ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1965

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.40 p.m.

Head 0402 -

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0402 be reduced by $100.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a new issue, it is because the Government has never resolved the problem that it is necessary for me to raise it again in this House today. At present, people who are staying on private land, if they have to remove or to rebuild their houses, are still faced with difficulties. Also it takes a long time for their applications to be considered and approved in order to rebuild their houses. According to my information, there are certain people whose applications have taken six months before they have been looked into by the authorities concerned, thus causing them great inconvenience. Perhaps, this delay has something to do with the relationship between the authorities and the applicants. Perhaps it also has something to do with the landowners concerned.

At the last Assembly sitting, the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, said that the Government cannot allow people to build chicken runs or pig sties on any piece of ground they like, so as to extend their structures; because when the Government wants them to remove, it will then have to pay more compensation to them.

It seems that the same principle is applied to applicants who want to extend their houses. In the case of occupiers of houses who are on good terms with the landlord and who have paid him some tea money, they will usually get his permission to extend their houses. But the situation is different with other occupiers. When the landlord refuses their applications, they are faced with great inconvenience and difficulties.

I have just mentioned that there are certain people who have wanted to apply for an extension of their houses, but their landlord has asked them to apply to the Building Survey Department and the Department has asked the applicants to submit a detailed plan. In certain cases the applications have taken about six months to be considered and approved. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is a good thing for the authorities concerned to delay the approval of such applications.

Another thing is the alteration of houses. Normally houses have the kitchen separated from the hall and the bedrooms. When the occupiers ask for approval to separate the kitchen from the hall, they have to seek the approval of the landlord concerned. Without their approval, the applicants cannot even apply to the authorities concerned to have such alteration to the house approved.

Thirdly, about removal from one place to another within the same mukim - not more than 10 feet - the purpose of which is normally to improve the situation of the house.

2.45 p.m.

Such improvements or alterations to the building structure have also to be approved by the landlord. I hope the Minister can give an explanation to my questions.

Mr Lim Huan Boon (Bukit Merah): I am not speaking on my amendment.

The Chairman: Very well. The amendment is now open to debate.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Opposition that if there is any application to improve the plan or siting of a house, we will always try to expedite it. The Member's difficulty, as I understand him, is that he feels that landlords are trying to hinder applicants in their requests for permission to repair or enlarge the house. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we all agree that ownership of land in Singapore confers upon the owner certain rights. Therefore, whether the owner is willing to allow the tenant to extend or repair the house is a matter between him and the tenant. It is something which the Government cannot force the owner to do.

As regards the Member's allegation that we are always making it difficult for people who want to repair their house, I would like to ask, what are the difficulties which they encounter with the Chief Building Surveyor's Department? Because if the application does come in with the permission of the owner, and if it conforms to building regulations, we will always pass it with as little delay as possible.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to get the understanding of the Minister on this question. When the Government tries to evict farmers, it builds cheap and simple houses for them in order to resettle them. These simple and cheap houses ---

Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of order. We are debating the Chief Building Surveyor's Department, which has to do with the passing of plans, buildings, and repairs. But the Member for Jalan Kayu is talking about resettlement. I do not think the Chief Building Surveyor's Department covers that at all.

The Chairman: I was watching the Member. I was thinking that perhaps he was introducing his speech by saying that people who are displaced in those circumstances should possibly be helped by the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. If he proceeds along those lines, he is in order. But if he proceeds on some other line, then he could he completely out of order. I am watching him.

Mr Lim Kim San: Thank you.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the Government build cheap and simple houses for the farmers, and whether the farmers can get approval for this type of house from the Building Surveyor's Department. This Department approves certain plans of houses which are a bit complicated and which involve a building cost running into a few thousand dollars. But the houses allotted to the farmers cost only about $1,000 in the resettlement area. I wonder whether the Department concerned can approve the applications by the farmers to build such houses for themselves, and whether the plans for these simple houses can be approved by the Building Surveyor's Department so that the farmers themselves can build the houses on the same lines and pattern.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, in our resettlement programme, we have certain standard houses which cost about $1,000 to build. If it is really required, I see no difficulty in churning out these plans for standard-type houses for farmers if they so wish to build themselves.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Minister has not given a full reply to my questions raised just now. The question is not whether the applicants have followed the regulations or not. In fact, they have. There is no ambiguity about that.

What I am talking about is this: after they have complied with all the regulations and yet are faced with difficulties, the power to approve their applications lies either with the landowners themselves or with the Government.

The second question is about the alteration to the plans of a house. The Minister has not given a full reply to this question. As regards the conferment of certain rights on the landowners, I do not deny such rights. But the landowners' rights are not absolute. It is not correct to get approval from the landowner whenever a tenant wants to alter his house. If his house is in a poor state, of course, he has to repair it. If the landowners in other areas also have the same right to deny the tenants' applications for alteration of houses, then they will not be able to find another place for resettlement.

As regards the extension of houses, there are certain enlightened landowners who demand that if tenants agree to pay a higher rental, then, of course, they will approve. This is also one of the rights of landowners.

As regards the construction and alteration of houses, if the landowners do not give their approval for them, then what will happen to the tenants?

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I have said that the law of the land respects the rights of ownership, and the owner of land has certain rights. One of the rights is that the tenant must get permission from the owner of the land for any alteration or repairs. And if the Member does not like the law, I suggest that he move a motion here to change the law.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is very clear. If a tenant rents a piece of land, say, for 30 or 50 years, he may want to repair his house but does not want to extend it; so that it may be in a habitable condition.

The Chairman: The Member for Bukit Panjang was talking about extensions and alterations, and not repairs.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has just now talked about the reconstruction of houses, and that the right lies with the landowner. If that is the case, then many people will be faced with the problem of not knowing where to live.

As a democratic socialist Government, they should not ask the Opposition to move a motion to amend the relevant laws. This is irresponsible. What we want is that the P.A.P. should consider their problem of housing in a sympathetic light and should treat this question as a simple issue.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have in the past treated all what we call unauthorised repairs with sympathy, and we are treating them with sympathy now. What the Member meant was that normally if a tenant has a broken roof and repairs it, we do not take any action if there is no extension or alteration to the house. I do like him to bring up any case where a tenant with a broken attap roof has repaired it and the Department has taken action against him. I do not remember any case of such a nature at all. We have been most sympathetic wherever we can.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I want to know whether the landowners have the right to prevent tenants from repairing their houses or reconstructing them.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer, otherwise I will quote him chapter and verse and give him a verbatim report.

But in reply to his question, I would say, yes, the landlord has every right; and the tenant has got to ask his permission for any repairs or alterations under the existing law.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the reply given by the Minister refers to cases of repair where the landowner has the right to interfere. But if a house is not being extended, but is being repaired only, will the Building Surveyor's Department approve such an application?

3.00 p.m.

The Minister has said that maybe there were certain houses which were not authorised. I want to know about the case of tenants of houses who want to apply for repairs and who have been paying rent regularly to the landowners. There have been cases of delay of up to six months. This is a very thorny problem. The reply given by the Minister does not seem to solve this problem.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): Regarding the repair and extension of houses, if a house is in a state of disrepair and cannot be habitable any more, then the tenant should negotiate with the landowner. There is a form in the Building Survey Department which provides that the landowner can approve by putting his signature. But the plan of such a house should be submitted to the Building Survey Department. After receiving this form, the Building Survey Department will despatch an inspector there to investigate. Once it is approved, the tenant concerned can carry out his repair and this repair should be in accordance with the plans submitted.

The Opposition Party exaggerates by saying that there has been a delay of up to six months. For the past few days, they have been telling falsehoods. For example, they have said that the Government has forced farmers to live in Housing Board flats. All these accusations are groundless. This is only one example of their falsehoods which they have uttered in this House.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is not being responsible. He says that we have exaggerated by saying that there have been certain cases of delay of up to six months. I am speaking from actual facts. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not believe me, he can refer to his files in his office. He will then understand. Maybe he has not referred to his files. That is why he has accused us of having exaggerated the case.

The Chairman: Let us go on to the subject in question. Let us not get to the files or indulge in personal accusations. Let us try to get on to repairs, alterations and additions.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to what the Member for Bukit Panjang has said about the six months' delay, I have just now said that the best thing for him to do is to give us concrete examples, so that we can study and investigate them. I would also like to point out another thing. In case of such delay, it might well be that the applicant has not submitted the plan which is necessary to the Building Survey Department, and perhaps the landlord has not approved the application by countersigning the form. Thus the delay has been caused by this. If the applicant does not produce the plan for repairs at the time, of course, there will be a delay in the approval.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): The Parliamentary Secretary has once again asked me to give a concrete example. I have already replied to him by asking him to look into his own files and see whether there is such a case of an applicant who has submitted his application and for six months nothing has been done. There is one by the name of Mr Ho Pak Toh. Up to now, his application has not been approved, and during this time there have already been two changes in the head of the Building Survey Department. The Parliamentary Secretary should refer to his files and should not accuse me of uttering falsehoods.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: I would like the Opposition Member to single out one case. What is the house number and where is it situated? I can then find out all the facts for him and what is wrong about the case.

The Chairman: That seems to me to be a very fair request.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): If the Parliamentary Secretary wants an example, he is sure to find it in the file. I will let him know the name of the area in which this incident happened. I am afraid I cannot remember the number of the house. The applicant is living at Bukit Panjang, 10 milestone. The name of the street is Jalan Kon Kuan. The name of the applicant is Yang Lian Seng. If he wants to refer to the file now, he can easily do so. There is such an incident.

Mr Lim Kim San: We have thousands of files in the Chief Building Survey Department. If the Member is really interested in this particular case, I am also interested in it, because if he had seen the Chief Building Surveyor three times and no satisfactory explanation was given to him as to why it took more than six months to get a plan approved, then I am interested in the case myself. Therefore, if he can give me the number of the application, that is the only way we can find out. From the number of the application we can trace the applicant, and I will be very interested to find out why it took such a long time. There must be very good reasons. As it is, the Member for Jalan Kayu just says that there is a delay. If he had seen the C.B.S. three times, I think the C.B.S. must have explained to him why the delay occurred.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am concerned with is not this particular case. What I am concerned with is the policy of the Government. Is it not the policy of the Government to afford convenience to the people? If the Government is concerned with the interest of the landlords, the problem would be whether it has made provisions to rebuild without the approval of the landlord. If the Government does not protect the people, then they will not be able to rebuild their houses. The Minister says that the landowner has to sign the application first. But if the landlord does not want to sign, what will happen? There will be a lot of difficulties. If such things continue, then conditions will become worse. The houses will collapse. We have seen with our eyes houses collapsing. We would like the Government to amend the law to enable the people to rebuild with convenience.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, there was an allegation that the Government has delayed for six months, or more than six months, and that they have difficulty with the C.B.S. But when we asked for a specific instance, it was not forthcoming.

With regard to the Member's other point, I have been trying to explain that the landlord has certain rights of ownership. I think it is the same law almost thoughout the world. I do not see how we can change it so that any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to have a house built on anybody's land can just send in an application without getting permission from the landlord. I do not think there is any law anywhere of that nature.

The Chairman: Mr Ong Lian Teng, do you wish to proceed to a vote?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): I would like to have a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $660,000 for Head 0402 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0403 -

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

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0403 he reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1001.*

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

At the time when the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill was passed, the Minister concerned said that the Government intended to reconsider the Master Plan and re-delineate the plan, and to start with the development of the rural areas and to rebuild the city. The legislation that has been passed seems to give the Minister too extensive powers, because he can decide at his discretion which area should be developed.

The Chairman: The Member is out of order. He can use the provisions of that Bill to base his speech on, but he may not criticise the provisions of that Bill or the passing of that Bill.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister can, at his own discretion, decide whether certain areas should be developed or not. I would like to ask him what criterion is applied when he decides which area should be developed or which area should not be developed. I raise this question not because I do not have confidence in him. What I am concerned with is that there may be landlords who may want to make use of any possible chances to achieve their own personal ends. That is why I now wish to stress that if any site is to be developed, there should be a certain suitable criterion. It should be according to stipulated conditions. Otherwise, there will be cause for ill-feelings and sentiments. That is why I am putting forward my suggestion under this Head.

3.15 p.m.

Certainly the Government should - and I stress the word "should" - control land prices. There should also be a fair and just standard, otherwise the green belt areas after development will become developed areas and the price of land will increase. Superficially, the rural areas may look developed. There are skyscrapers everywhere, but the houses are at prices that cannot be bought by the people. The people have lost their land to the landlords as a result of which they are faced with great difficulties in earning their livelihood. Undoubtedly the consequences will be construed to mean that the Government is benefiting from the landlords; this runs contrary to socialist principles.

The green belt areas are mostly areas where the poorer people live. Every year, they have to pay rentals, and after certain expenses they can start their agricultural activities and build their huts and homes on the sites to maintain themselves. But once these green belt areas are developed, then these people will meet with difficulties. Even if they want to take up residence in cheap Government flats, they will find it difficult to do so, because there are considerations like making their living. Therefore, before the Minister decides on the green belts to be developed, he should take proper steps to consult the people concerned and ensure the protection of their livelihood, otherwise the superficial development and prosperity will not be in keeping with socialist principles.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government has the interest of every section of the public at heart. We see to it that in our efforts to bring about a more democratic and prosperous society in any development programme, no section of the public suffers.

I can assure the Member for Bukit Merah that the last thing I want to see is the private developers making large sums of money out of our development. I think he is quite aware that we did introduce the Planning (Amendment) Bill where development charges will be levied on private developers. This is just to ensure that whatever profit the developers may make, a part of it will be returned to the public through development charges.

I am thankful that the hon. Member has said that he has confidence in me, and I can assure him that his confidence will not be misplaced, because I am not the only one who decides whether an area should be developed or not; it is decided by a team of experts - experts in traffic and experts in planning - and all of them are technicians who are able to plan for the increase in population that we envisage in 1990. Before we decide whether a green belt should remain so or whether there should be a change of use, the effect that the precinctal development aspects will have on our livelihood, traffic problem and total development will be taken into consideration. So I do not think that the decision to change the use of any place will depend on the decision of one man. It will have to be thoroughly discussed by a team of experts. Moreover, when the Master Plan is revised - and it will be revised at the beginning of next year - representations from the public will be received before it is finally approved. Therefore, on that score, I think the hon. Member can set his qualms at rest. It is not the decision of one man, and therefore he cannot be influenced or bought over by any large land-owner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the aim of this Government to raise the standard of living of our people. I will say that we will have succeeded to some extent if we can plan our industrialisation so that the present so-called farmers who are eking out a living from the land will be able to change to a new way of life which will give him a better return. I am sure hon. Members opposite will not like to see the same living conditions under which the farmers are eking out a living in the open green space to continue. I think they will like to see that the farmers have a higher standard of living. As it is now, seeing the way they are living in spite of our efforts to increase production by expert advice from the Primary Production Department, I do not think that their standard of living is something which we should allow to continue.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Bukit Merah wish for a vote or withdraw the amendment?

Mr Lim Huan Boon: I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $753,590 for Head 0403 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0404 -

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0404 be reduced by $l00.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few doubts about the Public Works Department, and I hope I will get explanations from the Minister concerned.

The first question is, as the Minister has hinted that the road engineers have not taken care of Yio Chu Kang Road 9 m.s. to 12½ m.s. - at the junction of Thomson Road - has the Government hinted that no reconstruction, remetalling or widening of this road is necessary to make it more level and smoother?

The second question is, on the 12th of this month, the Minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, replied that no electricity can be supplied to Yio Chu Kang Road 12 m.s., as the site occupied by a primary school there could not be obtained for the installation of an electricity plant. In this respect, I feel that there must be some anomalies in the routine work of the Department concerned; otherwise it could be the fault of the P.A.P. Government. I think the site for an electricity plant can be obtained because there are organisations, such as the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee, which can try to find a suitable locality. Yet the Minister said on the 12th of this month that electricity supply could not be provided for that area because no site was available. There seems to be some mal-administration as the school is on a piece of land that belongs to the P.W.D.

Thirdly, I feel that this Department is not functioning efficiently to show quick results. For instance, the project at Braddell Road from Tampines Road 10 m.s. to Thomson Road 4 m.s. has been going on for a long time - for almost two years - and it is not finished yet. What is the reason? At the rate we are going, if our country is as large and extensive as China, a road from the north to the south will take thousands of years to complete!

Fourthly, the question of metalling of roads. I would like to know how long the metalling of a road can last before remetalling is necessary. To my knowledge, the newly laid layer of metalling of certain roads in my constituency from Upper Serangoon 6 m.s. to 9 m.s. has come off after a period of only three months. The top and lower layers are exposed after several weeks of heavy rainfall; the roads are in bad condition. I do not understand why this is so. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

3.30 p.m.

He and the P.A.P. are jointly in control of public funds. I hope they will manage the money of the people carefully and not try to waste it unnecessarily.

Fifthly, I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the drains and bridges are normally subjected to flooding after heavy rains. Not only will this cause loss and damage to agricultural produce, but traffic is also obstructed. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government has any comprehensive plan to investigate the whole situation so that a remedial plan can be formulated. Because the farmers and other people feel that such bridges and drains are of great use to them, they should not be subjected to the bad effects of constant flooding after heavy rains. I hope the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee can also pay atention to this.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Member for Jalan Kayu has taken such an interest in the work of the P.W.D. I am at one with him there in trying to speed up work in the P.W.D. it is a large organisation and I think it takes some time to wake them up. But I can say this: during the last year, there has been a quickening in the pulse of the workers in the P.W.D. and I hope to be able to keep it up.

Now, on the question of roads. I think the Government here is doing its very best to give us very good roads. In fact, some of the roads that we see in Singapore are about the best that we can find in South-East Asia. Knowing that we are going to have a population of 4 million by 1990 and that the number of cars that will be using our roads will be trebled or more by that time, we are very conscious of the inadequacy of our roads. Therefore, everytime, wherever we can, we are trying to enlarge our roads and make them better and better as we go on.

The question of widening Thomson Road has been exercising our minds, for quite some time. The only reason which has prevented us from starting on it is the large number of squatters on both sides of the road. It is because of our feeling for them, it is because we want to try to see in what way we can resettle them without much disturbance to their livelihood, that we are going a bit slow on that project. But I can assure him that it is always in our minds to build as good roads as we can in Singapore.

His second point is that we have no heart in supplying electricity to the 11th milestone Yio Chu Kang because we have said that we could not get a site for a substation as the site we have chosen is within the compounds of a Chinese Primary School and that there were objections. I think in the reply given by my Parliamentary Secretary to him on the 12th, we did say that we were on the lookout for another site. The moment we can get a site, we will see to it that that area gets electricity.

There is one thing which must be clear in the minds of Members of the Opposition. We never differentiate. There is no question of not doing it in your area and only doing it for the P.A.P. boys. In fact, the bulk of our Development Estimates amounting to $54 million is to be spent in an area which is represented by one of the Opposition Members - I am referring to the Member for Jurong. The bulk of our development expenditure is to be spent to improve his area. Not anyone here ---

Mr Chia Thye Poh: We are paying the taxes!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Lim Kim San: Yes, they are paying the taxes. But the priority is given there. We will bring prosperity there and that is something which he may not like ---

Mr Chia Thye Poh: All over Singapore, you know!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Lim Kim San: He says the work is very slow. I quite agree. The tempo could be increased. He sees no results - two years, three years, the building of the road is still going on. That thing exercises my mind too, Mr Speaker. I was wondering, why does the P.W.D. take months or years to do a road? I have looked into it. We have hastened the tempo. But there is one technical point. In building a road, one must allow time for the ground to consolidate. The Member did say that at the 9th milestone Upper Serangoon Road, the top layer peeled off after rain and after a week. That exactly is the reason. That is why there must be a minimum time to allow for consolidation. But I agree with him. We could increase the tempo, the speed of completion by the P.W.D. That I agree with him heartily, and I will chase them up.

I do not understand his last point about bridges and drains. We are doing our best. We have spent millions of dollars to alleviate flooding. In fact, I think during the last two years we have seen that, in spite of heavy rain, the flooding was not as bad as it would have been if we had not done all the work.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to clarify one point. I was saying that the road is from the 9 to 12½ milestone Yio Chu Kang Road, linking with Thomson Road. Construction of this road was begun during the Lim Yew Hock regime, and it has been going on for five or six years now, and yet it has not been completed. Not only the people around there are asking for it to be completed, but the people in Upper Serangoon Road and people who want to go to the Federation have to pass through it. Some of the plans for bridges were drafted by the old Government, and yet they have not started work on them.

Many housewives have told me that at the 9 milestone, there is a maternity hospital which looks after their health. They have to go through that road. Because buses pass over that road very fast, it is very inconvenient for the housewives there to walk on it and also because it is not level. What I want to know is whether the Government can expedite the work here and complete it in time so as to make it comfortable to the people.

Regarding the substation for the electricity, now that the School Management Committee has given permission for a piece of land to be used as a site for the substation, the Government should not shirk its responsibility. Electricity mains were laid before the elections. The work has been completed over a year, and yet there is no supply of electricity to that area.

The P.W.D. is entrusted with building bridges in the rural areas. But these bridges have not been made with good material. After a few years, these wooden bridges have rotted, and motor vehicles cannot pass over them. That shows the Department concerned has not looked after them carefully. When the roads have been completed, the Government should send someone there to inspect and maintain them so that traffic will not be held up. In many rural areas, the drains have been blocked up by floods. Since there are many members of the Work Brigade, why should the Government not send them there to repair the drains, so that they will not be flooded during the rainy season, and not keep the Work Brigade idle? That is what I am concerned about.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the Member for Jalan Kayu for 20 minutes, it seems as if he is the saviour of the people. Had he not aired these views, then the Government would not have done those things ---

The Chairman: Order. That is the Member's right. Mr Ho, will you please proceed to answer the Member?

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I want to quote one example. The Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee in the past 10 months have spent about $60,000 on improving roads, bridges, drains for Jalan Kayu constituency, etc. All these requests have not been made by the Member for Jalan Kayu. They have been made by the Citizenship Committees of those areas. He has talked about bridges having fallen into disrepair, but he has not made any petition to the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee. He should write to them. In fact, he has not done so. But today, he has seen fit to carry out propaganda here so as to impress the people that he has been doing something for them.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. If he is sincere in his concern about the welfare of the people, then it is his duty to carry out this work. But to say that we the Opposition Members have not looked after the interest of the people, is not correct.

3.45 p.m.

If he will look into the files of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee, he will know that I have made many requests to improve the rural areas. If the Government is prepared to investigate and find out what can be done, I will be satisfied.

I hope that all this will not be construed as a gift to the people, because in a democratic society, since the people are obliged to pay rates and taxes, they have a right to all these benefits and amenities. The Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are paid thousands of dollars a month, and they are duty bound to serve the people. This is not a gift to be conferred by the Government. The people are entitled to these benefits.

Concerning the structures in rural areas, if these schemes are approved by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee, they cannot be regarded as something bestowed by the P.A.P. In every P.A.P. constituency, if a road is constructed, the Member of that constituency will invariably go there to announce it. I do not know what the motive is, but it seems that the roads are constructed by the P.A.P. and not the Government. I hope that in future, the work that is carried out by the Government is not heralded by P.A.P branch members. The people pay rates and taxes and, therefore, they are entitled to these constructions.

Talking about metalling of roads and the roads becoming inundated, the reply given was that the foundations had not been consolidated. There is a contractor in my constituency who has a gang of workers to carry out road work. They have a lot of experience in making roads in that area. They asked me why the metalling of roads wore out in such a short time. The reason, of course, is that the roads had not been properly constructed. There have been irregularities and malpractices. If a road is properly metalled, even a heavy steamroller cannot break it up. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that since the Government looks after public funds, they cannot misuse them. It is not a question of the foundations not being consolidated, but a question of malpractices where poor materials have been used.

Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, I never said "foundations". I said "consolidation".

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there are malpractices in the road building programme of the Public Works Department, I am concerned that public money has been wasted. Not only roads in the Jalan Kayu constituency have not been completed for a long time, but there are also similar instances in other constituencies. These roads are in different degrees of repair, and some of them are even in a worse condition than they were originally. When these roads become worn out, the stones are exposed. This shows how easily they can deteriorate. Has the Government been guilty of using public funds to please its own members?

There are some foreign firms which have tendered $3 per square foot. I believe that some local contractors who are somewhat related to the P.A.P. got these tenders easily. Whether these successful tenderers constructed the roads according to regulations, I am in doubt. But according to usual practice, road construction cannot be carried out during rainy days. But such things have been going on. I believe that the materials are specified in the contracts; the widths and the depths of the materials are specified. I understand that a big company which is somehow related to the P.A.P. has been guilty of such malpractices. [Interruption] These are your own affairs. If the Minister concerned wants to investigate this, he can set up a Commission of Inquiry. If he wants me to give names and facts, I think he had better not become the Minister. The Government should be in a better position than Opposition Members to understand, because all the files are in their hands. You can set up a Commission of Inquiry to look into such matters. But I would like to ask whether, if there is any doubt about any irregularity, the Minister will set up a Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, after hearing the speeches from the Party in power, I feel I must say something on the expenditure in regard to this Department.

Just now my colleagues, the Member for Jalan Kayu and others, have suggested many things to the Government But these suggestions have been ignored by them. We hope, however, that they will pay attention to them in order to expedite the improvements for the benefit of the people. When we put forward our suggestions, the Party in power counter us by saying that we are merely carrying out publicity work and propaganda, when in actual fact we are trying to be constructive by putting forward our suggestions. They term our suggestions and good intentions as "propaganda". I still urge the Government that it should properly look into the use of public funds and not try to gain publicity for itself. Who has been guilty of this publicity? I think it is the P.A.P.

When the Prime Minister toured the constituencies, the P.A.P. members and branches drew up programmes indicating which areas should have roads, standpipes, etc. They submitted them as a request to the Prime Minister during his tours. For instance, the Prime Minister had to go along certain roads or paths in a certain constituency. The P.A.P. immediately went to investigate before the Prime Minister arrived there, and purposely improved the general appearance of the roads and paths through which he had to pass. They did this in advance of the Prime Minister's tour. But in other areas, they did nothing to improve the condition of the roads. Even in my constituency, there are certain roads which are in a very bad condition. The farmers have to go along such roads, and in rainy days it is even worse! When they asked for repairs to be carried out, the Ministry of National Development and the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee paid no heed to their request. They are merely interested in improving roads or paths in areas where the Prime Minister will be touring. Mr Speaker, I would like to give some examples. In ancient Chinese history, there lived an Emperor called Sui Yang. Before he toured the country, a road was built for him. He was very notorious. So it is the same with present day Singapore. Before the Prime Minister goes on a tour, a road is built specially for this purpose.

Just now, the Minister for National Development has said that everything they do is fair. The Jurong area, he said, benefited most from the Development Estimates. The Industrial Site in Jurong is quite good and it is looked after by the Government. But when the Government spends money on the Jurong project, that should not be construed as benefiting the people of Jurong. As a result of development there, the people have been asked to remove. Before they can even get any benefits, they are already suffering inconveniences, difficulties and financial loss!

4.00 p.m.

I hope the Minister will not try to talk irrelevantly and claim that the Jurong project has benefited most of them. I would like clarification on this.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Member for Bukit Panjang realises it or not, but he has made a serious allegation. I challenge him to repeat it outside this House. He says that contracts have been given to contractors who have something to do with the P.A.P. If it is so - he is now under privilege in this House - he can name one contractor. Or if it is more than one, he can name them. I will find out whether it is so or not. I do not know whether he realises it or not. We have been able to bring - at least when I was in the Housing and Development Board - the cost of building down much lower than it ever was before, and there was no question of corruption anywhere at all. But his allegation is very serious. I challenge him to repeat it outside this House. I do not know when the Member for Jalan Kayu has become an expert on roads. He says that the roads are broken up, and all that. By what standards has he judged them? Does he know that when roads are made, there is a certain period during which they are under observation what we call the "maintenance period"? if they break up within that time, they have to be done up again. There was no question of corruption. He spoke about malpractices. Since the P.A.P. Government came to power, it has been our objective to stop all malpractices, and if he knows of any malpractice within my Department or within any other Department, it is his duty to bring it up and give instances. We will see that there is a stop made to it.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already challenged the P.A.P. I have said, first and foremost, that these roads can get into a state of disrepair very easily - whether there have been any malpractices or irregularities or not. If the Minister thinks that it is impossible or if he thinks otherwise, then the best thing he can do is to set up a Commission of Inquiry to see whether proper materials have been used in the building of roads and bridges. It should compare the result of the work with the terms of the contract. Is this the duty which Members of the Opposition have to do? It is obviously something which the Party in power should carry out. They are responsible for it. Perhaps they are afraid, and that is why they have thrown the challenge back to us!

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Bukit Panjang had been following the history of Singapore, he would have known that the P.A.P. is the last Party to be afraid of any Commission of Inquiry. We know what our duties are, and we are not going to waste our time setting up a Commission of Inquiry when we cannot be sure that there is something to investigate. I am not going to spend my time running around looking up specifications to see whether the roads are made up to specification, unless I have some suspicion that it is not so. As far as my technical staff are concerned, we have a certain standard to work on. I believe that members of the public are now quite conscious of what is going on. We have had letters in the Press about unlicensed dogs roaming in Singapore, flies all over the place. I am sure that among the public of Singapore, there are quite a number of engineers who, if they were sure, or had any suspicion that the roads which were made up were not up to specification and that there was any malpractice with regard to specifications, would have sent me the information, and I would have set up a Commission of Inquiry. There is no question about it.

One thing Members can be sure of: we are not afraid of a Commission of Inquiry.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $8,032,690 for Head 0404 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0502 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0502 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1201.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this refers to the Outpatient Services Department. In the past, patients in the outpatient departments, whether in the General Hospital or elsewhere, were given treatment free of charge. Since the formation of Malaysia, the Minister for Health has announced that there will be a charge for outpatient services. Each patient will be charged 50 cents. Of course, this amount is nothing to a well-off person. To those Ministers who receive $2,500 a month, that is but a small sum. But to a poor man, 50 cents is not a small sum.

The Chairman: The Member talks about the sum being too big for certain people. But unless the Member tells the House what the sum is, Members will not be able to follow him intelligently.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the 50 cents charge for an out-patient. Originally, it was free of charge. But recently, a levy of 50 cents has been imposed. Is it true that the Government wishes to make this collection to supplement the national income? Is this one of the ways by which the Government intends to get more revenue? Is this going to be a temporary or a permanent charge?

Mr Lim Huan Boon: Mr Speaker. I do not wish to speak on my amendment.

The Chairman: The Member is not speaking. The motion is now open for debate.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to talk simultaneously on my amendment No. (2)+, that is, on subhead 1371. This may be convenient to the Minister because he will have to reply only once. This is at page 154 of the Estimates.

+Amendment (2) , which also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon, reads as follows:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0502 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1371.

The Chairman: I think perhaps we had better keep it separate. One is "Maternity" and the other is "Outpatient Services".

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to say that the statement by the Member for Thomson that outpatient services were previously free services is not true, because, before the reorganisation. 12 out of the 26 outpatient dispensaries were charging 50 cents. With the reorganisation from 1st of August this year, it was made a standard charge for all the 26. In other words, where previously 14 outpatient dispensaries were free, they came in line with the remaining 12 outpatient dispensaries, so that all the 26 out patient dispensaries were levying what I would call a nominal charge of 50 cents. In introducing this nominal charge of 50 cents for all the 26 dispensaries, certain classes of people were exempted from this nominal charge. This was made known to the public over a period of at least one month, that those who are in receipt of social welfare assistance would be exempt from the charge. It is quite easy to apply this, because those in receipt of social welfare assistance need only produce their social welfare assistance cards.

The second category of people who are exempt from this nominal charge are those who need prolonged medical treatment after discharge from the hospital. They include people with the following diseases: diabetes, which is a long running disease and which requires, I think, daily injections; diseases like leprosy; mental disorder - a great number of them; those suffering from tuberculosis and receiving injections, and even venereal diseases, so as not to spread this disease to innocent victims.

The third large category who are also exempted from this nominal charge are Government servants and their families; this is part of their employment privileges. I might say that it is nearly four months now since the reorganised Outpatient services have been running and that about 25 per cent of those attending the dispensaries belong to these exempted classes.

4.15 p.m.

So it is not true, firstly, that because of Malaysia, the charge was introduced, because Malaysia took place more than a year ago. I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for drawing attention to the fact that perhaps we should know what the amount is. The amount is this nominal sum of 50 cents. I do not think that 50 cents is a very heavy charge for anyone who is seriously ill. We know of cases when it was free in certain dispensaries, and a good number of those who were not really ill, but pretending to be ill and wanting to get a medical certificate, blocked those who were really ill and who wanted attention. So much so that there was serious congestion in the Outpatients Department of the General Hospital, where something like 2,000 to 3,000 persons turned up daily, and although they got free service, yet they might have to wait for five or six hours because of the large crowds there which prevented them from getting medical attention quickly. But now with the reorganisation and decentralisation into 26 outpatient dispensaries throughout the island, it is possible for anyone who is ill, by just paying 50 cents, to get treatment within 15 minutes and not wait for five or six hours without any treatment. From objective reports, I think the public are very satisfied with the reorganisation. It is also satisfactory from the point of view of the doctors in service. In the past, they had very little time to examine patients to find out what was really wrong with them. They had only a very cursory glance at patients before they prescribed the medicine. But now there is less harassment by crowds waiting to be examined by doctors. Doctors are very much happier, and that includes the nursing staff and the technicians as well as the dispenser, because each dispensary is now well able to look after those who turn up. So much so that doctors can spend about five minutes to examine each patient. So doctors are happy, patients are happy, and our staff are happy in this general reorganisation.

In answer to the Member's last question, whether this 50 cents charge will be a permanent charge or a temporary one, I think it is a little too early for me to make a pronouncement, because, at the moment, the medical services unfortunately are very much understaffed. We have 26 outpatients dispensaries. For ideal staffing of them, we should have 70 doctors. But, at the moment, we have only 44. So until I am able to have a full establishment, that is to say, 70 doctors in charge of my 26 dispensaries, I am not in a position now to make a statement. So I prefer to just leave it open for the time being.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning this outpatient charge, the reasons, according to the Minister's reply, gave me the impression that the charge cannot be reduced. If that is so, it is not logical. He gave an example that there were people who, because of certain reasons, wanted medical certificates. They went to the outpatients department to see the doctor. It could be that these people did not want to go to work. But these were but a few of the patients. If there are people who want to get medical certificates in order to stay away from work, then the medical officer should examine them carefully before deciding to give them two or five days' leave. But if these people are well, the medical officer should not give them medical certificates. If such is the case, I cannot see how, by charging a nominal sum, there will be less patients, so that medical officers and patients will be happy. The Minister says the patients will be happy because they will not have to wait too long. I believe there will not be people who pretend to be sick and go to the Outpatients Department to see the doctor. I know that in the past there were certain departments which charged a certain fee. These were run by the City Council, like the maternity and child clinic. If the Government wanted to standardise things, why do they not standardise and not collect this 50 cents? Would that not be better? I would like to know also whether, after implementing this plan of collecting 50 cents, the Government has calculated to see how much could be obtained within a year? If the Minister can give me a rough estimate, I will be happy.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I think the hon. Member for Thomson would like to know the reasons why a nominal charge of 50 cents was introduced to bring all the other dispensaries in line with the 12 outpatient dispensaries that were already charging this rate. They were eight of the former City Council dispensaries and four of the new Government dispensaries. One reason was to reduce attendances. I think he is much too naive to think that lots of people will not turn up when the dispensary is free and just ask for medical certificates. But that is the true situation. It was in order to stop the congestion at the General Hospital and get the public to go to the 26 outpatient dispensaries that this move was made. Because, at the same time as we reorganised the outpatient services, we established an emergency admission unit at the General Hospital, which previously was cluttered up with all the thousands who turned up daily for colds and stomach aches and so on. You could not tell the difference between a serious case and a mild case. Now it is possible with anyone turning up at the emergency unit of the General Hospital, and this is 400 per day - 200 on the average, from casualties arising out of accidents, another 200 serious medical cases recommended by doctors whether in Government or in private practice are now receiving immediate medical attention when they arrive at the General Hospital. I think these are the people who deserve priority in attention to others who have very simple ailments which can be attended to at the outpatient dispensaries. It is true that in the maternal and child health centres the service continues to be free.

The Member for Thomson has asked what will be the rough estimate of the revenue that will be obtained with the reorganisation in August of the outpatient services. I have already said that in the past there were 12 outpatient dispensaries which charged the 50 cents rate and, on the average per annum, the income was over $200,000. Now with the nominal charge of 50 cents applying to all the 26 outpatient dispensaries, we believe that for one full year, the revenue would be around three-quarters of a million dollars, or an increase of half a million dollars per annum.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Government has in the Outpatient Department been levying a charge of 50 cents, I would like to know whether this charge has already been levied in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Jalan Kayu, I think, is anticipating the next question, Mr Speaker. From outpatient dispensaries to the maternity hospital at Kandang Kerbau! If he will hold his horses, I will give him the answer ---

The Chairman: You have probably already given him that answer, Mr Yong, have you not?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Most probably he wants more detailed information. He will probably send one of the patients there.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is about this Outpatients Department. They have levied a charge. It has been said that the charge is just 50 cents. But I would like to emphasise that the majority of the people who go to the Outpatients Department are poor. They are poor people coming from poor villages. Because they are poor, they cannot afford to go to private practitioners. They are not like the Ministers who have got their own consultants to look after them and give them injections. These poor patients, when they feel unwell, have to go to the Outpatients Department where the charge is low.

4.30 p.m.

But the Government has now decided to increase the charge. This is a big burden on the poor people. I do not wish to touch any more on the circumstances of Malaysia, but will only say that these people in the lower income group have heavy burdens. They now have less income, and because of the rising cost of living, this charge of 50 cents for medical services is an additional burden on them.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is often said that the best things in life are free. But here in a realistic world where you want to get medical services, somebody has got to pay for them. Nothing is free. If the patient does not pay for it, then somebody has to pay, because doctors do not give free services, nurses have to be paid for, and medicine must be bought and paid for.

It is quite untrue to say that the imposition of the small charge of 50 cents is the result of Malaysia. The resulting income is quite trifling. The real reason is that when things are free, you get all sorts of people with minor stomach aches or headaches jamming up the clinics and preventing the real patients from getting sufficient medical attention. In, say, socialist countries both of the European Scandinavian type and of the Russian East European type, these services are not free. They have to be paid for. There is a deduction from the workers' wages every week. A certain amount is deducted and put into the medical fund that goes to pay for the medical services. In England, for instance, if I recollect correctly, the deduction for health services is something like $3 or $4 per week per worker. That amount is deductible and is put into the social insurance fund to pay for the medical services. So nothing in this world is free, Mr Speaker, Sir, except to people like President Soekarno who can go to Vienna at State expense to get an operation on whatever is wrong with his inside.

The Chairman: I would like to tell Members of the Opposition that they have up to 4.50 p.m. on Hospitals Division, and they have yet to debate the Maternity side of the Health services.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I want to be brief in my comments on what the Minister for Finance has said. We know very well that this counter argument has always been the way the P.A.P. will explain their own deeds. They will always cite examples of foreign countries to make a comparison in this context. This is irrelevant.

The Minister for Finance has claimed that no medical services are given free, even in Communist countries. I understand this. But after the deduction, if the workers are ill, as mentioned by the Minister for Finance, they are being looked after properly. But are the same conditions of treatment obtained here?

As to the number of people visiting the outpatient clinics, these people are themselves taxpayers, and therefore the medical services are a right to which they are entitled. Is the Minister trying to say that it is proper to levy a further charge of 50 cents on these people in addition to the taxes which they are already paying?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0502 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1371.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

This question is of the same nature, although the Minister will not acknowledge it as a consequence of Malaysia, resulting in increases in all charges. Just now we were talking about the charge of 50 cents for outpatient services. Now, in respect of Kandang Kerbau Hospital services, the patients have to pay more. They have to pay a head tax of $10 per head for new-born babies. For non-citizens, the charge is $50. Perhaps the Government may claim that the charge is made for them to provide certain services. But the question does not just end there. Many people want to go to Kandang Kerbau Hospital to deliver their babies, because if they were to go to private maternity hospitals, they would have to pay $50 to $60 for delivery charges. That is why they prefer to go to Kandang Kerbau Hospital because they are poor. Thus an increase of $10 will cause a greater burden on them, as they might not have calculated their budget in advance, and they now might have to squeeze other resources to meet the expenses for the newborn baby.

I do not know how much is the charge, but just now there was a mention of 50 cents for outpatient services, which would amount to $750,000 per year in revenue. Now, for this item under Kandang Kerbau Hospital charges, I think the total charges cannot be less than that figure, but much more. So perhaps the Minister can enlighten us and say how much the revenue will be for this charge.

Talking of this charge of 50 cents for outpatient services, the Minister has not replied whether it will be made permanent. So may I ask whether this additional charge will be permanent or temporary?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I have to begin by saying that the Member for Thomson is wrong when he says that "C" class patients at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital receive free attention. They have to pay $3 for the cost of sanitary towels and toilet paper when they get admitted to the hospital. The proposed new all-in charge of $10 will be effective from the first of next month - a fortnight from now - and will really mean an increase of $7.

But again there are exemptions, Sir, - exemptions for those in receipt of social welfare assistance and those in Government service.

The reasons for this are the same as in the case of introducing the nominal charge of 50 cents for outpatient dispensaries, to cut down on the numbers turning up at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital for delivery. Because the establishment of doctors and nurses is such that the hospital is grossly understaffed to cope with the large numbers that turn up each year to deliver their babies. There are as many as 40,000 babies per annum, or one baby every ten minutes. Kandang Kerbau certainly has the reputation of being the largest maternity hospital in the world. We would be proud to have this appellation, but for the fact that our staff are not able to cope with it without great cost to their health and efficiency. Some doctors have had to be on duty for more than 30 hours, which is very inhuman and unreasonable. As Minister, it is my duty to see that such dedicated officers are not being made to work till they drop. So the reason for introducing the charge is just to stem the tide of mothers making a beeline for the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital, it is not true that if a mother cannot afford the $10, she will not be able to deliver her baby, because we have a free domiciliary midwifery service. We have midwives who are being trained to deliver babies, and such service is available at home. So we try to impress upon mothers that unless there is something which may not be normal birth, such delivery can take place at home free of charge. Therefore, the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital should, as far as possible, be restricted to cases where the doctor, after ante-natal examination, thinks that it is preferable for the mother to have her child delivered there, and not every one wanting to deliver her baby in Kandang Kerbau Hospital. The task of having to deliver 70 per cent of the babies that are born in Singapore is, I think, unreasonable to expect from our dedicated doctors, nurses, and midwives in Kandang Kerbau Hospital.

As regards revenue, if the all-in charge of $10 is introduced, we anticipate that the net revenue will only come to $200,000 per year, because we would then do away with the charge of $3 for the sanitary towels and toilet paper which are now purchased, not from the Government but from a retailer at the hospital who gets the contract by way of a tender, in which case, Government would then have to provide sanitary towels and toilet paper for mothers to deliver their babies at Kandang Kerbau Hospital as "C" class patients, which we anticipate would cost $100,000 per annum. We might get a revenue, of. Say, $300,000 per year less $100,000 for the cost of sanitary towels and toilet paper, which therefore should bring in $200,000 net revenue for the Kandang Kerbau Hospital.

4.45 p.m.

But, of course, we anticipate that by bringing in this all-in charge, there would he a reduction in the number of mothers delivering their babies for the forthcoming year. But it may not prove to be correct. Whether it will be a permanent charge or a temporary charge, here again I am not in a position to give an answer. I would prefer to allow the system to run for, say, one year before I provide an answer to the Member for Thomson. Perhaps sometime next year, if he is still with us, I will give him the answer.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): It seems to me that the increase in the charges at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital by $7, as stated by the Minister, was to reduce the number of expecting mothers going to the hospital. But I think if that was the only reason, then it is not quite realistic. If the expecting mothers were to deliver at home, there should be certain hygienic facilities. In many families, the condition of the households is very dirty. There may not be any equipment, or facilities like electric appliances and other things necessary for delivery. All these things are very important for delivery.

As to the increase of the charge to $7, this may perhaps not be very important to the rich, but it is not so to the poor, it is not easy for poor families to have basins and boiling water ready at a moment's notice, without which the newly delivered baby would not have water to bathe. I feel that perhaps the Minister has ignored such questions. He has given his answers at random. There is also the necessity to go to the Kandang Kerbau Hospital for first delivery. I think doctors will ask that mothers with a first case of delivery should go to the hospital for delivery for fear of any risk or complications. All in all, I would say that the reasons given by the Minister cannot hold water.

Finally, I hope that the increased charges will not be imposed. There are also increased charges for the outpatient services. I hope the Government will pay attention to the fact that there are many people who are going downhill with regard to their financial position, especially at this time of the year. This is a fact which the P.A.P. Members must also admit. If this difficulty is added to their other difficulties, I think they cannot shoulder any more burden. I feel there should be a temporary measure for their improvement, and this should be implemented for a certain period of time. There should not be this imposition of increased charges. Otherwise the lot of the poor people will be made more difficult.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta) rose ---

The Chairman: Madam Chan, you have one minute.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Just now the Barisan Sosialis Members on the opposite side have delivered their speeches in such a way that it would appear that they are speaking on behalf of the poor people of Singapore. But I would like to remind them that with regard to the increased charge which the Government has imposed on the outpatient services and the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, we already had discussions on the question of the increase of 50 cents when they were in the P.A.P. At that time, private practitioners were also charging for their services and the hospital would be unfair.

4.50 p.m.

The Chairman: Time is up.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $37,905,720 for Head 0502 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0503 -

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0503 be reduced by $100.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 14th of November, the Prime Minister assembled the heads of various departments for a meeting at the Victoria Memorial Hall. At this meeting he said that Singapore is now full of flies. There are many wild dogs and cows running about in the streets, and some of them have been occupying bus shelters as well. The situation looks very grave. There is a saying in Chinese, when a person wants to eat meat, he must wipe his mouth clean. Why should the Prime Minister mention this now since these things happened years ago? The purpose is to cover up the inefficiency and the responsibilities of the Government. Therefore, he has talked about the officers not dealing with complaints and that rubbish has been piling up. He has also said that the regulations have not been applied. This is mainly to show that they are charitable and that they are concerned with the hygienic situation here.

The Minister for Health also said at the meeting that the problem of hawkers is also a problem of public health. Let me talk about the problem of hawkers.

The Chairman: In relation to public health?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Yes. On the question of public health, the Public Health Division has got to deal with the question of hawkers. I understand that the P.A.P. has sacked 5 hawkers inspectors. Or is it more? After, these inspectors were dismissed, the P.A.P. did not give any reason for their dismissal. The only reason given is that they were a security risk and that they were a menace to security. As a result, these inspectors have lost their jobs. From where do the P.A.P. want to employ new hawkers inspectors?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Sia Kah Hui) rose ---

The Chairman: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Yes.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Is the dismissal of hawkers inspectors connected with public health? If it is, it must be because they have not carried out their duties to see that general cleanliness is observed. Otherwise, I do not see what connection this has with public health.

The Chairman: I think the Member is trying to relate what he is saying to public health. He is trying to say that, as a result of the dismissal of these hawkers inspectors, public health is suffering. May be, I do not know. We will soon find out what is in his mind. Please continue. Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was merely quoting the statement made by the Minister for Health that the problem of hawkers has something to do with public health. I do not know whether or not these people have been dismissed because of their inefficiency and incompetence. The reason given by the Government is that they are a security risk. But I would like to point out that since these hawkers inspectors were dismissed, where is the Government going to recruit new hawkers inspectors? The Government has not yet published any advertisement for the recruitment of hawkers inspectors. They merely want to recruit them through negotiations. I understand there is one hawker inspector who is a branch official of the P.A.P. One official has now been appointed. The dismissal of these hawkers inspectors is solely aimed at recruiting new hawkers inspectors who are supporters of the P.A.P. Those who are supporters of the Barisan Sosialis, of course, will not have any hope of being recruited.

As far as I understand, none of the five hawkers inspectors is a member of the Barisan Sosialis. Now the P.A.P. has engaged one of its Party officers as a hawker inspector. If they feel that Party officials cannot become civil servants, why should the P.A.P. engage their own Party members to be civil servants?

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps this might be a convenient time to take the tea break and the Minister can reply?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

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

Mr Speaker: I shall suspend the sitting of this House and resume sitting at 5.30 o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 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]

The Chairman: We were on Head 0503 - Public Health Division. I have just proposed the Question. Mr Yong.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I have to stand up and say that the Opposition Member from the Barisan Sosialis - in this case, the Member for Bukit Panjang - is just like his colleague, the Member for Thomson, who makes a statement which is untrue when he says that I spoke at a meeting at the Victoria Theatre in which the Prime Minister addressed a number of civil servants on Saturday. I did not speak at that meeting; I was just present to listen to the views of the Prime Minister and the civil servants, who discussed matters on Public Health. But I did issue a statement which happened to be published at the same time on the question of the appointment of the Director of the Central Complaints Bureau to take charge of the reorganisation of the Hawkers and Markets Department of the Ministry of Health. In that statement I did say that the hawker problem is tied up with the social problem and the public health problem.

I find that the Member for Bukit Panjang actually spent a lot of time talking about the dismissal of 5 temporary - I underline the word "temporary" - Assistant Hawkers Inspectors in the Ministry of Health. It is true that I dismissed these 5 temporary Assistant Hawkers Inspectors in the public interest, and I was rather amazed that the Member for Bukit Panjang went so far as to say that these temporary hawker inspectors were not members of the Barisan Sosialis. Well, whether they were members of the Barisan Sosialis or not is a matter for his Party and the people concerned, but I think it is just typical of the Barisan Sosialis in regard to their "expendables".

Anyway, after the 5 temporary Assistant Hawkers Inspectors were dismissed, temporary replacements were appointed which were duly processed through the Public Service Commission. At this moment, the Public Service Commission itself is appointing not just the replacements for the 5 temporary Assistant Hawkers Inspectors but as many as 45 Assistant Hawkers Inspectors who will then form the core for a reorganisation of the Hawkers and Markets Department of the Ministry of Health.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the standard of public health in Singapore is deteriorating. It is a fact, it was not due to the disturbances in July and September. The situation existed even before the occurrence of the two disturbances and there is much left to be improved in the field of public health. There was a cholera epidemic in the past.

The Government tries to pass the buck to the civil servants for having failed in their duties. This is not correct. Let us discuss one matter. Recently the Minister for Health tried to carry out a campaign to clean Singapore city. I cannot quite remember the exact name of the campaign. In carrying out this campaign, they did nothing apart from giving some publicity to it over the radio and in the Press. It was mere publicity, because they achieved very little from the campaign. They did not mobilise the people in Singapore to implement the campaign thoroughly to clean up the city. Many people have complained about the bad situation in public health.

Last Saturday when the Prime Minister talked to the heads of departments concerning public health, he said that certain departments had ignored the complaints of the public. As a matter of fact, the Government should not put the blame on the civil servants. It is the P.A.P. who should shoulder their responsibility. I should like to quote one example. In Queenstown there is a market named "Princess Market". It is a big market with more than a hundred hawkers' stalls, but so far the Government has not taken steps to clear the rubbish around this market. Before the general election the Minister for Labour, when meeting the hawkers in that area, had assured them that after his election he would look after the problem of cleanliness in the market and would arrange to remove the market rubbish. However, after his election up till now, he has not done such a thing. Up to July this year, when the Minister for Labour attended a dinner and was approached by some of the citizens there who raised questions on the cleanliness of the market, he promised to help them, but after that he forgot about his promise. Now, the rubbish is piling up in that market. Of course, I did not quote this example to show that the Minister for Labour is not responsible, but since he has given such pledges, he should fulfil them.

There are people who had complained to the Prime Minister and he had accepted such complaints and had promised to deal with them, but later on he forgot about them. This is his responsibility. On the other hand, he has blamed the civil servants by saying that they have not looked after the public health of Singapore. This is very irresponsible of him. Our Ministers are busily engaged in delivering speeches or giving publicity or going to the Cameron Highlands to play golf, or to eat `satay' there. They have time to go to the Cameron Highlands to enjoy themselves. Yet, on the other hand, they accuse their civil servants of failing in their duties. There is a saying, "When the top is not upright, then the lower structure will be out of shape." There are some Government departments which the P.A.P. can influence and to which they can appoint their own people. On the other hand, some responsible civil servants have been dismissed while they have appointed their own people there. These people have no confidence in their work and have to "kowtow" to the pressure of Government appointees. All these important factors cannot he ignored by the Minister. The Government wants to claim credit for itself but it also wants to shed all responsibility by putting the blame on other people.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of public health. I would like to give some of my views.

My colleague has mentioned what the Prime Minister said in the Victoria Theatre on Saturday the 14th. This shows that the standard and condition of public health is very poor, as was admitted by the Prime Minister. From what the Minister for Health has said, it would appear that there have been difficulties in dealing with the problems of hawkers in relation to public health.

From the ballyhoo of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health on the question of public health, it would appear that they are putting the blame on the hawkers for the present condition of public health. The inference is that they can, from now, take steps to persecute the hawkers further. Here I should like to caution them - if they are to engage in such a move, then it will be highly improper. The Minister for Health should see to it that steps are taken to improve the conditions of public health to protect the people and not try to put the whole blame on the shoulders of the hawkers and to persecute them.

5.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $25,174.200 for Head 0503 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0601 -

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

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1211*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

The vote for this item relates to the Director of Training (and Head of Political Study Centre). I ask the Minister concerned, up to now who is the Director or Head of the Political Study Centre? Is he still the same expatriate, Mr G. G. Thomson? I believe that certain episodes by this gentlemen have been mentioned in this House in the past at various sittings of the House. As to the appropriateness of the appointment of this gentleman as Head of the Political Study Centre, we have raised our queries and the Party seems not to have paid any attention to them. In the past, there was criticism that this gentleman might have some connection with British Intelligence. If this is true, then such a person as Head of the Political Study Centre amounts to giving power to a British agent to control such an important institution, because he may make use of his position to influence directly the public service in Singapore.

The other point is, is there really no capable person suitable to fill this important post? Is it really necessary to have such an expatriate gentleman in this post? I believe that it has been quite a few years now since this gentleman was appointed. If the P.A.P. are really sincere in the appointment of a local man, they will not meet with any difficulties. It looks as though the P.A.P. have great confidence in this particular person. Or perhaps they feel that this person can very well be a useful tool to provide them with information. We have heard what has been uttered by Alex Josey, and perhaps the P.A.P. would like to take its cue from Mr G. G. Thomson in regard to information given by him. But the situation now after Malaysia is different. What we need is an Asian who can understand the aspirations of the people and the situation in South-East Asia. We need such a person in the post, and not one who has been a colonial tool in the past.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This is becoming a hardy perennial, and I feel tempted to ask you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for a copy of last year's Hansard so that I can read from it my reply last year. However, the Gentleman says that Mr Thomson is an agent of British Intelligence. Of course, no evidence is given. I am quite certain that the Gentleman will not repeat this allegation outside, without the privilege of this Chamber. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that Mr Thomson is an agent of the British Intelligence Service. Now what can the British Intelligence Service get out of this? Mr Thomson is not party to any important decision of the State Government, and is therefore not in a position to give any information of value to the British Government. He is not in a position to influence the thinking of local civil servants to take a more kindly, more pro-British attitude. As we have explained year in and year out, the syllabus of the Political Study Centre has been worked out between the Director, the Minister for Culture and me. It has been found to be of great value in past years in bringing to the notice of our civil servants - who have led quite a protected life and who were therefore quite innocent of the great changes that were going on around them - the vast changes that were going on in Asia; great social revolutions, either under the leadership of a Communist Party, or the leadership of a nationalist Party. And the approach here is one of detached academic analysis. Now the courses that are run by the Political Study Centre have proved so popular and its reputation has been so widespread that we have had requests from other territories of Malaysia for the staff of the Political Study Centre to carry out courses for the officers of their respective State Governments. For instance, the Political Study Centre has over the last two years run five courses in Kuching, two in Sibu, one in Jesselton, one in Tawau, one in Sandakan and one in Kuala Lumpur. To give an example of the content of the courses, the first course in Kuching consisted of 15 lectures and 10 discussions. It was attended by 36 officers of the Sarawak State Government at the Sarawak Government's Staff Training Centre. The subjects included The Evolution from Colony to Nations, The Coming of Politics, The Civil Servant in a Changing World, The Lessons of Singapore's Experience, The Lessons of Malayan Experience, Towards Malaysia, The Democratic Approach to Politics, The Communist Challenge, The Marxist Theory, The Strategy and Tactics of Parliamentary Democracy, The Strategy and Tactics of Communism, The Marxist-Leninist Conspiracy, The Economic Planning of a Nation, The Indian National Movement, The Chinese Revolution: (a) The Nationalist Revolution. (b) The Communist Take-over, and finally, The Asian Revolution.

Then, in addition to giving lectures to Government servants not only in Singapore, Sarawak, Sabah, Kuala Lumpur and so on, they have been running courses for senior business executives, because banks and big companies have asked the Government to run suitable courses for senior business executives. In the last 15 months, five such courses have been organised. And more will be organised as and when necessary. Now, of course, we do not expect pro-Communist open front organisations like the Barisan Sosialis to take kindly to these activities on our part, because the principal purpose of the Political Study Centre is to make people aware that the democratic system does not succeed automatically, that there are enemies - a closely-knit conspiracy - in our midst who make use of social democratic freedom to harass the elected government of the day, bringing it into disrepute, creating, complete disorder and chaos by any means possible, and thereby bringing a breakdown, a collapse of orderly organised government. One of the reasons why the political position in Singapore is as stable as it is now today is that there is widespread recognition among members of the public of the dangers which the democratic system faces and the need for people at various levels of leadership to take cognizance of this danger, to work together to ensure that neither the conspirators nor their undercover leaders would be allowed to undermine the democratic State.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): The Minister for Finance has not given a point-by-point answer to my questions. On the other hand, he has been talking about Communism and the rest of it. I feel that it is useless to repeat my questions. When the Government are unable to answer our questions, they will raise other side-issues such as Communism and other useless things. That does not in any way answer my question. My direct question is whether the Government have been actively considering employing a local man to fill this post, because this particular expatriate gentleman has been filling the post for many years as Head of the Political Study Centre.

6.00 p.m.

The intention of my question is that the Government should make better use of local men as far as possible. The question is whether there is such a local man available at all, or whether the Government have a liking for this particular gentleman, or whether a person in his position as Head, holds colonial views to the extent that the Minister for Finance and the Government, being in the same boat, feel unable to dispense with him. That is what I ask them to answer. The Minister has not given any direct answer to my question.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say in my answer that Mr G. G. Thomson is the Director of the Political Study Centre. That being so, the present position is that a local person is not in occupation of that post. It is no use for the Barisan to try to champion the cause of the senior officers. Nobody is taken in by that sort of propaganda line. Now, let me make clear the position of the civil service and give it a certain perspective. About six or seven years ago, there were no less than 550 expatriate officers in all government departments. Today, except for a handful, mostly in technical departments - in the Marine Department and Marine Surveys - all these posts are occupied by local officers. To bring about such a major change in personnel in so short a time without a major decline in the standard of efficiency speaks well for the local officers. But I do not think we can deceive ourselves into believing that we have anything like the number of senior civil servants with the experience and capability that we would like to have. Competent people there certainly are. Naturally there is also mediocrity as in any organisation. We also have men of outstanding ability. But in this major reshuffle of personnel, getting rid of 540 European officers and replacing them with local officers in just a few short years has been a major operation. And all the able people that we have we keep in policy-making and policy-executing functions. Now, a post like that of the Director of Political Study Centre, I do not consider a vital post in the administration. He does not assist Ministers to work out important policies; he does not carry out policy decisions. He is there to explain the general political background against which the country finds itself. For such a post we need an officer with some academic background, some erudition, widely read, and particularly an ability to express himself clearly, in terms which his audience can understand, and the present incumbent is eminently qualified to do this. Eventually, of course, we have to find a local officer to do this. There are in the Political Study Centre now two local officers who are working with the Director. Whether one or the other, or somebody recruited elsewhere, will take over the post I do not know. We will make the decision at the right time when the right person conies along.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance says that many expatriate officers have left our service and the remaining few are in the technical service. He also continues to hint that the post of Director of Political Study Centre is not so important as to warrant a local man to fill it. But to me the question still remains whether this post is important or not. To me, the grade of the post, Grade E, drawing a salary of $1,670 per month, shows the importance of the post itself. The Minister for Finance has no desire whatsoever to fill this post with a local man. Even up to now he is not giving any consideration. Instead he is trying to give all sorts of excuses to cover up the continuation of an expatriate officer in this post. Perhaps he has some difficulties.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not want to prolong this argument over what to me is a very trivial matter. I will give an example of the sort of thing we can do. Now, a Grade E post is very important. By a strange coincidence, there is another person - a local officer - who could very well have filled this post - Grade E, Director of Political Study Centre. There is an outstanding man in the Treasury. He is now holding Grade E, but he is the Head of the Special Branch. But it would be a loss to the administration if the present incumbent of Head of the Special Branch were to leave his post to do some teaching in the Political Study Centre. I am sure the Barisan will welcome such a change, but we have absolutely no intention of obliging them in this respect.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Amendment No.(2).* Mr Kow Kee Seng.

*Amendment No (2), which also stood in the names of Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Koo Young, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $100.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I am not moving.

The Chairman: The Member is not moving.

The sum of $32,571,850 for Head 0601 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0604 -

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fang Kim Heng) in the Chair]

6.09 p.m.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1604 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2001.

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr. Lim Huan Boon.

Under this subhead there is one item of Contribution towards the cost of Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation. The provision is not entered for next year, although there was one for this year. This Memorial is to be set up for civilian victims of the Japanese occupation. I do not know whether the construction has been ---

The Chairman: Order. In the Estimates for 1965 - Contribution towards the cost of Memorial - there is no provision made. So, will the hon. Member please not discuss it, because there is no point?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I just want to ask the Minister concerned about the provision for last year. We have already voted a sum of money for the construction of this memorial. I do not know how this money has been used, or whether any construction work has started. If you think it is not necessary, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, then I will withdraw what I have said. But if the Minister is inclined to answer, then I will continue.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not mind clarifying the position as asked by the Member for Thomson. The vote of $375,000 in last year's Estimates was the Singapore Government's dollar-for-dollar contribution towards the cost of the memorial to civilian victims of the Japanese occupation. It has not been entered in the 1965 Estimates as it is not anticipated that the memorial will be paid for in 1965. It is likely that the memorial will only be completed in 1966 or 1967. Nonetheless, I would like to inform the House that up to date the Chinese Chamber of Commerce has already collected a sum of approximately $140,000 from the public. The Chamber has written to say that this amount will be paid into a deposit account with the Public Works Department after 1st December, 1964, with interest accruing. An equivalent sum will then be paid into the same account by the Government.

Following discussions with representatives of various religious bodies, it has been decided to bury the remains of the victims and not to cremate them as originally proposed. As a result of this, the design of the memorial has to be altered, doing away with the vaults. This will lead to a saving of approximately $100,000 in the cost of the memorial. When the amended plans have been agreed by the Memorial Committee and the Government, construction of the memorial can progress, and as the public donations are raised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Government will in the course of next year ask the Assembly to vote the remainder of the Government's share of the cost of the memorial. The estimated cost is $650,000, less public contribution in 1964 of $140,000, less Government dollar-for-dollar contribution in 1964, $140,000 leaving a balance of $370,000 to be accounted for.

6.15 p.m.

One-half of this balance, i.e. $185,000, will be paid by the Government to match the other half to be collected from public donations. However, I would like to assure the Member for Thomson that the Government will not back out from its promise to contribute its share towards this memorial. When the time comes, we shall come to this Assembly, if necessary, for a supplementary vote.

Mr Koo Young: I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0604 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2034.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

According to the vote asked for in 1965 the sum to be given to the Kwong Wai Siu Free Hospital is only $15,000. I want to ask the Minister concerned why such a small sum of money has been voted for the Hospital. Is it because of the size of the hospital, or is it because of the small number of patients?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I noticed that the Member for Paya Lebar was looking at my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to answer, but it comes under the Ministry of Health. His question was whether the small sum of $l5,000 is due to the fact that the hospital is dealing with fewer patients or not. If he will be good enough to look at the two columns of the Estimates for 1964 and 1965 for all the charitable organisations in respect of which grants are being made for the Ministry of Health, he will find that they are practically standstill grants, not only for Kwong Wai Siu Free Hospital but also for all the other organisations. The history behind this is as follows.

It was in 1962 that a token grant of $15,000 was granted to this free hospital and it has remained at this same figure. They did apply this year for a grant of $50,000 but we were unable to improve on the previous grant for various reasons. First, because the Government itself is spending considerable sums in improving the hospital facilities; secondly, it is probably known to the Member for Paya Lebar that this particular hospital, which has a long history as far back as 1910 when the first Ordinance for Kwong Wai Siu Hospital was enacted provides for a free public hospital for the treatment and maintenance of indigent persons connected with the Kwong Chow, Wai Chow and Siew Heng prefectures of the Canton Province of China. It is true that they are prepared to give outpatient treatment to anyone who turns up at this hospital, but it is practically reserved as a hospital for in-patients, for those of Cantonese extract. Therefore, the Government has preferred to have a standstill grant for this particular hospital, and it is the same for the other charitable organisations. There have been no increases made, because the Government is making a great effort to improve hospital facilities for the public as a whole.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not concerned with the other organisations. I am not saying that contributions to the other organisations have increased, whereas the contribution for Kwong Wai Siu Hospital has not. My concern is that this hospital functions on a large scale. It is near the Rumah Miskin area and is catering for popular needs. As far as I know, the expenses incurred by the hospital are met from voluntary contributions and donations. This hospital not only caters for the ordinary patients but also for pregnant women.

That being so, and since the hospital is expanding, one must reasonably expect that the expenditure for it should also expand. As far as I know, there are more and more patients going to this hospital. In fact, there are more and more pregnant women being attended to by this hospital because of the population increase. So the question now is whether one can consider that this hospital is catering for the needs of the people to some extent. If that is so, then it is the duty of the Government to contribute more towards the expenses of this hospital, because it looks after the interest of the people. I urge the Government to contribute more towards this hospital so that it can expand on the same footing as that of the Thomson Road Hospital or any other Government-run hospitals. With the help of the Government, this free hospital will be better able to look after the interest of the patients, and the problems and difficulties of this hospital will be solved to some extent. In my opinion, the $15,000 vote is only a token vote. It does not help to any material extent. This is a hospital that is actually helping the people and the Government should therefore pay more towards its expenses. The Prime Minister himself is entitled to $10,000 for his transport expenses; so compared to this figure of $15,000 there is a wide difference. If you look at the vote for the St. Andrew's Hospital, you will see it is $129,000. This is also too small. So I urge the Government to consider giving more aid to hospitals like the Kwong Wai Siu Free Hospital because it is actually catering for the needs of the people. I am doing this not out of political interest - in fact, it has nothing to do with politics. So I urge the Government to try to increase the figure.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already explained that there are always requests from charitable organisations and, generally speaking, the Government tries to comply with them and make the necessary grants but sometimes there are difficulties in the way. For example, the Kwong Wai Siu Hospital asked for $50,000, but because of the policy of standstill arrangement, we had to stick to $15,000. In respect of the St. Andrew's Mission Hospital, they asked for $174,000, but we stuck to $129,000. It must not be forgotten that we shall be expanding the Thomson Road Hospital from a 180-bed hospital to a 500-bed hospital, besides other improvements to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, a Specialist Hospital for chest diseases where development charges and so on will be to the tune of millions of dollars, and we are thinking of a third General Hospital for the second Five-Year Plan which has yet to be published.

So I will say this, that I am all in agreement with the Member for Paya Lebar that we should try to assist them. But perhaps he can put his words into action by coming forward to support the Kwong Wai Siu Free Hospital when they do have charitable shows and giving his support and encouragement so that they can get more funds from the public.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Health has said that if I come forward to donate money to this Hospital, perhaps it could get a good response. But the point is this, the Government is well within its powers to give generously to this Hospital. In the past, the Government asked for a larger vote for anything, and if it is sincere in helping the Hospital, it should table a motion and we, the Opposition Party, will support. Just now the Minister for Health has asked me to set a good example by donating to this Hospital, but the point is that the Government is well within its powers to help the Hospital. This is not a responsible approach. If the Government can well afford to do so, it should give a greater sum to the Hospital. It should not put the responsibility on individuals. There was a festival at Peck San Teng two weeks ago where the Prime Minister spoke quite a lot. This hospital is to cater for the poor, and in order to improve it, the Government should help it. The Prime Minister is also concerned with the expansion of this hospital. He says the Government should not ask individuals to be responsible for the donations. Well, if Government cannot afford to give a greater sum, then it should, of course, explain why. It should not ask individuals to take the lead in asking the public to contribute to the hospital.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $5,553,660 for Head 0604 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

6.30 p.m.

Head 0701 -

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0701 he reduced by $100.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government claim that their policy is for labour, to safeguard the interests of labour, to prevent employees from being exploited by employers, and to afford a good livelihood to the workers. In fact, they claim theirs is a socialist policy. This has been emphasised and stressed by them.

Last year when debating certain laws relating to labour, there was talk about this. The P.A.P., in order to safeguard the livelihood of the people, cancelled the registration of certain trade unions and suppressed certain progressive trade unions, for example, the Naval Base Union, the Harbour Board Workers' Union and other big trade unions, one of which was the General Employees' Union. All these unions have been banned. Many workers have lost their unions. Therefore, the employers can further exploit then. But the P.A.P., in collusion with certain trade unions, forced the workers to join unions led by Mr Devan Nair and Mr Gomez. The then Minister for Labour made use of the Government's power to suppress those unions which could really look after the interests of the workers by forcing the workers to join other trade unions which they do not like. This shows how the P.A.P. increases its own forces and nurtures those trade unions which support them, resulting in the weakening of the trade union movement. Now we can see that the workers have been forced by the P.A.P. to join the pro-P.A.P. unions. What is the situation now? Can the workers' interests be safeguarded by those new trade unions? In other words, can these trade unions - for example, the unions led by Mr Gomez and Mr Devan Nair really safeguard the interests of the workers?

Let me give you some facts. As far as I can remember, before those unions were banned, their leaders worked for the workers. These unions had accumulated large sums of money and these sums of money had been confiscated by the Government. We want to know, after the implementation of this new policy, how far the new trade unions have gone in looking after the interests of the workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Devan Nair recently tried to leave the S.T.C. As far as I know the reason why he wanted to leave the S.T.C. Union was that the Executive Council had put forward a claim for a three weeks' bonus. However, this three weeks' bonus had been negotiated for last year and agreed to by the employer. There was no new claim. Mr Devan Nair, however, was not satisfied with the Executive Council. He said that because of the disturbances the company was not in a position to give such a bonus. He said the workers had no right to ask for such a bonus. Because of this, he tried to resign from the S.T.C. Union. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if Mr Devan Nair did not know whether the employer could give bonuses to the workers, how did he come to know that the employers had no such right?

We know that the S.T.C. have bought a lot of new buses. If the Company is losing money, it will not buy new buses. Did Mr Devan Nair know the real position? If he did, he would have come to a compromise with the employer. He wanted to resign from the S.T.C. Union, but realised that to resign from it was a false move. In the eyes of the workers, he was not fighting for their benefit. For this reason, he was asked to go back to the S.T.C. Executive Council and continue with the negotiations.

Certain leaders in the S.T.C. Union expressed their views that the S.T.C. wanted to give them the three weeks' bonus. Negotiations for this had been going on for years. During the course of negotiations, the Company's management had agreed to the bonus. But, on the other hand, Mr Devan Nair claimed that it was not possible to give the workers a bonus. As leader of the workers, he should not have behaved in such a manner. The Minister for Labour should have condemned him for selling out the interests of the workers. Therefore, Mr Devan Nair at last went back to the S.T.C. Union and admitted his error. When he went back, he raised one condition, that is, to sack the Member for Kampong Kapor. In fact, when the P.A.P. wanted to make use of him, they sent him to Peking and put him in as the leader of the S.T.C. Union. But when they did not want to make use of him, they just sacked him. Now, what has the Minister for Labour done about this? Perhaps he is their own people and he will not do anything.

Another absurd thing is that under the P.A.P.'s labour policy - co-operation between employer and employee - the management should not exploit the workers and the workers must try their best to work for the employer so as to bring about mutual benefit. This is what their labour policy is for. Mr Gomez, Secretary-General of the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union, who advocated co-operation between employer and employee, said, because of the disturbances, employers have run into difficulties and the employees should make up for the losses by working overtime. But workers also suffered during the disturbances. They lost their jobs and also incurred losses. Many workers, during the disturbances, had to borrow from their relatives or friends in order to tide over the period of the disturbances. However, the employers have not been affected and Mr Gomez's Union put forward the scheme to help the employers make up for their losses.

First, in shops and factories, there is a break of 15 minutes at ten o'clock; at 12 o'clock there is an hour for lunch; and at half-past three, there is a break for tea. But under the scheme to boost production, the workers have been asked to sacrifice their 15 minutes tea-time and work for the employers. They have to cut down their normal lunch time to half an hour. This is absurd. Saturday is a half-day and they are entitled to overtime if they work a whole day; but according to the new scheme, the workers are asked to work for the whole day on Saturday but are not paid overtime.

The next point is that the workers should not ask for sick leave. They should try to cut down on their sick leave, that is to say, even if they are sick, they should not get leave. Women workers should not get their maternity leave.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is this boosting production scheme? And our Minister for Labour has said nothing about this. All this has been done in the name of the P.A.P.'s labour policy. This had been carried out by the trade unions which support the P.A.P., the unions which profess to work for the workers. This is a betrayal of trade unions. What is the result of the cooperation movement? From among the workers there is very poor response to this scheme. Therefore, this scheme is a flop.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because of the P.A.P.'s own interests, they make use of all means to deal with their political opponents and to ban all those trade unions which do not toe their line. But they foster those unions which bow to them, kow-tow to them, and those workers who do not join these unions will not be entitled to the benefits conferred by labour laws. For example, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union has been in existence for eight or nine years.

6.45 p.m.

In the 8-year history of the S.M.M.W.U., no worker has ever wanted to join it. Mr Gomez was sacked by the General Employees' Union. He then led the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union. Because the workers have come to know him well, that is why they do not like to join this union. But the P.A.P., because of their own interest, foster the S.M.M.W U. In spite of this, many workers know that this particular union will not be in a position to help them. Mr Devan Nair used Mr Gomez ---

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. The hon. Member's time has expired.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are today discussing the vote for the Ministry of Labour, but unfortunately, the name of a colleague of mine. Mr Devan Nair, was mentioned. I think it will be unfair if I do not rebut the falsehoods uttered by the Member for Paya Lebar. He said that Mr Devan Nair resigned from the S.T.C. Union because he refused to fight for the three weeks' bonus for the workers. He went on to say: How can Mr Devan Nair know that the S.T.C. was unable to pay for the three weeks' bonus when he did not check the accounts of the S.T.C.? This shows that the Barisan Members did not know what had been going on. I am very closely associated with Mr Devan Nair, and I know that the accountant, a professor, and Mr Devan Nair himself - three of them - had asked the General Manager of the S.T.C. to produce the accounts to show whether the company had the capacity to pay a three weeks' bonus to the workers. After investigating and checking the accounts, the professor, the accountant and the adviser of the union, were completely satisfied that they were not in a position to give a three weeks' bonus to the workers.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.48 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): However, the adviser and his two colleagues still pressed on to get the bonus for the workers. But why did Mr Devan Nair resign? It was due to the plot of a handful of Barisan chaps and the Alliance workers ---

An hon. Member: Kampong Kapor.

Mr Ho See Beng: They plotted together to mislead the workers into throwing out the recommendation of Mr Nair to the effect that the company was not in a position to pay a three weeks' bonus. As a result the workers did not accept Mr Devan Nair's advice, and as a trade unionist he did not want to put them into trouble, unlike the Barisan who helped the workers to close down many firms in Singapore. I think the Barisan have to shoulder the responsibility for the hardships and difficulty that these people are now suffering. They are still unable to get jobs. Mr Devan Nair is an intelligent trade unionist. He will fight the management argument for argument. He has been the adviser to the S.T.C.U. from 1954 to 1964. Your trade unionist, Mr S. T. Bani, was at one time ---

The Chairman: Order. "Your" meaning the Speaker?

Mr Ho See Beng: Sorry. Sir, I mean the Barisan trade unionist, Mr S. T. Bani. He was thrown out by the S.T.C. workers. I think that is enough to tell the Member for Paya Lebar that what Mr Devan Nair did was perfectly right.

Regarding the allegation of the Member for Paya Lebar that the N.T.U.C. is controlled by the P.A.P., I would like to draw the Barisan Members' attention to the fact that the N.T.U.C is an independent institution. Why do I say that the N.T.U.C, is independent? The facts show today that although the A.U.P.E, is an affiliate of the N.T.U.C., yet it is fighting the Government for better benefits, better pay, and so on. If, as the Opposition Members have said, the N.T.U.C. is P.A.P.-controlled, it will not fight against the P.A.P. Government. That is enough to show that it is independent.

Of course, the Member for Paya Lebar has boasted that S.A.T.U. was looking after the interest of the workers. I would point out that the Hock Lee Union at one time was with S.A.T.U. Mr Fong Swee Suan was at one time its adviser. He negotiated a collective agreement with the Hock Lee Bus Company for an annual 18-day sick leave for his bus workers, whereas in our Labour Ordinance, the provision for sick leave is 28 days. And this unionist boasted so much! He negotiated for worse terms than the Government's Ordinance provided.

Some hon. Members: Shame!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House we have heard utterances from such shameless shaves of the whites arguing on behalf of the whites ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): On a point of order.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: The Member for Tampines referred to us as "slaves".

The Chairman: I do not think he said that.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Yes. I think he did.

The Chairman: Did he say that? Would the Member please repeat what he said?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: The exact words.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, these shameless slaves of the whites who argue on behalf of the white employers are willing to be servants and slaves of the white employers. This is unprecedented in the history of the labour movement in Singapore. There has never been a true trade unionist who argues the cause of the employer, claiming that the employer is not in a position to improve the lot of the workers.

What have we seen in regard to the incident of the S.T.C. bus workers union? We see that the workers' conditions of service have not been improved, although the S.T.C. itself is flourishing. Look at the working conditions of these workers and those working in the Chinese bus companies! We can see the disparity between the two sectors. In spite of the fact that the S.T.C. buses are running on profitable routes, while the Chinese buses are not so fortunate, the S.T.C. employees are getting worse working conditions. Cannot the S.T.C. employers provide better conditions for the workers? Their present conditions are worse than those in the Chinese bus companies. So the claims by the S.T.C. employees are justified in view of the rising cost of living. In truth, if the trade unionists and leaders of this S.T.C. union are really sincere in looking after the interest of the workers, then they should not try to be slaves of the white ---

The Chairman: Order. We are now on Head 0701 - Ministry of Labour. It is in order to refer to the trade unions in passing. But a long and detailed discussion of trade union conditions prevailing in a particular bus company is out of order. If the Member will just mention them in passing to substantiate his points, he is perfectly in order.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, talking about labour policies, in the past, the P.A.P. boasted to the workers of Singapore that their labour policy was very pro-labour and that they thought a lot about the workers. But all these protestations have been proved to be not so by concrete facts. The facts have shown that the P.A.P. are actually serving the interests of the foreign capitalists. Incidents have been many and there are concrete facts and evidence for us to show how the P.A.P, labour policy has been detrimental to the interest of the workers.

Mr Speaker, we know that last year in Singapore there was a trade union, namely, the Singapore Naval Base Workers' Union, which had a long history, say, more than a decade. The workers of this union raised claims for better service conditions. Their boss was the British Naval Base authorities, the colonial rulers. The claims by the workers had been the unanimous opinion and wishes of the workers and decided upon by the workers themselves. There had been several negotiations with the employers' side. Because of the stubbornness of the employers, the claims were not settled satisfactorily. In the end, it led to a strike by the workers to assert their claims. In this matter, the Prime Minister, who had claimed to be adviser to trade unions, had not shown any sympathy for the workers. On the contrary, he adopted measures to break up the strike and deregister the union concerned. After that, we came to know that the military and police had been sent there to beat up the workers with their batons. That is the P.A.P.'s pro-labour policy. I, under such circumstances, when the workers reported for duty on the following day, the Naval Base authorities sacked a number of the workers.

7.00 p.m.

Among them about 38 workers did not receive any compensation and their employment was terminated by the Naval Base authorities. They were given a small chit saying. "Your post is now terminated because of your participation in the illegal strike in the Naval Base." But 16 of them did not receive this chit and yet were dismissed.

After their dismissal, they approached the Commissioner for Labour. They pointed out to him the unjust action taken by the Naval Base authorities and asked for remedial steps in the interests of the workers. But the Labour Department did not proceed according to the stipulations of the labour laws for negotiations between the workers and the Naval Base authorities. The Labour Department did not take any action to safeguard the interests of the workers or to act on their behalf. Yet the Ministry of Labour told the workers that they received a note from the Naval Base authorities saying that because of the unsatisfactory conduct of the workers, they had had their services terminated. This attitude on the part of the Labour Department is comparable to the attitude of the employer.

Let me ask them whether such an attitude is correct. Were their actions compatible with the stipulations of the provisions of the labour laws? Because under the labour laws, if workers are to be retrenched or dismissed, they should get three months' wages as compensation and notice in lieu of compensation. But in this case the Naval Base authorities did not comply with the provisions as laid down in the labour laws. The law provides that if a worker's health is affected during the course of work, or his efficiency is lowered and he is found unsuitable for his job, then if the employer wants to dismiss him he should give him notice. If an employee has served for more than seven years, the minimum notice should be two months; and if it is less than seven years, it should be one week. These are the provisions applicable to the Naval Base authorities. It is also stipulated that regulations governing working conditions and service should be in accordance with labour legislation in Singapore. Yet the dismissal of the workers was not carried out in accordance with regulations as valid at the time. The Naval Base authorities should have given one week or two months' notice before dismissing the workers. But they did not comply with the regulations. Of the workers dismissed, there were some who had more than seven years' service. But did the Ministry of Labour do anything to safeguard the interests of the workers or represent them? No, not at all. Instead they were on the side of the Naval Base authorities, speaking for the employer, and claiming that the Naval Base workers were not justified in going on strike. In fact, during the strike the workers were dismissed not in accordance with normal practice. The reasons for their dismissal were not justified.

Another point I would like to mention in regard to the P.A.P.'s self proclaimed pro-labour policy is that concerning the recent Gian Singh trade dispute before the Arbitration Court. The Ministry of Labour referred the matter to the Arbitration Court. What was the result of arbitration? It was to the effect that if the workers did not work in accordance with their terms of employment, they should be liable for dismissal. What did it mean? It meant that unless the workers obeyed all the conditions laid down by the employer, even if they were reasonable measures such as working to rule and a go-slow policy, which action could be construed as not complying with the terms of employment of the workers, then their just claims or actions would be thwarted and they would not be able to resort to industrial action to solve their grievances.

Section 77 of the industrial Relations Ordinance provides that if workers resort to industrial action, the employer should not dismiss them, but should wait for the decision of the Industrial Arbitration Court. I do not understand that. Is the law meant for the workers, or is the P.A.P. for the workers? That is what I want to ask. If the so-called P.A.P. pro-labour policy is such and since the Minister for Labour has been shouting about democratic socialism, then such kind of democratic socialism should be thrown to the dogs; but even dogs would not feed on it.

Apart from this, I would like to raise another matter, namely, the P.A.P. wanted to prevent workers from choosing their own trade union and refuse them ---

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): On a point of order.

Mr Chia Thye Poh remained standing.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Jurong resume his seat?

Mr Chia Thye Poh resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Will the Minister please come up to the microphone? Otherwise the interpreters cannot hear him.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Under the new Standing Orders, I think a Member is limited to 15 minutes when speaking in Committee of Supply. I think the Member for Jurong has taken more than 15 minutes, and it is fair that he should allow others to give their views.

The Chairman: I keep a close watch on the number of minutes each Member takes. The Member for Jurong has only taken 14 out of his 15 minutes. He has one more minute. Please proceed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Just now I was commenting on the P.A.P.'s pro-labour policy. The P.A.P. wanted to prevent the workers from choosing their own trade union. This can be seen from incidents such as the Naval Base workers' strike. The strike action had been approved by secret ballot. The majority of workers had unanimously approved such strike action, and the result of the ballot ---

The Chairman: Order. The Member's time is up.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member of the Barisan Sosialis has made certain charges against the Government, some of which have nothing to do with the Ministry of Labour because they are concerned with the internal affairs of trade unions. I think the Member for Bras Basah, who is Chairman of the N.T.U.C., has answered some of the charges quite adequately. There are other points which we should bring to your attention.

The Member of the Barisan Sosialis has made repeated charges against Mr Devan Nair, the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., when he is not in a position to answer in this House. It is unfair that such personal attacks have been made. It is said that Mr Devan Nair has sold out the interests of the workers. This charge does not warrant any lengthy answer. It is very simple. If Mr Devan Nair had sold out the interests of the workers, then in April this year he should not have been elected by the people to the Central Parliament. But the facts are that during the general elections in the Federation, Mr Devan Nair, who represented the P.A.P., contested against a Member of a Party allied to the Barisan Sosialis (Mr David) who was supposed to he the hero of the workers [Interruption] and it was Mr Devan Nair who was returned, and not the so-called hero who suffered a shameful defeat [Interruption] during the elections. If Mr Devan Nair had been a traitor to the workers, then how could he have obtained so much support from the people? If the people's eyes are clear as snow, they can see for themselves.

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the House to keep quiet when the Minister is speaking. I will not have these interruptions from both sides of the House.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, if the people can see for themselves, then how is it that your hero, the hero of the Barisan Sosialis, did not get any support from the people? That is one point.

The Member for Jurong also mentioned the trade dispute in Gian Singh which was dealt with in the Industrial Arbitration Court. He said that this has not been fair. We know, Mr Speaker, that this trade dispute was dealt with by the I.A.C. which is independent, and the decision of this Court should give rise to no doubts whatsoever. If they feel that the Industrial Arbitration Court has not arrived at a fair decision, then it is for the union to boycott the I.A.C. instead of resorting to it to further their claims.

7.15 p.m.

The facts are there for us to see. More and more unions are going to the Industrial Arbitration Court for help. From October last year up to October this year many cases were referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. The collective agreements registered by the Industrial Arbitration Court number some 199. Of this number, 105 came from the N.T.U.C. group and from the other group that is in support of the Barisan Sosialis there were about 94 agreements which gave protection to about 8,849 workers belonging to the Barisan Sosialis camp. If they say that the Industrial Arbitration Court is no good, then why should they ask their own workers to come forward to the Industrial Arbitration Court for protection?

In order to judge whether the labour policy of a Government is good or bad, there are two conditions which one can use as criteria. One is whether the labour laws of this Government have the interest of the workers at heart and the other is whether the Government is respecting the rights of the trade union movement. Otherwise all criticisms will be subjective and unrealistic.

When the Barisan Sosialis Members were still in the P.A.P., they praised the P.A.P.'s labour policy. Now that they have left, they condemn the P.A.P.'s labour policy. Obviously, such behaviour and criticisms are very improper, subjective, unilateral and a travesty of facts. When the Barisan Sosialis Members were still with the P.A.P., it did not mean that the P.A.P.'s labour policy was perfect. On the other hand, it does not mean that once they have left, the P.A.P.'s labour policy has gone to the dogs. It is useless to shout slogans.

The P.A.P. has not changed its labour policy, which is pro-labour. We have contended in the past, we contend now and we will still contend in the future that there should be industrial peace through industrial justice. It is our policy to pursue this aim. We have not changed our policy. It is the Barisan Sosialis who have changed their stand because they have sold out the interests of the workers. After they betrayed the P.A.P., they have tried very hard to turn the trade union movement and trade unions into tools for the Barisan Sosialis. They have tried to suppress the workers of Singapore; to bring the trade unions in Singapore into a pro-Indonesian and anti-National United front. This act is most detrimental to the majority of our workers because the Barisan Sosiahis put the trade union movement in a state of crisis from time to time. As a result, the trade unions are unable to deal with labour and management disputes, which are sometimes made use of for their political aims. In fact, the Barisan Sosialis have drawn into the political whirlwind the rice bowls of the workers because they are pro-Indonesian and anti-national. The united front that they have formed is detrimental to the workers of our nation. This is very clear, Mr Speaker. It is they who are the traitors of the workers. It is they who are trying to sell out the interests of the workers.

It is the business of the trade union movement in Singapore to try to shake away from the control of these traitors of the workers. In this respect, it is the duty of the Government to try to give the innocent workers every help.

I was saying, Mr Speaker, that there are two conditions by which one could judge whether the Government's labour policy is good or bad. The first one is whether the labour laws are in the interest of the majority of the workers. We can say today with some satisfaction that our labour legislation is very excellent compared to all others in South-East Asian countries. There is no other nation which can rival us in our labour legislation. The most important one that we have made is the Industrial Relations Ordinance which was passed in 1960. This sets up the Industrial Arbitration Court. One can see that ever since the law was passed, industrial relations in Singapore are heading for greater and greater stability. There are less and less strikes in Singapore. Workers can now try to improve their lot through negotiations, mediation and arbitration. They do not have to picket under the hot sun during strikes. Both management and labour can talk over their terms peacefully and calmly in the cool chambers of the Arbitration Court, without incurring unnecessary losses.

Mr Speaker, we know that after the establishment of the Industrial Arbitration Court, some 801 collective agreements have been registered by the Court, benefiting 111,830 workers. It must be pointed out that agreements registered by the Industrial Arbitration Court have the protection of the law. Generally speaking, we are quite satisfied with the implementation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. We went through the experimental stage, which is the first stage of this legislation, and we are gathering our experiences in order to make further improvements in this Ordinance. We are now in active contact with the Singapore Employers' Federation, the N.T.U.C. and the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court. We are studying trade union problems together and, at the right time, we shall make the necessary detailed amendments in this House.

Concerning the second condition by which one may judge the policy of the Government, that is, whether the trade union movement has the respect of the Government, I must say that the P.A.P. comes from the democratic trade union movement. This democratic trade union movement is represented by the N.T.U.C. Some of our members, the P.A.P. members and the Members of the House, such as the Member for Bras Basah, are closely connected with the N.T.U.C. But it does not mean that we are dictated by the N.T.U.C. or the N.T.U.C. is under the control of the Government. We have the same objectives, and that is the establishment of a Malaysian nation. We want to try to establish a socialist system within the whole territory so that there will be no exploitation of man by man.

This aim can be carried out in two different ways. On the one hand, the Government can realise this aim through its financial policy and measures governing taxation. On the other hand, the democratic trade union movement is trying to organise and mobilise the working class to realise this aim.

Mr Speaker, the pro-Communist trade union movement has a long standing in the history of Singapore, whereas the democratic trade union movement is still in its infancy. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to be very careful in trying to foster the healthy growth of the democratic trade union movement. The democratic trade union movement is facing difficulties. It has to put up with a shortage of properly trained cadres and leadership. The lower stratum of this movement comes from the Chinese-speaking workers whereas the leadership of this movement is English-speaking. As a result of the language difficulties and differences in education, there are some conflicts and barriers between them, and we are trying to help the democratic movement to overcome these difficulties in the years to come. Suitable leadership and support for the democratic trade union movement will encourage its growth and make it flourish. This will help the industrialisation scheme of the Government. The recent reshuffle in the National Trade Union Congress is worthy of our attention.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to make use of the next few minutes to answer the Minister for Labour. He says that the trade union movement in Singapore is very progressive. He says that the Government's labour legislation is the most excellent in South-East Asia. But I want to remind him that if it is so, it is not due to him that we have this progressive legislation. It is through the struggle of the workers that we have come to the present stage. How can the P.A.P. Government claim credit for such progress in the labour legislation? In some advanced countries, it is true that some trade union leaders have been imprisoned and that success and progress have been achieved. He has said that workers in Singapore do not have to picket under the hot sun during their strikes. He seems to suggest that the workers want to go on strike for no rhyme or reason at all. I suggest to him that the workers are forced to resort to strike because they are unable to solve their dispute by other means. If you want to achieve industrial peace, then you must look after the interests of the workers rather than the interests of the foreign capitalists. The Minister seems to have spoken in defence of foreign capitalists. It is the P.A.P. who is trying to disrupt the relationship between the workers and the capitalists. As a result, the workers are suffering misery.

The Minister has talked about the present trade union movement trying to shake itself away from the control of the pro-Communist elements. I would like to tell him that the question is not that simple. There is no question of shaking away from pro-Communist elements. The question is that the P.A.P. is adopting suppressive measures to try to silence some existing trade unionists and trade unions. They are putting them under their control against the wishes of the people. We know very clearly the case of the Naval Base Union which was banned and deregistered so that another union was put up for the original members of the Naval Base Union. But there was no support for the new union.

The Ministers of the P.A.P., together with their Backbenchers, tried to help the small group of trade unionists in running its new union and the Prime Minister found one day that he had to officiate at the opening ceremony of the so-called new union. So it is the policy of the P.A.P. to support and foster unions under ---

7.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,136,960 for Head 0701 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0801 -

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir,I move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1161.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no freedom of the Press in Singapore. This is well known to everybody. Freedom of the Press belongs only to the P.A.P. and not to any other people, if the P.A.P. want to publish any publications or magazines, they are allowed to do so, while other progressive, healthy magazines and publications have been banned by them. They misuse public funds by engaging in the publication of their party propaganda. This is a very clear example. I have here a publication by the Ministry of Culture a small pamphlet, which was published with public funds but not with the P.A.P. funds. This pamphlet contains statements which praise the Prime Minister ---

The Chairman: May we have the title of the pamphlet? Just give the name on the cover.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): The pamphlet is entitled "One Hundreded Years of Socialism". It does not deal with the problems of Singapore; otherwise we would not criticise it. It deals with the P.A.P.'s own affairs. In the Merger White Paper, no provision was made for the State Government to retain its powers over foreign policy. In what capacity did the Prime Minister attend the Conference? Did he attend it in the capacity of a diplomat or in the capacity of a Party leader, and is it right to use public funds to publish this pamphlet which is mainly for the publicity of the P.A.P.? If they say that the State has powers over foreign policy, of course, it may be right for them to issue this pamphlet which has been published with public funds. On the other hand, the P.A.P. have banned and suppressed all healthy and progressive publications and magazines; even our Party organ Barisan has been subjected to all sorts of interferences. They have threatened certain printing shops and coerced them into not publishing it. Now the printing shops have no political motive in accepting our publication; they are interested only in making a profit. There are hundreds of printing shops in Singapore, but because of coercion these shops do not want to print our Party organ. Why do they not want to print our Party organ? Is it because they do not want to make a profit? No. It is because they are forced by the P.A.P. Government not to print it because if they do so, their licence will be cancelled by the P.A.P. Government.

The P.A.P. can say that we have freedom of publication, we have democracy, we have freedom of the Press, and we can continue to publish our Party organ. They may claim that they have not suppressed our Party organ. However, they have tried their best to prevent it from being printed by the printing shops. This amounts to allowing a person to live but not allowing him to eat. This is because the P.A.P. are afraid and they therefore try to prevent our Party organ from being printed. They have accused the Barisan Sosialis, over the radio and in the Press and even in this House, of having told lies and deceiving the people and the workers. But why are they afraid to reveal the truth? They say that the Barisan Sosialis are deceiving the people, but why should they he afraid? They should allow our Party organ to he published. If we deceive the people and the workers, we should be judged by them. Why should the P.A.P, be afraid? Therefore, I, feel that there is no freedom of publication in Singapore. It belongs only to the P.A.P. They have abused the freedom of publication for their own interest.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I can save your time and the Lime of the House by just reading out the answer I gave last year to the same old question, the same old problem, the same old grouse, that there is no freedom of publication for the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists in Singapore.

As far as I know, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis publish a cyclostyled version of their paper. And if no printing firm is prepared to undertake the printing of their publication, the reason is obvious. Any printer who publishes anything must be prepared to take the consequences of infringing the law of the land. Sedition, treason, libel and so ---

Mr Chia Thye Poh rose ---

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr Chia Thye Poh indicated assent.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): the Minister for Culture said that our Party organ may contain some seditious and libellous statements, if there are such statements in our ---

The Chairman: I think the Member has misunderstood the Minister. I think the Minister was trying to explain the reason why a publisher might not want to publish certain papers. I do not think he was accusing the Barisan Sosialis of having committed anything. Mr Minister?

Mr Rajaratnam: Thank you, Sir, for clarifying what I have said a few moments ago. The real reason is that no responsible printer will dare undertake any publication by the Barisan Sosialis especially in view of the fact that they are known throughout the country for plugging Indonesia's line, advocating the cause of treason. Also in view of the fact that internal security is in the hands of the Central Government, no printer is prepared to undertake any publication by the Barisan Sosialis. We ourselves have placed no particular pressure except to draw the attention of every printer that he is responsible for whatever he prints.

Now, Sir, again the complaint is that freedom of publication belongs only to the P.A.P. As far as I know, the P.A.P. publishes only one regular newspaper, the "Petir". Are the Sin Chew Jit Poh, the Nanyang Siang Pau, the New Life, the Straits Times, the Malayan Times - to take the daily newspapers - P.A.P. newspapers? It is quite true that we have banned certain newspapers. Everybody knows what publications they are. We banned the Fajar - the Internal Security people are responsible for security. Many of its leading lights are either under detention, or have left the country to study law. We also banned the University Tribune and the Partai Ra'yat publications. The Partai Ra'yat and many of its members are known to be the advance guard of Indonesia's invasion forces.

7.45 p.m.

They left this country and joined and betrayed us to Indonesia; they came to kill our own people. A publication by any party or any organisation like that, in the interest of the country, must be banned because they are not preaching democracy or expressing legitimate differences of views. They are advocating treason. They are mouthing Indonesian propaganda, Indonesian hostility towards us. Therefore, any publication like that, whether it is by the Barisan or by any other group must be banned. But we have never banned papers or publications which genuinely are against us.

On the lack of healthy publications, can the Barisan name, apart from these known pro-Communist publications, what other healthy publications we have banned? Can they give us the names? The Barisan Members are all University graduates; they should know what kind of healthy literature, good books should be read by the people and which we have banned, in fact, last year, the same question came up on the lack of literature, reading matter. I refer to Hansard, Volume 22 No. 9, of 14th December, 1963, I asked them, Sir, at column 580, because they had been talking about healthy reading matter, to give us a list - and I was quite confident; I could take a bet that there would not he a single list of titles coming from them - of healthy reading matter. That was one year ago. Sir, and as far as I know, they have not submitted one title, one magazine, one book, which they believe is not pro-Communist, not against the interest of the country and which should be imported into the country. They have never given me a list. I ask them again: if there is healthy reading matter which they genuinely believe will help us to make ourselves better Malaysians, better citizens and which should he brought into the country in any language - Malay, Tamil, Chinese or English - if they feel that there are such books which we are withholding and which should be let into the country, then I shall be prepared to consider them. But I know that the list of books that have been banned - apart from sexy books which I am quite sure they do not want us to bring in - the other banned publications, whether produced locally or imported from abroad, are pro-Communist literature, literature which advocates the cause of treason.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have said just now is that the Ministry of Culture has exercised its power to suppress certain printing shops for printing our Party organ. The Minister for Culture has said that if publications are pro-Communist in content or laud the praises of foreign countries, they should be banned. Such publications, of course, in the end, will be banned by the Government. In so far as our Party organ is concerned, we raise our points of view in the interest of all the people of Singapore. If our "Barisan", the Party organ, is not in the interest of the country, then the P.A.P. Government may have cause to take action. But all action taken by the Government should be open to all without having to resort to behind-the-scenes manoeuvring and prohibiting the printing shops to publish our party organ. Such action is only done by mean persons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Culture mentioned one point - that as regards the banning of certain publications, most of the organisers or sponsors of these publications have either run away or disappeared to foreign countries. This only serves to smear such people. Now, what other significance did he convey? He uses words like "pro-Indonesia" or "Communists" as his answers to all questions. Last year he used the word "Communists". This year he also uses the word "Communists" in answer to all the questions raised by the Opposition Members. This is most irresponsible for a Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government treats the people of this State in such a way as not to give them freedom of speech and publication, then the wishes and aspirations of the youths cannot be expressed through publications or in the Press. If the Government were to penalise the youths, it would only lead to the youths losing their confidence in the Government and the democratic system. This would amount to the Government suppressing the youths and forcing them into a tight corner where they are to carry on their political struggle against the Government. Such action by the Government will cause the youths of Singapore to lose their confidence in constitutional means and that would only reflect on the P.A.P.'s dictatorial actions.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we have seen the Barisan Members restating their past attitude and practice in this House of crying about the death of democracy in Singapore and claiming that there is no freedom of publication and speech. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis are now enjoying such freedom. Not only have they not made proper use of their rights, but they have also been misusing these rights even in this House. They have on many occasions praised foreign countries and have now become the loud-speakers for Indonesia in this House. Mr Speaker, in a democratic country the people within the purview of the law should enjoy all the rights of freedom of speech and publication. These rights are most obvious. But the Government will have to do its duty to look after the people of this country and to see to their security, especially at this stage when we are faced with internal and external threats. Internally, there are many anti-national elements making use of this freedom to mislead our people in order to overthrow our legally constituted Government. We not only respect the people's rights, but we also see to it that good publications which are beneficial to the people are safeguarded at all costs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to spend some time talking about the procedure for publications. Basing on principles of democracy, first of all, an applicant will have to get a licence from the authorities concerned. Later the publishing house can proceed to publish the publication. After that the Government will review the publication. Censoring is done only after it has been published. Usually there are certain anti-national elements, and it is very clear from the Barisan Party organ that the rights of publication have been misused. If we were to have censoring before publication, then I think that the first publication to he banned would be their Party organ!

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will briefly reply to the Minister for Culture. He has quoted from the Hansard of last year about healthy reading matter. He says that the Barisan Sosialis have not been able to give a list of the publications which have been considered by the Barisan Sosialis as healthy reading matter. At that time the Barisan Members asked the Minister for Culture to set up a Committee to look into the list to see which was healthy reading matter and which was not and should be banned. Today we still insist on this line, to set up a special Committee to look into the publications.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, with reference to what has just been said, we have a body of experts on literature of various kinds. What I want to know from people claiming to be leaders of the people, graduates of a university, is this. Surely, Sir, they should be able to give me at least 10 books. Maybe by tomorrow, I will ask them to give me five books which they think are healthy literature which have been banned. That is all I ask of them to do, Sir, because we want to know what it is they consider healthy literature. What I suspect they mean by healthy literature is Communist literature. Or does it mean what most people understand by good literature? That is why I have been asking them for one year to give us a list. The Member for Bukit Panjang said, "Set up a Committee." All right, if we set up a Committee, he will say that the Government is still suppressing healthy literature. So to give us guidance, not only to the Singapore Government but also to the Central Government, as to what they mean by healthy literature, I ask them to give us a list of five books, even three books, which have been suppressed, or even one. Tomorrow? Now? The educated Gentlemen who have spent a lot of money going through intensive courses in the University can surely give us one title of what they think is healthy literature which the Government has banned!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

8.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of Interruption.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates for 1965, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.