FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1964 OF THE STATE OF SINGAPORE (PAPER CMD. 16 OF 1964) AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1964 OF THE STATE OF SINGAPORE (PAPER CMD. 21 OF 1964)

3.32 p.m.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 24 -

The Chairman: First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1964 as contained in Paper Cmd. 16 of 1964. Head 24 - Contributions and Charitable Allowances, Ministry of Culture. There is an amendment standing in the names of the Member for Bukit Merah and the Member for Thomson in respect of subhead 59.

We are now in Committee and I should like to remind hon. Members that under Standing Order 43 (8) (a) no Member shall be entitled to address a Committee of the whole Assembly for more than 15 minutes at any one time. A copy of the "guillotine" times for the consideration of the Supplementary Estimates has been circulated to Members, and I would invite their attention to the guillotine times stated therein.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: Mr Chairman, I would like to address the House in Mandarin.

The Chairman: Very well. Mr Lim Huan Boon, in Mandarin.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 59*.

*The same amendment stood in the name of Mr Koo Young.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the funds for the National Theatre were campaigned for in 1959. After a period of two years, according to a speech made on 31st October, 1961, about $700,000 were raised for this National Theatre. But up to the present date, i.e. after a period of 2½ years, the sum raised was only about S200,000. There is a great difference between the first figure and the second figure.

The people of Singapore have lost confidence in the cultural policies of the Government, as the figures show. Mr Speaker, Sir, the construction of the National Theatre was for the purpose of promoting the cultural activities of the people. It was meant to bring out the characteristics of the cultures of the various races living in Singapore, thereby intermingling these cultures and creating a new culture. But the Government has abandoned this policy. In fact, it is now adopting the colonial policy in respect of culture. Furthermore, the suppression of healthy cultural activities has been carried out. As a result, all cultural activities are now carried out on a political basis.

The encouragement of yellow culture is also under way, either directly or indirectly. In fact, yellow culture is now quite popular among the people of Singapore. In street corners and everywhere in Singapore you can see obscene publications. Even the programmes that appear on television are tainted with yellow culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me touch a little on the programmes for television, because this is closely connected with healthy cultural growth. May I have your permission to speak on the programmes for television?

The Chairman: Yes, briefly.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the State Government has the power to deal with the administration and routine work of broadcasting, I hope it will take steps to stop showing more "yellow" programnies on T.V. There should be no fantastic stories of murder, rape and arson shown to viewers because this is going to do harm to our next generation. I appeal to the Government to review its present T.V. programmes so that good programmes can be viewed by the people and the bad programmes discarded in good time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present programmes put on T.V. are very poor in content. This is a fact. But the question is whether the Government wants to monopolise cultural activities or not. It should not monopolise all cultural activities. In fact, it should give the people and the local artistes an opportunity to express themselves and give them adequate facilities to do so. If the Government is prepared to get in touch with the cultural organisations in Singapore, then better programmes of a higher artistic value can be shown, in this way, at least some of the defects in the present T.V. programmes can be remedied.

I now come to the construction of the National Theatre. The cost of construction of the National Theatre, including the laying of the foundation, is $2.2 million. The structure itself costs $1.63 million. It is not worth to spend such a big sum of money for a building of this nature. Although the design of the National Theatre was obtained by way of competition, I doubt if the architect concerned obtained the views of the local artistes and cultural organisations of Singapore before putting up his plan. I do not deny that the architect has special qualifications and experience. But if he could have got the views of local artistes and cultural organisations, he could have done better.

Furthermore, there are special conditions attached to the cultural activities of any country, and these should have been given consideration when designing the National Theatre. People who have experience in stage work have raised this question. I wonder whether this so-called largest theatre in South East Asia is big enough for a large-scale opera. I wonder whether the stage is big enough for the purpose. The music pool seems small. The backstage is rather shallow and if you want to put up local operas the stage is too big. The rent is very high. If the National Theatre has all these defects, then it is regrettable that the Government has not been careful with public funds. As a result of this, the National Theatre has been put up in a slip-shod manner.

I now want to deal with the seats in the National Theatre. I have a plan showing the seating accommodation of the National Theatre. According to an on-the-spot investigation, the seats in the UU row up to the PP row at the back are now damaged. And from the OO row to the AA row the outer seats have changed their shapes. But the seats for the VIP have been given special consideration, and so they have remained all right.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the completion of the National Theatre, most of the seats have been damaged in a matter of a year. From this point of view alone, one can see how the Government has squandered public funds. Even if the architect of this National Theatre has made some mis calculations about the climate of Singapore, and even if first-class programmes are put on the stage, you cannot expect the audience to enjoy these programmes by subjecting them to climatic conditions such as rain. In short, I would say that the construction of the National Theatre has been rather haphazard.

I will now deal with the exits of the National Theatre. There are 3,421 seats in the National Theatre. According to the Government estimates, this National Theatre can accommodate 13,000 people or more. With such a great number, I wonder whether the four exits are enough. Furthermore, the two smaller exits on a higher level are not conveniently placed. The public do not make full use of them. As a result, there are only two exits to this National Theatre. The other two are not in popular use. So according to estimates, normally if the seats are fully occupied, one can expect about 3,500 spectators. It will take them some 20 to 25 minutes to clear out of the National Theatre. If the number of spectators should rise to 10,000, then the time required for them to go out will be doubled, to say the least. Under these circumstances, should there be any accident, I just cannot imagine what will happen to the audience in the theatre. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a matter that concerns public safety. I hope the Government will pay special attention to this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, summing up all that I have said, it is clear that the people can see for themselves that their hard-earned money has been squandered by the Government. That is why they refused to contribute further for the completion of the National Theatre Fund. We fully understand their sentiments. But, on the contrary, the Govern ment finding itself in a position that it cannot get further help, has tried to extort some money to solve its financial problem. This is inexcusable.

The Chairman: The Member has just beaten the clock!

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): MrSpeaker, in the past two or three years, the National Theatre was used as a show-case for the P.A.P. Last year the National Theatre was opened rather haphazardly for the so-called South-East Asia Cultural Festival. One year has since passed. Before the National Theatre was built, the P.A.P. said that this was going to be the cultural centre of Singapore. That was said before the plans were made. But now we can see that in the last one and a half years or so the performances put up at the National Theatre have been rather few. In fact, we can easily count them. Why should there be so few performances at the National Theatre? Why should the performances be so few in the past one year? I think the reasons are as follows.

The most important one is that the P.A.P. has already given up its policy to encourage healthy cultural activities. The Government has not given any assistance to the development of healthy cultural activities. It has given no aid whatsoever to the amateur artistes among the people. On the contrary, suppressive actions have been taken against them. Artistic and cultural activities are more or less monopolised by the Party in power. Under these circumstances, can one expect cultural activities to flourish in Singapore? If cultural activities are not widely popularised and encouraged among the people, where is the value then in the National Theatre? What is it built for? Do you want the professional sing-song girls and the songstresses to perform at the National Theatre? No. They have already got their own stages in the amusement parks. Or do you think you can make full use of the National Theatre by putting up performances staged by the P.A.P. artistes? No. There are not enough people to do so many performances. The cultural workers in Singapore have a feeling of sadness that yellow performances are rather rampant in Singapore. They are very discouraged because of this. That is why I dare say that the National Theatre has not been fully made use of in the past one year. The National Theatre has only got a facade. It is good looking outside. The P.A.P. Government is boasting of it, saying that it is one of the biggest theatres in South-East Asia.

The third factor is that the rental of the National Theatre is too high. As far as I know, professionals who want to rent the National Theatre have to pay at least $450 per night. The highest rent is $1,000. Amateurs who desire to use the National Theatre are required to pay at least $350 per night. The maximum rent required of them is $550 per night. Artistes and cultural organisations who desire to use the National Theatre are discouraged from using it because of the exorbitant rent. This is because their proceeds may not be enough to pay for the rent. Then with regard to the use of the National Theatre for rehearsal at day-time, I understand that the rent for such use is $50. We have seen that the Government has squandered some $2 million on the National Theatre. The rentals are high. So to cover up all these losses I understand that some advertisers make use of the National Theatre for the making of photographic advertisements for commercial firms, for example, the Milo firm and others. Can you say that "commercial" is art? I do not know what is art then if "commercial" can become an art. It is very disheartening that this should happen.

Mr Speaker, there is one other important matter to which I wish to draw your attention. As the people have no confidence in the P.A.P., so it is no longer possible for the P.A.P. to get any more money from the people. So the only way out is to pay out of public funds or to resort to compulsory contributions. I remember some time last year - the Minister for Education is not here; otherwise he can listen carefully - the Ministry of Education sent out forms to the Principals asking the teachers to donate $10 each as voluntary contributions. The word "voluntary" means it is up to you entirely whether to donate or not. But, on the other hand, the instruction also came down that those who did not make any voluntary contributions should be listed and they should be asked to give reasons for not making such voluntary contributions. How can you say that such contributions were voluntary? All these actions were very repressive. At the beginning, I asked the Minister for figures of teachers who have been dismissed. Up till now I have not been able

to know the figures because he has not given them orally. But in any case, there is a lot of suppression going on in education circles. A lot of teachers have been dismissed and teachers are now unhappy. They are rather afraid of the P.A.P. men, whether they are small fry or big shots.

4.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. We are not on the Ministry of Education. I do not mind the Member referring to that Ministry in passing, but if he is going to speak on it at some length, he is out of order.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry about it. But I have brought up all these matters just to show that contributions were not voluntary. It was the Minister for Education who was responsible for all such compulsory donations. If you do not make your voluntary contributions, then your name will be listed and you have to give your reason why you do not want to ---

The Chairman: Could the Member come to his next point?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go on to satisfy the Member of the Opposition in regard to these Supplementary Estimates, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the last Assembly sitting, it was made clear to this House that a further payment would have to be made in accordance with what has been agreed to in respect of the Government's contribution to the Trust. Mr Speaker, Sir, the cost of the National Theatre, which was estimated at $2.2 million and in respect of which the estimated figure of Government's assistance is based, has increased to approximately $2.4 million. The Trust will therefore have to raise the funds to pay for the additional cost. This is to be the responsibility of the Trust. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government agreed on 20th of July, 1962, to pay the difference between the total costs of $2.2 million and the total donations received by the National Theatre Trust. The amount to be paid by the Government amounted to $1,343,720.96, after deducting donations totalling $856,279.04. You will recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the House already approved the payment of $500,000 on 24th of July and another sum of $450,000 on the 17th of December, 1963, to the National Theatre Trust. Members will remember that at the last sitting, as I quoted earlier on from Hansard, I said that a further payment would have to be made in accordance with what has been agreed to in respect of Government's contribution.

With regard to the questions raised by the Member for Bukit Merah on the scale of rent charges, I can assure him that the charges are imposed after careful consideration. I will make a comparison, Mr Speaker, Sir. The rent for each performance at the Singapore Badminton Hall is $250. You will note that essential services such as a proper stage, loudspeaker, and public address system, stage lighting system, chairs, etc., are not provided for in the rental. The charges for the use of the National Theatre arc therefore considered to be very reasonable. If the Member for Bukit Merah - I am sure he has a copy already - has not been given a copy of the charges, then I shall undertake to forward him a copy if he so requires.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to go into details of the various rates of charges as it will take up a considerable length of time in the House, but if Members of the Opposition are not clear on certain points and are not satisfied, then I shall be pleased to receive any suggestion from them as to the revision of rental charges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of design and planning of the National Theatre, as noted by the Member for Bukit Merah, the plan was adopted after a public competition. The plan was considered by the National Theatre Trust appointed by the Government and in whose responsibility we place our trust. As stated in the last Assembly sitting, the National Theatre was originally meant to be an open-air one, but in view of the enthusiastic response from the public, the National Theatre Trust has decided to revise its original plan into a covered theatre. I can assure the Member for Bukit Merah that the various conditions and requirements he has raised earlier on the suitability and practicability of the National Theatre being used for the purpose of performance, etc., were all included in the conditions and requirements supplied to the competitors in this contest for the plan of the National Theatre. To date, members of the Trust have no adverse observations to make on the design and other matters relating to the National Theatre. But I have to congratulate the Member for Bukit Merah on bringing in the question of the number of exits, which he has considered inadequate. So far as I have noticed this is the only constructive criticism from Members of the Opposition, and I shall look into this matter at my earliest opportunity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson as well as the Member for Bukit Merah went into some detail regarding the practicability of the National Theatre and whether or not it is really put to its intended use. From the statements made by both Members of the Opposition, I feel that this is a classic display of ignorance. If Members, of the Opposition require any information of the bookings of the National Theatre, I have just counted the number of bookings. Mr Speaker, Sir, bookings received up to the 20th of October,