PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS (Second Day)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th May, 1968],

'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 of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'.- [The Prime Minister].

Question again proposed.

2.39 p.m.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that all thinking and loyal citizens will not disapprove of my suggestion that the present system of any schools for ethnic groups be abolished sooner or later if we are to achieve 100 per cent unity among our multi-racial society.

The integration of races in the schools is the best way to start educating our young citizens to the realisation that they are all Singaporeans and therefore equal citizens. It always saddens me to go past a school specifically run for a particular ethnic group. What better way can one have of isolating one race from another than by the presence of such schools? Is it not more logical in terms of nation-building to have every school open its door to our children of all ethnic groups? Then these young citizens will grow up to know, respect and assimilate each other's way of life and thoughts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please do not think that my suggestion means that the abolition of any one of our four languages will be in sight. In fact, my own feeling is that all our children can still be sbrought up to become at least bilingual school-leavers as they can still study mathematics, science and technology in the medium of English and the humanities through one of the other languages. I realise that this integration may take a bug time to implement, but knowing the efficiency and dedication of the staff of the Ministry of Education -

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Hear, hear!

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: - any such difficulty encountered will be overcome. I would, therefore, like to suggest to the Minister for Education to give my idea some consideration and to adopt it for all ethnic schools in the course of time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having dealt with children in ethnic schools, I would like to say that I agree with the proposal that greater emphasis on sports should be given by the Ministry of Social Affairs. However, I note with some disturbance the neglect of one of the most popular forms of sports in this country, namely, badminton. Not so many years ago, we in Singapore could boast of a number of leading world badminton players, but today we cannot even find a youngster in our midst who can be ranked among the first ten leading badminton players in the world. We have ample talents in Singapore, but we do not provide suitable facilities for them to develop and grow. The few indoor badminton courts available are so humid and torrid that no amount of practice among the players can improve their standard, as they are exhausted long before they can bring out their very best in the game. Therefore, I do hope that the organisers of and planners for the National Sports Stadium Complex will bear in mind that badminton is one of the very few sports that can produce for us world champions. It is obvious to me that an air-conditioned badminton stadium must be included in this sports complex. I will not accept the excuse that such a stadium will cost too much money. If we are going to spend $50 million, an extra expenditure of another million dollars or so should not prevent the building of such an air-conditioned badminton stadium. I would also like to point out that such a stadium can earn money, because when it is used as a venue for the training of players and for international badminton tournaments, money can be collected for the use of such a stadium.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to make a few comments on the widening of the main arterial roads and the development of dual carriageways. I am sure the House will agree with me that the Public Works Department has done an excellent job on these roads and everyone who uses them can have nothing but a lot of praise for the P.W.D. However, I am not too happy to see these beautiful highways cluttered up with rows of parked vehicles. Such a display of lack of civic consciousness can easily be seen in Queenstown or Paya Lebar, for example.

An hon. Member: Or Joo Chiat.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: Not Joo Chiat. Mr Speaker, Sir, surely it is time that the appropriate Minister should see to it that the purpose of widening our main arterial roads is not to provide parking bays for cars and lorries for some of our citizens, but for the smoother and safer flow of the ever-increasing traffic on our roads.

Mr Speaker, Sir, finally I would like to make some remarks on off-shore fishing. I feel that the encouragement of off-shore fishing is very commendable, but I wish that the Ministry of National Development will see to it that the owners of abandoned kelongs be legislated to remove stakes and dismantle structures from discarded kelongs. We want to beautify our islands, but the presence of such unsightly and dangerous stakes surely spoils the off-shore silhouette.

2.43 p.m.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Speech has ushered in the most difficult period in the history of Singapore. In the years ahead, much has to be done to offset the side effects of the complete withdrawal of British forces from this region. Never before has Singapore been in this kind of situation where everything is left to herself. One would imagine that the three years and eight months of Japanese occupation would have been the most bitter times for Singapore, but, if Singapore had never been recovered from the Japanese, we would not have lost anything, for Singapore was then not ours and defence then was not our business at all.

Sir, 20 years ago, when the question was asked, "Which country in South-east Asia will turn Communist first?", the answer was, "Singapore." Twenty years later, the same question is asked again, "Which country will go Communist?", and the answer is still, "Singapore."

For this must be the case with all the years of hard work put in by our people. We cannot afford to lose Singapore, for this is our country and our stake is in it. Few countries in Southeast Asia can claim a higher living standard than Singapore. Our social and medical services and public housing are second to none. Our progress can also be achieved by other neighbouring countries. What we lack is land, but, on the other hand, the kind of leadership which is the propelling force of our advance and progress cannot be readily found in other countries. As I have said earlier, what we have achieved here can be achieved by other countries if only they can produce from among their millions of people, a hard core of dedicated, clear-thinking, incorruptible and dynamic individuals whom we in Singapore are compelled to choose from only two million people, young and old.

We have many advantages here: a good harbour, a good geographical position, a practical population and an experienced business community. All these notwithstanding, Singapore must survive and prosper along with other countries in this region. To believe that Singapore can survive on its own, totally disregarding others in the region, is naive. For the survival and prosperity of the Southeast Asian countries, regionalism appears to be the only solution. We believe that nobody is dependent on himself alone but everybody is inter-dependent on one another.

Sir, it is my conviction that whatever arrangement Singapore enters into in the near future, whether an economic alliance or a regional defence system, we must present ourselves as a credible and contributing partner. We have come a long way from the Colombo Plan, from a recipient nation to a donor nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President, at the outset of his speech, has pointed out that Singapore's problems in the next 10 years would be external rather than internal. I hope that by the end of 1971, a credible defence arrangement could materialise.

Singapore has made history not only in the field of human endeavour, but also in the history of democratic constitutional government. This Parliament will experience very difficult times. We are in a unique position where, in spite of so many formidable problems facing us, effective solutions to them will not be found wanting. The people do not seem to show any lack of confidence. The result of this is an all-P.A.P. Parliament. Yet we should have no cause for complacency. I wish to point out that the absence of an effective Opposition in this Chamber does not necessarily mean that we have one hundred per cent support. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Prime Minister put it in his speech upon your election as Speaker, if the Barisan Sosialis had decided to participate in the last General Election, they would have secured about six to eight seats in this House.

Sir, it was the folly of the Opposition that led to the present situation of the absence of an Opposition. But the mere wanting of an Opposition in order to fulfil the ideals of a democratic institution is not necessarily relevant in all cases. There is nothing wrong in having an all P.A.P. Government if the people decide that such an arrangement is to their best advantage. This will, of course, make our job as Backbenchers more difficult. Not only have we to take on the duties of the Opposition, but we have also, on the other hand, to explain to the people that for the next half decade, if Singapore is to continue to survive and prosper as a separate entity in this region, much sacrifice will have to be made. There should be tolerance and restraint in all quarters, higher productivity, and a more careful and practical handling of the situation.

I believe that there is no substitute for sheer hard work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I join my colleagues in supporting the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Prime Minister, expressing the thanks of the House to the President for delivering his speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to seek clarification from the Member for Changi. In his speech he posed two questions. I believe that the two questions should be thus. The first one was correct. That was 20 years ago, when the question was asked as to which country in this region would go Communist first -

Mr Speaker: Mr Fong, you are seeking clarification but you seem to be embarking on a speech. May I suggest that you raise this matter when you speak substantively to the motion, if you intend to do so.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I just intend to seek clarification.

Mr Speaker: In which case, please get to your point very quickly and shortly.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: The Member for Changi said that 20 years ago, when the question was asked, "Which country would go Communist first?", the answer was Singapore. I would imagine the second question would be, "Which country would go Communist last?", the answer would be Singapore. Is that correct?

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Yes.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I thank the hon. Member for Changi.

Mr Ong Soo Chuan (Nee Soon): (In Mandarin): It is refreshing to note that our President has given a timely speech in this House expressing confidence that we will be able to ensure our future in a new environment when we are in the decisive l970s. This important historical document will serve as a guide to us in sailing along the troubled waters at this time.

The President outlined three objectives in his speech: namely the optimum use of the time available to build up an effective defence capability; greater economic growth; and enhancement of national consciousness of our problems. These three objectives have relation to the world situation, particularly to the situation in Southeast Asia consequent on the earlier withdrawal of the British troops. Of these three objectives, the establishment of our defence capability is of the first and foremost importance. Of course, this will increase the burden on our people. Being a very small country, Singapore would have to meet and overcome difficulties in order to set up an effective defence capability. Fortunately, ever since we left Malaysia, we have already started to encourage our people to undergo military training, and also in his policy speech, the President has clearly pointed out that we must set up our defence capability at the minimum cost so that our financial resources will mostly be diverted to our economic development and industrial growth. From the economic point of view, the expenditure involved in setting up a defence capability should never be allowed to interfere with our economic growth in the process of nation-building. Both economic growth and economic development have a decisive bearing on our national defence.

Mr Speaker, let us take the advanced countries such as Germany, Japan and Russia. They are advanced countries because of their high degree of development and the economic growth that they have had as a result of their educational reforms, scientific progress and industrial development. It would be better, of course, to build up a national defence force, after having achieved social and economic stability. But judging from the time that we have in hand and the situation that we are facing, we are not so lucky as to be able to enjoy economic growth first before building up our defence capability. So we must tackle both problems at the same time. We must divert the greater part of our financial resources into economic development in order to maintain our economic growth at eight per cent or even to raise our economic growth to more than eight per cent.

I am happy to note that the three objectives outlined by our President are all geared towards the strengthening of our economic growth. We all know that the economic growth of a country can be divided into two stages. The first one is the stage of germination and the second is the process of growth.

Mr Speaker, in our country we are happy that we have reached the second stage. We have already completed the first stage of germination. The general technical preliminaries have been completed and we already have a substantial economic and financial capability and the technical know-how. So in this respect we are ahead of the backward countries and some other developing countries. In addition to the quantitative progress that we have already made, we must also have qualitative advancement in order to speed up our economic growth and build up our national strength, because we all know that economic growth consists of quantitative progress as well as qualitative advancement. Both these two changes will cause a chain reaction in the whole structure.

Sir, economic growth is not so simple to achieve as one would imagine, because it does not only involve capital or technical know-how. The fact is that other factors also have a bearing on speeding up our economic growth. These factors include religion, culture, education, customs and traditions, etc.. In this respect, I am glad to note that a. Cabinet Committee has already been set up with the Minister for Education as Chairman, the Minister for Science and Technology, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour as members in order to carry out the reorganisation in our educational system so that we will be able to train the technical personnel that we require.

Sir, human resources are very important in promoting economic growth and industrialisation. Therefore, the re-organisation in the secondary education system will, in the history of education, become a turning point in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I believe you will agree with me that our country lacks natural resources to assist us in our economic development. But we have inexhaustible human resources. These resources, with hard work and diligence, can earn extra income for our country. So the question is, how are we to make full use of these valuable human resources and to ensure that there is no wastage? The answer lies in the reorganisation of our secondary education system. We want to ensure that every secondary school-leaver will be able to make use of what he has learnt to contribute to nation-building and that all young graduates of secondary schools will have had some form of vocational training when they leave school. In the past, people said that graduation meant unemployment. Now with the completion of the re-organisation of our secondary education system, we can say that graduation can mean employment. This will be the ultimate objective of the reorganisation of our secondary education system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the other aspect of the reorganisation of our secondary education system is that we can increase the employment opportunities of our young school-beavers because they will have had some vocational and technical training when they leave school. When they take up their jobs, they will be able to make use of what they have learnt and carry out their duties effectively. At least, after the reorganisation, school-leavers will be able to leave school as junior technicians and directly take part in productive activities. This would be more practical as compared to the present system whereby they receive technical training only after they have taken up a job. Therefore, reorganisation in our secondary education system, economically speaking, will produce these results: firstly, to increase the employment opportunities of school-beavers; secondly, to ensure that all our nationals will have some form of skill to enable them to take part in productive activities; thirdly, to cut out the gap between productivity and the commencement of employment; fourthly, to ensure that there is no wastage in our human resources; fifthly, to turn our school-leavers from consumers into producers.

As we all know, Singapore is situated in a turbulent area of Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia has all along been the centre of attention of the world. This is not because this area is rich and strong, but because it has been recognised and considered as one of the weakest areas in the world. It has been looked upon as a region which is not able to mobilise its political and economic resources to bargain with the super powers on an equal footing.

As a country with a reputation of having a high standard of living and with a harmonious multi-racial society and a non-aligned foreign policy, we, in Singapore, have the duty to help other countries in Southeast Asia to transform their present pitiful state into modern societies. At the same time, we can also exercise a very decisive influence in stabilising the present turbulent situation in Southeast Asia.

What is the future of Southeast Asia in the next few years? Will it be able to gain a greater say in international affairs and take a strong position in their relationship vis-a-vis the super powers? So, if we are to restore the stability and security of this region, it is vitally necessary for countries in Southeast Asia to put their houses in order and to be self-reliant. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, there are two approaches to the solution of this problem. Firstly, we must secure greater regional co-operation. Secondly, every nation in Southeast Asia must make greater efforts in modernising its society and its infrastructure. As to the first approach, we have set an example by achieving co-operation in the economic field.

The Minister for Finance in his recent broadcast mentioned the promotion of the tourist trade and our co-operation with Indonesia to develop Bali Island as a tourist spot so as to derive mutual benefit for Singapore and Indonesia. We have even sent a mission to Indonesia to go into the details of this scheme, namely, to investigate potential in Bali Island in order to promote the tourist trade in this region.

In addition to this, we can also carry out regional co-operation in industry, agriculture and other fields through A.S.E.A.N.

With regard to modernisation, the Government has achieved significant progress. In the President's Speech, it is revealed that the Ministries will make an overall greater effort to modernise our Republic. This shows that we are adopting a very positive approach to modernise our society. This is highly commendable and deserves our applause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of our unrelenting efforts in the past five years to promote economic growth, Singapore has been able, among other things, to achieve a good reputation as an ideal place for foreign investment. Let me quote from an official study entitled "Comparative Grading on the Selection of Eight Asian Cities for Setting Up Regional Centres." This document shows that Singapore has been selected by international enterprises and entrepreneurs as a good place to set up their trading and industrial centres. The eight Asian cities are Bangkok, Hong Kong, Manila, Sydney, Naha, Taipei, Tokyo and Singapore. Compared with these cities, Singapore is second only to Hong Kong in the advantages provided for foreign investors. In the selection of cities for their investment, economic conditions, geographic position, communications, transportation, currency stability, banking services, education, health, standard of living and political stability, etc, come into consideration. And Singapore has fully met their demands. The scoring for every condition ranges from zero to five points and Singapore has been able to score 94 points, which is second only to Hong Kong which scores 97 points. Thus, we are positive that international traders have every confidence in selecting Singapore for their commercial and industrial enterprises. If we can modernise and provide better facilities and services, it will be a question of time before we become the first place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to increase productivity, promote industrial growth and speed up our economic growth, it is necessary to review and amend the existing Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957 and the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957. The purpose is to keep abreast with new changing situations. This review will create more employment opportunities and will solve, to some extent, our present unemployment problem. From the economic point of view, developing countries are generally faced with the problem of unemployment and the raising of the standard of living of their people. If we want to raise the standard of living of our people, we must, first of all, resolve the problem of unemployment. Therefore, I think a comprehensive labour law introduced at this juncture is in keeping with the need of the present development of our country. All economists know that if many people are unemployed, the purchasing power of the average national of that society will be lowered correspondingly. Therefore, the main solution to the unemployment problem is to raise the living standard of the people and set up a more balanced national economy. The diversification of our economy carried out at present is the most effective way of increasing employment opportunities and the national income. As the Member for Nee Soon, I welcome the introduction of comprehensive labour legislation proposed in the President's Speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our country is small, but our citizens realise their duties especially when they are faced with decisive years ahead. Two-thirds of our population are youths. If we can provide them with effective and well-planned training, they will be able to make a useful contribution to our country. Therefore, I stress the importance of reforming our secondary education system. At the same time, I express my full support for the suggested reform of the secondary education system, as contained in the President's Speech, which will enable our school-beavers to become producers instead of mere consumers. This point is very important, as it will have a decisive effect on the future of our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me sum up what I have said in this House. For the sake of the long-term interests of the Republic of Singapore and the future of our younger generations to come, I welcome and support the policy speech delivered by the President. At the same time, I will do my best during my term of office to help in the smooth implementation of the Government's policies.

3.24 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I express my support for the motion moved by the Prime Minister thanking the President for his speech.

Sir, the P.A.P, won a complete victory at the recent general elections because the people supported us. Thus we shall once more do our best to serve the country. Although there is only one party in this Parliament, we are not dictators. Apart from the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, there are other Members in this House whose duty it is to make constructive criticisms of Government's measures and policies.

First of all, I think some regulations relating to the Housing and Development Board of the Ministry of National Development should be changed because of certain incidents which have taken place. Recently, in the Tiong Bahru area, a coffee-shop owner committed suicide by jumping down from his flat because he had allowed his premises to be used as a gambling place. I suppose the regulations of the Housing and Development Board have been inherited from the previous administration, and not drafted by the P.A.P., and they have caused difficulties. I hope that these regulations will be amended to avoid difficulties.

We all know that the present Government is going to introduce pools gambling in addition to the present Singapore Sweepstake, and yet the Government does not allow ordinary citizens to gamble in a small way in coffee-shops! Is this not a contradiction? On the one hand, the Government allows big sweeps to be run in Singapore and wants to introduce a new form of pools gambling, but, on the other hand, it prohibits the small man from gambling in a small way. I hope the Government will change these regulations and stop this unfair treatment. The regulations should be revised in such a way that first offenders would be warned and second offenders would be fined without being evicted from Board premises.

The next point is the sale of flats. Those unable to buy flats under the home ownership scheme will be asked to move to Toa Payoh, and this will certainly cause hardship to them. Of course, the principle behind this scheme is good, but if people have no money to buy their own flats, it is not proper to evict them. The Minister must investigate such cases and find out whether this policy of evicting tenants because they cannot buy the flats they live in is in keeping with our democratic socialist principles. We must look after the interest of the poor people. We must not think too much of those people who have money. We must equally pay attention to those people without money.

As regards transportation, all the bus companies should be nationalised. Then there will be an overall improvement in our public transportation. Unfortunately, the Minister for Communications is not here. Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see today that people are suffering great inconvenience because of the poor transport system. Every morning when I go to office, I see a lot of civil servants waiting for buses. This is a pathetic sight, because they have to waste a lot of time waiting for buses to take them to work. They are like so many ants, and like ants trapped in a frying pan, they suffer greatly. So because they cannot board the buses in time for work, they have to travel in pirate taxis. Before the bus companies are nationalised, we must allow the pirate taxis to Operate as express taxis. We must not consider pirate taxis as illegal and confiscate them. The operators of these vehicles have no money. They have to borrow it from finance companies to pay for the vehicles. So how can you confiscate their vehicles when they have not fully paid for them? For the time being, we must allow these pirate taxis to continue to operate as express taxis, so that although they are not allowed to pick up passengers at the bus stops they are allowed to discharge passengers at such places. In this way, pirate taxi operators will have a means of livelihood. Instead of Government confiscating their vehicles if they have committed any offences, they should be fined. The point is that they are self-employed people. They are also people with self-respect. Although they are poor, they do not go to the Social Welfare Department for assistance. They make their own living by operating a pirate taxi. So the Government should not confiscate their vehicles which are their means of employment. Mr Speaker, in my view, if the pirate taxi operators are arrested, they should be fined instead of having their vehicles confiscated, because they have to borrow money to pay for these vehicles.

On the question of education, I hope the Minister for Education will pay attention to what I have to say. All the primary school-leavers should be posted to the secondary schools nearer their homes. If the students live to the north of the bridge in Chinatown, they should be posted to the schools in that area instead of to schools in Jalan Kayu, or Jalan Sungei or some other places. If a student in Chinatown is told to go to Jalan Hwi Yoh, then his posting is a blind posting. He should not be posted to a school so far away from his home. Many students in Tiong Bahru have complained to me about their wrong posting. I have written on their behalf for re-posting to schools in the Chinatown or Tiong Bahru area. All students should be posted to schools nearer their homes. This is the policy we should be implementing. There should be no mistake about this. But there have been so many wrong postings. This is very exasperating to the parents concerned. I wonder if the Minister for Education is aware of all this. If the principle of posting students nearer to their homes is adopted, then the parents will not be exasperated.

As regards secondary school-leavers, there are many of them who are unable to find places in the upper secondary classes. They and their parents are very worried. They are so worried that they cry because their parents had hoped that they would be able to further their education. Although the points they got in the School Certificate Examination exceeded 21, there is latent talent in them. Mr Speaker, Sir, some children develop their latent talent at a later stage. I shall deal with the question of money later on. We must think of these students who have failed to gain places in the upper secondary classes as well as their parents. If these students have to leave school half-way, it will be a very sad thing. I hope the Minister for Education will have more classes set up at the upper secondary level. If he has no more money, he can come to this House and try to get some more money.

As regards health, I believe we should set up more markets in Singapore. I do not know whether the Minister for Health is around here. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Will Members please listen to the Member for Ulu Pandan with the same courtesy with which he listens to other Members?

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): We should set up more markets to accommodate more hawkers. If we do not have enough money to set up more markets, then we can get the people to invest in the building of markets. I believe there are many rich people in our country and they should be invited to invest in the construction of markets. They can set up limited companies. I believe we require at least 200 markets. I do not know how many markets we have. Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary? We have less than .20 markets now, I understand. We must have at least. 200 markets. This is very important. If we do not have enough markets, then we have to worry about the hawkers' problem. I am the adviser to the Hawkers' Association and I am in close contact with them. I am fully aware of their problems. We want our State to, be clean, but without an ade quate number of markets we are bound to have hawkers in the streets. Because of these hawkers, we will not be able to keep the streets clean. So the authorities will arrest them and cancel their licences. So we must provide an outlet for hawkers to operate. Give them the markets and they will not come to the streets. If we try to keep them out of the streets and do not give them alternative accommodation, it is not fair. If we build more markets to accommodate them, our streets will be clean. There will be less traffic congestion. It is a pity that the Minister for Communications is not here.

On national service, Mr Speaker, the graduates of the universities and the colleges should have their period of national service reduced by one year, so that they will be able to contribute more to our nation-building after their graduation. We should not keep them in the army too long at the expense of their parents. I think two years' national service is too long. It should be cut down to one year so that these graduates can come out into society and do more work for our country.

Mr Speaker, we must also pay attention to the setting up of a marine college or institute. The Prime Minister has already said that we are going to embark upon deep-sea fishing. But without trained marine personnel we will not be able to implement our scheme in deep-sea fishing. If we have a marine institute, we cannot only train enough personnel for our own use but we may also be able to train some of them as captains and masters to serve on foreign ships as well.

Talking about industrialisation, do we have a big steel mill? We must set up one. We must welcome investments in this mill, something like $200,000. We must also have proper planning to run it properly.

Furthermore, we should also try to improve our foreign trade so that we can sell our local, products. We should hold trade expositions at least twice a year. We must seek international markets for our products, otherwise our factories will close down. I urge the Minister to note what I have said on this point.

3.41 p.m.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim (Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his speech to the House on the evening of 6th May, 1968, expressed three objectives which the Government seeks to achieve. The objectives principally are, (1) to build up a defence capability to ensure continued national security; (2) to eradicate bad industrial practices and to increase productivity in order to create a good climate for increased investments and, in conjunction with this objective, to build a sound relationship between labour, management and Government; (3) to enhance solidly national consciousness to tackle the impending problems.

I wish to record my support for these three objectives, without necessarily agreeing with the diagnosis of the problems and their solutions. Any sane and thinking person will have realised that the next few years are crucial and vital years for the Republic and its people, because of the withdrawal of the British Armed Forces, which will affect our national security and income and the political situation in the whole of this region.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do believe that the people of Singapore have the ingenuity, discipline and spirit to face the challenges that are to come, as they had in the years gone by. The workers, of whom I am one, do recognise that when there is mounting unemployment, economic and industrial expansion for the Republic is ever more imperative for our own job security and more for our own well-being. I am sure they will support any reasonable measure to solve the grave unemployment situation in the Republic. However, Mr Speaker, it is regrettable to note that Ministerial speeches tend to give the impression that the workers have all along been mainly responsible for malpractices and bad productivity, and the only way to cure it all is to introduce some labour taming or maybe labour killing measures. Is the labour movement so irresponsible? Statistics show that there were fewer and fewer strikes, and records also show that whenever there were disputes, the trade unions would use the good offices of the Ministry of Labour or would use the machinery of the Industrial Arbitration Court to settle their disputes. I believe that at this point of time when we are entering into a crucial phase, co-operation between the workers and the Government is important and necessary. I would strongly suggest to the Government not to make the workers their natural whipping-boys. The Government should, I think, desist from making hysterical allegations of malpractices and publicly castigating the workers. Such an attitude is not conducive to bringing about good co-operation between the Government and the workers. Sir, this is not going to create a good image but will have the opposite effect of creating an untrue ugly image. If it is the Government's policy to establish sensible relations between labour, management and Government, the Government itself must show the way. The only way to get real co-operation is to have consultations on matters of mutual interest. And where matters concern labour, consultations must be held with the appropriate trade union organisations. To illustrate, when there are legislative or other kinds of changes affecting labour, consultations must be held preferably ending with agreement rather than that the changes be rammed down the throat of labour.

In this connection, there must be genuine consultations between the Government and the trade union movement on the proposed Employment Bill. If the purpose of this Bill is to create greater employment, it is worthy of support. But it might as well be said now that with the repeal of the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the standardising of working hours for clerks at 44 hours per week, theoretically speaking, an employer requires five' clerks less for the functions that were formerly carried out by 44 clerks.

If the aim of the proposed Bill is also to reduce certain fringe benefits like leave, the overall effect will be worse. In such a situation, there will be greater unemployment through retrenchment, which gives a result contrary to the aim of the Bill. One of the aims of the Bill is to check the abuse of fringe benefits. May I say, without any reservation, that the fringe benefits provided in the Labour Ordinance, 1955, or the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957, or the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, are not all of them adequate? In fact, more have been obtained by way of free union / management negotiations or awards of the Industrial Arbitration Court.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock temporarily in the Chair]

3.50 p.m.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim (Kallang): I would think that if there is abuse of fringe benefits by individuals, the cure is for the employer - this includes the Government - to put it under control. To reduce or to limit fringe benefits because of the misdemeanours of a few is an admission of poor management, which is not in accordance with the Government's declared policy. It would be pertinent to ask the question: in which sector is abuse of fringe benefits rampant? Is the bad area in the private sector? I am sure this is not found in the private sector. I do not think any hard-headed private employer would tolerate for a day, or an instant, the abuse of Standing Orders or the terms of a collective agreement. May I remind the Government, lest it has been forgotten, that it was only in recent years that trade unions have managed - and not without struggle and sacrifice - to secure reasonable wages, fringe benefits and job security for its members. Therefore, very careful consideration should be given to the question of depriving the workers of the benefits which they care most.

However, I have said earlier that the workers can make sacrifices for the nation, and the sacrifice of certain fringe benefits can be made if it is definitely going to create more jobs in the firm or in industry. But it is most unlikely that the trade unions can give up the basic rights to organise, to protect its members and to have free negotiations without objection and dissent.

Sir, it is my earnest hope that in the end the proposed Employment Bill does not degrade the dignity of labour, does not cause job insecurity and demoralisation. I hope the Minister for Labour, who is concurrently the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will not have the task of selling Singapore in that way.

While on the programme of the Ministry of Labour, I wish to commend the Minister for his proposal to allow the Central Provident Fund balances to be used to pay for the first instalment of Housing and Development Board flats and that the additional contributions made by the member and his employer can be used to pay off monthly instalments of both Housing and Development Board flats and privately-built houses. I have commended the Minister not so much because the Central Provident Fund balances can be used but that home ownership fulfils the desire of every person to own a home. And also because the scheme itself is in accordance with socialist principles.

I would venture to suggest to the Minister to allow current Central Provident Fund balances to be used to pay off loans from building societies and finance societies for the purchase of houses, because of the high rate of interest charged by these financial companies.

In connection with the programme of the Ministry of Labour, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that no provisions are made for unemployment insurance. With the high degree of unemployment, surely this must be an important matter. Can the Minister elucidate what happened to the payroll tax collected which was meant to start an unemployment fund? What are the prospects of a person who is to be made jobless by termination of service? Outside the provisions of collective agreements generally, there is no provision in any of the three labour Ordinances for payment of service gratuity. The jobless person gets $21 as public assistance, which is hardly enough to meet the daily necessities for survival, let alone pay for Housing Board flat rent. It is now proposed by the Minister for Health that such a person be charged for hospitalisation. Would such a person, if he was injured doing work for his employer, be asked to pay for his recovery? I think the Government should not be too smug about what welfare benefits they provide to the unemployed or sick people.

Sir, one of the Government's objectives is to awaken and to infuse national consciousness in the population to meet the national problems coming ahead. I do suggest to the Government to use fully the mass media of radio and television to publicise the patriotism of our loyal citizens Instead of almost subserviently depending on one local newspaper to announce contributions to the National Defence Fund. This particular newspaper, I learn from one well-known employee, responded quickly to an appeal of another country; but not a stir of response to just as urgent a need for our Republic. Even their own employees recently gave something, but not them.

I think hon. Members must feel heartened that the people of Singapore have demonstrated their love and loyalty to the country. This is surely a good sign. The ordinary people - the workers, trishaw riders, taxi-drivers, hawkers, farmers and their children -to the greatest degree, must be commended for sacrificing their savings or earnings for the national need. Some worked overtime and gave their overtime pay to the nation, while others gave their whole day's earnings. But there are executives who shudder to give up their one day's entertainment money for the National Defence Fund. This latter group is apt to put the blame on the ordinary workers for anything that goes wrong in industry. This brings up the question as to how much the executives, including those in Government service, who are not covered by the employment law should be made to sacrifice. It is common knowledge that these executives enjoy fringe benefits, especially annual vacation, far in excess of what the ordinary worker gets. They are the ones who judge whether a day's work put in by the ordinary worker is worth a day's wages. But under our social system who is to judge whether the executives are worth their salary? I purposely use the terms "wages" and "salary", because in the President's Speech the Government has used the word "wages" which usually refers to earnings of the ordinary workers.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.00 p.m.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim (Kallang): The ordinary workers would like to ask whether the fruits of their sacrifices go to the businessmen and executives and are remitted out of the country. What measures are there to see that more people are employed by business concerns after the proposed legislative measures have been introduced? The ordinary workers have the right to know, for they just cannot pack up and migrate to another land.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next I wish to deal with the Ministries of National Development, Law and Health. The matter is the question of the handling of rubbish by these Ministries. I hope they will decide among themselves as to which Ministry is responsible for this before the question of cleanliness becomes unmanageable. The question is that the Public Utilities Board, under the Ministry of Law, wants to impose a trade refuse fee of $4 for work not done by them in Petaling Road Market in Kallang Constituency. The problem is that the Housing and Development Board is already charging $35 and $30 for cooked foodstalls and wet foodstalls respectively inclusive of service and conservancy charges. The worst of it all is that the Public Utilities Board, after initiating the move, passed the problem to the Ministry of Health for a decision. Such bureaucratic wrangling and tug-of-war is definitely not conducive to good administration of the public service. I support legislative measures to punish litter bugs, but the Government departments responsible for clearing rubbish must also do the jobs they are paid for. In connection with this matter, I wish to make an observation that some Housing and Development Board Estates, including the Kallang Basin Estate, have an unsightly appearance caused by rubbish whether at nine in the morning, or at noon or three in the evening, which are within working hours.

To round off my speech, I wish to say that only the People's Action Party has manifestly shown itself to be the only party that has shown its concern and welfare for the Republic and the people. Only the People's Action Party has been a true and genuine Opposition Party and governing Party. Only the People's Action Party has been through thick and thin under all circumstances with the people. In spite of all the tasks ahead, the People's Action Party is willing to undertake the responsibility of looking after the country. The people have clearly shown their faith in the Government. The Government cannot jettison the trust and faith of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition group and parties outside Parliament have behaved outrageously by not offering themselves as an alternative government, and it can be expected that they will be more irresponsible as an Opposition in Parliament and still more irresponsible as a Government. They deserve the people's rejection.

Last and not least of all, I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to the President for his honourable presence and his speech on Monday evening. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the President.

4.04 p.m.

Mr Low Yong Nguan (Crawford): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Speech, the Addendum to the speech, and the series of Ministerial speeches provide a clear and adequate analysis of the problems we have to face in the crucial years ahead and the not so pleasant measures we have to face in overcoming these problems. These measures, bold and imaginative, will require more than average effort on the part of everyone to succeed.

Our record for the past 2- years of independence should not leave any doubt that both the Government and the people have the will and the capacity, the courage and determination to see through these challenging years and to return triumphant.

The Ministry of Labour will have on its hands problems of such a nature that what have hitherto been regarded as unpopular measures have to be taken to aim at changing the workers' and the unionists' attitude towards society at large. To cope with the acute unemployment problem, to streamline the conditions of service, to regulate overtime to enable a wider spread of employment, to leave out certain fringe benefits, to increase productivity and to promote industrial growth, a comprehensive Employment Bill will be introduced. Sir, this is a bold and farsighted move. Our potential investors must be adequately convinced that here in Singapore we have a disciplined labour force and a sound and healthy industrial climate so that they may, after weighing the pros and cons, decide to stake their money with us. I am glad that in this respect, the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, who is also the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., has in no uncertain terms declared his support for the proposal for and on behalf of the workers in Singapore. This in itself is a clear indication of the workers' understanding of the problem. Sir, I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister for Labour, when considering these measures, will always bear in mind the fact that the P.A.P, has all along been returned on a socialist platform set up to eradicate any form of exploitation and that it will not be tripped over by the apparently over-whelming temptation posed by the need to provide more employment opportunities and to promote industrial growth in the coming years. Neither do I doubt the wisdom of the unionists who need not be reminded that the surest way of destroying any organised trade unionism is to allow the country's economy to fall apart and unemployment to assume proportions of uncontrollable magnitude. May I, however, add that outdated Ordinances, which this Employment Bill will seek to repeal, such as the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, were designed to provide advantages to the white-collar workers over the blue-collar ones who will in the years to come ensure the success of our industrialisation effort. It will, therefore, not only be necessary at this stage to standardise the conditions of service but also to provide incentives in the coming Bills to the blue-collar workers by possibly enhancing their social position and giving them advantages over their counterparts in white-collar employment, for after all, rapid industrialisation is the order of the day. May I also add, Sir, that when introducing the Bill, the Government should always bear in mind that it should encourage its own employees to be exemplary in their attitudes. Hon. Members will agree with me that in the years gone by, employees in the various statutory boards were found most likely to abuse any fringe benefits. Let us also hope that this Bill will bring with it a change of heart among these workers for, being on the public payroll, they have to be more than just ordinary employees. May I also call upon the Government, as an employer, not to abuse any restrictions on the workers that may be introduced in the proposed Bill, lest others will follow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now draw the attention of the House to the section on urban renewal and redevelopment in the Addendum to the President's Speech. I come from a constituency which will in the next few years be completely changed and altered by these schemes. I will not be so naive as to dispute the necessity of urban renewal and redevelopment. Indeed, I welcome the Government's measures taken to encourage and promote substantial participation from the private sector in this respect by making necessary administrative changes and providing incentives, so that these schemes may be more rapidly and efficiently pushed forward. However, may I remind the Ministry concerned to treat assurances given, that there will be adequate compensation and that affected tenants will have adequate time to move on to alternative accommodation, with more effectiveness and seriousness, especially in its administrative machinery? Officers charged with the responsibility of resettling affected tenants must demonstrate a clear understanding of the problems involved. These officers must, in spite of the stresses and strains that go with the job, stay composed and in their treatment of this sensitive problem must at all times be beyond doubt and reproach.

Sir, I will quote a recent case of resettlement in my constituency to support what I have just said. At least four engineering works were asked to move out without their being offered alternative accommodation. The officer in charge made an offer by asking them to move out as soon as possible and possibly to move back at a later stage when circumstances permitted. Sir, if only this officer would understand better the cost and the labour involved in moving out and moving back foundries and machinery, I think possibly this might not have happened. It is hoped that steps could be taken early enough to prevent my constituents having to operate their foundries and to park their machinery along the roadside. May I suggest, Sir, that local organisations, such as the Consultative Committees, be requested to participate and help in solving resettlement problems so that with an understanding of local conditions, resettlement will not only be carried out fairly and efficiently but will also appear to have been so done.

Sir, let me hope that in the very near future slums will be replaced by high quality buildings and that people who are resettled in the course of doing so will feel happy that the little sacrifices they may be asked to make are not in vain.

At this point, I think it is appropriate for me to congratulate the Ministry of Law and National Development and the Public Works Department on the grand work they have put in to cope with the phenomenal increase in power, water and gas consumption over the last few years. But I must confess that I am alarmed by the feeling that overhead charges added to the production cost of these amenities might have increased too rapidly for anyone to be comfortable. I hope it will be checked and brought to order. I also feel that it is my duty to caution the Public Utilities Board against allowing itself, on account of trying to cope with the increase in demand for electric power, to be intimidated into expanding its generating network at such a rate as to affect sound planning, or to retain or employ expatriate officers, who do not have our interest at heart, to manage and superintend over these extension stations, especially if such officers are inefficient and proved to be irresponsible. We must and have to allow our own local bright and energetic engineers to participate in such management, because ultimately it is they who cannot afford to see their own country's progress affected by any disruption in the power generating industry, the result of which will be too horrifying even to imagine. In this context, I must hasten to say that the mere sending away of officers on short training courses and conferences is not enough. Local bright engineers must be given the trust and encouragement to manage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a further suggestion to the Ministry of Law and to the Public Utilities Board, and that is to look into the possibility of making some kind of arrangement, say in the form of a grid network, with our neighbour in the north in ensuring security in loading capacity. Such an arrangement will not only help establish good neighbourliness but it will also help to cut down expenses and inefficient standby plants. Of course, even countries which are technically more advanced than we are are co-operating or seeking to co-operate in this respect.

Sir, coming to the Ministry of Science and Technology, I must first of all welcome the timely setting up of this Ministry. I read with great interest the speech of the Minister for Science and Technology on science education and industrial development. In his speech he has shown a clear understanding of the need to streamline our technical education system to satisfy the requirements arising from our industrialisation effort. True enough, our engineers, technicians and their supporting artisans are not being produced in the right proportions. But if it is a set-up of a quasi-Government to have a set-up whereby 10 engineers with four technicians are supervising and being supported by, say, ten artisans, and if such a set-up is not being checked, I would contend that any attempt to streamline and produce manpower in the right proportions would become meaningless. Sir, I am optimistic that the high-powered Cabinet Committee established to tackle this problem will soon come out with a solution. And one day - we hope it will be soon - we will see our education system harmonising with our social and environmental requirements.

Sir, I remember also there was talk of centralising our apprenticeship training. In this connection, I hasten to request the Government to institute a centralised apprenticeship management without further delay, and no effort must be spared to ensure its success. Private employers must be urged to institute a comprehensive apprenticeship scheme with active assistance from this management. In so doing, it will be able to provide a well-trained technical base.

All in all, Sir, the Ministry of Science and Technology must take on rapidly the task of providing enough people with the know-how at the right place to ensure the success of our industrialisation effort. Talking about technical know-how, I would request the Finance Ministry seriously to consider instituting stricter control over the quality of products that bear the mark "Product of Singapore". It is no use producing synthetic leather bags at a cost higher than what is imported from outside if these locally produced bags are not going to be any good in quality at all. It is no use protecting these products if we are producing them at such low quality that they will never be able to have a chance to go into any international market. Sir, if we are to compete in the highly competitive international market, let us ensure that our products are up to the mark and that the quality is up to specifications.

May I conclude by saying that come what may in the years ahead, we have no choice but to succeed. The result of failure is too much even to ponder. I am confident, as I said earlier, that we will make it. I quote the Prime Minister in saying:

'The response of our population to these difficulties that we are faced over the last decade has been a constant source of inspiration, the ability to adjust, to adapt and to change. It is this collective sense of endeavour which will carry us through.'

And I say triumph we will. Sir, I beg to support the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is convenient to take the suspension now. I will suspend the sitting and take the Chair again at five minutes past five o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at Twenty-two minutes past 4 p.m. until 5.05 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.05 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

5.06 p.m.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, one encouraging point in the President's policy speech is that our Government will be making use of the available time to build up our defence capability, because by 1971 the British will have withdrawn their troops from Singapore. We can make use of our available human and other resources, not to expand rapidly our military establishment, but to recruit only a limited number of regular national servicemen to be in the reserves. They will be receiving regular training so that our resources may be used for nation-building and for constructive production. Furthermore, our population may take part in production while they are always ready for combat. This is a very wise policy.

We all know that not very long ago Israeli troops defeated their enemies who were ten times more powerful than they were in just a matter of a few days. What does this mean? It means that the people of a country should place the interest of the country above individual interest. At the same time, the people should have very high morale. Our Government realises that we are a small country with a small population. We have been able to learn a lesson from the historical incident which I have just mentioned and we shall implement our policy accordingly. This is laudable.

Sir, I feel that there was not enough emphasis on a programme for public construction and social welfare in the President's speech. Such a programme will improve the livelihood of the people. Also, there is a lack of planning to reduce the difference between the living standard of the rural people and that of the urban people. It cannot be denied that the People's Action Party was elected to power for the third time because it has shown a high degree of efficiency, integrity and incorruptibility. But more important is that it has made significant achievements in raising the standard of living of the people. Otherwise, the P.A.P, would have already followed the footsteps of some Afro-Asian countries whose governments do not have a firm foundation. In some of the Afro-Asian countries, no matter what political pattern or political party is in power, it is only a matter of eight to ten years before military men take over the government. There is no democratic election. Following this, there is violent revolution and the Communists take over. Then there is a one-party dictatorship and the young shoot of democracy is uprooted. Why? The cause for this kind of situation mainly lies in the fact that the people in power are interested only in making money and they have forgotten the well-being of the people and the duty to be of service to the people.

Sir, we all know that in the 1970s we have to spend large sums of money on defence and military establishments. But it cannot be denied that public construction in the rural areas is still lagging far behind that in the urban areas. So we must redouble our efforts in public construction in the rural areas. Otherwise, what happened in 1963 in the rural areas would be repeated, i.e., the rural areas would be manipulated by anti-national elements.

Sir, let me talk about education. We all know that in a newly independent country like Singapore, the long-term policy and objectives of the People's Action Party have a telling effect on the future of the people and on the policy of democratic socialism amongst the new generation. The long-term objectives of the P.A.P, will play a very important role in this aspect. One of the means to achieve these long-term objectives is education. Ever since we in the P.A.P, came to power, we have been allotting large sums of money on education. The purpose is to educate and bring up our younger generation so that in future they may make a better contribution and render more service to our country. It cannot be denied that the achievements of our country in education have been meritorious. But now, because of the rapid changes in our situation, it is necessary to make our education pattern meet the needs of a new environment. We have to review and reform our existing education policy. In the past, there was a quantitative bias in our education policy because we had to eradicate illiteracy quickly. This objective has now been achieved. The teachers played an important role in achieving this objective. But today, the quantitative bias in our education policy is outdated. What we are looking for today is a qualitative education policy because, in such a country as ours where there are no natural resources, the youths are the precious wealth we have. If we do not educate them well and turn them out into rugged, brave and intelligent people endowed with scientific and technological knowledge, the perpetual existence of Singapore will be at stake.

Sir, in July last year, I saw the Youth Festival organised by the Ministry of Education. We have witnessed the sudden re-awakening of the younger generation who have changed their past attitudes. They have responded keenly to cadetship in schools, the Police, the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. This is proof that they are awakening to new challenges and demonstrating the spirit of a new generation. If the Ministry of Education can make military training one of the compulsory subjects in the middle school curriculum, these youths will be like hedge- hogs which cannot be swallowed easily. The task of cultivating group interest to serve as a generating force for our progress cannot be undertaken by the administrators in the Ministry of Education alone. Therefore, all school administrators and teachers must do their bit to help in this task. So the re-training of teachers and administrative personnel is necessary. Of course, this can be undertaken during their vacation or holidays. The main purpose is to give them a clearer understanding of the Government's education policy, to make them aware of the trust that the country and the people have in them, and to inculcate in them a love for their country. At the same time, our society and new country need a group of dedicated intellectuals to help. Therefore, the Ministry of Education must adopt a new criterion for the promotion of teachers, namely, their contribution and services as teachers to society: for instance, their activities in the Citizens' Consultative Committees, community centres, voluntary and other organisations, and services rendered to society generally.

Another point is that when inspectors of schools find teachers making mistakes, they should try to make the teachers correct their mistakes on the spot and not lord it over them and make a record of the mistakes in their files for the purpose of record and not for the purpose of improvement. It is important that inspectors of schools should impart to the teachers a spirit of patriotism and inform them of the nature of our education policy in order to help them carry out more effectively their duties as teachers.

Sir, let me supplement what the Member for Serangoon Gardens said yesterday on the present examination system. First of all, I support his views on the abolition of the Primary School Leaving Examination. We all know that the Ministry of Education calls it the Primary School Leaving Examination. But, in fact, this sort of examination is a judgment on the future of a 13-year old child, because his fate is sealed by the result of the examination. The Ministry will put him either in an academic secondary school, or a secondary technical school or a secondary vocational school, depending on his result. Sir, a 13-year old child has no fundamental understanding of or any concern for his fate. Ninety per cent of the questions in the present Primary School Leaving Examination are objective tests and there is an element of chance. This kind of examination cannot truly determine the intelligence of a student. It is rather unfair to seal his fate in this manner and many a fine boy's future may be destroyed. Attention has already been paid to this point in advanced countries like England. I hope we can take a step forward and abolish the Primary School Leaving Examination and replace it by a Middle II Selective Examination.

In the wake of our discussion about building up a brave and rugged generation, I am surprised that there is no physical education subject in the Middle IV, Secondary IV and Higher Secondary Examination. Sir, although our schools are expanding to saturation point, we are very short of art and craft teachers. Even the inter-school sport meetings organised by Government schools have been largely stopped, because many schools cannot get physical education teachers and coaches. To ask a trainee teacher who has not much knowledge of physical education and who has been trained two hours a week in the Teachers' Training College to take up the onerous and important task of becoming a teacher of physical education is like looking for a fish in the woods. Therefore, it is necessary for us to set up an institution of physical education in order to train teachers of physical education so that they can bring up a rugged, brave, strong, determined, energetic and enduring new generation.

Sir, I now come to science and technical education. It cannot be denied that our past prosperity has all along been dependent on commerce and entrepot trade. But now that we are independent, we have to provide our own defence. The British military forces will be withdrawing from Singapore. On top of this, our population is increasing and a large number of people are unemployed. Hereafter, we may not be able to depend solely on commerce and entrepot trade to maintain our economy. The Government is going all out to promote industrialisation in order to bolster up our economy, establish our own defence, resolve the unemployment problem because of the British withdrawal from Singapore, and create more employment opportunities for thousands of school-leavers every year. It is encouraging local merchants and even entrepreneurs to invest large sums in factories in order to create more employment opportunities. To succeed in industrialisation, investments and markets are natural problems. But it is even more important to reduce production cost, increase productivity and raise the quality of our manufactured goods. In order to achieve this, our education system should naturally stress the importance of science and technical education. This is the only way to succeed in industrialisation and achieve economic prosperity.

We should have not only a sound education system taking in science and technical subjects, but also well-equipped laboratories and workshops. At the same time, it is also necessary to have more qualified science and technical teachers who will be responsible for the teaching of science and technical subjects. Further, full use must be made of the facilities to teach the students so that they will understand thoroughly the theory of science and its actual application. Science education should also emphasise applied science. Pure science has the objective of seeking the truth about science and ascertaining the facts of phenomena. It is not of much value to the practical application of science. Usually large sums of money and much energy are spent on pure science and, as a result, it does not contribute much to our industrialisation programme. It does not promote the well-being of our people. If we want to succeed in our industrialisation programme, we must encourage applied science and technical education. In order to industrialise, we need not only ordinary manual workers but also large numbers of technical specialists and engineers. In addition to having a sound mind in a sound body, these people should also have knowledge of applied science. They should also undergo a considerable period of strict technical training before they can become qualified industrial personnel.

Therefore, from now on the secondary school curriculum should stress the importance of teaching Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. These three subjects are the basis and the gateway to more advanced scientific knowledge. There are two points I wish to emphasise. One is on the theoretical aspect of science. The other is on its practical application. The subjects taught should include not only the ordinary basic theory of science but they should also be related to the actual application of the theory and the actual application of the techniques. The first type of science education is more suited to students who are interested in pure science. The second type is more suited to students who are interested in the actual application of science in industry. Comparatively speaking, applied science is more important and there should be more teaching of this subject than pure science. Thus we may teach the students according to their individual inclinations, so that we may train them as scientists or technologists or experts in the various fields. In this way, there will be a bright future for our industrialisation programme.

Finally, Sir, I fully express my support for the Prime Minister's motion thanking the President for his speech.

5.38 p.m.

Mr Low Guan Onn (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have the privilege of joining our Prime Minister in expressing my vote of thanks to the President who has graciously delivered his Speech to the Second Parliament so soon after his recovery from his recent illness. The measures as outlined in the Addendum to the President's Speech have my full support. Without such measures to meet the challenges we have to face during the next four years, our chances of survival as an independent and sovereign people are less hopeful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish now to touch upon the subjects under the headings "Comprehensive Labour Legislation" and the "Central Provident Fund" contained in the memorandum presented as an Addendum to the President's Speech. The industrial climate in the Republic of Singapore to induce foreign investors has been attractive during the last two years and has improved considerably since then. But investors have not come forward in large numbers as had been expected. Investors from countries like Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong and countries in Western Europe are still wary about labour conditions in the Republic. The number of investors is not up to our expectations because of the prevailing conditions of uncertainty and instability in the surrounding regions of this part of the world, except our island Republic. We can take pride in our country as an oasis of political and economic stability. We have a currency which is one of the strongest in Asia, and labour with a high standard of literacy, a high degree of skill and endowed with a natural aptitude for taking up new skills with comparative ease. We have excellent harbour facilities and our financial, insurance and banking services are of the highest order and efficiency in Southeast Asia. Despite all these advantages, we are not attracting enough industries with both labour intensive and export-oriented types. What are the underlying reasons for this lack of enthusiasm and response? Since the P.A.P. Government came to power in 1959, nothing has been done in regard to our existing labour laws which require long overdue reforms.

One of the bugbears which deter foreign companies from investing in our Republic is our labour laws which require tidying up and rationalisation. Clerical staff in industrial offices work 44 hours per week, whereas the same kind of clerical staff performing the same kind of work in commercial houses work only 39 hours per week. To give you another example, Mr Speaker, Sir, clerks in industrial plants have 11 paid holidays per year, whereas clerks in commercial firms and in the administrative offices of industrial establishments have 16 paid holidays a year. There is no difference in the nature of the work and the conditions governing the work of clerks, whether they work in commercial firms or industrial firms. The human element of frustration and dissatisfaction is accentuated by creating different benefits due to the shortcomings in our existing labour laws. A new situation has arisen because our Government is now concentrating more effort on the intensification of our industrialisation. As a result, both administrative and production work will be carried out within the same compound and in the same office. These new conditions and situations will be found in the new industrial estates. In other words, clerks will be performing the same kind of work and amidst the same environment. Because of the existing labour laws, the industrial clerk is discriminated against by having a lesser number of public holidays. If we want to get rid of the human frustration and dissatisfaction and if we believe in the equality of all citizens, then the Government has to rationalise our existing labour legislation.

In the past I have pointed out to Ministry officials dealing with labour that some radical changes have to be made to standardise the working hours and other conditions of employment and, at the same time, to rationalise the fringe benefits so as to reduce abuses to the minimum. Even with rationalisation, our labour conditions are much better off than those obtaining in other parts of Asia. Our wage rates are still much higher than those of any other countries in Southeast Asia, and our per capita income is the highest in Asia next to Japan. Without the accelerated withdrawal of British troops from Singapore, I believe no attempt would have been made to bring about these changes in the proposed Employment Bill. Something has to be done by way of legislation to bring about more equitable and satisfactory conditions of employment for all workers irrespective of the nature of the work they are doing. This new Employment Bill will create a better impression on would-be foreign investors and much publicity must be given to it abroad by our Government. I commend the Government for having taken the bold and forward-looking policy of taking the necessary steps to repeal the three Ordinances now existing, namely, the Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957. These Ordinances should have been repealed long ago as they are out-dated and do not fit in with our times and the policy of our Government. These are relics of the past when divide and rule was the best policy to govern a people. These laws have given rise to misgivings and much ground for bad industrial relationship during the years from 1955 to 1963. They have caused many heartaches and headaches to management on the one hand and frustration and dissatisfaction to trade union leaders on the other. They were enacted to enhance the status of white-collar workers and to treat with contempt those who earn their living with their hands.

In the context of Singapore today we can ill afford this situation. Government has taken a wise step to introduce the proposed comprehensive Employment Bill. In view of the fact that the Government is pro-labour in its policy, it is courageous to repeal the existing labour laws by substituting one comprehensive Bill to standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of employment. This will be progressive and far-sighted legislation and will go a long way to erase many areas of discontentment and grounds for dispute between employer and employee. It demonstrates our Government's concept of an equal and democratic society in which all wage-earners will be governed by the same conditions of employment and enjoy the same fringe benefits. It is gross injustice and, to say the least, creates areas for discontentment if two workers work in one place and within one compound and do the same kind of work but observe a different number of weekly working hours. If we are to hold to our belief and concept of equal opportunities for all, then all workers should be treated alike. I hope the new Bill will apply equally to all employees in the Government sector and other statutory bodies.

To touch on the aspect of industrial relations, the proposed new legislation will erase many areas of friction and pave the way for better understanding and co-operation between labour and management, which is very essential for industrial peace. But if we are to take full advantage of the implications of this new Bill which is to be legislated by this House, then labour and management will have to see that greater productivity relative to cost and output is achieved through these changes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to allay the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Bukit Ho Swee, that maximum co-operation may not be forthcoming from employers if this new Bill is passed. Here I must sound a note of warning to all employers in the industrial and commercial sectors to take cognisance of the personal sacrifice every worker will have to make in the long-term interest of the nation in the industrial front when this Bill is passed. It is only fair and reasonable that they, as employers, have to make up something in return to compensate for their losses.

Speaking as employers, we should not take advantage of the new changes in the labour policy and make more profit at the expense of the workers. There should be no exploitation of the situation by employers if the proposed Bill is passed. Economic and political considerations have brought about the introduction of this Bill which is aimed at ensuring the survival of Singapore.

Both labour and management should co-operate and work towards the common goal of building a stable and viable Singapore.

A second Central Provident Fund, which will be set up, should therefore compensate for the new conditions of employment resulting in the loss of certain fringe benefits. This second fund will also assist in further economic development by providing capital for more investments in new industries and, at the same time, will provide to the workers a secure source of financial assistance in the form of savings when they retire.

When the new changes come into force, trade union leaders should educate their members to see that productivity and efficiency, the main objectives of this new Bill, are achieved. This will put the Republic on a more competitive basis compared with Japan or Western European countries in many of our industries; but still less so than countries in Southeast Asia, like Hong Kong and Taiwan. We have a small domestic market for our manufactured goods and we have to export by producing goods at competitive cost and quality. The output of each factory is in excess of local consumption. To capture the domestic market, every encouragement should be directed towards our people by mass media of communication to buy locally-manufactured goods even at a slightly higher price. Government and statutory bodies which spend a great deal of money on foreign imported materials should insist on local manufactures even though the price may be 10 per cent more than the imported items. In this way, we will also prevent import leakages and save our foreign exchange reserves. The more we import from abroad to meet our local needs, the more we have to dip into our reserves.

I am of the opinion, Sir, that when the proposed Employment Bill is passed by this House and becomes law, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth among the workers. The clerical staff of the commercial sector will be the most affected. Among employers, there may be a few who will try to take undue advantage of the changed situation brought about by this new legislation. To this class of employers, I would strongly advise them that they will not get the support of this Government and they will be looking for trouble for themselves. I hope the Employers' Federation, the Chambers of Commerce, and trade unionists will meet often round the table to iron out their differences and problems to minimise the areas of dispute to prevent incidents of industrial strife. Both management and labour must strive hard not to offer opportunities to the enemy camp to find excuses to generate industrial instability, thereby scaring potential investors.

With the accelerated withdrawal of the British Military Forces, it is the bounden duty of both employers and workers to project an image of confidence, good government, political stability and responsible labour to make our Republic the industrial centre of this region. In this sacred task of meeting the challenge and the problems we have to face in the crucial years ahead, everyone, as long as he is a citizen of Singapore, has a vital role to play. Workers and employers in this respect have to think more of the national interest than personal or sectional interest. Each is dependent upon the other and only through partnership in the common endeavour will win the day. We sink or swim together. This message must be communicated to the lowest level of the masses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I give my full support to the motion moved by the Prime Minister.

5.55 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Katong and a few other Members had occasion to discuss some problems that face the evolution of a progressive and enlightened educational policy in Singapore. I got the impression that in the course of this discussion, there is one aspect relevant at least, if not important, which was not adequately can-vassed. And I would like to say a few words on this for the purpose of setting a rational framework for any future discussion.

It is clear that we have come to the end of one phase in our evolution of our educational system and we are about to embark upon another. We have, to a large extent, solved the problem of providing equal opportunities in education in a quantitative sense. I am not so sure that qualitatively we have done the same thing. And it is no secret, and is, in fact, known to everyone in Singapore, that every time the year ends and the new term starts, there is a scramble among parents to get their children into the best possible schools, especially on the secondary level. It is either Raffles Institution or Anglo-Chinese School. I have become interested in this problem for some while now to find out what the cause of this attitude really was. It became apparent that children naturally wanted to go to schools which had firm established traditions of teaching, where standards were certain, and they got the best by way of teaching from the teachers. This, I think, is connected also with the way in which transfers of teachers and principals take place in Government schools. I can see there was a certain logic in the past for having done this. Because of the expansion of the educational programme, there was a shortage of teachers for the purpose of servicing all the schools and it became necessary to follow this kind of practice. I hope that this state of affairs has come to an end with more teachers coming out to perform their respective duties and that it will be possible for the Education Department to allow teachers to remain in a school for 10, 15 or more years until they retire and thereby develop a personality. Teachers, like children, have got a way of growing up with their respective schools and institutions. This is something that we must foster and we must also allow individuality on the part of teachers and principals in the performance of their teaching duties within the framework of the national policy laid down by the Government. This, I think, is very vital if we are to build up the firm educational traditions that we have been talking about in our schools, whether it be intellectual traditions or whether it be extra-curricular traditions.

Having said that, I would like to refer to the various Ministerial statements that have been broadcast and also the Speech made by the President. It is quite clear that the Government is setting us firmly on the course of building up a modern society. And at the end of five years, it may be a fair assessment to say that the internal consolidation of the State of Singapore would have matured. If this be true, we would have succeeded in creating a national ethos at the end of five years which would make it more and more difficult for extreme political parties, efferent political parties like the Barisan Sosialis, to create trouble in Singapore. If our internal difficulties are solved and rationalised, it is fair to say that most of our difficulties in political terms must come from the outside. So long as the difference remains between us in Singapore and our immediate neighbours in the conception of the nature of a State or politics and the exercise of power, there is bound to be this political friction. And this is something we must learn to live with. This we can do provided, of course, we strengthen ourselves militarily and otherwise. I was wondering whether through diplomacy and other means we could, instead of concentrating on these political differences, strike out boldly as we have done in internal matters and establish relations in educational, cultural, trade and economic matters with our neighbours, and in the process help in muting the frictions and the differences that crop up from time to time between us. I know it is a difficult proposition, because we come face to face with all kinds of irrationalities at different times. This is something, I think, we have got to keep hitting at and perhaps with the evolution of the respective societies, we will find a way to come closer together in economic matters.

6.03 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his speech outlining the policies of the Government said that this is a Parliament which is faced with problems of more than usual magnitude. Is it because of these problems which we are facing that the Opposition have chosen not to contest the elections? This is the Second Parliament in which the P.A.P, has been given a clear mandate to govern the country. The people of Singapore can be assured that we, who have been in government for the last nine years and with the experience of our leaders, will certainly resolve the problems facing us and we will do the best we can.

In the President's Speech and also the statements by various Ministers, emphasis is placed on sacrifice and greater effort by our people and by our workers. I think we should restate our aims and objectives. What are we making sacrifices for and why are we asking our workers to make great sacrifices? I think we have to ensure that our economy is good, because we all know that we need to expand our industry and create more jobs for our young population and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the run-down of the British Forces in Singapore. But I think it is not sufficient just to ask the workers to make sacrifices. The Government must ensure that the sacrifices which the workers make will eventually benefit the country and not a few firms or a few individuals who want to make money as quickly as possible and call it off. If the Government can ensure that there is a reasonable balance of interests between workers, management and capital, I am sure that at the end of our five-year term the workers will find that their sacrifices will not have been in vain, otherwise I am sure that we will be in for trouble.

Great emphasis is placed on productivity. The Government can help by ensuring that incentives are given to those workers who contribute to productivity. There must be a basic change of thinking on rewards. For instance, in the past under the colonial system, rewards were measured in terms of seniority of service. A clerk who starts with $150 a month need not put in great effort, because he knows that at the end of every year he will get $15 a month increment. But if he reaches the $500 a month grade, why should he put in extra effort to produce more work? So if this kind of thinking is not changed, it will be difficult to induce our citizens to be more productive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to touch on two points which are most disturbing to a section of the people in Singapore and of which most Members of Parliament in this House are fully aware. They are citizenship and work permits which are tied together. Some time ago when citizenship was of less value, it took an applicant about six months for his citizenship to be considered, and if he qualified for citizenship it normally took about six months to get his citizenship paper. Citizenship then became more valuable. An application for citizenship took about a year to be considered and approved. At present, I believe there are about 40,000 applicants for citizenship. It takes about a year for applicants who have filed in citizenship papers to be interviewed. Some of them are wondering whether their applications will be successful. Many of them are still waiting for an answer even after a year. This is a very unhealthy situation. Although one may ask, "Why should you worry about them? They are not citizens. They cannot vote for you?", I think we have to be humane about this. There must be a certain time limit for applications to be considered, and the applicants should be told whether they qualify for citizenship or not. It is true that in the past many chose to sit on the fence and they have only themselves to blame for the situation they are in today. I am not so much concerned about those fence-sitters who are finding it difficult to get citizenship, but I am concerned for quite a number of people who are neither citizens of India nor citizens of Malaysia, who are stateless through no fault of their own, who have lived here and who have applied for citizenship. If they so qualify, I think they should be dealt with more expeditiously, because citizenship is now tied up with work permits. There are quite a number of stateless persons in Singapore and if they are permitted to live here, surely they should not be denied the right to work here. Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in this House that it is not our intention to withdraw work permits, but because of the situation where we have large numbers of less educated citizens we should accommodate them and make jobs available to them. He also said that he did not mind other persons doing "tough" jobs. If that is the case, I would suggest that when a work permit is withdrawn from a person doing a "soft" job, he should be offered a "tough" job.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the Ministerial broadcast on tourism by the Minister for Finance. I am glad that at long last the Minister for Finance is on the right track about tourism when he said that a lot of nonsense was being said about how to attract tourists. He then went on to give the correct view of the basic trends of tourism. I would suggest that the Ministerial statement on tourism should be given wide publicity to correct the thinking of all those persons associated with the promotion of tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, Bali for a tourist is not new. Before confrontation, Bali was a selling point for American tourists. But because of confrontation and the difficult conditions in Djakarta, American tourists stopped proceeding south of Singapore to Djakarta or Bali and, therefore, Singapore was affected. Now that we are back to more normal conditions, it is correct to say that we could benefit if Bali could be further developed and we may not be at the tail-end of this enormous Pacific tourist traffic. In fact, I would like to make another suggestion to the Minister for Finance, that if the Singapore Government and the Governments of Australia and America can be persuaded to get the airlines to lower fares from America to the South Seas via Tahiti, Australia, Bali up to Singapore, we certainly will not be at the tail-end, but we will be on the correct circuit of a booming tourist traffic in which the American tourists can come either via Tokyo, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, down to Bali, Australia and back to the United States or vice versa.

6.20 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): MrSpeaker, Sir, after a history of 150 years Singapore is now marching forward steadily into a new stage. It can be expected that this new stage will not be smooth going all the way. It will be beset with difficulties and obstacles. Never have there been so many problems and difficulties which need us to rack our brains for their solution as it is now. But the people of Singapore have never been daunted by any difficulty. We have creative ability and the capacity to accomplish tasks which others think cannot be completed. Therefore, I believe with our group intelligence and under the dynamic leadership of our Government, we can all attain a bright future if our people can be united for one purpose.

Sir, from the Addendum to the President's Speech, you can see that we may face many difficulties. We are not adopting a negative policy. We are adopting a positive policy to increase our economic growth. This is the best way to enable us to march forward. It is true to say that in the coming years our social structure will not be the same as it is at present. We hate violence because we believe that social reforms can be achieved through peaceful means. On the other hand, there is the human desire for peaceful living. As a rule, people are not willing to go through violent and bloody revolution. Ideologically, there has been a great change in our people ever since our independence. The past colonial thinking has now been replaced by new ideas. There is a new attitude of self-reliance and nationalism. In the coming crucial years there will still be some remnants of the old thinking which should be eradicated. Perhaps this is a painful process but it is necessary. In the new era group interest should be above personal interest and personal enjoyment. For the sake of national interest individuals will have at times to make some sacrifice. We must always be prepared to face any challenge.

Sir, let me talk about education. From the Ministerial policy statement which was broadcast over the air and from the Addendum to the President's Speech, we know that our education policy will go through a major change. The traditional education policy of producing white-collar workers will be changed. The emphasis now will be on the production of blue-collar workers. Sir, this change is very necessary. Otherwise the large sums of money that are being expended on education will produce a large number of students who will not be required by society. This would be a waste of public funds. They would also constitute a hindrance to social progress. It is true to say that the purpose of education is not just to enable those receiving education to have a means of making a livelihood. Education should also teach students to develop good character. About 20,000 of our secondary school-leavers have the same standard of ordinary education.

The Member for Bras Basah (Mr Ho See Beng) walked into the Chamber and took his seat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho See Beng, may I draw your attention to Standing Orders which preclude your walking between the hon. Member addressing the House and the Chair?

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: Mr Ho Kah Leong.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): There will be school-leavers entering the labour market every year. But, on the other hand, the new industries we are having now lack the necessary industrial personnel. This will undoubtedly produce many social problems. The Government is now trying to rectify this unfavourable balance in our society. This is really a laudable act.

Sir, there are some parents of students who still have the traditional bias for white-collar work. They think that white-collar work is better for their children and that it will ensure them a better future. They regard vocational schools as a place for students of lower intelligence. If possible, they do not like their children to have a vocational education. This wrong attitude should be changed. As the Minister for Science and Technology has pointed out, there are three kinds of technical personnel, namely, the ordinary craftsmen, the artisans in the middle, and the technologists who are of a higher standard. Vocational and technical schools are not meant for students of low intelligence. On the other hand, in the present circumstances, it will be easier for technical personnel to get jobs. It is very obvious. But the bias of people for white-collar

6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will it be convenient for you to stop now, Mr Ho?

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Pursuant to the resolution made earlier today, the House will adjourn now, it being half-past six o'clock. The debate will be resumed on Monday, 13th May, and on the resumption of the debate, Mr Ho Kah Leong will have the Floor.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock to 13th May, 1968.