ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1968

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.32 p.m.

The Chairman: We are on Head 0901 and at the Moment of Interruption last night, Madam Chan Choy Siong was moving amendment (9) under this Head. Madam Chan.

• Amendment No. (9), standing in the names of Mr. P. Selvadurai, Madam Chan Choy Siong, and Mr. Ho See Beng, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $100.

Head 0901 -

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying yesterday that in 1959 the People's Action Party announced its policy in a booklet entitled The Tasks Ahead. One of the main principles was the interests of the people. So I would like to touch on the labour policy of the Government to see whether the balance in the interests of labour is maintained. At that time it was announced in the booklet that the P.A.P. was the workers' movement and it had always received the support of the workers. The P.A.P. Government is a government on the workers' side. Although we recognize the limitations of our entrepot trade, our economy and the necessity for private capital and private enterprise, it is our duty to see that the workers get a fair return for their labour, without which capital would be barren and fruitless, and the wealth and prosperity which labour produces ---

Mr Tang See Chim (Choa Chu Kang): On a point of order, Sir,I think this is now the time for consideration of Head 0902, and I hear the Member for Delta speaking on -

The Chairman: No, Mr Tang. Under the revised times, we are still on the Ministry of Labour.

Mr Tang See Chim: I am sorry.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): I was saying that the workers should get a reasonable share for their effort. Without this basic condition, even if we have the capital, entrepot trade and other facilities, the labouring class who produces the wealth will not get equal benefit, and there will not be a balance of interests. So if we want to be prosperous through industrialisation, hut we cannot succeed, it is because good working conditions and other benefits to the workers cannot be procured, and the workers will not get their rightful reward. The present situation, however, very clearly tells the people of Singapore that the P.A.P. Government is looking after them well. Ever since we the P.A.P. came to power, we have all along abided by these tenets or promises which we have made to our electorate up to now.

If we re-examine our present declared policy, we will find that perhaps the Government thinks that because Singapore has achieved independence it can lose sight of this declaration that was made some time ago. Some workers have been neglected, especially workers in the Jurong industrial site. True, Singapore must industrialise in order to maintain the livelihood of its two million people, but very clearly we have this policy which says that we must achieve a balance of interests, in other words, we must look after the interests of capital as well as the interests of labour. If we examine the actual conditions of the workers in the Jurong industrial site, we will find that they have been exploited in their wages. The money given to them can be regarded only as an allowance and not as actual wages, because they, who have been producing goods for their employers, are only given meagre allowances, not even amounting to wages, if I can call it.

I have also touched on this matter of wages earlier. Normally a worker gets $2.50 per day. But the answer given by the Minister is that this $2.50 is not regarded as wages but as an allowance, because most of the workers are unmarried and this is a sort of allowance given to them. But after investigation, I found that it is not actually so. This sort of policy therefore actually contradicts the announced policy of the P.A.P. Government. If you regard these workers as apprentices, then it is not right. In the past I have tried to rectify this abnormal situation, but we can still find it going on in the Jurong industrial site. I have found that many of the workers who are getting $2.50 per day are actually married. The Minister has said that they are unmarried, but after my investigations, I have found that they are married with children. So this policy, in actual fact, contradicts the P.A.P. announced policy on labour. I feel that an erroneous conception has been so formed so that the employer looks down upon women labour.

Another point is that when we say that we want to help the workers, we mean that the workers' unions concerned will look after their members. But many of the workers in Jurong do not join any union. Firstly, they get very low wages. They have to spend more than $1 a day when they travel to and from their places of work. For lunch they have to spend about $1 per day so that when they return home they have nothing left for their family if their wages are only $2.50 per day. Because of this, the workers do not join any trade union. Because of this, the employers exploit them so that all their claims have been ignored, especially the claims of women workers, like maternity benefit and medical care.

The Chairman: Madam Chan, the Minister will have only two minutes to reply.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Yes, I will close as soon as possible.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I do not know whether the Labour Ministry's so-called pro-labour policy is still in practice. Although the Ministry has achieved something for the welfare of labour, I hope it can proceed with the spirit of revolution without causing detriment to the workers but rather to benefit them.

Mr Ho See Beng rose -

The Chairman: Mr Ho, I thought you were not speaking?

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): I have changed my mind, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard what the Member for Delta has said, I feel that I must share my sentiments with her on some of the points that she has touched upon. First, perhaps she does not understand very well the actual reason why workers in the pioneer industries do not join the unions. This is not an error on the part of Government's policy. I think the reason why they do not -

The Chairman: Order. Mr Ho, perhaps you will give the Minister the opportunity to reply now. Mr Jek.

Mr Lee Teck Him rose -

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Mr Jek.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to reply to the main complaint of the Member for Delta that female workers in Jurong get a very low pay. I think it is not quite true to say that female workers in factories in Jurong are getting a very low pay. According to the Sample Household Survey conducted in July 1966, the average monthly earnings of female workers of 18 years or above in all manufacturing industries were $100.80 cents a month. There may be workers who get more or less than this amount. But the problem is that the wages they earn are closely related to their skills. The higher the skill, the more they will earn. Take, for instance, a worker in a shirt and garment industry. If she is ---

Madam Chan Choy Siong rose -

2.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Madam Chan.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): In view of the fact that the Minister has not replied to my satisfaction, I would like to put my amendment to the vote.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I have had no chance to reply!

The Chairman: Order. In view of the assertion of the Member for Delta that the Minister has not replied to her satisfaction, I will put the amendment to the vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $2,088,970 for Head 0901 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0902 -

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0902 be reduced by $100.

Sir, before I touch on the point I wish to raise on the Industrial Arbitration Courts, let me make it very clear that whatever I say in relation to the Industrial Arbitration Courts does not refer to the President, the Deputy President or any official of the First and Second Industrial Arbitration Courts. In fact, I would like to pay my tribute to the President and Deputy President of the Courts for their past work in handling the multifarious cases that have been presented in the First and Second Courts. But whatever point I raise to indicate the present state of affairs the parties concerned are now in, may I emphasise that it is not the fault of the courts but it is the fault of the system in operation that is to be blamed? The present method of having panel members from employee and employer groups does undoubtedly cause unwanted and unnecessary delay not only in hearings but also in the making of awards. Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance lays down that the award shall be handed down within two weeks after the parties concerned have presented their arguments. The fact that no one in the Ministry of Labour or the Advocate-General's Chambers has queried why the Ordinance has not been followed indicates that all have accepted that this is not possible. Under the circumstances, I would like to ask the Minister if we are not defeating the very purpose for which the Industrial Arbitration Courts were set up. The policy of the Government was and, I hope, still is industrial peace with justice. But I ask, can we have industrial peace with justice if there are delays in handing down the awards which sometimes last for months and even more than a year after the cases have been heard? Of course, both the unions and the management may admit that they do have justice, but a rather belated justice. Meanwhile, there is frustration among the workers and this frustration must necessarily affect production, a matter with which, I am sure, all of us are concerned. I feel that something must be done to accelerate the hearings and the making of the awards of the cases by the courts. Have the Minister and his officials given thought to this matter? They may be very busily occupied with other matters. But, nevertheless, I would like to suggest this for the Minister's consideration and sincerely ask him to give his urgent attention to this matter. I suggest that the courts should have permanent panel members. In other words, either the members of the management and the employees should be engaged on a full-time basis, or do away with them completely and let all the cases be heard by either the President or the Deputy President only. My other suggestion is that the Minister appoints only panel members who can afford to spare the time. If a member, having been nominated to sit on the cases, finds himself unable to attend the hearings on, say, three consecutive occasions, he automatically disqualifies himself from hearing any further cases.

The Chairman: Mr Ho, if you stop now, the Minister will have three minutes to reply.

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes, Sir.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I think, in short, the Member for Bras Basah has suggested that we do away with the panel members. I am not sure whether this is feasible because the panel members, whether they are employers or employees, are there to assist the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court to weigh the pros and cons in a given case and together they form the court. If we were to do away with the panel members, then the President would be left alone to make the decision, and since the decisions on the awards of the courts are not subject to appeal to any higher court, it may appear that the burden of the President in making his decision is too heavy as to be unbearable and at times he may be accused of bias or being arbitrary.

Regarding the suggestion on the setting up of permanent panel members, I do not think it is possible because, firstly, it is not possible to get enough suitable persons from the trade unions and the employers' side to serve as permanent members in the panel, and, secondly, the cost of maintaining such a permanent panel would be quite prohibitive and, in some cases, it may not be economical to do so because for some periods of the year there may not be any case for the members to hear at all.

The third suggestion put forward by the Member is that the Minister should appoint only panel members who cart afford to spare the time. If that is the case, I do not think this would be workable because nobody actually worth appointing as a panel member can actually spare the time, and in that case we would not have any panel members at all.

The Chairman: Order. Mr Ho.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not very satisfied with the reply by the Minister. Although he has criticised my suggestions, he has not offered any solution.

The Chairman: Mr Ho, we have reached the guillotine time.

Mr Ho See Beng: In which case, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $345,080 for Head 0902 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1001 -

The Chairman: Let me say that there are four Members who have put down six amendments. There is a total of 25 minutes. With that reminder I call Mr Tay Boon Too.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1051.

Sir, the building of a rugged and brave next generation is one of the national policies of Singapore. This shows the farsightedness and the deep thought given by the Government of the Republic of Singapore. This policy is in keeping with the principles of nation building, that is, in order to build a strong nation, we must first have a strong and healthy people. However, there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction among sports circles in Singapore today with certain members in the National Sports Control Board. Mismanagement and the erroneous views of certain members on this Board have produced some bad consequences. The Government has been trying to promote sports in recent years. Towards that end, it has been trying to reorganise the sports organisations. However, certain members holding responsible positions in the Sports Control Board have behaved in a prejudicial manner. I feel that this behaviour should be corrected. In the past, the sporting activities in our country were under the management of the Singapore Olympic Council. But this year, as a successor to the Singapore Olympic Sports Council, there has been established a body called the Singapore National Sports Control Board which manages all matters pertaining to sports. However, there are no experts on the Board who are conversant with the technique of volleyball and basketball matches. Sir, I would like to recount an incident. The recent SEAP Games were meant mainly to raise the standard of sports of certain countries in this region where the standards are low. Compared with some other international sports meets, the SEAP Games standard is the lowest. It is the lowest among all international sports meets.

3.00 p.m.

So what kind of standard did we use to select our team members? Did we base our standard on the Olympic Games or the Asian Games? In what events of the Olympic Games did Singapore's contingents ever win any gold medals? If our sports teams are not sent abroad to compete in international games, how do we expect them to raise their sports standard? We will be just closing our eyes. The relevant authorities have said that the selections were based on quality and not on quan tity. Of course, I agree with this. But what is the quality required? Is it that the members selected should be up to the standard that they can expect to win gold medals? If that is so, then the selectors must have been very sure that the members selected for the SEAP Games must be people who had already reached the gold medal standard. But there were many members who got only zero back from the SEAP Games, especially the men's table tennis team. Since it was claimed that selection was based on quality and not on quantity, what happened to those teams selected to represent us at the SEAP Games who got zero marks back for Singapore? Were they affected by Thailand's sunny weather so that there was some sort of chemical reaction which changed their quality and which was different from what they had expected it to be? There is some suspicion that there was bias in selecting our contingent members.

Sir, our volleyball team under the able leadership of our Minister of State of Defence had made much progress. They had been training since June last year. There were four collective training periods per week. There had been 200 such occasions totalling some 400 hours. This volleyball team can be said to be one of the most hard-working teams among our sports organisations. The women's team also improved greatly its standard. Recently at the match with the Malaysian women's volleyball team, the Singapore team defeated them 3 - 0. At the recent SEAP Games, the Malaysian women's volleyball team got the bronze medal. The Burmese team got the silver medal. The Burmese team defeated the Malaysian team 3 - 1. So judging from the standard of our team in April, our women's volleyball team's standard was not only higher than that of the Malaysian team, but was also higher than that of the Burmese team. They can be said to be a match for Thailand's women's volleyball team. Yet the selection committee said that our volleyball team -

The Chairman: May I remind the Member that he has already spoken for ten minutes?

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Sir, for your reminder. I have almost come to the end of my speech. Yet the selection committee said that the women's volleyball team had not reached the standard required. I should say that the committee concerned was actually behaving like a blind man groping for the tail of the elephant.

Sir, there are 15 organisations under the Singapore Olympic Sports Council and the Secretary of the Council had very close relations with seven of the organisations. Recently, out of the 11 organisations which had members in the Singapore contingent to the SEAP Games, seven organisations were under him. I would like to ask how many gold, silver or bronze medals were gained by these seven organisations? How many got zero marks back? The idea of holding the SEAP Games, other than enabling all countries in South-east Asia to take part in competition and raising the standard of sports, is also meant to improve the relationship among the participating countries.

The sponsor country recently sent a delegation here specially to persuade our authorities to allow our volleyball team, basketball team, football team and rugby team to take part in the SEAP Games. Yet its request was rejected. Would it affect the relationship between Singapore and Thailand, especially in rugby? Rugby was proposed by our country to be added as an item in the SEAP Games and yet we did not send any rugby team to take part. What is past is past but for the future, we can still do something to rectify the situation. I hope the Minister can take some measures towards this end without fear or favour.

The Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Mr Speaker, Sir, the SEAP Games are over and, in fact, there is no need for me to answer the hon. Member for Paya Lebar.

The Chairman: In that case, shall I call the next amendment, Inche Othman?

Inche Othman Bin Wok: No, Sir. But as the Minister in charge of sports, I feel it would be bad sportsmanship if I did not clarify our stand on the matter. I hope the hon. Member will accept my clarification in the true spirit of sports manship. I know why he is so interested in the reason why the basketball team was left out of the contingent. He is interested because he is the vice-president of the team.

Mr Tay Boon Too rose -

The Chairman: Order. Are you prepared to give way, Inche Othman?

Inche Othman Bin Wok: There is no time and the Member took 13 minutes.

The Chairman: Please proceed, Inche Othman.

Mr Tay Boon Too resumed his seat.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: I thought I had made myself very clear when the Sports Control Board announced its decision to exclude the volleyball team and, for that matter, the basketball team and two other teams from the Singapore SEAP Games contingent some time ago. As far back as August last year, I warned sports organisations in Singapore that unless they reorganised themselves and trained hard to achieve the standard required for inclusion in our contingent taking part in international sports meets, they would not be included.

Mr Ho See Beng: You have not set any standard at all.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: We have set a minimum standard for that. In the past, there was never a standard set by the S.O.S.C.

Mr Ho See Beng: On what criterion?

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Only a few sports organisations took heed of that warning. The rest did not care less. Even up to one month before the SEAP Games, the National Sports Control Board found that a number of sports organisations had not started training or had not trained seriously. The National Sports Control Board had decided on a certain required standard and sports organisations which wanted to be in cluded in our contingent should attain that standard. If they did not, then it was their own fault.

Now, let us see what the basketball standard was. In the record that I have here, the standard of volleyball was generally very low. In the last SEAP Games in Kuala Lumpur in 1965, the men's team was placed seventh out of seven teams which took part. This means that they were the last in the competition. Burma beat them 3 - 0. Vietnam beat them 3 - 1. Cambodia beat them 3 - 0. Malaysia beat them 3 - 1.

The Chairman: Inche Othman, this may all be very well. But we have ten minutes more for this Head and there are three very anxious Back-benchers who desire to speak.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: The speaker himself took 13 minutes, Sir. So you must give me a chance to reply, but I will cut it short.

The Chairman: Inche Othman, the Speaker is seated here. It was the Member who took 13 minutes.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: I am sorry, Sir. The Member who spoke, Sir, I would like to assure this House that there was absolutely no bias or prejudice affecting the selection by the National Sports Control Board. There was no manipulation. To charge the Board of bias or prejudice is most unworthy of the critics. Even the organising council of the SEAP Games very sportingly accepted the decision of the Board after I had explained to them the reasons why our contingent was short of four teams. They commented that we had done the right thing, and one of the countries taking part in the Games was very interested in what we are doing to improve our standard and they asked us to send them all the information regarding the steps that we are taking.

In conclusion, I would like to say that if the volleyball team want to be included in our next contingent to the SEAP Games or, for that matter, the Asian Games, they must improve their standard.

An hon. Member: I hope the mistake will not be repeated.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: I will see that the mistake is not repeated. But they must improve their standard.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Although the Minister has given his explanation, I am not satisfied. First, the Minister does not know to which organisation I belong. I am not the vice-president of the basketball team. I am the president of the Volleyball Association. I speak as the Member for Paya Lebar and not as president of the Volleyball Association. Secondly, he said the volleyball team did not have much training. As I said earlier, the team had been training four times a week from June last year. Up to now, the team has had 400 hours of practice. Which sports organisation has exceeded this period of training? The Minister has said that there is no bias in the selection. Perhaps it may be due to the swimming team.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Sir, is there any time for me to move my amendment?

The Chairman: I cannot, at this point, silence the Member for Paya Lebar. He will no doubt appreciate the difficulties of Madam Chan Choy Siong who has one amendment, Inche Mohd. Ariff who has three amendments, and Mr Ng Kah Ting who has one amendment. All these amendments have to be disposed of in five minutes from now.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Sir, I sympathise with the Member for Delta. Yesterday I was scheduled to speak on two items, and yet the Member for Delta took all the time and so I had no chance to speak. Today I must allow her to get a taste of what I tasted yesterday.

Sir, what I want to clarify is this. I did not blame the Minister. I did not say that he had made any errors. But I blame some of the members on the National Sports Control Board. They should be removed from the Board.

The Chairman: Mr Tay, I take it that you are withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the fact that the Minister has not given a clear explanation to satisfy me, I would like to put it to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

3.15 p.m.

The following amendment stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1091.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to save time, may I take my amendments (3)*, (4)+ and (5)++ together?

• Amendment No. (4) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1143.

++ Amendment No. (5) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1151.

The Chairman: Yes. We have about four minutes more.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1140*(Appendix, cols. 901-4). Appendix to Speaker's Announcement (Cols 901-904)

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Administration of Muslim Law Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1960 and re-introduced in 1965. Then it went to Select Committee which received representations from members of the public. Thereafter, it was brought back to Parliament for Third Reading and was passed in August 1966. It was assented to by the President in 1966.

It is now six years since this Bill was introduced, but up to today it has not been put into operation although it has been passed. The Bill provides for the setting up of the Majlis us Ugama islam, Sin gapura, and the appointments of a Mufti and a Secretary of the Mais. I wish to know whether both these appointments have been filled and whether the Majlis Ugama islam, Sin gapura, has been constituted.

In reply to a question I put to the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs which appears in Hansard, Vol. 26, No. 3, dated 8th September, 1967, at col. 201, as to whether there would be an additional Kathi, he replied that a third Kathi would be appointed, bringing the total number of Kathis to three. But in the Estimates, I notice that there is provision for only two Kathis.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Administration of Muslim Law Bill, though approved by this House more than a year ago and assented to by the President, cannot be implemented now because there are certain parts in the law which have to be implemented first. For instance, the formation of the Muslim Religious Council is held up because we cannot find a suitable person to be the Chairman. We have looked around and, in fact, scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a suitable Muslim to head the Council. But up to today we have not been successful.

The post of Mufti is still vacant. By section 30 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act, 1966, the President of Singapore may, after consultation with the Maftis, appoint a fit and proper person to be the Mufti of Singapore. As the Majlis has not been constituted yet, the appointment of a Mu/ti is still vacant. The post of Secretary is also still vacant. For the time being, we have Tuan Haji Jamil Bin Dzafir, who was formerly a Division I officer of the Ministry of Social Affairs and is ex-officio to the Secretary of the Muslim Advisory Board. He is now doing the work and is dealing with Muslim matters in the Ministry until such time as the post of Secretary of the Majlis is substantively filled.

There are now three Kathis appointed by the Government. There is no vacancy for any further Kathi. One of the three, that is Tuan Haji Salleh, was appointed in 1960 and he is now acting as Chief Kathi. The other two Kathis are Tuan Haji Ismail, appointed as Kathi in 1961, and Tuan Abu Bakar Hashim appointed as Kathi in 1967.

The Chairman: Order. Inche Mohd. Ariff?

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.05 p.m.

The Chairman: I am afraid we have reached Guillotine time for Head 1001.

The time allotted for Head 1001 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting, was not proceeded with:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1161.

The sum of $1,226,640 for Head 1001 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1002 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1211.

Mr Lingam: I am not moving.

The following amendment stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1221.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment (3)*(Appendix, cols. 901-4). Mr Govindaswamy is not here. Madam Chan? Appendix to Speaker's Announcement (Cols 901-904)

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1301*

Mr Speaker, Sir, my complaint put very shortly is that there are too many advertisements over the radio and on T.V. and that they come on at the most unnatural of times, for example, in the middle of a sequence. If we must have advertisements, perhaps we can have them at the appropriate time, for example, at what is known as a natural break.

I think the Minister must decide once and for all whether we are going to run the Broadcasting Division on a commercial basis or on a social and cultural basis.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Tang See Chim: If it is run on a commercial basis, why must we vote for this sum of money? If it is run on a social and cultural basis, why all these advertisements?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no definite evidence that there has been an over-saturation of advertisements in our T.V. programmes.

Mr Tang See Chim: You do not watch T.V.!

Mr Fong Sip Chee: That is the job I am paid to do! Most advertisement agencies conduct their own surveys. If they ftnd the T.V, programmes over-saturated with advertisements which do not achieve the desired effect, they will make adjustments accordingly.

On the question of whether television is operated on a commercial or a cultural basis, the policy of the Broadcasting Department is to be self-sufficient and that is to collect sufficient revenue from its commercial services to meet its recurrent expenditure. This objective is being achieved, and the commercial service of the Broadcasting Department collected a revenue of $5.23 million in the first 11 months of 1967 in comparison with $4.53 million in the same period of 1966 - an increase of almost $700,000. At present, Television Singapura includes 12 minutes of advertisements in every one hour of programme. The normal percentage of advertisements for a station operating a commercial service is much higher, as in the case of stations running commercial services in Japan, the United States, Australia, and so on. In the case of T.V. Malaysia, there are less advertisements, which is probably due to the fact that their commercial service cannot get the same amount of business as T.V. Singapura. I will not go into the statistics of adver tisements and collections. But I will end by saying this: somebody complained to me when I was away that While he was enjoying the advertisements, there had to be "Ben Casey" coming along!

Mr Tang See Chim: Exactly! I think the Government has fallen between two stools. I am not satisfied. I want a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to spend more time on this subhead so that I will not bring up my other amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1351.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to bring up a few points about T.V. Singapura programmes and news. I feel that there is an unfair distribution of news. For example, some Members of Parliament appear on T.V. when they take part in celebrations, while other Members do not appear on T.V. There are others who always appear on T.V. For example, the Member for Sembawang always appears on T.V. I do not know whether it is because ---

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang) rose -

The Chairman: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): On a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Madam Chan is not giving way.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Is it because the Member for Sembawang always praises the Government that he appears on T.V.?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I raise this point not only for myself but also for other Members. Whenever we hold functions, the leaders of my constituency spend money and put in a lot of time and effort. But when we send for the T.V. crew, sometimes they do not come. And even when they do come, the films that they take do not appear on T.V. After all the efforts put in by the leaders of my constituency, there is nothing to show in return. Of course, it is not because they always want to appear on T.V., but we should at least be fair to them and not disappoint them. I hope the Minister will give me a satisfactory reply.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must first clarify one point. The activities in Sembawang are not telecast very often. Therefore, the Member for Delta had better go there and make investigations before saying ---

The Chairman: Order, Mr Teong. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is the best person to reply to that criticism. Mr Fong.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I really cannot understand the logic of some hon. Members. In spite of what the Minister for Finance said yesterday that news coverage entails a lot of expenses and that there is wastage of public funds, hon. Members still bring up this matter today.

Sir, the policy is to provide an objective and intelligent coverage including local news, news of our immediate neighbours, and of the world at large. Usually, local events which take place before six p.m. are reported the same evening, whereas foreign news usually comes in late and is included in the following morning's programme. The Director of Broadcasting normally decides whether an event is to be covered. His decision is based on the news-worthiness of the events in relation to the efforts required to cover them and the availability of facilities. In this connection, he has classified events into four categories:

(1) events which must be covered even if stringer cameramen have to be engaged;

(2) events which must be covered with the normal staff;

(3) events which may be covered for the sake of variety where facilities can be spared; and

(4) events which should not be covered.

Normally, Ministers are given preference in coverage, but this is not always the case. The Director of Broadcasting sometimes gives preference to Members of Parliament if he considers that such coverage will give variety to the news programmes and will eliminate monotony. For example, community centre programmes are usually monotonous, more so if dinners are involved which so frequently take place in some constituencies.

For more than two and a half years, the News Division has been run with only 60 per cent of the approved establishment and this is bound to affect the quality of newsreels produced. For example, out of 11 very important posts of Epglish editors, only 5 posts have been filled, while the rest have remained vacant due to the Public Service Com mission not being able to recruit suitable candidates. And again for the posts of reporters, only four are filled by experienced officers and six by new recruits. There are still vacant posts.

3.30 p.m.

If there are 12 reporters, they can work in pairs to cover six local regions. At present, due to the shortage of experienced staff, it is extremely difficult to cover all events that take place in Singapore. However, if advance notice is given, it can be arranged.

But I would like to bring up one point, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is we must give consideration to the question of cost in the coverage of news. I quote an example. For one minute of usable film material - raw film - the cost, including processing and printing, is $10. And the cost of employing stringers (if Members do understand this term) together with transport is $55. For the total expenditure of $65, 40 to 50 seconds of news will appear for the event. In other words, we spend $65 or more for perhaps 40 seconds' running on the T.V. screen. It is because of the high cost of employing stringer cameramen that we have to weigh the importance of the news before such stringers are sent to cover the event.

Sir, I would like to supplement my answer further, since both Members appear to be very keen on T.V. coverage. I will not quote any statistics, Sir. The coverage for the Member for Delta in the last 12 months is only one appearance short of that for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health. Next, for coverage of Members of Parliament, the Member for Sembawang came in second.

The Chairman: Mr Teong, do you wish to say anything on this amendment?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to say a few words. Regarding the programmes on T.V, or over the radio, I feel that the authorities have exercised fair judgment. This is within their discretion, and I do not like to comment on it. But I would like to clarify that it is not because I praise the Government so much that I had more appearances on T.V. In actual fact, I had very little chance.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Sir, I sympathise with what the Member for Delta has said. Very often I notice that when she made up herself, she did not appear on TV!

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I feel the Member for Bukit Merah perhaps might have swallowed something wrong. I think the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was perhaps using this opportunity to give some other answers, because he did not reply to the points I raised. When I raised them just now, I did not do so for my own sake. I only said that the authorities should be fair in their TV coverage of certain activities in some other constituencies. So obviously certain matters have not been quite fairly treated.

At those times when I appeared on TV, it was because the Ministers were around, and so naturally I also appeared. When I invited the TV "kings" to come and get some plctures, they did not turn up. I am therefore not satisfied, and I would like to put my amendment to a vote.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I appreciate the dilemma you are in, Sir, with regard to the time allotted for the speakers, but maybe I could add just one point?

The Chairman: Mr Fong, may I suggest that at a subsequent sitting, you get your Minister to make a Ministerial statement on this. If you do that, you will not make inroads into the Backbenchers' time on the Estimates.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: No, Sir, I shall be very brief. There are two considerations. First, if Members are not active, there is no coverage for them. Second, I must congratulate some Members, particularly the Member for Sembawang who makes it a point to be present every time there is a function in which a Minister is there. And if Members can take the same initiative, they will get coverage. Of course. I will not be popular among the Ministers in suggesting that.

Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1351."

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 5; Noes, 29; Abstentions, 5; Absent, 12. Ayes Noes A Rahim Ishak Ang Nam Piau. Barker, E. W. Chan Choy Siong, Buang bin Omar Madam. Junid. Ho Kah Leong. Chan Chee Seng. Tay Boon Too. Chor Yeok Eng. Teo Hup Teck. Fong Sip Chee. Govindaswamy, P. Abstention Ho Cheng Choon. Jek Yeun Thong. Ho See Beng. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Lim Guan Hoo. Lingam, S. V. Lim Kim San. Devan Nair, Mrs. Lim Soo Peng. Rodrigues, Bernard. Absent Noes - contd. Chan Sun Wing. Mahmud Awang. Chew Chin Han. Mohd. Ariff bin Chow Chiok Hock. Suradi. Goh Keng Swee. Ng Kah Ting. Gonzales, R. A. Ng Yeow Chong. Lee Kuan Yew. Ong Pang Boon. Lim Cheng Lock. Othman bin Wok. Rajaratnam, S. Rahamat bin Kenap. Toh Chin Chye. Rajoo, S. Wee Toon Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Wong Soon Fong. Selvadurai, P. Yaacob bin Sia Kah Hui. Mohamed Sim Boon Woo. Tang See Chim. Teong Eng Siong. Yeoh Ghim Seng. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

The following amendment stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1371.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1383.

Sir, this concerns "Property Master". I just want to know what are the properties looked after by this Master, and what are his duties.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, the duties of the Property Master include the following:

(a) He is in charge of stage property, that is to say, articles required for the stage;

(b) To obtain properties, whether by hiring, buying or making;

(c) To arrange these articles in the studio in accordance with the setting deadlines.

(d) To arrange a special visual effect for the programmes to be produced; and

(e) Generally to assign work within his unit in accordance with the instructions given.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong ---

(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1481.

(8) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1486.

(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1487.

(10) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1601.

(11) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1701.

The Chairman: Madam Chan Choy Siong, amendments (7) , (8) , (9) , (10), and (11) .

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving them, Sir.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 2034.

Sir, community listening sets are usually placed in the rural areas so that the rural people who do not have any radio sets have the opportunity to listen to news, current affairs, etc. But a more important purpose is the countering of subversive propaganda by the anti-national elements. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that when a community listening set is out of order, it usually takes months to repair it. Sir, with such an inefficient state of affairs still existing, this House is asked to approve a sum of $31,300 for the maintenance of public listening sets and public address equipment. Is this worth while?

[Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair]

3.50 p.m.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, it is precisely for the reason that the hon. Member has just raised that the vote community listening sets is being provided for. The Ministry of Culture maintains about 193 community listening sets in the Southern Islands and in the rural areas of Singapore. These sets are installed for the benefit of the people in areas with limited communication facilities and recreational opportunities. Apart from being a source of entertainment, these sets are there also to enable residents in this area to receive news and information broadcast over Radio Singapura. Of the 193 sets, 26 of them are installed on the various islands off Singapore and 167 in the rural areas on the main island. That these sets are essentially located in the rural areas is evident from the fact that 149 of these sets are battery-operated, because the areas in which they are sited are without ---

The Chairman (Mr Tang See Chim): Order. Mr Fong, I think you are going a little too fast and the interpreters are having difficulty. Would you mind going a little slower?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Thank you for your guidance, Sir,I was racing against time. The normal practice is to have community listening sets gradually withdrawn wherever community centres are built in the areas concerned. These sets are meant to serve residents in areas where social amenities are limited. It should also be stressed that community listening sets can serve as an important medium of mass communication for residents in the rural areas during periods of tension and national emergency, though we do not anticipate any, ln June this year, on instructions from the Ministry, a survey was carried out as to the desirability of retaining these sets at the various points. The result of the survey was that there appears to be a need to withdraw the community listening sets. But in areas where the people are poor and there is no electricity and they do not possess the economic means to purchase transistor radios, we decided that these sets should be allowed to continue to be used and to be withdrawn as and when necessary.

Sir, the field section of the Ministry of Culture is in charge of these community listening sets and the maintenance is by a contractor on a tender basis, including even the tendering for the batteries to be supplied to those sets which are battery-operated. I agree and, in fact, I am grateful to the Member for Changi for bringing to my attention the delay in the maintenance. But I would like to state that sometimes the delay was due to the non-availability of some spare parts for those sets, because, as Members know, these sets are fairly old. But in most cases I think it is due to the difficulty of transport in getting across the islands. But I do not rule out al together negligence on the part of the contractor in maintaining these sets, and I shall instruct my field section to be more vigilant and to keep a closer watch on the contractor to see that he dis charges his obligations as stated in the contract awarded to him.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: In view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $100*.

• The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Chow Chiok Hock and Madam Chan Choy Siong.

Sir, under this head, I shall touch only on a few points. The first is the "Eat more wheat" campaign organised by the Broadcasting Division. While I congratulate Radio and T.V. Singapura on their efforts in this campaign, I am disturbed to note the apparent ignorance on the part of the civil servants in appreciating the thinking behind the Government's intention in this matter. To whom are we to beam this campaign? To the rich or to the poor? I have seen film shorts and heard announcements on T.V. and over the radio. Members will agree that the campaign seems to be directed at the rich who ironically are already consumers of wheat and who could afford to pay for rice at ten times its present price. In the last campaign listeners and viewers were urged to participate in this campaign and to submit a recipe, say, for breakfast at a cost of not more than $3 for four persons. A few days ago I heard the same announcement of the second "Eat more wheat" campaign. This time members of the public are asked to prepare a breakfast for $2. You will agree with me, Sir, that we never spend that much money for breakfast. In fact, $3 or, for that matter, $2 is what some working family spend for the whole day's meals for the family. I am not criticising the campaign. But I am not happy at the way it is being handled. For instance, pau. Do you know how much we have to spend on the meat, chicken, prawns, eggs, etc. before we can make a pau? Do we really have to exhort the poor people to save more money by eating wheat and then mislead them into spending several times more on meat? Does the Minister sincerely believe that the poor people can really afford this? Of course, if every citizen draws the same salary as the Director of Broadcasting, we do not need this campaign at all.

The Chairman (Mr Tang See Chim): Madam Chan.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I only wish to ask about the campaign to eat more wheat. Do the flour mills pay for the advertising cost, because this campaign is beneficial to the flour manufacturers? I want to know how much they are subsidising the running cost of the advertisement over T.V.

The Chairman (Mr Tang See Chim): If no other Member wishes to speak, I will call on the Minister to reply. Mr Lee.

The Minister of State for Culture (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Aljunied for his suggestion and criticism. But I would like to point out that the $2 eat-more wheat competition is meant for five persons. That means each person will pay only 40 cents. If it is meant for the rich, I do not think a rich man will have a breakfast costing 40 cents. In any case, if the Member for Aljunied has got a better recipe, or if any other person can have a better recipe to bring down the cost, we are only too willing to accept it.

As for the question raised by the Member for Delta, my information is that we do not collect any advertisement fee from any wheat firm. But if any particular firm or producer of wheat wishes to advertise his brand of wheat, then he has to pay for the advertisement.

Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $16,190,720 for Head 1002 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.00 p.m.

Mr Lingam: Head 1003 -

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1003 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101.

As early as 1959, the Government announced that it would be building as many creches as possible in order to reduce the burden of working class women so that they could concentrate on their jobs. However, up to now only a few creches have been built.

Another point is that the staff at these creches should change their attitude. The reason is that I have been told by many parents, whose children are in these creches, that the people in charge are very proud and the treatment they give to the little children leaves much to be desired. This attitude is not suitable to our custom and environment, because what they learn is from the Western countries. Many of our customs are not practised in these creches. As a result, from the Asian point of view, this causes a great deal of inconvenience. I wish the Minister can pay some attention to this matter. I would also like to know whether creches will be established in other areas, especially the industrial areas, e.g., the Jurong industrial site.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Sir, just now the Member for Delta has mentioned that in 1959 we said that we wanted to build many creches but she did not specify the number. At present, we have ten creches. I agree with her that we should have more. The reason is that we have a lot of workers in Singapore who have a large number of children. At home they cannot look after the children properly. Therefore, they have to put them in their relative's house or in creches if there are any. This will bring some convenience to the families.

The Member for Delta also wants to know whether it is possible to build creches in the industrial sites. If there are suitable sites, then, of course, our department will consider this problem.

The Member claims that the attitude of the people in charge of these creches and their educational background are not suitable to our way of life. We are the first to oppose the problem of haughtiness. In recruiting the staff for the creches, we subject them to a course of courtesy training to see if they are suitable in handling children and their parents. However, perhaps there are some people in charge of these creches who make mistakes in their dealings with other people because of the many problems they have to tackle. If the Member for Delta can point out the people who are guilty in this respect, then I would like to take steps to rectify this matter. Our country does not permit this sort of attitude.

About Western habits or customs, I think there may he some misunderstanding. As far as the people working in these creches are concerned, out of ten members of the staff, about five are Chinese educated. There are 12 assistant instructors who are Chinese educated. As our country is a multi-racial one, we use a number of languages in these creches, and the activities in these creches involve the customs of other races. This is unavoidable. Since our country is multi-racial, we carry out multi-racial programmes in these creches. Similarly, if the Member for Delta has some good suggestions, we will, of course, consider them.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2)*, Madam Chan.

• Amendment No. (2) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1003 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1104.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3)+, Mr Selvadurai.

• Amendment No. (3) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1003 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1151.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Madam Chan.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1003 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1152.

This concerns the investigators in the Public Assistance Section. We all know that if a person is not really desperate and completely helpless and cannot go on living, he will not go to the Public Assistance Section. Every self-respecting person who goes to that section realises that it is a very humiliating experience. So unless he is completely helpless, he will not take this step. As a result, he will register as a recipient of public assistance if there is a need for it. I want to point out that recipients of public assistance get more if some members in the family have T.B. If she is a widow with a few dependent children, then she gets $35 plus $5 for each child a month. So at the most she gets about $50 or $60 a month. Under these circumstances, there is not enough to eat. Of course, the family will not die of starvation. But this sum is really not enough and, therefore, the widow washes clothes for other people in order to earn about $10 or $15 a month. But if the investigators in the Public Assistance Section find out that she washes clothes for people, they will reduce or cut off this public assistance saying that she has already found work. Actually what she gets is only $10 or $15 a month for washing clothes. Out of this $15, she has to spend a few dollars on soap and other things. What she is left with is only very little. Actually it is doubtful whether she has a job or not. I think we should have a clear definition of what is work and what is not work. I think when a person earns about $15 a month, it should not affect her chances of getting public assistance. In fact, it is a good thing that such people do some work. Since they do not really get enough from public assistance, the supplementary income that they earn will come in very useful. I think this is a good thing. But these investigators are too rigid in their approach to this problem and they just carry out their duties inflexibly. As a result, these recipients of public assistance are adversely affected and they often come and complain to me.

For example, in my constituency this problem is very common. After the Bukit Ho Swee fire, many families did not have enough income and many of them were jobless. So they had to approach the Public Assistance Section for relief. But the conditions are just as what I have said. Very often we come across this problem. I hope the investigators in the Public Assistance Section from now on will not be too strict or too rigid in their approach to this problem. If they find out that these people have some sort of work and if they have proof that they are earning $100 per month, then, of course, they can completely stop or reduce the assistance. But if the recipients of public assistance only wash clothes and earn a bit of money. I do not think the Public Assistance Section should be too strict on them. I hope the Minister will give me a satisfactory reply.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Sir, just now I have already said that public assistance is given only to needy cases. When we do so, we must take into consideration that the applicants are really poor and in actual need of the assistance. There are some people who become dependent on public assistance if they are given a large sum and they do not want to go and look for work to maintain themselves. These are the principles that the Public Assistance Section has to bear in mind. I agree with the Member for Delta. There have been such instances mentioned by the Member not only in her constituency but also in other constituencies as well. We have found that some of the members of the public that we meet in our "Meet the people sessions" can actually work and the wages they receive are actually higher than what they have told us.

4.15 p.m.

For instance, in September, we reinvestigated 44 cases and found that many of them were not true because they continued to receive public assist ance even after being employed. If we did not re-investigate these cases, large sums of money would have been paid out to these recipients of public assistance under false pretences. In November, 37 cases were re-investigated.

The Member for Delta has said that we should consider the cases of some poor people who have to wash clothes in order to supplement their income. If these cases are true, of course, we will consider them. But if after investigating, we find that they are actually drawing a higher income, we will reduce their public assistance.

She has also complained that the department concerned has been too rigid in going about its business. I hope she can give us details so that we can investigate whether or not such an allega tion is true. Of course, we will take appropriate action to deal with each case. Normally, the people report false figures to us.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong -

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1003 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1181.

(6) That the total sum to be allocated for Head l003 be reduced by $100.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving my amendments Nos. (5) and (6) .

The sum of $11,818,640 for Head 1003 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1005 -

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1005 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*.

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong.

Sir, every effort has been made by the Government to make Singapore a garden city by the planting of trees and flowers and the building of fountains, etc.

The point I wish to bring up is that ihere is lack of co-ordination and no proper planning between the Parks Division and the P.W.D.

Sir, I suggest that more trees should be planted in the town areas and not in the rural areas like Changi, Choa Chu Kang and Jalan Kayu. In fact, the people of Choa Chu Kang ask for water, but they get trees instead! All these con stituencies are supposed to be semi-jungle and the trees have not been properly planted. For example, a small tree is planted about 1� yards away from a lamp-post. Within a year, the tree grows up and it engulfs the lamp-post or blocks out the light. What is worse is this. The Parks Division plants a tree today. But one week later, the P.W.D., on a programme of widening the roads, pull it out and throw it away and carry on with their work. This wastage of money is, shall I say, unpardonable.

Sir, I would like the Minister to pay serious attention to all these things and I hope that steps will be taken to put them right.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree very much with what the Member for Changi has said. But I would like to speak on the planting of flowers and plants and the building of small parks. I feel that they should reflect an Eastern colour and tone in order that Singapore should be the garden city of Asia. But at present, the small parks and the planting of flowers, and so on, follow Western lines. So when tourists come here for a visit, they do not enjoy the scenery as it will appear too westernised. So I feel that we must introduce an Eastern colour to the scenery. Singapore is in Asia and therefore we should put up things that are typical of this part of the world in order to attract more tourists. The Chief Parks Officer has learnt a lot from the West and may have acquired a Western outlook. Perhaps we can encourage him to go to some Asian countries to acquire an artistic taste so that he can add more Asian colour to our trees and flowers.

The Member for Changi has also said that the trees are planted haphazardly. I do not know whether this is an inheritance from the colonial era: more plants and flowers are planted in areas where there are more rich people staying. The flowers are very well planted and looked after at road circuses or junctions in areas where the rich people stay. But in areas where the poor people stay, the circuses are not planted with beautiful flowers. Sir, this is not an exaggeration on my part. If we go round the island, we can see for ourselves that better flowers are planted in areas occupied by the middle class than in areas occupied by the poor people. For example, Delta Circus is in one such area occupied by the poor people.

I hope the Minister will direct his attention to these matters.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Sir, some time last year, while driving along Collyer Quay, one could see beautiful white boxes of flowers. This added more beauty to the city, particularly to the nerve centre of our economy - Raffles Place and Collyer Quay.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: They all died!

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: May I know what has caused the disappearance of these white boxes? On the other hand, while driving along Alexandra Road, one can also see flower boxes made of bricks, but, to my mind, they do not look beautiful.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: They look like coffins!

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first reply to the Member for Mountbatten who has complained that flowers along Collyer Quay have disappeared. The Member for Changi thinks that perhaps they might have wilted away. All these complaints are not correct. In the past, the flowers planted in pots were grown as an experiment. Now that the experiment has proved successful, we realise that flowers can be planted in pots and beds. But we also realise that if flowers or trees are planted along the centre of a road, many motorists will be inconvenienced as their vision will be affected and this might cause accidents.

The Member for Delta has said that our flowers and trees should have more Eastern colour or tone. It is really very difficult to distinguish between what is Eastern and what is Western. In fact, many of the trees and flowers that are planted are of Singapore origin. How can we say how many are from the Botanic Gardens or how many are from elsewhere? Sir, we may know the origins of plants and seedlings, but I think it is very difficult to distinguish between whether they are of Eastern or Western origins.

As to the planting of more trees and flowers in areas occupied by rich people, I think there is some misunderstanding. Many tourists coming here have described Singapore as a green city with flowers and plants everywhere. In recent years, we have planted innumerable trees and flowers. We did this without taking into consideration whether an area is occupied by rich or poor people. Most hon. Members, including myself, do not come from rich families. We do not concentrate the planting of trees and flowers only in areas occupied by rich people and neglect those areas occupied by poor people. This is not in accordance with our policy.

The Member for Changi has complained that some trees are planted near lamp-posts. I would like to point out that thousands of plants are sometimes planted at a time. As a result of development, the residents of certain areas ask for lamp-posts to be put up. But in the meantime, the plants have grown into small trees. I think that is the actual situation. I will be very glad if the hon. Member can pin-point any such case and give me more details.

The Member for Changi has complained that in certain areas we do not provide the people with water but with trees. I should say that although water is very important, trees are also important. Our lives would be monotonous without trees.

The Member for Changi has also said that at times the trees planted have to be removed due to road widening. This is necessary because of road and other developments.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: On a point of clarification.

The Chairman: If the Member will give way.

Mr Chan Chee Seng remained standing.

The Chairman: Mr Sim, I am afraid you will have to wait.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): As a result of road expansion and so on, sometimes there is a need to remove the trees which had been planted.

4.30 p.m.

So if there are new houses coming up in Bukit Ho Swee, Alexandra, very soon we will plant trees there. And it is inevitable that in the course of our development in certain areas, the trees that have already been planted might have to be removed. In actual fact, many Members of Parliament have helped our Ministry to carry out tree-planting campaigns. I remember in one constituency the campaign has been very active. So it is not quite correct to bring this matter up in this House. It would be better for us to go out and see for ourselves the lamp posts and trees. If the Member for Changi can pin-point the particular incidents that have happened, we will, of course, go there and investigate and put matters right.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood what I have said just now. I stated that today you plant a tree and about a week later in the widening of the road the P.W.D, move in and pull it out and chuck it away. There is no co-ordination between the Parks Division and the P.W.D. If money is to be spent in planting a tree and then pulling it out again for the purpose of widening the roads, what is the use of spending the money?

In places like Coronation Road, the Parliamentary Secretary can take a car and drive down there immediately. In Swan Lake Avenue, where I live, you can see that the lamp posts in just about three months are totally covered by the trees. That is what I have seen. The Member for Thomson has informed me that the same thing happens in Choa Chu Kang, and he can substantiate it.

Sir, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can make this point very clear. I am not against such form of development, but I do not feel that at this time we should make some sacrifice in the midst of development of our country, What I am against is the fact that trees planted today are removed about a week later; there must be some dislocation somewhere.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no difference between a rich man's area and a poor man's area. I think there is a difference. Just look at Tanglin Road. Look at all the trees and flowers planted there, and compare them with the trees and flowers planted along Bukit Ho Swee. They are not quite the same. The flowers in Tanglin are expensive, beautiful, and of a better type. I cannot describe them, but I can at least see an aesthetic difference.

In addition to the trees and flowers in Tanglin, there are also a few rocks and stones, piled up in the shape of a man, and on top there is a little fountain. It is a beautiful thing. However, we in the poor man's area do not get such things but only a few trees with leaves, grass, and that is all-very poor types of flowers and plants. I think the Minister himself should go there and have a look. If I were a cameraman, I would take some photographs and show them to him.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at this problem in terms of this area or that area, or in terms of constituencies, it is not right. You should look at it from the point of view of Singapore as a whole. We cannot have a national theatre in every part of Singapore. We cannot have in every constituency a very good fountain. For example, in my constituency, there is the Jalan Besar Stadium. But it is very old and dilapidated. We should look at it from the point of view of the whole country.

As a matter of principle, if the Government has discriminated against the poor man's areas in favour of the rich man's areas, then this is definitely a mistake. But from the point of view of the whole of Singapore, if you want to beautify the areas you cannot actually consider where this development should take place. Take, for example, Thomson. In the past there were many attap huts there, but now it is quite a beautiful area. There is a reservoir; there is a beautiful roundabout with lots of flowers and plants; and there are trees. All this was done by the Government. We do not consider whether this is a poor man's area or not, or that if it is a poor man's area, then we will plant less there. There has never been such an idea from the beginning.

Another point is this. The Member for Changi has pointed out the lack of co-ordination between the Departments. I agree with him that in some instances it is so. But the situation is this. If we have to plant some thousands of trees, of course, we are liable to make some mistakes. We cannot be 100 per cent perfect in everything we do. This niistake has occurred in two or three places only.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: In many places.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Now we have more than 10,000 trees planted. So a few mistakes are unavoidable. However, the work of planting trees is being transferred to the Ministry of National Development, because the Ministry is in charge of housing. The P.W.D, is in charge of engineering, and engineering and plant ing do not come under the same work group.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Sir, there are roadside trees which are not planted by the Parks and Recreation Department. They are planted by the P.W.D. If they plant a tree today the next week they pull it out, I have no answer for that.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the town centre in Raffles Quay, Collyer Quay and the surrounding areas, can the Minister for Social Affairs encourage the firms and banks in this area to put some flowers and plants at their entrances so that these could beautify their buildings somewhat? Tourists from overseas, including businessmen, will be glad to see this, and it will at the same time create a good impression. This is a small suggestion that I wish to make.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Sir, that is a very good suggestion. But the question is: who is going to maintain all those plants? If the Minister for Finance can give me more money to recruit more labourers, I can do it.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, I say that we encourage them to place flower boxes in front of their buildings, as the banks and commercial houses do, on their own account. We just give the encouragement!

Inche Othman Bin Wok: We will do that.

The Chairman: By a combination of circumstances, we have had a very full debate on the subject of Parks and Recreation. Madam Chan, would you like to withdraw the amendment?

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Yes, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,599,880 for Head 1005 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1006 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1006 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Sir, I wish to bring up three points. Firstly, I understand that the Director of the Botanic Gardens is an expatriate officer. Can the Minister inform this House whether there is a contract of service for the post of the Director of the Botanic Gardens? And, if so, when is the contract due to expire? Moreover, can the Minister also enlighten us whether any of our local men of this calibre can be found to substitute the expatriate officer when his contract of service expires?

Secondly, I wish to touch on the useful purposes of the Botanic Gardens. As far as I know, the Botanic Gardens is being used as a recreational ground with its aesthetic virtues of beauty and peace, and it also keeps a herbarium of a good collection of specimen plants with facilities available to students from other countries to study and to do research work. What I wish to know from the Minister is that, in terms of public expenditure, what benefit can Singapore derive from the results of the research?

Assuming that the knowledge of the research is useful, cannot this work be undertaken by the University of Singapore and Nanyang University where there are Botany Departments doing similar research? is it, therefore, not possible for the Botanic Gardens to be placed under our own institutions of higher studies so that the knowledge from research studies of flora can be best disseminated to students of botany?

Thirdly, there is now a dollar-earning industry in orchids which can bring extra income. The cultivation and research work in orchids are also being undertaken by the Botanic Gardens. In my opinion, this type of research work should be handed over to the Primary Production Department which has scientists and research stations in Sem bawang and also has the facilities to train extension officers to teach the local farmers to grow orchids on a commercial basis.

4.45 p.m.

If orchid growing could be commercialised, it would increase our export trade. To illustrate my point, if rubber or Hevea Braziliensis is still today confined to the Botanic Gardens, there would be no rubber industry today. Similarly, orchid growing and breeding should be widely commercialised.

I sincerely hope, Sir, that our Minister will consider these matters.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Mountbatten, 1 have to advise that the Director of the Botanic Gardens is an expatriate officer on the permanent establishment. Under the terms of Retirement from the Public Service Compensation Ordinance, 1956, he was offered a full career prospect till normal retirement. He will reach the age of 55 years in December 1969. I wish to add that the Director is a biologist of international recognition. He is a member of several international scientific societies. He is wholly dedicated to the maintenance of the highest standard of research and the advancement of the international reputation of our Botanic Gardens and the position of public esteem and utility of our Republic. He has not taken any Malayanisation compensation that was optionally available to him under the Retirement from the Public Service Compensation Ordinance, unlike so many others who have done. He has steered the Botanic Gardens through a very difficult time of staff transition from expatriate to local officers in senior posts. As a result of the overseas training he has arranged for the senior staff, there is a highly qualified succession available on his retirement.

The professional contact of the Botanic Gardens has been expanded not only within the Republic but also with botanical institutions in almost every country of the world. This is an aspect of the Republic's international collaboration and is contributory to our prestige and international image.

On the second point of the motion, I have to state that the Singapore herbarium holds the second largest collection of plant specimens in the tropics. It is unique as a store-house of knowledge of the plant resources of South-east Asia. It provides an advisory and educational service on plants and plant products. This service is made use of by innumerable local residents such as school children and school teachers, university undergraduates, post-graduates and lecturers, doctors, the police, businessmen and hundreds of members of the general public, with an interest in plants. The many overseas students who come to the Singapore herbarium do so because it has unrivalled facilities for study but they only come under Singapore Government sponsorship. This is an aspect of our Republic's contribution to regional mutual aid and developnient under the Colombo Plan and other international agreements. The acceptance of foreign students has never been to the exclusion of any local students. The transfer of the herbarium to one of the universities in Singapore is impracticable on two grounds. Firstly, the living collection in the gardens and the dry collectons in the herbarium are ipter-related and should not be separated, if they were separated, both would lose their value. Secondly, the Botanic Gardens, being a Government depart nient, directly serves the public. Both universities are exclusive bodies with responsibility principally towards themselves and the students. The public demand for the Botanic Gardens service increases yearly, and with the regular rise in the standard of living this trend will continue. A denial of this service by putting the facilities out of public control would be indefensible. It is Government's policy to see that this service is maintained by retaining the facilities in a Government department.

On the third point of the motion, it must be pointed out that all the basic research into orchid cultivation in Singapore was done by the Botanic Gardens. The first species collection was begun a century ago and hybridising and laboratory culture have been carried on since 1928. It is this work which has been the sole foundation for the present day thriving of the orchid nursery industry. Essentially in this aspect of their work the Botanic Gardens are engaged on (1) the establishment and expansion of the living collection of orchid species, since it is only the natural species that the first hybridising can be done; (2) the introduction of exotic species, one reason for which the Botanic Gardens' worldwide connections were developed; (3) acclimatisation; (4) methods of cultivation; (5) hybridisation; and (6) selection. All these stages must be gone through before desirable and commercially exploitable strains can be produced. This is basic research work which has a clearly economic end and it is being carried out with increasing tempo and success by the Botanic Gardens. In this connection, the function of the Primary Production Department is to assist the farmers by the provision of materials for planting on a large scale, not on a small scale, and with an advisory service. This is applied technology and not basic research, and it is a cashing in on the pioneering done by the Botanic Gardens. This is a perfectly correct process. And there is no overlap by these two departments in their essential activities. In this connection, the Botanic Gardens undertakes identification, description of new species and new hybrids in accordance with the requirements of the international code of nomenclature and the registration of new hybrid names with the international registration authority. This is both an essential part of the Botanic Gardens research procedure and public service. Since it is freely available to and constantly used by the public and orchid nurseries, the Primary Production Department employs no botanist or horticulturist and it has neither expertise nor experience to do these things. Since there is no overlap of functions and there would be a definite loss of research efficiency and the loss of public amenities by transferring the Botanic Gardens orchid research to the Primary Production Department, there is no intention to alter the present existing arrangement.

The second and third points raised by the hon. Member seem to me to iniply a lack of understanding of the importance of the Singapore Botanic Gardens. I wish to take this opportunity to state that the activities are directed towards meeting the demands of the public in the following service:

(1) by a botanical service, educational or research;

(2) by a horticultural service, educational or research;

(3) by a skilled supply of advisory service; and

(4) by the provision of recreational grounds of a higher status than that of an ordinary park in the city.

Should the Botanic Gardens be split, the herbarium to one of the universities, and horticultural research to the Primary Production Department, or the functions materially change, then these four avenues of service which the public at present enjoy would cease to exist.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite satisfied with the answer given by Parliamentary Secretary. First of all, he has not answered my first point. That is, whether we can get a man of suitable calibre to take over from the Director since his services are about to expire in 1969. The second point is, for the moment, I am not saying that the herbarium should be separated from the Botanic Gardens. I say that the herbarium itself inside the Botanic Gardens should be placed at the disposal of the university which has a Department of Botany so that students can study it. At the present moment, very few people are making use of this herbarium, let alone those people going down to the park to enjoy the quiet atmosphere. Those are park goers. I also go to the park and enjoy looking at the life plant, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said. But, on the other hand, who is interested in the herbarium? How many people are making use of it? The point is this. I am only suggesting that this herbarium should be placed at the disposal of the university so that students will benefit from the research. That is all I want to clarify.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: I have answered his questions very well, Sir. First, he says that the herbarium is closed to outsiders and that only few persons are using it. I say that if you are a layman, you will not know how to use it. If you are interested and you are either an undergraduate in a university or an expert in plant life and all that, definitely the herbarium is open to them. In fact, it has been serving thousands of people. People from all over the world are using our facilities. They can write in. Some people pay a special visit. And the Member says I did not answer him concerning our Director. I have already answered him. We have a very capable person understudying his work at the moment. When the Director retires, we will, in fact, lose a very capable man.

5.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Mr Ng, I take it that you are withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: In view of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I want to withdraw.

Amendement, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Madam Chan, amendment No. (2)*.

• Amendment No. (2) reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1006 be reduced by $100.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Not moving.

The sum of $539,010 for Head 1006 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1007 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong -

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1007 be reduced by $100.

The Chairman: Madam Chan.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Not moving.

The sum of $5,357,990 for Head 1007 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: Perhaps it is convenient to suspend at this stage.

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

Mr Speaker: I suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.03 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]

Head 1105 -

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1105 be reduced by $100.

Sir, I would not like to take too much time on this matter. I merely like to ask the Minister for Law and National Development why many areas of Crown land are still vacant and not put to any use. The residents in these areas are badly in need of these pieces of land. But the Government wants to requisition such pieces of land. It seems to be quite contrary to the desire of the people and also it is not quite proper because there are so many pieces of vacant land the Government can make use of.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Sir, we all know that the P.A.P. Government is a clean, honest and effective government. We have been elected by the people to run the government because of our qualities which I have already mentioned. But I understand there are still many cases in the Land Office on which decision has been pending for quite a long time. For instance, in my constituency there is a resident who has a piece of private land. He wants to exchange it for Crown land with the Government. But the matter has been delayed for two years without any reply given to him. There are also cases where people apply to rebuild their houses but consideration of their applications has also been delayed for a very long time. Where is the efficiency we are talking about? I would like to know whether the Land Office are under-staffed. Or perhaps they are deliberately delaying their work in order to get some benefit out of certain quarters.

The second point is about unlawful :structures. We know that the general standard of education of the people in the rural areas is low and they do not quite understand or realise Government's policies or administration. When they find that the roofs of their houses leak, they will repair them themselves, if the inspectors of the Land Office find this out, the persons concerned will be ordered to dismantle what they have done, or else a fine will be imposed on them. We know that the rural people have been struggling hard to make a living out of the land and have spent their hard-earned money on repairing their houses. So if you ask them to dismantle or demolish what they have already repaired, it would cause them a great loss. Why are the inspectors not required to give them notices in advance? Only when adequate notices have been given can the inspectors fine the offenders.

The third point is about complaints made by the rural people against land inspectors who very often come in close contact with the rural people. Very often they lack courtesy. In my constituency, I have received several complaints against the attitude of land inspectors. I hope the Minister can give me a satisfactory reply.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, the Land Office is in charge of Crown land in the State. This is an important task, no doubt. In the rural areas there are also pieces of Crown land. The Government has already made its plan in regard to these areas of land. Some pieces of land are meant for future development. Some marshy lands are not meant for any use. I remember last year I had occasion to raise this question, namely, the department concerned should realise that Singapore is developing. So the situation is entirely different from what was obtained 10 or 15 years ago. Singapore's Master Plan will be reviewed every five years. Whenever there is a review, changes will be made to it. These changes should not only take into consideration major projects but consideration should also be given to minor projects. Many areas which were not meant for development have recently been developed into housing estates by the Housing Board, and other social amenities have also been built. We are also facing the same problems. There are many cases of residents applying for public utility services such as the supply of electricity, water, house numbers and so on, but without getting replies to their requests. I hope the Minister can give us a satisfactory reply.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): First, may I deal with the Member for Delta? Somehow I have a feeling that she did not really have much to say. She was merely moving an amendment in her name to give other Back-benchers an opportunity to say what they wanted to. She said that we were acquiring vacant pieces of land and yet there were many pieces of land not occupied in Singapore which belong to the Government. This must be as it is. Certain lands are reserved for future development, and on some, development is not even allowed, maybe because it is agricultural land or a green belt. We cannot have buildings on every acre of land in Singapore.

If I may come to the Member for Jurong. He referred to an honest P.A.P. Government and said that there were many cases pending. I do not know what cases he is referring to. But he mentioned one in particular about a resident who desired to exchange his piece of land with Crown land. Well, it is not the usual practice of Government to exchange Crown land for private pieces of land. But we sometimes do this to accommodate the private owner. He said that this particular case has been pending for two years, and he thought that delay might mean corruption. Mr Speaker, Sir, I said many a time in this House that making general allegations of corruption in this House gets us nowhere. If you have a specific complaint, make it and the C.P.I.B. will investigate.

He also referred to many other cases of owners wishing to rebuild their houses and referred to delay. According to him, this delay was purposely imposed so that perhaps the staff of the Land Office could get some benefit. Here again if he has any specific instances, let my Ministry know. We can investigate. He referred not only to the rebuilding of houses but repairs of buildings and 1 assume, as we are discussing Head 1105 - Land Office - that he refers to structures on State land; otherwise he would be out of order. When State land is occupied, it is usually occupied on what is called a temporary occupation licence for which a fee is payable and for which certain conditions are laid down. If the licensee desires to repair his house or to extend it, then he has to get the pernhission of the owner, the Land Office. We are not against poor tenants or poor licensees rebuilding or repairing their houses. But licensees are usually compensated when they are ejected, and the bigger the house, the greater the compensation. It is for this reason that these conditions are imposed so that the Land Office knows what is happening to the particular piece of land which is let out on licence.

5.45 p.m.

A more serious allegation by the Member for Jurong is that no notices are given when officers of the Land Office move in to demolish buildings and that there is a lack of courtesy on the part of land officers.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): On a point of clarification.

Mr Barker resumed his seat.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Perhaps the Minister has misunderstood what I said. I did not actually say that no notices were given. What I actually meant was that as the general education of the population in the rural areas is of a low standard, they are not very conversant with Government procedure relating to applications for structural changes to their houses. When such structural changes have been made and are discovered by the land officers, the occupants are fined, although they may have received notices pertaining to their applications. What I really want to know is, why cannot the Land Office send out more inspectors to enlighten the rural people on the procedure to be followed before making any structural changes to their houses? If the Ministry can do this, the rural people will not suffer financially.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad at least that the Member has clarified this and made it clear that the Land Office does not demolish structures without adequate notices, in fact, many an application for extension is given provided the circumstances warrant it. But to plead ignorance on the part of rural dwellers is, I think, not the basic cause. Anyone who is a licensee of Government land is issued with a piece of paper called a "Temporary Occupation Licence" and on this licence are recorded the terms and conditions. Surely, however ignorant a licensee may be, he can enquire from the Land Office when he gets his licence as to what these conditions mean, or he can enquire from the Member for Jurong as to what these terms mean. But it is usual in Singapore for anyone who breaches the law to plead ignorance. So many pieces of land are let out on T.O.L.s. So many unauthorised houses are built. The usual answer is ignorance. The sending out of land officers to educate the rural folks is not, in my view, the answer.

If I may deal with the Member for Sembawang, he made a rather general statement that the Land Office should realise that Singapore is developing. I can assure him that we do realise that Singapore is developing. He talked about electricity and house numbers. Electricity is a matter for the P.U.B. and the allocation of house numbers is a matter for the Property Tax Department. It is not my habit to hide under the skirt of another Minister ---

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -

Mr Barker resumed his seat.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would also like to clarify. I did not mention anything about property tax. I am afraid the Minister has perhaps misunderstood me. I said that Singapore's Master Plan provides that certain areas should be green zones and that marshy land should not be developed for the construction of buildings. But I never mentioned anything about property tax.

Mr Barker: Perhaps I heard the translation wrongly, Sir. But the Member for Sembawang talked about certain areas being marked out as zoned areas under the Master Plan. It has still got nothing to do with the Land Office. I am merely saying that if you are interested in electricity, it is the P.U.B, who deals with it, and that if you are interested in house numbers, it is the Property Tax Department who handles this matter. These amendments should have been moved when the relevant Ministry was being discussed. But please do not think that I do not have the answers to the questions and that, therefore, I am shifting the blame on to another Minister.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $765,330 for Head 1105 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1107 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Sim Boon Woo -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: I am not moving.

The sum of $933,000 for Head 1107 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1108

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Guan Hoo ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1303.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: I am not moving.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2121.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a developing country which is not behind in modern technology, so much so that the central abattoirs are using modern equipment. I wish to know whether the slaughtering of cattle, cows, goats and sheep is carried out according to Muslim rites.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Kampong Kernbangan that the slaughtering of cattle, cows, goats and sheep is carried out in accordance with Muslim rites for the benefit of the Muslim population.

The Muslim Advisory Board was consulted on the operation of the Jurong Abattoir to ensure that Muslim requirements are complied with. In fact, one of the requirements is that workers carrying out the slaughtering of animals eaten by Muslims must be approved persons. The slaughtering of pigs is completely separated from that of cattle, cows, goats and sheep to satisfy religious requirements. In fact, the Muslim Advisory Board has been frequently consulted on various aspects of the slaughter-house.

The principal objectives of the construction of the new abattoir are to improve the hygienic standard of slaughter and to promote the canning and processing of meat and meat products for export. The Member can rest assured that in the attainment of these objectives, we have not forgotten Muslim rites and wishes.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): With that explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2188.

Sir, under this subhead, I see that a sum of $1.7 million is sought to provide free water supply at public standpipes. As far as I know - I have the privilege of being a member of the U.R.S.C. - I understand that about 150 public standpipes have been removed, sometimes without the knowledge of Members of Parliament. I think the Minister himself is also faced with the same problem.

Can he explain why a sum of $1.7 million is still provided for next year, although about 150 standpipes have already been removed?

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2188."

Before I call upon the Minister to reply, may I just say that if you ask for trees in the future, Mr Sim, the standpipes may be removed! Mr Barker.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Changi is well aware of the Government's policy, which is to cut down consumption of water at public standpipes. At the moment, it has been raining so heavily in Singapore and South Johore that we are in the happy position of having all our reservoirs in Johore full to the brim, and in Singapore, both MacRitchie and Peirce Reservoirs have about 90 per cent of water capacity.

6.00 p.m.

But we have decided to cut down the number of standpipes - not to take water away from the population, but to remove the standpipes and instead supply water direct to houses. So that if in the future - this is a big "if" - we have to impose water rationing, there will be less confusion at stand-pipes and it will be easier to impose a fair method of water rationing.

The Member is right when he says that 150 standpipes have been removed this year. In fact, the correct figure is 154. But before action is taken to remove public standpipes, circulars are issued by the Secretary of the Urban and Rural Services Committee informing Members of Parliament, and through them the Citizens' Consultative Committees of various constituencies, that certain standpipes will have to be removed. The circular points out that representations should be made to the ad hoc committee which is looking after this matter, that these representations will be considered, and that no stand-pipes will be removed until further notice is given to the effect that any representation has been accepted or rejected. But I can assure the hon. Member for Changi that the policy is to remove a standpipe only if it serves very few people or, if it serves many people, not to remove it until these people have alternative supplies of water. If any standpipe has been removed without a notice, or removed after a notice had been served and representations made, then the standpipe was removed by mistake. And all the M.P. has to do is to point out that mistake and the standpipe will be restored. It is quite easy to seal and then unseal a standpipe.

Sir, before I end, the Member may he interested to know that I am not in charge of standpipes.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, I would like the Minister to elaborate further. If 154 standpipes have been removed this year, why should the same amount of $1.7 million still appear in the Estimates? Since we have cut down the number of standpipes, we should cut down the amount.

The Chairman: As the Minister refuses to hide behind the skirts of other Ministers, I am sure he will be willing to answer that.

Mr Barker: In removing standpipes, it does not mean that we are not putting up new ones. Many hawkers who sell food at their stalls require standpipes. And it is our policy, if possible, to have clean food. The Member for Changi knows the hawker situation in Singapore - all he has to do is to take a trip round the town at night and he will see hundreds of hawkers. Car parks used as car parks during the day are used by hawkers at night. These hawkers need standpipes, and certain kampongs do need standpipes, as they have no alter native sources of water supply. Hence, the same figure.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $l00*.

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Teong Eng Siong.

There are three main points that I want to raise. First, we all know that our urban renewal scheme is something that we all look forward to in the future. Actually at the moment we can see very clearly that Singapore has many tall buildings and we are continuing to build blocks of tall buildings. This goes to show that the Singapore Qovernment is achieving a great deal. It also goes to show that the Ministry of National Development has achieved great success in this direction. Not one of us can criticise what has been going on.

However, I have a few questions which perhaps have been neglected. When we want to carry out urban renewal, we have to resettle the people affected, and this problem of resettlement has been solved quite successfully and satisfactorily in the past. As a rule, most people are quite satisfied. However, in the last year or so this matter has been neglected. I do not know what is the reason for this neglect, and whether the Minister is aware of the causes. I do not think I need to point it out.

First, the officials in charge of resettlement have a different attitude nowadays. They seem to treat the people affected in a very harsh and demanding way. They just tell them to move out and to resettle. They give them a period of one month or so to move, and these people have to move away. Usually the people would like to have suitable alternative accommodation, but these resettlement officials usually cast aside their complaints and carry out their course of action. Of course, sometimes the people are wrong to complain, but sometimes their grievances are legitimate. However, the officials do not consider their grievances. What happens is this, in the old days we used to have an Opposition Party. However, now we are all in the same Party. Those Members sitting opposite are all in our Party. Perhaps because of this, the resettlement officers are not afraid to carry out any harsh measures. And because of this, our Government has received a great deal of unnecessary criticism. Of course, the aim of the Government is good. It is to provide accommodation for them. But unfortunately the attitude of the officials in charge has given rise to a lot of criticism.

Another point is that in the course of resettlement the people incur a loss. It is like this. There are two different conditions of resettlement. First, when Government requisitions a piece of land, the people who live on it have, according to the time given to them in the notice, to leave and go elsewhere. Second, suppose the land belongs to the Housing Board and suppose at the time of the construction of the new buildings they find that a lot of houses have been built on it, as a result of which a lot of land is taken up, and they find it is necessary to demolish these buildings. Of course, if we want to demolish these buildings, we have to move the people away and to resettle them elsewhere.

The question is this: if the people who are resettled were to live in Housing Board flats, they would pay a very low rent at present, and communications and transport are usually very convenient. So in this respect their expenditure has been reduced correspondingly. But if we demolish these houses and resettle the people elsewhere - we probably would put them somewhere far away and farther than their present places - then as a result they would have to pay more for their transport.

Another point is rent. If we resettle them, the new rent will be higher than the present rent. For example, if the present rent is $40 for two rooms and one hall, then in the new place which has one hall and one room, the rent is $46. So this unavoidably brings about a greater burden on these people. The difference in the rent is $20 or more, and the burden is correspondingly higher.

There is also the problem of removal. When these people move out, they have to get a lorry with two or three labourers to carry the furniture. But the Housing Board does not seem to think it necessary to give them any allowance for removal expenses. They do not consider it at all necessary to grant them any allowance for removal. I think this is most improper. I think this is a great burden on them, as on removal they have to spend more money. If we do not consider these points and continue to neglect these problems and let the people just suffer in silence, then the problem will be aggravated as time goes by.

6.15 p.m.

Now about the land which is required by the Government for development. We all know that many shops in Chinatown pay very low rents and, as a re sult, their businesses can carry on. But as a result of resettlement, these people are moved to flats or shops which are built by the Housing Board. Of course, this is good. The new flats are quite pretty and well constructed. But their rent is about four times the rent paid by these shops in Chinatown. The Housing Board rent would be about $400. This is about four times higher than the old rent, which is about $100. Moreover, in the new environment, whether the business will be as good as before remains to be seen. In many instances - there are some in my constituency - the problem of resettlement is a very serious one. Many businessmen in my constituency have complained to me that after moving in to their new place, it will take them a few years before their business can pick up and reach the level of their former business. I hope the Minister will consider the points I have raised. The people who are being resettled should be given some sort of compensation.

Secondly, as far as the shops are con-cerned, they should be given some subsidy for the rent. Of course, this subsidy does exist now, but it is not given to everybody. The system is by tender. If the tender is for $800, then the shop' will have to pay $800. Three years' concession is given. If the basic value of this building is $400, they have to pay $400 in the first year. In the second year, they have to pay 50 per cent of the tender value, which is $600. In the third year they have to pay $800. As far as the small businessmen are concerned, this is a heavy blow. I hope the Minister will pay attention to this problem.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that the Ministry of National Development is in charge of many matters. It is in charge, for example, of the Primary Production Department, Urban and Rural Services, Car Parks and so on.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair]

6.20 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: These tasks, which are in the interest of our economy, have been carried out very efficiently. But as far as the Primary Production Department is concerned, there are some aspects to which proper attention has not been given. For example, last year, there were two outbreaks of swine fever. This not only caused a great loss to the farmers but also reduced the consumption of pork by the people. This is due to the neglect of the Primary Production Department. I hope the authorities will pay more attention to this matter. The Primary Production Department should look after the interests of the farmers, whether they are rearing pigs, chickens, goats, cattle, ducks or other animals. They should plan beforehand and take preventive measures so that our farmers will not suffer further financial losses. Another point is that the officers in the Primary Production Department should explain to the farmers the desirability of their services.

Sir, as far as car parks are concerned, a problem remains to be solved. We know that the construction of car parks has three objectives. First, to create more employment opportunities for the people. Second, to increase revenue for Government. Third. to improve the traffic system. These objectives are sound. However, the Department is building car-parking spaces almost everywhere. This has caused a great deal of inconvenience to the people. For example, the business of the shop-keepers has been affected. Taxi drivers have complained that their former taxi stands have been converted into car-parking spaces. This has caused some inconvenience to them. Therefore. I hope when the relevant departments are drawing up lots for parking, they will consider the businesses around those places. They should also consider the welfare of the taxi drivers. All these people pay taxes.

Another point which I hope the Minister will consider and which I hope he will not misunderstand me is this. Arab Street is usually the place where I catch my taxi to go to Sembawang. The taxi drivers there have complained to me that there are no taxi stands in Arab Street and they are often booked by traffic policemen. At one time the Taxi Drivers' Association made a request to have a taxi stand in Arab Street, but the relevant department said that the streets were too narrow and not suitable for the construction of taxi stands. Therefore, their request was turned down. Not long after that, car-parking lots were drawn up at the same spot for the use of private cars. If private cars can be parked there, taxis can also be parked there. However, when the policemen see the taxi drivers parking there, they will charge them for parking their cars there. Is this not inconsistent? I hope the Minister will explain to me this contradiction. If he wishes to shift the responsibility to the Ministry of Defence, I hope the Minister of Defence will give a satisfactory answer because his Ministry is in charge of traffic policemen.

In regard to urban and rural services, I have nothing but praise. But sometimes there has been delay in carrying out certain projects. I suggest that we should have a supervisory projects committee with two objectives. First, to increase the speed in carrying out the projects. Second, to supervise the contractors in carrying out the work in order to prevent any malpractices on the part of the contractors. What the Member for Delta has raised just now is very correct. We often receive a lot of complaints. I admit that our Minister is a capable and upright man. Maybe he does not have the time to hear, the complaints that we receive. So I would like the relevant department to take note of this problem. I personally know that some shop-keepers have been evicted and have great difficulty in finding alternative location. The department tells them that they cannot find other accommodation for them because other shop-keepers have been given accommodation. At the same time, the Land Office will go on collecting rent from them. How can the small businessmen maintain their livelihood when the Land Office continues to collect rent from them? I hope the Minister will consider all these points.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I have only one point to bring to the notice of the Minister. I was told that the number -of pigs slaughtered at the new Jurong central abattoir is not satisfactory. For example, I understand that in one hour at the present abattoir in French Road they slaughter about 100 pigs, whereas at Jurong they only slaughter about ten for the same length of time. If this is true, will the Minister make a statement and, at the same time, consider changing the mechanised system into a manual system as at present?

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I have a point to ask the Minister. In his answer to the previous question, he said that it was a good thing that it rained, because our reservoirs are now full. But when it rains, certain things happen. For the past few days we have seen that after a heavy rain many places have been flooded, whether in the rural or city area, and also in the new housing estates. For example, in Queenstown Estate, whenever it rains, the Queensway Circus is flooded. We know that the flood water causes a lot of inconvenience to the people. This is especially so -after classes when the students find it difficult to go home. At the same time, we see that the places which have been flooded are the scenes of many obstructions. After each flood the Government will lose a lot of money in repairing -roads which have been damaged by the floods. I wish to ask whether the Minister has an island-wide anti-flood project in mind.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, I have a complaint about the abattoir, a complaint similar to that of the Member for Aljunied. I am told that the modern abattoir at Jurong is not designed for locally-reared pigs, and that Ihere are some defects somewhere in the system itself. I am not well versed in machinery and therefore cannot describe the defects. The device - I use the word "device" - in the abattoir is not big enough for our pigs to go in. It is too small for our local pigs to he slaughtered.

6.30 p.m.

I understand that the abattoir has been installed on a Danish design. Whether it is right or wrong, I stand to be corrected. Nevertheless, I wish to know from the Minister what action he proposes to take to rectify the defects in the abattoir. Otherwise the capital expenditure on this abattoir is a wastage.

Mr Barker: Sir, if I can deal with the question of the abattoir', according to the Member for Aljunied, the number of pigs that can be slaughtered at the abattoir at French Road is 100 pigs an hour.

An hon. Member: Manual slaughtering?

Mr Barker: Yes, by manual slaughtering. And you give me the credit of knowing the difference between the ahattoir at French Road and the abattoir at Jurong. I am not conversant with the facts that both Members allege. In fact, as far as I am aware, before the swine fever epidemic. 3,000 pigs a day were being slaughtered. Assuming the Member for Aljunied's figures are correct, 100 pigs per hour working 24 hours = 2,400 pigs. This is still less than the number of pigs slaughtered before. But after the swine fever epidemic had started and after rumours about eating vaccinated pork went round Singapore, people were afraid to consume pork and the number of pigs slaughtered dropped from 3,000 to 100. No pigs were slaughtered, not because the abattoirs had not the means, hut because butchers could not sell their pork and farmers were not interested in having their pigs slaughtered.

Mr Lingam: Point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman (Mr Lim Cheng Lock): If the Minister will give way.

Mr Barker: If I have finished with the Member for Mountbatten on the question of pigs, I am prepared to give way for clarification.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.35 p.m.

Mr Barker: The Member for Mountbatten alleges that the Danish design of the abattoir does not suit local pigs. This I find it difficult to understand. I am sure the shape of the pigs here is the sanie as that in Denmark, and I am not sure that our pigs are bigger than the Danish pigs. I thought it was the other way round. I will now listen to the Member for Aljunied.

Mr Lingam: The information that I have got only two days ago is that 100 pigs were slaughtered and not at the period when there was swine fever.

Mr Barker: If 3,000 pigs were slaughtered before the swine fever, I cannot understand why suddenly the abattoirs cannot cope with the same number of pigs that were slaughtered before. The Member for Aljunied says that he only got this information two days ago. I have not even heard about it. I suggest he send my Ministry the facts and probably ask me another question in Parliament so that I will be in a better position to reply.

As regards the other four Members, we heard two election speeches and two complaints. Both the Member for Delta and the Member for Sembawang had occasion to praise the Government's efforts at urban renewal. But they raised complaints about resettlement and enhanced rentals for Housing Board shops. I hope both Members will realise that it is not possible to satisfy everyone's needs. To give you an example, when Queenstown was first built, no one wanted to go there. Now everyone wants to go to Queenstown. Of course, you cannot get there because the flats are occupied. At the moment, few are happy to go to Toa Payoh. Tenants are very choosy. They not only want the particular area, but they also want a particular floor, not too high, not too low. Sometimes they want the corner flat. As far as is possible, we accommodate them. But someone has to go to the top, someone to the bottom, someone in the middle.

I am surprised to hear the Member for Delta saying that resettlement went well until a year or so ago when resettlement officials adopted a different attitude. They were rather harsh and demanding, she alleges. And perhaps she says it is because there is no Opposition that these things are happening. I can assure the Member for Delta that the officials of my Ministry were not afraid of the Barisan Sosialis. Either we have urban renewal or we do not. In the process of urban renewal, people must be inconvenienced. Shopkeepers have to move out. Residents have to move out. We cannot satisfy everybody. Otherwise we will never evict the occupiers and, in fact, it takes a very, very long time before complete vacant possession of any property is obtained. Shopkeepers, as the Member for Delta has pointed out, pay cheaper rents than the shops they occupy in Housing Board accommodation. They always grumble. But this tender system appears to be the fairest system and the best way to get at an economic rent. When tenders are called for, there are no allegations of corruption. The Government is already subsidising, and subsidising heavily, Housing Board flats. What you are asking the Government now to do is also to subsidise businesses. This I am afraid my Ministry will not recommend to the Minister for Finance.

The Member for Sembawang blames the Primary Production Department of the Ministry of National Development for the outbreak of swine fever in Singapore. He says this was due to the neglect of the Department particularly in not taking preventive measures. I have stated in this House before and I will state it again. The swine fever spread from Thailand to the north of Malaya. From northern Malaya it made its way down to Kuala Lumpur, then into Johore Bahru, and then across the Causeway into Singapore. It did not start here. It came in. What could we do? Prevent pigs from conhing into Singapore! We could have imposed a ban but then there would have been smuggling of pigs. All sorts of things are smuggled into Singa pore, not only pigs but human beings too. This is a good place. Everyone wants to come here. To have imposed a ban on pigs at the time would have meant that infected pigs would have been smuggled in. We therefore did not impose a ban in order to keep an eye on the pigs across the Causeway. And when we discovered a lorry load of pigs - pigs that were actually suffering from the disease - we had to impose a ban, which we did. But I can assure you that the swine fever in Singapore has not been caused by any neglect in the Primary Production Department. In fact, the officials of the Department should be praised for the preventive measures that they have taken since. It was difficult explaining to the farmers the necessity for vaccination, and at first they could not be convinced. They were only convinced after the disease reached their farms. But officials of the Department had been working overtime on Saturdays and Sundays not only in vaccinating the pigs but also in explaining the disease and its results and effects to the farmers.

The Member for Sembawang, dealing with car parks, complains that parking places are all over the town - or is it all over the island? If it is all over the island, perhaps he will tell me whether there are any in Sembawang.

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose and spoke in Mandarin.

Mr Barker: I am afraid I am at a disadvantage, Sir, because I do not have my earphone and I do not understand Mandarin.

6.45 p.m.

He refers to one case, Arab Street, from where he takes his taxi to Sembawang, and there is a demand for taxi-stands there. I assume he has been going to Arab Street for a long time. I am surprised that he has just had occasion to raise this complaint in Parliament. He praises me and my Ministry for the work done and at the same time he says that probably I have not got the time to deal with all these little matters. I can assure him that I have plenty of time to deal with every little matter which he wishes to put on my desk. I will certainly go into this. I am only sorry that it was not raised earlier. Hundreds of complaints and grouses come up to my Ministry and all are investigated.

He has also suggested a supervisory committee in respect of the Urban and Rural Services Committee. We already have one committee, the U.R.S.C. We now have another committe called the Projects Committe to look into requests approved or disapproved by the U.R.S.C. There was an adjournment debate in this House running down the Projects Committee. "Two committees were too much." And now he wants a third committee called the Supervisory Committee to look after contractors and complaints. Complaints can always be sent to the U.R.S.C., whether in respect of contractors or otherwise.

Sir, I will be brief in dealing with the Member for Jurong who, in my view, was out of order when he spoke on floods. Many questions have been asked in this House about floods and flooded areas and the schemes and measures we have to alleviate these floods. I do not propose to go into the details again. The reason that has been put forward for flooding is a high tide accompanied by very heavy rain. But it is significant that in Singapore we do not have the floods that Malaysia has, unfortunately, to undergo. At present, there are floods in Kota Tinggi which were caused by heavy rain over a fortnight. In Singapore, we are inconvenienced more than anything else. But we have measures and schemes which are being put into operation. But I doubt very much whether we can reach the happy position where there will be no flooding in any street in Singapore. All you have to have is a high spring tide and you will have floods in Telok Ayer. After all, we are a small island and it is difficult to keep the tides out. When the high tide comes in and the rain pours, we are in trouble. But a major scheme is being undertaken along Bukit Timah Road where, as I have stated in the House before, we are cutting two canals - one to Ulu Pandan and the other to Kallang - to divert the flood waters from the Bukit Timah area into Ulu Pandan and Kallang, so that if the floods are not completely eliminated in the more seriously affected areas like the University area, at least the severity of the floods will be considerably reduced.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the questions raised by me have not been answered directly by the Minister. If I put my amendment to the vote, I will not get anywhere. So I beg leave to withdraw.

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose ---

The Chairman: Mr Teong, do you wish to speak on Head 1108 or 1109?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): I wish to speak a few more sentences on Head 1108.

The Chairman: I am very sorry because the motion that I took was Madam Chan's and she has just asked for permission to withdraw it. I hope you are not going to raise the question raised by the Member for Bukit Merah last year about a multi-storeyed car park in Sembawang!

Mr Teong Eng Siong resumed his seat.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $8,523,330 for Head 1108 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1109 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong -

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1109 be reduced by $100.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving.

The sum of $9,152,360 for Head 1109 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1110 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1110 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2018.

The Chairman: The Member for Kampong Kembangan is not present.

The sum of $18,640,170 for Head 1110 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1111 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1111 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about small industries, workshops and warehouses which have been displaced as a result of the "Golden Mile" Project. A lot of these trades have found their own accommodation either because they refused to be re-located to the rural areas or no suitable alternative acconhmodation could be offered by the Housing and Development Board. Under these circumstances, they had no alternative but to carry on their businesses in whatever accommodation they could obtain. A problem now arises from their applications to the C.B.S.'s Department for a change of use of their present premises to suit their trades or to build warehouses for their stock-in-trade. More often than not, their applications are usually not favourably considered. What is worse is that subsequently they are served with notices of demolition of the present structures into which they have moved and are carrying on their businesses.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to relax certain regulations governing the change of use of premises or building by-laws if the applicants are displaced as a result of urban renewal with a view to allowing them to carry on their trades for a temporary period. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do agree that there must be a certain amount of control over the use of land or its development to comply with the Master Plan, but special consideration surely can be given to these displaced industries. Surely, it is not the intention of the Government to see a complete stoppage of operations of the existing small trades or industries. On the contrary, they should be allowed to carry on in order to adapt themselves to the changing circumstances and should be given technical or financial assistance to expand their businesses.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, amendment (2)* stands in my name. It is actually the same as amendment (1) except for the sum to be reduced.

• Amendment No. (2) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1111 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1001.

Sir, I would like to dwell on amendment (I) which was moved by the Member for Mountbatten.

Sir, this concerns the Building Survey Division which is headed by the Chief Building Surveyor. I wish to bring the following matters to the attention of the Minister for Law and National Development. One is with regard to the issue of temporary permits by the Department concerned at a fee of $12 per year. Originally, this fee was $2 in respect of any temporary structure put up, but it appears to me that from 1966 onwards it has been increased to $12 - a very, very high increase.

Sir, what I wish to point out is this. A temporary permit is issued for the erection of a dwelling-house of a temporary nature, a pigsty and a bangsal. But what I am more concerned with is the increase of fees from $2 to $12 especially with regard to pigsties.

7.00 p.m.

If you build two pigsties, you pay $24. If you build three, you pay $36. I hope the Minister will consider that.

But, Sir, along that line, as I pointed out when I was debating on the Property Tax Division yesterday. I said that to obtain a house number, much time is taken up and the applicant has to wait for months before he ultimately gets a house number. But before that, he must obtain a temporary permit for which he has to pay $12, and which has to be renewed every year. In addition to paying for a temporary permit for a dwelling house, the property tax has also to be considered. I am not talking about property tax now. I am dwelling on the fee for temporary permits, which I hope will be reduced.

The second point pertains to the application for the necessary permit to reconstruct an existing building, i.e., a numbered building. I am afraid I have to spend a little time on details, and I hope the House will bear with me.. First of all, the applicant fills in a prescribed form issued by the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. In addition to it, he has to purchase from the Planning Department some site plans. On top of that, he has to make out a couple of layouts of the building plan, not forgetting that he has to obtain the landowner's permission if he wishes to extend his house. And if the landowner refuses to sign, the applicant will not be able to make the necessary application. I will deal with this a little later, Sir, but first the application for reconstruction.

It has been brought to my notice that there has been much delay in the processing of these applications. A number of applicants have seen me on this and have appealed for a more simplified method whereby the rural folk will not be too much inconvenienced in having to wait for three or six months before they get the necessary permission to reconstruct their houses. And if they were to do it without the necessary permit, Sir - it is a well-known fact that the reconstruction will be un authorised - the Chief Building Surveyor's Department would step in and issue the necessary notice, and subsequently a summons, stating that such unauthorised structures should be demolished within a certain time.

Sir, I now come to the other point where the landowner's permission is required. A number of landowners have been reluctant to agree to reconstruction, and especially extensions, with the result that the rural folk have nowhere to appeal for a reconsideration of their cases. They would find extreme difficulty in getting a permit to reconstruct their houses.

Sir, I would ask the Minister for Law and National Development to look into this matter. Indeed it is no use to pretend that there has been no delay. I have raised this matter with the department concerned on quite a number of occasions, and I mention it again in this House; sometimes I get a very blunt reply, if not none at all. And this centres on the difficulties faced by an applicant - his house is in a state of near collapse and he is unable to obtain the necessary permit to reconstruct it. And he cannot reconstruct it without proper permission. And whoever contravenes the Local Government Integration Ordinance, 1963 - I believe it is section 52 - will be charged in court for putting up an unauthorised structure. I sincerely hope the Minister will look into this matter with a view to solving the difficulties encountered by those who apply for such permits.

The Chairman: We are on amendments (1) and (2) in respect of subhead 1001. Mr Barker.

Mr Barker: Sir, before I reply, perhaps we can take amendment (3)* together?

• Amendment No. (3), standing in the names of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi, Mr. Tang See Chim, and Madam Chan Choy Siong, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1111 be reduced by $100.

The Chairman: Yes. Amendment (3). Inche Mohd. Ariff is not here. Mr Tang See Chim is not here. Madam Chan.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving.

The Chairman: Mr Ho Kah Leong, do you want to speak?

Mr Ho Kah Leong: No.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, if I may deal with the Member for Mountbatten first. Various problems have arisen when owners of industries, workshops and warehouses affected by the "Golden Mile" development have had to be resited. As I stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member some time ago, most of those affected by the "Golden Mile" scheme have been accommodated to their satisfaction. But there are still cases outstanding.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Point of clarification, Sir,I am not talking about those outstanding cases. I am talking about those who found their own alternative accommodation elsewhere, and they had difficulty in getting their applications approved for a change in the use of the land to build a warehouse.

Mr Barker: That is the point I am getting to, Sir,I mentioned that most of the cases have been satisfactorily solved and a few have not. And these few cases have not been settled because, having left the "Golden Mile", they sought other accommodation and occupied other pieces of land without consulting the relevant department. If they had consulted the proper authority, they would have been advised what land they could occupy and for what purpose. Buying a piece of residential land, setting up a factory, and then running to the Planning Chief and saying, "Please give me permission to change the zone from residential to industrial," after the event as it were, has led to all these problems. In fact, these people do not deserve sympathy. But every consideration is being given by the relevant department.

For the information of the Member for Mountbatten, besides areas which are presently zoned as industrial land on the Master Plan, there are areas which can allow for industries and ware houses. The Planning Department in the Ministry have designated three other large areas for the resettlement of industries affected by the Urban Re newal Scheme. These three large areas are Kampong Chai Chee (7th mile Changi), Teck Hock Village (8th mile Tampines Road), and the South-east portion of Bukit Panjang Town Map Area, which adjoins the existing industrial zone. But if the Member's con stituents choose to go into other areas and then decide to apply for rezoning, I say they are looking for trouble. Each application for a change of use of premises is considered on its own merits. This must be so, having regard to the nature of the proposed use and the existing surrounding development. But the Development Control Committee of the Ministry of National Development has, in fact, relaxed its control in many cases to allow industries on a temporary basis in an area strictly prohibited under the Master Plan zoning. But there are some cases, where, because of the previous history of the premises and the nature of the industry, the applications have had to be refused.

7.15 p.m.

If I may now deal with the Member for Punggol who has raised two or three points. The first is the increase of fees from $2 to $12 for temporary structures; second, he complains about delays; and, thirdly, he complains about landowners refusing to sign applications either to build or rebuild the premises. If I can deal with landowners first. Under our building by-laws, landowners have to give their consent and, if the landowners refuse to give their consent, surely you cannot blame the Chief Building Surveyor. Blame the landowner, blame our laws, but not the Chief Building Surveyor. But we happen to be discussing the Chief Building Surveyor's Department.

Perhaps I can go on to the delays which the Member alleges. He says it is no use pretending that there are no delays. I am instructed that it is not true that applications are delayed for six months or more as alleged. What usually happens is that the applicants have not put up their applications properly. Sometimes certain details have been left out, and when the application is flung back, so to speak, to the applicant, nothing comes back. And one common reason for the delays is the fact that many applicants cannot get the approval of the landowner to carry out whatever they want to do. If I may say so, to complicate matters, Members of Parliament are often misinformed when they try to intervene on behalf of the applicants. But here the Member for Punggol is speaking generally and I am replying generally. I cannot do otherwise until he gives me the facts and the specific cases. I say once again in this House, if you have a case of delay or if you have dozens of cases of delay, fling them at the Minister for National Development. He will look into them.

The third point which was raised by the Member for Punggol is the increase of fees from $2 to $12. The facts are as follows. Prior to the coming into force of the Local Government Building Re gulations, 1966, the temporary permit fee charged for the rural areas by the Rural Board was $5 per annum for the permit and $2 per annum for renewals. This was the previous position. In the city area the Chief Building Surveyor charged a fee of $6 per annum for each permit for renewal. So for the rural areas, $5 per permit, $2 for renewal. For the city area $6 for the permit. $6 for renewal, So it has not gone up six times, as the Member's speech may have indicated.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: On a point of clarification.

Mr Barker resumed his seat.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. It is clearly stated that the fee for the temporary permit is $12 per year for renewal. Formerly it was $2 in the rural areas. Now it is $12 per year. There is an increase.

Mr Barker: Yes, there is. But it was $6 for renewal in the urban area. That is admitted. But I think we are wasting our time over these figures. With the integration of the two and in view of the increase in administrative costs, the fees were changed with a flat rate of $12 per annum for a temporary permit for renewal. On this, I am some what inclined to agree with the Member for Punggol that the present fee appears to be rather high and I promise him that I will look into it. I make no promise of any decrease. But I promise him that I will look into it with a view to meeting his request. I think that winds up the session.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,130,190 for Head 1111 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement are Heads 0101, 0102, 0106, 0201, 0306, 0704, 0805, 0808, 0810, 1004, 1101, 1103, 1104, 1106, and 1112.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Abstract of Estimated Expenditure on pages 53 and 54 of Paper Cmd. 26 of 1967 stand part of the Estimates of Expenditure for 1968," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $555,810,150 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates of Expenditure for 1968 contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1967," put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

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

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to a certain resolution.

Resolution reported -

That the sum of $555,810,150 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates of Expenditure for 1968 contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1967.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.