PRESIDENT'S SPEECH Debate on the Address (First Day)

2.43 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, we of the P.A.P, have been given a mandate as great as the responsibility that goes with the task. We shall do our best.

Singaporeans are a hard-headed people. If we maintain group discipline, if everyone contributes his fullest share of physical and intellectual effort to the fulfilment of our plans, we shall not fail. We can and we shall build up an adequate defence force before the 1st of January, 1972. We can counter recession, expand our economy, train and educate artisans, technicians and the technocrats of our growing industrial and servicing sectors.

In the next few years, as British forces withdraw and leave Singapore and Malaysia to make their own arrangements for security, we shall find out whether, as a community, we are like a creeper or a tree. Both the creeper and the sapling need support. But unlike a creeper, a sapling does not need support as it grows older and stronger. It will grow into a tree and dispense with the supporting stake. No amount of aid and assistance, grants and loans, technical assistance and training can do the job which we must do for ourselves. A people who are by nature creepers must, when the stake they have been leaning on is removed, fall and crawl on the ground. If we are that sort of a society, then even with all this brave talk by leaders and encouraging noises by observers and commentators, and all the fine words of comfort and promise of aid, we will still find ourselves crawling on the ground.

However, the manifestations of the last decade point to a sapling growing sturdier and stronger as it matures into an upright tree. The stake, which the British presence provided, has enabled sapling Singapore to grow straight and tall without being too buffeted by the winds while it is still young and fragile.

We must have that spirit of self-reliance and self-respect as a community if we are to be compared to a tree. To join the growing numbers of countries who beg for alms from the developed countries, would destroy our pride and undermine our self-confidence.

Quite a number of countries, after gaining independence, have failed economically and collapsed socially. They lacked one essential quality: self-discipline, either in their leaders, or more often both in their leaders and their people. It requires self-discipline to budget and live within your means, when you can just print more money. It requires self-discipline to maintain the integrity and efficiency of government and administration and to punish and keep down corruption, especially in high places. Self-indulgence would soon lead to personal wealth and security for the few, the political leaders, the military chieftains, and the principal administrators. Whatever the evils of British, French, or Dutch colonial administrations, they provided firm, rigid frameworks within which constructive endeavour was rewarded. Seldom were colonial budgets ever in deficit. They invariably spent less than what they got out of each colony, for colonies were intended to provide profits, not incur losses. They kept stern discipline and stable conditions, sound currencies, good sanitation and healthy conditions. It is sad to see how in many countries, national heroes have let their country slide down the drain to filth and squalor, corruption and degradation, where the kick-back and the rake-off has become a way of life, and the whole country sinks in self-debasement and despair.

If the political leadership ever allows Singapore to degenerate into these conditions, then we shall perish. For we have not got that agricultural base where you can scatter seed on the ground, and the soil, the rain and the sun will produce you the rice, the corn and the fruits with which to feed yourselves.

On the other hand, with imaginative and intelligent leadership and stiff standards of honest and just administration, we can make maximum use of our resources which are not all that slender. We have not often underlined these valuable resources. Let me enumerate them:

First, we have more than average human intelligence, diligence, skills, knowledge and expertise.

Second, our superb geographic location at the southernmost tip of the continent of Asia, straddling the route between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans, the northern and the southern hemispheres. We have been important for 150 years as a great sea junction. And for the last 20 years we have also grown in importance as a great air junction.

Hon. Members may remember the Maltese Labour leader, Mr Born Mintoff, visiting us in December 1967. A Rhodes scholar, he does not lack perception or articulation. After a few days in Singapore, he said, privately and publicly over radio and television, that Singapore was better off than Malta because Singapore did not have to face the stiff competition that the Maltese face from their neighbours. In other words, the Italians in Naples and Genoa, the Greeks in Athens and the French in Marseilles, all have higher skills and work harder and so take business away from Malta.

Changing the passive into the active tense, it means that we work harder, are better organised, and more efficient than many others in the neighbourhood. We sell the same things cheaper, we do the same job for a lower price, and we offer to buy the same produce at better prices than anywhere else in the region.

Our third asset is the accumulation of 150 years of infrastructure and experience, in commerce, industry and communications. This does not mean just the physical buildings, the ports, airports, warehouses, roads, banks, shops, power stations, water-works, telephones and cables. More important are the invisibles, the accumulations of knowledge and expertise; how to run the port and the airport economically and efficiently; how to keep up to date with containerised ships and jumbo jets; what banking, money, finance, stocks and shares, bills of lading, and insurance are about; how and what to buy in bulk from the industrial countries and break bulk to retail in the area, and conversely how to buy retail and package in bulk for export to industrial countries. This requires a well-trained professional, managerial and executive elite, supported by a well educated, skilled and industrious working population.

Nothing can more emphasise the importance of these three factors than if hon. Members were to consider what would happen if Singapore did not have these three assets: the human resources, the strategic geographic location, and the built-up infrastructure both physical structure and the know-how.

Imagine what would happen if we towed Singapore out and left it in the middle of the South Pacific. Instead of two million active and vigorous Singaporeans, you have South-sea Islanders with flowers in their hair, dancing to languorous tunes. Also, instead of having the enormous sea and air traffic, and the stimulus of people bringing new ideas, we have South-sea Islanders lounging on the beach, watching the occasional cargo ship drop anchor. Then we would never have developed what we have: three deep-sea harbours, Tanjong Pagar, with berthing alongside for 30 ships, Sembawang, servicing what was up till very recently one of the greatest navies in the world, the deepwater berth at Jurong, not to mention Telok Ayer Basin, Collyer Quay and Kallang Basin, the earliest harbours in the days of the sailing ships. We would not have four airfields, Paya Lebar, Tengah, Changi and Seletar. Nor a network of roads, probably amongst the best maintained in South Asia, telephones and telecommunications that link us up with one another and with all the major cities of the world, and soon a satellite receiving station.

In short, if Singapore were in the South Pacific, populated by South-sea Islanders and not Singaporeans, it would not be able to feed a population of even 20,000 people.

But we are not in the South Pacific, nor are we South-sea Islanders. We do not put flowers on our ears, either as decorative ornaments or as fads like the flower people in the West.

These assets constitute our inheritance. We must maintain and improve upon what we have inherited. Bustling commercial and administrative centres have been known to sink into disrepair for lack of self-discipline, often starting with the leaders, but invariably infecting the whole population.

We have a stable economic and political situation. We maintain sane, orderly and healthy conditions. There was a time not so very long ago, particularly in 1964 and 1965, after the riots when discipline broke down, when it looked as if we might slither down the slippery slope. Organisation and administration became tangled and discipline slackened amongst our workers.

Cows roamed the streets in the city, leaving dung all over the place. Some people died driving their cars into cows long before they could die through disease as a result of the filth. Stray dogs, sick, mangy and wild, were becoming a nuisance, a menace. We had the laws changed and enforced. Cows found in the city limits provided food for our welfare homes. Stray dogs were eliminated as efficiently and humanely as possible.

We shall not just maintain standards of public health and cleanliness. We must go further and make this the cleanest and greenest city in South Asia. If we want high morale, we must have high standards. If we want high standards, the law must be enforced fairly and firmly. There will be no squatters or beggars sleeping on our pavements doing their ablutions in our drains. People will be housed and cared for. Hawkers will not clog up the main streets. There will be thorough and proper cleansing every day of the year. Laws will have to be passed to help rid us of the malpractices that have crept into our work force. Only a year before last, malingering and shirking and sabotage to create overtime and treble, pay for public holidays was a way of life. Discipline and efficiency must be re-established.

Our children will grow up in healthy and clean homes, with adequate ventilation, sunlight, water, electricity and modern sanitation. Many will go to kindergartens even before they begin primary education. All will have at least six years of primary education plus another two years of vocational training. Of the total number admitted to Primary I every year, over 50 per cent go on to complete four years of academic or technical secondary education, over 10 per cent reach University entrance standards; over 5 per cent of the best go on to University and other tertiary institutions.

No other community in South Asia offers its people these standards. Nobody believed that Singapore could make it, except Singaporeans. Nobody believed that we had the gumption and the nous. And we are proud of being Singaporeans. And that pride and patriotism will grow over the years as we add to our inheritance: improved and higher efficiency in our harbours and airports, modernisation in containerised facilities and landing aids for longer runways to take the jumbo jets; better housing and more home ownership for our workers, better schools, clinics, community centres, gardens, libraries for their children; more factories and better jobs.

We shall build up our defence capacity. We should be able to make arrangements for continuing security in conjunction with those with similar interests. There are possibilities for greater economic growth. The sea offers limitless prospects, some of which we have already grasped in ship repairing and ship-building. They will grow and expand as we develop our skills and expertise, and as our reputation spreads throughout the world. We shall build and run a merchant fleet. We shall go for deep-sea fishing and eventually save about $30 million we spend every year in buying fish from abroad.

Our economic growth will be accelerated if we provide ideal conditions for the siting of the headquarters of international industrial, commercial and servicing enterprises.

But the quickest way to reduce unemployment is the greater inflow of tourists, for tourism is labour intensive. With Singapore clean and green, exotic and efficient, with good and courteous service, and shops filled with the good things of life, the tourists will flow in from America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and even Europe, as they do the circuit Hongkong, Angkor, Bangkok, Singapore, Bali and beyond.

In the two and a half years since separation, some 35,000 people have moved from Malaya, or West Malaysia, to Singapore, as against some 6,000 from Singapore to Malaysia. If our economy had stalled, this could not have happened. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a great deal of uninformed talk about work permits. It is not, and has never been, our intention to withdraw work permits from professional, skilled, or even unskilled workers who do the hard jobs. These people help to increase our Gross National Product.

Of the 45,000 work permits, more or less evenly divided between Malaysian and Indian citizens, there are about 6,500 permits for what we call the "easier jobs", namely, the jobs not requiring either special skills or much physical effort. We need these jobs for our own citizens who, as a result of past education policies, are now not suitable for training to become skilled workers. They include a large proportion of our Singapore Malays. They have in the past been educated in schools like Malay primary schools or the Arabic schools without being taught the subjects that are necessary to enable them to be trained as artisans or technicians. But they can do these easier jobs which are now being done by non-citizens. Over the years, through the operation of open market forces, employers may find it more attractive to employ our citizens for these easier jobs. For only citizens are entitled to public housing, medical treatment, and health facilities, social benefits and so on. If we keep up the momentum, far from going down, in the next five to ten years we will not only provide jobs for our unemployed, but also be able to take in a controlled flow of the professionally and technologically trained, the skilled and even those unskilled workers prepared to do the hard and heavy jobs. This has been the experience of all the countries where, with higher education and higher expectations of their own population, immigrant labour was necessary to fill in the lower echelon of their work force, whether it is in Japan with Formosan and Korean workers or in Germany with Spanish, Portuguese, Greek and Turkish workers, or in Britain with all the innumerable problems that Britain now faces as a result of this process of going up the social ladder. I do not believe we will face any of these difficulties, because the people we are allowing in are more or less already very much like ourselves.

Sir, we shall have a prosperous, thriving and multi-racial Singapore. And nothing is more infectious than success. In the longer run, it will be the light from Singapore that will radiate hope throughout the region for similar success of other multi-racial communities not unlike us. By example and precept, our success will influence the formulae others are seeking to transform old-fashioned communities into modern, industrialised and affluent societies.

Sir, history is a long and unending process. History bears witness to the ascendancy of the more fit and the more adaptable. Otherwise today man, whether he is European, Asian, American, Russian, British, French or Chinese, they would not have fathomed the secrets of the atom and be reaching out for the moon and the stars and beyond.

The capacity to learn has played an important part in the ascendancy of man over all other living beings on this earth. It is the brain in man that gave him supremacy over larger creatures.

But from time to time in the history of human civilisations, more civilised, more cultivated societies, with higher standards of living, have been over-run and subjugated by barbaric and less advanced groups. So the Roman Empire fell. An so successive Chinese and Indian civilisations were conquered by virile warrior races, who were socially and culturally of a cruder order, and less sophisticated in their social organisations. We must be on our toes all the time. We must never allow this to happen to Singapore through our growing self-indulgent and soft.

No one can predict what will happen around us in the region. No one knows what will be the world balance of power in the late l970s or l980s, or whose influence will prevail over South and Southeast Asia. But whatever happens in South and Southeast Asia and in the wider world beyond, we must use the time given us to grow sturdy and strong. Our people have in abundance the capacity to learn and to adjust to changing circumstances.

The future belongs to the most adaptable, the most intelligent, and the best organised. We can be counted amongst them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name.

• The motion reads as follows:

That the following Address in reply to the speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the speech which he delivered on behalf ofthe Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament".

Question proposed.

3.12 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion moved by the Prime Minister. In his speech, the President described this Parliament as a "Parliament which is faced with problems of more than usual magnitude" and he finally exhorted hon. Members "to speak in forthright terms to reflect and more important to lead thinking and feeling in the country". And to leave our Republic more flourishing and secure at the end of this Parliament. I am positive and optimistic that we all will give of our best. For this is our country. The people have almost unanimously voted for all the 58 candidates of the P.A.P., of whom 51 were returned unopposed on Nomination Day, to make this Parliament a one-party Parliament! This is not only unique in the history of parliamentary democracy at work; but more important still, it manifests to the world the demonstration of absolute unity on the part of the people in a multi-racial nation of two million to be a people, to be a nation and to survive as one as long as time, in this part of turbulent Southeast Asia.

Sir, the Addendum to the speech by the President and also the series of talks given by the Ministers clearly portray the crucial years ahead and what positive steps the Government will be taking to resolve them. Also, what the people and country will have to face in the next five years or more. With the absence of an Opposition, it does not necessarily mean that this Parliament will not make any contribution; in fact, it shall at the end of its life leave Singapore more flourishing and secure. Since there are many hon. Members in this Chamber who will be making solid and constructive comments on the President's Speech, I shall on my part traverse a few topics and leave the rest for my colleagues to deliberate. In this respect, I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will allow me latitude and bear with me if I were to be a bit too specific and detailed in the course of my speech, because details are sometimes necessary to illustrate and emphasise a point.

It is reassuring to note that a comprehensive Employment Bill will be introduced and that some of the Ordinances like the Labour Ordinance of 1955, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance of 1957 and the Clerks Employment Ordinance of 1957 will be repealed. In other words, the proposed Bill will cut across all sections of the so many schemes or agreements of employment and will establish one single comprehensive form of employment Ordinance that will regulate and curtail employment benefits. Inevitably, more employment opportunities would result to take in a good number of the unemployed. It is, therefore, opportune and timely to introduce such a form of employment legislation, as Singapore will have to face and live up to the crucial years ahead. The order of the day will be "sacrifice and more sacrifice" and every worker must put in a full day's work for a full day's wage. It is both a commendable and ambitious scheme and can only succeed when the people bravely live up to the challenge. I am positive we will. However, neither the number of jobs to be created nor the percentage of the total unemployed to be reduced by this piece of legislation is indicated in the Addendum to the President's Speech. I am of the opinion that the trade sector will be unable to take in a considerable number, say, for example, the white-collar jobs. Admittedly this sector will not be a good job-provider. This point has already been explained by the Finance Minister in his Budget Statement in the last Parliamentary Budget session. Therefore, if the introduction of the Bill were to bring about more job opportunities in the fields which I have mentioned earlier, then it might prove inadequate to resolve the unemployment situation. But I do not think the Government is so naive as to introduce a Bill to serve a particular purpose only. As has been briefly described, it is to "increase productivity and promote more industrial growth", therefore the scope would cover a wider field definitely, and this must rightly be so. But again there is the question of how fast can industrial growth be generated or accelerated in order to provide jobs for the thousands of already unemployed and, at the same time, for some 20,000 secondary school-leavers who will be entering the labour market each year. Therefore, industrial growth must take a new dimension if we are to reduce this staggering figure of the unemployed to a manageable number. In other words, this figure must somehow be reduced through industrial growth to manageable proportions so that social discontent and instability may not result. I am particularly happy to see that with the expanding hotel and catering industry, courses will be organised to train people in the know-how of this particular industry. But again I would imagine that only a certain number would benefit. I am no economist, and I do not profess to be one either. However, looking at the ever-increasing number of unemployed in spite of the vigorous efforts the Government has consistently put in, I would be credulous if I were to believe that unemployment could be solved that easily. This has been proved in countries which are both more highly industrialised and well developed.

However, given the right thinking and approach, I am optimistic that unemployment will be greatly reduced if real sacrifices are made and everybody plays his part well. In a small way, if the retirement age is limited to 55 years instead of the present 60 years, the chances of job opportunities would increase, though not considerably. Bearing in mind that more than half our population is below the age of 21, this would help ease, to some extent, the unemployment situation if both the private and public sectors retire workers who reach the age of 55. With the younger workers replacing those retired, recurrent expenditure by way of salaries and other emoluments would be reduced. This is a possibility well worth looking into.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance, over radio and T.V, on 30th March this year, talked on "How to beat the slump". He clearly elucidated that the gradual withdrawal of the British defence commitments would mean a reduction in military expenditure to the tune of $900 million between now and 1971. He then went on to explain in general detail how the Government proposes "to prevent this recession". And in his subsequent talk on 16th April on "Economic Growth", he laid emphasis on the increase of economic growth through the entrepot trade, tourism, shipping and the manufacturing industry. These two talks clearly present the complexity and magnitude of the crucial years ahead of us. As I have pointed out, Sir, I am no economist, so I will turn to the next heading "Central Provident Fund".

I welcome the proposal to increase the range of contributions towards the Central Provident Fund by including both those employed in the Government and the Statutory Boards as a necessary measure to mobilise domestic savings to be employed to counter recession strategy. This move is both sound and wise. Not only will it bring about an equitable sharing of responsibility by both the employer and the employee to make a must of compulsory saving, but in this case the Government is realistic enough to realise that, by introducing such a move, both the Government and people will benefit directly and indirectly. Directly, it takes shape in the form of compulsory savings that will be reserved for the member-contributor until he reaches retiring age when he will have at his disposal a considerable sum that will continue to ensure him a more secure future in spending his years of retirement. Obviously, he may turn to voluntary social service to the Republic despite his retirement. This is the direct benefit the employee, whether he is from the private sector or public service, will get. Indirectly, with the contributions, of both the employee and employer, the Central Provident Fund will be able to mobilise the use of such funds to counter the recession strategy and promote industrial growth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest further that with the introduction of such a proposal, the question of payment of other forms of benefits. In the public service, like gratuities, be abolished. In the field of public service, a civil servant on top of getting his pension also gets his gratuity, the amount of which will depend on the number of years of service he has put in. And if he should be made to contribute towards the C.P.F., then he will benefit in three ways for his services, namely, pension, gratuity and C.P.F, contributions. This should not be the case. Therefore, a scheme will have to be worked out whereby all those already emplaced in permanent service may be allowed to draw a pension upon their retirement and made to contribute' towards the C.P.F, up to their retirement age; maybe a smaller proportion of the gratuity will be paid to them; also those on probation will be made to contribute, say, 73 per cent to 10 per cent of their salary or total emoluments to the C.P.F, and the Government, as employer, will do likewise. Upon his retirement, the employee will receive a lump sum instead, and this will, of course, be bigger than the gratuity that he would have received if he had not contributed towards the C.P.F. I hope this suggestion will deserve consideration in that not only will it help economic growth, but it will also enable a compulsory saving scheme to' materialise in which every employee is made to be a contributor to the C.P.F.

With this, Sir, I now come to the problem in which the gap between "the' haves and the have-nots", though considerably reduced, has as yet to be bridged. In other words, the perspective, as I look at, is the provision of social amenities in the rural constituencies like Jalan Kayu and Tampines, or Punggol for that matter. Although much has been provided for them by way of electricity and water supplies and better roads and drainage, I am of the opinion that a lot more will have to be done so that the facilities as such that are being enjoyed by the urban population will by the best possible means be also made available to the rural population. In this respect, I propose to deal with the problem by items: -

I refer first to electrification scheme. No doubt a good part of Punggol has been electrified; there are, however, certain remote areas where the population is sparse and for which such supplies are not available. As I understand it, it is because of the heavy costs that will have to be incurred that they are prevented from enjoying this facility. I suppose that several million dollars are needed to electrify these remote villages or kampongs in the various rural constituencies. But if I may ask, what is several million dollars compared to spending fifty million dollars to build a National Sports Stadium complex as Kallang where I am sure, Sir, not all the two million people will benefit. Therefore, I would plead that the Government do consider my point, as many requests have been made and some have yet to be acceeded to.

I now turn to water supplies. I wish to make a similar plea on supplies of water. A national exercise is being carried out to remove as many public standpipes as possible. This, I understand, resulted from public wastage and indiscriminate use of water and the Government has to pay as much as $1.5 million to $2 million worth of water consumed at these standpipes each year. But before the standpipes are removed, plans will have to be prepared for the laying of water mains to the kampongs and connection of water supplies to the homes will have to be encouraged. Again, Sir, I must emphasise that such supplies should also be made available to the remotest kampong. For example, I have in my constituency several remote kampongs which up till today have yet to have such supplies, let alone having a stand-pipe to share. Why is this so? [Interruption] That is because the hon. Member's constituency is urban and he does not need standpipes. In my area it is much larger; probably ten Stamford parliamentary divisions can be put into Punggol. Sir, it is simply because laying a water main to these remote areas would entail high costs. Therefore, how long have these people to wait before they are given the supplies?

However, it is indeed reassuring to note that with the commissioning of the Johore River Waterworks and the commencement of the Seletar Project, water supplies will be immensely increased. It is thus my hope that the rural folks in such areas will not have to wait too long and that their needs will not be forgotten. I would go on to suggest that a scheme be drawn up with a view to ensuring that water supplies be made available to the remotest village or kampong in any rural constituency, probably Choa Chu Kang, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, was trying to catch my eye. Now that he is on the Government Bench, he finds it difficult to bring up such matters. This scheme or project may not sound workable in view of the high costs, but if it is carried out, it will close the gap between the "haves and the have-nots" by a step closer.

Primary production takes my attention next. It is also reassuring to note that the farmers will continue to be taken care of through the provision of services and advice to enable them to increase their farm products and reduce production costs. It appears vague in the Addendum, Sir, and I would like to know how this is to be done. As land availability is limited, intensive and diversified farming becomes essential to sustain this part of our economy. Maximum utilisation of the land available for farming activities to increase farm products must result. The outmoded form of farming must give way to modern techniques. The building of more farm schools in centrally-located farming areas for the training and teaching of correct farming techniques is essential. Otherwise, farming as a means of livelihood will not attract those handicapped educationally, so to speak, to take to farming. And in that case the dependence on farm products from the countries outside the Republic will become greater. Sir, it is becoming more apparent that more and more land which were once zoned for agricultural purposes are today fast disappearing, for many an area has given way to other forms of development. If such is the case, there will come a time when farming will cease altogether. I hope this will not come about and that every possible step will be taken to preserve such lands for farming activities, for their products have been helping our national economy in no small measure.

That the fisheries industry is being catered for and that considerable efforts are being made towards the training of a new generation of fishermen both off-shore and deep-sea fishing deserve some comment. At present off-shore fishing is carried out mainly by otter-trawlers ranging from five to 15 tons and manned by crews from five to 10 persons. Whilst noting that steps are being taken in this direction, I find again in the Addendum no safeguards or protection for our trawlers; simply because marine patrols are lacking and neighbouring countries have extended their territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Therefore, some form of arrangement should be made between these countries to allow free passage of our trawlers in their fishing pursuits, not forgetting that Singapore is a small State surrounded by water and also surrounded by other countries. This is a "fishy" problem, because we have neither a Navy nor adequate marine patrols to patrol satisfactorily our territorial waters to give the necessary protection for our trawlers and fishermen when they go out to the open sea to make their living and to make a safe return. Hon. Members in the last Parliament will remember the occasions when it was brought to light that a number of our trawlers and fishermen had been apprehended or held to ransom by pirates just outside international waters. What then would be the safeguards and measures the Government will take to ensure our fishermen a free- from-hindrance fear when they take to sea? This is the crux of the problem. Providing the necessary know how, technique and training for a new generation of fishermen is not so much of a problem; the real problem lies in what I have just pointed out.

Under the heading "Primary Production and Urban and Rural Services", the second paragraph outlines the expansion of the fishing industry. It is interesting to note that a Fisheries Wharf and Central Fish Auction Market are being constructed to provide a system of fish landing, marketing and distribution at Jurong. To date, Sir, I would like to know of the number of deep-fishing companies set up and the total capital invested. Also, how are we to make full use of the facilities in attracting larger fishing vessels to discharge their catches here? In other words, what depth of study in this particular field has been made and what proportions would it benefit us? I am not being pessimistic about the project. As we are in the process of training a new generation of fishermen for both off-shore and deep-sea fishing which no doubt will ultimately help in the economic growth, we will continue to have to depend largely on the import of fish and maybe fishing vessels from other countries to discharge their catches at Jurong. If this is the case, then we may envisage the need to build a fish-canning factory near the market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since I have mentioned the National Sports Stadium earlier, I would like to obtain some form of assurance and information regarding this complex. I understand that $50 million will be needed to put up and complete this complex. Once it is put up, I hope I can be ---

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): For a rugged society!

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Once it is put up, I hope I can be assured that it will not turn out to be a "white elephant". Also what contribution will this National Stadium make in the field of sports? How often will it be used, and how will it help towards the building of a more robust and rugged society, as has just been mentioned by the Member for Changi? Therefore, justification must be made "to get full value for every dollar spent".

May I, Sir, now come to my last point. I refer to the last paragraph in the Addendum sub-titled "Family Planning" under the Ministry of Health. No doubt it is a short paragraph but if one were to read it carefully, one finds that "family planning will be prosecuted with greater vigour". I have already expressed my views on this matter when I commented on the Government's White Paper on family planning and this is contained in the Hansard, Vol. 24, No. 4, dated 15th December, 1965, in columns 171 to 173. I am astounded to know that "family planning will be prosecuted with great vigour" and will be "augmented by the . .legislation to legalise abortions and the voluntary sterilization of persons". I am not in favour of it and I shall reserve my comments until the Bill is introduced.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have earlier stated that I shall deal with only a few topics and leave the rest to my colleagues, the Backbenchers. I have also pointed out at the beginning of my short speech that we are one people, determined to face the future in spite of the crucial years ahead and to be a nation. I am confident that we will continue to survive, come what may.

3.53 p.m.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers of Singapore are fully aware of the crucial years that are coming ahead. There will be a lot of problems to be solved. We are confident that the workers will be able to face these problems and to co-operate with the employers and the Government to solve them. Everyone is aware that the British Government will be withdrawing their military forces from the Singapore Base by the end of 1971, thereby causing a lot of unemployment. About 30,000 of the workers there will lose their jobs. In addition to that, thousands of our young school-leavers are still seeking jobs. In other words, the unemployment problem will be more acute and more complicated, and unless the workers, the employers and the Government co-operate with each other, it will be very difficult to solve this problem.

In view of all these difficulties and problems that are coming ahead, the Government is introducing a comprehensive Employment Bill. Of course, the object of this Bill is to standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of employment of all employees, to standardise working hours of 44 hours per week for all employees, to regulate overtime work, to enable a wider spread of employment, to limit certain fringe benefits, to lessen abuses, increase productivity and promote more industrial growth. All these objectives are quite acceptable. What we hope, before the Bill is passed, is that representations from the workers' side will be seriously considered and accepted so that no one side will be favoured. The workers in Singapore have, during the past few years, been very co-operative with the Government. Industrial relationship between workers and employers has been very good and we are determined that this good industrial relationship should carry on so that it will be beneficial not only to the workers but to the employers as well.

Sir, we appreciate the importance of greater economic growth, higher productivity, elimination of restrictive practices and abuses of fringe benefits and more efficient management. We agree that, in the national interest, the workers should sacrifice as much as possible. Also, we expect the employers to make sacrifices as well. The N.T.U.C., at its last Annual Delegates' Conference on the 7th of April this year, unanimously passed a resolution to give our full co-operation to the Government. In other words, we are very sincere and we openly agree to co-operate with the Government, especially with the coming of this new Employment Bill. But we are surprised that at this very moment the employers' side is still keeping very quiet. We hope they, the employers, will be able to come out with a public statement that they will co-operate fully with the workers as well as with the Government.

I think it is a well-known fact that the abuse of fringe benefits, or whatever they may be, lies not only on the side of the workers. Employers also abuse the fringe benefits. In other words, not all employers are saints and not all workers are angels. Just because of a small percentage of workers who deliberately abuse the fringe benefits, I hope this new Employment Bill will not be taken as a punishment to the rest of the good workers.

I sincerely hope that the increase in working hours to a standard 44 hours per week, will help employers increase productivity and at the same time enable them to engage more workers. I hope that, with the workers agreeing to the increase in working hours, employers will not take advantage by retrenching employees, because in every company, there is a limited number of workers and some employers may take advantage of the new situation.

With regard to increase in productivity, it is not merely a question of increasing the working hours. There are other necessary factors to achieve increased productivity. For example, there must be good industrial relationship between employers and employees, good wages and conditions of employment, good management, personnel and efficient supervisors. One of the best ways to achieve increased productivity is to give certain incentives to workers, like incentive bonuses.

In the last few years of the N.T.U.C, leadership, industrial relationship between workers and employers has been very good. There are more enlightened, intelligent and responsible trade union leaders who are able to settle industrial disputes and negotiate for good collective agreements by knowing the capacity of the employers to pay. The old techniques of slogan-shouting and wild-cat strikes are now out of date and not practised by enlightened trade union leaders.

The workers fully support regulation of overtime because it is not good for some workers to score so much in over-time while there are many people who are unemployed. So I sincerely hope that by regulating overtime, employers will be able to engage more workers so that there will be less people unemployed in Singapore.

We now have a scheme to train workers in all the services in view of the withdrawal of the British military forces. I hope that this kind of training can be extended to a selected number of unemployed people, because a good number of them are still unable to get jobs, although they have registered their names in the Labour Exchange for years. In giving them a chance to join the training programmes, a person registered as a clerk may perhaps be able to be trained as a technician and get a job as such.

We now come to the question of fringe benefits. For a number of years, union leaders have struggled for and managed to get whatever fringe benefits we now have. With the coming of the new Employment Bill, we hope that there is a possibility of leaving as they are whatever agreements there are between employers and employees if there is mutual agreement on both sides. It is painful that after struggling for so many years we have to sacrifice many of the fringe benefits.

I would like to say that it is most welcome to know that the Government intends to encourage workers to own their own homes. In view of the increase in contributions to the Central Provident Fund, I hope that most of the workers in Singapore will take this opportunity to own their own homes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been told by the Prime Minister that we have to establish a very good industrial climate in Singapore to attract foreign investors to establish their business here so that more people will get jobs and our industrialisation programme will be more successful. Of course, the new Employment Bill will be passed in due course subject to discussions between employers, employees and the Government, and after hearing the views and recommendations of all parties concerned. With the passing of the new Employment Bill, we hope that more foreign investors will come here and engage workers in Singapore. I think it is known throughout the world that Singapore is the best place for investment due to its good and incorruptible government. There is political and economic stability. There are intelligent and sensible trade union leaders. There are facilities available, such as shipping, banking, insurance, communications, etc. Such facilities, to a certain extent, will attract foreign investors to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by giving the assurance that the workers in Singapore will fully co-operate with the employers and the Government to build a happy and prosperous Singapore. The people of Singapore have the will, determination and capacity to succeed in spite of whatever difficulties that may arise. We are sure that we will be able to succeed.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson) rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Govindaswamy, I think it is a convenient time to suspend the sitting now. I will take the Chair again at forty-five minutes past four o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.11 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.45 p.m.