Hansard, 1957-12-04

Mr Stanley Toft Stewart, Chief Secretary (Acting), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance. Mr Alfred Victor Winslow, Attorney-General (Acting), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor, informing me that His Excellency had, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, on the days stated assented to the following Bills:- 23rd November, 1957: (i) City Council Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill; (ii) Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Local Government (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill; (v) Tan Tock Seng's Hospital (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Customs (Amendment) Bill; (vii) Mental Disorders and Treatment (Amendment) Bill. 27th November, 1957: Education Bill.

asked the Chief Minister to indicate whether and when the Report of the Inquiry Commission into Allegations of Corruption under the chairmanship of the Honourable Mr Justice F. A. Chua will be presented to this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report is at present under consideration by the Government and will be presented to this House when the consideration has been finalised.

asked the Chief Minister when the Government proposes to present to this House the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Corruption.

Sir, the answer is the same as that to Question 1.

There is no objection, of course, to Ministers answering two questions at the same time.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether the Clerks Employment Ordinance (No. 14 of 1957) is also observed by the Armed Services in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since May 1957 the matter of preparing a declaration to be made by the Governor under section 2 of the Ordinance, to the effect that clerks and industrial clerks employed by the Armed Services in Singapore are clerks for the purposes of this Ordinance, has been under consideration. When the task of classifying clerical workers in these Services is completed, such a declaration will be made and the Armed Services can then be said to be observing the provisions of the Ordinance in all respects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister care to let this House know when that will take effect?

Sir, the Labour Department has requested the Service Departments to have discussions with the Unions as to the classification of clerical workers in these Service Departments, and as soon as the discussions have been completed, a declaration will be made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister inform us as to the work of the Tripartite Consultative Committee meetings on matters concerning Services employees?

Sir, this is not a matter for the Tripartite Consultative Committee. It is a matter for discussion between the employers and the employee organisations concerned.

asked the Chief Secretary what right the Government has in preventing the following persons now under detention at Changi Prison under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, namely, the Member for Bukit Timah, Messrs. Devan Nair, Fong Swee Suan and James Puthucheary, from seeing their solicitor.

Sir, section 3, subsection (3) of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (No. 25 of 1955) provides that every person detained in pursuance of an order made under the provisions of subsection (1) of that section shall be detained in such place as the Chief Secretary may direct and in accordance with instructions issued by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary allows detainees to interview their legal advisers if he is satisfied that the interview is sought solely for the purpose of obtaining professional legal advice on purely legal matters. It follows that detainees are not allowed to see their legal advisers if the Chief Secretary is not so satisfied. No exception to this rule has been made in the case of the detainees mentioned in the question.

Sir, is the Hon. the Chief Secretary seriously suggesting that he must first satisfy himself what is in the mind of the detainee when he wants to see a solicitor?

Sir, the Chief Secretary has a discretion to allow visits by people to detainees, and previous experience has shown that political discussions took place on some such visits.

Does the Chief Secretary not recognise the fact that under the present law in this Colony, every citizen has an inalienable right to seek legal advice and assistance from an advocate and solicitor of the Colony?

That is agreed, Sir. We have not denied that right. Detainees can see their solicitors if the Chief Secretary is satisfied.

Why was the Chief Secretary not satisfied in these cases?

That is a matter of opinion.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government has intercepted and detained a letter written by Messrs. Devan Nair, Fong Swee Suan, James Puthucheary, S. Woodhull and Chan Chiaw Thor addressed to their solicitor.

Sir, the answer is yes. In fact, there were two such letters written by the five persons named, namely, one written by the five persons named, on 11th September, 1957, which was detained pending the receipt of certain information which they were asked to furnish; and the other written by the same five persons named and by another detainee named Tan Boon Eng, on 9th September, 1957, which was detained because the letter asked for advice on matters which had no legal significance but which were political. As I said just now, Sir, about political discussions in answer to the previous question, in this latter connection, it is considered that political detainees should not be allowed to indulge in politics while still under detention.

Does the Hon. the Chief Secretary not recognise the fact that they are detained for political reasons and the whole issue is political; and that naturally what they have to communicate with their solicitor must pertain to these political matters?

We cannot have a debate.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by voluntary organisations in obtaining application forms for Singapore citizenship registration, and whether he will make a statement.

Sir, I am aware of the problems in conciliating the many claims of voluntary organisations who naturally are anxious that they should have application forms as early as possible in order to satisfy the demands of their members and the public. We have, however, to make sure that the voluntary organisations which have appointments with visiting teams do in fact produce the required number of applicants on the due dates. However, I would like to point out that 441,835 application forms have already been issued up to 2nd December, 1957. A sufficient supply of forms will continue to be issued daily to individuals, both by the registration teams and by the Central Registry to voluntary organisations which have appointments for visiting teams.

Will the Hon. the Chief Secretary allow voluntary organisations to print their own forms in case they do not get enough from the Government?

No, Sir.

Sir, does the Hon. the Chief Secretary suggest that it is necessary to book a date for the registration of applicants and that forms can only be supplied if such dates are booked?

Sir, the question is not very clear.

I shall repeat that, Sir: does the Chief Secretary suggest that it is necessary for voluntary organisations to book a date for taking the oaths of applicants, and, if not, that application forms will not be supplied to such voluntary organisations?

Sir, I have already said that voluntary organisations will be given forms whenever they ask for them, but we have to see that the number of forms given will be sufficient, and in fact is sufficient, to cover the number of people whom they can produce for registration.

Sir, can the Chief Secretary tell us whether voluntary organisations can help and assist the public in the filling of application forms only, and if so why are not these forms issued to voluntary organisations?

Sir, application forms are issued to voluntary organisations.

asked the Chief Secretary to state (a) how many registration teams are employed by the Singapore Citizenship Registry to cover the whole Island of Singapore; (b) the maximum number of persons, that could be registered daily by each team; and (c) the total number of persons ah ready registered up to 30th November, 1957.

Sir, registration started with 15 teams while during the month of November other teams were recruited and put under training. There are now 23 teams in operation. With regard to the question in (b), Sir, the maximum number is not known. The estimated minimum number of applicants who could be registered by a team is 170 per day. The maximum is dependent on variable conditions. Sir, the total number of persons already registered at 30th November,. 1957, is 89,568.

Sir, can the Hon. the Chief Secretary assure this House that by the target date of 31st January, all registration will be completed and all persons who are desirous of becoming Singapore citizens have been registered by that time?

Sir, we are working to achieve that aim.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that photographs of the Chief Minister have been displayed at (a) Hokkien Hoay Kuan, Telok Ayer Street, (b) Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Hill Street, (c) Queenstown Community Association, Princess House, Queenstown, by Registration Teams of the Singapore Citizenship Registry in front of applicants for registration as citizens and on tables at or near which such applicants are required to take their oaths, and whether he will state on whose authority the photographs have been so displayed and the reasons for such display.

Yes, Sir. The photographs of the Hon. the Chief Minister are displayed as he is the head of the elected Government. I hasten to assure the hon. Member that there is no sinister intention or Party propaganda in this display. This was a routine matter carried out by the Singapore Citizenship Registry and if anyone wishes to criticise the action taken, I am responsible as the Minister in charge of citizenship registration.

Sir, is the Hon, the Chief Secretary suggesting that it is right on the part of the Government to place the photographs of a head of state, who is only an elected Chief Minister, in front of such registration teams?

That is a matter of opinion.

asked the Chief Secretary what steps have been taken to apply the provisions of subsection (1) of section 8 of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957, to citizens of Commonwealth countries and, in particular, to state whether Commonwealth Governments have been informed of the provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance and whether negotiations have been opened with Commonwealth Governments in regard to reciprocal facilities.

Sir, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 8 of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957, have not yet been applied to any Commonwealth country. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has been approached to provide such information regarding reciprocity, particularly in regard to the acquisition of citizenship and the right to vote, as will assist the Minister to consider whether or not, either now or when the British Nationality Act, 1948, is amended, to give a direction in respect of the various Commonwealth countries whose citizens reside in Singapore. So far this matter of reciprocity has been taken up officially with this Government by the Government of India. An enquiry with regard to this matter has also just been made by the Assistant Commissioner for Ceylon.

asked the Chief Secretary, in view of the special press release issued by the Information Service of India on the 23rd November, 1957, wherein it was stated that the Government of India had given an assurance that reciprocal facilities will be granted to Singapore citizens to acquire Indian citizenship, whether it is intended to direct that subsection (1) of section 8 of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance 1957 should apply to a citizen of the Republic of India.

Sir, the answer is yes. The Hon. the Chief Minister will be making a statement in the Assembly today.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, with reference to paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Final Report from the Public Accounts Committee (Sessional Paper No. L.A. 14 of 1957), if he will state (i) what action has been taken to collect arrears of Rural Board revenue; (ii) at what figure the present arrears of rates now stand; (iii) how many properties have been assessed or re-assessed since the publication of the Report, and (iv) when can the rates and assessment rolls be expected to be brought up-to-date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Member for Tanglin is aware, the difficulties in collecting arrears of assessment amounting at the end of 1956 to $1,500,000, in bringing the rates and assessment rolls up-to-date and in carrying out re-assessment in the rural areas, may be attributed largely to inadequacy of staff. On the first question regarding the collection of arrears of revenue, additional staff for this purpose has now been recruited by the appointment of one bailiff in July, two in August, two this month, while another two bailiffs are expected to be recruited shortly. The Rural Board has commenced the issue of bills to house owners who are in arrears. These bills will be followed by notices of demand and, where necessary, by warrants of attachment later. (ii) The figure of arrears as at 31st December, 1956, is $1,514,518. A total of $720,000 has now been collected, leaving a balance of approximately $800,000 in arrears. (iii) With regard to assessment and re-assessment of properties, this work has been carried out by rates officers and assistant rates officers. An additional four assistant rates officers have been recruited since August and there remains one vacancy of rates officer to be filled. The newly recruited assistant rates officers have been undergoing training and two have since started on full duties, and it is expected that the rest will be in the field by January. They will be working to a prepared programme. In the meanwhile, 1,183 houses and 54 land lots have been assessed or re-assessed by the old staff, with an increase in annual values of $811,848, or an increase in rates revenue of $159,450. (iv) In view of the difficulties already described, it is expected that another two years will be required before the rates and assessment rolls can be put up-to-date and the revaluation of all lands and properties made throughout the whole area.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will consider relaxing the restriction on learner drivers driving a vehicle other than a motor cycle within the City limits on any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or gazetted public holiday, from 8 a.m. to 9.30 a.m., 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., and 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., in respect of those roads within the City limits which do not carry heavy traffic during those hours.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will consider lifting the restriction on hours and areas for learner drivers of cars in view of the difficulties experienced by working people of receiving adequate instruction during daylight hours.

No, Sir, I will not. The problems of traffic congestion in the city are increasing daily in severity and I will not do anything which adds to them. Sir, this also answers Question 13.

Sir, is the Hon. Minister suggesting that Holland Road, which is within the City, is considered to be congested with traffic as well compared with streets in the heart of the City.

Is not that a matter of opinion, Mr Minister?

I think so, Sir.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will consider lifting the recent imposition of an increased licence fee on vehicles used for teaching learner drivers.

No, Sir. The higher licence fee was imposed after long and careful consideration by both the City Council and the Government.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will relax the rule that only an official tester can accompany a learner driver in the vehicle whilst on test and re-introduce the former practice of allowing the instructor of the learner driver also to be present.

No, Sir. This rule is designed to avoid situations arising during official tests which experience has shown to be undesirable or even dangerous.

Sir, can the Hon. Minister tell this House how would an instructor be able to know the faults of his learner unless he is allowed to accompany the learner whilst out on test?

As an instructor myself I learn the faults of my pupils when I am instructing them.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he is aware that the Singapore Chinese Seafarers' Association is dissatisfied that none of the members of the Seamen's Registry Board can adequately represent the interest of the members of that Association; and what action does he propose to take in this matter.

It is not the intention of the Ordinance that the special interests of any particular association of seamen should be represented on the Seamen's Registry Board. Section 3 (2) (c) of the Ordinance only provides for the appointment of three persons representing seamen on the Board. Suggestions of names for the appointment of persons representing all seamen on the Board were submitted to me by the Seamen's Council of Action on which the Chinese Seafarers' Association is represented.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry to what extent the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Port of Singapore (Sessional Paper No. S 10 of 1957); and whether he will make a statement on the Government's intentions regarding their implementation.

The Report, Sir, is still under consideration by Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister aware that the Government is taking longer time to consider the recommendations than the Commission took to make them?

I am aware of no such thing, Sir.

10.21 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as indicated by my colleague, the Hon, the Chief Secretary, in his reply to Question 10, I rise to make a statement in connection with the citizens of India vis-a-vis subsection (2) of section 8 of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. When the initial registration of citizens under Part VI of the Ordinance was opened on 1st November, no Commonwealth country had been gazetted so as to allow its citizens to make application under subsection (1) of section 8 of the Ordinance. This was not done as this particular subsection is meant to apply only to Commonwealth countries that afford reciprocal rights to citizens of Singapore. The Commissioner for the Government of India came to see me before I left for New Delhi and brought up the question of gazetting India as a Commonwealth country so that Indian citizens in Singapore could make application under subsection (1) of section 8 of the Ordinance. I pointed out to him that it was not possible to do so unless the Government of India afforded reciprocal rights to citizens of Singapore. I also pointed out to him that citizens of India were not deprived of their rights to register as citizens of Singapore, and that they could become citizens of Singapore by either registering as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and then register under subsection (1) of section 8 of the Ordinance, or register under section 9 of the Ordinance. I went on to say that if the Government were to receive from his Government a declaration to the effect that reciprocal rights would be afforded to citizens of Singapore, the Government would give favourable consideration to gazetting India as a Commonwealth country. When I was in New Delhi last month, Sir, I had a discussion with the Prime Minister of India, Mr Nehru, as a result of which the Government has now received a communication from the Commissioner for the Government of India stating that the Government of India would take action to afford reciprocal facilities to citizens of Singapore. The Government has considered this communication and has decided to gazette India as a Commonwealth country under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Ordinance. I must, Sir, however, point out that there is no true reciprocity, as while the Government of India has the discretion to accept an application by a citizen of Singapore for registration as a citizen of India, the Minister under section 8 of our Ordinance will have no discretion in respect of an application by citizens of India for registration as a citizen of Singapore. In spite of this we are taking this step and making it easy for citizens of India to register as citizens of Singapore in recognition of the role of the Indian community as an integral part of our society. It will be clear from our action, Sir, that the Government will give favourable consideration to gazetting any Commonwealth country which grants reciprocal rights to our citizens.

10.27 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in outlining the Singapore Government's policy for the promotion. encouragement and development of local industries, I said to hon. Members in this House on 7th November last year that Government intended that a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets should be carried out and that for this purpose enquiries were being made in order to obtain the services of an expert to undertake such a survey. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the Government of Canada has agreed to make available to us for this purpose the services of Colonel Lyle under the Colombo Plan in order to advise the Singapore Government generally on industrial development policy and to make recommendations for its implementation. Colonel Lyle has held very senior positions in industrial development work in Canada and in England, and has had wide experience in carrying out area development programmes which are generally considered to be the most practical and businesslike approach to handling problems connected with industrial development. In 1956 Colonel Lyle was the first recipient of the Canadian Industrial Development Award, an award made annually to a Canadian who, in the opinion of the Canadian Board of Award, has made the most significant contribution to the industrial development of Canada in the public interest. Colonel Lyle is expected to arrive in Malaya in February next year.

10.30 a.m.

Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance for making provision for estimated financial requirements for expenditure out of the revenues and other funds of the Colony for the year 1958." Bill presented and read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Are printed copies of the Bill and the Estimates available for the use of Members?

Copies have been handed to the Clerk, Sir, for prior circulation to Members. There are also copies available on the Table for Members who have not brought their copies.

Please proceed.

Sir, I have to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, it is customary, before presenting the Budget for any particular year, to review the events of the preceding year, in so far as they affect the financial and economic position of the Colony, and to give some idea of how the estimates of revenue and expenditure are likely to be fulfilled. 1957 has been a year of great-

Order. It is, I think, necessary for the Governor's recommendation or consent to be signified.

I beg your pardon, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move the Second Reading.

Please proceed.

As I was saying, Sir, 1957 has been a year of great significance in Singapore. Constitutional problems have been settled in an atmosphere of reason and friendliness which augurs well for the future. The Singapore Citizenship Ordinance has become law. The new Local Government Ordinance has been approved. An excellent understanding has been established with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. In the field of labour relations, there has been less tension between employer and employee, and labour disputes, strikes and consequential losses of pay and working time have been far less frequent than in the recent past. With the help and co-operation of all political Parties, great progress has been made towards settling the vexed question of vernacular education, although we must face, in consequence, a much heavier bill to carry the new policy into effect. A cautious and common sense approach to problems in the economic field has commended itself to observers all over the world. Most important of all, however, there has been a return of confidence in the future of Singapore. It would be idle to deny that the events of 1955 and early 1956 did much to destroy the feeling of stability, security and confidence which is vital for the existence of Singapore as a centre of world trade, services and communications. It is important that this growth of confidence should be maintained. Not the least important event of the year has been the achievement of independence by the Federation of Malaya. This has caused as much pleasure in Singapore as it has happiness in the Federation. It has, of course, given rise to certain problems. It has necessitated an examination of existing Pan-Malayan arrangements in the economic and monetary field against the background of the Federation's new status as an independent state. Existing arrangements for the issue and control of currency, banking, foreign exchange control, import and export control and certain aspects of fiscal policy, all of which raise most important issues, have had to come under review. It would be inappropriate to deal with these matters in detail at this particular time. They are, as it were, sub judice and must be studied against the background of the very natural wishes of a sovereign state to exercise sovereign powers. At the same time, while underlining this Government's sympathy with these feelings and aspirations, I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I express some general thoughts about these matters. For close on a hundred years, Malaya and Singapore have developed and grown up in partnership. As the production of rubber and tin has expanded in Malaya, so have the services supplied by Singapore in the field of marketing, banking, insurance, transport and communications increased. As the demands of the growing population of Malaya for consumer goods have multiplied, so has the capacity of Singapore to meet them quickly and competitively grown. During this period, the ramifications of commerce and industry have spread over the whole peninsula regardless of geographical or constitutional boundaries. The economies of the two territories have become complementary. Common policies have been followed not because they have been dictated but merely because reason, experience and commonsense has indicated the desirability and wisdom of a common approach in the economic field. The results of this partnership have been quite outstanding. By their joint efforts, the two countries have achieved a well-being and prosperity which is the envy of all their neighbours. With regard to the future, reason, experience and common sense suggest that this partnership should be continued if the two countries are to gain the maximum advantage in the economic field, and to develop and prosper in the manner in which they have done in the past. When I speak of partnership I am not talking in constitutional terms but merely in terms of full economic co-operation. I mean a free association of two partners whereby their individual resources and skills are used jointly for their mutual advantage in matters of mutual concern. There need be nothing hard or fast about such an association. It need subsist just as long as mutual self-interest demands. It calls for no more machinery for consultation and agreement on matters of policy than exists at the present time. It would be hoped that it would continue for as long as the two territories remain apart because it seems certain that any relationship short of such a partnership could only be to the disadvantage and detriment of both. As far as trade generally is concerned, 1957 has perhaps not been quite as good a year as 1956 although it has not been a bad year by any means. The value of total trade is likely to be maintained but imports tend to exceed exports and it is probable that there will be a fairly substantial adverse balance of trade at the end of the year. The gradual decline in the price of rubber has already had an effect on the economy and traders are finding it difficult to maintain their turnover. On the other hand, there are one or two encouraging features. Despite a deterioration in conditions in Indonesia, there has been some slight improvement in trade with that country. Exports to Indonesia in particular are showing an increase over previous years. As one would expect against this background of returning confidence and prosperity, revenue has remained reasonably buoyant. Details of the revised estimate of collections are given in the pages of the Draft Estimates which are devoted to revenue and comments are made in the Memorandum which accompanies the Draft Estimates. I will not go into great detail at this time but merely endeavour to draw attention to main points. The original estimate of revenue was $235.9 million and it seems likely that $235.7 million will be collected. The revised estimate of collections under Class I is $186.9 million compared with the original estimate of $193 million. The main shortfall is under Income Tax. $68.5 million was estimated but only $65 million is likely to be collected. This shortfall reflects a slight falling off in the profits of smaller companies in 1956 as compared with 1955. It also reflects the effects of Malayanisation in the Department of Income Tax. A number of experienced income tax officers have left and their places have not yet been filled by officers with the same degree of experience. As a result, there has been a slight slowing up in the work of the department, and assessments have fallen slightly into arrears. This decrease in efficiency will only be temporary. Arrears of assessment and collection will be caught up. Tobacco also shows a shortfall of about $5 million, the revised estimate being $39 million as against the original estimate of $44 million. There are a number of reasons for this shortfall. A certain temporary decrease in consumption was to be expected as a result of the price increases resulting from the increase in duty imposed last November. This has been aggravated by recent medical reports on the possible effects of excessive cigarette smoking. There has been an increase in smuggling as a result of the increase in duty. Exports to Rhio have increased since November last year and considerable quantities of cigarettes are brought back into Singapore under cover of darkness, despite the efforts of the Customs Department to prevent the traffick. In this connection, I should like to pay a tribute to the officers of the Preventive Branch of the Customs who, night in night out and often in circumstances of great discomfort, patrol the sea approaches to Singapore and wage a constant war against the smugglers. Another reason for the decrease in collections is the fact that, under the protection of a wide differential in duty, local manufacturers have made certain inroads into the monopoly of imported cigarettes. It is unfortunate that this has not been offset by any marked increase in local employment. It is thought, however, that these limiting factors will be temporary phenomena and that consumption will return in due course to its previous level. The collections of duty on liquors and petrol are likely to exceed the original estimate by fairly substantial amounts. The collections of entertainment duty continue to mount and the yield on other items of taxation imposed in 1956 appears likely to equal if not exceed the estimate. The collections under the other Classes of Revenue seem likely to exceed the estimate. Gains should counterbalance the shortfalls on Income Tax and Tobacco. As I said earlier, the revised estimate is only a little short of the original estimate and it may in the end exceed it. Turning now to expenditure, it will be remembered that the original estimate was $254 million, and it will be seen from pages 15 and 16 of the Draft Estimates that it is likely that actual expenditure in 1957 will amount to about $242 million. It should be noted, however, that this total includes a sum of $9 million in respect of compensation under the Malayanisation Scheme. If this sum is excluded - it is, I think, a fair charge on surplus funds since it will be recouped by savings on expatriation pay and passages over a period of years - what might be called "normal" expenditure will amount to about $233 million and there will probably be a small surplus of revenue over actual normal expenditure at the end of the year. As will be seen from pages 15 and 16 in the Draft Estimates, the revised estimate of expenditure in the case of a very large number of Departments falls below the original estimate, usually by small amounts. In the case of several, however, the under-expenditure is likely to be considerable. The main under-expenditure again appears under Education. Here actual expenditure is likely to fall short of the estimate by about $8 million. About half of this will be in respect of personal emoluments. Expenditure on Defence Services and Medical and Health Services is likely to fall below the original estimate by about $3 million in each case, again mainly due to difficulties in filling vacant posts. This year, I propose to comment on the Development Estimates for 1957 and 1958 after the Ordinary Estimates have been dealt with. All I will say at this stage is that expenditure has again fallen considerably short of the estimate, and that there is likely to be a substantial balance left in the Development Fund at the end of the year. Turning now to the financial position at the end of 1957, attention is invited to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities which appears on pages 6 and 7 of the Draft Estimates. It will, of course, be appreciated that this Statement was drawn up in September and that there will be numerous amendments in matters of detail by the time the final accounts are made up. Assets are estimated at $153 million, Liabilities at $81 million, and the General Revenue Balance at $72 million. Amendments will of course have to be made when the final accounts are available, and allowance will have to be made for depreciation in the value of investments, but the final result should not be very much different from the estimate which is now given. On the face of it, therefore, the position of the Colony is sound. The public debt is small and is being serviced as required by Law. We have a general revenue balance in liquid form which is equivalent to 3½ months' revenue. In point of fact, however, the position is even sounder than at first appears. $20 million should be added to the liquid reserves in respect of the payment which will be made by the Australian and New Zealand Governments in connection with the loss of Christmas Island revenue. Account should also be taken of $17 million worth of Singapore Telephone Board stock which will be issued in due course in respect of the purchase of the Oriental Telephone and Electric Company. Having regard to the steady progress which is being made by the Singapore Telephone Board, it is likely that a ready sale would be found for this stock if it were placed on the market. In short, the Colony is very comfortably off and many larger territories with much greater natural resources would be happy to be in the same fortunate position. Turning now to 1958, it is difficult to make any forecast of what conditions may be like during the course of the year. Too many unknown factors are involved. It is also undesirable to be too categorical in such circumstances. But it is undeniable that there is at the present time a certain amount of pessimism about the future. World conditions are unsettled and are likely to remain so. It is feared that there may be a recession of trade in Europe and the United States, which may affect the price of rubber and consequently the economy of Malaya. Conditions in our main entrepot markets are disturbed and trade may be affected. On the other hand, the experts whom I have been able to consult are not quite so despondent. In their opinion, the possibility of a trade recession has tended to be exaggerated in the light of recent events. The long-term prospect for rubber is sound. The price should remain not very far off the 80 cents mark throughout 1958. Conditions in some of our traditional entrepot markets are certainly disturbed but, despite this, trade has shown a certain buoyancy in recent months and the indications are that this trend is likely to continue. All in all, they feel that conditions may not be as bad as the pessimists fear. Trade will almost certainly be less favourable than it has been in recent years, and profits will be reduced to a certain extent, but there is nothing to indicate anything more than a slight recession of trade such as Singapore has often taken in its stride in the past. Against this background, collections of revenue under Class I have been estimated at $189 million, or $3 million in excess of the revised estimate for 1957. Allowance has been made for a slight increase in entertainment duty. Over 90 per cent of this duty is derived from cinema tickets. New picture houses have been or are being built, the cinema-going public continues to increase, and it is estimated that this duty will yield $6,750,000 in 1958. Income Tax has been estimated at the same level as collections in 1957. It is doubtful if company profits generally will maintain the same levels as in 1956 and 1957. Again, as I said earlier, the department is having staffing troubles. On the other hand, tax assessed in 1957 but not collected in that year will be collected in 1958. In the circumstances, it is hoped that about $65 million will be collected in 1958. As far as liquor duty is concerned, the increased demand resulting from growth of population will probably more than counterbalance any decrease in consumption due to falling purchasing power, and the figure of $28 million entered for 1958 is slightly in excess of the revised estimate for 1957. The number of cars on the road, the number of new cars registered each year, and the amount of petrol consumed continue to increase and it seems reasonably safe to assume that $27 million would be collected from petrol duty on the present basis of taxation in 1958. As far as tobacco is concerned, 541 million has been allowed for 1958. Consumption is bound to recover from the setbacks of 1957. The smoking population is growing all the time, a quota on exports to Rhio has recently been imposed and the campaign of the Customs Department against smuggling is gaining momentum month by month. It will be noticed that there has been a marked drop in revenue from pawnbroking licences, due to the change in policy with regard to the issue of licences. As hon. Members are aware. licences now bear a fixed fee. They are no longer the subject of tender, as they have been in the past, it having been decided that the system of tender was anachronistic and open to objection. The estimate for Class III shows an increase of about $1.4 million due to the increased returns expected from Postal and Telecommunications Services which increase steadily year by year. Class IV is increased by $2.4 million due partly to interest on loans and partly to the fact that interest on funds in the hands of the Custodian of Property will be credited to revenue under the Draft Enemy Property Bill which, it is hoped, will be enacted during the next session of the Assembly. The total estimate or Revenue for 1958, on the present basis of taxation, is $242 million, or $7 million more than the revised estimate for 1957. The estimates of expenditure for 1958 total $277 million compared with $254 million in 1957. This is a substantial increase but I can assure you, Sir, that the estimates have been prepared with the utmost care and that no provision has been made which is not essential for the maintenance of existing services or for the expansion of the social and defence services to which great importance is attached. I think this will be clear from an examination of the estimates. It will be seen that a considerable number of departments are provided with less or very little more in 1958 than was provided in 1957. The main increases appear under Medical and Health, Defence Services, Pensions and Education, which between them, account for $16 million of the $23 million increase on the Estimates for 1957. An additional sum of $2.6 million is required for Medical and Health, of which $2.2 million represents an increase in personal emoluments. In this connection, attention is invited to the schedule of new appointments which appears as an appendix to the Memorandum which accompanied the Draft Estimates. From this, it will be seen that 314 new appointments are provided for the expansion of the Medical and Health Services. The Defence Service estimates show an increase of $2.8 million. Of this sum, $700,000 is required for the Royal Malayan Navy, $800,000 for the Singapore Military Forces and $1.3 million for the Infantry Battalion which will get into full swing in 1958. Pensions require an additional $3.9 million. Of this increase, $917,000 is provided for the Supplementary Allowances on existing pensions which were approved by the Assembly this year. Of the remainder, $2 million is required for commutation of pensions and ordinary pensions arising in the main out of the retirement of pensionable officers under the Malayanisation Scheme. The main increase is, however, under Education where an additional $6.7 million is required. The estimates for 1958, by comparison with those for 1955, show very clearly the effect of the new Education Plan. The salaries of Headquarters staff, and teachers and servants in Government English schools, demand $30.9 million as compared with $18.9 million in 1955. Recurrent expenditure has risen to $30 million compared with $13 million in 1955. Grants in aid total $23 million, of which $14.4 million goes to Chinese schools. This compares with a total of $10 million, including $4 million for Chinese schools, in 1955. $1 million is provided for the running expenses of the Polytechnic, $360,000 is provided for Evening Classes, $300,000 for the provision of free text books, $388,000 for aided school provident fund schemes, $934,000 for the teaching of English in Malay Schools and so on. Special expenditure totals $3.9 million of which $3.2 million is required as the Government contribution towards the running expenses of the University. For the rest, there is nothing new or novel in the estimates of expenditure. The truth of the matter is that the framing of the ordinary estimates does not present much opportunity for dramatic changes in the emphasis or incidence of expenditure. The services of Government expand as the need for them increases. Expansion is only approved after long drawn out and sometimes bitter arguments with the Treasury and even then is only in accordance with plans which have been presented to and approved by the Assembly and which are generally accepted as necessary by the taxpayers of Singapore. Short of a major trade recession with a serious contraction of Government revenue and demand for Government services, it is difficult if not impossible to limit or restrict expenditure on services which arc already in existence. They are already operating on the minimum standard consistent with efficiency. Government operates within very narrow financial limits and funds are not available for any dramatic departures from the well trodden path of approved policy. The position therefore is that the estimate of revenue is $242 million, the estimate of expenditure is $277 million, and we are faced with an estimated deficit of $35 million. The question is what would this deficit be in the event if no steps were taken to eliminate it. We know that, in the past, expenditure has invariably fallen short of the estimate and estimated deficits have turned into substantial surpluses. Development programmes have not been implemented as fast as was expected, recruits have not come forward in sufficient numbers to fill vacant posts, there has been delay in placing orders and in obtaining delivery of costly items of special expenditure, and so on and so forth. The question is to what extent will expenditure fall below the estimate in 1958? There is no formula which indicates what actual expenditure will be. We make our estimate in the light of past experience and results and anticipated future requirements and capacity. We know that, for the past two years, actual recurrent expenditure has tended to increase on the average by about $18 million a year. In this connection, I invite attention to the tables which were given in the Memorandum which accompanied the Draft Estimates. It seems likely that this rate of increase will be maintained in 1958. If that should prove to be the case, actual expenditure, excluding any compensation in respect of Malayanisation which may have to be brought to account, should be of the order of $250 million. In the circumstances, assuming that the estimate of revenue is achieved, it is possible that the actual deficit would be of the order of $8 million, and it is this sum which we must endeavour to cover by means of additional taxation. To this end, it is proposed to increase the duty on petrol and to make slight increases in the special tax on heavy oil engine vehicles and in the stamp duty on conveyances of immovable property. These increases should yield about $8 million in a full year. With regard to petrol, an order under Section 11 of the Customs Ordinance has been gazetted this morning which raises the duty from 80 cents to $1 a gallon. This rate of $1 a gallon has been in force in the Federation since November of last year and its imposition is unlikely to cause any hardship in Singapore. It has caused none in the Federation. The new rate of duty will result in cars which do 20 miles to the gallon costing 1 cent a mile more to run. Those which do 30 miles to the gallon will cost 2/3rd of a cent a mile more to run, those doing 40 miles to the gallon, ½ a cent more, and so on. If 1,000 miles a month, or 30 miles a day, is taken as a fair average mileage for private cars in Singapore, cars doing 20 miles per gallon will cost $10 a month more to run, cars doing 30 miles to the gallon $6.60 a month more, and those doing 40 miles to the gallon $5 a month more. These additional sums can be of no consequence to people who can afford to run cars for pleasure or who have to run them in connection with their work. Nor will the increase in duty be of much consequence to hauliers. A round trip to Penang will cost about $10 more. I do not think that the increase in duty will affect consumption. The number of new cars, and the total number of cars registered, tend to increase each year and the consumption of petrol increases accordingly. I doubt if the increase will tend to make people use their cars less than they have done in the past. It is expected that the increase in duty will yield between $6 and $7 million in a full year. It is also proposed to increase the tax on heavy oil engine vehicles. As hon. Members are aware, this tax was originally imposed to compensate for the loss of petrol duty occasioned by the introduction of diesel engine vehicles into Singapore. The present rates of tax are shown in the schedule attached to Gazette Notification No. 5 202 of 22nd July, 1955. The rates have not been changed since the duty on petrol was raised to 68 cents a gallon. It will now be $1 a gallon. This increase would merit a proportional increase in the heavy oil engine vehicle tax of about 50 per cent. However, it is considered that an increase of this order at this juncture is undesirable. As a first step, therefore, it has been decided to raise the present rates by 25 per cent. The new rates are given in the motion which will be presented in the near future. They will be effective from the 1st of January. 1958. It is not considered that this increase should occasion any hardship to bus companies or hauliers or necessitate any increase in fares. It will be noted, when the motion is published, that the fee on diesel taxis has been raised considerably. The new fee places these vehicles on all fours with petrol-driven taxis. The yield from this increased tariff is estimated at $375,000. It has also been decided to increase the stamp duty on conveyances of immovable property to an "advalorem" rate of 2 per cent on the value of the property transferred. This rate is the same as that charged in Hong Kong. It is expected that the new rate will yield an additional $700,000 in 1958. The total estimated yield from these items of new taxation is therefore approximately $8 million and I hope that this additional revenue will go a long way towards balancing actual revenue and expenditure in 1958. However, if it is found later in the year that these measures are going to be insufficient, additional measures will have to be considered. Turning now to the Development Estimates, it is desirable at this time to give some idea of what has been done in this connection since the war. There is so much pre-occupation with the present and the future that there is perhaps a tendency to forget or overlook what has been done in the past. By all standards, the achievement has been monumental. Since the war, over 15,500 housing units and 600 shops have been built at a cost of $95 million. $28 million has been spent on 93 primary schools and 11 secondary schools, quarters, playing fields, equipment and other educational services. $20 million has been spent on expanding the Medical Services. The number of beds in the General Hospital has been increased by 100 per cent, in Kandang Kerbau Hospital by 50 per cent and in Tan Tock Seng Hospital by over 100 per cent. Accommodation in the Trafalgar Home and in the Woodbridge Hospital has been increased by 300 per cent. $36 million has so far been spent on making the finest airport in the Far East. $15 million has been spent on Rural Development. Land purchases for development have totalled close on $50 million. $10 million has been spent on capital work for Defence Services. These items alone total over $250 million. In addition, $17 million has been paid in connection with the acquisition of the Oriental Telephone and Electric Company, $4 million lent to the City Council in connection with the Kallang Bridge Road, $30 million lent to the Federation of Malaya, $10 million lent to the Singapore Telephone Board, and considerable sums spent on the construction of buildings for the police and customs, roads, bridges, quarters and the like. Apart from Government expenditure on development, the City Council has since the war spent over $270 million on the development of the public utilities. As I said, development work of this order represents a monumental achievement. This small island, which depends for its prosperity on trade, has managed to find funds for development to the tune of well over $600 million over a period of 10 years without extending itself unduly. It is an achievement of which we can justly be proud and it must be the envy of many larger territories outside Malaya. Turning now to development expenditure in 1957, it will be recalled that the estimates presented in November 1956 envisaged expenditure on general development (including Colonial Development and Welfare Fund projects) amounting to $66 million and expenditure by the Singapore Improvement Trust and Singapore Telephone Board of $15 million and $5 million respectively. Under general development, provision of $17 million was made for work of one kind and another for the Education Department, $10 million for the Medical and Health Department, $17 million for purchase of land, resettlement of squatters and rural development, $3 million for Defence Services and $3 million for further work on the Singapore Airport. It was estimated that the Development Fund would be completely exhausted by the end of the year but, knowing how far performance falls short of expectation in the field of capital works, we were fairly confident that there would, in the end, be a balance in the Fund. This has proved to be the case. On the basis of figures available up to September, it is clear that there will again be substantial under-expenditure on general development. As in the past, difficulty has been experienced over the acquisition, clearance and preparation of sites. Lack of "capacity" in the architectural branch of the P.W.D. has also caused a planning bottle-neck. The only expenditure which has exceeded the estimate is that on public housing. Here it seems likely that the Trust, with a clear field at Kallang and St. Michaels Road, will spend $23 million against the estimated $15 million. And, of course, the Singapore Telephone Board has spent the $5 million provided in the Estimates. Altogether, it appears likely that, instead of the estimated deficit of $3 million, the Development Fund will show a surplus at the end of the year of the order of $40 million including interest on investments amounting to $7.6 million not brought to account until this year. I mention the round figure of $40 million because adjustment will have to be made in respect of revaluation of investments and in respect of interest payments. But it does mean that we will start off the new year very substantially better off than we hoped to be and that the question of raising funds for capital development in Singapore in 1958 will be eased correspondingly. The Development Estimates for 1958 are shown on pages 395 to 439 of the Draft Estimates. The Development Fund is given on page 395. It will be seen that receipts are estimated at $64 million, expenditure at $94 million and the deficit at about $30 million. With regard to the items on the receipts side of the account, the item "Repayment of Loans" allows for repayment of principal of long-term loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust which will be made in 1958. It will be recalled that I said in 1956 that it had been decided that such repayments, which will be spread over 60 years in most cases, should be credited to the Development Fund so as to be available for further development. It will also be noted that a contribution of $20 million is again made from revenue for development. It is, in my opinion, of vital importance that substantial contributions of this kind should continue to be made for expenditure on "non-productive" items of capital development such as schools, hospitals, etc. - in fact, much of the work done under General Development. It will be seen from an examination of the Estimates that they follow the same pattern as in previous years. Indeed that is inevitable when Government is already committed to approved long-term development plans. Briefly, of the sum of $32 million provided for general public works, $10 million goes to Education, $8.8 million to Medical and Health, $3 million to Civil Aviation, $4 million for special P.W.D. schemes which are outlined under Head 60, and $1 million for police building and quarters. Of the sum of $61 million provided for special development expenditure, $26.5 million is provided for further work by the Singapore Improvement Trust on programmes 6, 7 and 8 and a further sum of $5 million is provided for Singapore Telephone Board development. Provision is made for the loan of $1 million (out of a total of $2 mil lion) to the Singapore Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society in accordance with the policy that Government will not provide quarters for its officers but will, within the limits of its capacity, provide loans on reasonable terms to enable officers to acquire their own homes. Again, out of this sum of $61 million, $10 million is provided for the purchase of land and $4.8 million is provided for further rural development. Of the $6 million provided under Head D. 45 Education, for special expenditure, $2.8 million is required for dollar for dollar grants to aided schools, and $1.25 million for equipment for the Polytechnic and $1.25 million for equipment for new schools. $2.6 million is provided under Head D. 59 Telecommunications for further essential development of the telecommunications system which is revenue earning. I will not deal with the estimates of development expenditure in greater detail. This has already been done in the Memorandum which accompanied the Estimates. As regards the estimated deficit, it is, difficult to say what actual expenditure will amount to. I think it more than likely that the estimate of expenditure for the Singapore Improvement Trust will be fulfilled, which is gratifying in itself. The Singapore Telephone Board will be able to spend the $5 million which has been provided. In the light of discussions which I have had with the Minister and having regard to past performance, I am inclined to doubt if planning and building capacity, and the other factors which tend to delay capital works, will permit of expenditure in excess of $22 million in 1958. Again, on the basis of past performance, it seems unlikely that more than two-thirds of the balance of special expenditure, after loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust and Singapore Telephone Board have been subtracted, will be spent. In short, it seems unlikely that total development expenditure will be much in excess of $70 million and that the deficit, if any, will be comparatively small. At the same time, the Development Fund will be exhausted and development will in future depend in the main on contributions from revenue and loan money, and whatever sums can be transferred from general reserves to finance further development. To summarise the position therefore, if all the prognostications about 1957 and 1958 are fulfilled, revenue and expenditure should balance in 1958 at about $250 million (excluding any charge in respect of Malayanisation compensation), the General Revenue Balance (including the Christmas Island payment and Singapore Telephone Board stock) should be of the order of $100 million and the development fund will be exhausted. Finally, I should like to say something about the future. Expenditure has increased at a very great rate since the war. In this connection, attention is once more invited to the schedule of actual expenditure which appears on page 13 of the Draft Estimates. In 1947, expenditure, including Public Works Non-Recurrent expenditure, amounted to $51 million. In 1957, including Development expenditure, the total is likely to be about $300 million. If we look at individual items, we see that recurrent expenditure on Education has risen from $2 million in 1947 to $50 million in 1957; on Medical and Health from $5 million to $27 million; on Social Welfare from under $1 million to $11 million; on Police from $2 million to $26 million, and on Defence from practically nothing to $8 million. Recurrent expenditure as a whole has risen from $50 million in 1947 to a revised estimate of $232 million in 1957. It is inevitable that recurrent expenditure will continue to increase in the future, although perhaps not at the same striking rate. As in the past, the main reasons for increase will be the expansion of Education and Medical and Health Services and Defence Services. In the case of Education 40,000 children are reaching the age for entry into Primary Schools each year. It is the am of Government to give primary education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14, and secondary education of either a general or a technical nature to a large percentage of those who pass through the primary stage successfully. It will consequently be necessary to make similar additions to staff in the future as have been made in the past and funds will be required to meet the recurrent expenditure required for the additional schools which will have to be built. Again, increased provision for grants-in-aid will be required to meet increased expenditure in expanding vernacular schools. The recurrent cost of the Polytechnic will increase as the organisation comes into full operation. Again, the University must be expanded to provide the graduates of all kinds which the expanding economy of Singapore requires. It is difficult to say to what extent the cost of Education will increase over the next five years. Prior to the introduction of the full aid scheme, the effect of which is seen in the returns for 1956 and 1957, expenditure tended to increase at the rate of about $7 million per annum. It might be reasonable to assume that the increase in the future will be at about the same rate. This would mean that, by 1962, expenditure on education will have reached a total of about $80 million a year. In the case of Medical and Health Services, it is a case of expanding hospital accommodation, clinics, health centres, etc, as fast as the availability of staff, funds and building capacity will allow. The ultimate aim is to build another General Hospital, ten district hospitals - 5 in the urban area and 5 in the rural areas and each with 500 beds - 20 out-patient departments and about 100 small maternity and child health clinics. In addition, now that the elimination of tuberculosis is no longer a possibility but a probability, the drive against this disease will be stepped up. Quite obviously, it will be very many years before these plans can be fulfilled. As I have said, lack of funds and lack of trained staff are likely to be the limiting factors. But they will be fulfilled gradually and recurrent expenditure will mount in the same way. In the past recurrent expenditure on Medical and Health services has tended to mount at the rate of about $3 million per annum. Assuming that it continues to mount in the same way, it will by 1962 have reached a total of about $41 million per annum. It is unlikely that the Police Force will grow to any great extent between now and 1962, but it is inevitable that the cost of Defence Services will increase. The future of the Royal Malayan Navy is still uncertain but, if it is transferred to the Federation of Malaya, we shall have to expand the role of the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and of course we have to provide for a second battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. Expenditure on Defence Services is at present running at the rate of about $11 million a year, and I consider that it is not unlikely that this may have increased to about $16 million by 1962. It is doubtful if expenditure on any other service of Government will expand at anything approaching the same rate as in the case of the three services I have mentioned specifically. There will of course be some increase. That is inevitable. But it should be comparatively small. By and large, the majority of departments have stopped expanding - at least for the time being. For the next five years at any rate, any increase in expenditure should only be required in connection with increments and replacements. All things considered, therefore, it seems likely that total expenditure will tend to increase over the next five years at a rate of something between $12 and $15 million a year. Total expenditure by 1962 therefore may well be of the order of $300 million. This is a somewhat alarming figure and the first reaction of hon. Members may be to ask not how it can be met but how it can be reduced. This is a difficult question. Contrary to general belief, there is no more over-staffing, extravagance or waste in Government than there is in any large scale commercial undertaking. There is not a superfluity of staff in any section of the service. Only that amount of recurrent and special expenditure is allowed which is necessary to keep the machine running with maximum efficiency. The Treasury sees to that, as any Head of Department will agree. Allegations as regards Government extravagance have been made in the past and investigations have been made by select committees, organisation consultants and other agents. But the results have generally been disappointing from the point of view of the critics. Minor examples of waste and extravagance have of course come to light and have been corrected, temporary staff which has become redundant has been removed, but the total saving which has resulted has been comparatively small. This has been the experience of other administrations as well. This does not mean that waste and extravagance do not exist, or that the Government is prepared to close its eyes to them. Quite the contrary. Government is always on the lookout to eliminate waste, extravagance and redundancy. To this end, it is proposed to set up an organisation in each Ministry which will keep these matters of organisation and efficiency constantly under review. The scheme follows the proposal of an Indian expert who visited Singapore in 1955. Unfortunately we have not yet been able to recruit the adviser who would train the officers required to run the scheme. Such men are in very short supply. If there is to be any significant reduction in Government spending, it can only come as a result of drastic changes in plan, reduction in the rate of expansion of the social services, retrenchment, cuts in salaries, or a combination of some or all of these factors. For example, expenditure could be reduced if it were decided that secondary education should be limited to a smaller percentage of those passing through primary school, or that primary education should stop at 12 years of age and not be extended to 14 years of age, or that the expansion of Medical services should be drastically cut down or cease altogether for a period, or that variable allowances should be reduced and so on and so forth. But such decisions could defeat the Government's avowed intention to expand essential services to the public. Consequently we must look in the main to increased taxation to meet the bill. Revenue has increased substantially over the past decade from $77 million in 1947 to an estimate of $235 million in 1957. During this period, the only completely novel measure of taxation which has been introduced is Income Tax which now yields $65 million or about 27 per cent of total revenue. There have been increases in rates of duties collected by the Customs Department over the years and collections under Class I have increased from $42 million in 1947 to $186 million in 1957. Again, the expanding economy, the growing population, and the growing demand for Government services have all made a material contribution to the increase in revenue. There is still a considerable revenue potential left in Singapore within the present pattern of taxation. We are, in effect, still one of the most lightly taxed nations in the world. We are for example considerably better off than people in the Federation who, in addition to paying duty on tobacco at a much higher rate than we do, have to pay a wide range of customs duties on other goods. But increases within the present pattern of taxation will not be enough in themselves. Other means of taxation, hitherto novel in the Malayan context, will have to be devised. The population generally will have to contribute more towards Education - perhaps through the Education rate. It seems doubtful if Medical attention and the supply of medicines can remain altogether free for any length of time. I do not exclude the possibility of the eventual introduction of import duties on a selected range of goods which either do not enter into the entrepot trade or enter only to a limited extent. But I hope sincerely that this step will be long delayed, and only taken after all other measures have been exploited to the full. In short, if Singapore is going to have the services it wants, it must be prepared to pay for them, and to pay much more heavily than it has in the past. We must be prepared for greatly increased taxation. Reduction in expenditure can only be achieved by a drastic change of policy which should probably be avoided as long as any revenue potential remains untapped. The question of financing development in the future also raises difficult questions. I have already given some indication of what has been done in Singapore in the way of development in the public sector since the war. I think that it will be generally agreed that what has been achieved is most impressive. At the same time, much remains to be done. Assuming that estimates of the amount of development which can be undertaken in 1958 prove to be correct, Government will still remain committed to work estimated, at present prices, to cost over $100 million. In addition, allowance must be made for continuing items not shown in the estimates such as housing after the completion of existing programmes, rural development, purchase of land for development, education and medical development in addition to noted commitments, and Defence Services development. The City Council has plans for the development of public utilities which will entail the expenditure of $130 million over the next three or four years. The proposed allocation of this expenditure is $50 million for electrical works, $40 million for water works, $6 million for gas and $36 million for sewage disposal. In addition, the Singapore Telephone Board will require substantial sums for further development if the demand for telephone facilities is to be met. In short, Singapore will be faced with the task of financing known commitments amounting to something of the order of $340 million irrespective of any other urgent works which may arise in the meantime, and this will have to be undertaken over the next few years. The question immediately arises whether this can be done, and if so, over what period of time must it be spread. I think the answer is that it can be done if certain conditions are fulfilled, but it will take somewhat longer than most authorities and citizens would like, and implementation will have to be planned and integrated on an island-wide basis if we are going to succeed. Hitherto we have managed to finance our development because of a number of factors. We have experienced a decade of unparalleled prosperity which has enabled Government to build up reserves beyond the wildest dreams of Financial Secretaries of the past. Government has managed to finance all its development, including loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust and to the Singapore Telephone Board, from these resources and, more recently, from substantial contributions from revenue, and has left the loan market free to the City Council which has managed to borrow $214 million since the war. All the quasi Government authorities in Singapore have, like Government, been able to make substantial contributions from revenue to development. In addition, confidence in the future of Singapore has been high and institutions and private investors to a lesser extent have been easily persuaded to invest their surplus funds in City Council loans. Now, however, the position has changed somewhat. The boom period is over. We are back to what might be called "normal" Singapore conditions. Money is tighter. Institutions and firms have no longer surplus funds to invest in long-term loans. Long-term loans have lost popularity and all the emphasis is on short-term lending and borrowing. The Government Provident Funds have appeared on the scene as a source of development capital for the two Governments and have had the effect of almost completely drying up other institutional sources. Although confidence is growing, it would be idle to deny that there is not now as much confidence in the future of Singapore as there was, say, in early 1955. It is now more difficult than it has been before to obtain access to the London market. Perhaps due to the nature of the economy and to its subjection to the vagaries of commodity prices, there is an almost complete absence, amongst the population as a whole, of that instinct to save which is a characteristic of other races. The response of private individuals to Government and City Council loans has been poor and the response to such means of saving as National Savings Certificates and Premium Bonds even worse. The problem of how best to promote the saving habit in the population is one of the Government's main pre-occupations at the present time. In short, one may safely say that, by and large, the main sources of development capital available in Singapore at present are the contributions which the various authorities can make from their own funds, such funds as the Central Provident Fund Board is prepared to make available for local investment, and the small sums which other sources of long-term investment capital can supply. As regards the Central Provident Fund, I am afraid I am not very happy about the policy of the Board of this national provident fund which insists that 25 per cent of its funds should be invested outside Malaya at a time when the City Council is sorely in need of funds for development purposes. At the very outside, I place the total sum which is likely to be available in any one year from these sources at $50 million. In addition, it may be possible to obtain specific loans from international organisations for development of certain aspects of the City Council utilities, and it may also be possible to invest some of the currency fund in local loans. These accretions of wealth, however, are not certain and, even if available, will not accrue for some time. In brief, the implementation of existing development plans after 1958 is going to be limited by financial considerations to at the most $50 million a year, at least at the start. This clearly demands the integration and phasing of existing development plans against the background of finance likely to be available. Gone are the days when both Government and the City Council could go blithely ahead without much thought for the availability of funds. From now on, development will have to be planned on an island-wide basis to ensure that the funds available for capital development are spent to the best advantage of the territory as a whole. To this end, it has been decided to set up a Planning Committee under the Financial Secretary and consisting of representatives of the Government and the City Council and other development authorities. This Committee, which will meet as soon as possible, will examine existing plans and commitments of the Government and City Council and will integrate and phase them in the light of the essential needs of the Colony funds, and development capacity likely to be available. It will be appointed by the Council of Ministers to which it will report from time to time. Its findings will also, of course, be made available to the City Council which will have an opportunity of expressing any opinions it desires. In this connection, I must make it clear - since fears have been expressed in other quarters - that the need for the development of public utilities is fully appreciated, and will not be overlooked in the allocation of funds for development. The net effect of this limitation of funds and phasing of development will be that development is spread over a longer period than was originally intended. This is regrettable but unavoidable in the circumstances. We can, however, take comfort from the fact that so much has been done in the past and rest assured that, if there is any opportunity to accelerate the programme in the future, it will not be neglected. That, Sir, gives some indication of the shape of things to come. If we are to have the services which we regard as essential for our well-being and prosperity, we must be prepared in the future to save much more and pay much more in taxes than we have ever done in the past. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the officers who have been responsible for the preparation of the Estimates. They have been hard at it since April and I cannot speak too highly of their conscientiousness and devotion to duty. I should also like to thank the Government Printer and his staff who, as always, have met all demands on their ability and time with cheerfulness and customary efficiency. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 69, the debate now stands adjourned. Debate to be resumed, what day?

13th of December, Sir.

13th of December it will be.

11.38 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a Certificate of Urgency from His Excellency the Governor relating to a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Stamp Ordinance (Chapter 170 of the Revised Edition)" which I should like to take through all its stages today. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "Stamp (Amendment) Bill". I have here copies of the Bill for distribution to Members. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members. Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As I explained earlier, it is necessary to raise revenue by means of increased taxation. One of the measures proposed is to increase the rate of stamp duty on conveyances, assignments and transfers of property other than stock and marketable securities. The present rate rises from .6 per cent of the consideration to approximately one per cent where the consideration is over $10,000. The new rate is a flat two per cent on all considerations for conveyances whatever the amount. The new rate should cause no hardship to anybody. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Hart]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

11.43 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, 13th December, 1957. Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary has given notice that the debate on the motion for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill will be resumed on Friday, 13th December. As Friday is not a sitting day, this motion is therefore necessary under Standing Order 7 (2). Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, 13th December, 1957.

11.44 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted there-for:- "All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in parts of lots 136-15 and 136-17. Mukim No. V. Pandan, and in part of lot 94-13 Mukim No. VI, Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 236 a. 0 r. 0 p., 90 a. 0 r. 0 p, and 45 a. 0 r. 0 p. respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged red on Certified Plan No. 7499 filed in the office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.". "And the Lord God sent him out of the Paradise of Pleasure to till the earth from which he was taken." This, Sir, is from Genesis, Chapter 3, Verse 23 (Douay version) describing what happened to Adam and Eve when they ate of the forbidden fruit. A thoughtful providence, Sir, saw to it that man was provided the wherewithal to obtain sustenance for himself and for his family. A merciful providence provided man with land to till and mine, to extract his needs by the sweat of his brow. A cooperative providence provided man with the seas to extract food from, if he was clever and courageous enough. A thoughtful providence also provided man with swamps and marshes, which is neither land nor sea, as a reserve, for man to use his skill and cunningness, if he wished to put it to his use when his other resources were found to be insufficient. Now, Sir, the resources of Singapore: We in Singapore are land hungry. On an island of 225 square miles, we have a population of 1½ million. Perhaps hon. Members are not aware of the density of our population. I have here, Sir, the Colombo Plan fact sheets that are produced by the Colombo Plan Information Office in which are quoted the density of population figures for the various Colombo Plan countries. Now the figures for Singapore are taken on a previous census basis of 1¼ million. Singapore's figures are quoted as 1,635 per square kilometre and the next highest Colombo Plan country's density of population is that of Ceylon, that is, 131 - less than 1/10th of Singapore. Now, the enormousness of the density of population situation cannot be realised by hon. Members unless they see such figures. Worked out on a population basis of 1½ million, Sir, our population comes to 6,667 per square mile and that is the highest population density, I believe, in the world if we take Singapore as a nation - as a country by itself which we are now. Sir, I have spoken at various times on the need to put land to the best and the most economical use we can. Even then, it cannot be concealed that we have not sufficient land and at the rate that our population is growing, we will find it very hard to produce enough food even on the basis of what we are producing now. Therefore, it is our duty to make use of every little bit of land that is available, and if no land is available, to make use of other resources like marshes and swamps rather than to let them go to waste. Sir, the Fisheries Division in my Ministry has shown, by experiments, that it has conducted in the Government prawn ponds, that it is possible to increase the yield per acre of prawn ponds in swamp areas to .34 ton per annum, that is more than 5½ picul per acre per year. A survey of the swamp areas of Singapore has also disclosed that not many areas of such swamp lands are available for development for prawn pond purposes. In order to increase the opportunities for our local citizens, I put up a proposal to the Nature Reserve Board early this year, that the Board should release the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve for the purposes of prawn cultivation in ponds. Later on, I modified my proposal to a request for a further 800 acres only because 200 acres of that Nature Reserve are already occupied by a prawn pond operator without licence and those 200 acres, it seems, were opened up by him during the Occupation period. At least a quarter of the 800 acres which I am asking this House to vote for release will be reserved for cooperative prawn ponds for the Malay fishermen living in the area and I propose to organise these Malay fishermen into a co-operative for that purpose. Full assistance will be given to these Malay fishermen in order to organise them and to set them on a proper footing into a co-operative so that they can exploit the prawn ponds in the area. It is obvious, Sir, that considerations which favour the release of a large area of mangrove swamps in the Pandan Nature Reserve for the purposes of prawn pond cultivation more than outweigh those which favour the retention of this area for the limited purpose of a nature reserve to serve only a small section of the population, either for the purpose of recreation or of education. The colony, Sir, has come to a stage now where it cannot afford the luxury of mangrove swamps as nature reserves, for such swamps can be put to better economic use, and for the biological studies of nature students, it is considered that the swamps along the south coast of Johore which are quite close to us will be more suitable. In order, Sir, that the whole of the Pandan Reserve, excepting an area of 370 acres which will not be required and which will be kept as a reserve, should be released for the economic use of prawn pond cultivation, an amendment to paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Nature Reserves Ordinance is necessary and under section 4 (1) of the Nature Reserves Ordinance, "The Legislative Assembly may by resolution amend the Schedule to this Ordinance by either the addition to or deletion from the said Schedule or may make any modification of the boundary of an area already included in the said Schedule." The effect of the motion which I have moved will be to reduce the present acreage of the area shown in paragraph 5 of the Schedule from 1,370 acres to 370 acres, thereby confirming the release of 200 acres which are now already covered by prawn ponds without licence, and also releasing a further 800 acres for redevelopment as prawn ponds. The remaining 370 acres will continue under the control of the Nature Reserve Board as a nature reserve-cum tourist attraction. I must emphasise that the areas shown in the other five paragraphs of the Schedule to the Nature Reserves Ordinance will not be affected by this motion. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I beg to second the motion. Question proposed. 11.55 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this motion introduced by the Minister for Commerce and Industry, as he has already stated, is briefly this: to reduce by a thousand acres from approximately 1,370 acres to about 370 acres the Pandan Forest Reserve which is at present under the protection of the Nature Reserve Board as one of the five areas on the island of Singapore requiring so to be protected. The Minister has placed before this House his reasons for wishing to reduce the Pandan Forest Reserve area, namely, the highly laudable and well-intentioned reason of wishing to open up this area for prawn ponds, so that there will be a greater prawn supply in our local markets, and employment for an increased number of prawn fishermen. Regarding this intention of increasing our prawn supply, I am completely at one with the Minister: it was I myself who pressed the Government to increase the prawn catch in the Committee of Supply a year ago. Since then, I have made investigations and enquiries, just as the Minister himself has. The only difference between us is that we have come to different conclusions: his conclusion is that the island's prawn catch can be increased by converting 1,000 acres of this mangrove forest, or rather the balance of 800 acres, into prawn ponds: my conclusion is that the reverse may very well be the case, not only shall we reduce our prawns but reduce, and reduce to extinction, a unique mangrove area to no purpose. Sir, I shall first put forward reasons, and the reasons of experts, why this mangrove area should be reserved as an area of scientific importance, and. secondly, reasons why the Government is running a great risk of doing the opposite of what it intends if it carries through the policy of the Minister. I shall urge as strongly as I can that the Government withdraws this motion, that it reconsiders all the evidence available and acquires more scientific data on this subject before proceeding any further. I base my plea on this simple truism: that you can cut down a tree in a matter of minutes, but it takes you 10, 20 or 30 years to undo what you have done and replace that tree. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I launch into my main argument, I would like to emphasise that I have no axe to grind in this particular matter, I have no interest in the forest reserve or prawn ponds except a scientific interest and an interest in Singapore's well being, and I have considered this problem as objectively and dispassionately as I can in a desire to find out the truth. My whole case is this: that in the light of present evidence I am of the opinion that the Minister is making a grave mistake. Sir, I would first like to draw your attention to the purpose of the Nature Reserves Ordinance now before us: the long title states that it is "to provide for the dedication and administration of certain lands in the Colony of Singapore as Nature Reserves". Section 3 of the Ordinance states the objects in greater detail. Sub-section (1) reads: "The lands shown in the Schedule to this Ordinance are hereby dedicated, set aside and reserved for the purposes of the propagation, protection and preservation of the indigenous fauna and flora of the Colony and for the preservation of objects and places of aesthetic, historical or scientific interest." Sub-section (2) reads: "Such lands shall be controlled and managed not only for the purpose of protection and preservation as aforesaid but also for the purpose of providing under suitable conditions and control facilities for the study of and research into matters relating to the fauna and flora of the Colony and the physical conditions in which they live.". And the lands mentioned in the Schedule are the following, each of which was created as a reserve for a particular reason:- No. 1. This is the forest reserve known as the Municipal Catchment Area, which is preserved for the obvious reason of protecting part of our water supply, and accounts for the City Council having powers to nominate one of its members to the Nature Reserve Board. Nos. 2 and 3 are two adjoining sections of the Bukit Timah Forest Reserve forming one area which is the "classical collecting area for a very large proportion of Malaya's flora. It is the type locality for probably more species of plants than any other area of comparable size in the world. It is the only remaining piece of primary lowland forest on Singapore Island." No. 6 - if I may skip Nos. 4 and 5 for the moment-is the Labrador area which "conserves a primitive species of fern, 'Dipteria conjugata', which is found elsewhere in Malaya only above 3,000 feet." And Nos. 4 and 5 are firstly the Kranji Forest Reserve, which "typifies the transition from muddy foreshore to a dry land vegetation," whereas the Pandan Forest Reserve is "typical of tidal mangrove. With the total exploitation of other mangrove areas on Singapore Island and the extensive working of the mangrove in South Johore, Pandan is the last remaining piece of typical mangrove." I should explain, Sir, that the obvious scientific portions of the explanation of the areas which I have just given are not my views, but part of a considered report made by the Nature Reserve Board itself. Pandan, I repeat, is "the last remaining piece of typical mangrove". And I would add the following report of the present Director of the Botanic Gardens:- "The species of plants recorded from the Pandan Reserve represent about 1/20th of Singapore's flora. One species at least is found elsewhere only on the east coast of Malaya, and another nowhere else in Malaya South of Negri Sembilan and Pahang. A fern recently found at Pandan has been previously recorded in Malaya only in the mountains of central Malaya. Some 13 species of rare plants are at present known in the area." It will therefore be realised that the five areas listed in the Schedule were all to be protected for specific and separate reasons. If, therefore, this Assembly reduces the Pandan Nature Reserve from 1,370 acres to 370 acres by approving this motion, an area which is "the last remaining piece of typical mangrove", I maintain that it is violating the letter and spirit of this Ordinance which expressly states that the area is "dedicated, set aside and reserved for the purposes of the propagation, protection and preservation of the indigenous fauna and flora of the Colony". I would add that the word "dedication" expressly carries with it a sense of permanence. Now I know perfectly well what the Minister's answer to this might be: it is perhaps the only point he has. Professor Holttum, in giving his views on this problem earlier in this year, stated: "Natural vegetation can only be preserved in samples sufficiently large to be self-propagating. In most cases, units of about 200 acres are probably a minimum for this purpose." So my hon. Friend the Minister might say, "There you are, Professor Holttum has stated that 200 acres is sufficient. I am leaving you with 370 acres or almost double." But there are at least two points which qualify, if not negative, Professor Holttum's statement which was written in London without more accurate knowledge of the areas proposed to be alienated. Firstly, the areas to be left are divided into three separate sections of 236, 90 and 45 acres respectively so that the last two are of no value at all. Secondly, all three areas are strips along the coast, and I have a map which shows that this is so. Now, if you, Sir, have been into this mangrove area, as I have, you will immediately have noticed one curious fact. That the mangrove along the edge of the coast and on the two banks of the Sungei Jurong is stunted: in other words, the trees are smaller than those growing further inland. The Nature Reserve Board has pointed this out as follows. "It is utterly impossible for these (three areas) to be representative of a whole mangrove community since mangrove vegetation consists of a series of gradations from the seaward edge of the innermost border to where dry land begins. The plant species and the animals associated with them vary with the degree of inundation and exposure they have from the tide." Sir, if you take this argument - and any ordinary person can accept it after simple observation together with Professor Holttum's opinion, you will appreciate that the fragmentary 370 acres proposed to be left untouched are of little or no value. He said: "Natural vegetation can only be preserved in samples sufficiently large to be self-propagating." The acres concerned lying along the coast do not form a complete unit of mangrove and therefore cannot be self-propagating. Indeed what Professor Holttum said was this and I quote: "In most cases, units of about 200 areas are probably a minimum for this purpose, and larger areas would be better. From an educational and cultural viewpoint, it is the duty of any community to preserve adequate samples of its natural vegetation, and in Singapore mangrove constitutes a distinct type of vegetation of particular biological interest." It is quite clear therefore that Professor Holttum qualified his minimum of 200 acres by saying that it must be an adequate sample of natural vegetation which means that it must be large enough and representative enough to be self-propagating. It is quite clear that these coastal strips do not fulfil these conditions, that therefore the granting of these strips does not fulfil the intention of the Ordinance and that the Minister's interpretation of Professor Holttum's 200 acres would be extremely misleading. But Professor Holttum's view is not the only expert view: if his view gives the Minister the ghost of a case, other experts whom I shall now quote give him no case at all. Mr E. J. H. Corner is the first authority: as many Members of this House will recall, he was Assistant Director of the Gardens from 1929 to 1945 and is the author of the classic book Wayside Trees of Malaya which contains descriptions of 950 different species. He is now at the Botany School at Cambridge University. His memorandum on the Reserve can only be quoted in part: It was at times thought that Johore could provide better nature reserves, but it was realised from the beginning that a keen and skilled staff would be essential to maintain them, such as could be supplied only from the Raffles Museum and Botanic Gardens. Further it was foreseen that the restoration and maintenance of areas of original forest in Singapore would add greatly to the amenities of the island; for instance, they would provide places in which to show the town-children the natural scenery and biological complexity of Malaya, as well as supplying places for exciting excursions, and of course attractions for tourists who would like to enjoy drives into tropical scenery. Pandan Reserve was particularly held in mind for this purpose ... to discover the enlightenment which protects, and, within its limits, encourages wild life and scenery, will be a joy to visitors, a pride to the populace as it welcomes education, and a sign of hope and integrity to the world. To falter will be to barter away the birthright of future generations." Mr Tweedie, until recently Director of Raffles Museum, has given this opinion: "The zoological interest of mangrove swamp lies partly in the ground level and aquatic fauna of fish, molluscs and crustacea and partly in the arboreal fauna of the forest. Impoverished samples of the former can be seen in areas subjected to cutting, but it is largely exterminated by conversion to ponds. These animals (especially the crustacea) are easily observed during the day and are of great interest to students of animal behaviour. . . The proposed action at Pandan would therefore destroy a nature reserve of a very special and important kind." Professor Purchon, Raffles Professor of Zoology at the University of Malaya, stated: "The area in question is the type locality for a number of described species. Indeed the value of the area in this respect is so great that to assess it accordingly would be a very difficult task. The area is important scientifically and educationally. It is regularly used by staff and students of the Department of Zoology for teaching purposes, and it is similarly valuable to our schools." The Professor of Botany, Professor Gilliland, has written: "In Singapore, with its very large number of schools and its two universities, these nature reserves are a vital necessity for the teaching of biology. That public interest may increase in Singapore follows naturally from the commencement of the teaching of biology in Singapore schools in 1938. In Singapore, the Pandan Reserve has many advantages - it is conveniently accessible to Singapore schools and universities; it is the locus of certain of the rare plants, including orchids, recorded on the island, and it is of sufficient area to be self-maintaining as a mangrove community. Further, lying as it does in the estuary of a stream, all the physiographic factors which operate to bring about a mangrove habitat are present." The Minister has suggested that students and teachers can go to Johore to study.

Order. I think it is clear that the hon. Member will take some time?

Yes.

Then I will suspend the sitting. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.12 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned before lunch I was giving the House an exposition of the scientific value of the Pandan Nature Reserve as confirmed by experts, and I had almost concluded my arguments on this aspect of the problem. There is, however, one important point still remaining, one of the few made by the Hon. Minister which requires to be answered, in a singularly unconvincing speech. The Minister has suggested that students and teachers can go to Johore to study biology, but will he tell the House where in Johore there is a Nature Reserve? There is, I believe, some accessible Forest Reserve 40 miles away at Pontian, but that is controlled and cut for the purposes of timber. Only in a Nature Reserve will we find the undisturbed mangrove in its natural state which biological studies require. Are we to deny these opportunities to our two Universities? Only yesterday I obtained further information on this point. I have it on the authority of a prominent member of the Department of Zoology at the University of Malaya - whom for some reason the Minister has not thought fit to consult - that there is in fact no mangrove in the whole of South Malaya which can be called first-class, and you would have to go to the mouth of the Sarawak River in order to find it. In that sense it would be true to say that the Pandan Reserve is not ideal, although it is recovering very fast, but it is also true to say that there is no better mangrove in South Malaya and that the only mangrove of comparable quality in Johore is in the Kukup area, where it is completely inaccessible except by boat after almost a day's journey. All mangrove in Johore which is accessible by road is unrepresentative for the obvious reason that it is not left undisturbed. The great point about the Pandan Reserve from the teachers' point of view is that they know what is in the Reserve and they can bring their students to it without having to search for it. These are facts from experts who know the mangrove intimately, and I would venture to suggest that if our aim, through the University of Malaya and the Nanyang University, is to produce our own biologists and botanists to fill future posts in the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Botanic Gardens, and to provide teachers for the students and the next generation, why deny them what we have already at hand on our own island. Turning to another opinion, the Planning Adviser to the Singapore Improvement Trust has stated: "I confirm without question that we looked upon the Nature Reserve as complementary to the Green Belt, and that they were specifically included in the Master Plan under the designation of 'Nature Reserves' in order that they might be enjoyed by the public in their natural state. Quite apart therefore, from any protection which may be afforded by the Nature Reserves Ordinance, it is my opinion that it would be entirely contrary to the Master Plan for these areas to be used for any other purpose." Sir, I hope that I have not wearied the House by pursuing to such lengths what is in fact only a subsidiary argument to my main argument to which I am shortly coming, but it is important to establish this point, namely, that in introducing this motion, the Minister is in effect saying, firstly, that the educational, biological, botanical, zoological and tourist value of this "last remaining piece of typical mangrove" must be destroyed; and, secondly, that he must flout the spirit and intention of the Nature Reserves Ordinance as I have already quoted it. Let us suppose that we must accept this, although I am not sure that the House will be fully with the Minister in this matter; let us suppose that we must sacrifice these valuable assets of the Pandan Reserve in the interests of more prawns for our markets and more employment for our people, a need on which we can all agree. Is there irrefutable evidence that the opening up of another 800 acres to prawn ponds and the reduction of the mangrove forest to 370 acres will produce this result? The Minister has possibly the authority of the Department of Fisheries to tell you, Sir, that it will, though I wonder whether they are really convinced; but the amount of scientific evidence on his side is practically nil, nor indeed has he produced any. I submit, Sir, that there is an almost overwhelming body of evidence on the other side, and I would put the proposition that if there is the remotest possibility that by converting 800 acres of mangroves into prawn ponds you will reduce the prawn population, then this motion should be withdrawn and the whole question given further study. The Nature Reserve Board has stated its views most emphatically on this subject, as follows: "With regard to over-trapping the Board would emphasise again most strongly the evidence already submitted that a proportion of the prawn population must be at large in undisturbed mangrove to form a breeding nucleus from the fry of which the ponds are stocked. Since the ponds are traps and the prawns therein are caught before they breed this is essential." The Malayan Nature Society puts the problem in its simplest form: "Since we include among us two ecologists of more than local repute, we think our opinion on the proposed scheme may be worth giving. We believe that it would actually lead to a drop in prawn production rather than a rise, for the following reasons. These prawns are really mangrove animals; that is their natural habitat where they feed and grow. They follow the tide up, thus entering the prawn ponds at the inner edge of the mangrove and being caught at low tide when the sluice gates are opened. If however, the mangrove is removed and the whole area is filled with prawn ponds, then the prawns' natural habitat and feeding grounds are destroyed. The inevitable result would seem to be a rapid fall in the catch of prawns, as they will go elsewhere in search of the right habitat." At this point it is only fair to say that, quite unwittingly, I may have misled the Minister-as indeed I misled myself-when I asked the following supplementary question on 22nd May of this year, namely, whether the Minister was aware that it had now been discovered that prawns breed in the mangrove areas. I should in fact have said "feed" and not "breed", a very different thing. It is in fact agreed by the experts that the prawns of commercial importance breed somewhere out to sea and not in the mangrove, but where is not yet known. The Minister somewhat naturally seized on this point, and I do not blame him, when he wrote to me on 3rd June as follows: "There are two kinds of prawns, one belonging to the family known as the 'Carideans' which breed in mangrove areas and the other belonging to the family known as 'Peneids' which do not breed in mangrove areas. The former are only useful as pig and duck food whilst it is on the latter 'Peneids' that our present prawn rearing industry is based." Actually, according to Mr P. N. F. Hall, a prawn specialist who left Singapore when the Fisheries Research Station collapsed - and it is a pity he is not here to help us over this problem - according to Mr Hall who has been contacted, there may be 14 species of prawn present in a catch, of which seven species rarely constitute less than 95 per cent of the total. And this 95 per cent are the Peneids which, according to Mr Hall, "breed offshore and spend their juvenile growing life feeding in the mangrove swamps or in the ponds". And now if I may revert to the Minister's letter to me, we will find, Sir, that his information is exactly similar, expressed though it is in different words: "Almost all members of the family known as the Peneids breed at sea and the young larval stages are brought into the mangrove swamps by the tide. As soon as they have reached the mangrove swamps or perhaps a little earlier they settle down on the bottom to feed and grow up. When they have reached a length of from two to three inches they have a natural urge to swim out to sea again, to mature and breed. It is during this stage of their life history that they are caught by our prawn cultivators." In view of this admission that from the young larval stages until they reach a length of from two to three inches they are living and feeding - not breeding - feeding in the mangrove, how can the Minister contemplate with equanimity the cutting down of 800 acres of it? His own letter to me proves my case, and not his. Let me put this all once again in my own words because it is the crux of the whole problem. The prawns breed out to sea, but how far they travel and where they breed is not yet known. In their early larval stages they come in with the tide, either into the mangrove or into the prawn ponds, where they sink into the mud and feed and grow and fatten. When they have reached a certain size - about two or three inches - the urge comes to stir themselves and to go out to sea again and breed. Those feeding in the mangrove swim out to sea without restriction; those that have fattened in the ponds cannot get out but are caught in the nets at the sluice gates and find their way to the market. It seems to follow quite logically, therefore, that if you reduce your mangrove to a small area and increase your prawn pond area by the amount by which you have reduced your mangrove, too many prawns will be caught, too few prawns will swim out to sea to breed, and the law of diminishing returns will operate. The facts proclaimed by the Minister that the prawn catch in the Government experimental ponds has increased in the last three years to one-third of a ton per acre per annum proves nothing. But if it proves anything at all in the Pandan area, it surely proves that the mangrove should be left undisturbed, and not the reverse. Indeed there is some evidence, though not conclusive, that there is already a falling off in the prawn catch in the Pandan and Ponggol areas, that these areas, in other words, are being fished to the limit. There is one further important point to be remembered regarding this Pandan or Sungei Jurong area, and that is this: the 1,370 acres of mangrove of this Forest Reserve is the only mangrove left on the southern shore of the island; if it is cut down to all but 370 acres, there is no alternative mangrove in this area at all to which the prawns can turn for the feeding ground. As the prawn population diminishes through the stripping of the mangrove along the banks of the Sungei Jurong, as is intended, the first people to suffer hardship will be the poor Malay fishermen who, as you probably know, Sir, eke out a precarious living by wading up to their armpits in the mud with their nets for a meagre and fortuitous catch of prawns and other crustacea, and whose catch - and therefore their living - will be reduced still further, and the co-operative scheme for them will be of no avail. If that were to happen, the Minister and the present Government will have a great deal to answer for. As I have stated, there is little or no scientific evidence on the side of the Minister to support the action he proposes to take, and one can only hope that, having taken the stand that prawn ponds in the area are to be increased, he will not feel that he cannot withdraw from that stand even in the face of facts. Let me give you one more quotation, and it is from the findings of the Malayan Branch of the Institute of Biology: "Not one single member of the Institute who has been contacted has given even qualified support to the proposal for alienating the reserve. If this proposal were to go ahead it would thus be in the face of the overwhelming majority of Malayan professional biologists, and of the only body in Malaya which is competent to express the views of Malayan professional biologists." In the face of that statement, is the Government not prepared to pause and think again? Mr Speaker, Sir, are we then to abandon ideas of increasing our prawn supplies? That is certainly not the case. The Nature Reserve Board has pointed out that there is considerable acreage of tidal swamp on Crown Land suitable for development around the coast of Singapore. The Tuas area, for example, is particularly promising, and it might well be that, after experimentation, a considerable area could be opened up to prawn ponds without damage to the necessary mangrove feeding areas; because on the west coast there are considerable stretches of mangrove, not only on the Singapore side, but on the Johore side as well, and it is not straying too far into the realms of conjecture to suggest that the Johore coast can and does provide the feeding grounds which benefit Singapore prawn ponds in the Johore Straits even today, and that the feeding grounds utilised are therefore something like twice the area at present calculated. Certainly it is something requiring further research. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry have put forward the curious argument that areas such as the Tuas area cannot be developed as prawn pond areas because of the objections of the fishermen in the area, whose plight is desperate because of the curfew in the Johore Straits. Apart from the fact that I believe that the restrictions have now been eased, I fail to see why the fishermen would not welcome the development of their own area through the enrichment of prawns. Now, Sir, I am not going to say to this House that the views of the Nature Reserve Board or of the biologists must be correct and those of the Minister's and his advisers are not. I am sufficiently imbued with the scientific temper to say no more than that there are at least two points of view, and that the Government should proceed with extreme caution until further research has taken place. But what seems to me unfortunate is this: that it appears that the data and the research work of the Department of Fisheries has never been published or revealed so that the other experts in Singapore can also work on it. The Department has worked in isolation. Its views may be right - I am not denying that-but with so much conflicting opinion they should not be accepted until they have been expertly examined by other authorities in the same field. Why is it that the Minister has never called together the members of the Nature Reserve Board and members of the Institute of Biology to discuss this whole problem with the Fisheries Department, so that if there are conflicting theories, they can be thrashed out? Is this not the proper course even now, instead of the leap in the dark which the Government is proposing? Why has the Minister never consulted the Department of Zoology at the University, which is there in our midst to give advice? Is it because the Minister fears that he will get the answer he does not want? - because I come back to the point I made at the outset: that you can cut down 800 acres of mangrove trees in a short space of time but if your theories are proved to be wrong, it will take some 30 years or more to grow them again. Earlier, I referred to Mr Hall who was with the Research Station at Changi and who did a great deal of work on prawn biology while he was here. It is betraying no secret for me to say that his treatise on the subject is in the press and due for publication in one of the scientific journals. He may be able to throw a great deal of light on the importance or otherwise of mangroves, on the effect of the currents round the Singapore coast which must have some influence on the breeding areas. If the migratory movements of the prawns were properly understood, it would be much simpler to formulate efficient schemes for commercial exploitation, and to avoid the error of killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. Would it not therefore be wiser to obtain Mr Hall's data, or await its publication, instead of plunging into the unknown? As this is a purely scientific problem, is there any reason why the Government should not adopt a scientific approach towards it? Sir, I have, I think, said enough to explain why we are not happy about this motion. There is still more, nevertheless, which I could say. I might mention that the Rural Board is unanimously opposed to this move, having heard from one of its own Health Officers that a large scale clearing of the mangrove is likely to create breeding sites for the malaria-carrying mosquito called Anopholes sundiacus. I might pause to wonder why it is that the Minister for Commerce and Industry, and not the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, is introducing this motion, as the Nature Reserves come within the latter's portfolio. I might pause to wonder why it is that the Minister for Commerce and Industry is so desperately keen to press this issue at this particular time. My own belief is this: that if all the experts oil the subject in the country got round one table to go into this matter and pool their knowledge - as should have been done before - it would be found, firstly, that the area of land alienated for prawn ponds could be increased beyond the present area; secondly, that a sufficient but different area of mangrove could be retained at the Pandan Forest Reserve as a feeding area for prawns and as a self-propagating area for biological study; and thirdly and finally, the proper balance of nature could be achieved. That would be the best possible results, while at present the Government may get the worst of both worlds. I will only conclude by urging the Government and the Minister, in the light of all the present evidence, to have the honesty and courage to think again. I do not know whether the Minister will in fact consider withdrawing his motion but in order that all Members on both sides of the House may be able to consider this question more carefully, I wish to move, under Standing Order 20 (1) that the debate be now adjourned to a later date to be fixed by the Minister. 2.52 p.m.

Under Standing Order 20, a motion should read, "That the debate be now adjourned." If that is agreed to, the date will have to be named by the Member in charge. Will the hon. Member please move formally?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move under Standing Order 20 (1), That the debate be now adjourned.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed. 2.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party has no bird-watchers, or prawn admirers, or mangrove swamp special-lists in its midst. I do not wish to appear to be a Philistine but I found the earnest arguments so academically put forward by the hon. Member for Tanglin as to why

Order. The procedure is a bit complicated, I do admit, but the motion now before the House is, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was leading to my point on this motion, and if you so wish it, Sir, I shall come to my point first and then elaborate on it. And the point is this: the only argument which carries weight - if it were true - is that if you open up these 800 acres you are going to diminish the prawn production. If that is true then I say the whole purpose of this scheme will be defeated. Obviously the Hon. the Minister cannot have been so ill-advised and we would like to know if he has second thoughts on the matter after hearing the very lengthy and detailed arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Tanglin. If there is the slightest doubt as to the possibility of increasing production by diminishing either the feeding area or the breeding area by 800 acres, then I say the debate should be adjourned, and on that motion alone we might have the information that is available to the Minister for Commerce and Industry. 2.56 p.m.

I am speaking on the second motion, Sir. First of all, the Minister is not "a single man". The Minister is not expected to be a man with academic knowledge of fisheries, swamp land, mangroves, stunted mangrove growths, centipedes, serpents and whatever else that grow in the man-groves, or that live in the mangroves. The Minister has to rely on advice from the head of department, who is the man who should know his job and what is going on. According to the advice that I have got from my Chief Fisheries Officer, there is no danger that there will be a diminution in the breeding of prawns because of this scheme. Perhaps hon. Members may like to know why there is no such danger, and I will give the answer in brief. With the Peneid variety of prawns, the full grown ones live out offshore, far out at sea, more than five miles away from the coast. When they breed, the larvae come into the inshore waters. They remain and feed in the inshore waters and grow until they reach "young hood". That is when the prawn operators open their gates and get them in. But it does not follow that the whole lot of larvae in the inshore waters will be caught by the pond operators. Quite a big number are not caught because there is the urge in these young prawns to swim out to sea, back to offshore waters. Therefore a lot of these prawns are not caught. This talk of breeding in the inshore areas of Singapore - it has been fished by local fishermen for the last 50 years and yet there is no evidence of over-fishing so far. The Peneids are not caught until they reach near maturity and the prawn ponds are feeding grounds so that the prawns will grow faster. But as I said earlier, a good portion of the prawns manage to get far out into the sea from the inshore waters, and when they go far out to sea they breed again and the larvae come back into the inshore waters to grow.

On a point of clarification, Sir, could the Hon. the Minister explain to us what is the significance of his argument that there has been fishing for 50 years without a diminution in the amount of prawns available to be caught, with respect to the argument that if you cut down the 1,370 by 1,000 acres there will be a diminution of the area in which these larvae can grow to "youth-hood" - as I think it was put by the Minister?

Sir, I was answering the argument of the hon. Member for Tanglin when he suggested that there might be over-fishing, that is, too many of these young prawns may be caught by the prawn ponds so that there will be insufficient numbers to go out and breed. But that is not so, as I have explained earlier. As regards the area that may be cut down reducing breeding area, I think there is no danger of that because the prawns breed in offshore waters and we have offshore waters on all sides of the island. 3.00 p.m.

On a further point, Sir, as I understand it, the larvae come into the inshore waters and into the mangrove. There it feeds for three months or so until they are ripe for the catch. Then the sluice gates are opened, the prawns are caught and fed in the ponds and are ready for the market. The argument of the hon. Member for Tanglin, which should carry considerable weight if it is true, is that if you cut down the feeding area, which is at present 1,370 acres, by 1,000 acres (although in fact it has already been cut down by 200 acres, so that there are another 800 acres to be cut off), then there will not be sufficient space in the mangrove for the larvae to feed on.

It would appear that we are entering into a debate on the main Question. The Question now is, "That the debate be now adjourned." From the debate within the debate that has taken place it seems to me that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar seeks to make further investigations into this problem.

No, Sir, we do not wish to delay the purpose of the Liberal-Socialist amendment to postpone the debate. We are not very anxious to postpone the debate unless we can be sure there is a valid reason. What we want to be certain is that there is no valid reason, and the enquiries that I have put to the Minister about this cutting down of the breeding or feeding area is to find out whether or not there is a danger. If there is then I suggest the debate should be adjourned for proper consideration to take place; if there is not then we go on with the debate on the merits of it.

There is no such danger, Sir. The inshore area is infinitely larger compared with the 800 acres that we propose to cut down. 3.03 p.m.

Sir, the crux of the matter has not been explained away by the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry. What will influence our vote as to whether this debate should be adjourned or not is the usefulness of having these extra 800 acres as a natural reserve. From the answers which the Minister has given to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, it seems that the Minister is himself in considerable doubt as to what the answer ought to be. We want to know definitely from the Minister before we cast our vote whether he has considered this question from all the scientific and biological information from the experts who are on hand and whose opinions have been given by my learned colleague, the Member for Tanglin. Unless we have the Minister's assurance that he has fully considered it and is prepared to demolish 1,000 acres of land dedicated for the last 100 years in 10 minutes or 20 minutes debate, then I am sure we are unable to cast our votes even on the motion for adjournment.

On a point of clarification, Sir, It seems that the hon. Member wants my full reply to the points raised by the Member for Tanglin. I was reserving that for the reply to the debate on the original Question. Can you please guide me?

As I understand it, the motion, "That the debate be now adjourned", was moved because the mover urged that there should be closer investigation into the whole matter. I think that if debate is entered into on that Question, and if hon. Members will confine themselves to whether or not they think closer investigation ought or ought not to be made, we will be able to complete the debate on that particular Question and then go back to the original Question. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, suppose we do have the debate adjourned now and postpone it to say another three months-or longer than that-how much prawns will we have caught during this period or these few months? Is it not possible that for a consideration of a small amount of prawns that may be caught during that time, we could adjourn this debate and think carefully on the pros and cons of this subject? I think there should be no loss whatsoever, but if the Government, after hearing all this argument, would still want to use its Nominated Members to bulldoze this issue through, then I think-

Order. The hon. Member does understand that he must not impute improper motives?

I believe, Sir, that when arguments are put forward - and strong arguments, too - in support of a motion not against what the Minister has proposed, but just to ask for reconsideration of the matter, the Government should consider the case. I think anybody wise enough should accept the motion, because, if the evidence does point out that it is harmful to do away with the nature reserve, we would not have done away with it yet; but if the evidence shows that it will be profitable to carry on making the whole area into prawn ponds, then it will not be late, even though it may take place a month or two later. 3.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand the mover of this motion - or emotion - correctly, he essentially seeks to get more expert advice on a matter on which expert advice has of course already been given. It is not a matter on which I can give expert advice, except some experience in administration: but the more experts you have, the more differing opinions you will get. I do not think it will be helpful, after the Ministry has made a thorough study and come forward with a proposal, to throw it all back for a lot of further ex-parte expert advice. I cannot help recollecting the question of floods and water storage in which the City Water Engineer put up an expert scheme first and then my drainage adviser put up another scheme and when they were in conflict we had a special expert out from the United Kingdom to put up a third scheme. Meanwhile the Water Engineer was changed, and there was a fourth scheme. That was the result of going to too many experts. You have got to take your experts and stick to them, Mr Speaker, and I think this motion must be resisted because it is a time-waster. 3.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it will probably interest the hon. Member for Serangoon to know that I am in favour of adjourning this debate. I do not know very much about mangroves, and I certainly know very little about the habits of prawns. When I was a young man there was a song which ran, "Do shrimps make good mothers?", but the evidence was inconclusive. And I would certainly like to know a great deal more from the Government side as to whether or not the cutting down of the mangroves would indeed interfere with the fecundity of the prawns. 3.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the stand taken by the last speaker, and I am really surprised to see that the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry and the Government are pressing on with this motion. Expert views have been put up by the hon. Member for Tanglin and I think it will be in the interests of the Members of this House and the people of Singapore in general if the debate on the motion is adjourned. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

I think the Hon. Minister has already spoken.

Sir, I have spoken in reply to points on which clarification was sought.

That is not so.

Have I the right of reply, Sir?

No, I am afraid the hon. Member for Tanglin has no right. Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Division, Sir. 3.10 p.m. The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 18; Absent, 5; Paired, 2. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Tong Liang. Haji Jumat. Lim Choon Mong. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ong Piah Teng. Braga, A. J. Soh Ghee Soon. Chew Swee Kee. Sutherland, G. A. P. Goh Chew Chua. Tan, William. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Absent Abdul Hamid. Jumabhoy, R. Nair, M. P. D. Lazarous, A. R. Stewart, S. T. Lee Choon Eng. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Ching Siong. Thomas, Francis. Seah Peng Chuan. Winslow. A. V. Paired Lim Koon Teck. Wong Foo Nam. Question accordingly negatived.

The original Question as appears in Item 2 of the Order Paper is now before the House. 3.17 p.m.

Sir, it is indeed with great regret that Government is forcing through this measure. I have to protest because we only received this motion less than a week ago on a matter of vital importance to Singapore, in the respect that we are changing a dedicated area of this country in so short a time and after my learned Friend has brought forward considerable evidence and scientific data to raise doubt even in the mind of the leader of the People's Action Party. It is a very inopportune moment for us to resist this motion at a moment when elections to the City Council are imminent. Unscrupulous politicians-

Order. I do not see how a speech of that nature is relevant to the Question.

Sir, the very fact that somebody said "platform" induces me to say that we will be accused of trying to prevent people from getting more food when our sole idea is to have the proper investigations before we leap in the dark. I for one and my Party have always advocated more work, more food, and if we are certain that cutting down of 1,000 acres would improve the prawn feed and the prawn population, I say cut down 10,000 acres or whatever you have. But it is not clear and it has not been proved, and we will not accept the word of just one expert when the scientific data are against it. Sir, if this goes on, why not cut down the Botanic Gardens too and plant tapioca or whatever you like? There must be a certain balance and careful deliberation and thinking before measures like this are forced through within a few hours. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I think there is one point on which the Opposition is being a little unrealistic - the assumption that if this is not done now, it will never be done. If we look at the increase in population of Singapore, it makes it absolutely certain that if things go on as they are, in the end even the Botanic Gardens will have to go, unless you put guards around them and fence them with double reinforced concrete and all the rest of it; for there will be no space on the island which can be left vacant if we go on breeding at the present rate. It is a matter of ten, fifteen or twenty years. We have already got six to seven thousand people per square mile of the island and it is impossible that you should be able to preserve any space that is not fully developed and put to the maximum economic use. If you try to preserve this area as a sanctuary for prawns or crustacea or snakes or any other flora and fauna - I have the greatest sympathy with those who care for them and find educational benefits in them - nevertheless they will go quite soon. People will start cutting the mangrove for firewood; you will not be able to stop them; they will be in there in every possible way and you will be rooting out squatters from the area. It is illusory to imagine that with the population pressure of Singapore, this sort of area can be preserved in perpetuity. The most you can do is to delay it for a while but its development is inevitable in the end. 3.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Labour Front never liked experts - the Minister for Communications and Works said that. But I find that it imports one expert after another one for water, one for transport, one for local government, and one for every other thing it can think of. But in this matter it will say, "No, it does not like experts." It is one of the funniest things to apply the argument only when it suits the Government. On another point I would like clarification, Sir. Out of those 2,000 acres of mangrove swamp you would want to cut down 1,300, leaving only a small acreage as a nature reserve. If we do really want to have that place developed as prawn ponds, then why not cut down everything? Why leave that little bit? If it is not going to contribute towards the breeding of prawns, then by all means take off the whole area; do not leave anything. Why leave a little bit here and a little bit there serving no useful purpose? And if we come to a case in which, as the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works said, people will chop down the trees as firewood, and when only such a small area is left, I definitely think that it will vanish in no time. So again this is a case in which Government is doing things half-heartedly. Does it think that that little area will be good enough as a nature reserve? Or does it think that it will produce more prawns? Whichever way it is, the decision of the Government is wrong. I would like to point out to the Government this matter of food production. Here we have the Pandan Nature Reserve, but elsewhere around Singapore we have many more areas of mangrove. Does the Government encourage prawn fishing in those areas? Does it give licences freely? In some cases it would say that it is looking after the interests of the Malay fishermen; in this case it is going to over-rule them. In some instances Government would go out of its way to consult the fishermen. I am asking Government whether it has done so in this case. If not, why not? Again on a matter of food production, in Singapore we do not just produce in the swamps. I think the Hon, the Minister for Commerce and Industry is also concerned with agriculture. Just look around Singapore and note the various areas where there is waste land. What has he done about such land? Has he converted it into useful food-producing areas? I would like an answer to that. Then again I would say that, in conflict with another Department of Government - the Health Department - the Government has not seen fit to allow Kallang basin to be developed for the purposes of prawn fishing - Kallang basin, not fit for building, not fit for any other purpose, yet the Government will not issue licences because the health authorities say no. Now in this instance again, what is the view of the Health Department? Has Government considered it? If not, why not? I have heard very interesting quotations right at the beginning of this debate. Many people can quote Scripture but many people can also get their facts wrong. Devils can also quote Scripture and also devils can get their facts wrong. Singapore is a nation. We do not have a representative at the United Nations Organisation. Singapore has a thick population. Yes, it is very thick because it is a City and I do not see how all these things can help the debate when it just concerns a few hundred acres where we can catch prawns. I would ask Government to think of better ways of increasing food production by deep-sea fishing. I think Government has been most obstructive in the matter of encouragement of food production when it first refused to allow freely deep-sea fishing-boats to be licensed to go out. And here it is squabbling over some little bit of swamp land, and even that half-heartedly. 3.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a great pity that in a debate such as this we do not have an opportunity first of hearing the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry in reply. I quite realise what the situation is. But obviously he held back a great deal of his fire and so we have not heard what he has to say. But in the meantime we have heard the most cogent arguments put up by the hon. Member for Tanglin. Now I would like to say, with reference to remarks passed by the hon. Member for Paya Lebar and the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works, that I personally am not in the slightest degree interested in the preservation of a Nature Reserve as such. I think the very fact that there are in Singapore large areas under mangrove is a little bit out of place in this age. What I want to hear from the Minister for Commerce and Industry in reply is scientific refutation of the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin, that the destruction of the mangroves is going to lead to lesser breeding of the prawns. That seems to me the only argument of any substance. 3.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we voted against the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Tanglin because he sounded like a Catholic on birth control. They come to you and they say, "Well, you know it has really nothing to do with Catholicism; it has to do with the nervous system of the woman and the man and everybody else. But do not vote for the F.P.A." Sir, I was very interested to hear from the Member for Tanglin that there were peculiar plants, and insects, the flora and fauna, in these mangrove swamps which may be of some benefit to those who have the leisure to go and take pictures at long distance of birds and bees and snakes and prawns and other things. But it seems to me completely unrealistic to talk about nature reserves in the island of Singapore. If you want to talk of nature reserves in the Federation - like King George VI Park - then I say there is some sense of proportion; but if you think nature can be saved from the teeming population, and mangrove swamps at that, saved for some doubtful benefit, I think it is completely and utterly mad. But I was sorry that the Minister did not have at his finger-tips the data with which to destroy the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin - not the argument which he really believed in, but the argument he put forward to preserve his main point, namely, that it should be a nature reserve. Now, very simply, it is this: if there is the slightest possibility of the total prawn population going down as a result of mangroves disappearing and ponds appearing, then I say it should be stopped. Now there is no danger of this happening if the scheme is put into operation in several phases. If we do not have the 800 acres suddenly cut down and ponds appearing, but it is done in phases, we can see the way the prawn population is going - whether it is dying off, like the aborigines in Australia, or whether it is multiplying, like the Negroes in America. It is on that basis that the Government is going to use its common sense and put the scheme through in several phases to make sure that the scientific calculations, or the calculations of the scientific experts quoted by the Member for Tanglin, are not proved correct. So far as we can make out, if we already have 200 acres of the 1,000 acres you want set aside for prawns, in fact fish ponds, then do it in three phases, and as you finish each phase you can see the "state of the nation" as far as prawns are concerned, and go on with it if prawns keep on multiplying. And it is on that basis that we objected to the adjournment, particularly when the hon. Member for Serangoon suggested three months. This is one of the election issues which is bound to crop up in Ulu Pandan. We, the P.A.P., are not interested; we are just spectators there, but the Liberal-Socialists are not just mere spectators. But I would say this, it is very close to the City area. The moment I receive a letter which contains all the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin, signed by a person who has large acres of fish or prawn ponds in that area, I view the matter with some pardonable suspicion. When I find a big owner of fish ponds putting forward all the biological and zoological reasons why this thing should not be turned into ponds, I think the matter should be pursued with even greater vigour. 3.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I think it is quite clear from the arguments we have heard from both sides that all agree that it is the duty of Government wherever possible to increase food production, particularly, when one looks at the reports and the statistics which show that the population is fast growing. Now prawns are very expensive in the market and everything that can be done to increase prawn production of course should be supported. Therefore on balance food production comes foremost against Nature Reserve. The biological, zoological and other "ological" reasons do not move me one bit. I am particularly concerned with the ability to increase food production, and the only argument that was advanced by the hon. Member for Tanglin, on the important question raised by Mr Sutherland, whether the cutting down of the mangroves is going to reduce the prawn population, the only argument advanced by the Member for Tanglin seems to me absolutely contradictory. He says in one breath - and I speak subject to correction, I may have heard wrongly - that by destroying and demolishing mangroves, you are demolishing and doing away with the food which the prawns require in order to grow up. In the next breath he says, quoting from another expert, that the prawns, the larvae, go into the mangrove swamps and bury themselves into the mud for a period until they grow in size to two or three inches.

On a point of explanation, Sir. The biological problem is simply this: prawns feed in mud, mangroves or ponds; when they are ready to breed, they leave the mud, mangroves or ponds for the sea. If too high a proportion of an area is pond, then too high a proportion of prawns is trapped and there are not enough left to go out to sea and to breed.

That is still contradictory, Sir, because I cannot see how the demolition of the mangroves themselves as mangroves is going to reduce the food for prawns. These larvae feed on the molecules that are in the mud, and whether the mangroves are there or not they still have their food in the mud for a certain period. That is how I see it. Therefore I cannot support any argument which says we must preserve the mangroves, for botanical reasons or for zoological reasons or for biological reasons, and also that mangrove is food for the prawns. Someone remarked about the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens, as I see it, is a place which is particularly set aside to grow and preserve such flora as are found in one's country in a particular site, and anybody who wishes to study that flora can go there at their leisure. On those grounds, Sir, I am not satisfied with any argument advanced by the Member for Tanglin that by destroying the mangrove we are going to do away with prawn food and thus reduce the population of the prawns. As no argument has been advanced I must accept the expert advice of the Fisheries Officer on this question, and I support this motion. 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I did not have a proper reply when the motion was moved for the adjournment of the debate. It was because I was holding my guns for the reply to the debate on the original Question. Sir, I must assure this House specifically that all these arguments which the hon. Member for Tanglin has put up have already been put up to the Ministry by the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board, with supporting evidence as put forward by the Member from the various other professors and people of high academic qualifications, and they have been considered by the Ministry. The Ministry feels that, as far as fisheries is concerned, it is its Fisheries Officer who is best qualified to speak on the subject and who should know his job. If the House feels that the opinion of the Fisheries Officer is wrong, then the House can vote against the motion. Sir, first of all, the Member for Tanglin ended his long academic speech with the remark that he paused to wonder why the Minister was so keen to press this issue. Sir, I can assure the House there is no sinister motive behind my pressure to get this motion passed. It is the job of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, besides his various other jobs of expanding industry, commerce, agriculture, veterinary services, keeping an eye on the foreign exchange and what not, to expand the economy of the country, and if he does not carry out that job, then he is not an efficient Minister. Sir, it was not so very long ago that the hon. Member for Tanglin, speaking in the debate in Committee stage on the Appropriation Bill last year, made this remark: "...I have no doubt that, through more research, it should be possible to increase the yield of prawns per acre; thus increasing the return to the fishermen and, at the same time, reducing the market price." And, Sir, he went on to advocate that there should be more prawn ponds and so on. And then the hon. Member for Serangoon, the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party, had this to say: "Land must be granted by the Land Office and then sanctioned for fishing by the Fisheries Department. As far as I know, a great deal of our marshland is still not being made use of, and most of such land is being given under Temporary Occupation Licences..." . Then he went on: "When the marshland is brackish in nature, very little will grow there except mangroves, and I think that the department concerned should reconsider granting such land for purposes of fishing as this has been considered as most important by so many Members." Now, Sir, like a true democratic Minister I took heed of what the Opposition Members remarked and I governed myself accordingly and tried to find land for the purpose of growing more food. And now I am under censure for trying to carry out what they had in mind. Coming back, Sir, to the first argument of the Member for Tanglin that it is against the very nature of the Nature Reserves Ordinance to move such a motion, it is remarked that the words "dedicated", "set aside and reserved for purposes of propagation, protection . . .". etc, have been used in section 3 (1). But I hasten to point out that it is not dedicated in perpetuity. There is also provision, Sir, in the same Ordinance; under section 4 (1), "the Legislative Assembly may by resolution amend the Schedule to this Ordinance by either the addition to or deletion from the said Schedule of any area or may make any modification" and so on. That shows that the intention was not that this area should be a final dedication in perpetuity, but that this area was reserved and that the Assembly, which is the highest authority in this country, should have the power to make any amendments to it if it wished. Evidently what was in mind is that circumstances may change when we cannot afford the luxury of having such reserves. And in accordance with the machinery provided by the Ordinance, I am bringing the matter up to this House for the decision of hon. Members. Now, Sir, talking of experts; you always have two opinions on any subject. You have the Liberal-Socialist opinion, you have the P.A.P. opinion, and you have the Labour Front opinion which in this case is coincidental with the P.A.P.'s. You have the opinion of one expert, you have the opinion of another, but somebody has got to decide which to follow, and that somebody, according to the democratic set up, is the layman, because the Ministers are not experts in the field. You do not have a doctor as a Minister for Health. Therefore it is the layman who decides. He does not decide only from one angle, and that is the technical angle, but he decides from the common man's angle, and that is: what is most important and good for the country. And basing my decision on that, I - being in the position to make the decision - now have brought it up to the House because I feel that it is important that as much area as possible is opened up to the people of Singapore for food production. It is now a matter that rests with this House, for Members to decide, and all Members in this House are laymen in this respect. Now, Sir, a lot has been said about the Nature Reserve Board saying this and the Nature Reserve Board saying that. The Nature Reserve Board is not an expert body. Except for one or two persons on the Board, and that is the Director of Botanic Gardens and the Professor of Botany (I think) of the University, the rest of the members of the Nature Reserve Board are laymen. And therefore when the hon. Member says the Nature Reserve Board says this, what he really means is what the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board says. The rest of the members are laymen, just like you and me, and they cannot express a technical opinion on the subject. Sir, it is a pity that Sir Stamford Raffles, when he founded Singapore, did not see the paramount need of preserving the flora and the fauna of the island but opened up the island to commerce. If he had seen it he would probably have kept the whole island as a nature reserve, in which case of course the Member for Tanglin and his colleagues would not be here today. The Member for Tanglin also said, 'Don't you want to preserve this Reserve for our University students to study and produce Directors of Raffles Museum. Professors of Biology, and Directors of Botanic Gardens, and Fisheries Officers, and so on?' These nature reserves have existed since the time Singapore came into being. Whether they were dedicated by Ordinance or not, they were there. How many Directors of Botanic Gardens have we produced? How many Directors of Raffles Museum have we produced from our local boys? None. Why not? Luckily today we have one, a local officer, who is Chief Fisheries Officer today. Sir, I have got to take the advice of my expert, and that is the Chief Fisheries Officer, on subjects connected with fisheries and prawns, as against the advice of the Nature Reserve Board. But this I think will help to convince hon. Members that not all the arguments put up are absolutely correct and unchallenged. Here is a letter from the Director of Fisheries, Malaya, in which he says: "I have spoken with Messrs. G. C. Maddock, F. G. H. Allen and Dr B. D. Molesworth about the birds, and they say there is no rare species at all there. One species of pittu has nested there and that is the only place on Singapore Island from which it is recorded . . . I also understand there are no rare botanical specimens. It has no specific attributes and is in no way unique..."- speaking of this Ulu Pandan Reserve. Then again, Sir - and this is the expert opinion expressed by the Fisheries Officer: "The prawns which are of commercial value found in the Ulu Pandan prawn ponds belong to the family Peneids and are known as Peneids to scientists. No conclusive research work on the breeding of Peneids in Malayan waters has been carried out. The present state of knowledge based on the research work done in the United States of America and elsewhere on this group of prawns indicates that they breed fairly far out to sea in clear water. A review of this work by three U.S.A. experts on prawns, namely, W. N. Anderson, J. E. King and M. J. Linder, may be found in the Biological Bulletin of 1949, and this work has been accepted by biologists all over the world as accurately representing the position, so that we may until such time as proof to the contrary is available, assume that our Peneid prawns spawn fairly far out to sea and that their larval stages are brought into the ponds by the tide from spawning grounds which may be ten miles or more from the Ulu Pandan area. These larval stages then grow up in the ponds until they are large enough to spawn. They then migrate back to the sea. It is during this migration that the prawns are caught by the filter nets of the prawn pond operators. But a sufficient number of prawns will always go out to sea for breeding, and the prawn ponds can never catch the whole lot that is growing up in the inshore waters, and that is the reply to the argument of the hon. Member for Tanglin. And then he (the Member for Tanglin) has quoted an expert who actually is a carsinologist. The term denotes a person who is expert in the classification of crustaceans, which includes crabs, prawns and a host of other shrimp-like animals, into families, genera and species. A carsinologist need not necessarily be an expert on the biology of crustaceans such as prawns. Sir, indeed many carsinologists are not biologists in the accepted sense of the word and therefore do not know sufficient of the biology of prawns or crabs to offer expert opinion on whether or not the continued productivity of the Ulu Pandan prawn ponds depends on the utilisation of this Nature Reserve. Now there you have an expert speaking out his mind. I do not know whether hon. Members wish to accept it or not but the fact is that cutting down these 800 acres is not going to affect the breeding of the prawns. I have a lot of other arguments, Sir, on points which I could answer but I think the time is running short. There is one other thing, Sir; the important question of Malay fishermen has been raised and I assured the House earlier that we would try to form them into a co-operative so that they will not be the losers because of this, and we will guarantee them a quarter of the area, to be run by the co-operative. Now let me give some figures on the economics of pond prawn cultivation. Supposing there are 200 Malays in this area now and their catch value is an average of $5 per day per family, their cash earnings probably come to only about $1,000 a month or $12,000 a year because not all sell their catch. If you have 200 acres, at the Fisheries rate of production, that is 5 piculs and 70 katties per year per acre, you get $114,000 per year if you sell your prawns at $1 a katty. So now you have 200 Malays earning about $12,000 a year; if they co-operate and join this scheme, and develop 200 acres, they could stand to gain $114,000 per year if the production is at the maximum rate of the Fisheries Department. But if the production is at the minimum rate, as alleged by the Nature Reserve Board, and that is 200 katties per year, even at that rate, they could still get $40,000 a year. So they will not be the losers by this. And of course you get a vast increase in the quantity of prawns in our markets, and that means a relief to housewives, who could get their prawns cheaper and more readily whenever they want. Sir, in other mangroves, wherever it is possible Government has encouraged prawn ponds. Only in the Straits of Johore does Government not allow prawn ponds at the moment because of the curfew and the restriction on fishermen to fish there at night. If later on these curfew restrictions are lifted, then of course Government will look into the matter and probably allow them to have prawn ponds there. Sir, finally I want the House to consider this aspect. Does it wish to preserve the flora and the fauna - maybe thousands of centipedes and snakes and ferns and stunted dwarf trees that grow in mangrove swamps such as this one - or does it wish to preserve the human species? Original question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted there-for:- "All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in parts of lots 136-15 and 136-17, Mukim No. V, Pandan, and in part of lot 94-13 Mukim No. VI, Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 236 a. O r. 0 p.,90 a. O r. O p, and 45 a. O r. O p. respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged red on Certified Plan No. 7499 filed in the office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.".

3.54 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

ir, when I sought the right to speak on this adjournment motion, I thought it would not really be necessary to argue the case for radio time to be given to political Parties to put over their programmes for the City Council elections. It seemed so eminently reasonable, and so eminently correct, that I did not put it down in the form of a motion. However, I was wrong. I understand that the Government is not very keen on having political Parties speaking over the radio. I have therefore today tabled a motion on which a vote will be taken. I do not see any reason why we should be afraid to use this very powerful weapon of disseminating information in a very peaceful and orderly manner, and why this channel should not be open to political Parties. I have been brought up to believe that the theory of the democratic system is that competing political Parties put over their views and their programmes to the electorate, and every member of that electorate is given an opportunity - by secret ballot to indicate his choice. There are many ways of putting over one's programme and one's political philosophy-newspapers owned by big combines or wealthy proprietors, mass meetings-

Order. I just want to clarify a point which the hon. Member mentioned. Did I hear him correctly when he said he had tabled a motion on which he expects a vote?

Sir, I have taken steps to see that if the rejoinder of the Government to my proposal of political Party broadcasts for City Council elections is adverse, then a motion will be tabled for debate. If my suggestion is favourably received, then I see no reason why we should waste the time of the House by further debate.

No notice has been given?

No, Sir. Sir, there are many ways of putting over one's political points of view. We depend upon the courtesy of the newspapers, and some of them are not very courteous. They go of their way not to tell the public that you are holding an election meeting because they do not happen to like your political Party. They black out one party's meeting, they boost up another's. When one party has a big crowd they say it has a small gathering. If the Parties they favour have a small crowd they do not show a picture of the crowd. There are many other ways of manipulating propaganda. But there is one medium which cannot be manipulated. If you allocate to each Party, according to the number of candidates contesting the elections a certain period of radio time, there can be no distortion, there can be no danger of rioting. It is the most reasonable form of putting forward one's point of view. There can be no danger of being booed either. So I do not see any reason why anybody should be afraid to go before the microphone to put his party's point of view across. Now, Sir, as I have said, it is so eminently just that I see no purpose being served by my bringing up argument after argument, and I would like to know from the Government what are its reasons against giving political Parties the opportunity to use this medium which is owned by the Government. It could be done fairly. There are certain rules of the game which we observed in the last general elections. I remember in the old days when elections were not very popular, because they were not based on a wide franchise, every piddling little City Council election was allowed radio time. And now, at the most important election for the City of Singapore, for the administration of the City Council for 4 years, we are to be denied radio time. 4.00 p.m. It being four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Assembly lapsed without Question put.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

Debate resumed.

There is just one argument which I have heard, an aside during the idle conversation that sometimes goes on outside this Chamber. It is that Radio Malaya is not owned by Singapore alone and therefore if the Federation does not have election broadcasts for their Town Council elections, we should not set a precedent. Sir, I see no merit in that argument at all. There is a medium wavelength for Singapore which need not be re-broadcast either in Penang, Kuala Lumpur or Malacca. If we are afraid to put our political Parties and their programmes over Radio Malaya then our democratic system will perish. 4.01 p.m.

Sir, the accepted policy now both in the Federation and Singapore is that no radio time should be allocated to political Parties for broadcasting for any election other than the general elections to the Legislative Assemblies. Sir, we all appreciate that Radio Malaya provides a pan-Malayan service common to Singapore and the Federation, and this is a matter which will have to be referred to the Federation. Action is being taken to consult the Federation Government as to what their views are, and all the points raised by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will be duly considered before a final decision is taken.

Are you in favour? Or are you scared?

Order.

We are scared.

Order.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock p.m.