MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1974 TO 31ST MARCH, 1975

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.17 p.m.

Head FA --

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head FA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 1003*. (*The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Cheong Yuen Chee and P. Govindaswamy).

Sir, under this Head, I would like to raise three questions for answer by the Minister concerned.

(1) I know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has recently made a goodwill tour of six countries in West Asia. This visit took place at a time when there was international turbulence in those countries. As a result, many people have paid much attention to this visit as it took place during the oil crisis. Sir, we can say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is wise and acute in his judgment, and has good vision and foresight in handling affairs with foreign countries. Therefore, his recent visit has undoubtedly brought benefits to our country.

Sir, as you know, our foreign policy is to cultivate more friends and to cut down on the number of enemies. Of course, if we do not have any enemy, it is so much the better.

According to the principle of our foreign policy, we should pay attention to other places in the world, other than West Europe and South-east Asia where we have traditional relationships. We should also strengthen our friendly relationship with other countries of the world. We should now pay attention to countries in West Asia and extend a friendly hand to them in order to set up ties in commercial and cultural fields, so that this relationship can bring about mutual benefits. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any more plans to send commercial delegations to West Asian countries to make an on-the-spot study and analysis with a view to establishing wider commercial relationship and trade with them. I know that in Cairo, we have only a Charge d'Affaires to run a diplomatic mission there. I would like to ask whether the Ministry concerned would establish more diplomatic missions in the Middle East.

Mr N. Govindasamy: On a point of order, Sir, I think there is a separate subhead where matters in respect of High Commissions and Embassies should rightly be dealt with. I am just wondering if the Member for Sembawang is beating the gun to it.

The Chairman: I do agree that the Member for Sembawang has been embarking on a wide range of subjects under this Head. But as I have been very lenient with hon. Members so far, I think I shall at this instance allow him to carry on, unless he touches on your amendments as well.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Sir,It was really unnecessary for the Member for Telok Blangah to raise his point.

(2) Last year the Minister for Foreign Affairs disclosed in this House that there were about a hundred items of co-operation with ASEAN countries, including tourism, cultural and other activities. I would like to ask: How many kinds of economic activities or plans have been implemented and completed? What kind of benefits have been derived by this kind of co-operation?

(3) Undoubtedly, international situations are changing all the time. However, our foreign policy is that of neutrality and non-alignment. We have a very able Minister in charge of relationships with other countries. So we can rest assured that matters relating to foreign affairs will be well looked after. However, I would like to ask him whether he has any plans to establish new diplomatic missions and, if so, where.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, in many countries, whether Scandinavian or certain Western countries, travel formalities are being progressively relaxed or even withdrawn for the benefit of bona fide travellers from these countries. This has come about because of the cordial relationships existing between such count ties. There was some discussion sometime ago among ASEAN countries on the need for regional co-operation on such matters. I wonder what progress has been made so far.

Sir, we have very often encouraged our citizens, particularly our youths, to travel to neighbouring countries in order to broaden their knowledge and outlook. Because of its close proximity, most of our citizens prefer to travel to West Malaysia. However, with the present restrictions imposed by the Malaysian Government, many of us have been deterred from making such a trip to West Malaysia. We are aware of the long queues of traffic along the Johore Causeway, the bottleneck at the Malaysian Customs check-point, and also at the Malaysian High Commission Office. Our citizens have to fill up forms and obtain special car permits which are now considered unnecessary in countries having friendly relationships in order to travel to West Malaysia. Because of its close proximity, many of our citizens would like to travel to Johore Bahru, not because of the special film shows, but to see something different, for example, the rubber estates, pineapple plantations, tin mines and rural Malaysia. Travel to such places is an education to many of us, particularly our young people, and this can be done over the week-end.

In view of the improved and cordial relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, would the Minister consider this an opportune time to make representations to the Malaysian Government with a view to seeking relaxation o travel formalities for Singaporeans, including youths or student groups who wish to travel to West Malaysia for such a purpose?

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, what is Singapore's role in the ASEAN organisation? Has Singapore participated effectively in this organisation? What are the various programmes in which Singapore has participated in? In order to keep alive our existence in the ASEAN group of countries, the people ought to be told from time to time about the meaning of ASEAN and our importance in this connection. A campaign might be held. A special day could be set aside, like the Commonwealth Day, calling it ASEAN Day to make people aware of our membership in the group. This will also tell the people of the importance of being not only in the international limelight, but also in the regional set-up. A good example was the 7th SEAP Games that aroused people's interest in the region.

Sir, I most heartily congratulate the Minister on his recent successful mission to the Middle East countries. This is good for our political development. May I know what has been the outcome of this trip, and what measures are being taken to ensure that we get a continuous flow of oil from the Middle East, so that our refineries do not dry up? Has any reciprocal arrangement been made with the countries so that they could benefit from our expertise? What good has it served to Singapore's progress in the next few years?

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to raise a small point. What is Government's attitude in the official establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China? Is there any change?

Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to ask a question. We have traditional and friendly relations with Great Britain. My question is now that the minority Labour Government in Britain has been formed, what would be the good and bad points resulting from such a government in Britain, in relation to our country? I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with his vast experience and able manner in which he discharges his duties, will be able to answer my question.

5.30 p.m.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I always find it very difficult to disagree with the Member for Sembawang because invariably he begins his statement by unnecessarily exaggerating my successes as a Foreign Minister. Nevertheless I think, out of deference to his feeling, I would not disagree with him on that score!

In regard to the number of points and questions he has raised with respect to my tour of West Asia, that matter has already been dealt with in my reply to the Member for Serangoon Gardens a few days ago.

In regard to the question by the Member for Toa Payoh about greater travel facilities to West Malaysia, first of all, I would like to say that every country has the right to regulate how many people should be allowed to enter the country and how it should be - i.e, its immigration rules and regulations. However, they are good and necessary regulations, just as we ourselves have immigration regulations to regulate, to a certain extent, the free flow of people from West Malaysia to Singapore and vice versa. So we should not query the right of any country to impose whatever regulations it thinks fit because there are so many considerations, from security to administrative problems. Having said that, I agree with the Member for Toa Payoh that greater liberalisation of these regulations both from our neighbour in West Malaysia and us, would be to the good.

Some of these problems, I think, arise Out of the fact that the flow of traffic is very considerable. It is not like Malaysians or Singaporeans going to Japan or the United States. It is a daily affair. Thousands of people go across daily, and we have a rather small Causeway which was built for the days when there were no immigration regulations between the two countries. But 1 hope that once the Causeway is widened, then the administrative controls which are now necessary would be mitigated, or qualified, so that there would be a greater flow of traffic between Singapore and West Malaysia as, I hope, is being done in the ASEAN countries to regulate and make smoother the free flow of people into the countries comprising ASEAN.

In regard to the question of our relations with the People's Republic of China, I think it has been stated before that it is our policy to establish friendly and closer relations with all countries, including the People's Republic of China. But Members are well aware of the situation prevailing in South-east Asia, and because of that there are certain rather delicate problems in regard to Singapore's position in South-east Asia. We have said that we would be prepared to move in this direction after our neighbouring countries have moved first. I think Members are quite sophisticated enough to understand why this is necessary.

In regard to our relations with Britain as a result of the advent of a Labour Government, in itself I think that does not materially alter our relations with Britain unless, of course, the new Government introduces new policies which necessitate adjustments on our part. But so far no material changes have taken place in regard to foreign policy as enunciated by the Labour Government. Therefore, as far as I know, things are very much as they were before.

Now, two Members have raised questions in regard to a topic which is of great interest to all of us, including my Ministry, and that is, in what way has ASEAN benefited us? What is the role that Singapore intends to play in ASEAN? Because of the importance of ASEAN to us and to the region, I hope I would be permitted to say a bit more than I have done in other cases because apart from regional organisations sponsored by the United Nations in Asia, the only effective and coherent Asian regional organisation is ASEAN. There is no comparable organisation in Asia where a number of Asian countries work together to promote regional co-operation. I think to this extent ASEAN is unique even in the history of Asia. In so far as progress is concerned, since its founding in 1967, it is my view that ASEAN has progressed far more in the direction of regional co-operation than, say, the European Economic Community was able to do during its first seven years. The rationale for ASEAN economic co-operation has been set out in the Report by the United Nations team which completed its Report and submitted to us in April 1972. It covered trade, industrial, monetary and financial co-operation, and the various ASEAN permanent committees -- there are a number of them - have been studying this Report during the past two years with a view to implementing gradually many of the proposals put forward by the United Nations team.

As far as Singapore is concerned, it is convinced that regional co-operation is both rational politics and sound economic doctrine and that recent events have tended to confirm the fact of inter-dependence of nations, regionally as well as internationally. I think the oil crisis and the difficulties of obtaining raw materials cheaply are really a reflection of the growing inter-dependence of nations today.

ASEAN is not only our largest trading partner today, but it also accounts for about a third of our total trade. ASEAN is becoming an important market for our domestic exports which rose from $510 million in 1969 to $717 million in 1972 and accounts for about 22 per cent of our domestic exports to the world. We are conscious, therefore, that this increased trade with ASEAN countries is a consequence of vigorous economic growth and growing prosperity in ASEAN countries. Therefore, if regional co-operation can accelerate economic growth in the region, then it is in Singapore's interest to play a meaningful and positive role in ASEAN economic co-operation.

In regard to the positive steps Singapore and its partners in ASEAN have taken during the past years, I think Members are aware that economic action in ASEAN is conducted through permanent committees which control various functions of ASEAN. There are a number of ASEAN permanent committees. But the major ones are the Permanent Committee on Commerce and Industry, the Permanent Committee on Transportation and Telecommunications, the Permanent Committee on Social and Cultural Activities, the Permanent Committee on Science and Technology, and the Permanent Committee on Food and Agriculture.

For example, the Permanent Committee on Commerce and Industry has met once since the last ministerial meeting in April last year. But a number of projects which the Permanent Committee has initiated are now in the process of being implemented or completed. For instance, the ASEAN Products Display Centre in Bangkok is now in the final stage of completion. The working group on trade liberalisation met in January 1974 and its work is continuing. The training of ASEAN personnel in export promotion techniques is in an advanced stage of preparation. On shipping, the Permanent Committee on Commerce and Industry has finalised the draft agreement for the facilitation of search for ships in distress and the rescue of survivors in ship accidents. There are expert groups on bulk shipping, marine pollution, containerisation, shipping statistics and information and related matters. The Permanent Committee on Commerce and Industry is also undertaking tourism and has a five-year tourism marketing plan with an annual budget of US$300,000 to promote ASEAN tourism. These are under study and there are arrangements for concessional air fare rates for ASEAN representatives travelling on ASEAN duties. It is intended to establish ASEAN centres of trade, investment and tourism in Western Europe. There are also plans for a Manpower and Training Facility Survey on ASEAN regional tourist development and plans for training of hotel management and executives.

The Permanent Committee on Transportation and Telecommunications has set up a sub-committee to finalise ASEAN telecommunications projects and to study regional satellite communications system. Also under study is the establishment of a common telephone line signal system. So, too, the Permanent Committee on Food and Agriculture is convening a meeting of senior officials on rice and a meeting of experts on fertilisers and pesticides. So, too, the Permanent Committee on Science and Technology is working on a project for soya bean processing and another on low-cost protein-rich food for children. There will be an experts' meeting on ASEAN regional atlas and compendium on climate statistics.

5.45 p.m.

Finally, a Special Committee has been established to co-ordinate ASEAN trade matters. This Committee is now working on a cumulative rule of origins for ASEAN which will enable ASEAN countries, including Singapore, to take advantage of the EEC GSP requirements. The special committee is also studying the implications of the 1974 GSP offer in order to put up proposals for more concessions and improvements in the 1975 GSP offer. It seems, Sir, that though the ASEAN progress was rather slow and imperceptible during the first four or five years, I think the pace of co-operation on specific projects tended to increase and gather momentum during the last two or three years. I am quite sure that in the coming years if nothing untoward happens, ASEAN will be a significant factor in the history of the individual countries comprising ASEAN.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for giving detailed answers to all the questions I have raised. I would like to mention here that it Was not my intention to praise him. But we should give credit to his humbleness. With this observation, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head FA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BA 1105*. (*The same amendment also stood in the names of Encik Rahmat Bin Kenap Al-Haj and Mr P. Govindaswamy.)

Sir, I have another amendment in respect of subhead BA 1106+. No other Member has given notice of that amendment and, with your permission, I would like to take both these subheads together.

• The amendment reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head FA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BA 1106.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, in moving this amendment, I seek clarification from the Minister on our overseas missions. As early as 1968, we had made provision for 15 overseas missions. That was seven years ago. Last year we also made provision for 15 overseas missions, and this year we have increased the number by one. Where is this additional mission to be located?

Since 1968, Singapore as a nation has come a long way. I appreciate the desirability of setting up embassies and high commissions only in places where our interest will be best served. I do not envisage ambitious overseas missions set up for the sole purpose of prestige only. I also appreciate the difficulty in finding suitable personnel to represent our nation in our overseas missions. Nevertheless, I am of the view that our interests can be better served by our own missions in selected countries in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and West Asia which are becoming more and more important in relation to our industrial expansion and foreign trade. The 15 Ambassadors and High Commissioners we have are in many cases accredited to more than one country. In the long-term interest this may not be desirable as they would not be able to do justice to their appointments. I am perturbed by the fact that at least two of our embassies abroad are manned by Charge d'Affaires, with vacancies of the top posts not filled for a long period. When will these vacancies be filled?

I would also like the Minister to inform the House how many of our Consulates abroad are looked after by Honorary Consuls, and for what length of time have they been Honorary Consuls? Has the Minister any plans to set up more Consulates of this nature?

Encik Rahmat Bin Kenap Al-Haj (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker Sir, I would like to know the reason why the post of Ambassador in Cairo has not been filled. The post was vacated by Mr Lee Khoon Choy when he was transferred to the Republic of Indonesia. Why is it that the Singapore Government has not yet established embassies in Europe and in Arab countries in the Middle East? It is because Singapore has got no embassies in the Arab countries that Singapore is not known by the large population of the Arab nations. When I went on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, I was asked about Singapore by the Arabs who were from the Arab countries. Most of them do not know Singapore. They do not know whether Singapore is an independent country or a colony. They know about Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Pakistan better because these countries have embassies in the Arab countries. If we call to mind the Bukom incident and the damage caused to some oil tanks in our country, the Arabs do not know that Singapore is an independent country whose population comprise people of various religions and races. They still believe that Singapore is a colony because there are Israeli soldiers in Singapore. That is why it is necessary for us to introduce our country to the Arab countries, especially those in the Middle East, and to establish embassies in those countries.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, to what extent have our embassies abroad been effective? Are they of international standard? Do Singapore citizens in foreign countries get adequate help from our missions?

Sir, the recent sea-jacking incident has shown that extremist elements in the world do not recognise neutrality. As such, have any measures been taken to intensify security arrangements in our foreign embassies?

Mr J. F. Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise just a very brief point. This year we are reserving a large sum of money for the purchase of properties for foreign missions. The sum has been raised from $8 million last year to $25 million this year. I remember when I paid a brief visit to Tokyo a few years ago, I discovered that there was a piece of property which we could have bought quite cheaply. But prices have gone up considerably by now. And the same may be said of other places too. I think we should try and see whether there are economic advantages in our purchase of properties for foreign missions, and to take quick advantage of these opportunities. May I say that if the Minister wants my support, certainly he has got it where this sort of thing is concerned.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Encik A. Rahim Ishak): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to take the point raised by the Member for Telok Blangah first. He mentioned about the small increase in the number of heads of missions, and asked whether or not more posts should be created. The practice has been to create posts of Ambassadors only when a decision is taken to establish a mission in a foreign country. The adoption of this practice is to ensure that the Estimates correctly reflect the position projected for the next financial year. The projection is generally based on performance over the last three years.

In 1973, the missions in Paris and Bonn were established - not one, but two. The two posts I mentioned have been entered in the Estimates to regularise their creation by Establishment Warrant last year. Also, I should like to invite the attention of the Member for Telok Blangah to subhead BA 2901 entitled "Staff and expenses for New Missions Overseas". The purpose of this subhead is to provide for the emoluments of home-based officers, including Ambassadors, and the cost of running new missions as and when it becomes necessary to establish such missions in foreign countries. Therefore, the creation of more posts of Ambassadors really depends on the necessity to establish more missions abroad. If this decision is taken, then there is no difficulty in creating the additional posts, including those of heads of missions.

As to the Member's question regarding the number of Honorary Consuls we have abroad, the answer is two. There is an Honorary Consul in Sweden and another in Zurich, Switzerland.

Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah also wanted to know when new appointments are to be made.

Mr N. Govindasamy: When will the vacancies of heads of missions be filled?

Encik A. Rahim Ishak: Heads of missions represent Singapore overseas. The appointment of a High Commissioner or Ambassador is made after a careful and thorough selection of candidates with the personality and skill to carry out the important functions of head of mission. The process of selection necessarily takes time but nominations have already been made, and hopefully the existing vacant posts of Ambassadors and High Commissioners will be filled during the course of this year.

The Members for Telok Blangah and Geylang Serai mentioned about why there are not more new embassies in West Asia. When Singapore gained independence on the 9th of August, 1965, the primary task of the newly instituted Foreign Ministry then Was to plan carefully where missions should be established apart from gaining membership in the United Nations. The setting up of missions and maintaining them is a costly business. Therefore, taking into consideration Singapore's economy in the early years of independence, it was essential that missions should be established in carefully selected countries first.

6.00 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Encik A. Rahim Ishak: The criterion then was that the political climate in the country must be conducive to the setting up of a mission which would not only help to further Singapore's national interest but would also facilitate communications and exchange of views with the receiving State to the mutual interest of Singapore and the State concerned. For the sake of economy, it was also essential that the country should be strategically placed, thus facilitating communications and exchange of views with countries in the region through the expedience of multiple accreditation. Thus it was that in 1966 missions were established in London to cover not only Great Britain but also Western Europe; in Canberra and Wellington to cover also other countries in the Australian region, and so on. The mission established in Cairo in 1967 was to cover the North African states and one of the Arab countries, which is Lebanon. Indeed, the Ambassador in Cairo is concurrently accredited to three other countries, namely, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and Pakistan.

However, the rapid changes that have and are taking place in the international scene, particularly in West Asia, have made it necessary for an assessment of the adequacy or otherwise of our present representation in West Asia. This has led me to believe, especially after our recent visit to the West Asian countries, that it will be to the mutual interest and benefit of Singapore and West Asian countries themselves that two or three missions be set up in certain West Asian countries. But the setting up of those missions has to be gradual, that is to say, we could first set them up at consulate status and at a later stage raise them to embassy status.

Turning now to the second question posed by the Member for Geylang Serai relating to the continued presence of a Charge d'Affaires instead of an Ambassador in Cairo, since that Ambassador became our Ambassador in Jakarta, the Member may not be aware that it involves time to select a person with the necessary skill and qualities for appointment as Ambassador. As language is a basic tool of a diplomat, the problem of selecting an Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt has been compounded by the dearth of prominent Arab-speaking citizens of Singapore. However, efforts to select a suitable person are still being made.

As to the Member's other questions such as why do we have very few foreign missions in Arab countries, and his experience on his pilgrimage to Mecca where he was asked by Arabs he met in the holy city as to where Singapore was, and whether it was independent or not, I can only say that it is quite possible that not only Arabs but also people of other nationalities anywhere in the world might not know about conditions in Singapore and whether or not it is independent. I do not think that Mecca is the only place where the people arc perhaps not so informed or ignorant about Singapore's political status. We can find as many such people all over the world as there are Singaporeans also, who are ignorant of conditions in other countries. In that connection also, it is known to all of us here that not only have we not got many representations or missions in Arab countries other than Cairo and Beirut, but in fact, in Singapore itself, there are only two representations or missions of Arab countries. They are the Arab Republic of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, although many more Arab countries exist not only in West Asia but also in North Africa.

The Member for Geylang Serai also made reference to the attempted sabotage in Singapore by what he called Arabs. They are, to be precise, Palestinians. He said that possibly they came here without knowing that Singapore was independent, and that they attempted to sabotage the refineries at Pulau Bukom. I am rather skeptical of his reasons because the two Palestinians, all of us know, were accompanied by two Japanese. They came in, I am told, with passports. I am sure that before they came into Singapore they had gone to some place to get visas. Wherever they had gone to, they would have found out that Singapore is independent. To say that the two Arabs were ignorant of Singapore's independence would be perhaps out of place, particularly when they were with two Japanese Red Army guerillas.

The other point that the Member made was that the action was directed towards Singapore. It is now common knowledge that the guerillas themselves said that their action at Pulau Bukom was not directed against Singapore or the people of Singapore and that they had done it to support the revolutionary struggle of the Vietnamese people.

There was one other point which the Member for Geylang Serai had made which I cannot remember. Perhaps he might want to raise it later.

The Member for Anson mentioned about security. What security measures are being arranged at our missions abroad? The practice is to send an officer, trained in security, to missions as soon as a chancery building has been rented out or purchased. His task is to study the physical security arrangement required to make the chancery secure from intrusion. In practically all our chanceries there is a strong room in which classified materials are safely kept. Whenever possible, windows and doors giving access to the chancery are reinforced by installing grills. In chanceries with a wall-fence, strands of barbed wire have been mounted on the wall-fence to provide additional security. In certain missions there are officers trained in security amongst the Singapore staff. In chanceries which are housed in a block of offices, grill doors have been installed as a security measure, but generally there are security guards to look after the safety of a block of offices in which our chancery is housed, for example, our chanceries in Tokyo and Manila.

However, there is now under review the security system in existence in all our chanceries generally. A trained officer is being sent to our missions for this purpose. These systems vary with the locality and requirements of the owner of the building in which our chanceries are accommodated. If, by the expression "to intensify security arrangements", the Member for Anson has in mind the presence in our chanceries of uniformed guards, then I should like to point out that under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,

`The receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the missions against intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the missions or impairment of its dignity.'

So the Member will appreciate that in view of the provisions of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention, it would not be a good diplomatic move to post our own security officers to missions. However, to allay fears of the Member for Anson about the security of our chanceries abroad, I should like to state that a review of the existing physical security arrangements in our missions has already begun.

Two Members asked why there were many Charge d'Affaires manning our missions abroad and why they should not be replaced by Ambassadors or High Commissioners. The fact is that in all our missions abroad there are only four Charge d'Affaires, as compared with a total of 16 heads of missions, that is, Ambassadors and High Commissioners. The number of Charge d'Affaires is therefore not unduly large. There have been considerable difficulties in finding suitable candidates to head our overseas missions, and sometimes it has been found that rather than have an ineffective head from the point of view of experience, language qualifications or administrative capabilities, it is better to have a Charge d'Affaires who is properly qualified to carry out these important representational functions in the country to which he is accredited. In fact, the inference might be that Charge d'Affaires are not as effective as Ambassadors. Well, this need not be so, whether they be our own Charge d'Affaires or those of other countries accredited to Singapore. There are, for example, several Charge d'Affaires in Singapore who have been here for many years and they have carried out their functions effectively. For example, from one of the Arab countries themselves, although they have an embassy here, it has never been manned by an Ambassador. Ever since the embassy of the former United Arab Republic, now Arab Republic of Egypt, was set up here, they have always had a Charge d'Affaires as head of mission. Again, because of the difficulties of finding suitable ambassadors and also because the Singapore Foreign Service is a very young one, which will not for some time produce career officers to fill head of mission appointments, it is desirable to continue to appoint Charge d'Affaires. Because of its status and position, Charge d'Affaires can be found from the more senior Foreign Service officers. This system permits also the opportunity for Foreign Service officers to gain experience and knowledge as well as the training necessary for them to be promoted to the higher appointments in the Foreign Service.

In regard to standards and effectiveness, I am pleased to be able to inform the Member who raised the question that in spite of the absence of a long established tradition of diplomacy, our diplomats have quickly acquired the expertise and experience which have enabled them very effectively to represent our national interests on a global basis. Our diplomats have exercised a high degree of flexibility in the use of limited manpower resources available to them. They have continued to show themselves very capable of reacting pragmatically to international developments and in the face of increasing complexities in international relations and diplomacy, our officers have successfully assumed the responsibilities of the modern diplomat. Their objective assessment and appreciation of major political trends have helped Singapore to adjust and cope with the tremendous changes in the world since 1965. The quality of our overseas missions is, by any measure of international standard, satisfactory. The Singapore Foreign Service as a whole has made significant contributions to the political and economic well-being of Singapore.

6.15 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head FA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 2310.

Sir, with your permission, can I speak on my next amendment in respect of subhead BA 2310?* No other Member

• The amendment reads as follows:

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head FA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BA 2310. has given notice of the next subhead, and my queries are similar in respect of both subheads.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, in subhead AA 2310, provision is made for rental of premises for headquarters. I presume this is for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore Office. This is a new provision. Government has taken over so many buildings from the British Armed Forces, and these are being rented out to private individuals and companies. Can the Minister therefore inform the House as to why should our Government rent premises in Singapore when it is one of the biggest landlords in Singapore? To what use are these new premises going to be put? Where are these premises to be rented?

Sir, in respect of subhead BA 2310, Rental of premises for Overseas Missions, this is the first time that the provision appears in the Main Estimates, although it is indicated that $1.79 million was appropriated for FY 1973. The appropriation for this year is $2.5 million. I have also noticed that there is no appropriation of funds in the Development Estimates for either Headquarters or Overseas Missions. If we are renting premises in Singapore and overseas for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, would it not be more prudent to look into the possibility of purchasing suitable premises instead? I think this will cover what the Member for Katong was trying to say earlier on under a wrong subhead. Everybody knows, Sir, that real estate appreciates, but rentals once paid out is money lost. Sir, perhaps we may have some premises overseas which were bought prudently on our own, and if we do own land or property abroad, I would like to be enlightened.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Ong Soo Chuan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am indeed grateful to the Member for Telok Blangah who has raised the question with good intention and with much concern over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If I read him correctly, he was worried that the Government would have to spend more money to purchase property or land overseas. The same concern was also expressed by the Member for Katong. If I remember correctly, Sir, three or four years ago, the Member for Telok Blangah was kind enough to persuade his good friend to purchase a piece of property at a time when the price of houses was relatively much lower than the present one. He was far-sighted. Unfortunately his friend was short-sighted, or rather conservative. So now the Member for Telok Blangah is living happily with his family in the house which he has bought at a cheaper price. But his unfortunate colleague and his family who did not buy a house then has to share accommodation with others up till today. Therefore, in the same way I can assure the Member for Telok Blangah that we are not as short-sighted as his friend who did not take his good advice. We have already acquired or purchased properties in some of the capital cities where we have missions, used as chancery or residence.

Regarding the first part of the question, Sir, since its inception in August 1965, the establishment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been expanding in proportion with the increasing number of our overseas missions to cope with the increased workload. The accommodation provided in the City Hall became cramped. Hon. Members who have visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will notice that most of the staff are accommodated in cubicles because of the shortage of office space. Besides, the City Hall itself houses the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Culture, the Prime Minister's Office, the PUB, and the Wax Museum. So there is hardly any more room available at the moment to meet the expansion needs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, we have applied for that part of City Hall presently occupied by the PUB. This will become available only in 1977 when the PUB building at Somerset Road is expected to be ready for occupation. In the meantime, additional office space had to be acquired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to accommodate the additional staff, and there was no alternative but to rent the office space in Colombo Court.

Regarding the second part of the question, it is the Government's policy to acquire, whenever possible, our own buildings and lands for our overseas missions. Of course, considerations of value and prices are important in deciding how and when properties are to be acquired. It is not always possible to get suitable premises, and, therefore, it has been necessary to rent the accommodation required until suitable properties have been acquired. It is the Ministry's policy to buy properties for overseas missions and, whenever possible, the accommodations for home-based officers are also purchased. But this is dependent on certain requirements, like price and location.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs has avoided answering directly the first question of the Member for Telok Blangah. The question was: if the Government needed premises, why does it not use its own premises, instead of renting them from others? But as a layman who understands the working of the Government, especially the Finance Ministry, may I offer an explanation to satisfy the Member for Telok Blangah? I think the Ministry of Finance works from this angle: if a Ministry can get more financially in return as a result of whatever arrangement, then it will do so. The Finance Ministry probably found it could get more financially in return from renting its comparable premises to the public than it had to pay to Colombo Court for additional premises that the Foreign Ministry required. Maybe that is a more relevant answer to the Member for Telok Blangah's question.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Moulmein for being a spokesman for the Ministry of Finance. Sir, I am sure the Ministry of Finance can look after itself, and so can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I hope.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not a spokesman for the Ministry of Finance, and neither do I intend to be a spokesman on their behalf because, whatever they do, it is very difficult to defend their policy. But what I have just pointed out is some sort of an illustration of the policy of the Ministry of Finance. It sometimes looks a bit queer to the ordinary layman.

Mr Ong Soo Chuan: Sir, it appears to mc that he has also become a spokesman for the Member for Telok Blangah.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, the ways of the Government are sometimes undiscernible. The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my question really. I have got no quarrel now that the renting of premises in Singapore is a temporary measure until such time when the PUB moves out of the present place. The questions I raised were: (1) why not use one of the Government's premises available? (2) if we are renting them, where are they located, and from whom are we renting?

As to the second part about accommodation for overseas missions, I thought the prudent way was to buy rather than rent. Money paid for rent goes down the drain. If it is not possible for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to buy the premises outright, could they not share premises with our State-owned companies abroad, or with other statutory boards in certain countries, which have their own premises or rented premises?

6.30 p.m.

Mr Ong Soo Chuan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member has not been paying attention to my answer just now. Together with his colleagues he might have been excited at the moment when I said that we had acquired the extra premises in Colombo Court. We do share premises at the moment in the City Hall with the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Culture, the Prime Minister's Office, etc. We could only acquire part of the PUB building when it is available in 1977, if we are lucky. Until then, we have to find alternative accommodation as a temporary measure to house our staff in view of the expansion of the Ministry.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Mr Deputy, Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head FA in respect of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, I have moved this amendment in order to bring forth my own views regarding some of the policies adopted by the Foreign Affairs Ministry and to suggest some methods for promoting certain aspects of our foreign policy. Unfortunately, most of the topics I had intended to speak on had already been very well covered by previous speakers, either under the correct or incorrect Head.

Sir, I would, however, continue by saying that over the past years the Ministry has conducted its foreign policy, to my mind, with a high degree of imagination, and this is said not with the intention of praising the Minister for Foreign Affairs or other Ministers who have been frequently outspoken on affairs of our foreign policy. But I am frequently amused and befuddled with, on the one hand, the expression of Singapore's intention of wanting to remain friends with all, enemies with none and, on the other hand, on many occasions, particularly at memorial lectures, with statements which leave very little for conclusion. I am particularly troubled because it gives the lay public in Singapore only one possible conclusion - that somehow in the 1970's there appears in South-east Asia the MaCarthys or Foster Dulles's. This is unfortunate because of our declared intentions to remain friends with all. This is particularly more annoying because today we realise that the real threat to Singapore's security and sovereignty comes not just from the Communist countries or Communist elements within these countries but it could well come from other vested parties. These parties include either forces in and around South-east Asia or even some members of the powerful and influential West. I can therefore understand why Singapore does not pursue a positive or dynamic policy with respect to the recognition of China because we want to make it doubly sure that our immediate neighbours in this part of the world know in heart and in spirit that we are all the way with ASEAN and South-east Asia. I think this is correct. On the one hand we are very hesitant, and on the other hand, we tend to overdo this particular posture by coming off with a statement which may be detrimental to our future relations with the countries with which we have no relations at the present moment.

Moving from that to other aspects of foreign policy, I would like to touch on our foreign service. I realise that we have something like five High Commissions and 10 missions overseas. Not all of these missions are headed by Ambassadors or High Commissioners. Perhaps this is because we do not have qualified people. But I like to think that somehow we have not been able to develop a degree of professionalism in our foreign service. This is something which perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs could comment. I also understand that there is a pretty high turnover rate of staff in the Foreign Ministry. I wonder if the reason is due to the unfavourable salary, awards of fringe benefits. I think members of the foreign service rightly deserve something better.

On the subject of ASEAN, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has given us a very rosy picture of the status of ASEAN, and I certainly hope he is right. On the other hand, I have also read some literature on ASEAN and I am informed that, in actual fact, of the original 100 proposals or more that were conceived in 1967 with the formation of ASEAN, not more than 10 per cent of these proposals have come to light. What has happened to the 90 per cent?

An hon. Member: Coming!

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Coming? I hope so. I certainly hope that with time we shall be able to see the true fruition of this big family of ASEAN. I would like to develop this topic a little further. Unfortunately, Singaporeans had at one time some connection with old Britannia and also with the English-speaking world. Therefore, many Singaporeans are extremely conversant with what goes on in the United States of America, London, or up north in Edinburgh, yet, the vast majority of Singaporeans are ignorant of what goes on in Indonesia, in the Philippines or in the Sulu Islands. To my mind, to know about these countries is more important for the future of Singapore than to know about what goes on in the North Sea or in the River Thames. I think there is a lot that this country can do to promote the awareness of ASEAN and to foster further the concept of regionalism. I am most assured by the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that, in actual fact, ASEAN is moving faster than many other regional gatherings. This is tremendous. I hope it will continue to move. But, at the same time, we also recognise that ASEAN has its own problems. We know that there are differences between Malaysia and Thailand. We know that of late there are dramatic differences between the Philippines and Malaysia and, I am sure, between Malaysia and Indonesia. Happily we have no real problems just yet.

I think the promotion of travel is a tremendous thing. This has been touched upon earlier on. But I think there is more that can really be done. Student travel should be promoted. We have an effective organisation, such as the People's Association, which can sponsor youth groups to visit Indonesia and the Philippines. I am not concerned about Malaysia because we can just leave the boys alone. They know where to go. They can take a drive up to the West coast of Malaysia. They normally stop at Bangkok in Thailand on their way to Europe or to Hong Kong. However, we must stress the importance of travel to Indonesia and the Philippines, certainly to Indonesia, which is our immediate concern. Secondly, perhaps as a further step in our effort to promote ASEAN co-operation, I think there is a case for sending Singapore's professional men to ASEAN countries, and I refer more in particular to our local doctors in the Singapore service. [Laughter]. I am serious about this in spite of the laughter. I think there is a case for us to send our doctors for a six-month posting or a year's posting to some ulu part of Indonesia. We can probably achieve much more in this way than some of the airy-fairy ideas that I have come across. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order.

An hon. Member: And lecturers.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Yes, and some lecturers from the Department of Extra-mural studies or the Nanyang University. If they want to join, by all means.

Another point which I think worth considering right now is in regard to our institutions of higher learning. To my knowledge, 25 per cent of the student population in Singapore's higher institutions are, in fact, non citizens. It is worth mentioning that virtually the entire 25 per cent are Malaysian students. Figures have been given by the Minister for Education showing that a sum amounting to about $4,000 per student is subsidised. If we work on the basis of 10,000 students in the institutions of higher learning, then we have at least 2,500 Malaysian students. Multiply that number by $4,000 and we have to spend something like $10 million a year to train Malaysian students in Singapore. I am not against Malaysians studying in Singapore. I think we should have more of them. It will help us to foster goodwill and strengthen our relations with Malaysia. But I think perhaps we can think of dividing the available places amongst the other members of the South-east Asian community. We should offer places to the Indonesian students, the Filipino students and the Thai students. I am not suggesting that each country be given one-quarter of the available places, but that we should offer more scholarships to students from these three countries.

Sir, time is running out, and I would like to hear some reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from time to time we have heard of people advocating establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and at each time we hear from the Government that since we are in ASEAN we should wait, and so on and so forth, without giving very clear answers. So I would like to find Out whether it is because Singapore is regarded by the other ASEAN countries as being a Third China that we do not want to take the initiative. It is not only my personal belief that it is so but it is also the belief from various quarters. So I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to confirm this.

6.45 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I think the comments by the Member for Kim Seng do not require an answer because he was telling us how he would run the Foreign Ministry. He was not questioning my foreign policy. Therefore, there is very little to answer. Nevertheless I would like to say that some of his thoughts would be taken note of, some I would think about, and some perhaps require second thoughts. Anyway, I am grateful to the Member for putting forward certain points which have been illuminating and for saying some indiscreet things which I would not have said myself.

As regards the Member for Bras Basah, probably he was not here earlier when one Member did bring up this question of representation and diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. In my answer I understood that, by watching some of the nods to my reply, they agreed with me. But obviously the Member for Bras Basah was not here then.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, when the Minister gave his answer, I was present in the Chamber. But the answer was so sophisticated that it was not easy to understand. The Minister did not make it clear. My question is: is Singapore still regarded by other ASEAN countries as being a Third China that we do not want to take the initiative to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I think the Member for Bras Basah himself is sophisticated. That is precisely the point. I think he understood my reply, more or less as he had summarised, or he has asked a rhetorical question. In view of that, Sir, there is no need to make further comment. But, of course, I am quite sure that at the next Budget session the same question will come up.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, in view of what I would consider a non-reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $22,957,170 for Head FA ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

Pursuant to a resolution of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1974 to 31st March, 1975, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.