ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The present powers for the control and prevention of animal diseases and animal movements in the State are found in the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance which was enacted in 1939. This Ordinance is administered by two authorities, the Ministry of Health with regard to human health, and the Veterinary Division of the Ministry of National Development with regard to animal diseases. With the growth of livestock industries in the State over the last decade and the increased flow of animal traffic both in number and frequency through Singapore, the legislative powers contained in the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance are no longer adequate.

Because of this inadequacy, the veterinary authorities in Singapore have to rely on other legislation such as the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance to carry out measures for the control of animal diseases and the movement of animals and animal products. However, even this remedy is found inadequate to deal with present-day problems of animal movements and animal diseases. In addition, new subjects such as improvement of livestocks, the control of livestock products and the use of veterinary drugs and biologics are matters which require new legislation and the close attention of Government.

Singapore can take pride in the success and achievements in the development of poultry and pig industries over the last few years. It is common knowledge that we are not only self-sufficient in pigs, poultry and eggs, but we are also able to produce and export these items to our neighbouring territories. We must not, however, be contented with this but should continue to find ways and means to lower the cost of production of meat and meat products in Singapore by improving the efficiency of production further. Among the things which we must do in order to achieve this objective is the control and eradication of livestock diseases. Livestock diseases once introduced to Singapore, will do irreparable damage to the livestock in dustries with consequential losses to our farmers. These powers provided in the Bill now before the House are necessary to control and eradicate animal diseases. Regulations will be made and enforced to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases from overseas, to control the movements of livestock and to treat livestock diseases through the use of veterinary biologics.

The control and eradication of animal diseases is also of paramount importance to public health, as many such diseases are communicable from animal to man.

We are well aware of the danger of the transmission of rabies from dogs to human beings. However, it is comforting to know that Singapore has been free from rabies for more than 10 years. We must ensure that this will continue, and to do so, constant vigilance and strict enforcement of rules and regulations in respect of movements of dogs and cats is required. The provisions in the Animals and Birds Bill will provide the necessary powers for this work to be carried out effectively.

Prevention of cruelty to animals is at present administered under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance which is of 1930 vintage. This subject has now been included as part of the Animals and Birds Bill, and the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance will be repealed.

There is at present, Mr Speaker, Sir, an Animals Ordinance for the States of Malaya enacted in 1953. The Animals and Birds Bill follows closely the substance as well as the format of the Animals Ordinance of the States of Malaya. In the Animals Ordinance of the States of Malaya, provisions have been made for the Director of Veterinary Services to issue licences permitting such licensees to treat animals or birds, to possess live cultures or vaccines, and to inoculate animals or birds with such cultures or vaccines. Similar provisions are included in clauses 68 and 69 of the Animals and Birds Bill. These two sections provide control over the use of dangerous veterinary biologics and the registration and licensing of persons who use them for the treatment of animals and birds. There is at present no such control, and unscrupulous persons take advantage of the ignorance of the farmers and with glib sales-talks persuade these farmers to purchase veterinary biologics at exorbitant prices for the treatment of diseases in their animals. Such treatment usually does more harm than good. What is more dangerous is that some of these veterinary biologies contain live virus which may themselves cause the spread of diseases among animals. Every effort must therefore be made to prevent further exploitation of farmers and to safeguard livestocks and public health.

The States of Malaya are at present contemplating the enactment of a Veterinary Surgeons Act which will provide stricter control over persons who are to engage in the treatment of animals. The position in Singapore is somewhat different from that of Malaya. We have a much smaller number of veterinary surgeons and most of them are in Government Service. The necessity for a parallel Ordinance is not apparent. Clauses 68 and 69 of the Animals and Birds Bill are adequate for the present to control persons treating animals and birds and the use of veterinary biologics until such time when separate comprehensive legislation is required.

In connection with the carrying out of statutory functions under this Bill, the Government will build a new animal quarantine station costing more than $1 million to be sited next to the proposed new abattoir at Jurong. Details of this new animal quarantine station have been finalised and construction work is expected to begin soon. In addition, a veterinary diagnostic laboratory has beeen planned during the last 2 years to conduct tests and examination of animals to be imported into Singapore, as well as to carry out a systematic programme of prevention and eradication of livestock diseases in the State. The first phase of the veterinary diagnostic laboratory costing $100,000 has been completed and the second phase of development of the laboratory will be included in the next Five-year Development Plan.

The present Bill is a comprehnsive Bill for the control of animals and animal diseases to meet the needs of the growing livestock industry in the State. In Committee, I will propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, an amendment to alter the title of the Animals Bill to the Animals and Birds Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.43 p.m.

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in introducing this Bill, as set out by the Minister, the Government aims mainly at the prevention of animal diseases. But can the Government do so? I have great doubts indeed. In the past, the P.A.P. has been bragging about its efficiency in controlling diseases and the spread of diseases. But up to date diseases are not truly under control. Instead there is a spread of diseases in Singapore, as a result of which many farmers have gone bankrupt. I think that many farmers and poultry rearers have gone into bankruptcy mainly because of the spread of diseases among their livestock on the one hand, and, on the other hand, because of the marketing difficulties. The marketing problems are not solved, the diseases are not controlled, and so the farmers engaged in poultry farming are gravely affected and they have lost confidence in this industry.

The second part of the Bill deals with the import and export and transhipment of animals. I do not see anything in the second part to make people believe that the Government is encouraging the export of pigs and poultry, our pigs, our chickens and eggs are enough for our own consumption, and there is a surplus for export as well. That being so, we should find ways and means to establish our overseas market for our livestock and eggs and give facilities to the farmers. For example, the pigs and eggs from the Federation are not enough for their own consumption, and we can export to the Federation. We understand that one-third of the production of eggs is exported to the Federation, but there are difficulties arising that confront the farmers, and they have to pay one cent on every egg exported to the Federation. There is also a provision in the Bill to say that if livestock is exported to the Federation of Malaya, then approval and consent has to be obtained from the Malayan Veterinary Authority. This again will give rise to some difficulties. There is nothing in the Bill to say how the problems relating to marketing are to be solved.

With regard to the third part of the Bill, as far as I can see, the main points are in clauses 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. From the contents of this particular section, I gather that its main intention is to authorise and empower the veterinary officer to conduct an examination into any birds or animals suspected of disease. There should be no dissension to this section, but what will be the effect of the examination conducted by the veterinary officer? For example, there is one provision in this part to say that if the livestock of any farmer is suspected to have any diseases, then it is the business of the farmer to send the livestock to a place appointed by the veterinary officer for cure or treatment or any other necessary examination. On this point, my view is that this is not quite proper. For example, if a farmer has 50 pigs among all his pigs suffering from or suspected of any diseases, then you will have to carry all the 50 pigs weighing, say, about 50 pounds or 50 katties each to a place appointed by the veterinary officer. Now, if it is a matter of one or two pigs, it is not so difficult. But if it comes to 50 pigs, then what about the cost of transportation? Is it to be borne by the farmer or by the authority concerned? If there are 50 pigs to be sent, then at least two lorries will be required to convey them to the place appointed by the officer concerned and this will give rise to some difficulties, financially and physically ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Point of clarification, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of clarification? The Member will not give way.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have time to talk later on.

There is another provision in this Bill to say that exemption may be granted to a farmer living three miles beyond the limit and, by this exemption, the veterinary officer will send an officer or somebody else to examine the livestock in question. In my view, I wonder whether the Government has given thought to the setting up of a veterinary station within three miles of any farm in the State to solve the problems of transporting animals suspected of disease to a place appointed by the veterinary officer. I think more veterinary centres should be set up to help the farmers. Clauses 21, 22 and 25 of the third part of the Bill relate to the points I have raised. The main aim of those clauses is that if the veterinary officer thinks that any animals or livestock are found to have any diseases, he can not only examine such animals but also take steps to isolate or separate or even condemn them when necessary. He has even got the power to burn the chicken runs and destroy the places in which the farmer keeps the animals suspected of any disease. The tools and other appliances used in connection with the feeding of such animals may also be destroyed. So under such powers if a farmer comes to know that the veterinary officer is coming along to destroy his property, he is afraid that his own hut may be involved in the process of destruction and so he will be deterred from reporting any disease of the animals to the authorities concerned. We cannot deny that some farmers are conservative in their attitude and some have common sense, and they will take their own steps to cure the animals of their diseases instead of reporting them to the authority concerned. All this is because they want to avoid trouble and difficulties.

Mr Speaker, there is also a provision in the Bill in connection with any disease of an animal, but such things are not specified in the Bill. For example, if we have 50 chickens among hundreds of them affected by any disease. I do not know whether it is necessary for the farmer to send only the 50 or all the chickens for examination. He may be worried about what will happen to them.

Clause 25 of the Bill concerns the infected areas. This clause provides that animals suspected of any disease are not to leave the infected areas. There is no definition of the infected areas or boundaries defined for the infected areas. For example, in Punggol, there is a farmer rearing 3.000 chicks of which some are affected by diseases. Then the rest of the chickens that he has will not be permitted to leave his place for sale. So I wonder whether the infected areas include the whole area of Punggol or that particular area in which the farmer lives. There is no definition for the term "infected areas". If this term includes the whole area of Punggol, then if it so happens that in this particular area of Punggol there is a spread of one disease in one farmer's family, then the other farmers will be affected in that their chickens and pigs will not be allowed to leave the Punggol area for sale in another area. Perhaps this lack of definition of infected areas is an oversight. But it will give rise to difficulties and fears on the part of farmers. In fact, farmers do not know when their animals are affected by any disease. They do not know under what conditions and circumstances they are not to move their animals out of the area infected.

Mr Speaker, we have already mentioned this point basically. It may give rise to some undesirable side effects and they may be termed the loopholes of this Bill. So how to eradicate and prevent the diseases of animals? Has the Government given thought to the employment of more veterinary officers or surgeons? It is clear that a few veterinary centres are not enough to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I would suggest that it should be for the farmers themselves to try and help in the eradication and prevention of animal diseases. For this purpose, we must educate the farmers. But now it is too late, as it appears to me. I can give you an illustration. In the past, some farmers found that their pigs suffered from certain diseases. They went to the veterinary centre, but the officer in charge insisted that the pigs suffering from animal disease should be sent to the centre for an operation and this operation might take two days and the farmer might not like the idea, although the veterinary officer might well be justified. Supposing in the course of two days the other animals infected died? What was to happen to them? So because of this the farmers themselves have lost some confidence in the veterinary centres and veterinary officers, and so the better way would be for the Government to educate the farmers on how to treat their own animals when they are suffering from a disease. If our veterinary officer is able to educate the farmers and give them advice before the disease is spotted, then with the knowledge of how to treat diseased animals, this will be one step forward in the prevention of animal diseases.

Mr Speaker, the Minister has also mentioned just now that certain clauses in this Bill are necessary to control persons who give treatment to animals

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member be taking some time in developing his speech?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): I shall take some time.

Mr Speaker: Very well. I think it might be a convenient time to adjourn when you are branching off to a new subject. I shall now take the tea break. I suspend the sitting of the House till 5.30 when I will take the Chair again.

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 resumed.

5.31 p.m.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I was touching upon clauses 68 and 69 of the Bill. The Government has introduced this Bill with the intention that private veterinarians should be prevented from exploiting the farmers. This shows that farmers do not approach the Government veterinary officers for treatment of their livestock, but seek the services of private veterinarians. Why is this so? Why do they shy away from Government veterinary officers? What is the main cause for this phenomenon? All along the Government have been saying that they are looking after the farmers' interest very well, taking good care of them and looking into every detail concerning the livelihood of the farmers. Why then are there farmers who want to seek the services of private veterinarians instead of the services of Government veterinary officers? This shows that the Government's treatment and efforts in respect of veterinary services have not been adequate in the past, and even up to now.

On another point about the eradication of diseases of livestock, the Government will have to depend on the cooperation of the farmers. The farmers should be educated and taught modern methods of veterinary science, such as inoculation and treatment of animals. They should also be given facilities to enable them to treat the diseased animals themselves. This will, I believe, go a long way towards helping the farmers and improving the situation generally.

Just now the Minister also touched on the examination of animals imported from foreign countries in order to prevent animal diseases from spreading to Singapore. The Government has, on the other hand, allowed the import of dead pigs and chickens into Singapore! For instance, there have been imports of frozen chickens, pork, bacon and ham from Australia and other countries. Such imports are not livestock. Of course, the Government will say that such meat has been processed and is free from any disease. But how can we be sure of that? Have we considered the possibility of such imports affecting our local markets in respect of prices for local livestock --- [Interruption]

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was never the intention of this Bill to branch off to the question of marketing. The Member for Bukit Panjang has earlier on, before the tea-break, spoken for quite a long time on marketing matters and is now coming back to marketing problems.

Mr Speaker: I think up to now the Member has been in order. Please continue.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the other point of the Bill on which the Minister touched just now was the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Bill also provides that cruelty to animals includes acts of cruelty, maltreating them, and the rest of it. I feel that this sort of provision in the Bill is unnecessary. If such livestock constitutes the property of the farmers concerned, of course, the farmers will have no reason to maltreat or be cruel to it. The Government has provision to kill stray animals found on the road. So anyone who is inclined to treat animals with cruelty will not have a free hand to do so. This shows that the Government are not really genuine when they say that they wish to look after the farmers' interest by providing various facilities and benefits. I would say that the whole lot of them are really hypocrites.

Mr Speaker: Order. Did I hear the Member use the word "hypocrites"? It is for the Member to deny. If he has used the word "hypocrites", he must withdraw it. I thought the last word I heard being translated was "hypocrites".

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): What I meant was that they appear to be concerned with the interest of the farmers, but, in actual fact, they are not. That was what I meant.

Mr Speaker: If the Member did use the word "hypocrites", he must withdraw it unreservedly.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I did not use that specific word. What I said was a term describing that meaning, as I have said just now.

Mr Speaker: I definitely heard the word "hypocrites" come over in the translation. The Member has used it, and he must withdraw it.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in that case, I withdraw that word in English.

Mr Speaker: Please withdraw it in English and in Chinese.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I did not use that specific word in Chinese. But if you construe it to mean that, I withdraw the word both in Chinese and in English.

5.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, after hearing the Member for Bukit Panjang's great speech which in actual fact was all nonsense, I feel that ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Please withdraw the word "nonsense".

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): I do so. Sir, In actual fact, the Member's objective is to give a bad impression of us to the farmers and to create fear among the people, so that the farmers will view with much fear and suspicion all Government measures to help them, and thereby prevent them from coming forward to seek help from the Government veterinary officers. Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have all along been saying that what they can see in the kampongs and rural areas are only bankrupt farming communities. If that were so, then it would be beneficial to the Barisan Sosialis. Our Government has been implementing measures to benefit the people, particularly the farmers. They are beginning to awaken to the real truth, and they do not believe any more in the utterances of the Barisan Sosialis. The people appreciate very much the Government's facilities and services offered to improve their livelihood.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see that the whole Bill is designed to serve the interests of the farmers. I cannot see anything in it that is bad or detrimental to the farmers, as stated by the Member for Bukit Panjang. For instance, he said that when a farmer has to convey 50 pigs to a veterinary station which happens to be far away, it will cause him great difficulty. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if there is any disease among the animals, then the farmer concerned should approach the veterinary officers. If he does not do this, then, of course, the Barisan Member will be happy because the disease will spread all round and many farmers will suffer loss. The Barisan Sosialis will then have more capital for propaganda purposes to say that the Government is no good and does not look after the farmers' welfare.

As to what the Member for Bukit Panjang has said about clauses in the Bill preventing private veterinarians from practising in the rural areas, I would say that most of these private veterinarians are not properly trained, and because they lack experience and knowledge, they usually do more harm than good to the farmers, in this respect, therefore, the Government will have to legislate to restrict the practice of these under-qualified veterinarians, who may also be inexperienced.

The Member has also mentioned another point. He says that when there is an outbreak of animal disease or chicken disease, the Minister will then abuse his powers under this Bill. In actual fact, the Minister has no such intention at all. When the Minister wants to declare a certain area infected with a disease, there must first be many such cases of the disease prevailing in that area before he declares it to be infected. In many cases, only when the disease is spreading among the livestock will the Minister declare a certain area infected.

The Member for Bukit Panjang assumes the existence of bankrupt rural farms, and he does not like to see farmers in the rural areas prosper and progress. He says that he has never been to the Bukit Panjang rural areas - that is why he is talking through his hat! The Barisan Sosialis is trying every means to make a mountain out of a molehill for their propaganda.

This is what I want to say to the Member for Bukit Panjang who seems not to have been to his area at all.

5.46 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have explained this matter very well. We have also criticised the actual motive and design of this Bill. What I say is that the P.A.P. Government are not actually concerned with the interest of the farmers or are looking after the interest of the farmers. They are pretending to do good. Whether their legislation will amount to something good or not is another question, and I will have to clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary has said just now.

He accuses us of wanting to spread fear among the farmers, is it a fact? He alone will know. The law and regulations provide clearly that if the Director of the Primary Production Department sees fit, then the Government will have the power to destroy all the structures, including livestock, in a certain area, without prescribing any compensation for them. Will this not cause fear in the hearts of the farmers? How would you feel if the law provides for such possibilities and power? Of course, the farmers are afraid and are living in fear and suspense. Yet the Government turn round and accuse us of wanting to see the rural farmers becoming bankrupt!

When we are in a position to help the farmers, we should carry out our responsibilities to them. We should also look into every complaint from the farmers. This is our hope, that all the farmers can live a comfortable life.

Just now the Parliamentary Secretary has said that certain veterinarians are not experienced and are under-qualified. This, I think, is not quite true. Sometimes, I myself treat diseased animals. Even my neighbour who lives next to me, in order to save money, also treats his own diseased animals. We also engage private veterinarians because, in our view, their practice is effective and is worth the price we pay them. But Government veterinary officers are not so experienced as private veterinarians. Just look at what we have experienced ourselves. Can you say that private veterinarians are not experienced when they produce better results? How do you explain that? Even a certain officer of the Primary Production Department is looking for private veterinarians to help in the rural areas. Certain officers in high positions and the Chairmen of certain committees in the relevant trades also have a very high regard for these private veterinarians. So I say that when once your deceit is exposed to the people, you will not have any opportunity to deceive them any more. I hope you will do something good for the farmers. That is our hope.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my views on the deceptive propaganda put forward by the Government in relation to the actual conditions in the rural areas. The Minister for National Development says that the Government has taken good care of the farmers over the past few years and that production in the farms has increased tremendously.

Mr Speaker, whenever Members on this side raise certain matters of actual fact, they are prevented from doing so. The Ministers do not seem to know of such facts, and they just listen in surprise! Certain diseases are widespread among the livestock and the Government is unable to control them. As a result of Government's inability to control the diseases, many farmers have suffered losses and they have become bankrupt. Their debts are mounting and they are far from being able to pay their debts. Feedstuffs manufacturers are also unable to get their money from the farmers to whom they have supplied their feedstuff. The Government has not carried out its duty properly and adequately to look after the interest of the people and farmers by trying to solve their everyday difficulties.

There are many cases of disease spreading among the livestock of some farmers, and it takes a few days before the officers of the Primary Production Department come to look into the matter. This delay results in losses. The Government, it is true, has taken steps to inoculate animals and poultry, but still the diseases are not prevented from spreading. In fact, before inoculation, some chickens were even fatter, but after inoculation, they grew thinner day by day.

So it is clear that in spite of the so called medical care given by the Government, the livestock has not enjoyed any good health, or better health. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said a moment ago that the points raised by my colleague with regard to the diseases of certain pigs were of, minor importance. This is what he said. We can see that whenever there is a spread of diseases in the livestock of pigs, this spread will cause the farmers to convey their animals and chickens over a long distance for treatment, even when there is only a suspicion of a few animals or chickens among a few hundreds or thousands. Now, is this not a difficulty and inconvenience for the farmers? Will not the farmers themselves be put in fear of the troubles? If the Government intends really effectively to look after the health of livestock in the rural areas, then I suggest that it is the business of the Primary Production Department to instil common medical knowledge into the farmers so that they themselves will be able to detect diseases and treat minor cases by themselves, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of sending chickens to the veterinary centre.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen the performance of the Barisan Members in this House. They try to get even some votes over the problems of the pigs. They have been most inconsistent in their speeches. As the Minister for National Development has put it clearly, because of the inadequacy of existing Ordinances, the Government have to introduce new laws to improve the conditions of the farmers to catch up with time. This is realistic in approach, but instead of getting support, we have seen the Barisan Members criticising the Government. When we want to put aside one million dollars for the improvement of the farmers' livelihood, they want us to put in ten million dollars. They are expecting much more than realistic things from us, and they do so in order to attract the farmers to their side.

Mr Speaker. Sir, we can see very clearly from our daily life that the Minister for National Development is often seen to be discussing problems with the farmers themselves to get their views, so that steps will be taken in accordance with such views and to improve the living standards of the farmers and to improve the primary production services. We have already taught the farmers the modern techniques in rearing pigs and other animals, so that their production will be increased and their income similarly increased. This has all along been our objective and we have been doing pretty well. I do not see how the Barisan Members can deny this fact, instead of talking about the actual needs of the farmers at present. they have sidetracked and talked about something else.

Mr Speaker, as the Member for Bukit Panjang has said just now, when a pig falls sick, it is not necessary for the farmer to carry it to the veterinary officer. Instead the veterinary officer must go to the farmer's house and treat the pig. We agree this is a better way if there are enough pigs to justify the visit of the veterinary officer at the farm. But if it is only an individual case, that would be too much trouble and most uneconomical.

Does he really mean that the National Development Ministry should not send out properly trained veterinary officers to look after the diseases of the livestock or does he want the Government to encourage the farmers to prefer untrained veterinary personnel to trained personnel, resulting in a great loss of lives of the animals? All this talk is most unrealistic and beside the point. If they really desire to help the farmers, then they should study the main points in the speech of the Minister for National Development. Then they would realise that it is the intention of the Government to look after the farmers' interest in a practical manner.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we have heard the Member for Jalan Besar saying that the Government wants to look after the interest of the farmers and that is why the Government has introduced this Bill. But this is a great humbug. The Member for Bukit Panjang has said just now, very clearly, that there are many loopholes in this Bill which might give rise to actual difficulties. But in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to give us a clearer picture in relation to the possible difficulties.

Let us look at the performance of the Government over the past few years. Over the radio the Government has said that it is looking after the interests of the people very well. You must not ill-treat the dogs, you must not ill-treat the cats, ducks and chickens. And that is what they say, they are looking after the interests of the farmers. Now if you do not give them actual help to develop their farm and increase their production in poultry and in vegetable gardening, what is the actual use of such talk? In fact, there are many farmers in the State who are unable to continue farming because they cannot make ends meet. And it is difficult for them to continue farming or poultry rearing. The Government has not been able to give them practical assistance.

Now, what is the form of assistance that the Government is supposed to give? The Government is not able to put into practice effective measures to control the spread of diseases or to prevent the spread of any diseases.

Then there is the question of marketing land and the fluctuation of the price in poultry and other primary products. All these years has the Government been able to put forward a comprehensive plan to improve generally the rural areas? Because of the absence of any comprehensive plan, the rural economy is nearing bankruptcy. One can see that the cost of eggs is decreasing. What is the Government doing to increase the price of eggs? Instead of doing something practical, it is only trying to legislate to see that better quality feedstuff is available. Then we come to the ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been very patient. I think the Member must really go back to the Animals and Birds Bill. Will he come back to the Bill?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in this Bill the Government seeks to control the diseases of animals, but the responsibility should be shouldered by the farmers themselves. because if the Government thinks that there is a spread of disease in a certain area, then the animals will have to be condemned, and some chicken runs and other structures will have to be destroyed without any compensation. Do you think the farmers will report any suspicion of disease to the Government just to invite such great loss? If such a report is made, then they will run the risk of having their property destroyed; so they will not seek the assistance of the Government in trying to detect or cure any disease in their livestock.

The Parliamentary Secretary has tried to say just now that the Minister would not abuse the powers of this Bill to declare any place an infected area unnecessarily in any individual cases. But the fact is that in any section of a place there may be a spread of a disease and this will give rise to great inconvenience and trouble in view of the powers given by this Bill. I think the farmers should be given the liberty to complain to the Government of any difficulties, otherwise they will not report any suspicion or actual spread of disease to the Government.

Our Members on this side have already given their criticism of the loopholes in this Bill, and the conclusion one can draw is that the introduction of this Bill reflects the difficulties and the near bankruptcy of the rural areas. And if this Bill must be passed, then I urge upon the Government to give some form of compensation if any structure of the farmer is to be destroyed on the discovery of any disease. And then the Government should take practical steps to enlarge the market for poultry and eggs, otherwise eggs will be falling in price, from six cents to five cents. Then there should be a comprehensive programme for the control of diseases among the animals.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the subject of the Bill which we are debating now, the opposition from the Barisan Sosialis Members appears to show their sympathy to whom they think will give their support to them at some future time. They obviously are ignorant as to the best method to be employed to raise the living standards of poultry rearers in the rural areas. As has been said by the Opposition Members, the cost of eggs should be increased. But the Opposition, at the same time, are not aware that in order for the cost of eggs to be increased, the quality of the eggs should be improved, if the eggs produced are of a lower quality, naturally the prices are low, then the Government is responsible for ensuring that good quality eggs are produced. Thus with the increased prices for these eggs, their standard of living will be raised proportionately.

Regarding transport mentioned by the Opposition, if this Bill is passed, it will cause inconvenience to the farmers to have to transport their animals and birds for the purpose of injection. That is up to the farmers. If they want to see their products improve in quality, then it is part of their duty to transport their animals or birds to the veterinary centres. If our child is sick and we want to see it treated, we have to bring it to the General Hospital even though we may have to travel a long distance. This is an example.

On the subject of compensation, what is the rate of compensation paid to farmers who have diseased animals in our country? Of course, the Government is responsible for seeing that the birds or animals which may be the cause of infection be destroyed to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. That is important for us to consider. Not just by paying compensation to the poultry farmers. As I have said earlier on, what is the rate of compensation to be paid to defaulting poultry farmers who are responsible for spreading diseases so that diseases will not be spread further to the neighbours and so on? It is one of the responsibilities of the Government to see that the rate of productivity is increased, which means that it will be healthy to the State of Singapore. That is all I have to say today, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Minister, in reply?

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I hear Members of the Opposition saying that in the last five years the P.A.P. Government has done nothing for the farmers and that most of the farmers are bankrupt or are going bankrupt. As to whether the farmers are going bankrupt or not, there are facts to show that during the last five years, instead of the trade in eggs, poultry and pork being reduced, it has increased. From being an importer of chickens, eggs and pigs, we are now the exporter. It what they say is true, that during the last five years we have done nothing for the farmers and that they are going bankrupt quickly, their trade would have been dead by now. This is an instance of where Members of the Opposition are trying to bluff the public. I do not know whether they really have the interest of the farmers at heart or they are just here to play politics, because if they really do have the interest of the farmers at heart, they have had more than five months since the First Reading of this Bill to send in amendments and make suggestions for improvement. On the one hand, they say, "Look, we must control diseases." On the other hand, when we bring up this Bill to control diseases they say. "This is in no way any aid to the farmers at all." They say again that our veterinary surgeons and veterinary centres are of no assistance at all to the farmers. If they are of no assistance to the farmers, how is it that suggestions come from them that we should build more veterinary centres? So all in all, Mr Speaker, Sir, they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks. Absolutely, they do not believe in what they say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is evident that in order to improve our livestock, some sort of control must be accepted by the farmers - control of disease, control of feedstuffs. And when enforcing any regulation, of course, there will be difficulties, and it is always the policy of the Government when enforcing regulations to see that our officers carry out our policy in a very practical and common sense way. Some of the administrative difficulties which they have brought up will, of course, be looked into and I can give the farmers every assurance that this Bill is not there, as the Opposition alleges, to make things more difficult for them. This Bill is to protect the property and to improve the quality and the breed of their pigs, chickens and eggs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Mr Lim Kim San].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.19 p.m.

Clause 1 -

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move under Long title, lines 3, 4, 5 and 7 ---

The Chairman: Mr Minister, I think we will come to that at the end. If you will just go on to clause 1 to begin with.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In line 7, to leave out "Ordinance, 1964" and insert "and Birds Ordinance, 1965".

This amendment will tie up the short title of the Bill.

The Chairman: Mr Minister, I think perhaps I had better let you have this Order Paper Supplement.

(Copy of Order Paper Supplement handed to Mr Lim Kim San.)

The Chairman: So far as the amendment to clause 1 is concerned, Mr Minister, I think "1964" to "1965" is not an amendment really. It is merely a matter of adjustment due to passing of time.

So if you will just proceed to the next amendment.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 1, line 6, after "Animals", to insert "and Birds".

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: As I have indicated previously, the figure "1964" will be amended to "1965" as a matter of course.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 4, line 4, after "animals", to insert "and birds".

The purpose of this amendment is to remedy the omission of "birds" in the definition of "veterinary biologics" in this clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: There are no amendments proposed to clauses 3 to 8, 10 to 32, 34 to 49 and 51 to 71. The following amendments stand in the Order Paper:

Clause 9:

In page 6, marginal note, to leave out "animals" and insert "animal or bird".

Clause 33:

In page 14, marginal note, to leave out "animals" and insert "animal or bird".

Clause 50:

In page 23, marginal note, to leave out "cattle, etc.," and insert "animals and birds".

These amendments will be noted.

Clauses 3 to 71 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule -

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

In page 30, to leave out lines 32 and 33.

The amendment will delete paragraph (m) from the Schedule to be considered, as paragraph (t) already provides the same powers as paragraph (m). The latter paragraph, paragraph (m), is therefore redundant and should be deleted from the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long Title -

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

In page 1, lines 3, 4, 5 and 7, after "animals", wherever it occurs, to insert "and birds".

Since the Bill deals with birds and animals, it is considered to be more appropriate and correct for it to be called the Animals and Birds Ordinance.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.