Hansard, 1957-01-10

Order read for resumption of debate in Committee of Supply on Motion (9th January, 1957), "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $540,291 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 2 of 1957."-(The Financial Secretary).

Before we resume I would like to clear a point under the Standing Orders which was raised yesterday by the Honourable Member for Tanjong Pagar and commented upon by myself. The item under discussion was: "Sub-head 1, new item - Permanent Secretary (Establishment), Grade C ($1,950)... $23,400.00" under Head 8, Chief Secretary. The Honourable Member stated that the reason why he had not tabled any amendment to this item was because it would have required the Governor's consent, and it was doubtful if the Governor would allow Members of the Opposition to interfere with the terms and conditions of service of serving officers. I commented that there was nothing to prevent an honourable Member from giving notice of a motion to reduce any item in any head of expenditure, that he might be faced with having to obtain the Governor's recommendation or consent, but that I did not think that he was entitled to assume that he would not get the recommendation or consent of the Governor. I have had the opportunity to look into the matter a little more closely and I am satisfied that, in this particular case, it was incorrect to presuppose that it was in fact necessary that the Governor's recommendation or consent would have had to be signified. The relevant portion of paragraph (1) (b) of Standing Order 33 reads: "Except with the recommendation or consent of the Governor signified thereto, the Assembly shall not proceed upon any bill or motion, which, in the opinion of the Speaker or the Attorney-General, would effect any alteration in the salary, allowances or conditions of service (including leave, passages and promotion) of any public officer...". As I see it, the provision under the relevant item is for a new post of Permanent Secretary (Establishment) and no public officer has as yet been appointed to that post. In my view, therefore, no public officer is affected and consequently the Standing Order would not have applied. It follows that the Honourable Member in fact would not have required the Governor's consent had he given notice of an amendment to reduce the sum allotted to that particular item. I thought it was wise that I should correct that misunderstanding. Resumption of debate on Question (9th January, 1957) proposed on Head 26 of the Schedule, "That the sum of $10,000 for Head 26 stand part of the Schedule." Schedule- Head 26- Question again proposed, "That the sum of $10,000 for Head 26 stand part of the Schedule." 10.05 a.m.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, in objecting to the grant of this sum to the Royal Singapore Flying Club, the learned Member for Tanjong Pagar gibed that we were training pilots for bombing the Suez Canal. Sir, much as we may loathe the colonial breed, it would be wrong and churlish not to recognise that it was these young men who not so long ago stood between humanity and Hitler; that it was they who changed the destiny of the learned Member for Tanjong Pagar from that of a nihongo functionary to that of a Kuo-yu patriot. The Royal Singapore Flying Club, Sir, supplied 30 pilots in actual combat in Singapore during our war with Japan. I received this information last night from a man who was a member of that group and who himself is a domiciled Malayan born in Singapore. But I think one useful purpose has been served by this objection. The learned Member for Tanjong Pagar is right in complaining that the majority of the members of this club are Europeans. That is not the fault of the Europeans who see an opportunity for healthy and interesting activities and take advantage of it. It is the fault of our own youth and it is my hope that this debate will receive sufficient publicity in the Press in order that our youth should be aware of the opportunities which the club offers and that they will take advantage of them. I, for one, Sir, fully support this subsidy. 10.06 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully endorse the comments made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar yesterday regarding this grant of $10,000 to the Royal Singapore Flying Club. I cannot understand how this grant has been recommended. Could it be that it has been recommended on the ground that the word "Royal" is there? "Royal", Sir, is a very big word!

Down with it!

Down with the word "Royal"! I am told that only 30 per cent of the members learn to fly. And out of this 30 per cent, a number will gradually leave because they have failed, just as the Member for Cairnhill said that he tried to learn how to fly and he failed and now he is no more interested in flying. The other 70 per cent of the members do not learn how to fly because they are not interested in flying. What they are interested in is to get drinks in the early hours of the morning! Hon. Members: No.

Certainly they do. If some hon. Members say no, let me tell them, Sir, that I have been there on one or two occasions. I was introduced by members of that club - Hon. Members: Shame!

It is not a shame, it is an experience. If I had not been there, I would not have known that the club do supply drinks up to the early hours of the morning. Sir, I was asked by my friend who was a member that if I wanted to get drinks even in the early hours of the morning, or if I wanted to entertain my friends right up to the early hours of the morning, I should join the club. I was told that there is no other bar or club in Singapore that provided this amenity. The only alternative, if you want to get a drink in the early hours of the morning, is to join the club. So since 70 per cent of the members join this club for the purpose of drinking only, why not change the name of the club to the "Royal Singapore Drinking Club", as the Member for Tanjong Pagar put it.

You start one!

There is no necessity for me to start another one because one already exists. So why should I start another one to compete with the Royal Singapore Drinking Club? The Minister for Communications and Works said yesterday that we have the M.A.T.C. and the M.A.A.F. which provide flying facilities, and if anyone is interested in flying, he should join either one of these organisations rather than join this posh and very, very exclusive club. Many flying enthusiasts have refused to volunteer for service with these two organisations because they are subject to discipline. To join a Force, discipline is necessary, but to join the Singapore Flying Club it is considered that one must be a personage before one can join. That is the reason why many people have refused to volunteer for service. The Minister said that the Club teaches people to fly. If he is thinking of merdeka, then by all means let us fly to merdeka rather than walk to merdeka! I oppose this grant of $10,000 to the Singapore Flying Club and I wonder whether it is in order for me, Sir, to move to delete this sum from the vote?

No notice has been given. 10.12 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we do need local-born pilots and therefore training in flying is necessary, but the objection to this grant is, I think, because of the conduct of the members of this flying club, late drinking hours and so on. Sir, a pilot is supposed to be a man of sober habits. That is true, Sir, because I have been flying very often and I have asked the pilots, who refuse to drink, especially on the day when they are on duty. Sir, I have a suggestion to make which will, I think, meet the objections of the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Queenstown - that whilst approving this grant of $10,000, we make it a condition that this flying club should not be misused by those who are not interested in flying but in drinking. This is actually a condition to be made in their own interests. I think that is the only solution. 10.13 a.m.

Sir, the Minister for Communications and Works said yesterday, in all seriousness, that it was an intense desire on his part to see a large group of flyers which motivated his recommending this particular item. Sir, I have discussed this matter with the Malayan Airways Local Employees Union and they tell me that they saw the Minister in February last year. They are as concerned as he is over the need for pilots, and they then presented him with a memorandum which set out the figures of the pilots available - European and local - for flying civilian airplanes: they also put forward a scheme to the Minister suggesting how the present unfortunate state of affairs could be corrected. In this scheme they suggested: "(1) To undertake the training scheme, the following training staff and equipment would be required: (a) A professional flying instructor on full-time duty to train in the air and organise lectures on theory for commercial pilot licences, instrument rating syllabi. (b) A professional engineering instructor on full-time duty to give basic aircraft engineering lessons and to organise training to both Singapore flying clubs and commercial operators' workshops. (c) One twin-engined aircraft fully equipped with instruments, radio communication and navigational sets to enable twin-engined instrument rating to be given. (d) Certain equipment for both pilot and engineer lectures most of which can be obtained or made in Malaya." The Minister received this memorandum and he will remember that he had present a man called Mr Warcup who did not think very much of the scheme. The Member for Cairnhill claims that, this being a democratic country, everybody can join the Singapore Flying Club, notwithstanding its royal prefix. Let me remind him how much it costs to qualify, not including the entrance fees and subscription fees, the cost of keeping the social habits of the other members in the club. But assuming one abjures all these, how much would it cost to get an "A" Licence? Regulations lay down that there must be a minimum of 40 hours' flying experience before one can obtain an "A" Licence. The club's fees are $24 per flying hour. Assuming that one graduates in the minimum time (40 hours) and does not meet with a misfortune - as did the Member for Cairnhill who never graduated - it costs $960 per licence minimum, without paying subscription fees, entrance fee, without joining in all the drinking orgies. $10,000 on that scale would produce ten pilots a year. If this vote is passed and this Government is still in existence next year, we will want to know whether there will be ten new local pilots by next year - not white pilots - because it is local money that is paying for all this, although it is a nominated white Minister who is recommending it. Sir, this is a small matter really- $10,000. After all, last month we agreed to give away $23 million. It seems to be straining at a gnat to argue about this $10,000. But it is a matter of principle that is at stake. [Laughter.] There being all kinds - it is not a laughing matter. It may be a laughing matter for those who do not have to stand before the people, contest elections and answer for what they have done.

Terrible!

Yes, it is. A terrible fate will befall him if he should appear before the people.

He will.

And then we shall see what happens. For those who do, let me remind them that $125,000 to the Young Women's Christian Association, $10,000 to the Royal Singapore Flying Club - clubs frequented by magistrates who bring dubious women there in the early hours of the morning, whose pictures are subsequently produced in court as exhibits, will all not be forgotten. The Member for Cairnhill was then touring China, I believe. But these are facts. These are the habits of these people. $10,000 to aid and abet this nefarious conduct is a disgrace. 10.17 a.m.

This has raised quite an undue amount of excitement in the Opposition, Mr Chairman. I had really prepared myself to be attacked on the grounds that the grant has been inadequate, and I was rather taken aback when I heard these allegations of subsidising drinking. I think I had better go quietly and seriously through a few of the facts and perhaps afterwards if there is time and the House will bear with me, I will deal with a few of the fantasies which are floating around in the rather ill-informed minds of the Opposition. I think I had better start by pointing out that the $10,000 grant proposal is, of course, linked with another item which stands next to it in the paper before us, i.e., for the purchase of the flying club's properties, and these two items are linked together with the object of enabling the Club to pay off its debts and to equip itself with new aircraft. In this connection, I might mention that we have been seeking from the Government of India under the Colombo Plan the provision of an H.T.2 trainer made by the Hindustan Aircraft Company and although I cannot say that we have got it yet, I am very hopeful that we shall get it; and it would be very odd indeed if the Government of India was more generous to our local flying club than is the Member for Tanjong Pagar, supported with enthusiasm by the Member for Queenstown. Perhaps I had better deal with one point which was raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar yesterday, and that is, the calculation of the grant to the Club. I have here the estimated budget for the Flying Club for 1957 on which this grant is finally based, after the Treasury had very rigorously and closely examined the finances of the Club, not only now but throughout the whole of its post-war history. Under "Direct maintenance costs - licensed engineer, labour force, Provident Fund, insurance, electricity and so on - $63,580: Radio maintenance - $4,800: Direct flying costs - $23,232", giving a grand total of $91,612 expenditure anticipated during 1957. Against that you have estimated income from private owners of $4,000 for hangar space: let to other requirements $5,000: profit on the club-house $5,000: paid trips in commercial flying $12,000: club flying at about 140 to 150 hours per month, estimated at $50,400. You will see. Sir, that that gives a total of $76,400 and an expected deficit of $15,212. The proposed grant will not, in fact, meet the estimated deficit, but we hope that with the provision of new and better aircraft the Club will be able to increase the number of people using its planes, using its capacity much more fully, and that in fact the income figures will be higher. Since a great point has been made by Members of how one has heard of people drinking very late and not of oneself drinking very late, I think I might point out that $5,000 profit on the club-house amounts to about 6½ per cent of the gross income expected in 1957, and I should think this is probably one of the smallest club-house profits of any club in Singapore. The suggestion, Sir, that this is a drinking club and not a flying club is most rigorously refuted by the Club Secretary who is himself a local-born Eurasian and comes from a very fine old Singapore family as well. He says that 75 per cent of the members come to the club purely for flying.

30 per cent.

And I regret that the hon. Member used his privileged position in this House to make absolutely slanderous allegations against people who are unable to answer for themselves here.

Have it out in a public forum.

Sir, a public forum is an essential part of democracy and, of course, it must be open to abuse by those who wish to abuse it either through ill-will or through ignorance. Now let us turn to another aspect - this was not mentioned yesterday - but if hon. Members will turn to their Estimates they will find on page 292 under the Head "Civil Aviation", Singapore Headquarters - Other Charges Annually Recurrent - sub-head 5, the figure of $2,500 in respect of renewal of instruments ratings and flying for radio and testing; and further under "Singapore Airport" at page 296, under O.C.A.R. again, the figure of $1,500 for "Aircraft Charter for Inspection of Runway and Approach Lighting", giving you a total of $4,000 allocated for chartering aircraft in order to calibrate radar and instruments and to make inspections of lighting and that kind of thing. When we get further equipment coming in shortly, there will be a need to fly over and around the beacon on St. John's Island and that kind of thing in order that they can be tested not merely by commercial aircraft flying on their correct routes, but on the possibility that somebody would fly off the correct routes, and to make sure that the coverage is overall. This figure of $4,000 required for aircraft charter is based on the assumption that the Royal Singapore Flying Club will be available for chartering its planes at a cost of $50 to $60 an hour. If the Club is denied this grant and has to close down, as it would, then it will be necessary to charter planes from the commercial airlines. The cost would be between seven and ten times as great, depending on what type of plane you are able to get and the time at which you want it; and consequently, instead of a figure of $4,000, you will get a figure of between $30,000 and $40,000, at least $20,000 more on the public budget than is available and is charged on the budget by this grant. So that quite apart from the question whether the bar is a popular part of the Club, I hope that the charter services will be popular with this Assembly and will not force us to come back for an A.S.V. for another $25,000 or $30,000 in order to charter aircraft to maintain the safety of the airport. If hon. Members would scrutinise the Estimates with more care and ask useful questions, they would learn these things and would not have to be taught them when they misrepresented the facts to the public and show that they do not, in fact, know what is going on. So much for the club's estimated budget and the fact that we are not meeting its deficit. Let me turn to the information we sought about flying clubs in other countries. There are subsidised flying club systems in a number of Asian countries - in Pakistan, Indonesia and India - and we have particularly attended to the very full details which we were given by courtesy of the Director-General of Civil Aviation in New Delhi. In India clubs are placed in four classes- I, II, III and IV. A Class I club is one which is expected to fly 3,500 hours in the course of a year; a Class II club 2,500 hours: a Class III club 1,500 hours, and a Class IV club 1,000 hours. A Class I club has a direct subsidy grant of 100,000 rupees; for a Class II club 75,000 rupees; a Class III club 60,000 rupees; a Class IV 40,000 rupees. In addition, Class I and II clubs get 40 rupees per instructional hour grant related directly to the actual instruction given; Class III and IV clubs get 50 rupees per instructional hour. In addition, in India clubs get free hangars, one-third of their aeroplanes free, free landing, free V.H.F. radio equipment, both air and ground, and they also have generous free scholarship flying schemes. Sir, if we compare all that with what we are proposing for the Royal Singapore Flying Club, we will find that the estimate of $50,000 revenue from flying is based on the expectation of 140 to 150 flying hours per month, or somewhere over 1,500 to 1,900 flying hours per year, which puts them in the Class III category of the Indian scale. Therefore, if it were an Indian club it would be eligible for a grant of about $40,000 (converted from rupees) plus about $30 per instructional hour, and of course it would also get all the other free hangars and other facilities which I have just mentioned.

They are teaching Indians how to fly.

The hon. Member is obsessed with what he calls the white races. He is not prepared to accept anybody who has not got certain pigments in his skin, either as a fellow being or a friend. I will refer again to the Flying Club's racial construction at a later stage. We have some very spirited remarks about the M.A.A.F. and the M.A.T.C. The M.A.A.F. is, of course, providing training for Service pilots and the hon. Member has, I think, supported it in the Estimates, and the Service pilots are of course those who, if they wished, would be able to drop bombs on people. The idea that the owner of a private pilot licence, who has been taught to fly in a Chipmunk in Paya Lebar is going to leap into his Chipmunk and fly off to drop bombs on Egypt is so fantastic that it does not deserve consideration.

The Member for Cairnhill said one of them fought with Japan.

They might fight in defence of this country and they would, like the pre-war pilots who included local men, as the Member for Cairnhill pointed out, be able to defend their own country. This is perhaps the objective which the hon. Member does not support. The M.A.T.C. does not itself provide flying, but it does get from the Royal Singapore Flying Club facilities for what it calls "familiarisation flights" in order that the M.A.T.C. members may be able get off into the air and have an idea of what flying conditions are. This is one of the services which the Royal Singapore Flying Club provides for those uniformed and disciplined sections of the aviation world in Singapore. It also provides a free junior membership service for students from the M.A.T.C. The M.A.T.C. will, of course, be deprived of these services if the hon. Member succeeds in stopping this grant. Let us now turn to the distressing complaints about the white man put forward by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I myself am a white man and he is unable to forgive me for that unhappy element in my background in spite of the fact that I have spent more than half my life here, that I have been domiciled in this country and that I have a Malayan wife, and that I am heart and soul and for much longer than himself a worker on the political scene on behalf of the labour movement of this country. But leaving that aside, I may point out what I said yesterday and what he conveniently ignored, that the Royal Singapore Flying Club is progressively malayanising itself, and that of the student pilots under instruction - he did not listen to this yesterday and now laughs at it - more than 40 per cent are in fact now Asian. He also asserted, and it is quoted again in the newspapers - I think twice over in the English papers (this is the Singapore Standard, which is all I have with me here)- "so far not a single qualified pilot from Malaya has been offered a job in any of the airlines. This alone is sufficient to indicate the nature of the times." I am not sure whether the Straits Times did not publish this inaccuracy. In any case, the fact of the matter is that four of the Malayan Airways pilots were trained in the Royal Singapore Flying Club. The hon. Member will have an opportunity, I am sure, Mr Chairman, Sir, of rising to apologise for this wilful misrepresentation of the facts - I must not use the word "lie". I do not suppose that he would rise to apologise because it would be confessing that he had been wrong. With regard to the membership of the Flying Club, I happen to have here the figures year by year, the names and details of those who were taking student pilot and other licences. As I look down the first page alone, I see Chinese, British, Australian, Chinese, Indian, Chinese, Indian, Canadian, British, Chinese, British, Filipino, American, Eurasian, British, Indian, Malay, Eurasian, Chinese, British, Chinese, British. Further on I find Arab and Ceylonese and others. This is the answer to the allegation that this is a white man's club seeking to drain the lifeblood of the people and spend money on drinking. It is a club in which there is a happy all-races membership happily working together as fellow club members. His attempt to make racial bars where they do not exist seems to be abominably mischievous in the circumstances of Singapore. Since we are on this question of drink, I might mention once again this further point, that if you have a lot of people drinking in the club and if their profits are used for subsidising flying, it has pretty much the same effect as when we put a tax on drinks and cigarettes in order to increase the revenue of the colony. When people are drinking, they are actually assisting in the flying needs of the club, but the club is not necessarily disqualified for a grant. The Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to the Malayan Airways Local Employees Union's memorandum about the training scheme. He did not quote the cost which would be incurred if you were going to employ full-time instructors in flying and engineering and a full-time aircraft and other costs. We did not go into that in great detail. We have looked at the scheme and it was obvious, however, that a grant of $10,000 would by no means be enough to pay for a full-time qualified instructor and to provide an aircraft to be available for training. We have, in fact, been working and are still working on schemes which, I hope, will in due course produce considerable expansion of training facilities. It may not be wise or necessary to set up a costly local organisation if we can get the training facilities we need in friendly neighbouring countries such as India. Mr Chairman, I have taken rather longer over this than I would have wished, because I felt that it was a matter of some importance to deal with these ill-informed statements made by the hon. Members. Perhaps I can conclude by making the three points which I have already made. I will summarise them. First, the Flying Club does provide specific training facilities which have been used and which we hope will be used more extensively in the future, and that is a very valuable factor. Second, it also provides charter facilities which do bring genuine revenue into the Civil Aviation Department and do help to reduce the taxes quite significantly. Thirdly, it does provide a stimulus to air-mindedness which is of very great importance in this mid-20th century time when all technical training is of the greatest importance, and technical training depends partly on interest in technique. If I may, I will just read, Mr Chairman, from the opening paragraph of the New Delhi notes to which I referred just now: "The flying club movement in India has been in existence for a very long time. In fact, the development of civil aviation in India has proceeded side by side with the growth of the flying clubs. The very first flying club in India dated back to 1928. More flying clubs have grown up since. The total number now active is twelve. They are centred in various big cities all over India. They provide flying facilities for students from various universities and also cater for the needs of the general public in respect of sports and hobby flying. They have all along helped to promote air-mindedness and have created, so to say, a pool of people interested in flying out of which have emerged young men who have selected flying for a profession. Being fully aware of this, the Government of India have accepted that the flying clubs must be given substantial financial aid. The operation of aircraft being a costly affair, the flying clubs are not on their own able to meet the expenditure involved in the running of the clubs." That is the policy of our great neighbour and friend, India, and I must say that I think it is a very much more realistic and competent policy than the policies enunciated by the Members of the Opposition who have objected to this proposed grant.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $10,000 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 31- The sum of $14,100 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43- Question proposed, "That the sum of $53,600 for Head 43 stand part of the Schedule."

On a point of clarification, Sir. I wonder whether the officer who has been seconded to this job on the Housing Authority will be paid. He is now being paid as Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the officer in question will, on secondment, only draw one salary. He will not be drawing any salary at all as Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $53,600 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46- The sum of $23,400 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The sum of $11,700 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 50- The sum of $14,100 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54- The sum of $123,940 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 10.44 a.m. Head 55- Question proposed, "That the sum of $56,700 for Head 55 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, what a shame that, apart from asking us to approve the grant of $10,000 to the Royal Singapore Flying Club, we are now asked to provide $56,700 for the purchase of a building for this club. A fierce attack has been launched against the grant of $10,000 to the Flying Club and if we approve this grant of $56,700 to purchase a building for the club, I am afraid in the future they will come back to us and ask if we can provide equipment for their bar. It is a real shame. The last paragraph of this item at page 5 reads: "The Club was in receipt of a subsidy from Government from its inception in 1928 until the war. In 1938, the subsidy amounted to $30,000 per annum." Sir, between 1928 and up to the period before the war, there were no elected Councillors or Assemblymen at all. This is now a different Government with elected Ministers, and I do not think we should follow the footsteps of the previous Legislative Council where most of the Members were nominated. Let us try to save money rather than throw away money. The last paragraph says that "in 1938, the subsidy amounted to $30,000 per annum." What I am afraid will happen, Sir, is that when next year's Budget comes up for consideration, we might be asked to provide another grant of $50,000 or $100,000 or even more. Then where will we end again, Sir?

Maybe you will not be here!

I do not think this is right, Sir, because once you give a grant you will have to stick to it; and now we are asked to purchase a building for this club. There are more applications that will be coming in for the purchase of buildings or for assistance, and I do hope that the Chief Minister or his Government will look carefully into them, because I am fully aware that there is already an application asking for some grant and I would like to see how the Government treat that application. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock):Mr Chairman, Sir, it would seem that the hon. Member has not learnt any lesson at all from the debate on the grant of $10,000 to the Royal Singapore Flying Club.

I was never convinced. 10.46 a.m.

Sir, on the arguments advanced by the Minister for Communications and Works, we would at some future date be asked to support the principle that the Minister for Health's Singapore Gun Club should be granted a subsidy. And if this club gets into difficulties because the Minister's drinking companions have not been frequenting the bar, we would be asked to take over the building of the Singapore Gun Club, on the grounds that it trains marksmanship and we want more rifle shooters in this colony. Sir, we could argue on that basis ad infinitum. It is quite a different thing to come to this Assembly to cite India to prove that because the Indian Government has a flying club scheme, and since our Royal Singapore Flying Club is analogous to the Indian flying club movement, therefore we ought to support it. Sir, I was talking to an expatriate yesterday and he told me that there was only one other place in the world, to his knowledge, where one could enjoy pleasure flying more cheaply, and that was Egypt. But when Colonel Nasser came in, he put a stop to it. I am also told, Sir, that although the number of pupils seeking instruction is 40 per cent local people as against 60 per cent expatriates, the number of people who make use of flying facilities does not correspond to that ratio at all. The bulk of the expenditure is incurred in the maintenance of the aircraft, and that is a facility enjoyed almost altogether by the expatriates. Let us face facts. These expatriates are not Malayans, and never will be, although they often write in the newspapers, "We Malayans so and so...". As to the actual sum involved- $56,700 - we would like to know what is the market value of these buildings, what was the cost originally, and how much has been allowed for depreciation. 10.48 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, it is now clear whom the hon. Member regards as a better model - Mr Nehru or Colonel Nasser. It is now clear that he regards Colonel Nasser as the finer person of the two. I must say that I personally prefer Pandit Nehru. He asks a specific question which I think we ought to try to answer, and that is the valuation of the club. The buildings, I think, cannot be easily valued precisely because they were, in fact, built very largely by the labour of the club members themselves and with the loyal co-operation of the bar-boys who worked side by side with the members in carrying the bricks and spreading the concrete and that kind of thing. There is a spirit of comradeship in that club which is singularly lacking in the Member for Tanjong Pagar. But I am advised that the cost of the transfer from the Kallang club-house which they had to give up to the reconstructed club-house at Paya Lebar was in the nature of $72,000. That is the only figure I have got. It would probably vary considerably if we went into the detailed costing of it all, but that is a recognisable figure to take. The gross valuation for the club-house was $39,000 but a certain amount had to be deducted from that, and that is the cost of making certain repairs. The value of the hangar was $33,600. Again deductions were made for the cost of replacing one of the walls and various other minor improvements were effected if it were to become a government building. The figures are, I think, adequate for the Member's needs. 10.50 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the Government side have an obsession that, with the help of the Nominated Members' votes and the ex-officios' votes, they will carry anything through. They will not admit any mistakes. This side of the House has already pointed out the defects of the Royal Singapore Flying Club-house, but the Minister for Communications and Works has neither assured us nor touched upon the subject of drinking at late hours at the club. I cannot understand the logic of just putting everything to the vote and carrying it through because they want it to be so.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I should say that I have dealt repeatedly with the question of drinking at the clubhouse. I pointed out that the profits to be expected were $5,000 or 6½ per cent of the total estimated revenue for 1957. That was one mention which the hon. Member failed to notice. I referred to the drinking habits of the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Queenstown who made remarks about it. I indicated that if, in fact, some of the members did help to support the club by lifting their elbows, well that, of course, was common practice in almost every club in Singapore. It is, in fact, the practice of Singapore as a whole to derive revenue from taxes on liquors and cigarettes and similar consumption in order to pay for necessities. The fact that the club does what the Government does is not a very bad thing to do. I think I might take this opportunity of saying this, Mr Chairman, Sir. We have, I think, very fully argued the reasons why this grant to purchase buildings is necessary. If the hon. Member is not convinced, then he will no doubt be fully convinced if we can stop the grant. He will no doubt fully support my application in due course for a very large A.S.V. to meet the cost of chartering aeroplanes and that alone might serve to convince him that he ought to support this purchase and this grant. I hope that if this House has again to consider possibly increased subsidies rather nearer to the Indian rates, Members will by that time study the facts more carefully and will be ready to give favourable consideration. This is the minimum subsidy which can possibly keep the club going as a useful part of the civil aviation structure in Singapore. It is possible that it may be too low and that we ought to have made it bigger. That will take, of course, experience to find out. 10.53 a.m.

Since the Minister is so anxious to give the impression that this club is intended for a serious purpose, we ought to acquaint ourselves with the facts. The memorandum that was presented to him in February last year pointed out the acute shortage of Malayan pilots. If we intend to run our internal airlines, we should have a big scheme, not this feeble idea of supporting a flying club meant primarily for recreational purposes. Sir, the pilot position in civil airlines is as follows: Malayan Airways - 39 expatriates; 12 Asians. Federation Air Service - 3 expatriates; 1 Asian. Sabba Airways Limited (Borneo) 5 expatriates; no Asian. International operators are left out. The total comes to: 47 expatriates and 13 Asians. There is no Asian who is flying an aircraft as a captain. No local aeroplane can fly over Malaya without a white man on board. Let us face facts. We are fighting colonialism and the white man stands for colonialism. So we fight him. When we settle that fight, we will settle other fights amongst ourselves. But first we settle who is to be master in this country. I make no apologies for being anti-colonialist. I do not quibble and say, "Oh, I am against the colonial system, but I am really a friend of the British and I love the British." I do not. I am against colonialism and as long as the British represent colonialism in this country, I fight them, unrelentingly, as they fight me. It offends my sense of propriety to have every local aeroplane piloted by a European. I support the union when the union said, "If you are really serious about training pilots, then have a serious scheme." I have already pointed out to the Minister that $10,000 could, if used for no other purpose than just pay for the training of pilots, produce ten pilots a year with an "A" Licence. He said he had not costed the scheme which the union put forward to him, but it was something much more than $10,000. And so it would be. If we are serious about it and not just toying with the idea, let us set about it in a serious way. The union put forward these suggestions - I am reading from their memorandum: "Providing for reasonable expansion of aviation and for the replacement of expatriates, there is a requirement of some 60 pilots for the next five years (60 fully qualified pilots) to fly commercial aeroplanes. Making allowance for trainee wastage, it would be necessary to have an intake of 20 pilots each year to begin with, which could be decreased or increased in the light of experience." We are now told that we are going to give $57,000 to take over some buildings. From the description of the way in which the buildings were put up, they must be very unsound, if bar-boys were used to carry bricks and stick them up with a bit of mortar! No wonder nobody is able to give a correct estimate of the value of these buildings! But we are asked to subscribe the sum of $56,700 for these buildings. We have not been told what they really are worth. The Minister says he does not know what they are worth. Obviously it does not matter. All he wants to do is to get the club out of a jam. What are these buildings going to be used for? Are they really necessary? Is $56,700 worth the price we are paying for what we want to make use of these buildings for? We come back to this basic objection. We are not here to give financial support to European recreational activity in this country. We object to it even more when they try to camouflage it behind some beneficial results for the local population. The Indian flying clubs, Sir, are teetotal. That perhaps is the reason why my friend the Member for Telok Ayer kept on insisting about drinking habits. They have a serious purpose. They may have grown out of the old colonial flying clubs they had in India when Europeans amused themselves by flying. But the Indian flying clubs are now engaged in the serious pursuit of trying to build up as large a field of men who can fly as possible. But the flying clubs are not the basis of India's Air Force, or India's growing force of flyers. They have properly organised training courses. And further - there is no need to laugh at this - even Ceylon has an Air Academy to train people how to fly, in a serious way, and not to throw away public funds on a European - whatever is the colour of the flying club secretary - flying club in which we are sinking $57,000 and to which we are giving a grant of $10,000 a year. The Singapore Flying Club might as well make up their minds now how to find their money next year, because if there is to be an election this coming August, whatever happens, whoever wins the election will not be in a position to vote another $10,000 next year. 10.58 a.m.

I am afraid, Mr Chairman, Sir, we must pursue this subject more. A most helpful contribution from the Member for Tanjong Pagar was that we should give a further grant of $10,000 to the Flying Club so that they could take on ten Malayans, give them 40 hours' training each at a cost of $960 each and they would then be able to go ahead and produce ten more pilots among the wastage of people not getting through and who should get through somehow. Sir, I will give very serious consideration to that possibility and I do welcome the fact that he recognises that the Flying Club could perform a most valuable service if we cannot get the service performed elsewhere. I cannot go into the scheme since we are working on it at the moment because it involves other governments and it must be brought to a final form before I can make statements about it. There is, of course, always the possibility that it may not come to a successful final form, and in that case it is certainly very reassuring to know that we can count on the support of the People's Action Party for at least another $10,000 to pay specifically for ten pilots to be trained by the Flying Club, and I do welcome this generous gesture on his part which I think is the most fruitful contribution made to the debate so far. He said that I did not give any figures of the cost of the buildings. I would remind him that I gave him the cost of the transfer - $72,000 - and the estimated valuation was $39,000. He further complained that he did not know what use was going to be made of the buildings which are going to be used by the Royal Singapore Flying Club. In the event the Singapore Flying Club ceased to exist, the buildings would be taken over for government use. There are a number of uses to which they could be put in the Paya Lebar Airport for which space would be required ultimately and could be used right now. We have restricted building at the airport as far as we possibly could and there will probably be further buildings required. These buildings would fit in very well. If any further Opposition Members are going to make speeches, I hope they will take into account the facts that have been stated and not get up and say we have not said what we have, in fact, said very clearly and in great detail.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $56,700 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56- The sum of $123,361 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 11.02 a.m. Head 57- Question proposed, "That the sum of $9,600 for Head 57 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, on a point of clarification. Is it not the Government's policy that all vehicles should be insured against all consequences? There is no indication here to say that this money will be recoverable from any insurance company. On the other hand, the Government insist that all vehicles of the public should be insured.

Sir, Government carries its own insurance.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $9,600 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $540,291 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $540,291 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $540,291 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 2 of 1957," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $540,291 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 2 of 1957.

11.05 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly in accordance with subsection (1) of section 25 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 259) approves of the borrowing by the Singapore Improvement Trust from the Government of the sum of $44,737,000 at an interest rate of 5¼per cent per annum repayable over a period of 60 years, the repayments to be made by half yearly instalments based on the annuity method and together with repayments of previous loans to be secured by a legal mortgage of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds legal title and by an equitable charge of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds equitable title for the purposes of enabling the Trust to meet the cost of constructing buildings required for carrying out the purposes of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. Sir, this application is to meet the cost of what is known as the Singapore Improvement Trust Building Programme No. 8. This programme consists of 5,582 housing units and 235 shops. The loan is a very large one and it is therefore incumbent upon me to explain to this Assembly the policy on which this programme is based and to outline in some detail the building schemes of which it is composed. The motion, Sir, is a very clear indication of this Government's firm intention to continue to give high priority to the provision of public housing in order to keep pace with the rapidly increasing population and also to rehouse the many thousands of people who are now living in slum areas. The Government will endeavour to fulfil the great demands of the lower income groups for good housing accommodation at rents within the capacity of these groups to pay. The new Land Clearance and Resettlement Plan makes fair and adequate provision for compensation and rehousing of people living in temporary houses required for public development. This should make it possible, Sir, to clear sites for public housing more quickly and enable the housing programme of permanent dwellings to be accelerated. Present plans, Sir, provide a rate of construction of up to about 5,500 housing units a year by 1960. As hon. Members are aware, the slum areas in this city present serious problems, demanding a solution which will be acceptable to 300,000 people living in these areas. The key to the problem is the re-development of these areas and it is the intention to set aside a considerable proportion of current and future housing programmes for the rehousing of persons displaced from such slum areas. Thus, Sir, a large proportion of Programme No. 8 will be devoted to the rehousing of families of this category; approximately 1,400 housing units are being reserved for this purpose. The remainder of the housing units, amounting to 4,215 units, will be used mainly for accommodating families of the lower income group who are now on the Housing Register, but some of these houses will also be required to rehouse families from sites which will have to be cleared for public development. I would like, Sir, now to give you the breakdown figures of Programme No. 8. 2,923 housing units and 92 shops are being constructed at Kallang Airport. 339 housing units and 59 shops in the Short Street/Rochore Road/Albert Street area. 128 housing units and 14 shops in Upper Hokkien Street, Upper Pickering Street and South Bridge Road area. 192 housing units and 6 shops at the old filter beds at Bukit Timah. 200 housing units at Bukit Panjang. 1,800 housing units and 64 shops at St. Michael's Road radio station area. Sir, apart from this, improvement to Trust houses is also being made at Balestier Estate. Two markets are being provided - one at Kallang Airport and the other one at St. Michael's Road. The costs of these two projects, Sir, are not included in the housing programme as they are recoverable from the City Council. The housing units provided are flats and houses built to permanent low-cost standards providing accommodation which is suitable for the lower income groups. Considerable economies have been made in accommodation standards and construction standards have been reduced to the minimum compatible with safety. The majority of flats, Sir, have either two or three rooms. A small proportion of 4-roomed flats are being provided as well as self-contained tenements. All will have their own kitchens, bathrooms and W.Cs. Lifts will be provided for all multi-storey buildings. Shopping and marketing centres will have a place in each estate at convenient locations. It is also proposed, Sir, to provide a specially designed workshop with a small number of workshop buildings to re-house the shophouse factory type of businesses which will require to be displaced on slum clearance areas and which will appropriately be included in the housing estate. Hon. Members will note, Sir, that the rate of interest proposed for this loan is 5¼ per cent per annum. This approximates to the present-day market rate and is in accordance with the policy of the Government as set out in the White Paper on housing subsidies. Sir, there is one question which I know everybody will be asking, and that is, at what rents will these houses be let? Sir, I am not in a position today to give full details of the rentals which it is proposed to charge. These will be presented to the House when the motion for the approval of the subsidy which will be necessary is introduced. But I can say now, Sir, that the aim of Government is to build standard 2-roomed flats which can be let at a standard inclusive rent of $30 per mensem. There are families both on the Singapore Improvement Trust housing register and in the slum areas which will have to be cleared who will require and who can afford to pay for somewhat more spacious accommodation. The needs of these families, Sir, will be met by the construction of 3-roomed flats for which the rent will be somewhere in the region of $40 per mensum. But the subsidy which the Government has in mind will be weighted in favour of the standard 2-roomed flats. As I have said, Sir, the House will be given the opportunity of going into the question of rental policy in greater detail at a subsequent sitting. Sir, I think I have given sufficient details of the programme which is to be carried out from the loan for which I seek this Assembly's approval. I repeat again, Sir, that it is the firm intention of this Government to devote itself to the solution of the housing problem with a sense of urgency and to press on with determination towards the ultimate goal of healthy and decent housing for all the people of Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed. 11.14 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume that the introduction of this motion is in conjunction with the White Paper on the housing subsidy policy tabled yesterday, and it is rather surprising that this policy and the motion itself are tabled after my question for oral answer in the Assembly yesterday, No. 7 in the Order Paper. At long last the Government has fulfilled its election pledge and the Minister has redeemed his promise in introducing this housing policy and motion. Had it not been for my question yesterday, this policy and the motion would have remained in the pigeon holes of the Fullerton Building for years and years to come and no one will ever dream of having any housing subsidy at all.

Wonderful!

It is wonderful - how long it took! However, the motion in itself does not give any indication as to a reduction in rentals. According to the subsidy policy, Sir, the only benefit that existing tenants will get is the waiver of the service, lighting and conservancy charges. Apart from that, there is no benefit at all. Where is the reduction in rentals? I cannot see it at all. According to a Press report in the Singapore Standard a few days ago, Sir, it is stated that the Government intends to reduce rentals below $60 but those above $60 will not be benefited. I do not know where is the source of this report.

The usual source.

According to this report, there is discrimination, as the subsidy (after this loan is granted) will be for 2-room flats only. Houses with three or four rooms will not be subsidised by Government. I wonder whether this report is correct. If it is, I cannot see why there should be discrimination between a 2-room flat and a 3-room flat. If it is the contention of that report in the Singapore Standard and of the Minister himself that those who live in houses with three or four rooms are rich people, then I think their contention is entirely wrong. It is nonsense. People are not happy to live in S.I.T. houses. They are forced to because they cannot find accommodation elsewhere. They are forced to pay whatever rentals are charged. The only benefit they derive from living in S.I.T. houses is that they do not have to pay "tea money". If they were to try and get a private dwelling, they would have to pay some form of "tea money". In the case of the S.I.T. houses, the high rentals charged could be said to be some form of "tea money", but the public have no alternative but to accept their terms. I was told by the Minister, when moving this motion, that the new houses to be built out of the loan money will be subsidised by the Government and the rentals charged for them will be tabled before this Assembly after they have been worked over. The Minister has not been able to give an indication as to the rentals to be charged, but he says it may be around $30 to $40. What I feel, Sir, is that the rentals will be based on the working of the initial capital plus maintenance plus interest and any other charges, especially the administrative charges incurred by the expatriate officers in the S.I.T. They have very fat salaries and that adds to the high cost of the rentals. Why then, Sir, in this motion it is stated the loan will be repayable over a period of 60 years. Why not increase the loan repayment period further? In this way, the rentals charged will be less. The reason is that if you work on the basis of the initial capital plus interest and maintenance charges and the fat salaries of the expatriate officers and stretch all that out over a period of, say, 80 years, instead of 60 years, the rentals will be cheaper. The Financial Secretary or the Minister himself may come back with the argument that the rentals charged will not be based exactly on the factors I have enumerated. Although the actual figure will be based on this, the difference will be subsidised by Government. If this is true, Sir, then I should say that it is going to be a very heavy burden for the Government to bear. If, worked on the basis of a 60-year period, the rental comes to $60, and if the Government feels that an economic rental should be $30, then the Government will have to bear the extra $30 in the form of a subsidy. But if that figure is spread over 80 years, the actual cost may come to only about $45, and then the Government need only to subsidise $15 stretched over a longer period. The actual gross figure will be recovered. There is no difference at all. The difference is that repayment will be over 80 years instead of 60 years. If the Government intends to limit it to 60 years, then the subsidy will be higher, and when the Budget comes up before this Assembly, it will again show a very big deficit. To cover this deficit, taxes will be raised. But if the repayment is spread over 80 years, then the subsidy will be lower. Then the Budget deficit will be smaller. Maybe there might be a surplus, and in that event there will be no increase in taxes. I am told, Sir, by some quarters that the working of this 60-year period is based on the life of a building. May I draw the attention of the Minister, the Financial Secretary and the officials of the S.I.T. that there are buildings which are about 40 years old and are still strong and they are not built of brick? They are wooden structures built before the first world war on a temporary basis. If these wooden structures can last for 40 years and more, I cannot see any reason why structures built with brick cannot last 80 years. I will refer the Minister to a block of wooden houses along Rangoon Road. They were built before the first world war and today they are as strong as any other building. If a notice to quit were given to the tenants of these buildings, I am sure they would rather prefer to remain there than be moved out into permanent structures. Why then, Sir, suggest that the life of a building as envisaged by the Minister will last for only 60 years when a temporary wooden structure can last for 40 years and more? I certainly believe that if the Improvement Trust were to give their building contracts to a reliable contractor and he were to build the Trust houses according to plan and specifications, such houses would last far longer than 60 years. According to the existing houses built by the contractor for the Trust, Sir, I can definitely say that they are not worth a cent at all. The house in which I am now staying was built about four years ago and it is cracking everywhere. I have had to complain to the Trust on many occasions about leakage. I think that is the fault of either the Trust or its contractor. I think it is the responsibility of the Trust and the contractor to see that such structures are properly built rather than work on the basis of limiting their life to 60 years. I think that is the fault - to limit the life of a building to 60 years. I hope I am in order, Sir, if I move, In line 5 to leave out the figure "60" and insert "80".

May I have that in writing, please? Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order. Would the hon. Member like to add anything further to what he has said?

The S.I.T., Sir, is my pet hobby and I can enlarge on what I have said, but I think I have said enough to explain my amendment. Sir, all these years the Trust has been telling us that we are subject to its control. Again, Sir, I have come across occasions where the Trust housing inspector has taken a lot of trouble to look, not into the condition of the houses, but into the bedrooms and the beds, and under the beds. I cannot see how he is authorised to do such a thing. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but since the officer-in-charge of the S.I.T. is smiling, I think I am correct in making that remark. Again, Sir, the S.I.T. has all this while been saying that the City Council-

May I enquire, Sir, whether the remarks made by the hon. Member are relevant?

I was just wondering how an S.I.T. officer looking under a bed could increase the period from 60 years to 80 years!

It would shorten his life, Sir!

Sir, whether that is relevant or not, I wonder whether any Member of the House, on my side and not on the Government side, is prepared to second my amendment. Unfortunately the Member who has agreed to second it is not here. If I cannot get a seconder, I think it is a real shame on the part of the Opposition.

In the circumstances, Sir, I would like to second it. Question proposed, "That the figure '60' proposed to be left out, be left out." 11.31 a.m.

With respect to my friend the Member for Queenstown, Sir, I doubt very much whether the proposed amendment would have much effect. Let us take an example: the capital sum of $1 million borrowed at 5 per cent and lent to the Singapore Improvement Trust at 5 per cent to be repaid on the annuity system over a period of 60 years. The annuity then would be $52,828. If the period of repayment were extended to 80 years, the annuity repayment per annum would be $51,030. In other words, the saving will be $1,798. If you spread that over the hundred odd houses which might be built from the $1 million, the effect in the rents would not be very great. Therefore. I recommend that the amendment put forward, I know in all good faith by the hon. Member, be rejected.

Question, "That the figure proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived. Original Question again proposed. 11.32 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, unless I heard the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing wrongly, my figure for the proposed expenditure of $44,737,000 is for the building of approximately 5,500 houses, which works out at about $8,000 per unit. Sir, it seems to me that the cost of the Singapore Improvement Trust housing, judging by these figures, has suddenly gone up by a very considerable degree. My understanding is that units of 2 bedrooms and a sitting-room would be round about $4,000 each. It had been round about $4,000 up to last year. A unit consisting of two rooms, that is, one sitting-room and one bedroom, should not cost more than $3,000 at the outside. We are told that the major programme would be in the construction of very low-cost units for which a rental of $30 per unit would be charged. I therefore think that most of these houses intended to be built with this $44,737,000 would be round the $3,000 to $4,000 figure. How is it then that the average should appear to be $8,000 per unit? We must make allowances because the shop-houses will cost well over $10,000 or even $15,000 each. We are assured that the majority of them will be low-cost houses but some houses are going to cost at least $20,000 per unit which will bring the average up to $8,000 per unit. That, Sir, to my mind, is a departure from the intention of housing the poor people or the people who cannot afford to look after themselves in this country and I would deprecate any increase for any unit costing more than $5,000 a unit. With this $44,737,000 we shall get units of houses costing $8,000 to $10,000 per unit and not about $5,000 for each unit. Another point that I wish to bring up is the rentals charged. I have never been able to come down to figures or to understand how the flats in Elizabeth Estate, I am told, cost about $8,000 each and the rent comes to about $60 a month for each flat. I know for a fact that people who purchase their own houses through building societies and who have to pay 7 per cent interest on the money borrowed, if they are able to obtain 100 per cent mortgage on an $8,000 house, they will be paying $80 per month for capital and interest for 13 years, after which period, those houses will belong to them. Therefore, this $80 per month for an $8,000 house includes payment of capital by instalments as well as interest at 7 per cent. On those houses charged $60 a month rental, I think that the Government is only getting a return of three per cent interest and I find it very difficult to understand how the Singapore Improvement Trust can justify $60 a month rentals for so long as the houses last. According to calculations based on building societies, the capital for those houses should be recovered in about 20 or 25 years. There is therefore, in my mind, room for a reduction in the rents of those houses. 11.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion would not have been necessary if there were many houses in Singapore and everybody were comfortably housed but because of the shortage of housing and the high rentals charged, we are now trying to find ways and means of helping the people of Singapore. I put it to you, Sir, that the housing shortage in Singapore will ease, not only when the Singapore Improvement Trust starts building more houses, but also when private builders accelerate their rate of building. For private builders, however, they cannot hold on to their houses all the time and rent them out and so we must have a class of people who are willing to come forward to buy such houses. We have many such people coming forward to buy these houses. A few of them buy them outright, but many others buy them after receiving loans, either from the Colonial Development Corporation, or from other building societies. These people must be encouraged not only to buy houses but to retain them and by so doing set an example to other people to buy and own houses of their own. We are trying to spread the good things of life to the people of Singapore. We always talk about wanting to help the poor people and I think that the people who do not buy luxurious houses outright but just ordinary houses to live in cannot, in any way, be classified as rich people. If they do not like such houses, then they will have to depend on the Singapore Improvement Trust to provide them with houses. According to my calculation, Sir, for 5,500 houses costing $44,737,000, each house will cost about $8,000. Now, on an average, the Singapore Improvement Trust expects to get rentals in the region of $30 per month. In many housing estates - and I will point out one, the Serangoon Garden Estate - houses are put up for sale at $11,000 each but from that $11,000 the builder has already had his cut, and for a 2-room terrace house, the cost as calculated should be around $8,000.

Phew! That is about 25 per cent.

Yes, I think that that is about the amount of money that they make in that housing estate. Let us put the cost at about $1,000 or $2,000 higher, yet the basis of assessment which the Government is levying on them is not $30 or $40 a month but in the region of between $80 and $100. That, Sir, I maintain is not the way to encourage these people to own their own houses and that is why I believe it will make it more necessary for the Government to come to this Assembly again and again to ask for more money to be loaned out for Singapore Improvement Trust buildings. I maintain, Sir, that if we are going to help the people of Singapore, then we must not just help only those who are lucky enough to come and live in Trust houses, but also those who have the courage to try and own their own houses. I invite Government to look into this matter of assessment on private houses again and to levy such assessments as to encourage these people to own their own houses. The necessity for coming to this House to ask for more loans to build more buildings will then be less frequent. 11.40 a.m.

Sir, this motion is very significant and very wise. This also sets a new phase in the housing history of Singapore. In the past, Sir, the Singapore Improvement Trust which is the housing authority has been confronted with many difficulties. The most important one has been the cost of building. Some Members have dealt with the cost of housing in detail but from my own experience, as a member of the Singapore Improvement Trust, I have found that the Singapore Improvement Trust has to face competition from private builders. Things have not been so very easy for the Singapore Improvement Trust and they are so even now. I understand, Sir, that in the past two or three months, the cost of building materials has risen 10 per cent more than in previous months. This goes on to prove that the Singapore Improvement Trust will not be able to build houses at cheaper prices now than they were built before. I have also reviewed the question of tenders that were put up by the Singapore Improvement Trust and it was evident, from all these things, that the most important factor in building - it has always been and it will be for some time more, I believe, from what I have been told by some experts - is the cost. I think, Sir, that because of this fact, the rents also had to be increased. We are all aware that since the Government took office, it has been looking into this matter very seriously and earnestly. In the past, they declared that the interest on loans would be 2½ per cent and this had no effect on the people who were renting houses. We worked it out and found that a tenant could only get a reduction of $2 to $3 if we were to reduce the interest to 2½ per cent. The Government has now taken a bold and decisive step in subsidising public housing which will directly affect the tenants who are badly in need of help from the Government. This motion, in conjunction with the subsidy policy of the Government, should enable the poorest man in Singapore to be happy in a very decent home. It has been declared, Sir, in this White Paper, that the service charges will, in future, be withdrawn. I think, Sir, this motion has also tackled in the right way the slum clearance situation in Singapore. Much criticism has been levelled in the past at Government's inactivity although it has not been inactive about slum clearance. This Kallang project, Sir, will enable the most congested area of the town to be replaced by a decent housing estate and the existing barren land at St. Michael's Road will be filled with decent houses and occupied by our people. I feel, Sir, that this first step towards slum clearance will be continued with all vigour by Government and, within a few years' time, we will all be able to see a very decent Singapore with no slums at all. I am hopeful, Sir, because, from my experience. I have found that the Government has at no time in the past been so sincere and honest in tackling a problem which is a great social need in Singapore than it is doing today. It is from the need for houses that discontentment and frustration arise. Sir, a Member of this Assembly has spoken about the period for the loan. He tried to amend the 60-year period to an 80-year period some time ago, with little support from Members. It has been found from experience that a sound financial policy and loan policy do not allow the loan period to be so extended as to have no comparison with the approximate life of the building. I understand, Sir, that it is a universal practice for all permanent housing loans not to exceed 60 years. Sir, I feel sure that the people of Singapore, from now on, can hope to obtain houses for which they pay rents which they can afford. Sir, I must congratulate the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing for introducing this bold and decisive policy on housing in Singapore. 11.46 a.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I listened with interest on the subject of housing and the housing policy of the Singapore Improvement Trust. I find here that the interest rate charged is 5¼ per cent. In the Legislative Council, my hon. Friend the Chief Minister, who was then a member of the Labour Party, and the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary, also a member of the Labour Party - if I remember correctly - generally opposed the interest of 2½ or 3½ per cent given. Their contention had been that the Government should give all the money free of interest as a subsidy. Now, from this 3½ per cent, the Government is seeking to charge us 5¼ per cent. I cannot understand why there is such a wide change and I would like to know on what basis the Government is charging 5¼ per cent for a period of 60 years. Sir, in the postwar period, we have seen fluctuating changes in the money market. Even during the postwar period, if I remember correctly, the Government and the Municipality had loans at 3, 3¼, 3½ and even 4 per cent, but 5¼ per cent is incredibly high. If it was for six months or a year, that would have been a different matter altogether. We are charging this continuously for 60 years and this in turn will be charged on to the tenants who will have to pay such a high rate of interest. Sir, I would like an explanation for such a high rate of interest charged on this loan. 11.50 a.m.

First of all, Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar raised some interesting points in connection with the existing rents of the Singapore Improvement Trust and I shall be very glad if he can come and discuss the matter with me some time. The points raised are very involved and I think that it is rather difficult to discuss them over the floor of the House. On the question of the increase in the cost of housing, I think that most Members will agree that this is perhaps the most elaborate scheme which the Singapore Improvement Trust has ever evolved. It makes a very serious attempt to tackle the question of slum clearance and to erect on central sites which are very expensive and require much preparation houses which we hope will last for many years and provide suitable accommodation for the poorest classes in Singapore. The cost has increased owing to building costs going up but, in the main, to the cost of acquiring and preparing very difficult sites. With regard to the points raised by the Member for Serangoon, we do hope that every interest in Singapore will endeavour to build houses either for sale or letting and thus ease the housing problem of Singapore. As regards the question of interest rates raised by my friend the Member for Telok Ayer, it has been suggested in the past by Members on both sides of the House that the interest rate on existing loans from Government to the Singapore Improvement Trust should perhaps be reduced to 2 per cent. Indeed, I think that in the past, the Hon, the Chief Minister has himself advocated that it be reduced to nothing! That argument-if it has any validity, which I confess I am unable to agree-only applies to loans which have been made from surplus funds. All the loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust in the past have been made from funds which had been accumulated by Government owing to its inability to press on with development projects in other directions. Now, of course, we are entering into a new phase and as far as the loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust or the housing authority of Government are concerned, we are going to have to borrow money from the public to re-lend to the Singapore Improvement Trust or to the housing authority. In these circumstances, it is no more than sound finance to charge the Singapore Improvement Trust the same rate of interest and the same terms of the repayment as we have to re-pay the people from whom we borrow the money.

rose-

In reply? 11.56 a.m.

In reply, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that, generally, the Opposition Members do believe that there is a great demand for accelerated housing programmes in Singapore. If I may, Sir, attempt to reply to the points raised by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) and the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck). The Member for Queenstown appears to be under a misapprehension when he said that but for the Question which he had tabled today, there would not have been a White Paper. Sir, I am not a magician and I can tell him that, not being a magician, I could not, within the space of a day, produce a White Paper out of my hat. This is the result of months of hard work and continuous meetings and I must say, Sir, that this White Paper is the ultimate result of close co-operation between a number of Ministries and the Singapore Improvement Trust. If Members will refer to the White Paper, Sir, the policy, as I have mentioned earlier this morning, is in regard to the housing policy of the Government of Singapore for the future. As for the present, the best that we can possibly do is as mentioned in page 5, paragraph 24 of Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 6 of 1957 which reads: "As an immediate measure, however, in order to afford some relief to present Trust tenants, the Government has agreed to pay the service charges at present levied on tenants for lifts, common lighting and conservancy. This form of relief is considered to be more practical than an overall reduction of interest rates on loans and will give relief where it is most needed." Sir, that is as far as we can possibly go with regard to reliefs for present tenants of the Singapore Improvement Trust houses. One other point raised by the Member for Queenstown was that people are forced to stay in the Singapore Improvement Trust flats. This is completely untrue because my information is that there are thousands of people on the housing register who are only too willing to be given accommodation in the Singapore Improvement Trust flats and, at the same time, those who have been afforded this opportunity have very seldom complained of the question of rentals. The Member for Serangoon mentioned certain points but the most important one was the question of the cost of buildings. Here again, Sir, I must point out to the Member that his figure of $8,000 per flat is not quite correct in that it includes not only the cost of the building but also the cost of land and site preparation and it also includes piling, and so on. I will give you an example, Sir. In the Rochore Road/Albert Street area, the building cost of a 2-room flat is in the region of $6,250 which includes piling cost of $1,200. Here, Sir, the total figure of the cost of building and the cost of piling is $7,450 but then, Sir, the cost of the land itself is somewhere in the region of $2,500 per unit which naturally would bring the figure to well over $8,000 per flat. As I said, Sir, the cost of an S.I.T. flat must be looked at from all angles, that is to say, the cost of land, the cost of preparation of sites, piling costs and then eventually the cost of the building itself. For instance, in the old Kallang Airport area, the cost of a 2-room flat is $6,300 which includes piling cost of $1,400 whereas in Bukit Panjang where we have put up 200 houses, the building cost is about $3,200 per unit, the cost of site preparation is $1,590 and the cost of land is $123. So there you are, Sir, that where the question of piling is involved, it is bound to happen that the cost of a building would naturally be high. With regard to the question of interest rates, my colleague the Hon. the Financial Secretary has given a very apt reply and I do not think that I will dwell on that question. Sir, I beg to move.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly in accordance with subsection (1) of section 25 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 259) approves of the borrowing by the Singapore Improvement Trust from the Government of the sum of $44,737,000 at an interest rate of 5¼ per cent per annum repayable over a period of 60 years, the repayments to be made by half yearly instalments based on the annuity method and together with repayments of previous loans to be secured by a legal mortgage of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds legal title and by an equitable charge of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds equitable title for the purposes of enabling the Trust to meet the cost of constructing buildings required for carrying out the purposes of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance.

12.00 noon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly approves of the loan by the Government to the Singapore Improvement Trust of the sum of $44,737,000 at an interest rate of 5¼ per cent per annum repayable over a period of 60 years, the repayments to be made by half yearly instalments based on the annuity method and together with repayments of previous loans to be secured by a legal mortgage of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds legal title and by an equitable charge of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds equitable title for the purposes of enabling the Trust to meet the cost of constructing buildings required for carrying out the purposes of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. Sir, this motion seeks the approval of the Assembly for a loan of $44,737,000 on the terms and conditions specified in the motion to the Singapore Improvement Trust for Housing Programme No. 8. My friend and colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has already described in some detail the scope of Programme No. 8. It is, as I said, the most ambitious programme yet drawn up by the Singapore Improvement Trust in its capacity as the Housing Agent of Government. I do not think that I need add to the Minister's description. My task is to describe the financial implications of the programme. As hon. Members are aware, the Government has already undertaken to provide funds for seven Housing Programmes. Details of these undertakings are given in Appendix F of the annual Estimates for 1957 and a summary is given on page 2 of the White Paper on Housing Subsidies. These undertakings amount to $95.9 millions against which $71 millions have so far been advanced. Programme No. 8 will increase Government's total commitments to $140 millions of which $70 millions still remain to be advanced. This, of course, is not the limit of Government's liability in respect of housing. With population increasing at its present rate and the need for a large-scale slum clearance becoming more and more compelling, it is difficult to put a limit to Government's liabilities in this respect. In the revised development plan to which reference was made during the Budget debate, allowance was made for an expenditure of $115 millions on housing over the five year period from 1958 to 1962 and the expenditure in subsequent years will no doubt be of the same order. It will be clear from these figures that the supply of public housing presents a financial problem of considerable magnitude and hon. Members, no doubt, wonder where the money is going to come from. Here again, I must refer to what I said when introducing the Supply Bill in November. Singapore's most urgent needs for capital development over the next five years are estimated at $570 millions. This total includes some $226 millions for general development, $235 millions for the City Council and other agencies and $115 millions for housing. To meet this expenditure of $570 millions, it is estimated that, subject to certain conditions being fulfilled, $280 millions can be obtained from reserves and contributions from the revenues of Government and the other authorities concerned and $290 millions from loans including a special loan for the electricity undertaking of the City Council. The conditions which must be fulfilled are briefly as follows: (a) that Government revenue is increased by stages to yield at least an additional $50 million by 1959, thus enabling larger contributions to be made from revenue to development; (b) that the City Council and other agencies can make substantial contributions from their revenues towards the cost of their development projects, as they have done in the past; (c) that a special loan can be obtained for further electricity development and (d) that local capital resources are mobilised to the full. I think these conditions can be fulfilled. The measures of taxation introduced this year will go a considerable way to increasing Government revenue by the required amount and I have little doubt about the capacity of Singapore to provide the balance required. The City Council and other agencies must continue to make substantial contributions from revenue to development and I hope that the proposals which we will make for a loan for a new power station will meet with acceptance. The proposals for a national savings campaign and other steps to mobilise local capital are under active consideration at the present time. Members will hear about them in due course. There are, however, other conditions which must be fulfilled. Confidence in Singapore must be built up and maintained. We must have peace, security and freedom to go about our business without fear of civil disturbance, provoked by subversive interests. The rule of law must be maintained. Reason must be introduced into employer-employee relations and the rank and file of trade unions must learn to recognise and to reject the malevolent influences which have hitherto used them for their own ends. If these conditions can be fulfilled, there is no doubt that all the funds which we require for development will be obtained, and Government will be able to meet its obligations in the sphere of housing. If these conditions are not fulfilled, then I am afraid that we will not be able to do so. Now, as regards the terms and conditions, the rate of interest proposed for this loan is 5¼ per cent. This is the same rate of interest as was agreed in the case of the loan to the Singapore Telephone Board which was approved at the last sitting of the Assembly. It is about the rate which we should probably have to offer if we wished to float a loan on the Singapore market at the present time. The rate of interest is approximately that of current market rates and it follows the policy which Government has adhered to since it first started advancing money to the Singapore Improvement Trust. I am sure that it is the correct policy, particularly as the time has now come when money will have to be borrowed from the public in order to advance it to the Housing Authority. The loan will be repaid over a period of 60 years, this being the period taken not only here but in other countries as the period of useful life for a permanent building for loan repayment purposes. Repayment will be by equal bi-annual instalments of principal and interest calculated on the annuity system. Repayment in this way is preferred by the Singapore Improvement Trust to the alternative of equal instalments of principal with interest on the balance of the loan outstanding. The last four loans are repayable in this way. As in the case of previous loans, the loan will be secured by a legal mortgage of all the properties to which the Singapore Improvement Trust has legal title and by an equitable charge over all properties to which the Trust holds equitable title. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion. Question proposed. 12.09 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the reason given by the Hon. the Financial Secretary, that the rate of interest is 5¼ per cent because we shall be borrowing the money on the Singapore market and re-lending it to the Singapore Improvement Trust, may be a perfectly logical financial reason, but it does not answer this question. This Government is committed to subsidise housing. In other words, it is committed, whatever the form of the subsidy, to provide housing below the normal economic rates. If the Government continues this practice which it pursued in the past of just borrowing money and acting as the guarantor and re-lending it to the Singapore Improvement Trust on mortgage, in effect, there is no housing subsidy. People pay economic rents to defray both the cost of management and the cost of the interest rate. Now, we were told by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that there is going to be a review of the rents of the Singapore Improvement Trust flats and houses - to redeem his election pledge. However we juggle between the rents paid by the new houses and the low rents paid on the prewar houses or the earlier built houses increasing the rents for the prewar houses and decreasing slightly the rents for the postwar houses, the fact remains that the total collection of rents must be sufficient to pay cost of management and the interest rate. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I shall be delighted to be shown where I am wrong.

Order. I will suspend the sitting now. It will be resumed at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.12 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that hon. Members would like to complete the business set down for today and, as it is not improbable that the business will not be completed before the moment of interruption, may I therefore seek the general assent of this Assembly for the suspension of Standing Orders in so far as it is necessary to enable me to move a motion under Standing Order 7 (11) for the exemption of business from the provisions of that Standing Order?

Have I the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members: Aye.

Thank you, Sir. I move, That the proceedings on the remaining items on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 13th February, 1957.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 13th February, 1957.

Debate resumed. 2.33 p.m.

During the luncheon adjournment, Sir, I had the advantage of being enlightened on the Government housing subsidy plans. According to the White Paper as explained by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, the plan is to fix rentals below the economic rent and the deficit will be made up by a vote in this Assembly annually. Hence that vote will represent the annual subsidy for housing. Sir, on principle, there is nothing wrong with that plan. I am told also that from the accounting point of view, everything will be clearly disclosed and not concealed. But I think Ministers on the other side must also be aware that this means an annual debate. This means, in effect, the possibility of subsidies going up or down depending upon the play of local political forces year by year, perhaps even month by month. I would ask them seriously to consider some method by which once a subsidy rate has been fixed, it stays there until there is, as a result of major policy changes in the Government, a need to revise the whole subsidy rate, otherwise like the old Emergency Regulations, we will have it up every year. I do not think this is to the advantage of those who reside in houses subsidised by the Government. It appears to me on principle to be not altogether a satisfactory method of subsidising housing. 2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the possibility of the matter of subsidy becoming a subject of political bargaining was foreseen. It was thought that we should act like grown-up men. The Government in power should take the responsibility of acting like men and not pander to the whims and fancies of the electorate if it thinks that the electorate is wrong. If the electorate is right, by all means, yes, but not if it thinks that the electorate is wrong. There is also the possibility that there may be certain irresponsible elements in the Opposition at any time in any year who might try to play up to popular sentiment and feeling by advocating a very low rental and a higher rate of subsidy but it is up to the men who feel that they are responsible to stick to their guns. If the time comes when our elected Government does not behave like grown-up men capable of undertaking responsibility, I would feel sorry for Singapore. 2.36 p.m. Mr Hart rose-

In reply?

In reply, Sir. I have very little to say in reply. The subsidy policy outlined in the White Paper has been evolved after a great deal of thought. We do not claim that it is perfect. It is possible that there may be better methods of subsidising housing in Singapore. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar can think of any of them, I shall be delighted to have the details. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly approves of the loan by the Government to the Singapore Improvement Trust of the sum of $44,737,000 at an interest rate of 5¼ per cent per annum repayable over a period of 60 years, the repayments to be made by half yearly instalments based on the annuity method and together with repayments of previous loans to be secured by a legal mortgage of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds legal title and by an equitable charge of all the immovable properties belonging to and to which the Trust holds equitable title for the purposes of enabling the Trust to meet the cost of constructing buildings required for carrying out the purposes of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance.

2.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take pleasure in moving the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, That this House is of the opinion that Government's trading in rice and/or stockpiling of rice should be abolished and that trading in rice should be free. Sir, the whole object of moving this motion is to bring down the cost of rice for our masses. This is the staple food for our masses and when voting, I would like hon. Members to consider that the interest of the masses comes first. Even one cent a katty less in the price of rice is something to the poor man. Sir, before I proceed, I would like to deal with the prewar history of rice. During that period, rice was sold at five to seven cents a katty. Even during the war, before the Japanese attacked, the Government Gazettes I have here show that in September 1940, the price of rice was from five to seven cents a katty. In March 1941, it was seven cents a katty. Then in May 1941, it was from six to nine cents a katty. I have quoted these figures also for the benefit of my friends who are on my side of the House, especially for the P.A.P. who call themselves the People's Party.

No "Action"!

Now, Sir, rice is produced throughout South-East Asia: in Burma, Thailand and Indo-China. Rice was imported here during the prewar period all the time and re-exported from here. Rice from Burma was exported to Africa, Ceylon and many other countries and rice from Indo-China and Thailand was also exported to various countries. We have the shipping facilities over here in addition to the low handling charges which make it possible for those countries to ship their rice here for our local merchants to re-export. Sir, during the prewar period till December 1941, I was a member of the Food Advisory Council and we had a plan by which every family could store a bag of rice for an emergency. Now, Sir, in February 1942, the 100 years of British rule ended within only nine weeks. Then the British re-occupied this territory again in September 1945 with the help of the Allies and during that time when the Japanese left, things were in chaos. There was shortage of every foodstuff and consumer goods. During that period which was under the British Military Administration, a department called the Supplies Department came into being. It was a great necessity, at that time, to get supplies from every possible source especially when shipping was scarce and the prices were not steady and therefore that department was very necessary. As time went on, things were becoming normal. Many things were de-controlled and there was no restriction on imports. Flour and sugar were the last to be de-controlled. Rice should also have been de-controlled about three years ago when the supplies were plentiful. Sir, in the days from September 1945 when the British occupied this territory till three years ago, rice was sold from the producing countries on a government to government basis. All the representatives of the Governments in South-East Asia used to meet here and arrange the allocation of rice amongst themselves at a round-table conference presided over by the then Commissioner-General. Each country was allocated its quota. So far, it worked quite well as it was a seller's market. Nobody could import rice on his own account though we have heard the smuggling of rice did take place from Thailand into the Federation. I think that Government's objection to free the control of rice at that time was correct but then the time came, Sir, when rice was plentiful. Burma has been sending delegations to sell rice to every possible country. Thailand has enough rice and even if there is trouble in Indo-China and we cannot import rice from her in the future, I think there are plenty of supplies available from elsewhere and there can be no shortage. Even China is supplying rice to Ceylon and only the other day I read from a newspaper report that 5,000 tons of rice from China was arriving in Singapore for the Federation. Now, Sir, if rice is plentiful, is it necessary to maintain a department costing the taxpayer about $68,000 to $70,000 a year? In addition, Sir, Government has its own stockpile policy and I will deal with that later at length but the system prevailing is that if an importer has to import a certain quantity of rice, he has to buy one-third of that quantity from the Government stockpile. I understand that Government has a continuous stockpile of 11,000 to 15,000 tons of rice. Sir, Government has to pay the handling charges, the godown rents - if the godowns belong to the Government, then the rents which could be derived from them by letting them out will be lost to the Government - and perhaps insurance which I am not sure about. There is also the possibility of the rice deteriorating. All these have to be taken into account and added on to the price at which the importer has to buy this one-third quantity from the Government stockpile. Sir, let me give some figures to show how the masses have suffered by payment from revenue to meet the huge losses in the past. In 1953, over $4 million was lost. In 1954, it was $2,441,000 and in 1955, there was a profit of $413,000. Now, this Government might say, "Well, that was not our pigeon. It was under a different government." But then I would ask whether the present Government is working for the benefit of the people or not? In 1956, the loss was $278,958. Sir, may I point out that this is a minority Government? Yesterday, I read that, on the Municipal Bill, Government won by 16 to 11 votes. Now, out of those 16 votes, you have three Nominated and three ex-officios which add up to six, thus leaving ten who are actually elected Members as against 11 Opposition Members, not counting the one Member who is detained. This is how the Government functions from day to day. [Interruption.] Sir, it may be so, but you have to have your responsibilities to the people and you should not forget that but for how long can you carry on with the votes of the colonial power? [Interruption.] May I ask the Minister for Health to speak louder so that I can reply to him?

Order. I have said this before and very often. If the hon. Member speaking will address the Chair and ignore side comments, he might get on a little faster.

Thank you very much, Sir, but one would not like to be unduly disturbed when one is speaking and we on our side do not disturb others.

Oh dear!

Order.

Now all those factors are added on to the cost. It may be a quarter cent or half a cent - whatever it may be - but why should the consumer be made to pay this for the silly policy of the Government when it is not necessary to do so at all? Sir, why is this done? The Government say that they must have a stockpile. For what? I understand - unless Government contradicts - that this emergency stock is very necessary in the interest of the people. Why? It is said that there may be war again or it is possible that the Communists might attack Burma or Thailand which will affect Singapore or Malaya. What I say to them is this, Sir. A hundred years of British rule was ended within the space of nine weeks. If Burma or Thailand were to fall what can we do here? How long can we protect ourselves? I ask those questions. This is nothing but a bogey based on unnecessary fears. I suggest that it is not necessary to have any stockpile at all and tax the people indirectly by making them pay more for rice. Let me ask another question. Who is going to attack whom in this part of the world?

The Opposition.

Yes, who is the aggressor? Sir, the aggressor today is the minority Government who have made the Opposition mad the way they keep on talking to cover their mistakes. Sir, rice is available and is wanted. There is no necessity for any stockpile and there should not be any control on the rice trade. I may be told that there is no control whatsoever but I say that there is control of rice. If one imports rice from another country, he has to buy one-third of the quantity imported from the Government and at Government rate. If that is not control, then what is it called? Sir, if rice is not controlled, it will stabilise automatically at its own price level like any other commodity. If the argument is that it cannot be done or that it will not be so, then why not control the other commodities too? You have sugar and flour, etc., which are not controlled. Why is control limited to rice only? I would like to hear an explanation from the Government as to why this is necessary? Sir, I have been told that my motion will be defeated by the Government. I am not surprised at that as they have seven extra votes which are not the people's votes and it is because of the votes of the colonial power that make it possible for them to defeat us. What I will say to them is this: they have already dug their graves and they will be burying themselves if we are defeated.

I hope to send a wreath.

It will be so as far as Katong is concerned. Now, Sir, I have not received a proper answer to my question about the names of the importers of rice from Pakistan and India so that we will be able to know how much rice was bought direct by the regular importers of rice in Singapore for resale to other importers. The reply was that the Chamber of Commerce publishes these facts and that I had better refer to them. Why? Government has got its own department and they have their own import permits. Why should I not get a straight answer as to who are the importers and exporters? The licences to import rice, I am told, are issued freely to applicants and are they not regularised? Is no record made? One has to apply for a licence to import rice and there must be a record of that. The information required as to what is happening will help the People's Action Party make up its mind.

What is so obvious?

Rice is imported from Thailand and from Burma. From July 1955 onwards, we imported rice from Pakistan and India. Now, what happens, Sir, is this. Besides the handling charges, the insurance and the godown rents, rice is bought through a middleman or a broker. This is what I wanted to prove from my question. In other words, all these factors are added on to the cost. For instance, you buy a pencil directly from the manufacturers and it will cost you cheaper than if you were to buy it through a middleman who will want to add his commission on to the cost. The consumer will then have to pay much more for it here. That was why I raised that question. In other words, the consumer pays more for everything that Government does wrong. Sir, I have nothing more to say and I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion. I reserve the right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as pointed out by the mover of the motion that this commodity is the staple food of Asians and that the control of rice was introduced during the period of the British Military Administration, I think that it is not necessary for me to elaborate further but to draw the attention of Members to the fact that when legislation was introduced on the control of rice, it was done at a time when expatriate officers and not elected Ministers were in power. At that time, when the expatriate officers were in power, they were not in any way concerned about the question of the staple food for Asians although, as was pointed out by the mover of the motion, it was thought necessary to control rice as there was a shortage of rice. This control is now out-of-date because we all know that we can get rice everywhere at a far cheaper price. Rice is imported from every country and I do not see why this control is necessary. In fact, public money is wasted as a separate department has to be set up to control and distribute rice. If this money is utilised for more social welfare work, I think that the public will be far more benefited. This control is not only causing hardship to the consumers, as pointed out by the Member for Telok Ayer, but I think it is also causing hardship to the retailers as well as to the wholesalers because everyone is affected. The trouble starts from the Government, downwards to the wholesaler, passed on to the retailer and the worst sufferer is the consumer. I think, Sir, that not only the price of controlled rice is dearer but that the "free" rice is of a better quality than controlled rice. If you buy free rice from anywhere and compare it with controlled rice, you will find that it is far, far better, as I myself have bought free rice and controlled rice. So there is no sense at all in controlling rice. Why not throw it open and let it be run on a competitive basis? We have many wholesalers here who are prepared to import rice. Let them run the trade on a competitive basis and let the consumer benefit as it is the staple food of the Asians. Without this staple food, an Asian finds it difficult to exist. An argument given by the Government is that it is a precaution against a possible war. How ridiculous is that, Sir! Again, it was pointed out by the mover of this motion that there should not be any such fear of a possible war. All Asian countries are now promoting peace and I do not see why we should fear the possibility of such a war here. The only enemy that we are afraid of, I think, are the Communists and they are within Malaya. So we should not have any fear from any outside Government. Even China is now prepared to sell rice to Malaya and Singapore. I have been told that before, China suffered from a shortage of rice and it was rationed but now, according to the delegation which went to China, it can offer 25,000 tons of rice to Malaya. Just imagine the figure of 25,000 tons of rice offered! Therefore, you can see where is the necessity for controlling rice. The question of control comes in only when there is a shortage of rice but if supply exceeds demand, there is no necessity for its control. If supply far exceeds demand, then why control rice? I think, Sir, that the public should not be made to suffer because of the foolishness of the Government in enforcing this control. I have again and again said that control encourages black-market: the more you control, the more you encourage black-market. 3.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to deal with the technical details of this matter which can be better handled by the Minister for Trade and Commerce but I would like to make one point of general importance. We have had a lot of references to the controls during the time of severe shortage and to the black-market of rice and I think that it might be helpful to Members, in thinking about this problem, to have an assessment of what actually did happen and the degree to which the public was exploited, not by the controlled rice provided by the Government but by the black-market rice provided by the rice trade. This is from "The Economy of Malaya" by the Professor of Economics, University of Malaya. He estimates that for 1947, the total sales of black-market rice were between $250 million and $300 million and this was a margin of 125 per cent above the control price. He derives from these figures the deduction that nearly 50 per cent or well over $100 million went in profits to the rice trade. That was at a time of shortage - if these figures are correct; they have never been refuted although the pamphlet is more than two years old - when the rice traders made a very handsome profit indeed, thank you, out of the sufferings and hardships of the people. They did so not because there were controls but because the controls were not good enough. They were able to defeat them at a time when the Government was ill-organised as a result of the great difficulties arising from the Japanese occupation of Malaya. I do think that it is valuable to bear in mind that if you have the rice trade solely operated for profit with no element of Government interest or control at all, you are putting the poor man's rice bowl at the mercy of businessmen who, in the natural course of capitalist business, will seek to get as much as they can out of it. It would be absurd to suppose that they will sacrifice possible profits in order that the consumer should get his rice more cheaply. That would be the function of the Government food supply system rather than of a private enterprise and, in connection with that, I have a newspaper cutting in my hand which says: "Nehru's economic programme envisages the creation of state trading corporations to be put into operation soon to import and stock essential foodstuffs, a method to counter widespread speculation in rice and wheat." I just make these very general points, Mr Speaker, which are, however, relevant to the debate. Since we have here a small element of public control - which perhaps as an entirely Socialist House, with the exception of perhaps one or two Independents, all the Parties are wholeheartedly and sincerely Socialist - I think that they are likely to take into account the need to preserve at least a measure of control in the public interest, so that the worker may not be exploited by the middleman who brings in the rice from the producer. 3.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the opinion too that "Government's trading in rice and/or stockpiling of rice should be abolished; and that trading in rice should be free." Probably the Minister for Commerce and Industry is afraid that war will break out in the East. As the mover of the motion has said, it is all unnecessary worry. It is unlikely that a war will break out in the East or at least in this part of the world. The neighbouring countries have no time to think of wars now. They are very busy in rehabilitating themselves and growing rice. I have information from a very reliable source that Thailand, Burma, Indo-China and Taiwan have large surpluses of rice. The United States of America do not know where to dump their rice now. Australia is coming into the field now to see if we can allow her to dump her rice here. But as long as Government restricts trade, the people will have to pay - I would not say through their noses - a high price. The merchants, I am told, are prepared to guarantee that they will, at any time, supply 25,000 tons of rice which I understand is the quantity of the Government stockpile reserve.

At what price?

The price will certainly drop if we get all the rice here. Sir, why does Government want to cling on to a losing business? I would suggest that Government de-restrict and then there will be a glut in the market and the price of rice will drop considerably. 3.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Government is a Socialist Government, I think that it is Government's duty to take the interest of the masses at heart-

Well said.

- and the stockpile of rice is certainly not for the benefit of the Members of the Government nor for the benefit of the Members of the Opposition. The flesh and blood of the masses have been built up since birth with rice. To free rice or to give up stockpiling rice for the benefit of the masses would mean that in a time of crisis, the masses will not be provided for with rice, their staple food. The danger of war is real. We can at least say that the danger of war is not unreal and it is Government's duty, with such a threat hanging over our heads, to see that there is enough rice in this country to provide for the requirements of the masses. A figure of about $280,000 was given as the amount lost by Government last year. Sir, if you were to divide $280,000 by 1,200,000 persons in Singapore, you will find that Government lost last year about 23 to 24 cents per person per year or two cents per person per month. It is not expected that Government should make money on rice but Government is justified in losing money on rice for the benefit of the masses. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone knows that rice is the staple food of the Asians. It is a "must" in every household in the country and, as such, it is the paramount duty of the Government to reduce the cost of rice to the lowest possible level so that the consumers, particularly the working class, will benefit from it. Yet, it is strange that Government sees fit to maintain the Department of Control of Supplies on the flimsy excuse that it is necessary because it is a measure in case of war. This is sheer nonsense. I was told that Government will refuse to support the motion before the House not because it is against the interest of the people, so they claim, but because a Member on this side of the House had the foresight to introduce such a motion into this House. I can quote, for instance, why the consumers are now paying more for what they should pay. For B rice, it is 10 per cent more. Government sells to the dealers at $27.14 per pikul and the same quality of rice is sold in the open market by the dealers to anybody at $24 per pikul - less $3.14 per pikul of rice. This $3.14 is passed on to the consumer. Why? It is because for every 1,000 bags of rice that a dealer imports into this country, Government forces the same dealer to buy 500 bags from the stockpile; that is to say, for every two bags imported, he has to buy one bag from the stockpile. Therefore, this $3.14 is not a loss to the importer but it is just added on to the price of rice which is imported. If a consumer goes to a grocery shop to buy rice, he has to pay more. For C rice, it is 15 per cent more. Government sells to the dealers at $26.43 per pikul and the same quality of rice is sold by the dealers at $22 per pikul. I can quote another instance from information which I have received. The successful dealer who intends to tender for the sale of rice to Government for stockpiling has to pay the sum of $4,000 for 1,000 tons. An hon. Member: To whom?

I can ask the Government to check from records to see how many dealers have been successful in getting tenders for all these years? Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. Is the hon. Member saying that the dealer has to pay $4,000 as a bribe or as a deposit?

It is not a point of order. It is a point for elucidation.

Why I said $4,000 is because if a dealer is to import the B rice, the C.I.F. value is only $23 per pikul and together with other charges, it comes to about $25.60 per pikul. If I am a successful tenderer why should I import rice at $25.50 per pikul when I can get from the market at $24 per pikul - the price other dealers have to pay to buy from the stockpile? Instead of new rice going into the stockpile, the old rice goes into circulation.

That is nonsense.

So for every pikul of rice, they save $1 and for a ton of rice, they save $16. Therefore for 1,000 tons of rice, they save $16,000. Why can they not afford to pay $4,000 then? If I were a dealer, I would gladly pay it.

On a point of information.

Is the hon. Member giving way? Mr William Tan resumed his seat.

Sir, I will be grateful if we could have this $4,000 cleared up because I do not quite follow this sleight of hand, not being a businessman myself.

That $4,000 is the sum of money that a dealer has to pay in order to be successful in getting approval for his tender. An hon. Member: Naturally.

On a point of information, Sir. I have taken a great interest in this debate and I am thankful to the Member for Tiong Bahru for providing us with information about this $4,000. I wonder to whom is this sum paid? Is it for goodwill or is it a deposit paid to the Government?

This money is being paid to unscrupulous opportunists who have the power- Hon. Members: Who?

If any Member comes to my office, I will reveal them to him.

On a point of information, Sir.

Will the hon. Member give way?

No, Sir.

The hon. Member is not giving way. Yes, Mr William Tan.

All in all, I think that Government should decontrol this essential commodity and make the price of rice cheaper so that the working people can benefit from it. Furthermore, I can assure this House that, immediately you lift the control of rice, the price will drop automatically. The Minister for Communications and Works spoke a little while ago on the question of the stockpile. Why can the Government not pass a law by which every dealer in rice should be made to stock a certain quantity in a godown? That will bring down the price of rice. The rich man will not suffer. For every three cents more for a kati of rice, he will not suffer but it will be the working people who will suffer. 3.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion. If a couple of years back, the Member for Telok Ayer had made such a motion in the then Legislative Council and if I had been a Member there, I would have gladly supported him in such a motion because, not being in the Government, I would not have known what responsibility was. Now, Sir, that I know what the true position is, I am afraid that I have to oppose this motion. Much has been said about the forcing up of the cost of rice to the poor consumer. Let me clarify it, Sir. The extra price that the consumer has to pay, because of the existence of a stockpile, is about a cent per katty. The Member for Telok Ayer quoted pre-war prices of rice. He did not quote the post-war prices of rice which I am sure all hon. Members are aware of. However, I do not see what relation that has with the stockpile because the price of rice is something beyond our control. It is a price that is dictated by the producing countries to the buying countries and as you had a seller's market a few years ago, they took very good care to see that they got the very best out of their rice because rice formed the major portion of their economy. Even now, Sir, though rice is in plentiful supply, the prices have not gone down to any appreciable level. "Rice has always been imported here and re-exported from here." That is what the hon. Member said. That position has not changed. Rice is even now being imported here and even now being re-exported from here to various countries. In reply to his question, I have given him in the answer the extent of the re-export of rice from Singapore. I did not have figures of the transhipped rice from Singapore on through Bills of Lading because we do not have records of transhipments on through Bills of Lading but according to the figures here, from July 1955 to June 1956, more than 100,000 tons of rice have been re-exported from Singapore. Half of that has been sent to the Federation of Malaya and about a similar quantity to Indonesia. Sir, there has been a lot of talk about the control and the de-control of rice and I notice also that the motion puts in the words " . . . and that trading in rice should be free." Sir, rice is not controlled at the moment. Rice was de-controlled in 1953 or 1954 - I have the exact date somewhere. Since then, rice has not been controlled. What is happening is that there is a stockpile obligation on the part of the merchants to buy a certain quantity, according to his imports, from the stockpile but there is no control on rice as such. Anybody who wants to import rice is free to do so, provided he undertakes to buy the corresponding ratio from the stockpile. The Member for Telok Ayer also said that in 1953 when other items like flour and sugar were de-controlled, it was not thought fit to de-control rice, meaning that it was not thought fit to exempt it from the stockpile. But the stockpile decision was taken in 1953 by the then Government in the Executive Council of which the hon. Member did take part and that decision of the then Executive Council was that all commodities should be de-controlled, that there should be no price control, and that there should be no restriction on import except that rice should be under a stockpile obligation. The stockpile was fixed in that year by the then Government of which the hon. Member was a Member in the Executive Council. It may have been a more colonial Government than it probably is now. In January 1954, a working party was set up with Mr Tan Chin Tuan as the Chairman and they tried their best to get an acceptable solution to the stockpile by trying to get a guarantee from traders, but it was found that none of the Chinese or the European business interests would co-operate in giving a guarantee that they would maintain a stockpile of their own free will. Therefore, a decision was taken in the middle of 1954 that a stockpile should be maintained. In essence, the stockpile is still the same today and there is no change. So it is wrong to say that a stockpile was then necessary because rice was a seller's market and in short supply. In fact, rice became a buyer's market in 1953 and I will give you the proof why it became so. The hon. Member quoted figures showing that the Government lost $4 million in 1953 and a couple of million dollars in 1954. Now, why did the Government lose that amount of money on rice? It was not our Government at that time. It was a more colonial Government with the hon. Member taking part in the Executive Council thereof but Government did lose that amount of money and the reason was this. The year before, it had been decided to allow free imports of grades that were either superior or inferior to the Government's rationing grades. I hope I am clear on that. A certain type of rice was imported by Government for rationing purposes. Now, if you wanted to import better or inferior rice than that, you were at liberty. There was no control over it. The position had become such that when the countries started producing so much rice our merchants here imported a big quantity of the superior grade rice and they were able to sell much cheaper than the Government could sell its rationed rice. This showed that rice was in free supply and that there was no short supply of rice in the producing countries at that time. Therefore, when the Government here found that they could not sell their rice unless they lowered their price because the merchants were importing better rice and selling it at a cheaper price, they had to lower their price and sell the rice at a loss. That was why there was a loss. It was not the fault of our Government and I would not say that it was the fault of the then Government, but the position is clear that rice was not in short supply at that time and yet, in spite of that, a decision was taken to maintain a stockpile. So it is clear that the stockpile decision was not based on the availability of rice or the short supply position of rice but was based on emergency requirements and the same position stands now. I have a suspicion, Sir, that behind this move is not so much the interest of the masses but the interest of the merchants. An hon. Member: No.

Mostly Telok Ayer.

Sir, the role of the merchants in the old days was different from the role of the merchants today. At that time, any merchant prince could carry on any trade or commerce he liked, thinking only of the benefits and the profits that accrued to him and if the country did benefit, to a certain extent, it was just incidental but there was no obligation on the part of the merchant to provide a service to the country. Now, conceptions have changed. The merchant now says that he is providing a service to the community and therefore if he is providing a service to the community, he should fit in with the general scheme of things in that community and with the general requirements of that community. If the general requirements of that community demand a safety factor in a stockpile, I do not see why the merchant should grumble especially as he is not paying for that stockpile. The consumer is paying a little more in the price as an insurance premium for some future unknown contingencies but the merchant is not paying it so why should he grumble about it? You will find, Sir, that in all enlightened countries, the activities of merchants are harnessed to the needs of the country and they are not allowed to carry on haphazardly like the old merchant princes were allowed to carry on, thinking only of themselves and if their activities do clash with the requirements of the country, a check is put on them. You have quotas, tariffs, and so on, which are checks on the freedom of trade because of the need to harness the activities of the merchants to the needs of the community and I think our merchants should not grumble over that. Sir, it has been said that the taxpayer has to pay the cost of the upkeep of the Supplies Department - $60,000 to $70,000 a year. That, Sir, is not true. Perhaps the hon. Members have been misinformed. If they had cared to come and ask me, I would have enlightened them. If they had cared to look up the Budget when it was presented, they would have seen that that is not so. The cost of the Supplies Department is borne by the stockpile and the consumer, in that the extra one cent he is paying, is paying for the upkeep of the Supplies Department. There is no extra cost to the taxpayer. Then, figures have been quoted to show that the taxpayer lost about $280,000 last year and that, in 1955, there was a profit of $413,000. Now, again I want to make it very clear that the taxpayer is not paying this loss. We run the stockpile on a no profit, no loss basis and therefore, when I found that the stockpile had made a profit of $413,000, I issued a directive that we should reduce the price of rice so that the profit which we had accumulated should go back, by giving a reduction in the price, to the consumer until that profit was absorbed. The stockpile, I repeat, is run on a no profit, no loss basis. If we make a profit, we reduce the price of rice and we give the profit back to the consumer and if we make a loss, we increase the price slightly and recover the loss. This "bad" Government of the Labour Front Coalition, the much maligned Government of the Labour Front and the "minority" Government, has reduced the price of stockpile rice four times after it took office. On 15th February, 1955, before the elections, ten per cent rice was $494 and fifteen per cent was $476. Immediately after taking office, on 12th May, the price was reduced all round by $15; on 7th July, another $15 reduction; on 13th January, 1956, a further $15 reduction and on 1st February, 1956, another $10 - a total reduction up to February which went on till 11th September, 1956, of $55, since this "bad" Government took over. However, when the Government had to buy dearer rice, they had to put the price up slightly and on 12th September, 1956, we increased the price by $20, still giving a net reduction of $35 since the time we took office. The general comment is that this "minority" Government moves on haphazardly from day to day and yet, Sir, it is this "minority" Government which is moving on so haphazardly that is going to get us merdeka, if we at all do get merdeka.

Thanks to Mr Marshall.

Thanks to Mr Marshall and thanks to Mr Lim Yew Hock. [Interruption.]

Order.

They are too shy to take the credit. "Why should the consumer pay for the silly policy of Government?" I forget who made that remark. "This is a bogey about emergency and wars, and so on." I am afraid that some of them do not understand the position. "If rice is free, it will stabilise at its own price." A general statement like that is probably high-sounding to the non-businessmen but to a businessman who probes into it, he will find that there is not much in it. "If rice is free, it will stabilise at its own price." It is stabilised at its own economic price or at the price of the producing countries. There is no makeshift about it. There is no control and no artificial fixing of prices. It is stabilised at the price the producing countries can afford to sell and according to the law of supply and demand. Where does Government create an instability in the price? It does not. "Why control rice only? Why do you not control sugar, flour and a host of other things?" The hon. Member himself gave the answer in the early part of his speech and that is, "Rice is the staple food." Unless you have this staple food available in an emergency, you will have starvation. But one can live without sugar and flour: at least, our population is accustomed more to rice-eating and as to rice and flour, they both serve the same purpose; they are both starchy. I think, Sir, I read in hygiene books when I was schooling that starch turns into sugar when you put it in your mouth. The point was made that rice is bought by middlemen - that is. Indian and Pakistani rice - and the consumer pays more. This is a free port. We cannot control anybody if he wants to buy anything. Why blame us if a middleman who buys rice from India or Pakistan is not a regular dealer? I do not know what the term "regular" means because Singapore is a free port and the activities of trade are free. But if the middleman wants to make a bit of extra profit, the direct importer will undercut him and it will not be long before the middleman will not be able to reap his profit. The Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) also talked on the same lines, Sir, and I think that I have answered his arguments sufficiently well. The main point that was raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) was that the merchants are prepared to guarantee a stockpile of 25,000 tons. Sir, when the stockpile was suggested, at its very inception in 1953, as I have pointed out, they did try under Mr Tan Chin Tuan to try to get the trade to agree to maintain a stockpile but they failed and the same position still holds good today. We tried even last year to get the traders to sit around and come to an agreement to keep a stockpile on their own responsibility and we even offered to advance money to them if they would keep the stockpile of rice in Government godowns so that they would not be financially embarrassed by locking up their capital for stockpile purposes. But no, they would not come to an understanding and they refused. They gave a general guarantee which was very much in the air: "Oh, yes, do not worry. We will keep a stockpile." Is that of any real value when you have an emergency? What will happen is that rice will disappear in the black market and probably all the rich Members of this Assembly and other rich people will get their rice because they can afford the black market price but not the rest of the poor public. They cannot afford the price. So a guarantee in general terms is no use unless the traders can agree to a specific scheme of putting so much rice in a godown and getting an advance from Government on it. But they refuse to give approval for such a scheme. Therefore, it is not our fault that this sort of idea does not operate and that we are forced to carry on a stockpile. The point was made by the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) that if we lift the control of rice, the price will drop. That is a mis-statement. The price is not controlled by us. There is no price control here. Neither is the cost of rice controlled by us. The cost of rice is controlled by the selling countries, not by us and the rice is bought at the price operating in the selling countries either by us or by the trade. Both have to pay the same price. Therefore, if we exclude the stockpile obligation, it does not mean that the price will drop. It only means that the extra one cent which is added because of the stockpile obligation will come down. Even that one cent per katty when it is spread over two katties which is imported direct by the importer comes to half a cent per katty to the consumer - if the merchants are honest about it - because they pay one cent more for our one katty of rice but they buy two katties of rice cheaper by one cent, they therefore get two cents cheaper in the price of two katties of rice and if you add this up, it only comes to half a cent or less extra. A serious matter was raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru who mentioned that $4,000 had to be paid before a man could tender. Sir, I would like him very much to bring the matter up to me and give me all the necessary details in confidence if he can. I will say that if he were aware of it, it was his duty as a public-spirited citizen to have gone to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police and informed them. He can still do so if he has not done yet or he can come to me and give me the information in confidence and I will pass it on; but if he does not like that, he can go to the Anti-Corruption Branch and lay his information there. I will be the happiest man to see that all such business - if there is such business - should be stopped.

Check the records of the Police.

I can give one assurance that his name will not be divulged, if the hon. Member lays his information before the Anti-Corruption Branch. Now, Sir, we come to the main cause for the stockpile. The Member for Bukit Panjang said that perhaps the Minister for Commerce and Industry was afraid of a war breaking out. He said that it was unlikely that a war should break out in this part of the world because the neighbouring countries have no time for wars and that they were busy about their own economy.

Famous last words!

Perhaps, the hon. Member has forgotten the day when we were all asleep on the morning of the 8th of December, 1941, and at about 4 a.m., we suddenly heard explosions and rushed out to see what they were. Some of us thought that it was just anti-aircraft firing and some thought of other things. Others took it seriously, and so on. So there is no saying when a war can break out. In the sick position that the world is in today, Sir, it is presumptuous on the part of anyone to prophesy when war is or is not going to break out. It is the duty of a responsible Government to see that if an emergency does take place there is provision made for feeding the masses. Sir, the Member for Telok Ayer and probably others were fortunate enough -

To run away.

-to have had the opportunity to go away when war broke out here in 1941. The general population of Singapore, Sir, could not get that opportunity. I was one of those who stayed here.

I too.

I saw what the plight of the people was then. Sir, just before the war broke out, I understand, certain essential foodstuffs were stockpiled and it was this stockpile which stood us in very good stead for the first few months when there was no organisation yet immediately after the Japanese occupied Singapore. During this period of disorganisation, that stockpile laid by a colonial Government stood us in very good stead. Now, I have seen what happened after that. I have seen the pathetic look in the eyes of children who had to eat ubi kayu (tapioca) and who could not get sufficient rice. I have seen miserable men and women lying on the street like skeletons because they developed beri beri when they could not get rice. Sir, those who went through that experience, I am sure, will not grudge but, in fact, will support that Government should provide for a future emergency, in case there is one, especially when the merchant is not paying but the consumer is paying for it and for whose benefit this insurance against the future is. If they do not, Sir, and they vote for this motion and if there is an emergency when supplies are cut off - this can happen, without the producing countries being occupied by Communist powers; it may be due to lack of shipping that our supplies may be lessened - it will be a crime against humanity when you find those little children and mothers going about with a hungry look in their eyes. Of course, the richer section of the public will have stockpiles of their own in their homes. Sir, I have here an authoritative report on the supply position and I will quote from it. I am not able to divulge the source but it is an authoritative report and I give that assurance. Regarding Burma, it reads: "It was still not known what proportion of the expected export quota of 1.6 million tons would go in barter trade with Communist countries; but it appeared that supplies of Burma rice coming on to the free world market in 1957 would be scarce in relation to demand." Now, that is without a war intervening. So, you can have a position where supplies run short because some countries suddenly buy more than they had expected. We had the case when Japan came into the market to buy 200,000 tons of rice early this year. They did not buy that much, but there was a case in point. Indonesia might suddenly find herself short and buy a big quantity, in which case, there will be a run on rice on the producing countries. Sir, I ask hon. Members not to treat this as a Party issue. This is a matter of national importance, of importance to the people to provide for their future and therefore it is a matter of importance to Members irrespective of which side of the House they sit in. If they want to provide for the future of the masses, as the Member for Telok Ayer said, then I say that he should withdraw his motion or they should vote against it. If they think only in a short-sighted way for today and not care for tomorrow, it is up to them. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very happy to hear the Minister for Commerce and Industry reminding us that we should not treat this issue on a party basis. After the lengthy speeches from both sides of the House, I think the arguments fall into two classes. One, we look at it from a commercial point of view, and, two, we look at it from a military strategy point of view. Sir, I wish to talk from the commercial point of view. The mover of the motion made it very clear that the stockpile of rice policy will not only make the taxpayer suffer but also the masses. On this point, I do not know if the Minister for Commerce and Industry, as a buinessman, can say whether it is true or not that the outcry to abolish the stockpiling of rice comes only from the merchants in the Telok Ayer area and not from the public. Not long ago, certain quarters which did not deal with foodstuffs or belonged to any organisation, printed literature to reach every leader and Assemblyman seeking his support to press the Government to abolish this stockpile policy. The basic reason is that Singapore, as we all know, is an entrepot city and there is free competition. We experienced rice rationing during the reoccupation and when the price became more stable, rationing was abolished together with food control in 1953 or 1954 - I am not sure when it came about. So the reason why the Government abolished food control two or three years ago was that Government believed in free enterprise to bring down the actual price of rice, and I wonder why the Government cannot maintain the same confidence in the policy of free enterprise to bring down the price of rice. So, from the commercial point of view, I am sure the Minister for Commerce and Industry, who was a businessman before, will admit that if the stockpile policy is dropped, the cost of imported rice will be reduced because of the many extra charges added. We have also heard the serious charge that was made by the Member for Tiong Bahru that a certain amount of money has to be paid in order to ensure a successful tender. This smells of corruption. Therefore, in order to put this on a more practical basis, the trader should be given the chance to show that with free enterprise in the trading of rice, there will be a reduction in price. The Minister for Commerce and Industry said the traders refused to give an assurance that a certain amount of rice would be stocked by them. I have a press cutting dated 4th December, 1956. The statement was issued by the then President of the Rice Importers Association, Mr Teo Han Sun. On one item, it says that the authorities insist that for three months' local consumption, there has to be a reserve of at least 25,000 tons. The Rice Importers Association did try many a time to give an assurance to the authorities to that effect. The Association President also pointed out clearly to the Government that the actual stock of rice in the godowns of Singapore was always more than 25,000 tons of rice, which was required by the Government. I wonder whether or not the Minister for Commerce and Industry has looked into this assurance. Lastly, I want to speak from the military point of view. If we have faith in our great neighbouring countries - and we like to call India, China, Thailand and Indonesia our brother countries - why should we suspect that all these big brothers are going to bully this small brother? So the whole thing rests on the tradition that the question of our external defence and external relations still lies in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. This is the atomic age and yet we base our strategy on the fact that this island must have a certain amount rice stocked for the people: how many infantries are required to defend this island; how many battleships to guard our sea-coast. Sir, I think this is the right time for the elected Government to make this important point - that in this atomic age the military strategy of the United Kingdom is not to think in terms of submarines, battleships or even an atomic bomb, but the feelings of the local people. If the local people support the United Kingdom's strategy, then I think that even a stock of three months' foodstuffs is not sufficient to carry on. But the local people do not share that point of view. We must take this opportunity to show our Asian-African spirit, that we have faith in our Asian and African brothers who, for years, have suffered under imperialistic rule. War could only possibly come from this side because it is suspected that we have been influenced or have been infiltrated by the Communist forces and therefore there is a possibility of war breaking out at any moment, as has been pointed out by the Minister for Commerce and Industry. But I do not think that the local people, especially the man in the street, can understand this, and I wish to ask our intelligent leaders in this House why the Americans, in recent years, have rapidly lost popularity among our Asian nations. Why? Because the Americans talk of war the whole time, war everywhere and military bases everywhere. How much support do they think they can seek from the Asian and African people? Sir, so from this point of view, why has the Government not the courage to tell Whitehall? "The people of Singapore have faith in their own destiny. We do not think there is going to be any war now at all. We believe in peace and co-existence." If we can get away from the influence of the United Kingdom, I think the question of stockpiling will be much easier for the Government to think of. Sir, after saying all this, I must say that I am in no way opposed to this motion, but I do sincerely suggest to Government that (1) it should abolish the stockpile policy, and (2) it should seek an assurance from the rice importers whether it is true that they can satisfy the United Kingdom strategists' demands, and (3) , that it should drop its plans for the time being and see whether the price of rice will increase or decrease. This will prove to the people that the Government is sincere in its concern for the welfare of the people. Sir, I wish to repeat again what the Minister for Commerce and Industry has said, that this issue must not be treated as a party issue but as a national issue in the interests of the people.

Masses.

Masses. So I take this opportunity, not as a champion of the masses, to repeat what the masses really think, and that is that during the Japanese occupation, they could purchase rice at eight cents per katty although stocks were insufficient and the simpleminded citizens cannot understand why they have to pay much more now when we have assured them that this Government is far better than the Japanese military government. So, Sir, Government must carefully consider this issue which is a national one. 4.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody seems to be concerned over the welfare of the people, whether the people will be able to have their rice the next day and whether they are going to pay a cent less or a cent more. In fact, that is most commendable.

Thank you.

However, the method of approach seems to me that one set of people think about it in the form of a Government guarantee. Other people think that we can provide that guarantee without Government's interference. Now, let us see. We have been having our stockpile for a long time. Let us see what are the reasons behind it. The first reason is that if there is a war or an emergency, then where are we to get our rice from? The second reason for stockpiling is that if there is black-marketing in rice, then we must stop the merchants from exploiting that situation. Of course, the third reason for stockpiling may be similar to the stockpiling of rubber in America which is needed as a sort of a buffer. If the price should rise, then they push out a little bit of the rubber to put the price down, and so on. It will keep down prices at the correct level to their advantage. Now, I certainly feel that the third reason is out because Government has never tried to keep prices down in favour of the people but allows the price to go up or down as the market dictates. So that reason is out. Now, on the second one about the control of rice, probably stockpiling and rice control will be necessary during the war years when there will be a shortage of supply. According to the usual laws of supply and demand, prices will go up when there is a shortage of rice. Price control and distribution become necessary during emergency years. But the balance has already swung over to the other side and today we find that there is no shortage of supply. In fact, supply is greater than demand. I have never heard of China exporting rice before but today she seems to be able to export rice to Ceylon. Thailand, after the war, was still short of rice but today, she seems to be offering rice to everybody and so is Burma which is trying to offer her surplus stock. Ceylon too is trying to trade with other countries and trying to barter her rice for something else. Now we have plenty of rice all around and because of this situation, the price of rice in a free market must necessarily come down. Here is where price control can stop, and the usual way of supply and demand be allowed to work for the advantage of the people. Of course, if there is a further glut, you will find that the merchants are willing to sell their goods even below cost. That will be a greater advantage to the people. Now, let us come back to the first reason which is said to be the most important, and that is, we must have a stock to tide us over any emergency. We agree with that. I would like to ask the Government how Hongkong manages this. They have a stockpile but I think the merchants are giving a helping hand there. In Singapore, I have heard from the Minister for Commerce and Industry state that a few years ago, the traders were approached by the Government about the question of being responsible for a stockpile of rice and they refused to undertake this task. Sir, ideas can change. We know that the Government has changed a lot of its ideas and plans all along and merchants also are privileged in the same way to change their plans. During the last few days, I have been around in the market to find out the position, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that quite a number of merchants were willing to carry stocks. This question can certainly be investigated into, and if they are willing to carry stocks, then stockpiling may be done by the merchants themselves. Perhaps, in order to help the public, Government may still extend the same offer of capital and godown space for the stockpiling and keep a check on the actual amount of rice in the godowns. If that can be done, it will save us a lot of trouble. But, of course, when Government thinks about giving anybody any responsibility, it must also think of giving them some privileges, because privilege and responsibility always go together.

To put a flag on a car!

Yes, there must always be responsibility with privilege and vice versa.

On a point of clarification, Sir. What does the hon. Member mean when he referred to Hongkong? Does he want the Government to form a ring of rice merchants of a limited number with a monopoly as in Hongkong?

I am not a Member of the Government and I will save the trouble of cracking my head over this question but the Government should be able to think out as to the best way of doing it. I am giving the Government the idea that there is the offer from the merchants. You have the material in hand, make the best use of it! Now, let us turn our attention to other commodities. We all say that rice is imported and that it is the staple food. Yes, rice is most important but without rice, there can still be other substitutes and such substitutes may be found in flour and other grains-

Tapioca.

- and even tapioca. I suppose many people have tasted tapioca An hon. Member: A long time ago.

- a long time ago and they still live, otherwise quite a number of them would not be sitting here.

M and B pills.

Perhaps. But I am thinking of flour. If rice is important, if there is no substitute for rice and if the whole country is going to starve because there is no stockpile, why can we not have another stockpile of flour also? This is easier to store and would be a very good substitute for rice. Of course, the reasons are obvious. It is in the hands of the expatriates and not in the hands of the local people, and therefore that may be a good excuse-

Do you prefer flour to rice?

- for leaving flour out of control?

Do you prefer flour?

You may say that it is silly and that this is not in your line, and so on; but, I say that it was the colonial policy to control everything - even the rice business which was not done by them during the period of the British Military Administration.

Are you a member of the P.A.P.?

I am not a P.A.P. member. I am only stating a truth. Those are facts. Nobody can deny those facts. Let us see how Government control and how Government stockpile have helped in doing things that are against the interest of the people. As a matter of fact, Government is never good at trading. Whatever they do, they always pay a higher price than the price paid for by the merchant and even if the price paid were the same, you will find that a lower grade of rice is usually shipped to them. All in all, the people will be paying The Member for Telok Ayer crossed the floor.

Order. Hon. Members must not cross the floor unnecessarily.

Sir, I just-

Is it on a point of order?

No.

Thank you. My friend has given me a little note and he is still on this side of the floor. Now, Government has never been good in trading and no matter what Government does, it will always get a raw deal from hardened businessmen. An hon. Member: Even from the Opposition.

if there is control, you will find that price goes up all the time. There is always loss of weight during transhipment, and when goods come in and out of godowns. I think the Government cannot deny that, and usually you find that the grades of rice may not be as they should be. I feel that this motion is a justifiable one and I agree with my colleague that if it had been proposed by Members on the opposite Benches, it would, in all probability, be applauded and said to be good motion; but, in this case, it happens to be proposed by a Member of the Opposition and it must be treated as not so good! If the Government had such an intention at heart, then let it openly agree to no further stockpiling of rice. If the Government thinks that stockpiling is necessary, then keep this stockpile throughout its life.

On a point of explanation, Sir. The hon. Member thinks that he supports the motion. I think he said just now that he also agrees to having a stockpile. I am not quite sure which he means.

I said that, "if the Government thinks that a stockpile is necessary". Sir, I have had the privilege of being interrupted so many times.

It is confusing, is it not?

Yes, they are doing their best to confuse the people in order to have their own way. I understand too that the Government tries to operate this business on a no profit, no loss basis, in a case like this, Government may think that it is operating on a no profit, no loss basis. Every time it buys stocks, it will sell out at the same price at a later date to the merchant who buys it. If the price happens to be low, the merchant buying it will benefit hut the benefit will not be passed on to the public; if the price is high, the public will suffer because the extra will be added on to the price by the merchant. I feel that in a matter of stockpiling and control of any goods, the best way to go about it is either control it fully, or not control it at all. My colleague will probably be answering questions put by the Minister for Commerce and Industry and I will leave him to wind up the debate. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of times reference has been made to the word "masses" leads me to believe that there may be elections this year after all. Sometime last month when I referred to the "masses", I was criticised for being preoccupied with the lumpen proletariat. But now, I have respectable company in the use of the word "masses" in the Member for Telok Ayer, the Member for Tiong Bahru, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, the Member for Serangoon and the Member for Changi. We get more and more respectable as we go along. Sir, there are two facets to this problem of the stockpile. I promised the Member for Telok Aver that I would keep an open mind till I have heard both sides and, like a good judge, I have tried to keep an open mind although my colleague the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) had already more or less decided what should be the right stand. On the one side is the question of the efficient running of the stockpile. The Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) has mentioned the mysterious figure of $4,000 paid by importers. And another Liberal-Socialist Member has lectured about how middlemen can make profits on even one graphite pencil. If anyone seeks the road to personal happiness and prosperity, well, join this Party. We have been told that the middleman's profit is a wicked thing and from the distinguished merchant, the Member for Telok Ayer. He says. "It is a wicked thing. We must get rid of the middlemen." And I was wondering at that time whether he had already left the Liberal-Socialist Party. We had the astonishing suggestion that if rice were freed, meaning not that controls are removed but that stockpiles are abolished, its price would stabilise itself automatically. I am not sure what it means. All I know is that no price is static unless it is controlled. It will move up and down according to supply and demand. We are asked to believe that it will stabilise itself automatically for the benefit of the masses. Sir, if we are convinced of that, then, of course the People's Action Party which the Member for Telok Ayer has congratulated for representing the people will vote for his motion. Unfortunately, I am in some doubt whether if the stockpile were removed, it would be not the masses who would benefit but the merchants.

Of Telok Ayer.

We were told that the stockpile was needed for the contingency of a war or an emergency. I suggest to this House that even without a war or an emergency situation, one may have all kinds of temporary shortages of rice, either genuine or man-made, which may boost up the price of rice. If there is this buffer, then the opportunities for windfall gains will be denied to the merchants in the Telok Ayer division because the Government being a benevolent and paternal guardian of the people will sell from their stockpile and not make the windfall gains. By the time the Liberal-Socialist Party so earnestly urges that the benefit of the masses will be brought about by the free operation of merchants and middlemen, there must be something, - I would not use the word "fishy", Sir: it might be unparliamentary to use such a word - I think that there must be a catch in it. 4.30 p.m.

Sir, there is a short point arising out of the speech of the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) and also the speech of the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng). They say that merchants have stated recently that they are prepared to guarantee the stockpile but they have not stated that what they want, as their pound of flesh, is a monopoly of the trade. That is what was meant by the Member for Serangoon when he said that with responsibility you must get privileges. What he is asking for is that in order that the rice trade can be responsible to look after the stockpile, it must be given the privilege of exploiting the consumers. The Member for Serangoon said that rice is not the only food for which we should pile up stocks and that there are other commodities like tapioca and flour, and yet he blamed, shall we say, the Colonial officers, for having too much of a say in the stockpiling of rice. If they really had a say, Sir, I think they would rather have had a stockpiling of flour instead of rice, so that they could train us in the Western way of living. The Member for Serangoon also said, "Well, we can eat tapioca", and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said, "Perhaps, everyone is thinking that there is an election coming soon and maybe the Liberal-Socialists can have as one of their election banners: 'Join the Liberal-Socialists and eat tapioca.'" 4.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we, who have lived through the Japanese occupation, know what distress was caused when rice supplies were short and how labourers could not work unless their cup of rice was assured to them. No amount of Japanese money could tempt them to work unless a cup of rice was guaranteed to them. Sir, the lessons of the Japanese occupation do not seem to be of any concern to the Member for Telok Ayer. Of course, this is to be expected because being a rich man he could afford to make his escape before the Japanese came in. Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Is it on a point of order?

Sir, this is personal. I am not a rich man. May I tell him that?

Order. If the hon. Member wishes to rise on a point of order, he may do so. If he wishes to rise on a point of explanation, he may also do so but in the latter case, the hon. Member holding the floor must first give way.

Sir, we who remained behind know how the poor people suffered then and I am therefore determined to see that they do not undergo a similar experience again so long as we are able to help them. Are we sure, Sir, that if the Member for Telok Ayer who represents the rice importers has his way and when the stockpile is abolished, that our poorer classes of people will not suffer and also that the importers will not raise the price? At any rate, Sir, the cost of upkeep of the stockpile comes to a little more than one cent a katty. If the stockpile is abolished, are we sure that the wealthy rice importers who are members of the same kongsi will not raise their prices? It is because Government has a stockpile that these merchants can be kept under proper control and if they try to raise the price, naturally Government can release from the stockpile and keep the price under control. Sir, it is quite natural that if the stockpile is abolished, those who will be the first to suffer are the poorer classes of people. The poorer people pay one cent more per katty for the stockpile of rice but what is this extra charge compared with the higher prices that they will be forced to pay if the stockpile is abolished? I am surprised, Sir, that the Member for Telok Ayer who belongs to a Party which believes in fair slices of the political cake for all should now want to increase the larger slices of the rice importers and reduce the smaller slices of the poorer section of the people. This, Sir, is not Liberal-Socialism. It is only exploitation of the poor man and unworthy of any Party with a seat in this Assembly.

On a point of clarification, Sir. May I say that it is not one cent per katty that a consumer pays? The stockpile price is one cent dearer which is reflected, when they import two katties of free rice, to work out to half a cent on the consumer. Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

In reply? 4.37 p.m.

In reply, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I will deal first with the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua). Let me tell him and those who heard him that I am not talking on behalf of the merchants. Also let him state what is his idea of a rich man - $1,000, $1 million, $10 million or $50 million? My definition of a rich man is a man beyond want - I hope he learns in his old age.

How much have you got?

If the contention is that this commodity should be controlled in the interests of the masses, may I ask the Government why control only this commodity? Now, Sir, I was amused to hear the Nominated Member, Mr Richard Lim, a race-horse owner, talking of Socialism. I was glad that the other Nominated Member, Mr Francis Thomas, did not touch on the technicalities but only in general. My reply to him is that if he cares at all for the masses, then there are so many other things which the Government can control in the interest of the masses. Sir, I am not replying to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), who thinks that he represents all the masses but he is mistaken. What I said was that it was not in the interest of the merchants but the masses. If he can endorse it, it is all right. If he does not, it is his look-out. Now, Sir, it seems that the Government is unrepentant and I told you the reason why. The Minister for Commerce and Industry touched in a lengthy way on so many matters. I will deal with them one by one. I dealt with rice from the time when he was not yet born.

He has learned a lot since.

It seems that he has learnt many things in the regular school of his colonial friends. Sir, he made reference to my being a Member of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council. I cannot divulge anything as I was under oath as an Executive Council Member and I have not taken any advantage of any secrets I know, in this debate, but let me tell him and others that when we were there, we tried our level best and succeeded as far as we could till the present Coalition Government took charge. He also made mention of my not being here during the Japanese period. I left on 6th or 7th February, 1942, when the Japanese just entered Singapore and I had to leave because of my public position which I held then, and the thought that I might not be safe. With good luck, I returned and I found him clotheless, foodless, penniless, and-

On a point of order, Sir, I doubt whether the Member is aware that he is casting aspersions on the Minister for Commerce and Industry.

That is not a point of order. Carry on, Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not casting aspersions on anybody but I am stating actual facts and he should be proud that he remained honest in that period. He did not amass money as many others did.

Order, please. I think that would be out of order. Will the hon. Member please continue, avoiding making such references?

May I not, Sir, make a statement of facts?

Not in the way the hon. Member has done.

It is not casting an aspersion at all; it is a credit to him. Now, Sir, he touched on the export trade of rice saying that it is still going on in the same way. This is quite incorrect. Singapore may import the rice and forward it to the Federation, but in fact this is not re-export in the real sense of the term. I mean, we used to re-export big quantities in those days to Ceylon, India and Africa and not small quantities like five tons to Ceylon. Government has not made any point at all to defend its policy of a strategic stockpile for an emergency. I say that there is no emergency or the threat of war in this part of South-East Asia. I believe the Minister also mentioned about the Japanese attack. Yes, those days have now passed. Whom do we fear now in South-East Asia? If the Government can prove that there will be a real emergency or an attack, well, that is quite a different matter but the Government has not proved it at all. We were only told of sad stories happening during the Japanese occupation of Malaya. We know all that. That is nothing new. What I want to ask is whom are we afraid of now? It will be very interesting to know what is the total tonnage in the stockpile and what is the total tonnage sold to dealers? The Minister made reference to the honesty of the rice merchants! Only recently, he was a merchant and he can ask himself that question. Sir, prices will always adjust according to supply and demand. On the other hand, the rice dealers are willing to have a minimum quantity of stockpile, not in Government godowns but in their own godowns which can be checked from time to time. A solution can be arrived at very easily, if it is found that they can manage it. Much was said about the cost of half a cent or one cent more to the consumer. May I point out to the People's Action Party that if a family of ten pays half a cent or one cent more for a katty of rice, how much would it cost them monthly? Is it not in the interest of the masses that they should pay less? The point was also made that it is not the merchant who suffers but it is the consumer. May I ask why should the consumer suffer at all? The consumer should not suffer because of this stockpile or control of the rice trade. I was also told that there is no control of rice imports. What else can you call it if a person wants to import rice which he can import, but he has also to buy rice from the Government in the ratio of one to two? If this is not control, then what do you name it? A point was made that by stockpiling, the Government is not incurring expenses for the running of the department, it works out like this: taking from one pocket and putting it into another pocket. It comes to the same thing. My point is this. Whether you charge it to revenue or you suffer a loss or you charge the merchant extra for taking your tonnage of rice in proportion to his imports, ultimately the consumer pays. The object of my motion is that the consumer should not suffer. Sir, I think I have covered almost all the points in reply and I will urge the Government and my friends on this side of the House to vote for the motion.

On a point of explanation. Sir, I wish to clarify that after the Japanese occupation, I was not clotheless, not foodless and not penniless. I was certainly not rich hut I could provide for myself. Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Is it on a point of order?

Sir, I did not mean to hurt anybody's feelings.

Is it on a point of order?

Just an explanation. Sir.

I do not think that that is necessary now. Question put. Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 20; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Goh Tong Liang Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat Jumabhoy, R. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim Lee Choon Eng A. J. Braga Lim Cher Kheng Butterfield, C. H. Lim Choon Mong Chew Swee Kee Lim Koon Teck Goh Chew Chua Tan, William Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew Lim, R. C. H. Noes Lim Yew Hock Mak Pak Shee Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid Nair, M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang Thomas, Francis Wong Foo Nam Abstentions Nil Absent Ede, John Lazarous, A. R. Lim Ching Siong Marshall, D. S. Ong Piah Teng Question accordingly negatived.

4.58 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, namely, "That this House is of the opinion that legislation be introduced to protect workers whose interests may be adversely affected by the dissolution of their unions. On 5th December, 1956, I brought the attention of the House to the fact that some 35,000 trade unionists are facing the possibility of having their union dissolved because of the folly of some of their officials. Sir, the position is serious because there are in existence, so far as the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union is concerned, some 50 agreements with employers. Unless some provision is made for these contracts to remain valid after the dissolution of the union, it is doubtful whether these contracts can be recognised by the employers after the union's dissolution. With the disappearance of the union, the contracting party disappears, and some kind of provision must be made to prevent the workers from losing the benefits of these agreements. Sir, there is very little to add. The issue is simple. I have, however, had the benefit of an informal discussion with the Minister for Labour. I do not wish to prejudge what will happen when the Registrar of Trade Unions holds his enquiry with regard to the missing funds of the union. If the Chief Minister will give an assurance in this House that the matter will be considered after the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions, I will withdraw this motion till a later date.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve my right to speak later. Question proposed. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the line taken by the hon. mover of the motion, I would like to say this. The Factory and Shop-workers' Union is the only union now likely to be dissolved, but dissolution will be completed only if the union fails to show cause. Sir, since the Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he is willing to withdraw this motion pending the result of the, shall we say, dissolution proceedings that are at the present time being taken against this union, I will therefore not touch at great length on this motion. But there is one point I would like to make clear, Sir. I find that I am not in a position to support the motion as worded but I do sympathise with him in regard to the fears expressed by him on the conditions of employment that have been matters of contract between this union and the employers in Singapore. I am, at the present time, Sir, exploring the feasibility of setting up machinery for the better observance of wage contracts, and I would assure the hon. Member that the point that he had discussed with me informally before this sitting will be thoroughly investigated and I will do whatever I can to see to it that if the points are possible of protection, the Government will do all it can.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw this motion for debate today.

Have I the assent of this House that the motion should be withdrawn? Hon. Members: Aye. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

5.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name which reads: That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees and urges Malayan Airways Limited to share 15 per cent of their accumulated net-profits with their workers at the end of their 10-year franchise. Hon. Members in this House know that since 24th December last year, members of the Malayan Airways Local Employees' Union have been on strike for a goodwill bonus claim to be paid at the end of the company's ten-year franchise. Before I urge the merits of this claim on the House, I would like to give the House the background of this dispute. First, the facts of the company's position: Malayan Airways Limited is a company with $2½ million capital running internal air services in Malaya and Borneo on a franchise given by the Malaya/Singapore/Borneo Governments. In other words it is a Government monopoly given to the company. Of this $2½ million capital, $1½ million is owned by the Straits Steamship Company Limited, about $500,000 is owned by some shipping company in Liverpool and the rest by Mansfield and Company Limited and a few other private individuals. From a share capital of $2½ million, the company's books today show that it is worth $7¼ million. In the meantime, the company has been paying profits at approximately three per cent per annum. The union has been able to obtain accurate figures of what the company considers its capital to be worth, and these figures have not so far been challenged by the company. But the union says that there has been a great undervaluation of the assets; that, in fact, the accumulated profits plus the original capital amount to much more than $7½ million. For instance, the union says that the aircraft - eleven Dakotas - are now book-valued at $81,000 and by the end of the franchise, each Dakota would be valued at $1, whilst motor-vehicles owned by the Company are valued at $184,000. If one were to look purely at the accounts of the company, one might be led to the conclusion that it is a transport company, not an airline. However, members of the union, who are in a position to know the price of Dakotas say that each Dakota would cost somewhere around $300,000, not $8,000. Let us assume that it is not as high as the union pitches it but that it is somewhere around say $100,000. Even at that figure, the company is now worth about $10 million from a capital of 2½ million. In the years 1951 to 1956, the company paid the following dividends: 1951, $105,000; 1952, $140,000; 1953, $140,000; 1954, $52,500; 1955, $70,000 and 1956, $175,000 and these were out of profits made from 1951 to 1956 as follows: 1951, $1,128,000; 1952, $l,823,000; 1953, $1,318,000; 1954, $201,000; 1955, $345,000 and 1956, $1,407,000. Now, Sir, it may be claimed by the company that they risked their capital - their $2½ million - to make these profits and, having paid their workers the wages they contracted to pay them, a bonus is therefore out of the question. The union's claim is that the company should pay them one month's salary for each year of service; they have helped to make the company these profits; without them, the company's capital would not have produced these profits. In the boom years of 1951 to 1953, when the union approached the management for bonuses - and bonuses were given by all good employers then who were cashing in on the boom - the company's reply was that these profits were being accumulated to purchase new aircraft so that, at the end of the franchise, there will be better aircraft and further employment provided for union members. At that time, sister companies of Malayan Airways, like Mansfield and Straits Steamship, were paying bonuses. Malayan Airways was the one company that never paid any bonus. Sir, in July 1956 it was announced that the major shareholders of the company would not wish to retain their shareholdings in the company and were selling out. It was announced also that the management of the airline would, although still in the name of Malayan Airways, be, in fact, vested in B.O.A.C. The union approached the Managing Director of the Company in September last year, on two occasions, the 12th and the 27th, and asked the management if they were prepared to consider the payment of a goodwill remuneration to the employees for their past services to the company. The Managing Director then replied that he was not opposed to the payment and went as far as to discuss the various ways and means of distributing payment. He agreed that the union should put in a formal claim. The union did this on 17th October. Later the union notified the company that if the company insisted on refusing to consider the payment of their claim, the union would have to consider taking action. There was a final meeting between the union and the company on 18th December. The union asked for an assurance from the Management that consideration would be given to share with the men at the end of the franchise a part of these accumulated profits, which are hidden away in written-off assets. Four Directors of the company were present. They were evasive and they refused to give any assurance whatsoever. All they were prepared to say was that if, at some time in the future, they were in a position to make any such statement, they would, but it depended upon whether they would be getting this new franchise, whether they would be getting a good price from B.O.A.C., and oh so many other factors. The union and its members were not prepared to wait for some indefinite reply at some indefinite future date. As the franchise was running out, they took strike action. They decided to take strike action on the 20th and took strike action on the 23rd and 24th. Now, Sir, what does all this come to? It is a fight against an employer who has, showing on his books, accumulated reserves out of profits of $2,850,000 in cash. They said it was to purchase new aircraft. They have other assets which together with this $2,850,000 total, according to the company, $7½ million but, according to the union, at least $10 million. In other words, having paid approximately three per cent dividend every year, it has quadrupled its capital and now proposes to sell out, i.e. those of the shareholders who want to sell out, to B.O.A.C. or such other purchasers as the Government may come to terms with for a new franchise. The union says, "Give us one month's pay for every year of service." This would amount, including all expatriate staff, to $1¼ million, approximately 15 per cent of the accumulated profits - hidden and shown profits. Sir, if Malayan Airways were an ordinary commercial company, this might be termed an unusual claim; although in certain countries like Japan, at the end of every year, unions negotiate with employers for bonus payments on the showing of the past year's transactions. But there are two features which make Malayan Airways a special case. First, it operates on a Government monopoly - a franchise. No person can open an airline to compete with it, and the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall) will know how, when he urged on behalf of Nanyang Airways the opening of another competitive airline, it met with strenuous objection from Malayan Airways Limited; and no competition was allowed. Second, the Hon. the Chief Minister will remember that when he asked a question in the Legislative Council then in March 1954, he was informed by the then Colonial Secretary that the Government had subsidised Malayan Airways to the tune of $850,000. These are two extraordinary features which take Malayan Airways out of the ordinary run of European concerns in this country. First, it operates on a Government franchise - a monopoly; second, it has received subsidies from the Government. If this House has the right to discuss the question of whether subsidies should be paid to this company, to maintain an internal airline, I submit this House has the right, to urge this company to share 15 per cent of its accumulated profits showing in the books of the company, with its local employees - $7½ million. Sir, the first half of my motion may, to orthodox Socialists, sound very conservative. In a mild motion, I urge, "That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employee." In more politically literate countries, employers have discovered that if they want to preserve the free enterprise system, they had better offer the workers a greater share of the profits, and profit-sharing is, in fact - and I repeat this for the benefit of my Liberal-Socialists who sit on this side of the House - a principle advocated by the British Conservative Party in order to preserve British Conservative Party members' interests. There is nothing revolutionary in this principle. It is just a method by which you keep your workers contented. Those in favour of violent revolution, of course, oppose this policy. It is a retrograde step because it tends to make the workers get involved with the interests of the management. For instance, if you get a "good" employer like Henry Ford who gives you shares in the company you begin to have an interest in the profits the company makes, and the class conflict weakens. You will not be fighting the employer but you will be working harder to make profits for the employer and for yourself. So, it will be interesting to know whether our local Conservative Party, namely, the Liberal-Socialists, support this principle, as I am urging them to do. If they do that, I would like to know further whether, as a logical outcome of that, they would urge Malayan Airways - I am not saying we are compelling Malayan Airways; all I am asking is an opinion, the opinion of the elected representatives of the people of Singapore - that they consider that 15 per cent of the accumulated net profits of the company should be shared with the workers at the end of the 10-year franchise. That, in brief, is the issue. The union are still on strike and they, in my opinion, have made a morally just claim. It may not be a claim that one can enforce in any court of law, but it is a fair and reasonable claim. The company has made these profits out of their labour and has never paid any bonus for the past ten years on the grounds that they were accumulating these profits to buy new aircraft. Furthermore, every year, when the company complimented its workers by a notice on the notice-board, it drew attention to the fact that all these profits that they were making were, in fact, to ensure the happiness and employment of the employees because the company could then carry on with new aircraft. Sir, the management, I am told, is alarmed at the principle, not because, in this particular case, it is an unjust claim, but because the Directors of the company are also Directors of other sister companies connected with Malayan Airways, such as Straits Steamship, Mansfield, and so on. But unlike Straits Steamship and Mansfield, Malayan Airways is in a special position with regard to this Assembly. If any Liberal-Socialist is frightened of keeping away foreign capital, may I remind them of this: we are concerned here with British capital employed on a Government monopoly, in which the Government had thought fit to subsidise by the year 1954 the sum of $850,000. If we could do that surely we can do more for its workers. In a way, this particular dispute spotlights a much wider issue - namely, that after the transfer of political independence from the British to Malayans, will come the question of economic independence. I would not like today to discuss generally the question of foreign investment in Malaya, but I would ask this House to make it quite clear that if foreign capital comes to this country to operate Government monopolies and expect security not only of capital but also against losses, and are paid subsidies by the Government against losses, then it must be prepared to adopt a liberal profit-sharing attitude towards its workers. I urge the House to support my motion. 5.23 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise to second the motion. Malayan Airways Limited was formed in 1947 with a paid-up share capital of $2½ million and a 10-year franchise. The franchise ends this year and the major shareholders, Mansfield and Company Limited and Straits Steamship, are selling out their shares this year to the B.O.A.C. On the company's own figures, Malayan Airways started with a share capital of $2½ million and had on April 1954 assets valued by the company at $7,300,000. Among the assets included in the $7,300,000 are the eleven Dakotas of the company valued at $81,512, that is about $7,500 for each Dakota plane. In spite of this absurd undervaluation of its assets, the company's figures show an increase from a share capital of $2½ million to over $7 million worth of assets. The net profits earned by Malayan Airways over the six-year period from 1951 to 1956 alone amounts to over $6 million. Other commercial firms also made large profits over this period but many of them paid bonuses to their employees. It is well known, Sir, that employees in the rubber industry were paid large bonuses in 1951 and 1952, especially by local employers, but when the employees approached Malayan Airways in the boom years for a bonus, their employer, while agreeing that the workers should get a bonus, claimed that they were setting aside the profits for reserves to buy new aircraft and equipment. The workers accepted this explanation and have received no bonus whatsoever from the beginning of the company till now. The company has not, in fact, bought any new aircraft. The accumulated net profits are still there for reserve and now that the company is selling out, the workers feel quite justly that a small proportion of these profits, which in other commercial firms would have been distributed to the workers and which were put aside by the Malayan Airways for reserve, should be paid to them. The workers helped to make the profits. This principle of sharing a part of the profits is recognised in all good local commercial firms. A bonus of one month's salary, Sir, for one year is nothing exceptional in commercial firms. In the case of Malayan Airways, no bonus was paid to the workers on the pretext that the company would have to purchase expensive aircraft which were never, in fact, bought. Now that the franchise is coming to an end, to give 15 per cent of the accumulated profits to the workers who made the profit for the company is only fair and reasonable. Question proposed. 5.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House is divided into two parts. The first is in regard to the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees; and the second part is in connection with the claim of the local employees of the Malayan Airways Limited who are now out on strike. Sir, in regard to the first part of the motion, the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees, it has been said by the mover of the motion that it was a Conservative Party device to retain workers to remain loyal to their employers. Sir, it is the view of many trade unionists that the most important aim is to secure adequate regular wages and salaries for all workers. According to their view, profit-sharing and bonuses after the requirement of adequate wages has been met, are really matters for employers to decide. If they choose to offer bonuses as additional inducement to their workers, everyone will applaud it, though some shareholders may have reservations. Sir, the position in Singapore with regard to profit-sharing and bonuses is undoubtedly complicated by Chinese custom. The Chinese New Year bonus has become, in Chinese firms and also in many other firms, hallowed by tradition, and it is because of this tradition, and only because of this tradition, that the Government is prepared to support the first part of the motion. With regard to the second part, Sir, which refers to the claim of the local employees of the Malayan Airways Limited, since my return from London only a fortnight ago, I have endeavoured to bring about a settlement of the strike. I have met the employers five or six times, and the union representatives, Sir, also about five or six times, but in spite of all my efforts, I feel that I have to say in this Assembly that I do not see any possibility of a settlement. My frank view is that, Sir, if the workers will return to work, I will give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to secure for them a suitable token payment by the employer at the end of the franchise period. I feel, Sir, that if they would go back, it would strengthen my hand in my further discussions with the employer. I would therefore urge the hon. mover of the motion to advise the union that it is in their best interests to return to work immediately on my assurance that the Government will do everything possible to secure for their members a suitable token payment at the end of the franchise period. I have, Sir, a letter which I will be sending to the union to this effect, and I repeat again, Sir, I hope the hon. mover of the motion will advise the union accordingly. In view of what I have said, Sir, it is clear that the Government can only support the first part of the motion and cannot support the second part for the simple reason that there is a dispute on. I am not saying anything about the merits or the demerits of the strike in order to pacify feelings on either side. I feel, Sir, there is a solution to this strike, and that is for the workers to listen to my plea that they should return to work in their own interests and in the interests of the country. Sir, I therefore beg to move an amendment to the motion, To leave out all the words after the word "employees" appearing in the second line. Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

Thank you, Sir, I have already said all that I wanted to say on the subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment and reserve the right to speak at a later stage in the debate.

The original Question was, "That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees and urges Malayan Airways Limited to share 15 per cent of their accumulated net-profits with their workers at the end of their 10-year franchise." Since which an amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after the word "employees" in the second line. The Question now before the House is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 5.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly the Government and its supporters on the Opposition side of the House were only too glad to shower the fantastic sum of $23 million on prematurely retired expatriate officers. This was in recognition of the services they have rendered and would have rendered had they stayed on. In the case of the Malayan Airways Local Employees Union, the sum involved is, compared with the abolition bounty, a mere flea-bite; but I wonder how many of those who voted for the spectacular abolition bonus would have trembled at the thought of having given a mere million as goodwill bonus to local employees. We shall no doubt be told that the demand of the workers for a small share in the profits the Malayan Airways Limited has accumulated during the last six years is unreasonable and not in accordance with the commercial practice. But is the demand of the Malayan Airways workers unreasonable? Let us look at the facts. Malayan Airways is a private limited company. It has had virtual monopoly of air transportation in Malaya. It is not surprising that this lucrative monopoly should have been handed over to the British controlled firms like the Straits Steamship Company (which holds $1,500,000 of the issued capital of $2,500,000), the Ocean Steamship Company of Liverpool (which holds $545,000 worth of shares), and B.O.A.C. (which holds about $545,000). The rest is held by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and a few private individuals. Malayan Airways is a big British business and the former colonial Government was very conscious of this. Between 1947 and 1953 the Government helped these private firms with considerable subsidies. I beg to quote from the hon. mover of the original motion that the present Chief Minister should recollect the answer given to him in the old Legislative Council by the then Colonial Secretary in March 1954. This is what the Colonial Secretary then said: "Between 1947 and 1953 Government subsidy to Malayan Airways amounted to over $850,000." That was presumably goodwill payment to the shareholders of Malayan Airways. That was all right by the Government. That was sound business. That was all right because of the services which the shareholders were rendering in this country. Let us not, however, be misled into thinking that Malayan Airways was living a hand to mouth existence. Between 1951 and 1956 the net profit of the company totalled about $6 million; but even more important is this: this Company, which began with a share capital of only $2,500,000, has, on the basis of its old conservative estimate, exceeded three times the value of its original share capital. It is a debatable point, Sir, whether the shareholders of the Straits Steamship Company, the Ocean Steamship Company of Liverpool, and the shareholders of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation contributed anything by way of labour and skill to treble the assets of Malayan Airways. But what cannot be doubted are the decisive contributions made by the employees of Malayan Airways towards increasing the assets of the company; and what is not in doubt also is the fact that Malayan Airways has made profits which during the last six years it never once shared with its employees. At least many other private firms in the colony have shared their good fortune with their employees by way of a yearly bonus; but not Malayan Airways - a private company enjoying not only the monopoly protection from the Government but even subsidies. But now the company is to sell out its shareholdings at its present enhanced value. The workers are naturally resentful that only the shareholders of the Straits Steamship and their friends should share out among themselves the $3 they would get for every dollar they invested, this in addition to the dividends they have got so far. In other words, Sir, not only will the shareholders get back their $2,500,000 capital and enjoy dividends during the last six years, but they will, when they sell out, have a million more as profit from the sale. All that the Malayan Airways employees are asking is that a small part of this profit from the sale should be siphoned off to them. After all, it was their efforts and skill and not those of the shareholders which increased the value of the company. All that the workers are asking, Sir, is for a small share of what would have got into one of the small side-pockets of the British capitalist company. 5.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not actually oppose the motion, as amended, if the granting of bonuses by employers to their employees means profit sharing

Order. The motion has not been amended at the moment. We are still dealing with the amendment.

Sir, I am speaking on the amendment.

I understood the hon. Member to say "the motion, as amended". It is really the amendment.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I cannot agree that the question of entitlement arises. I do not deny that profit sharing may exist in other countries on a mutually agreed basis between employer and employee but not as an accepted practice, which seems to be what many local employees want. Sir, local companies have come under a great deal of fire from politicians recently and I think I will take this opportunity of saying something in their defence. They are singled out for dishonourable mention because of their splendid profits. I say "splendid profits" because I do not think it is possible to make excessive profits except when monopolies exist.

This is a monopoly.

But what on earth can be wrong with making good profits? It is what the companies are in business for and most of them have very little to feel ashamed of in their records. Indeed many of them can be very proud of the balance sheets they present, revealing, as they do to the initiated, a record of good management and stewardship. If they were bad employers, there might be some cause for complaint, but they are not. Many of them are, in fact, model employers.

Order. Perhaps I did not make myself very clear. We are now on an amendment which urges that the following lines in the motion be left out: "and urges Malayan Airways Limited to share 15 per cent of their accumulated net-profits with their workers at the end of their 10-year franchise". We are now concerned merely with Malayan Airways Limited. It appears to me that the hon. Member is probably speaking on the general principle of profit sharing.

I am afraid I was, Sir. It is my fault.

The hon. Member will have an opportunity later on to speak on the general principle of profit sharing.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am disappointed to see that in a House of 25 elected representatives, other than two P.A.P. Members, one Independent and the Chief Minister who cannot escape from having to speak, no stalwart representative of the people has had the courage to declare his stand. When I started speaking on this motion, I had every intention of pitching my speech in a moderate tone. I did not wish to embarrass the Government because the Government may have certain intentions as to the franchise it will grant after this one expires. I did not wish unduly to give grounds for criticism that, on an occasion like this, I took the opportunity to slosh up European capital in general. But I am disappointed that when this Assembly is asked to express its opinion as to what a company should do with regard to its employees on accumulated profits, it should have nothing to say, though in the past the Legislative Council thought fit to give $850,000 of the people's money to Malayan Airways Limited. We all like foreign capital provided it is fair and just. It has not been fair and just. In this particular case it has been very unfair and very unjust. The risk of loss was minimised to the barest minimum-

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this motion because, whilst my friend the hon. and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar was away on his Christmas holidays, I had the privilege of acting for the union in its efforts to obtain a settlement of its claims, and I felt that to speak would be to speak with bias from their point of view, since it is their point of view which I had studied. That Sir, is the misfortune of the second part of the motion before this House, that it seeks to bring before this House a matter in dispute at the moment and seeks to bring it from one point of view only. There is my friend from Tanjong Pagar who is the legal adviser of the union who can speak and speak well on their behalf; but there is nobody to meet the other side if the other side, in fact, has any reasonable defence, which is not admitted. But it is unfortunate, Sir, that this type of motion should be brought and this Assembly be made the forum for discussion of disputes current outside this Chamber and thereby biasing their proper negotiation procedure. But whilst I understand, sympathise and support the attitude adopted by the Government from the point of view that it cannot accept a motion which interferes with the normal procedure for negotiation and which seeks to bias negotiation, I would like to say for myself that I find myself in complete sympathy with the second part of the motion moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Malayan Airways has had a monopoly. I believe the monopoly was an illegal monopoly - the point is not now in issue. It has had it and although we were very near to challenging the monopoly in the court, unfortunately that challenge was not pursued. But the important thing to recognise is that when a government grants a monopoly, whether legal or otherwise, and when a company receives a franchise for monopolistic services, the emphasis is on service to the people of the country. Now in fairness to Malayan Airways it has given service to Malaya a hundred per cent free from any accident. That is a magnificent record. But the service has not been efficient from the point of view of the excessive fares they charge and which they could extract, because they are a monopoly. The service has not been efficient from the point of view of excessive profits - repeat, excessive profits - that they make, and their service is not efficient in that, having made these fantastic profits over the years, they do not see fit to give a portion thereof to the people who work for them. Sir, socialism, of which I am not a pandit but which I seek to understand, as a basic philosophy tries to obtain a minimum adequate for the decent livelihood of a human being and compatible with the fact that he is a human being. The emphasis is always on salaries and conditions of service. Bonus as such does not come in, but it has been recognised over the years that where an employer has more than a modest profit, it is only right and proper, as an encouragement, as an inducement, and also as part of its humanitarian duty to its employees, to share those profits. But the conduct of Malayan Airways is inhuman. They are gorged and bloated with profits year by year and they cannot and will not pay just that little which even commercial companies, with commercial morality (or immorality) in this territory pay - even banks have the decency to pay bonuses to their staffs. Why should Malayan Airways, with a monopoly granted by the people of this country, be permitted to act as Scrooge? Why should Malayan Airways seek to refuse what is a moral obligation now recognised by every decent company in this country? Year after year it makes profits. Not one year does it give just one month's salary which every reasonable employer has learnt is traditional and fair in the treatment of its employees. I would like to say, Sir, that though I support this amendment, I support it with a heavy heart on the basis of the principle that motions of this character should not be brought to the House in order to bias proper negotiating machinery, but my whole sympathy is with the Malayan Airways employees - and may they win! 6.03 p.m.

Sir, before I speak on this amendment, I wish to answer the remark made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that he was ashamed to observe that only his P.A.P. clique had dared to touch on this controversial issue and champion it. I wish to point out, Sir, that while the Member was moving his motion, I was not here because I had a very urgent appointment elsewhere, but I tried to rush back in time to speak on this debate. Sir, I take a keen interest in this issue because I fight for the principle of the thing. The Chief Minister has divided the motion into two parts -

Order. It appears to me that the hon. Member is speaking on the general principle, but at the moment we are debating whether Malayan Airways Limited should be urged to share 15 per cent of their accumulated net profits. If the hon. Member will speak about that, he will be in order.

Sir, actually I wish to oppose the amendment and I will say why I oppose it. As I have said, Sir, the Chief Minister has divided the motion into two parts - that I fully agree. The Chief Minister is quite contented with the first part and maybe it can win the approval of this House, even of the Opposition. But, Sir, I think it is wrong in that the Government has no courage to comment on this issue, whether it is right or wrong. The principle of profit sharing between employer and employee, according to the main speaker, derives from a Chinese tradition -

Order. I think if the hon. Member will assume that the principle is accepted, then we can go a little faster. He can assume for the moment that the principle has been accepted and debate the second part of the motion, namely: "That this House urges Malayan Airways Limited to share 15 per cent of their accumulated net-profits with their workers at the end of their 10-year franchise."

I will make it short, Sir. I am sure the House agrees with the principle of profit sharing between employer and employee. The various Parties in this House have put this in their programme. So to me it seems rather silly and a waste of time to debate this. To the people of Singapore, this makes no sense at all. By tradition, the employer shares his profits with his employees. Sir, I oppose this amendment because I do not think this is the right time to introduce it. If this House has no power to compel an employer to share his profit with his employees, what is the use of our coming to this Chamber and debating this issue? It is a waste of time. Sir, I think the mover of the amendment has not the courage to face the issue. I also fully agree with the Member for Cairnhill that an issue like this should not be debated in this Assembly but should be debated at a public forum. The passing of this motion in this Assembly does not carry any weight at all at the present time, even the passing of the amendment supporting the principle of profit sharing between the employer and the employee, is it doing any good at all?

Order. I must rule the hon. Member completely out of order. If he wishes to speak on the principle, he will have to wait until we have disposed of the amendment. The amendment is merely to leave out the words relating to Malayan Airways Limited sharing 15 per cent of their profits.

I am sorry, Sir. In conclusion, I would like to say that I oppose the amendment because it is at present impracticable. 6.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore today we are all agreed I think, that profit-sharing is recognised as being right. We will examine how companies share their profits in Singapore. I will quote cases which I know are prevailing in Singapore

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the hon. Member speaking on the amendment?

I take it the hon. Member is going to relate profit-sharing in other companies with Malayan Airways.

Absolutely, Sir. I was saying just now, Sir, that in Singapore we have profit-sharing. Let us take Market Street, as an example. There a large number of companies are run by Hokkiens. They put in capital and they manage the business. Every year they find out how much net profit they make and they usually divide it up this way: 80 per cent of the profit will go to those who invest in the business. 10 per cent of the profit goes to the managerial staff, and the balance of 10 per cent to the labour force. Then along Circular Road and the New Bridge Road area, every year they allow at least one or two shares out of 12 shares of the profit to be given to the employees. In other areas in Singapore the percentage ranges from 5 per cent to 25 per cent. As a matter of fact, Sir, even if a company makes no profit at all and, in fact, is running at a loss, that company will still have to give a little bonus in the form of angpows. Sir, this has been the practice in the East for a very long time. However, with European firms they prefer to calculate it on a salary basis. Many companies give their employees one month's salary as a bonus. Other companies are more generous. I have heard one or two companies have given their employees something like six months' salary as bonus. In all these cases, Sir, the bonus is not given at a fixed rate. A bonus is a matter between the employer and the employee. There is a dispute today. I think Malayan Airways are morally bound to give their employees a bonus. How much it should be, I am not prepared to say. If they are not generous, they will, I suppose, earn a not so good name as an employer, if they are more generous, the employees will be more grateful and will co-operate with them more. But for us to prejudice the case and say that they should only give 15 per cent and not 20 per cent or 25 per cent or even 10 per cent - that, I think, is wrong.

Make it more if you like.

I suggest that the employer and the employees should come together. A bonus must be given, but how much we will not say because we do not wish to prejudice the dispute. 6.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister. He has ably explained that, by tradition, the companies do give bonuses and we agree with him on that. Then, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill rightly pointed out that this type of motion should not be brought before this House. The reason is this: how can we, without knowing the facts advanced by both sides, pass a motion that so much should be paid to so and so? It is impossible for us to pass judgment. We are in sympathy with the employees of Malayan Airways and I am glad to note that the Chief Minister has given an assurance that he will try to settle the dispute amicably. Sir, the leader of the P.A.P. always quotes India. I wonder whether he follows what is going on in India. What I know is that he constantly quotes India. One Indian company works on the basis of sharing profits between the employer and the employee. Does the hon. Member know that this is done voluntarily and not as a result of legislation? India is advancing towards socialism and doing it in a very liberal manner

That is why you are a Liberal-Socialist!

Exactly! India is not forcing the issue but doing it in a way which suits the country, and she is not doing it by legislation or making empty speeches. So let me point out to the Member for Tanjong Pagar that he should follow the Indian example which he is always quoting. 6.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise also to support the amendment to the original motion on the question of principle. It is not within the province of this Assembly to interfere with any dispute that is going on in Singapore between the employer and the employee

But we can give $850,000 away.

It is not within our province to put pressure on any party to a dispute, be it in favour of the employer or the employee. When a dispute arises and negotiations are going on, we here in this Assembly can only svmpathise and I think in this case all of us are in great sympathy with the employees of the Malayan Airways, but

Say so.

I do say so, but it is another proposition altogether for us to approve a motion to request Malayan Airways to come to a settlement with its employees, particularly, as the Member for Telok Ayer has pointed out, we have only heard one side of the story. 6.21 p.m.

By way of explanation, Sir. I know I have no right to reply on an amendment, but by way of explanation, I should like to say this. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has asked me whether I meant what I said, Sir. I always mean what I say in this august gathering, and I repeat what I said: if the workers will return to work immediately, I will do everything possible to see to it that they get a suitable token payment at the end of the franchise.

On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir. From the Chief Minister's statement, Sir. Why must the Chief Minister wait until the workers go back to work before he can settle this dispute?

Sir, in moving my amendment to the motion earlier on, I said that I had met the employers five times and the workers' representatives also five times, and I feel that if I keep on meeting them again, there could be no possible solution. I said my frank view was that if the workers would return to work immediately, I think I could do something.

Stop the franchise. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir.

Clear the Lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 4; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat Ahmad bin Ibrahim Butterfield, C. H. Goh Chew Chua Chew Swee Kee Lee Kuan Yew Goh Tong Liang Lim Cher Kheng Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Abstentions Jumabhoy, J. M. Jumabhoy, R. Nil Lim Choon Mong Lim, R. C. H. Absent Lim Koon Teck Lim Yew Hock Braga, A. J. Mak Pak Shee Ede, John Marshall, D. S. Lazarous, A. R. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid Lee Choon Eng Tan Theng Chiang Lim Ching Siong Tan, William Nair, M. P. D. Thomas, Francis Ong Piah Teng Wong Foo Nam Seah Peng Chuan Sutherland, G. A. P. Question on the amendment accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, proposed, "That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees." 6.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before this House went into a division just now, I really believed in the sincerity of the mover of the motion in that he was acting in the interests of the people, especially for the workers. But, Sir, the motion seems to me now to be a Party issue. The mover of the motion has an eye on the 600 votes, because I see the Malayan Airways union leaders are present in the gallery now. Opportunist leaders speak in this House on issues in order to win the support of the people, but I feel I must discharge my duty to the people and say this. When the debate was going on just now, I thought that the whole thing was a farce, that all this debate was just a waste of time. Although the motion says that this House urges the Malayan Airways to give 15 per cent of their accumulated profits-

Order. We have finished with Malayan Airways Limited, and are now on the principle of profit sharing. If the hon. Member agrees with this, he can say that he does. If he does not agree, he can speak against the principle.

Sir, I am against the principle of sharing profits during this transitional period. We are still under the Crown and this is still the Colony of Singapore. Sir, the Chief Minister said not so long ago that we are going to fight for merdeka, a merdeka which is only for self-government and not even independence. The fight for merdeka has come to the stage

Order. The Question now before the House is, "That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees." Will the hon. Member confine himself to that?

I am sorry, Sir. But the principle is still there. We have not yet come to the stage where we can frame policy and compel employers to share their profits with their employees. Although I support the principle of this motion - the first part and the second part - wholeheartedly. I think that it is introduced at the wrong time and not in the right way. The motive of the mover of the motion is not truly fighting for the interests of the people. It is to seek the 600 votes from-

Order. That, of course, is imputing an improper motive to a Member of this House. It is completely out of order.

I am so sorry, Sir. Can I say his Party then? The Party which seeks to move this motion is not sincerely seeking a solution to this controversy between Malayan Airways and their employees. I say this is not the right time. For example, I know a legal firm called Lee and Lee and I wonder whether the proprietors of this company are sharing their profits with their employees at this time. I think the principle of profit sharing at the moment is out of place, Sir. Sir, to me the point at issue is whether Malayan Airways has been given a monopoly

Order. If the hon. Member does not keep in order, I will have to request him to stop.

Sir, in view of the many difficulties crossing my path, I will not say more. However, I give my sympathy to the workers of Malayan Airways. I support the actual intention of the motion, but because of the motive behind this motion and in view of the present situation. I beg to oppose the motion. 6.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the speech by the Member for Changi, I must confess I do not know whether I am sitting or standing! I cannot understand why he is now opposing this motion, even on principle. One thing I do agree with him, however, is that the original motion as framed by the leader of the P.A.P. does appear to be meant as a vote-catching stunt.

Order. I have ruled that out already.

I apologise, Sir. I do confess that I have been confused by the Member for Changi. By supporting the motion as it stands now after it has been amended, however - "That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees" - we are, in fact, supporting the claims of the employees of Malayan Airways, and definitely all Members here, by expressing their approval and voting for this motion, are in fact telling all employers in Singapore that they approve their generosity towards their employees. After all. Sir, profit-sharing is actually a bonus and is something that has to be given freely, to be given as an inducement for the employee to give better service, and it must be left to the employer to judge at the end of the year the performance of his employee and how much he has contributed towards the success of the business in making profit for that year. To attempt to legislate for any profit-sharing between employer and employee would be a very wrong move and I am quite sure it would frighten away capital from this already frightened country. I therefore, Sir, have pleasure in supporting the motion as amended and I am quite sure that, by supporting the motion, this House will go very far towards helping in a settlement of this unhappy dispute. 6.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the amendment was proposed. I was surprised to hear from the leader of the P.A.P. that the Liberal-Socialists did not support the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employee. Sir, I think the hon. Member knows full well that one of the platforms of our Party is that there should be profit-sharing between employer and employee. But I am a little surprised to hear that the P.A.P. is adopting this attitude, because their attitude, I think, was "Down with capital!" and anything that has to do with capital must be destroyed. This, I think, is a change for the better and I congratulate the P.A.P. for coming round to this moderate line which we have been taking. On the question of profit-sharing, I think it is important for all employers to realise that, in order to make greater profits, there must be greater goodwill towards their employees, because then the employees will respond favourably towards such treatment, work harder and make more profit for the employers. If employers try to be stingy and grudge a fair share of their profit for the employees, then they will be faced with such things as go-slow tactics, and finally, a strike which will bring no benefit to either party whatsoever. Employers giving a share of their profits as an incentive to their employees, employees working harder for their employers - all this will create a much better situation. This motion, I think, deserves the support of every right-thinking person and we support it, as amended, unreservedly. Main Question, as amended, "That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House supports the principle of profit-sharing between employer and employees.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 6.41 p.m.