DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1971, TO 31ST MARCH, 1972

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.47 p.m.

The Chairman: Before we proceed to consider the business of the Committee, may I, in the light of certain remarks made yesterday in the Committee of Supply, refer hon. Members to two Standing Orders. The first concerns the use of languages in Parliament, that is Standing Order 43, which provides that an hon. Member may speak either in Malay, Mandarin, Tamil or English, as it is permitted by Article 37 of the Constitution.

The second Standing Order is paragraph (2) of Standing Order 47 which provides, inter alia, that reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice. I would urge hon. Members to exercise caution in referring to any matter which is before a court of law awaiting adjudication. Thank you.

I come now to the Development Estimates of Expenditure for Singapore for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March. 1972, contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1971. I shall take the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the last column of the Summary of Estimated Expenditure on pages 5 and 6 of the Paper.

I shall deal first with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

Head 01 -

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 101.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that everybody will be very glad to note that an initial sum of $2 million has been set aside for the construction of the proposed subordinate court building at Havelock Road. I wonder if the Minister can give us additional information about the architectural and other features of the proposed building: that is information additional to what has already been given in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates, as well as from any other pronouncements recently made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that justice should be meted out in circumstances of proper appearance of physical dignity, and that the law should be administered under conditions that reflect the progress that we see in other aspects of Singapore life. Currently, without going too much into tedious details, an atmosphere of physical gloom, congestion and dilapidation hangs over our subordinate courts. I had an opportunity recently to take a look at them and it was quite a depressing experience.

I am sure that in the administration of the law we want to get the maximum public co-operation. I would hope that after this proposed new building is completed, there will be appropriate space and amenities for witnesses and the general public. Mr Speaker, Sir, every year thousands of people, including witnesses, have contacts with the courts. What sort of impression do these people get if the conditions they experience are such as they are experiencing now?

Finally. I note with some anxiety that the Memorandum on the Development Estimates states that work may start in mid-year. I would urge that every effort be made to implement the decision that is involved in the vote on which I am speaking.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say at the outset that I agree with the views expressed by the Member for Katong. The subordinate courts were already in a bad way when I used to practise in them eight years ago. They must have become worse since then. Hence, the new court building.

The provision of $2 million against subhead 101 is required to meet the cost of construction works for the first year only. The whole project is estimated to take about 31 months to complete, from the date of obtaining vacant possession of the site. Reference to this subject was made in January 1971. Actual piling work is scheduled to commence next month, but there have been delays in site clearance, and the present Havelock Road, which forms part of the site, cannot be closed until the alternative proposed major road system in that area is implemented.

The Member will be pleased to know that the subordinate court complex will be the first of its kind in this part of the Science Centre is not responsible for science research. It is an organisation responsible for some kind of a museum. I hope the Member for Sembawang will be able to distinguish between the kinds of work to be undertaken. I hope that the Science Centre will be completed by 1974 or 1975.

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this House should not laugh at people who make heroic attempts to speak in unfamiliar languages.

The Chairman: It is rather an uncalled for remark, is it not, Dr Tan? Mr Teong.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Sir, I am happy with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301*

(*The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Augustine Tan.)

Sir, the University of Singapore is considered to be one of the best institutions of higher learning. It is responsible for the training of professionals required for the country. Therefore, the expenditure to be voted for is justified.

However, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

Firstly, when will the construction of the building be completed?

Secondly, how will the furniture and equipment and land be acquired with $10 under each item? Are there any plans to proceed with the purchase of furniture and equipment and the acquisition of land?

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to the queries of the Member for Sembawang, may I ask the Minister for Science and Technology the following questions:

Firstly, in regard to the sports complex in the new University site, may I know whether a swimming pool is envisaged?

Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is proposed to provide housing of some kind for the University staff at the new site.

Thirdly, is it proposed to air-condition all the offices and lecture halls at the new campus?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reply in a language which will be familiar to both Members who have asked me the questions. First of all, to answer the Member for Sembawang on the question of the $l0 vote. This signifies that the Ministry has staked a claim for furniture and equipment and for land. Of course, you cannot buy a table these days for $10 unless it is a second hand table. But the $10 vote is to indicate that in future, if it is necessary for the University to acquire equipment, a submission will be made to the Ministry of Finance.

In the case of land, nothing has been settled. I have no idea at all how the University is going to pay for the acquisition of land at Kent Ridge. This is a problem which is beyond the University, and it has to be settled between the Bases Economic Conversion Department, representing the Singapore Government, and the British Services.

To date, what has happened is this. We have submitted five papers providing the data which have been asked for by the World Bank. The World Bank has sent officers periodically to discuss with the University Development Unit the progress that is being made in planning. We are now waiting for an appraisal team to come out from Washington so that studies can be further elaborated if necessary, and the World Bank can make a final decision on how much of the application which we have made will be supported.

With regard to the question of the sports complex which has been raised by the Member for Whampoa, I would just like to point out that it is very far distant in planning. We have no immediate plans for it, although the intention, of course, is to devote a part of the land to sports activities which will include facilities for students and staff who wish to play soccer, rugger, hockey, and cricket if necessary. But we have to make optimum use of existing facilities. There is already in existence a sports complex about 300 yards north of Kent Ridge, next door to the St. John's International School and the Polytechnic which will be sited at Dover Road. This sports complex has been built at very heavy cost. Several claims have been made for the sports complex which includes a swimming pool, a pavilion and changing rooms. I believe the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Education are also making a claim. But until a final decision has been made, I cannot guarantee that we need to plan for another swimming pool, because I believe that whatever facilities are available in that area should also be made available to the whole community and not to the students only.

As for University staff housing, I am told that there are existing, as of this moment in Kent Ridge, houses which are now being occupied by officers in the British Army. Of this number, about 55 will have to be demolished in order to make way for Phase One of the development project. So there will be 45 houses left which can be used to house the University staff. There are also houses in Medway and Sussex Parks which are adjacent to Kent Ridge. Again I have made a bid for them on behalf of the University and the Polytechnic as well, so that we can utilise them for teachers who wish to teach at the University or the Polytechnic. But no final decision can be made on the utilisation of these houses because, excepting those at Kent Ridge, real estate problems have to be solved between the Singapore Government and the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments which are proposing to place a token force in Singapore. I believe there is at the moment an examination of the needs of this token force which will be in Singapore. But our intention is that, as far as possible, the locality in Pasir Panjang should be made available for economic and educational development.

However, where possible and where land is available, it will be the intention of the University to build flats for housing its staff, and similarly I have also suggested to the Polytechnic that when it moves over to Dover Road, flats ought to be built to house its staff. In this way, we can bring the staff nearer to the campus. These two problems are being looked after.

As for air-conditioning, I am more concerned with the annual maintenance costs and the public utility charges which the University will have to pay, than with the capital expenditure which will be incurred by installing air-conditioning plants. I believe that the annual operating cost of air-conditioning is $1.10 per square foot per annum. The Faculty for Engineering alone is asking for a total floor area of 393,750 square feet. But of this area, a total of 315,000 square feet is to be air-conditioned, because laboratories which contain sensitive equipment will have to be air-conditioned and it is the intention to provide air-conditioned rooms in the lecture theatres as well as in seminar rooms and staff rooms. The annual operating cost of air-conditioning this space alone for the Engineering Faculty is $346,500. If you extrapolate the cost of maintaining air-conditioning for all other faculties - Science, Architecture, Business Administration and ultimately the Teaching Hospital - you can imagine how much the annual recurrent costs of upkeeping the University will be. Therefore, we have to be very careful that we do not air-condition every part of the University. The workshops and the corridors are decidedly not going to be air-conditioned. The whole campus complex is being planned on a modular basis so that, where necessary, air conditioning can be installed as and when members of the staff feel fit. And when it is not necessary, the air-conditioning can also be turned off. This is uppermost in our minds. It is not just the capital expenditure which is required to put up the University at Kent Ridge but the annual recurrent costs as well. I hope I have answered all the questions which have been raised by the Members for Sembawang and Whampoa.

3.15 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very satisfied with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,300,020 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 21 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $100.

In moving this amendment, I wish to raise a few questions for answer by the Minister concerned.

(1) How is this money to be spent? Is it for the purchase of land or any other purpose?

(2) Is this expenditure going to offset the economic losses caused by the British pull-out?

(3) Are further donations being received towards the National Defence Fund? What is the total amount of contributions to date?

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, this money will be spent not only in buying land, but also on weapons, equipment, vehicles and that kind of thing.

Will it help to offset the expenditure on the British military run-down? The answer is no. This money is meant to equip our army and not to help the economy.

As regards donations to the Defence Fund, I do not have the exact figure, but it is very close to $10 million now. We are not getting many donations these days.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $100,000,000 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 31 -

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101.

In moving this amendment, I wish to seek further elucidation from the Minister for Communications on the setting up of the Mass Transit Planning Unit. Though the Minister has already answered a question raised in this House some time earlier on the Mass Transit Planning Unit, I would like to know how this vote of half a million dollars will be spent and what the Mass Transit Planning Unit will be doing within the next 15 to 18 months, as indicated in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates of Singapore.

How much assistance will the United Nations Development Programme be giving to Singapore? The Minister has also mentioned that loans will be asked for from the World Bank. In this respect, perhaps he will enlighten this House on how much the cost will be, if eventually such a mass rapid transit project is set up in Singapore.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Sir, I shall be only too happy to explain this matter of mass rapid transit, in particular the Mass Transit Planning Unit which has a vote of half a million dollars for the next financial year, as mentioned by the Member for Punggol. As stated earlier in the debate on the Estimates of Expenditure for the year 1971-72, we have applied to the United Nations Development Programme for assistance to carry out a mass rapid transit feasibility study. This is now under study by the U.N.D.P. We expect a decision to be made some time in June this year. If it is in the affirmative, the study is expected to commence in January next year.

In October last year, it was decided to set up within the Ministry of Communications a Mass Transit Planning Unit to administer and service this proposed study. The Unit will comprise both foreign consultants, who will be employed by the World Bank for this project, and local counterpart staff of professional calibre. In addition, related services required for the efficient operation of the study team will be provided for the duration of the study. In terms of manpower, it is anticipated that the staff will be about 50, comprising 13 foreign consultants, 12 local professional staff, and about 24 administrative technical supporters who will be working on this project. The local professional staff will consist of serving and newly recruited administrative officials in the Ministry of Communications and experienced staff seconded from the State and City Planning Department, the Urban Renewal Department and the Ministry of Finance. It is always essential to have the Ministry of Finance officials right from the very beginning, so that when the report comes up, it will have already been processed by their officials and is more likely to be approved at a later stage. That is one of the secrets of getting things done.

Some members of the local professional staff will be sent overseas for advanced training and study on mass transit planning, technology and management.

Owing to expansion needs in the State and City Planning Department, the original plan to site the Mass Transit Planning Unit in their premises has to be revised. In view of the short duration and specialised nature of the study, it is proposed to convert a bungalow in the Port of Singapore Authority to house the Unit for the duration of the study.

The estimated total project cost is expected to be in the region of over $4 million and it is expected that the U.N.D.P, may contribute $2.8 million, and Singapore's contribution will be in the region of $1.2 million, partly in cash and partly in kind, especially the rendering of professional services.

The Member for Punggol then asked what the cost of the Mass Rapid Transit System would be if and when we do decide to implement this proposal. I do not think I could do better than refer him to the budget statement made by the Minister for Finance on 8th March, 1971, in Hansard, col. 591:

'Development expenditure requests, however, have been increasing in size from year to year. Some of the needs in the coming years for projects like the Mass Rapid Transit System or for renewal of urban areas will be for sums beyond anything we have been accustomed so far to consider.'

Preliminary indications are that it would be to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps we had better wait for the study to indicate how many hundreds of millions of dollars will be involved.

Mr J. F. Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, is it possible for the Minister perhaps to indicate alternative systems that are being generally considered feasible in the light of Singapore's circumstances?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, perhaps the Member for Katong is somewhat impatient and wants to have a statement from me as to what is the preferred system. I think we should allow the expert technical staff to put forward their views. It could be an underground or an overhead railway. May I plead with the Member for Katong to hold his horses till we get the feasibility report?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I most heartily agree with the Minister's last suggestion. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for having indicated to this House what plans are in hand concerning the Mass Transit Planning Unit's functions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong.)

I just want to ask the Minister a question. In the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore tabled recently, there was a proposal to allow authorised motor workshops and repair shops to issue certificates of inspection to vehicle owners. May I ask the Minister when this can be implemented?

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): (In Mandarin): Sir, the House is being asked to allocate a sum of money totalling $823,000 to establish a Motor Vehicle Inspection Centre at Upper Thomson Road. Last week this House heard the reply given by the Minister, that the new Motor Vehicle Inspection Centre would be completed at the end of 1971, and that the R.O.V. headquarters would be moving into its new building at Upper Thomson Road.

3.30 p.m.

I heard recently that renovations are being carried out at the R.O.V., Middle Road. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, if the Registry of Vehicles is going to move out of Middle Road, why are renovations being carried out there? Second, how much floor area is the new Motor Vehicle Inspection Centre going to occupy, and what sort of a building is it going to be? The last question is, how many cars can be inspected at this new Inspection Centre?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may first answer the question raised by the Member for Toa Payoh referring to that section of the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore, Paper Cmd. 21 of 1970. It is true that in para. 12.2 of the Paper, it was indicated that it is proposed to accept certificates of inspection issued by authorised motor workshops or repairers in lieu of inspection by the ROV. We have not implemented this decision: it is not kept in cold storage, but just being deferred, because there are many problems now being tackled by the Registrar of Vehicles, especially the proposed re-routing and reallocation of bus routes which will begin about two weeks from now and there is a tremendous amount of work involved. Once we have got over the bus services reorganisation, we will come back again to this other proposal, by which time we hope that the new Inspection Centre which is being built at Sin Ming Road will be ready within five months from now, i.e., in September. When certain sections of the Registry have moved out from Middle Road to Sin Ming Road, off Upper Thomson Road, there will be less congestion in the administrative headquarters at Middle Road, and with more room to spare we shall get down to implementing the decision about acceptance of certificates of inspection. I hope this will convince the Member that the matter has not really been forgotten but deferred for a little while because of other pressing problems of greater magnitude. And as usual we will be carrying on with the same number of staff, although we shall be recruiting new staff who will not come to the establishment until some time after April this year.

As for the Member for Mountbatten, there is no doubt that he is very observant and alert. Probably he goes to Middle Road rather frequently to be able to notice that there is some work being carried out at the R.O.V. premises there. It is true that some alteration work is going on, but that is to convert existing quarters into offices, for which a tender for $21,000 has been accepted. Only a part of the Registry is expected to move over to Sin Ming Road in September/October this year, and the first movement will be the Motor Vehicle Inspection Centre where all vehicles can be properly inspected. The bulk will still remain in Middle Road until such time as we can come to an understanding with the Urban Renewal Department, which is eyeing the R.O.V. Middle Road site. It is only after all these matters have been agreed to that we are in a position to say, "Yes, the whole Registry can now move over to Sin Ming Road."

I hope the Member himself will agree to the $21,000 expenditure on renovations, which will enable our staff to work under better and more desirable conditions. After all, the Registry of Vehicles gets an annual income of $60 million, and $21,000 is chicken feed really.

The Member for Mountbatten also asked for information on the Sin Ming Road site. At this new Motor Vehicle Inspection Centre, there will be 10 inspection pits as compared with only six pits at Middle Road. That means an increase of four. This Inspection Centre, together with its own administrative office, stores, etc., will occupy a total floor area of over 20,000 square feet. But the total land area that will be made available to the proposed Registry of Vehicles offices will be 2.37 acres. So at present we are really building on only one part of the area that has been earmarked for the Registry of Vehicles. There will also be a car park to accommodate over 40 vehicles at any one time, and we have the capacity to carry out 63,000 proper vehicle inspections per year. I think the Member asked how many inspections could be made per day. At 63,000 inspections per year, it will be about 200 inspections per working day. This number can be increased to 100,000 inspections per year, as there are possibilities of future expansion.

Let me give a little bit of the background to the present Middle Road site. It was built way back in 1930, and it occupies an area of over 30,000 square feet. These premises are situated in the central city area, and there is no space for expansion. As I have said, with only six inspection pits, vehicles have to queue up for inspection, and quite often there is serious congestion along Middle Road, Bencoolen Street, and the roads surrounding the R.O.V. Because of this, we have to think of moving out of the city area into the suburbs. At present the Inspection Centre is planned to handle only 36,000 inspections a year. But last year there were as many as 78,000 cursory inspections, which means that the vehicles were not really thoroughly checked. They were just given a quick look-over, and then off they went. Moreover, these inspections were confined to public service vehicles, buses, taxis, and goods vehicles. That is why this vote is a fairly urgent requirement, as it is necessary for us to get on with this new building which we hope to be able to move into in five months' time, i.e. September this year.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, in view of the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to seek clarification of the New Postal Stores and Garages at Clementi Road. I note that for the last financial year there was a provision of $400,000, and there is a footnote to indicate a revote of $150,000 subject to Development Planning Committee sanction. So doing simple arithmetic, I find that only $27,000 is further required to make up the provision of $177,000 asked for in the ensuing fiscal year. I shall be grateful if the Minister for Communications will be kind enough to throw some light on the New Postal Stores and Garages.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a good explanation for the reduction in the vote from $400,000 for the last financial year to $177,000 for the ensuing year. I think it is a good example for all concerned to know that, although we may have a rather large vote to draw from, we always give due consideration to the fact that if we can get what we want at a cheaper price, it is our duty to choose the cheaper alternative, provided we do not lose by doing so.

What happened in this case was this. In 1969 the Master Plan Committee recommended that new postal stores and postal garages should be built on a three-acre site at Tannery Lane. The site was allocated by the Commissioner of Lands to the Postal Services Department on 8th September, 1969, and a provision of $400,000 was included in the 1970-71 Development Estimates for this purpose. However, because of the high estimated cost of building the new postal stores and garages at Tannery Lane, the department looked for a cheaper alternative and approached the Bases Economic Conversion Department in May 1970 for suitable stores and garages which were being vacated by the British Military Forces. The B.E.C.D. indicated that No. 4 Sub Depot, 3BOD, at 7¼ m.s. West Coast Road/Clementi Road, where there were stores and a garage complex with a covered storage area of over 90,000 square feet, was available and it agreed to release to the Postal Services Department just three of the store buildings, not all, together with the open area around it, which cover a total area of over 30,000 square feet. The two Nissen huts there will be converted into postal stores, garages, workshops, and parking areas. Because of this alternative, the Postal Department decided to relinquish the three-acre site at Tannery Lane.

For the conversion of part of the West Coast Road/Clementi Road facilities into postal stores, a sum of $47,000 was approved by the D.P.C, and the D.P.S.C. (Development Planning Sub-Committee) in 1970. Conversion work, which is currently in progress, is expected to be completed by the end of April.

3.45 p.m.

According to the architect in charge, the total progress payment during the financial year 1970-71 is expected to amount to only $20,000 and, therefore, there will be a revote of $27,000 in the 1971-72 Development Estimates.

As regards the postal garages, which are also to be shifted to the West Coast Road/Clementi Road location, conversion work is expected to commence in the early part of the next financial year. A sum of $150,000 is included in the 1971-72 Development Estimates for this project. So the two together, $27,000 plus $150,000, give a gross figure of $177,000. This therefore means that there is a great saving of over $230,000, and this is for the good of the country.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,246,200 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 32 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting)

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to know whether the landing facilities for the Jumbo jets are up to international standards. I also wish to raise the following questions for oral answer by the Minister:

(1) When will the terminal building be completed?

(2) Will the building be equipped with closed-circuit television and a modern public address system?

(3) When will the first Jumbo jet planes land on Singapore soil?

(4) How many passengers can the Jumbo jets accommodate?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that there is an increase in the provision for the financial year 1971-72 as against that for 1970-71. Sir, if I may refer to the Hansard of 26th March. 1970, Vol. 29, col. 1189, in which the Minister for Communications quoted the second paragraph at page 4, Head 51 - Civil Aviation - of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates of Singapore (Misc. 2 of 1970). He said:

`The major project will be the redevelopment of the Passenger Terminal Building, for which $3.0 million is provided. This project is scheduled for completion by late 1971.'

Following those remarks, the Minister was kind enough to indicate the facilities that would be available as a result of the redevelopment of this terminal. Today this House is being asked to approve a sum of nearly $2 million to complete this project. I would like to ask the Minister what progress has been made on the redevelopment of the Passenger Terminal Building. In addition to the facilities he indicated last year, what additional facilities will be available? For example, matters like the delay in the handling of baggage was brought up last year and the Minister then indicated to the House that steps would be taken to ensure that baggage handling would be much quicker. I do hope that this is so today.

I also brought up a point about the transit lounge in the terminal building. I had occasion to visit the transit lounge and I noticed that the facilities are still quite inadequate even though there are some tax-free shops sited in this redeveloped terminal building.

I shall be grateful if the Minister will enlighten this House on the type of facilities which will be available, because I also notice that in his reply last year he did indicate that the Passenger Terminal Building would be handling about three million passengers. In other words, this is three times the number of passengers handled in 1970. In this respect, I shall be grateful if the Minister can comment on my remarks.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to provide the "oral answers" asked for by the Member for Sembawang. I should have thought that there must be questions tabled before there could be oral answers! However, I will try my best to provide the information in detail. I believe the Member asked when the present redevelopment of the Passenger Terminal Building is expected to be completed. The answer is September of this year. This is just about six months from now, when this project should be completed.

His next question was whether there will be closed-circuit television and a public address system. There will always be a public address system. In fact, this morning's paper announced that the new mushroom-shaped information counter is already in use from today. Our airport hostesses will be there to serve Members if they have any queries to ask.

As for closed-circuit television, we have decided not to install this. What we have in mind is something more expensive. It will cost about half a million dollars and works on the electronic principle and will provide information regarding the movements of aircraft, expected arrivals and departures and so on. They will appear on something like a television screen and this is supposed to be an improvement on the old-style closed-circuit television.

The third question was, when will the first Jumbo jet land in Singapore? All this while we have been planning on the basis of the Australian Airline, Qantas, starting the Jumbo jet service from Sydney to London. It was scheduled to be September or October of this year. But they have been beaten to it by an American Airline, Pan-American Airways, which is expected to inaugurate the thrice-weekly San Francisco/Singapore service on the 26th of next month. The first Jumbo jet landing in Singapore will therefore be 26th of April. The plane will come all the way from San Francisco. This is six months ahead of schedule.

As regards the number of passengers in the Jumbo jet, fortunately I have gone inside one of these Jumbo jets before they started to fly. I went to the factory when the first Jumbo jet rolled out. I was two days behind time, otherwise I would have been present at the ceremony in Seattle in 1968. The plans are that most airlines would carry 360 passengers, but some airlines would like to have 450 or 500 passengers. For the time being, all the airlines operate on the basis of perhaps 362 passengers. However. I will stick to 360 for the time being. That answers all the four "oral questions" asked by the Member for Sembawang. I hope I have answered them to his satisfaction.

Coming to the Member for Punggol, he says that there has been a reduced vote for the redevelopment of the Passenger Terminal Building. I beg to disagree with him. For the financial year 1970-71, it was $3 million. For the financial year 1971-72, there is a provision of $4.8 million. There has been an increase and not a decrease.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I said "increase".

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am sorry. I thought I heard the Member say a decrease. I hope he supports this increase

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I support it.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Good, I thank him very much. Once the redevelopment of the Passenger Terminal Building is effected - as I have said, it will be totally completed in September 1971 -all the problems and complaints of slowness in baggage clearance will be solved. There will be new equipment installed for faster movement of baggage. The transit lounge will be expanded. It is only six months from now when everything will be completed, and I shall then invite the Member for Punggol and the Member for Sembawang to go for a little visit to the airport and we can have tea to celebrate it -

An hon. Member: And lunch!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: And lunch may be thrown in -- to test the restaurant service there to see whether it satisfies the two Members. That will then be a much happier time to answer all the questions to their satisfaction. The facilities in the Passenger Terminal Building will be improved. When everything is completed, I will invite the two Members to come along with me and, of course, my Parliamentary Secretary will also be interested, and we will all go and have a look around.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I think the Minister for Communications has not answered a part of my question, that is, the increase of $1.8 million. To what use has this $1.8 million been channelled apart from the redevelopment?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Perhaps I have to give him more details, if that is what he wants. Perhaps the calculation was a little underestimated and the cost has moved up a bit.

An hon. Member: There should be economy.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: We practise economy when it is necessary, but sometimes the cost moves up. For example, the cost of equipment is $l 1/2 million, but at the time the estimates were drawn, it was $1.2 million. You will then have to provide for another $300,000. There is no alternative.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Fair enough.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: May I say that the redevelopment of the Passenger Terminal Building was put at an estimated cost of $6.4 million. Tenders for the project were called on the 12th of June and the contract that was awarded was $5.87 million for building work alone. I suppose that is how costs have moved up. The new Passenger Terminal Building will have double the capacity in floor space as compared with the existing one. So there will be twice as much room to move around.

4.00 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy and satisfied with the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $14,588,420 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 33 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker,

Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 216.

Sir, the vote is $400,000 for radio communications equipment for the offshore industry. I have two questions to ask the Minister. Firstly, when will this service be implemented? Secondly, what kind of revenue can be derived from this service?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the special vote of $400,000 for establishing radio communications equipment for the off-shore industry is to meet the rather large needs of the off-shore industry in Singapore. They are being catered for at present, of course, by our so-called medium-range maritime radio telephone service. There has been considerable development since 1968 when the off-shore industry decided to establish various offices in Singapore. For example, in 1967 there were only 677 calls. In 1968, it practically doubled to 1,331. In 1969, it shot up to 3,807. And last year, there were 6,228 calls. There has therefore been an increase of 10 times in the last three years. About 90 per cent of these calls are directly or indirectly due to the off-shore industry.

Of course, there were the usual complaints of delay in meeting their requirements. So our Telecommunications Department decided to have special discussions with representatives from the oil industry. That was done last year. Two meetings were held and it was then decided to provide a special high-quality radio communications network exclusively for the off-shore oil industry. The network, for which we are now asking for a vote of $400,000, is really part of a number of phases. The whole project will come to $1.3 million spread out over five years. Phase One will cost $800,000 and the sum of $400,000 is included in next year's estimates so that we can slowly build it up into something much bigger. This network is timed to come into operation in early 1972, and will provide very high grade, almost cable-quality communication, which means to say that it will be free of interference and very clear signals will be obtained through this special network.

As regards the cost effectiveness of this expenditure, i.e., whether we are going to spend all this money and what about the returns, the Telecommunications Department is working on the basis of an economic service, which means that we provide a service but we make sure that at the same time we also make money. We are not part of a social service where money goes out and very little is received in return. If we provide large capital sums for establishing a service, we expect returns which will make it not only economically viable but also profitable, both for the users and for ourselves. We believe that the annual costs, including staff salaries, maintenance, depreciation of equipment and other overheads, will be around $100,000 per annum. But the revenue we expect at the rate matters are developing can well be $330,000 per annum. I think it is a fairly good business. We spend about $100,000 per annum and we should be getting over $300,000 as revenue per annum. I think that is why we had the Finance Ministry's approval for this project.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: (In Mandarin): I thank the Minister for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 401.

Sir, in moving this amendment. I merely wish to draw the Minister's attention to the complaints by businessmen and others who find it extremely difficult to book international telephone calls. According to the telephone directory, if one wishes to book an international call, all one has to do is to dial 908. But it is becoming extremely difficult to get even this number, let alone get the call through to another country. I hope the Minister for Communications will care to look into this matter and remedy the situation, because I believe that a lot of business can be done and is being done as a result of telephone exchanges between Singapore and other countries.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, it is conceded that there has been some justification for the complaints by the public against our Telecommunications Department. There is really no excuse, but there are certain circumstances which I hope the Member for Punggol and members of the public will be able to accept. When debating the Estimates of Expenditure last week, we have explained the difficulties the Telecoms Department has to face. First, we have a high vacancy position of 9 to 10 per cent, and the existing staff have to cover up for the deficiency of staff. It is all very well if development work is going on at the normal tempo, and so forth. In the case of the Telecoms Department, it is doing a very fine job coping with what goes on in the commercial world, because more business is transacted, more requests for telephones, telex, international telephone calls are made. Our range of development is spectacular and much too rapid for the staff or the equipment that we have, and therefore when businessmen try to put through calls, there is congestion. And so there is delay. Naturally this brings about complaints. Under these circumstances, a high vacancy position of 9 to 10 per cent and an exceedingly high rate of demand for our services have, together, compounded the situation and made it appear to be worse than before.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last week I assured the Member for Telok Blangah, who raised a query about gross overtime and so much time off that the Telecommunications staff could not really make use of it, that I was very confident that things should improve this year with the very large recruitment of staff. A doubting Thomas, he did not believe that anything could be improved this year. I should like to tell him that we have taken a number of steps to improve the situation. For example, the exchange capacity at any one time for simultaneous calls, now put at 62, will be increased to 88 in the middle of May. That is why we are asking for this provision of $39,200. This represents only the first phase of an extension programme which was started way back in 1967 with a capacity of only 55 calls.

By early 1972, the second phase will begin to increase the capacity to 118 calls. Furthermore, there will be no shortage of international channels, because our Earth Satellite Station at Sentosa, which we hope will be operational later this year, will have a capacity of 132 telephone channels. So the capacity is suddenly doubled and I suppose it should be adequate for the foreseeable future.

Of course. I have explained that the Public Service Commission has already completed a recruitment exercise to fill vacancies for the financial year 1970-71, which is soon coming to an end, and in addition we have done a projected increase in staff for next year. So all the additional posts should be filled and the second half of 1971 should be a good year for the Telecommunications Department, with fewer complaints and more men to staff the positions.

Yet another matter which has not been given much limelight has been the great inadequacies of the department because of lack of proper training. In October last year we were able to start a temporary training centre at No. 8, Stevens Road, and I had the pleasure of performing the opening ceremony The International Telecommunications Union has been approached and, with the assistance of finance from the United Nations Development Programme, they will shortly be providing us with two experts who will be lecturing on technical subjects, and a third expert will be responsible for overall training co-ordination and development.

4.15 p.m.

Once we have this proper training school, crash courses will be conducted. All the new intakes will be required to undergo this training and they should be available to man positions in the second half of this year. These are all the measures that are in hand, and I hope they will improve the situation in the second half of 1971.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $12,345,650 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 41

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103.

Sir, the introduction of Educational Television to schools has come about some time ago and I wish to seek some information from the Minister of State for Education, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, as to what evaluation studies have been undertaken in this respect; how much benefit school children are getting from attending E.T.V. lessons; and how many schools are involved. This takes my mind back to a short exchange between my colleague, the Member for Katong, and the Minister for Education regarding an E.T.V. programme which the Member saw. It is in that spirit that I am asking such questions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Inche Mohd. Ghazali Bin Ismail): Mr Speaker, Sir, the overall picture of reactions to E.T.V. is compounded from the regular evaluation returns made each week by a statistical sample of schools. The programmes in general are accepted by teachers as providing a good deal of useful and positive criticism of individual progress. For instance, the series on Science and English Language are particularly well received, taking note of the criticisms received. The latest returns show that 96.5 per cent of our secondary schools and 75.8 per cent of our primary schools are making full use of our E.T.V. programmes. Of course, programming for primary schools, as we know, is a pilot project initiated from January 1971.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education for his reply. I understand that E.T.V. has also made some films which have won awards. Will it or will it not be possible for E.T.V. to concentrate more on the type of lessons to be introduced into secondary or primary schools than to try to produce a film with the idea of getting an international award? I am not saying that it is no good. What I am trying to imply is that more energy should be channelled towards the education of school children rather than to try to produce a film for international competition. From time to time we read in the papers that E.T.V. has won awards far and wide.

I am not very happy with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the percentage of primary schools participating in E.T.V. lessons. It is not 100 per cent. He mentioned that 75.8 per cent of our primary schools are making full use of the E.T.V. programmes. In the secondary schools it is also not even a 100 per cent. In other words, there is still room for tremendous improvement on the part of E.T.V. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will care to comment on this.

Inche Mohd. Ghazali: Mr Speaker, Sir, I take note of the suggestion put forward by the Member for Punggol. It is true that our E.T.V. is making films for competition. I would like to inform the House that in 1967 our E.T.V. Service won a special prize organised by Nippon Hoso Kyokai.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: What for?

Inche Mohd. Ghazali: This is an international contest for educational programmes over Radio and Television organised by Nippon Hoso Kyokai. The winning entry, The power of words, was a poetry programme for secondary two pupils, and E.T.V. won another special prize the following year in the same contest. The winning entry was an adaptation of the novel The Good Earth. It was part of the series The world of books for Secondary Two pupils.

As to the dissatisfaction of the Member for Punggol with the percentage of primary schools and secondary schools making full use of E.T.V., I would like to inform him that our Ministry is doing its very best to make full use of the T.V. medium as an effective means of achieving professional objectives in the field of education in Singapore.

The Minister for Culture (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, to be fair to E.T.V., I think the programmes which they send overseas for competition are not specially made for participation in those competitions. It is part of the general programmes produced by E.T.V., and because they think that the quality of the production is very good, they therefore choose one of them to enter the competition. I am quite sure that they produce these programmes for telecasting to our schools and not really especially with the aim of entering international competitions in mind.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am glad the Minister for Culture has come to the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. I am happy that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken note of my suggestion and I hope that he will see to it that the E.T.V. officials will take note of these points. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by 510 in respect of subhead 203.

Nanyang University is a university built by the community and financially supported by the Government. If it is our hope that the development of the University will be in keeping with reality, then the Government should give massive financial support to the more urgent development plans of the University. I refer to students' hostels and the sports complex which are not receiving full support from the Government.

Nanyang University has recently established honours classes, post-graduate classes and provisional classes. As a result, the student population has increased. This year the number of students from Malaysia has increased by about a hundred, and the provisional classes' enrolment has increased from 77 to 150. In keeping with the changing circumstances and its own development, Nanyang University will strive to absorb students beyond Singapore and Malaysia. In these circumstances, the development of students' hostels is most pressing. If, because of technical problems, the Ministry of Education is unable to give immediate financial aid to Nanyang University to build students' hostels, it will delay the development of the University.

At the present moment, there are about 2,000 students and teaching staff at the University. Yet there is not a single sports stadium. No doubt the Government has allotted about $700,000 last year for the development of a sports complex, but because of underestimation or some error in the estimation, Nanyang University asked for $1.2 million instead, but this was not approved by the Ministry of Education. In order to meet its pressing needs, the University has come out with a compromise proposal to build an indoor sports stadium and a swimming pool first. However, this compromise proposal has also not been accepted by the Ministry of Education. The sum of $700,000 has been allotted, but Nanyang University cannot make use of it because of this difficulty at the moment. We must realise that the University wants a sports complex, not the $700,000. The Education Ministry has already given, free of charge and without any bargaining, a library to Nanyang University. A promise to aid is a promise to be executed to the end. So the Ministry must similarly give a sports complex too. Only thus will people believe that the Ministry is not placing importance on intellectual pursuits only at the expense of physical education. At present, we are in dire need of P.E. or sports teachers, because there is no such institution. So the Nanyang University sports complex should be able not only to contribute to our national sporting activities but also to train up the necessary P.E. teachers for the various streams of education.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Member for Delta in his amendment. In my view, as a graduate of Nanyang University, it is my wish that my alma mater will improve all the time. As a Chinese-educated person, I will always bear in mind what I have obtained from Nanyang University. Therefore, I urge the Government to give the same treatment to it as it gives to the University of Singapore. The two universities have different origins and backgrounds, but they are, after all, our national universities. The students and graduates turned out by both of them are the human resources of our country.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier in this House we heard from the Minister for Science and Technology, in reply to questions raised, that the Government is spending a lot of money on the development of the University of Singapore. It was a very rosy picture painted by the Government. It is, therefore, my hope that the Government will give similar treatment to Nanyang University.

Sir, Nanyang University happens to be in my constituency and, therefore, the question of students' hostels concerns and interests me. Because of the lack of hostels, the students have to lodge in the cottages and attap huts in the vicinity of the University. Those students who are unable to get accommodation have to stay a good distance away from the University. They have to spend a lot of money and time commuting between their homes and the University. Sir, I am sure you will agree that, because of a shortage of hostels, the students suffer great inconvenience. Their studies are also affected because of this. The construction of students' hostels in Nanyang University is a matter of great urgency and should be carried out forthwith.

Sir, Nanyang University has all the land it needs, and there is no problem of getting it. Since the University has the land and the need for students' hostels is so urgent, we hope that the Minister will give the money straightaway to the University authorities to build them. I am sure that Members in this House will support this allocation in the Development Estimates, and will also support a supplementary vote for this purpose if it is found necessary.

Sir, the staff quarters are estimated to cost about $2.8 million, but the Government has only allocated $500,000, which is less than one-quarter of the actual estimate. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government is giving full support to this plan, or whether it is implementing it in stages.

Sir, we have always said that we are trying to build a rugged society but the Government is not giving full support to the building of a sports complex in Nanyang University. This is a matter for regret. As far as I know, the Government department concerned has already estimated that a sports complex of this nature will require about $1.2 million. This being so, why cannot the Ministry of Education be generous enough to give all the money required and let Nanyang University have its sports complex? The land for this complex has been levelled, but construction work has not yet begun. So I hope the Minister will reconsider the vote for the sports complex for Nanyang University.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise to speak in full support of the views raised by my two colleagues, the Member for Delta and the Member for Jurong.

It is interesting to note that in respect of subhead 203, with regard to the sports complex for Nanyang University, we are asked to revote the 1971-72 provision against the 1970-71 provision. In other words, last year this House already voted a sum of $700,000 to set up a sports complex in Nanyang University, and today this House has to be asked to revote $692,000. I would be grateful if the Minister of State for Education could enlighten this House on why this revote is necessary. The money was already voted for and ought to have been spent. If the money had been spent, my two colleagues who, I believe, come from Nanyang University, would have no squabble with the Ministry of Education. I can understand why the Member for Jurong wants more money. It is quite a reasonable request, because he has some very strong grounds for it, and I am with him on this point. And if I may draw the attention of the Minister of State to page 4 of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates, para. 25 under Head 41, the intention is extremely clear:

'A sum of $2.85 million is provided for the new Raffles Institution...'

Now, if Raffles Institution, which is a secondary school, can get $2.85 million, why cannot Nanyang University, which is a university, get the money asked for? And why must we come here to grant a revote? I would urge the Member for Delta, should he get an unsatisfactory reply, to put his amendment to the vote.

Some hon. Members: Yes.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng): (In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, I wish to thank the two Members, who are graduates of Nanyang University for expressing their love of their alma mater. The Member for Jurong and the Member for -

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: (In Mandarin): Sir, I am not a member of Nanyang University. I am the Member for Delta.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that he is a member of Nanyang University. I said that he is one of the two Members who are graduates of Nanyang University.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: (In Mandarin): I am the Member for Delta, who is a graduate of Nanyang University.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: (In Mandarin): Sir, the Members for Delta, Jurong and Punggol have brought up this question of students' hostels and the sports complex. I would like to deal with the students' hostels first, and then take the opportunity to clarify the question of the development of Nanyang University. And the Member for Delta, who is a member of a certain committee, should be aware of the delicate situation.

As early as 1969, the Ministry of Education was already aware of the problem of students' hostels for Nanyang University. In August of that year, the Ministry made certain proposals to Nanyang University to rent a block of flats in Jurong Town for use as students' hostels, for which the Ministry was prepared to allot a sum of $58,000. Perhaps the Member for Delta was aware of this. But in February 1970, Nanyang University rejected this proposal.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: (In Mandarin): Sir, on a point of clarification.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng remained standing.

The Chairman: Order. Mr Yeo, will you please sit down unless the Minister of State gives way?

Mr Yeo Choo Kok resumed his seat.

The Chairman: May I draw the attention of Members to Standing Order No. 44 which says:

'(1)... No Member shall speak unless called upon by the Speaker or Chairman.'

I am sure some of the new Members are not aware of this Standing Order at all. Dr Lee, please carry on.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Sir. The question of students' hostels has been brought up for reconsideration, and the new proposal is under active consideration by the Ministry of Education. After the technical problems have been solved, we shall proceed with the construction work forthwith. Meanwhile the Government is also discussing with the Jurong Town Corporation the possibility of renting one 16-storey block of flats for use as a students' hostel. I believe the Member for Delta and the Member for Jurong are aware that the Council of Nanyang University have recently started a campaign to raise funds with a target of $2 million, part of which is meant for building a students' hostel.

Regarding the question of a sports complex, as early as 1969 Nanyang University proposed to the Ministry of Education a plan for a sports complex costing $620,000. After consideration the Ministry counter-proposed with a $700,000 plan. They asked for $620,000 and we gave them $700,000! In this plan the facilities included a swimming pool and other amenities. But subsequently Nanyang University wanted to make amendments to the original proposal by including the building of a stadium. The amendments would require a further sum of $500,000 making the total cost of the plan $1.2 million. This matter is now under consideration by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance.

The Member for Punggol asked why a revote of $692,000 is asked for, when we have already voted $700,000 for the last financial year. I am not able to answer this fully. However, we have already allotted the money to the University, and it is up to them to spend it. One of the reasons for not spending it could be that the plan for $1.2 million is still under consideration. You cannot first build a sports complex costing $700,000, and then decide to build another one for $1.2 million. So we must wait for the overall planning to be completed before we can proceed with the construction. That is one of the reasons why a revote is being asked for.

I believe the Member for Jurong also asked why we do not have a development plan for Nanyang University. The University authorities have already set up a committee to prepare a ten-year development plan of Nanyang University. When we receive these development plan proposals, we shall be able to give more details to the Member for Jurong.

As regards the staff quarters, Nanyang University asked for about $2 million for their construction. I think the Member for Delta has already said that the most important matter is the development of a sports complex and a students' hostel.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. The Minister of State for Education has said just now that since I am a member of the teaching staff of Nanyang University, I should be aware of the position in the University. As an ordinary lecturer, I cannot go round Nanyang University asking for details regarding the position of the University because if I were to do so, I would be called up by the Minister for Education and asked why I should put my finger into every pie

Sir, it was Nanyang University which first proposed a plan for the sports complex costing $620,000. But after a review made by the Public Works Department, it was increased to $700,000. But on further, reconsideration, $1.2 million is actually required. I do not know whose fault it is. Since a provision of $1.2 million has been asked for and since the Minister of State agrees with me that these two items are important and require urgent attention, I wish to know why immediate approval is not given for this money.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has mentioned earlier that Nanyang University has started a campaign for raising funds. I would like to ask him whether the Government is prepared to contribute funds to Nanyang University on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Member for Delta is not disagreeing with me. We both share the same views. He has asked why we have not approved the provision of $1.2 million. The request for this provision was made as late as February this year. We are now in March. It was therefore too late to enter this provision in the Development Estimates.

Regarding the fund-raising campaign launched by the Nanyang University Council and the question whether we are prepared to give assistance to Nanyang University on a dollar-for-dollar basis, my answer is that we must know to what development purposes the fund will be put before consideration can be given to this proposal. If the $700,000 is for the sports complex, then it will be better than assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: (In Mandarin): Since the Minister of State is so concerned with Nanyang University and is prepared to give more aid than on a dollar-for-dollar basis, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 205.

I just wish to ask a few simple and straightforward questions. I note with some apprehension that last year's provision of $599,600 has not been used and today this House is being asked to approve $894,330. There is a little marginal note saying that there is a revote of last year's amount and that $275,000 is subject to Development Planning Committee sanction. I wish to know why this sum has not been spent and why this House is being asked to approve more money for the Regional English Language Centre. What is this Centre for; when is it going to be set up; how is it going to be set up; and will Parliament be asked to vote for more provision when the time comes? Just now we have had a very interesting debate in which one of the Ministers said that costs had gone up and, as a result, their evaluation was all wrong. I am not an economist, and frankly I do not know. However, I am very interested to know why this sum of $599,600 was not spent and why this House is today being asked to approve more than what is necessary.

Inche Mohd. Ghazali: Mr Speaker, Sir, construction work on the Regional English Language Centre is, in fact, in progress. As at the end of last month work on the building has reached the 13th floor. This means that 52 per cent of the project has been completed. In February this year, a total of $410,000 was paid out from the sum provided for the project.

May I also answer the other questions raised by the Member for Punggol? The capital cost of the Regional English Language Centre has been estimated at $6.6 million. It is being financed jointly by the United States Government and the Singapore Government, with Singapore contributing $600,000. In addition, Singapore is responsible for land acquisition, amounting to $200,000.

May I also inform the House that the building consists of 16 storeys, and currently under consideration is a proposal to add two more storeys to the building to make it altogether 18 storeys. The additional cost to be borne by Singapore is expected to be $275,000, subject to Development Planning Committee sanction.

Finally, may I also inform the House that the date of completion of the building is expected to be December 1971.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify that the capital cost of the Regional English Language Centre is being financed jointly by the Singapore Government and the South-east Asia Ministers of Education Council.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am very grateful that the Minister of State for Education has come in at this juncture, because I have been doing a little bit of calculation here. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has mentioned that the total project will cost $6.6 million, of which $6 million will come from the United States Government. We have just heard interjection from the Minister of State. I do not know how the two statements in this respect are going to be reconciled. It is very clear in the Development Estimates that the vote is for the Regional English Language Centre. To what extent will this money be used for the Centre, bearing in mind that there has been a correction from the Minister of State and that the money is coming from the South-east Asia Ministers of Education Council? In other words, a large sum of American dollars is being brought into Singapore. I will leave Members to imagine what I am driving at. But my interest is this: what is the optimum use to which the Regional English Language Centre will be put?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have just clarified, the other portion of the capital cost will come from the member countries of S.E.A.M.E.C. I do not understand the reference to American dollars. It is a regional project and Singapore contributes a certain portion and the other member countries contribute their portions.

With regard to the operation of the Centre, it is used to train teachers in the English language. So far about six or seven batches of students have been trained. The Centre is temporarily housed in a Government bungalow in Watten Estate. When the building is completed - I cannot recall the exact date - we will move to the new Centre. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has just mentioned, the building will consist of 18 storeys. The first few storeys will be for the Regional English Language Centre and the top ten storeys will be in the form of a 60-room hotel for those attending conferences and also for hostel facilities for students from the region.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving my amendment, may I have your permission also to touch on my next amendment, which is amendment No. (6) * and is concerned with "New Secondary Schools"? My question will cover that too.

• The amendment, which also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong, reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 401.

The Chairman: One is on "New Primary Schools" and the other is on "New Secondary Schools".

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Yes, what I have to say will cover both.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir,I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301+

I note with dismay the amount which has been allocated for new primary and secondary schools in the Development Estimates. In my constituency many parents have difficulty in getting their children admitted to the schools near to their homes. At the moment, there are only three primary schools and one secondary school in the town proper. We have talked about Toa Payoh being a self-contained town and I really wonder why the Ministry of Education has not seen fit to build more primary and secondary schools in this constituency. There are about 14,000 children of primary school age and 10,000 children of secondary school age in the whole Toa Payoh Constituency. The Minister may explain that there are other schools around the outskirts of the town, but under the new transport system, as stated in the Wilson Report, children have to travel more than three miles to reach the schools outside Toa Payoh town proper. It is also stated in the report that there are 22 routes, but only four of them pass through the schools outside the constituency, that is along Thomson Road and Braddell Road. Out of these four routes, only one route has a service at four-minute intervals and the others are at 15-minute intervals. We can just imagine the inconvenience that will be caused to the children travelling to the schools in and around the area.

I understand there are several sites in Toa Payoh town reserved for schools. May I ask the Minister of State for Education or the Parliamentary Secretary what steps are being taken to build more primary and secondary schools in Toa Payoh? Every year I hear a lot of problems from parents, particularly towards the end of the year and the beginning of the year, when they ask for transfer of their children from schools in other areas.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully appreciate the difficulty of the children. In fact, it is very much my concern to see that they do not have to travel too far to their schools. When the Member for Toa Payoh was raising this question, I saw very approving nods from the Frontbenchers. We are now making a micro-analysis based on the population density of the nation as far as 1989, so that in future we will site our schools where students do not have to travel far.

With respect to the particular point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh, we are considering resiting schools which are affected by urban renewal into densely populated areas where there is an urgent need for schools.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: I thank the Minister of State for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I propose to take the suspension now.

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

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m, until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 41 (contd.) -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302.

Sir, in moving this amendment I merely wish to seek clarification from the Minister concerned as to which primary schools are involved in having major extensions.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, this sum of $247,200 is for three projects, namely, a block of 12 additional classrooms for Ama Keng Primary School, the reconstruction of Pulau Seking Malay School, and the replacement of a stall for Radin Mas School.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 401*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Cheong Yuen Chee.)

Sir, in moving this amendment I would like to ask the Minister a simple question. We all know that Jurong Town is a new town. Its population is increasing. At present, there are about 25,000 people living in this town but there is only one primary school, unlike Toa Payoh town where there are several schools. In this respect, the Member for Toa Payoh is more lucky than I am. I would like to know whether the Ministry of Education has any plans to build a secondary school in Jurong Town and, if so, when?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: (In Mandarin): Sir, when I replied to the Member for Toa Payoh, I did mention that the Ministry of Education is now considering a long-term plan to build schools and priority will be given to towns such as Toa Payoh and Jurong where there are many people.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): In view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 402.

Sir, in moving this amendment I would like to ask the Minister of State about the extensions to the existing Jurong Integrated Secondary School. This school in Jurong was set up in 1963. I am afraid it is the smallest of the secondary schools in the republic. It has only eight classrooms, one laboratory and, of course, some toilets. There are no other facilities. It is just a simple school with simple facilities. Of course, one laboratory is not enough and so the facilities are inadequate. In spite of this, in the academic field and in sports, this school has had good results, especially in horticulture. For instance, in 1969 and 1970, it was the champion school in a gardening competition.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry of Education would consider allotting more funds for the expansion of this school. At the moment, there is an urgent need for one more laboratory and one classroom for home economics. In addition, the school needs other facilities, such as a library and one or two additional classrooms.

The Government is now paying attention to the quality instead of the quantity of education. In this context, I would like the Minister to give his comments on my request.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, while it is a tribute to the principal and the staff when their school wins prizes, I am afraid this is not one of the major considerations for expansion of schools. However, in reply to the specific request of the Member for Jurong to pay attention to Jurong Integrated Secondary School, this school will be under consideration by the Ministry of Education which is currently studying the plans which I have just mentioned.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I hope the Ministry will proceed speedily with the consideration of the new plans. In view of the assurance of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 503.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to seek details of the capital grants to Government-aided schools. I note on page 4 of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates that the sum of $1.3 million includes the Government's contribution to the construction of Government-aided junior colleges. I would like to know how many government-aided junior colleges will be constructed; how much money will be provided for each college; and whether the Government will match the funds raised by non-governmental bodies dollar for dollar for the construction of these junior colleges?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, there will be a total of seven aided junior colleges. We hope construction will commence on two some time this year, three in 1972, and two in 1973. The Government will match the funds raised by the voluntary organisations dollar for dollar, subject to a maximum of, I believe, $1.1 million.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, my question is out of the $1.3 million to be approved, how much will be provided for the building of aided junior colleges?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, of the $1.3 million, $1 million will be provided for the aided junior colleges and $300,000 for aided secondary schools. The $1 million will be used for the building of two junior colleges in 1971-72.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, if $1 million is to go towards the building of the aided junior colleges, then the subhead should not have been put down as "Capital Grants to Government-Aided Schools".

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, this $1 million is actually for Government-aided junior colleges. The provision for Government junior colleges, I believe, comes under subhead 401, item 002 of the same Head.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 601.

Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State to my earlier question, that the establishment of educational institutions depends on the density of the population, may I ask him whether any consideration has been given to the building of a vocational or technical institution in Toa Payoh?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, there is no provision for building a vocational institution within Toa Payoh. But all new secondary schools to be established will have a technical wing. At present, Toa Payoh is being serviced by the Aljunied Vocational Institute and the Geylang Serai Vocational Institute which are about three and four miles away respectively. There are three other technical schools surrounding this area. There is the Balestier Hill Technical School which, I believe, is a stone's throw from Toa Payoh, the Upper Aljunied Technical Secondary School, and the Thomson Secondary School.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 603.

Sir, the Hotel and Catering Training Centre was previously under the Ministry of Labour, and it has now been transferred to the Ministry of Education. I would like the Minister concerned to indicate the number of trainees who have been trained in hotel catering by this Centre, whether or not there have been cases where some graduates of this Centre have been sent for further training, and the number of graduates in the various categories.

5.45 p.m.

What I mean is that with the accelerated building up of the hotel industry, there is, to my mind, an acute shortage of hotel staff. I wonder whether the Hotel and Catering Training Centre, when it moves into new premises, will be able to cater for the requirements of the hotel industry in the next few years. Also, will the Centre consider training not only those involved in waitering and other services, but also those concerned with floor management, that is, the supervisory and managerial posts? We had occasion in this House to hear one of the Members remark that working as attendants in wash-rooms is a lucrative business. Surely the Centre should train our youngsters for more responsible positions in hotel catering than just being attendants in wash-rooms. I sincerely hope the Minister of State for Education will care to comment on my remarks.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Member for Punggol for his keen interest in this Centre, which my Ministry has taken over since 1st January of this year. So far the Centre, which was established in 1967, has produced 1,613 personnel for the hotel catering industry. The break-down is as follows: Receptionist 226 Cashiers 46 Restaurant and bar waiters and waitresses 969 Room stewards and stewardesses 372 In fact, the Centre does not train toilet attendants whose job is much more lucrative!

The Centre does not send any graduates overseas for further training. I believe the brighter graduates from this Centre are being sent overseas by the industry which engage them.

The third point raised by the Member is the acute shortage of hotel catering staff and whether the Centre will be able to meet the demand. Between 1967, when the Centre was established, and now, the number of hotel rooms has increased eleven-fold. It is hardly possible for the Centre to meet the sudden large demand for hotel staff, but I believe most hotels are training their own staff. However, when the new Centre moves into new premises, we will be gradually shifting our emphasis on to training the middle and higher levels of personnel, leaving the training of waiters and waitresses, stewards and stewardesses, room chambermaids, etc. to the hotel industry itself.

On the question of pure numbers, the new Director of the Centre arrived a month ago. In conjunction with the Adult Education Board, he is now working out a joint programme whereby the girls who are in the special classes will be able to take up training within the shortest possible time after finishing the Adult Education Board programme. Part of the training will be provided by the Adult Education Board.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the Hotel and Catering Training Centre is contemplating starting a training scheme for cooks. One of the problems which the hotels are faced with today is the shortage of cooks. Many of the cooks are engaged from foreign countries and they are paid exorbitant wages. Is there a scheme to meet this shortage of cooks?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, there is at present a two-year course for the training of cooks. There are some 20 trainees at present. Since the course takes two years, we have not produced any graduates as yet. So this figure was not mentioned in the statistics which I gave just now.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, from what I can gather, the new Centre will be able to train about a thousand people annually, but I wonder whether the Minister of State will clarify what the criteria of selection will be if there is more than the number required for the courses; in other words, if the number of applicants exceeds the number per course.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, unfortunately the response was not as good as we would like it to be. Therefore, generally, the criterion is not very strict. In fact, the Ministry's Research Unit has conducted a survey of the graduates from the Centre, and has discovered a very large turn-over. One of the reasons for this is that the Centre aimed for too high a qualification in the previous training scheme. They only took in girls with H.S.C. or a very good School Certificate. As a result, the trainees never stayed in their jobs. In fact, one does not need a Grade One School Certificate to be a room steward. It would be better to get someone who does not have a Grade One School Certificate!

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 703.

In moving this amendment, I have a simple and straight-forward question to ask. I note that the title to this subhead is "Conversion of Academic/ Vocational Schools into Bilateral Schools". I would be grateful if the Minister of State could inform this House what "bilateral schools" are.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise for the term "bilateral schools" appearing in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure (Paper Cmd. 3), and the Development Estimates (Paper Cmd. 4). This is a term used administratively within the Ministry to indicate schools which have a Technical wing as well as a General Education wing. In fact, a circular has been sent to all schools instructing them henceforth not to use such terms as "technical schools", "bilateral schools", "multi-lateral schools", "integrated schools". All secondary schools are henceforth known as secondary schools.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has taken the words out of my mouth, because this was what I was coming to! I notice that there has been a conversion of all sorts of schools - "bilateral", "trilateral" and what not. Anyway, he has given a satisfactory answer and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 802.

Here again, we have the title "Conversion of Vocational Schools into Vocational Institutes". I do not know what is the difference between a vocational school and a vocational institute. When I cast my mind back to last year's debate, I recollect that the Minister of State, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, did explain the whys and wherefores of these two institutions. What I am driving at is this. Looking at the number of so-called technical schools, vocational schools and vocational institutes that have been set up over the past two years, I believe that there is no clear-cut policy on technical education. I hope the Minister of State for Education will enlighten the House on this, There seems to be a lot of conversion. We are treading on very dangerous ground by using children as guinea pigs in order to find out which type of technical education will be most suited to our conditions. Since the emphasis is on the acceleration of our industrialisation scheme, therefore there is a need for skilled and semi-skilled technicians. There has been a shift in emphasis over the last two years. Whilst I believe this shift is correct, the Ministry of Education, however, does not seem to have any clearly defined technical education policy. I do not know whether the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education is aware of this fact.

We started off with vocational schools for the primary six failures, keeping them in school for two years. Some courses were concocted. After some time the scheme fell through. Then the Education Ministry said, "Well, put them into vocational institutes and teach them." But how? They did acquire some sort of skill. Later on the Ministry of Education came up with another idea and said, "Look, now we want the vocational schools to be converted into vocational institutes." But Sir, these vocational institutes carried another name. They were called "Industrial Training Centres".

I am not saying that the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education is trying to mislead this House with regard to the technical education policy. What I wish to know is what sort of courses, and up to what level are such institutions giving? There is a saying "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet" - but I do not believe that this can be applied to the schools! There is the "bilateral school", the "vocational institute" and the "industrial training centre"! We have a lot of our young students who may not have the intelligence to proceed to the purely academic stream. So when the shift comes to technical education, we have all sorts of institutes called by all sorts of names. We have to ensure that whilst we put up such institutes, the courses organised must be so designed as to enable the students to obtain jobs that will be available to them.

6.00 p.m.

For example, I have in my constituency the Ponggol Vocational Institute, Sir, the item under this subhead should not read "Ponggol Vocational Institute", but "Ponggol Industrial Training Centre". What is unique about it is this. I noticed that at the beginning it had a small name-plate put up near the fence, and the name was `Ponggol Vocational School". This was removed, and the new name was the "Ponggol Industrial Training Centre". But down it came again. I do not know whether or not the students there are trying to apply the skills they have learnt in this Industrial Training Centre. I hope the Minister of State for Education will take serious note of this, otherwise this will lead to very serious trouble. We say that we have to rely on semi-skilled and fully-skilled labour, and yet we cannot produce enough from such institutions. So the present situation is, as I believe Members of the House are fully aware, that we have to import certain types of skills, even the common skills. In other words, there should be a clear-cut policy on all the courses conducted, spelling out whatever level of skills the courses are designed for, so that the parents when they think of sending their children to such institutions, will be rest assured that their children are going to acquire a certain level of skill.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I admire the Member for Punggol for his deep understanding of the history of technical education. I would like, first of all, to deal with the question of vocational schools, and then go on to the policy of technical education.

The Member for Punggol has very clearly pointed out that the vocational schools were instituted in 1960 to train those pupils who failed in Primary VI for a certain trade up to a semi-skilled level. That did not prove to be as successful as we wanted it to be. When the Technical Education Department was established in 1968, one of the first decisions made was to abolish the vocational schools. So, instead of taking in pupils who were thrown out of their former schools, we took in pupils who had finished Secondary II for two years of instruction, and let them acquire a vocational skill that is employable. This is on the same lines as those run by the Singapore Vocational Institute at Balestier Road which, I think, is a well-established institute and everyone knows what it stands for. The vocational institute is to train semi-skilled craftsmen; I would say craftsmen who have the skill but not the experience. We decided to convert all vocational schools into vocational institutes. This conversion commenced in 1969 and is continuing to this day. Since 1969 all vocational schools have been abolished.

The Member for Punggol raised the question of the Ponggol Industrial Training Centre which was originally the Ponggol Vocational School. The reason why it was changed to the Ponggol Industrial Training Centre was this: The Industrial Training Centre was first established to provide a very short crash programme for training semi-skilled operatives, not craftsmen, say people who lay bricks, plasters, plumbers, and so on. Their's is a very limited skill and requires only a very short training period. After a year's operation, we decided that we should enlarge its activities to provide not only just short training courses but also two-year training courses. With this in mind, we introduced in 1969 the module training scheme that integrates all training systems under one single scheme. I shall touch on this later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the confusion arises because of this. In order to clear up the confusion, there must be more confusion to begin with. That is why in order to have all secondary schools called secondary schools, you begin with bi-lateral schools and integrated schools.

The Technical Education Department do have a very clear-cut policy on technical education, and this is stated in the Second Annual Report which was tabled in this House as Paper Cmd. 22 of 1970. Very briefly we separate the scheme into areas - those within the school and those outside the school. The training within the school system is done in ordinary secondary schools which have a technical department. The courses have a higher theoretical content, and prepare the students for examinations leading to the General Certificate of Education, Ordinary Level and Advanced Level. The training for those outside the former secondary school system is carried out in vocational institutes. All the industrial training centres are being converted - I should not use the word "converted" but rather "upgraded" to take in more machinery. It is not the same syllabus. If you go through the budget you will find that actually more machinery has been provided so as to improve the facilities and methods of training in the vocational institutes. The training programme is in accordance with the module training system, which is mentioned in the Report. It is widely adopted in European countries.

In fact, it was recently adopted by the British. The Research Department did a very thorough research of all the technical education and vocational training programmes in the various countries at various stages of development and, as a result of such an intensive study, they have come out with this module training scheme for our vocational institutes.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, in that respect, I wish to know whether the Minister of State for Education is able to indicate the number of graduates who have passed out from such institutions, and whether they have been able to find employment. In other words, whether the skills or semi-skills which they have acquired from such institutions are adequate for the labour market.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to the question from the Member for Sembawang, I believe I did mention that the capacity in the secondary schools is 8,000 per year. But the output of the vocational institutes will be raised from about 1,800 in 1970 to about 10,000 in 1980.

With respect to the point whether the graduates have acquired employable skills, the difficulty is for them to get deferment from national service to enable them to take up employment.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I do not think that is the answer. I am not quite happy with it. The Minister of State has quoted 1970 figures, but we know quite well that these vocational institutes started in 1969 and the Minister of State has mentioned short courses. In other words, in the course of time there must have been a good number of students who have passed out from such institutes. Therefore, has the Ministry taken a closer look to see how many of these students who have passed out have got employment?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, first of all, let us take, for example, the vocational institute nearer to the Member for Punggol, i.e., the Ponggol Vocational Institute. One of the difficulties we are facing in respect of this particular programme at the Ponggol Vocational Institute is that the students are required to go outside and work in industry for three months, and they have acquired so much skill by then that they will not come back. The pay is so good! That is one difficulty. The other example I can think of is in the welding trade, for example. I think the biggest training institute we have is the Pasir Panjang Vocational Institute, and our graduates are booked up until the end of next year.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, though I agree that there is an institute known as the Ponggol Industrial Training Centre sited in Punggol, I can safely say that more than 90 per cent of the students are not from Punggol. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting)

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that over the past few years the Government has exerted great efforts in the promotion of technical education. This has been done in keeping with the requirements of our industrialisation policy. Because of this, many technical schools have been built all over Singapore, and technical education has received popular support from the parents who are now prepared to send their children to technical schools and institutes. This is a matter for rejoicing.

Sir, the question is whether technical education has been very effective, whether its programme has, in fact, been able to provide the talent required for the various industries as a result of our development. Therefore, I would like the Minister of State to answer five questions:

(1) Since the establishment of the vocational institutes and technical schools more than a year ago have there been any statistics taken of the number of students trained, and whether they have been able to find employment?

(2) With particular reference to the Singapore Technical Institute, when will it be completed?

(3) What facilities are available at present, and which countries supply us with such equipment?

(4) Up to the present moment are there adequate technical instructors to cope with the requirements for technical education?

(5) I would like to ask the Minister of State this question, and that is whether he is aware that, because of poor maintenance, a lot of new machinery in many technical schools has broken down. That is not all. Nobody is able to do the repairs. This is actually a waste of public funds. I would like the Minister to take immediate action to look into this matter and see that the machinery is properly maintained and repaired in case of break-downs.

6.15 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament has been asked to approve a sum of $1.8 million for the Singapore Technical Institute. From what I can gather at the present moment, this Institute is sharing its premises, that is, workshops and other facilities, with another institute which, I believe is the former Junior Trade School at Balestier Road. The Singapore Technical Institute is considered an institute of higher technical learning. Why should it share its workshops, probably classrooms too, with a vocational institute? The Minister of State for Education has clearly explained just now the different levels of instruction between the vocational institutes and the schools. I believe that there is a distinct difference between the level of instruction in a vocational institute and a technical institute. I suspect that the Singapore Technical Institute will somehow be duplicating some of the courses run or organised by the Polytechnic. In his reply last year, the Minister of State clearly explained that there was some duplication and he would see to it that there would be none. In other words, if there is a duplication of courses, what is the use of having both the Polytechnic and the Singapore Technical Institute?

Another question I would like to ask is the level of instruction which the Singapore Technical Institute offers. The House has occasion to hear just now of the training of semi-skills and skills. What kind of skills will the Singapore Technical Institute provide?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first answer the question which has been raised by the Member for Sembawang. The first part of his question has been amply answered in my reply to the Member for Punggol in an earlier question. Perhaps the Member for Punggol may like to explain to the Member for Sembawang.

Then the Member for Sembawang asked a question about the output of graduates in 1968. I happen to have the figures here. The Technical Education Department was established in 1968. The vocational institutes produced 518 graduates in 1968, 400 in 1969 and the same number in 1970.

The Singapore Technical Institute, which was formed in 1969, produced only the first batch of 96 graduates in February this year.

The Member for Sembawang has also asked when the Singapore Technical Institute will be completed. Just now on my way from the airport to this House, I did some counting of the storeys of the building and it has come up to the 10th floor. They are putting a roof on it. It should be completed some time this year. It is in MacPherson Road, in a very clean environment.

The Member also asked about the facilities and equipment. These are provided for mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, electronics, refrigeration and air-conditioning and furniture production. Most of this equipment is purchased overseas, particularly from the United Kingdom, as this Institute is being financed under the British mitigatory aid scheme.

His next question is whether we have sufficient teachers for technical education to cope with the rapid expansion in industry. The answer is no. We are trying our very best to train them. We hope that in about two years' time we shall be able to produce enough teachers. Unfortunately, in the case of technical teachers, we cannot have relief teachers. They must be properly trained. We will be expecting something like 300 trained teachers coming out this year. One of the difficulties we are facing is that every time we finish training the teachers, the industries find that they are so well trained that they just grab them.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: We can bond them.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: This is a free country.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I mean an education bond.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: With regard to the last question about the maintenance of equipment, I hope the Member for Sembawang will appreciate that this is a training institute. They are students. They are not skilled workers. They are being trained to be skilled workers, so that they cannot be expected to be skilful in maintaining machinery. If they are skilful they should not be there for training. We can expect more damage to be done to the machinery there than in an ordinary workshop. As a result of the frequent break-down in the machinery - in the past we always depended on the P.W.D. to repair it - arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Finance to establish a Central Supply and Maintenance Unit in the Technical Education Department to carry out the maintenance work. Skilled teachers are being assigned to this unit to maintain the machinery.

The Member for Punggol has asked why the Singapore Technical Institute is temporarily housed in the Singapore Vocational Institute, and whether this temporary arrangement will be of any good. Can I take the Member for Punggol back to 1960? He will recall that the present Vocational Institute and the Polytechnic were housed together under the same roof in Prince Edward Road. In fact, in the case of the Polytechnic in London, they train people from semi-skilled level right up to Ph.D. in Engineering under the same roof. The reason why the Singapore Technical Institute is housed in the Singapore Vocational Institute is that, first, we feel that there is a need for a supply of what we call industrial technicians. They are the lower level of technicians. There is a great need for them and, therefore, we borrow the premises at the Singapore Vocational Institute to make an early start. The Singapore Vocational Institute is about the best equipped institution we have, and since the class is small we have it there.

The Member for Punggol has also asked whether there will be some duplication of instruction. Duplication will be inevitable, Sir. The Singapore Polytechnic runs two types of courses, a three-year Technician course, which is called the engineering technician, and a two-year Industrial Technician course, which is called the General Certificate of Industrial Training. The course run at the Singapore Technical Institute is similar to this two-year course. I believe that at present there is a joint committee of the Singapore Technical Institute and the Singapore Polytechnic to work out a common scheme. I appreciate the concern of the Member for Punggol that as far as possible we should not duplicate, but since the demand for technicians is so large, the Singapore Polytechnic alone will not be able to train sufficient industrial technicians. Hence the establishment of the Singapore Technical Institute. I hope that answers the Member's question.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot the Singapore Polytechnic conduct a diploma course at a level higher than the ordinary technician level?

However, coming to the point where the Minister of State has just now mentioned that when the Singapore Technical Institute has trained some instructors and teachers, invariably they are pinched by industry. I believe the Minister of State is fully aware that when a serving officer is sent overseas for further training, he is required to enter into a bond whereby, upon the completion of such a course, he serves the Government or a quasi-government body for a period of no less than five years. I would suggest that he continue exercising this condition when the Singapore Technical Institute, or for that matter the Ministry of Education sends anybody overseas for any course.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to the teachers trained locally: they are not bonded for five years. We had occasions when the teachers marched into the principal's office, threw down a cheque for three months' salary, and walked off.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Minister of State to make a further clarification. He said a few moments ago that, in using the machinery, the students are not as skilful as the skilled workers. My question is that when the instructors are available, they should repair and maintain the machinery and not allow it to break-down and then put it aside like a pair of old shoes. I wonder whether we have enough repairers to look after this machinery so that we do not have to waste money on this item. Perhaps the Minister of State did not listen to me correctly. I was not referring to the students. My point is that you must have people who know how to repair and maintain the machinery. The institutes should make full use of the machinery available instead of buying a machine and, after a few months when it breaks down, just leaving it there without doing anything to repair it.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker. Sir, as I have mentioned, there is a unit to maintain all the machinery. The frequency of the break-downs is high because the students are using the machinery for training purposes. A certain delay in repairing is inevitable Of course, the best way to maintain it is not to let the students touch it. But then you will not train anyone at all!

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Since the Minister of State has said that the machinery is used to train the students. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1202.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I am somewhat astonished to find that the Polytechnic will have a new campus at Dover Road. As stated in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates of Singapore, (Paper Misc. 2 of 1971), $6 million is required for this campus. If I can refer the Minister of State for Education to Hansard, Volume 29, dated 26th of March, 1970, at col. 1182, in which the Minister for Law and National Development interjected and said - I quote:

'... if plans for moving the University of Singapore to Kent Ridge are implemented, then the Polytechnic may move to the present site of the University. When the University moves, we must find a use for the present building and grounds. In my view, the present University site would be the best site for the Polytechnic.'

6.30 p.m.

Sir, I wish to know why there is a change of mind and I hope the Minister of State will not say, "Look, previously I was the Parliamentary Secretary, but now I am the Minister of State and we have a new Minister for Education." That kind of argument will not get us anywhere. Anyway, Sir, I will be interested to know why the Polytechnic cannot make use of the University of Singapore campus when the University moves to Kent Ridge. Why should we spend millions of dollars on constructing a new building for the Polytechnic? I am well aware that the present Polytechnic building is inadequate for the purposes for which it was set up. In that respect, Sir, if the Minister of State for Education can kindly enlighten this House the reasons for the change of site and the construction of a new building for the Polytechnic, I will be most grateful.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol has quoted correctly. In fact, it was the intention then to move the Polytechnic to the University of Singapore Campus. But on further analysis, we found that it is not very economical for various reasons. First of all, timing. The University is going to move to Kent Ridge. But there will be a time-lag and the development of the Polytechnic will be hampered if it is to wait until the University has moved to Kent Ridge. I was not here when the Minister for Science and Technology answered Members' queries on the University of Singapore. But I believe it will take some time to move the University from Bukit Timah to Kent Ridge. The polytechnic cannot wait that long for further expansion.

Secondly, the present building in Bukit Timah is not really suitable for the Engineering Faculty for purely engineering reasons. It was built for laboratories and lecture theatres of very light load. Whereas for an engineering institution like the Polytechnic, we have heavy machinery in operation. It may end up with the 10 storey Physics building coming down to the ground floor with all the machinery! In fact, considering the conversion costs, it will be cheaper to move to a new site. It is with that in mind that the Polytechnic will now be moved to Dover Road. That decision is final.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am not quite convinced that it is cheaper or economical to move the Polytechnic to Dover Road because it involves a sum of no less than $6 million and a token vote of $10 for that matter. I am no engineer and, with due respect to the Minister of State who is a Doctor of Engineering, I am not very conversant with this matter. But as a layman, I think in terms of saving money. The Minister of State has just now mentioned that the present University building is not suitable for the Polytechnic. But is he or is he not aware that there are ample vacant grounds in the University campus where buildings suitable for accommodating engineering equipment can be built? And with the money saved, we can have better facilities. The Minister of State says the decision to site the Polytechnic at Dover Road is final. If it is final, let it be final. But I am making a plea that if we can save money, why not use it for better facilities?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not quite follow the Member for Punggol. Is he suggesting constructing new buildings in the Bukit Timah campus for the Polytechnic?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: There are some vacant grounds at the University campus.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Vacant grounds, meaning that we have to put up new buildings. Instead of building at Bukit Timah Road, we are building at Dover Road. It is not going to cost --

Mr Ng Kah Ting: What about the University complex?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: The University complex is too big for the Polytechnic and it would be a waste of buildings. The University has at present 4,000 full-time students. For the purposes of the Polytechnic, it would be much too big, especially if you are going to put up new buildings.

I think the Member for Punggol misunderstood me when I said that the decision is final. I said "final" not with any arrogance but just in case the Member thinks that the Ministry of Education will change its mind again and site the Polytechnic somewhere else.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, before I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I have just one point to add. Perhaps in the next 10 or 20 years, more engineering graduates will be required than graduates from the academic side. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Yeo Choo Kok

(15) That the total sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $100.

The Chairman: Mr Yeo, you have three minutes to "guillotine" time.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that I shall not have enough time to engage the Minister of State for Education in a long debate, I do not wish to move my amendment.

The sum of $27,166,960 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 51 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101.

Sir, under this subhead the sum to be voted for is $95,000 for the purpose of purchasing T.V. outside broadcasting equipment. In moving this amendment, I do not want to criticise too much, because a few days ago criticism of the T.V. programmes has already been made. All that I want to say now is that we hope that there can be some improvement in our T.V. programmes.

In addition, I would like to ask the Minister concerned a few questions for clarification. What kind of work is involved in the so-called T.V. outside broadcasting? Can the T.V., outside broadcasting equipment bring better and more programmes for our viewers? What sort of equipment are we going to buy for T.V. outside broadcasting and from what countries are we buying it?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the equipment represents two sets of micro-wave link equipment for the outside broadcasting vans of Radio and Television Singapore. Each of these sets of equipment consists of a transmitter and a receiver. These two sets of microwave link equipment represent the additional minimum number required to allow for the programmes originating from a venue outside the T.V. studio centre to be transmitted back to the centre. In years past, two sets of such microwave link equipment could be considered sufficient. But recently, in view of the increase of building activities in Singapore, many high-rise buildings constitute obstructions to the line of sight between most of the venues of outside broadcasts and the T.V. studio centre. The additional two sets of microwave link equipment would help to alleviate such difficulties. In addition, these two sets of equipment would also help to provide a microwave link system between Fort Canning and Broadcasting House if the facilities of the Telecommunications Department are to be made use of, especially the Satellite Earth Station, either for sending or receiving television programmes to or from overseas broadcasting organisations.

The Member for Sembawang asked three questions on the outside broadcasting vans. The first was, what are the outside broadcasting vans used for? They are used for relaying outside programmes like sports, or programmes which we have to relay from the theatres, like the National Theatre, back to the studio centre. Some shows cannot be staged in the T.V. studio and, therefore, we need to hire or borrow space in the National Theatre or some other place to stage the shows and make use of the outside broadcasting vans to send the programmes back via microwave link to the studio centre either for recording or for direct broadcast.

The Member for Sembawang then asked whether or not this equipment would provide more programmes. I would say yes, for outside broadcasts are something which we have to use at functions like sports and also like the National Day parade. We can broadcast these events direct to the people at the time when the function is on. It provides a sense of intimacy to the audience and in a way it would enrich the contents of the programme and give rise to better audienceship.

I am afraid I am unable to give the Member the details of the equipment that we have in the outside broadcasting unit. Basically, we have two vans and there are lots of equipment in the vans. I think there are at least one or two video-tape recorders, cameras and other equipment. If the Member for Sembawang wants to know further, I can give him a list of the equipment. I am afraid I am unable to read it out because most of the equipment is in very technical terms.

6.45 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very satisfied with the answer given by the Minister for Culture. He has told this House that outside broadcasts have a lot of advantages. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103.

In moving this amendment, I merely wish to know from the Minister for Culture what steps have been taken to introduce Adult Education Television Service in Singapore. No doubt this is only a $10 token vote, but I believe there is some thinking behind the introduction of Adult Education Television Service. I shall be grateful if the Minister will throw some light on what Adult E.T.V. will do for Singapore.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the question posed by the Member for Punggol was given when I answered the Member for Katong who asked about the Adult Education T.V. Production and Training Centre Project during the debate on the Main Estimates.

I will, however, briefly reiterate that it has been agreed between the Frederich Ebert-Stiftung of West Germany and the Singapore Government to establish an international centre for the production of adult education programmes and the training of T.V. producers and technicians in this field.

Singapore's contribution will be the cost of a building to house the offices, T.V. studios and other engineering facilities, together with the provision of the necessary staff of relevant grades required for the project. The Stiftung, that is, the foundation from West Germany, will provide capital equipment and five experts and officials.

The annual recurrent expenditure for production costs will be shared. Government's contribution towards capital expenditure is indicated by the token vote of $10 under subhead 103 of Head 51 of the Development Estimates.

It is anticipated that the finalisation of the building plan and the construction of the building will proceed over the next two years. The building plan may now have to be changed to accommodate the E.T.V. of the Ministry of Education, which is looking for a new site. The first payment in respect of construction is not expected until the end of the financial year.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,635,630 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 52 -

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 101.

Sir, the population in Toa Payoh now is more than 100,000. There are only two community centres in the constituency. Both of these two centres are sited in a very inconspicuous position, and the facilities there are particularly inadequate for the large number of residents in the constituency. I am aware that there is another self-contained community centre which is being completed in the western sector. I believe this new community centre is to cater for residents in that sector. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider putting up another self-contained community centre in the eastern sector to cater for the residents in that area. I beg to move.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are at present three, and not two, community centres in the Toa Payoh Constituency. The Member should consider himself fortunate to have three community centres in one constituency because many other constituencies have only one. However, it is agreed and accepted that Toa Payoh needs another community centre in the eastern sector of the constituency. In fact, the People's Association has been discussing this matter with the Housing and Development Board for quite some time, but so far it has not been able to obtain a suitable site there. The Association will continue its search, in consultation with the Member for Toa Payoh for a suitable site in the future. In order that the community centre will provide satisfactory amenities to the residents, a building of at least the size of the present one which is being completed in Toa Payoh West, will be needed. Therefore, there is this necessity to search for an empty piece of land rather than to incorporate a community centre in an existing flat. If the Member has any suitable site in mind, he is welcome to put forward his proposal to the People's Association and we will consider it.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, it is indeed heartening to listen to the Minister's comments, but may I make just a point of clarification? There are at present two community centres in operation - one in Kim Keat Avenue and the other in Lorong 5. I did mention one centre which is being completed now at Lorong 1A. I believe there are quite a number of vacant plots of land in Toa Payoh East. I will be glad if the Minister can indicate when the officials of the People's Association will be free to come along with me, and I will suggest some suitable sites for them. But in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs. Ho Kah Leong and Ng Yeow Chong.)

Sir, with your permission, I will also in my discussion range over subhead 201+ so that I do not have to speak again.

• The amendment reads as follows:

(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201.

The Chairman: All right, Mr Ng.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Thank you, Sir. According to the Memorandum on the Development Estimates, in page 5. section 37, it is very clear that the sum of money to be voted for will be not only for the Pasir Ris Holiday Flats but also for two community centres. Paragraph 2 of section 37 states:

'A sum of $313,000 is provided as subsidy for resiting the Kampong Glam Community Centre and the Kota Raja Community Centre. The balance of the provision is for the construction of five new standard community centres and five new rural community centres. The sites of these community centres have yet to be decided.'

Sir, I am not asking that there should be a new community centre in Punggol. I am not going to ask for any more community centre. My quarrel with the Minister for Culture is that if one takes $3l3, 000 out of this allocation for subhead 101, nothing is left in the provision to construct five new standard community centres and five new rural community centres. I do not know how this equation is going to work out.

Another point I would like to raise is about the facilities at these community centres. We have management committees in all these community centres, and invariably facilities are lacking. As a result, the management committees have to look for funds to enable them to have more facilities at their centres. I understand the People's Association does give a certain sum as subsidy depending on the type of centre, to all these community centres. If they are of the standard type, they get more, and if they are of the rural type, they get less. In this respect, I do not think it is wise simply to subsidise a community centre so that it will be run by the management committee, and not lift a finger to help when the management committee asks for extensions and better facilities for their community centre.

To reinforce my argument, I will bring up one point, and that is the extension to the Punggol Community Centre. The management committee did not get a cent from the Government, but fortunately we had some good Samaritans. They pooled their resources together and managed to put up the extension.

In the past, these points have been raised and Ministers have replied, "Why not do it on your own, since other centres can get more money to increase the facilities of their own centres?" This is hardly a wise move, because we have a provision of $313,000 in the Development Estimates for two community centres affected by urban renewal. What about those centres that really need such facilities, for example, the rural type? Such a centre has only one room, partitioned into a small office and a store room. They expect the management committee to run kindergarten classes with limited space.

I hope the Minister for Culture will bring these points to the attention of the authorities in the People's Association and take the necessary steps to remedy such a situation.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, under this amendment, I would like to bring up one or two points about community centres. Earlier on I said that Jurong is a new town and the population is increasing all the time. Probably in five years' time the number of people will exceed 100,000.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a lack of recreational facilities in Jurong. At night it is a dead place. At the moment we have a community centre in Jurong, but it is sited in one of the flats belonging to the Jurong Town Corporation. I hear that the People's Association intends to build a community centre, not in a flat, but elsewhere. There are one or two community centres in an isolated corner of Jurong. They are quite inaccessible to many people in Jurong. Therefore, there is a need to build not just a community centre but a bigger one in the centre of Jurong.

In his reply to the Member for Toa Payoh, the Minister said that he could not find any appropriate site for a community centre in Toa Payoh. But in Jurong I know that the J.T.C. has already designated a certain area for the building of community centres. I would like to ask the Minister if the People's Association have any plan to build a community centre in Jurong and, if so, when they intend to carry it out.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Member for Punggol on bringing up the point of adequacy of funds for community centres. But I hope that not all the $313,000 will be taken up for the resiting of the two centres as mentioned in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates.

However, I wish to seek information from the Minister whether there is provision for a standard community centre at the Old Kallang Airport Estate in my constituency, and whether a site has been located by the People's Association for this purpose. Sir, a site near Block 93 at Jalan Satu, off Old Airport Road, was, in fact, proposed by me in 1965 for a community centre. But it was turned down by the Housing and Development Board as it was meant for some other purposes. Up to now, this site is still left vacant. I wonder if the People's Association will reopen negotiations with the Housing and Development Board to develop a community centre on this site.

I wish to stress that there is a great need for a community centre in the Old Kallang Airport Estate in view of the fact that about 34,000 people are now living there. You will agree with me, Sir, that community development is important in a housing estate. Although there is now a community centre at Guillemard Road, which was formerly the Katong Boys' Club and was converted into the Mountbatten Community Centre in 1960, it is sited in a remote corner of my constituency and is far away from the bulk of the population. This being the case, it does not adequately serve the needs of my constituents. In fact, it serves predominantly the people from the Geylang area. Will the Minister look into this matter?

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Sir, I have only one point to raise. In Anson Constituency there is only one community centre. I am not going to ask for more as there is no land available. Fair enough. But this present community centre is very small. Originally we estimated that the community centre would cost about $80,000, but the People's Association said at that time that since funds were not available they could give us only $40,000 for it. Therefore, we could only build a very small community centre in my constituency.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider extending the building of the Anson community centre. Perhaps the management committee could try to get some money from the public and, together with assistance from the People's Association, we could then extend the building as soon as possible.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol need not worry that we are going to spend a large amount of money on the community centres affected by urban renewal. In fact, out of the $300,000 asked for under subhead 101, we are only allotting about $50,000 to the new Kampong Glam Community Centre which is affected by urban renewal, and only about $10,000 for the community centre at Nelson Road which is affected by certain projects. Another sum of $10,000 will be spent on resiting the Kota Raja Community Centre. Altogether, about $70,000 will be spent on community centres which are either resited or affected by urban renewal. The bulk of the money asked for is meant for five new community centres costing $46,000 each. They are:

(1) At the former Christian cemetery, off Bukit Timah Road. This new community centre is asked for by the Member for Cairnhill, because he is of the opinion that his constituents living in the Selegie Road area, which forms part of his constituency, do not have community centre facilities at present. Therefore, he needs one to serve the population there.

(2) The second one will be sited at Upper Aljunied Road. There is at present one community centre in Aljunied Constituency, at Joo Seng Road. This community centre is situated in a Housing Board flat and is found to be not very satisfactory. The Member for Aljunied and the management committee of that community centre have asked for a new centre to be built on a piece of land along Upper Aljunied Road to replace the present one. So another $46,000 goes towards this new community centre.

(3) The third one is to be built at Whitley Road. There are only two rural-type community centres in Tanglin Constituency at the moment, namely, the Kampong Chantek Lama Community Centre and the Onraet Road Community Centre. We have now completed plans to build standard-type community centres for Tanglin, because it is the only constituency which has no standard-type community centre at present.

(4) The fourth community centre will be built at Kallang Basin. The present community centre is situated on the ground floor of a Housing Board flat. Again, it is not suitable for the purpose, and therefore the Housing Board has agreed to build a new one in that constituency. This needs another $46,000.

(5) The fifth community centre is the answer to the query from the Member for Mountbatten. It will be at the Old Kallang Airport Estate. But the problem is that we still have not been able to find a piece of land suitable for a community centre. The money is there but we will have to wait until the Member for Mountbatten is satisfied that a suitable piece of land can be found. As I have said, the problem is not that we are not spending money on the building of standard-type community centres, but how to spend it wisely and get maximum value out of it.

In the case of extension of a community centre and expansion of its existing facilities, the expenditure involved is not as much as that incurred in building a new community centre. Normally the cost ranges from a few thousand dollars to about $20,000. In such cases the public-spirited management committee of the community centres have undertaken to raise donations on their own and have taken pride in doing so. They only approach the People's Association for technical advice, such as the preparation of building plans, the cost of which is normally borne by the Association. In the event that the management committee has genuine difficulties in raising donations, the Association has always rendered financial assistance. There were, in fact, instances when the People's Association constructed basketball courts or provided basketball stands and lights and so on for community centres.

7.15 p.m.

There were, however, cases where community leaders were over-zealous and wanted to extend their community centres to a size out of proportion to the centres' actual requirements. In these circumstances, the Association had always discouraged them from doing so. Where they insisted on going ahead with the project by assuring the Association that they could manage on their own, it is understandable that the Association was unable to help much, bearing in mind that we have only limited funds provided in our estimates and excessive expenditure of public funds is not justifiable.

It is a recognised fact that the management committees have rendered invaluable services since their inception in 1964. Besides providing the vital link between the Government and the people, they serve as a catalyst in the evolution of a spirit of public involvement in community activities. Because of the public spirit of these people, the community centres are accepted as part of the people's own property. There is, therefore, the existence of a sense of pride in the people in these centres. This is a healthy sign and may be regarded as a national asset. It is, therefore, felt that financial assistance, if given too readily, will serve to curb the spirit of public involvement which is being nurtured through relentless efforts, and will encourage a sense of over-reliance by the community centre on the Association to provide every recreational facility. It need not be emphasised that the spirit of public involvement must not be hampered. On the other hand, it must be encouraged and allowed to develop until the stage is reached when the community centres will be built for the people, by the people and managed by the people themselves.

The Member for Jurong has asked for a community centre in Jurong. The answer is that we intend to build one, but the problem is, where are we going to get the money?

7.20 p.m.

The Chairman: The time is up.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The total amount is $250,000, and we are just wondering where we are going to get the money.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: In view of the Minister's detailed reply, I beg leave to withdraw,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $803,500 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 61 -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 61 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs what progress has been made in the construction of the Junior Approved School. I ask this question because this House is being asked to revote the same sum as was voted last year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Junior Approved School and Remand Home will comprise one two-storey block and one single-storey block of buildings which will provide living and training facilities for some 112 young offenders. Construction work on this project at Clementi Road was started in September 1970 and it is expected to be completed in mid-1971. The need for the home is well established and urgent, and there is no question of postponement of expenditure.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 61 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 205.

I am pleased to learn that the prisons in Singapore are conducting training courses for the inmates who are serving their sentences. Thus, their time is not wasted whilst they are in prison. They therefore have an opportunity to increase their knowledge in various spheres of life, particularly in the technical field. This will provide them with the opportunity to use their skills to obtain a legitimate means of livelihood when they are discharged. This, in effect, means that they are given the opportunity to make their contribution to the economic well-being of the nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a number of questions for the Minister in charge to reply.

(1) What type of training is being given to the prisoners?

(2) What is the revenue that can be derived by the prison authorities every year from the sale of handicraft work, such as baskets and furniture making, undertaken by the prisoners?

(3) How are the products of such handicraft marketed, and can members of the public like myself purchase them? It so, where can we buy them? To travel to the prisons in order to make purchases will be shameful as people will have to enter through the prison gate.

(4) Are there classes in the prisons teaching academic subjects? I think it is very important that the prisoners increase their knowledge through education so that they can become responsible citizens in the future.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to inform the Member for Sembawang that in our prisons every prisoner is given an opportunity to learn a trade. I would like to give some examples. First, if he has worked as a carpenter before, he can continue with this trade. Then there is metal work. Some are doing laundry work, sewing or rattan work and upholstery. We have all kinds of work.

For example, when a juvenile delinquent enters a prison, the first thing we do is to find out why he has come to prison. If he is intelligent, we give him a more complicated job to do. If he is not very well educated, he will be given any work that he prefers.

I cannot give the Member for Sembawang all the information. In 1956 we collected revenue to the tune of $287,000. But in 1970 we collected $1,221,135. We can see from these two figures that we have made progress.

The Member's other question was, where can members of the public buy the handicraft works that have been made by the prisoners? They can get them from Changi Prison, or Penang Lane, or any of the Social Welfare homes. We have show-cases in these places and any Member who wants to buy anything made by the prisoners is invited to go there and buy it.

Regarding academic studies in prison, this is really a very important matter. If our juvenile delinquents enter prison and are not given proper training, they might, after discharge, get in again. Sir, we have a definite plan for prisoners. The inmates do not just sit and waste their time. They learn a trade.

The Member for Sembawang has also asked what we have achieved in Changi Prison. We have classes for languages as well as academic subjects. This year four of the prisoners who sat for the Cambridge School Certificate examination managed to obtain very good results. One of them obtained a Grade I certificate with distinctions in English and English Literature and had credits in Bible knowledge and History. Two of them had a Grade two certificate. This is a good example set by these prisoners. We do not like prisoners wasting their time in prison. We like them to improve themselves and when they get out of prison later on, they will have the necessary skills and knowledge.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Parliamentary Secretary has given a satisfactory explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 61 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision under this subhead is for the construction of a fire station in Jurong. The question of building a fire station in Jurong was brought up in this House more than once. I am glad to note that at long last the Government has decided to build a fire station in Jurong. As the provision is only $242,100, I believe that it will be a small fire station. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs tell the House what type of structure has been approved for this fire station and when it is going to be built?

7.30 p.m.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision for the construction of a fire station at Jurong is set out quite clearly in the Development Estimates. We are going to spend $242,100 on building a fire station. It should be adequate for present purposes.

The Member for Jurong wanted to know about the structure of this fire station. It will be a single-storey building. There will be three garages. Two will be used for the fire engines and the other for an ambulance. Our original intention was to use one garage for a fire-engine and two for ambulances. But now we have decided to have one ambulance and two fire engines.

We are also going to construct quarters and a store for the fire station. The facilities of this fire station will be adequate for Jurong Constituency.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question when the fire station will be built.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: The fire station will be built some time in 1971-72.

Mr Low Guan Onn (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs that the traffic congestion along the main road leading to the industrial estate in Jurong during peak hours is so bad that, if there is a fire in a factory, the factory will be burnt down before the fire-engine can reach it. Therefore, I hope that the fire station will be put up as soon as possible.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Sir, this is a good point. We will take it into consideration.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply and his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,014,610 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 71 -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 71 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. Ramaswamy.)

Sir, every year we in this House have to approve money for land acquisition by Government for public purposes. I believe that the Minister for Law and National Development has already said something about land acquisition and compensation. What I want to know is whether the allegations made by some quarters that Government acquires land cheaply and sells it at a big profit are true. That is the first point for clarification.

My second point is in respect of reclamation schemes. Sir, I have two amendments+ under Head 72 but I propose, with your permission, to range over them now so that I need not have to move them tomorrow. I notice that a vast stretch of land has already been reclaimed on the east coast, and many questions have been posed to the Government on the optimum use of the land. At the moment, I believe that certain stretches of the land are ready for development. In fact, a few military camps have already been set up at Bedok. I would like the Minister to clarify his Ministry's plans on the question of land reclamation and land acquisition.

• The amendments reads as follows:

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301.

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302.

Mr S. Ramaswamy (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the question of land acquisition by the Government. Two days ago, the Minister for Law and National Development said that the Government does not make exorbitant profits when it acquires land and subsequently resells it for urban renewal projects. I agree that the Government incurs expenditure on clearing the land, laying out the site and setting aside a portion of it for road widening, and, when the site is ready for development, sells it. But how much does all this cost the Government? It acquires land at a very low price. The clearance of squatters does not cost much to the Government, because the squatters are resettled in alternative accommodation in Housing and Development Board flats and a meagre sum is paid to them as disturbance allowance. This cannot be compared with the price at which the Government sells the land by tender. Sometimes the tender price is 10 times the amount it pays for acquiring the land.

I am not quarrelling about land acquisition and the sale of sites made ready for urban renewal, nor about the moral behind it. What I want to speak about is the compensation the Commissioner of Lands pays to landowners when their property is acquired.

There are many cases where the compensation offered by the Commissioner of Lands is far below the market price. And when the appellant takes the matter to the Appeals Board, he has to pay $5,000 deposit in court and engage lawyers to argue the case. In many instances, the Commissioner of Lands has settled cases with landowners at a higher price just before the hearing of the appeal. If the appellant is rich, he can afford to pay the deposit and engage lawyers to argue the case. But if he is poor, he cannot afford to pay the deposit or engage lawyers and he has to accept the unfair award made by the Commissioner of Lands.

Perhaps the valuers in the office of the Commissioner of Lands are incompetent or fear to make correct valuations or are over-zealous in trying to save the Government as much money as possible to the detriment of the property-owning class.

Another point is that in order to prevent property owners from submitting their valuer's report challenging the valuation of the Land Office, the Land Office declares the land to be acquired as an open space or as a green belt. When this is done, the land has no commercial value and the private valuers refuse to value it.

I know of an instance where, in spite of the declaration of a piece of land as a green belt, a reputable firm was prepared to buy this piece of land at $10 per square foot and pay the Government development charges in order to convert the land for other uses and remove the green belt. But what happened was that the Land Office did not want to lift the green belt. Is it fair?

Perhaps the Minister will explain this and also explain the workings of the notice of intention to acquire land, issued under section 3 of the Act in relation to a subsequent acquisition under section 5 of the Act.

Mr E. W. Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, considerable interest inside and outside this House has been aroused in respect of my denial of the allegation that Government makes exorbitant profits when it acquires land and subsequently sells it. At the outset, I must point out that I did not say that we do not make any profit. We do. But not in every case and the profits are certainly not exorbitant. That was the myth I was referring to - "exorbitant profits".

Sir, last Tuesday I took pains to outline the several factors why land sold under the urban renewal sales, sells at higher prices than the actual price of acquisition. I need not repeat all these factors again. But the major ones which I mentioned are the generous instalment terms in respect of the sale price -20 per cent down payment and the rest over 10 to 20 years. Secondly, the 12 per cent property tax which is very attractive.

Sir, I reiterate that the procedure for the acquisition of land is set out clearly in the Land Acquisition Act, 1966, which obliges the Government to acquire land at market value. The Act provides for an appeal to the Appeals Board if the owner feels that he has been inadequately compensated. There have been grumblings about the valuation of our valuers. But on an appeal, the appellant has his own valuers to give their valuation. So the judge hears both sides and he decides.

As to costs, I find it hard to believe that an owner of land cannot raise $5,000 to pay costs. If he is really broke, he can fight his own case. If he is not broke, he gets hold of a lawyer. But I repeat I find it hard to believe that an owner of land in Singapore cannot afford the services of a lawyer or a valuer.

Sir, I have been asked by the Member for Potong Pasir to explain section 3 of the Act. Under this section, a notification is published of Government's intention to acquire a particular land required for a public purpose. The section is used only in cases of real necessity and primarily to put a stop to unscrupulous speculative land deals which often take place as soon as it is learnt that a property is likely to be subject to compulsory acquisition.

7.45 p.m.

Sir, in order to acquire the land, we send a team down to survey it. The moment they see the team, some, I do not say all, arrange for a resale. Hence section 3. If we move under section 3, we must acquire the land within six months of the notification. If we do, then the price is the market price at the date of the notification. If the land is not acquired within six months of the date of notification, any subsequent acquisition under section 5 will have to be made at the market price on the date of acquisition under section 5. The only advantage is the six months' period to prevent speculative dealings once the owners hear that acquisition may take place.

Sir, a further mischievous impression has been created by the allegation that Government indiscriminately re-zones private lands as open spaces so that they can be acquired cheaply and resold at much higher prices. This is completely misleading. There are only two cases of re-zoning initiated by Government prior to acquisition, as against the hundreds of cases of acquisition and the hundreds of cases where private landowners have obtained an alteration of the zoning in respect of their own lands.

The Member for Potong Pasir complained about the Government not allowing someone to re-zone so that he could sell the land at $10 a square foot. I believe the land is a "green belt" area. To allow him to re-zone would be all right if the planners think there should be re-zoning, but the action of re-zoning is not just to allow him to make a huge profit. He must satisfy the planners that re-zoning is justified, in which case he must set out his grounds. If they agree, he gets it. But to grumble and say, "I can sell my land at $10 a square foot if you allow me to re-zone", is, I think, a weak argument.

It is not denied that the Government can acquire rent-controlled properties at a low price. But Government properties are not bound by the Control of Rent Ordinance, and the argument is quite irrelevant. May I put it this way? If Government's intention is to make profits out of land transactions, it would simply acquire all rent-controlled properties, say, in the "Golden Shoe" area and resell them to private developers who are hungry for land for redevelopment. Instead, Government has introduced new legislation to enable private landowners to obtain vacant possession of their properties upon payment of compensation to be awarded by the Tenants Compensation Board. We would like to invite private participation in the redevelopment of Singapore.

I have mentioned just now two cases in which we re-zoned before we acquired the land. If the objective was to resell the land for money, we would resell both properties. You cannot make a profit until you resell. In neither of these two cases has the land been resold. One recent case is still the subject of an appeal. Since the matter is sub judice, Mr Speaker, Sir, and as I am reminded of your warning earlier on this afternoon, I am not free to comment on it. But in another case, the property was re-zoned precinctal open space so that a garden for the benefit of the general public could be developed. The Government did not sell the land. In order to create this garden, we did not think we should pay the price of the land at the commercial rate. Hence the re-zoning to precinctal open space, and there is your garden. The owners had their remedies. They objected. When the rezoning took place, there was a hearing. They were heard and the re-zoning was upheld. They had legal advice. They could have taken the matter further to the High Court if they had felt that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with by us. Perhaps it is either because of the legal advice or their public spirit that they did not take the matter further.

It is not denied that in the few cases where acquired properties were resold under the Urban Renewal Redevelopment Scheme, Government obtained higher prices than the prices paid for them. In addition to the reasons I have already given, another reason for the higher prices is that there is usually a lapse of time between acquisition and resale of the same properties.

Sir, in the first sale of urban renewal sites, we offered several sites along the "Golden Mile" for public tender. No one tendered for any site. Anyone who had tendered at $5 a square foot would have got the land. But no one tendered; no one was interested. That was several years ago. In the subsequent second and third sales, the prices jumped up. Today they are rushing to get land along the "Golden Mile" at $60 to $70 a square foot. But do not blame us for that. The price of land has gone up since. Let us put it the other way. Let us say that the price of land has gone down. Who bears the loss? We bear the loss! Perhaps we can take some of the credit. The place is booming, money is rushing in, and the recent increases in the price of land have been quite fantastic. Because of stability, everyone in Singapore benefits; so does the Government.

I would like to emphasise that of the three sales of urban land undertaken by the Government, only a very small percentage of the land sold was acquired land. I will give you the figures. Most of the land was always Government land which we offered to them three years ago and which no one wanted. Now they are all rushing in. The details are as follows:

In the first sale, about 33 acres of land were sold by tender. Ninety-two per cent of this was state land and was always state land. Some 8 per cent was private land which was acquired.

In the second sale, 13 acres were sold - 75 per cent was state land and 25 per cent private land acquired.

In the third sale, 14 acres were sold - 78 per cent was state land and 22 per cent private land acquired.

Perhaps Members are interested in the land along the "Golden Mile". Of the roughly 23 acres sold in what we call "the Golden Mile" area, 96 per cent of the land sold was always Government land and a mere 4 per cent (about 25,000 square feet) was private land acquired.

Members may also be interested in the state land at Shenton Way which is selling today at $90 to $100 a square foot. People are rushing to buy. Please do not think that we acquired this land. All the state land along Shenton Way always was Government land. We have acquired not one per cent of it.

Lastly, may I say that without urban renewal, this town cannot develop. With rent control, private owners find it hard to evict tenants and redevelop sites. Government owns large tracts of land and has acquired some pieces. There was an allegation before that the Housing and Development Board wanted to develop the whole of Singapore and hence we invited private participation. But we cannot just give the land to the buyer and say, "Pay $5 for it." Then there will be allegations of bribery and corruption. One has to have a public tender.

The first public sale was not successful. Only seven sites were taken up, and there were only about 13 or 14 tenderers. In the second public sale, people became wiser, and about a little more than 50 tenders were received in respect of 14 sites, and 13 were sold. In the last and third sale, more than a hundred tenders were received for 14 sites, all of which were sold. If we do not have a public tender, then there will be the allegation that Government wants to redevelop the land by itself. This is not true. We are happy to invite private participation. As far as the "Golden Shoe" is concerned, rent control legislation was amended in order to encourage private participation.

Lastly, may I say that whatever profit the Government makes goes into the treasury and is ploughed back by way of social services to build roads and schools, supply water, lights and gas.

Mr S. Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, my grouses are about the acquisition of land by the Commissioner of Lands and the awards made by him, but the Minister's reply has been mostly directed to the allegations made in the press.

Mr Barker: And the Member repeats them.

Mr Ramaswamy: My speech has been on a different point, on the awards made by the Land Commissioner and which have been challenged. Why not make a fair award? That was my main grouse.

Mr Barker: I do not make awards, but it starts off by the Government Valuer making an award. If the landowner is not satisfied, there is a process by which he can fight that award, and that is to bring his own valuer and have it out. Finally, it is a judge of the High Court sitting on a tribunal who decides how much to give.

8.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, one last word before I beg leave to withdraw. The Minister did not answer the other half of my question. Anyway, I will bring it up tomorrow.

Mr Barker: I am sorry, Sir, I have the particulars, but time prevented me from giving the Member the answer.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Then I will wait till tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $12,269,510 for Head 71 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

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

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.