areas, a few hundred rural people in that area petitioned him to consider their request to run this school, but up till now there has been no news.

6.45 p.m.

This school has now been confiscated by the Government and the site is used for the expansion of the Airport.

What is more important than education? How many students have lost their education because of the expansion of the Airport? Some of them have no further opportunity of continuing with their education; some of them have been absorbed into English schools.

I will give another instance which I know of and let me state the facts. At the 8� m.s. Tampines Road, there is a school called It Sun School. A few days ago, the student enrolment was filled, and many children wishing to enrol were unable to register. Some of them were forced to enrol in English schools very far away from their homes. Many of the villagers in this area wanted to extend the school building, but the educational authorities did not give them the necessary permission and aid, for instance, in respect of building expenses, financial aid and the acquisition of the land which is part of Pang Koh Estate. I would ask the Government: do the Government dare acquire this piece of land to be used as a site for a school?

There are many other instances. For example, when a child is already in school, his or her brothers and sisters also want to be admitted into the same school. But the schools do not take this point into consideration. If the enrolment is full, the child's sisters and brothers have no chance of being admitted into the same school. This is another instance to expose the talk of the Minister for Education just now. That is what I have to say on education. [Interruption] If the Minister for Labour wants to have a debate with me, we can have it at any time and at any place.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying that those whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad. We have seen that Members opposite are talking nonsense. They have been incoherent in their speeches and one of them invites me to debate with his father. His father is running a gambling den.

The Chairman: Do not just attack the Opposition.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I am now coming to the debate on education.

The Chairman: Forget the gambling and the Member's father. Let us come down to this debate.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): What is important is whether the Government have shouldered their responsibility in educating our future generation. And what is also important is whether there are enough places for school-going children.

The Member talks of this school collapsing, and that old schools have to make way for new schools. If a school building is going to collapse, we must not allow it to collapse and so be a danger to the children. What is most important is that we have provided enough schools to accommodate all our children. Let me ask them: in the past, how many children have had no places in schools? Today, can you tell me whether there are any children without a place in school? If you can point out one single case of a child who has no place in a school, then we are prepared to give you a cash award. As a matter of fact, in the past four difficult and tumultuous years, the Government have been able to put forward an education programme and to implement it with the least amount of money to produce maximum results. This only shows that in the Government's education policy, it is not necessary to spend all the money that we have. It all depends upon our needs. Our school building programme has to be drawn up according to our needs. If the children are all accommodated, in schools, it is pointless to build more schools, as the schools will remain vacant and the money spent will be a waste. What is important is that we must meet the educational needs of our children and their parents.

Now that we have been able to provide children places in primary schools or secondary schools, the next step is to prevent those children who want to create trouble - such as wanting to obstruct other children from going to school and insulting their teachers. It is these children who are not allowed in school. In order to safeguard our education system and our children's right to go to school and sit for examinations, we will give them every facility and help.

I feel that in the past four years, notwithstanding strikes and boycotts which were instigated by the Barisan Sosialis, we were still able to carry out our school building programme. Our school building programme is under the charge of a special committee and the Government are providing enough money to carry out the programme. This achievement, which cannot he matched by any other country in Asia, is only possible under an efficient and good government of a good Party. If we were to follow the advice of Opposition Members, then we might have to spend every cent of our revenue on education. This is wrong, and cannot be done.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the debate over the last few days I see that if the Minister for Labour wants to debate on the education policy he must change his attitude. He must first be educated in the technique of debate.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member not to make personal attacks. I have stopped the Minister; so I must also stop the Member.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): The Government boast that they have achieved a great deal in the matter of education. But let us analyse their school building programme. What have they done? In item (1) of subhead 16, Primary Schools, the 1963 School Building Programme has an original plan cost of $2.6 million. But after three years, i.e. up to the end of this year, the money spent only amounts to $117,600. It is the same with other items.

The Government have not properly dealt with our education problem. They want to monopolise education, yet they have achieved nothing.

The Minister has said that they have built many schools, and that every school-going child has a place in school. But what is the attitude towards some of the aided schools which lack proper sanitary conditions? Now, for these schools the Government must give them financial aid to improve their school building and their sanitary conditions, because they are helping the Government to implement their education policy. But instead the Government have banned and closed down all these schools. And towards certain Chinese schools in the rural areas, for example, many parents in the past wanted to send their children to these schools, but these schools had no places for them. So the parents wanted the Government to extend the school buildings, but the Government ignored them. The management committee of the school applied for permission to extend the school buildings, but instead of helping them the Government tried to obstruct their application. There was an example in which some of the school authorities submitted plans for extension but the authorities always tried to delay approval. After some years when approval finally came, the management committee tried to raise funds for the extension of the school but the Government would then forget their dollar-for-dollar aid.

7.00 p.m.

So as a result of this delay in giving aid, the school management committee will have to raise further funds. Now, why must the Government adopt such an attitude? Is it because the management committee does not deserve any help from the Government?

Mr Chow Chiok Hock (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Government have put forward many plans and programmes. The figures showing how much we have achieved in our school programme will nail all the falsehoods put forward by the Barisan Sosialis. We have heard the Member for Tampines repeating himself again and again about the Beng Lun School, but the fact is that he has been unable to bring up facts to refute our achievements; he keeps on frying the rice and making use of the same material over and over again. Now, in view of this repetition, I have to stand up to reply to his point about the Beng Lun School. He says that in his constituency the Government built a new English school next to Beng Lun School to take over the children from the Chinese school. Is this a fact? How far is this true? I want to enlighten him further on this matter, because I think I know about this case better than he does. As far as I know, the position regarding the Beng Lun School is this. The school building is in very bad shape and in fact it was originally an unauthorised structure. It was a shophouse which was later turned into a school, but after some years of disrepair, it could not comply with the health regulations; it was on the point of collapsing. So in order to safeguard the lives of the school children and to ensure that they could study in better circumstances, the Government put up a school in its neighbourhood. This new school which was put up is not an English school, but an integrated school, so on the completion of this school, the Beng Lun School, which was on the point of collapsing, was not allowed to exist. So the children of this school were transferred to the integrated school and they continued to study in Chinese. The teachers were also transferred to this integrated school. In fact, the principal himself was also transferred as the principal of the Chinese section of the same integrated school. Now, this is the treatment that we give to Chinese schools. Can you say that this is unfair treatment? Can you say that this treatment calls for any unfair criticism?

Now the facts that I have stated show clearly that the Barisan Members do not understand the true position of the school. I ask them: do they want to wait until the school building collapses and then some of the school children are killed in order to give them an excuse to attack the Government? If that is their desire, then I do not know what to say! I am not going to give them this excuse to attack the Government. I think I should leave some time for the Minister for Education to reply.

7.05 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired, it is five minutes past seven. Will the Member for Thomson indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I wish to have a vote.

The Chairman: As he pleases.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head D40 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh, was not proceeded with:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $24,358,780 for Head D40 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head D41 -

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 7.

Mr Speaker, in the Kampong Kembangan Constituency which comprises Jalan Tengah, Jalan Towgay, Jalan Ladang, Jalan Lobak, Jalan Bawang, Jalan Masjid, Jalan Kuda, Jalan Yasin, etc., the drainage conditions are in a bad state. The settlers in these areas experience hardship during the rainy season, more particularly so, Mr Speaker, during the heavy spells which we are experiencing just now. In the provision to improve drainage in the Geylang Serai Malay Settlement, I wish to know from the Minister in charge whether the areas I have mentioned in Kampong Kembangan are included. The drainage conditions in the areas I have mentioned are in a bad state. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to this question, so that provision to the tune of $10,000 for 1964 will be expended on the improvement of the drainage system in the Kampong Kembangan Constituency.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: The present drains in the Geylang Serai Malay Settlement are too small and there is no effective outlet. A scheme has been prepared for an effective local drainage system. In all drainage schemes, work must start from the outlet end. In this particular case, the construction of a main drain cannot be proceeded with because of the presence of hundreds of squatters. Accordingly, there is no point in proceeding with the improvement scheme on the Geylang Serai Malay Settlement drainage until the main drain has been constructed. This local drainage scheme is therefore being deferred for the time being.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Kampong Kembangan indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): I beg leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving.

The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 18.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment (4), Inche Mohd. Ariff.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 18; and

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 13.

Mr Speaker, I would like to take these amendments together because they are related. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government are expending a considerable amount of money on constructing Bus Bays and Vehicle Parks and Bus Shelters for the people who are in need of such social facilities. The Government are constructing these for the benefit of drivers and conductors who are doing a useful service to the people. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, the bus drivers and conductors of the Changi Bus Company, who I believe are influenced by the Communist anti-national elements in the Bus Workers' Union, behave rudely towards their passengers, especially the women folk. They use nasty language towards them and their buses are not kept clean and well. I would like to state here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I believe the Prime Minister has received a number of petitions and complaints, copies of which have been forwarded to me. I myself have received some complaints.

7.15 p.m.

Since Government are giving these social amenities to the people - these amenities which are misused by certain drivers and conductors of bus companies - I would like to know from the Minister concerned what action will be taken against those bus drivers and conductors who are ill-mannered and rude to the public. I hope the Ministry concerned will take the necessary action.

The Chairman: The debate will also range over the amendment shown as amendment (5) on the Order Paper which relates to item (6) of subhead 18.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, my answer is: the Government cannot take action against an employee of a private company. I would suggest that the Member for Kampong Kembangan write to the bus company concerned to investigate further, and if the allegation is found true, the company will have to take action against its employee.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has raised a point about the attitude of certain members of bus workers' unions, alleging that they have used abusive and vulgar language against the passengers, and he has requested the Government to investigate into this matter and take appropriate action against them. It is not surprising that the Member for Kampong Kembangan should have alleged such incidents, because he has also linked this up with so-called Communists. That is why, as he has said, as a result, the service provided by these bus conductors and drivers has been so bad. I would like to point out to the Member concerned that there is no question of the workers during their period of service being rude to the passengers. If he wants to have orderly and good behaviour in the bus service, this should not only be from one side. We should realise that the bus conductors' and drivers' working conditions are quite different from those in other fields of work. While we are sleeping in our bed, these workers are on the road in their buses. While we are still dreaming in our beds, these workers are in their buses serving the general public. Therefore, they have to work long hours and are sometimes tired. They work during odd hours, so we should expect co-operation from the Government and the Member concerned in particular. We should not put all the blame on the workers because they have their own difficulties. Before the Government look into this matter, there should be a comprehensive plan to see that not only the workers, but also the passengers, should be courteous. To put the blame only on the workers is not good. On this matter, I hope the Member for Kampong Kembangan will understand better. People who travel in cars usually do not understand the difficulties of the bus conductors. It is usually difficult to work in crowded buses. For instance, if a bus conductor does not receive the exact amount of money for the tickets issued, he might face dismissal. If he punches the tickets wrongly or omits to punch them, he is held responsible. Bus passengers and other people should consider all this. Due to their long hours of work, these workers can be moody or in a bad temper. I hope the people will understand this. Even in this House we see that the Ministers and Government Backbenchers are not so polite and courteous after all. They even use abusive and vulgar language in this House. So you should not blame the workers. They are uneducated, unlike the Members sitting opposite. I hope that whenever such a matter is raised, you should not put Communist caps on their heads. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order in the Gallery.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, these allegations of mine are not wild. I can give specific instances and produce witnesses. If the Member on the opposite side is the Secretary of the Bus Workers' Union, I am prepared to produce witnesses. If these occurrences seldom take place, that might be so, but these acts of discourtesy have happened so many times. I myself have seen these things happening. If the Secretary of the Bus Workers' Union says that because the workers are tired they are inclined to be in a bad temper, then I say that they should not work. If he is keen on my bringing forward witnesses, I am ready to do so.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that the Member for Kampong Kembangan was wrong in raising that matter. If there are occasions when bus conductors have been rude to passengers, then they are in the wrong. They should be polite to them. But what I tried to say just now was that we should also try to understand the difficulties of the conductors. We should understand the matter thoroughly and look at both sides of the picture. We should not try to blame everything on the Communists. The Government should not describe our people as wearing Communist caps whenever we raise a question. The Member should not bring up the question of Communism on this question of bus conductors. Even when we debated other matters, such as education, Members on the Government side did not behave in the way they should.

The Chairman: The Member is repeating exactly what he has said just now in his previous reply. Has he got anything new to say? We have not got much time left. We have only half an hour left.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to finish quickly in just one minute. The bus conductors do not even have the time to drink a cup of coffee or rest during working hours. Therefore, the Government should try to make rules regulating the hours of work and provide lavatories to enable the conductors to answer the call of nature. This is a very serious matter.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some suggestions to the Government on the question of bus shelters. There are no bus shelters at bus stands in the rural areas. So whenever there is rain, especially during the rainy season, the passengers suffer much inconvenience. I hope the Government will see to it that at certain places where such facilities are required, bus shelters will be built for the convenience of bus passengers. It looks as though the provision of $65,000 for this item is not enough. For instance, the Government should put some benches in Maternal and Child Health Clinics. They should also put benches at bus shelters in the rural areas. This is necessary because sometimes the people have to wait for about half an hour and they will have to stand all the time. In such cases, if there are pregnant women, they may find it difficult and tiresome to remain standing for a long time. I will be very glad if the Government will build more bus shelters and provide benches at health clinics in order to meet the convenience of these people.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Jalan Kayu is sleeping all the time ---

The Chairman: Order. Do we have to have all that again? We have got 25 minutes more. Cannot we get on with the debate? Every Member seems to paraphrase whatever he is going to say by a direct attack on somebody else on the other side. If the Member has anything valid to say, please proceed.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: Mr Speaker, in actual fact, the Government in 1962 constructed about 43 bus shelters throughout the island. In 1963 we have constructed 65 bus shelters.

7.30 p.m.

It is impossible for the Government to construct bus shelters all over Singapore in one year because of our limited funds. We have a programme for the construction of bus shelters in which we will increase the number of bus shelters year by year.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard one of the Members of the Opposition, viz, the Member for Paya Lebar, saying that he supports the workers. Some days ago I had occasion to say that Opposition Members in the Barisan Sosialis work for the workers only in theory. We in the N.T.U.C. work for the improvement of the lot of the workers in Singapore and the world in general. We work in a practical way. So we know what is good and what is bad for the workers. We also know the difficulties and otherwise of the workers. This is because we the leaders not only say things but also go out to see for ourselves the difficult conditions of the workers. For example, we not only observe the work of bus drivers and conductors but also bus passengers who are mostly workers. It is our responsibility to see that these workers - the good and the bad - really work for the State. We also observe those workers who are being used for the benefit of foreign powers. For that reason, we know the difficulties of these workers. The main concern of the leaders of S.A.T.U. unions, which are pro-Communist unions, is now to topple the Government by usurping its power. The Member for Paya Lebar says he is for the workers. But what has been done by the S.A.T.U. unions is to work for leaders outside this country. They have shown that they do not work for the benefit of the workers.

The Chairman: May I remind the Member for Kampong Kapor that we are debating bus bays, bus shelters, and vehicle parks - item (2) of subhead 18 of Head D41? The Member has unfortunately drifted away into discussing the policy of trade unions. Can he come back?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was about to reply to the allegations of the Member for Paya Lebar that we are not pro-worker when you made your ruling. I have stated that the Member himself is not aware of the true conditions of the workers.

Coming back to what we are debating, as has been said by both sides of the House, we should not take this debate as an opportunity to bring out irrelevant points. The Member for Paya Lebar has said that this Assembly should give consideration to the question of constructing better bus shelters or bus bays. This, he says, is a joint responsibility of this Assembly, as it is for the benefit of the people of this country. The Member for Jalan Kayu also says that benches should be placed at these shelters, I do not know what he means by benches. Throughout Singapore, the Government have constructed bus shelters with benches for passengers to rest while waiting for their buses. If by benches the Member for Jalan Kayu means benches similar to armchairs or sofas or even benches in this Assembly, then I cannot understand his request. The people of Singapore know that the use of a bus shelter is to protect them from the rain or sun while waiting for their buses. I believe that if there is a request from the people that a bus shelter should be constructed at any particular place, then I am sure the Government will construct one there, as has been the practice in the past. This is because the request is something for the people of Singapore, who are loyal to this country and not to any foreign country.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I feel that if the Back-benches on the Government side were to adopt this kind of attitude in dealing with our questions, then it would be a waste of time. Today, we want to look into whether what the Government have done is right or wrong. There would be no meaning if they were to treat our questions in this manner. We raised this question to inquire whether there are benches in bus shelters. If there are none, the Government should build them. There should also be bus shelters at maternity centres. The Government cannot solve these problems by treating our questions in this way. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has not answered our questions. The important thing is whether they accept our suggestions or not. It is no use talking about the number of shelters the Government have built. This is the time for the Opposition Party to ask questions. The Government must allow Opposition Members to ask questions. The Back-benchers should not praise the Government by saying that they have done this and that for the people. Such words are merely a waste of our time here.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj): (In Malay): I feel that this topic which we are debating has gone in such a way that the Member for Thomson has accused the Government of not having satisfied their questions. I was surprised that when this matter was brought up by the Member for Kampong Kembangan and then replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, the Member for Paya Lebar should suddenly speak up, as if he was the Minister for Labour. He began to answer the question regarding bus shelters. I know that the Member is the Secretary of the Bus Union. I have sympathy for any sort of workers. What the Member for Kampong Kembangan was saying was that the people who make use of the buses in the morning are those who are on their way to work. There are some who are going to the market. These are the people who cannot afford to go in big cars. They go about by bus. The Member for Paya Lebar, the Secretary-General of the Bus Workers' Union, should remember this and go back and tell the workers that these things should not happen. This will affect the feelings of the workers and the children. This matter will be closed. He thinks he is the Minister for Labour when he tries to defend this by saying that the allegation is not true. That is not fair. The Member for Jalan Kayu has raised the question of bus shelters which are not in his constituency. Mr Speaker, there are many bus shelters in the rural areas. The Member for Jalan Kayu was for two years a committee member on the Rural Board. He had not even spoken once on the construction of bus shelters in his constituency.

The Chairman: Order. It is only ten minutes. Again the Parliamentary Secretary is indulging in a personal attack which is most unwelcome in this Assembly, and which I am against.

7.45 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we have raised these points on behalf of the people. We have done it in all sincerity. We want to point out to the Government what can be done and what we feel should be done for the people. But the Government are not prepared to accept our suggestions and criticisms which are made in all sincerity. Instead, they abuse us by calling us all sorts of names. They say I was a member of the Rural Board for two years and that I had not spoken a word at the meeting. I think the Member concerned should look into the minutes of the meeting and find out whether or not I did speak at the meeting and what I did at the meeting. I am making the allegation that the Government are trying to do a superficial piece of work just for the purpose of propaganda. We urge the Government to carry out some work for the improvement of the people and do it with sincerity. They cannot just abuse us and turn down our suggestions and criticisms. They must accept our suggestions which have been made in all sincerity. They should accept our suggestions even if there might be some difficulty in implementing them.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, I would like to answer what the hon. Member for Thomson has alleged just now. I agree that Budget time is Opposition time. But if Members of the Opposition ask proper questions but, at the same time, make false allegations against the Government, then I say the Government Back-benchers have the right to reply so as to refute the allegations. Government Back-benchers can also speak during Budget time. I do not see any reason why Government Back-benchers cannot rise up and refute their allegations.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: What are you saying?

The Chairman: Order. Is there anyone else intending to speak in the debate on the matter under discussion, that is, bus shelters?

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, we on the Government Front-bench have always accepted the fact that we welcome constructive criticisms from the Opposition. The Opposition Member, the Member for Jalan Kayu, has said that ---

The Chairman: Is the Minister getting on with this debate or not?

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes, I am getting on.

The Chairman: We have five minutes. Has the Minister come here to speak about the Opposition?

Mr Lim Kim San: I have said that the Member for Jalan Kayu was making certain suggestions. I was getting on to it, Mr Speaker.

The Chairman: The Minister should sit down when the Speaker is speaking.

Mr Lim Kim San resumed his seat.

The Chairman: We have five minutes. I suggest that the Minister should proceed to speak about bus shelters and buses. We do not want any more remarks about the Opposition and what they have said. I would ask the Government Members also to allow the Minister to proceed.

Mr Lim Kim San: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not refer to the Opposition Member by his constituency. I would say a Member of the Opposition has proposed that we should build more bus shelters in the rural areas. Of course, we are looking into this matter. We have formed a committee to look into all these amenities. Wherever it is necessary, we will build these bus shelters as a facility for the people. I do not know why they say we never accept their criticisms. We will surely accept their criticisms if they are constructive criticisms.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Kampong Kembangan indicate whether he wishes to withdraw his amendments or take a vote?

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): I wish to withdraw.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: We have only about four minutes more. The next amendment is also in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 18.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to know from the Minister concerned firstly, when will street lighting be effected at Lengkong Tiga, Teo Kim Eng Road, Kampong Eunos and Jalan Ang Teng; and secondly, when will agricultural and kampong roads be constructed?

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the questions raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, the item consists of two sections, namely: street lighting along public streets and street lighting along agricultural and kampong roads.

To the first question, that is, the provision of street lighting along public roads in both city and rural areas which have not been provided with street lighting in the first instance, all projects are first approved by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee before work is put in hand by the Electricity Department.

The standard of lighting provided depends on whether traffic along the roads is heavy or light and upon the width of the roads.

Class A lighting is usually provided for dual carriage-ways like Nicoll Highway, MacPherson Road and the Airport.

The answer to the second question is that the provision of kampong street lighting along agricultural roads and kampong roads is also controlled by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee which determines the priorities for these installations.

The standard of lighting provided is below that for public streets as this is intended more for pedestrians and cyclists than for vehicles and also for brightening up of troubled areas in order to prevent crime.

In 1962, 74 public roads were provided with street lights at a cost of $227,000 and 75 kampong roads were lighted at a cost of $633,000 ---

7.55 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. It is 7.55 p.m. Time is up. Will the Member for Kampong Kembangan indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote taken?

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The time allotted for Head D41 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Messrs. Chio Cheng Thun, Poh Ber Liak, Chia Thye Poh and Tan Cheng Tong, were not proceeded with:

Mr Chio Cheng Thun:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 34.

Mr Poh Ber Liak:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 37.

Mr Chia Thye Poh:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 38.

That the sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 40.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head D41 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $29,224,370 for Head D41 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: The remaining Heads of Expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper are Heads D15, D20, D26, D38, D42 and D43.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the third column in the summary of expenditure en page 7 of Paper Cmd. 31 of 1963 stand part of the Development Estimates," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $283,808,422 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 31 of 1963," put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution.

Resolution reported ---

That the sum of $283,808,422 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 31 of 1963.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to move, "That the Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Supply on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.