Hansard, 1957-12-19

10.01 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been decided that the Committee of Supply should sit tomorrow and as tomorrow is not a sitting day, I now formally move, "That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, 20th December, 1957."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, 20th December, 1957.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]:

FIRST SCHEDULE Head 35 -

I understand that Head 35, Forest, did not get a vote yesterday. I will put the Question formally.

Question, "That the sum of $74,940 for Head 35 stand part of the Schedule", put, and agreed to. The sum of $74,940 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 36 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy - That the sum to be allotted for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. In Mr R. Jumabhoy absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $296,720 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37 - The sum of $1,423,870 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 38 - The sum of $255,930 for Head 38 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy - That the sum to be allotted for Head 39 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. In Mr R. Jumabhoy absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $256,970 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 40 - The sum of $113,010 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 41 - The sum of $755,060 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 42 -

Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 42 be reduced by $36,240 in respect of subhead 8 therein. According to this item, we are asked to provide $36,240 for fees for an adviser on land titles and, according to the explanation in the footnote, I see he is required to draft rules and regulations and to prepare a textbook explaining the law and practice of the Land Titles Ordinance (No. 21 of 1956). Sir, it is very surprising that there are no experts within the Ministry to draft rules or regulations and to prepare textbooks regarding the Land Titles Ordinance. In the Ministry, I do find that we have one Commissioner of Lands, one Deputy Commissioner of Lands, one Registrar of Titles and one Examiner of Titles. We have four senior officers who are well conversant with land titles and so forth, and yet they are not in a position to prepare a Land Titles Ordinance or to draft rules and regulations. I cannot see why, Sir. What are they for? We employ senior officers for the purpose of running that Ministry. All of them have qualifications on land titles and so forth, yet they cannot prepare these draft rules and regulations. If my memory serves me right, Sir, I think sometime last year or so we sent our former Commissioner of Lands, who is now, I understand, the Permanent Secretary, to Australia to study this question of land titles. He is back with us. What has he done and why cannot he prepare the draft rules or regulations? Is it necessary that we should now appoint a special adviser to prepare them at a cost to Government and the public of $36,240? Will this not be a waste of funds? If the senior officers in the Ministry cannot prepare them, they are not fit to remain in office. I am rather surprised that the Minister is not aware whether officers in it can or cannot prepare such rules and regulations in respect of land titles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the Minister who is not aware of something happening in his Ministry, I think it is the hon. Member for Queenstown who is not aware.

I cannot be.

We still do not have a Registrar of Titles although we have advertised for the post; there have been interviews by the Public Service Commission - four times, I think - yet we are still without a Registrar of Titles. These rules and regulations with regard to land titles, Sir, are for a new system of land tenure. We are using this system in Singapore for the first time and I am afraid that the officers in my Ministry do not have the expert knowledge which is required for such a system. I do not think I have anything further to say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us what experience our former Commissioner of Lands gained whilst he was in Australia to learn this question of land titles? He was sent there for a particular purpose - to learn the Ordinance or to learn something about land titles. He is back, and I am sure the Minister cannot say that he does not have a Commissioner of Lands or that he has no one to whom to give this appointment. He went to Australia at our expense and what has the Ministry or the Singapore Government benefited? We sent him there to learn all about the subject yet he is not in a position to prepare draft rules and regulations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Permanent Secretary was sent to Australia sometime back to study the new system of land titles. He is partly responsible for the Land Titles Ordinance which was passed in 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to a layman it may seem easy to formulate rules for the proposed title to land under the intended registration system but to those who know, as I do, it is a difficult job. It needs expert advice, otherwise when the regulations are made, they may either not be applicable or, if they do, may lead to misunderstandings under the proposed Ordinance.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $276,690 for Head 42 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1955 the Government set up a Working Committee to investigate and report on the question of land clearance and resettlement. This report was tabled in this Assembly in 1956 and adopted. It is now more than 1½ years but what has the Government done to the recommendations contained in that report? The only scheme so far realised, as far as I am aware, is in the resettlement of the slum areas of Queenstown and Henderson Road. Apart from these two areas, what has the Government done? Can the Minister tell this House how many other areas he has in mind to carry out this resettlement scheme? And another most important question is, if he has any other area in mind, will these future areas be concentrated on a communal basis? If my memory is correct, Sir, when the Minister stood for election in 1955 he stood under the Alliance banner, with the support, may I say, of the Labour Front. He approached the Labour Front for support and he was elected. When he stood for election, one of his platforms was, 'If I am elected, I will strive for the betterment of the attap dwellers. I will do all I can for the attap dwellers -'

I never said so.

Well, that is one of his platforms and that of the Labour Front as well. At that time I was in the Labour Front and I know what its platform was. Sir, may I say that this is one of those election pledges that a candidate puts to the public just as a vote-catching stunt but is never fulfilled. A promise was made during the last elections but its fulfilment has yet to come. 10.15 a.m. The Hon. Member is now a Minister of the Labour Front Coalition Government today, and it so happens that he has been made Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, which gives him all the power to do what he can for the attap dwellers. What has he done, Sir, during these 2½ years in office? As for as I can see, there are still plenty of slum areas in the Colony. What has he done after all his promises to the electors in his division, Ulu Bedok, and to those in the Colony in general? He has practically done nothing at all. I do not know how he will face his electorate when he goes back to the country next year. I would like to see how he tells them when he goes back. My next point, Sir, is on the question of a housing authority. This subject has been brought up in this Assembly time and time again but do we have a housing authority yet? There is none. May I refresh the Minister, Sir, that when he assumed office he said that he would set up a housing authority. Has he forgotten that? He said that within a very short time he would certainly set up one. May I refresh his memory by reading from Volume 1, No. 1, of the Official Report for 22nd April, 1955, column 40? When he assumed office, he said: "In addition, it is proposed to tackle the housing problem more vigorously and efficiently by setting up a statutory Housing Authority, solely responsible to Government, to replace the present Singapore Improvement Trust. It is hoped that such a Housing Authority would be able in a comparatively short time to bridge the increasing gap between public housing programmes and the needs of the people." Sir, he says "a comparatively short time". May I ask the Minister, Sir, how short is a "short time", or it may be how long? I do not know what he means by it. It may mean the time from the day he assumed office until the day he is no more in it. That would be from three-and-a-half to four years; would that be a "short time"? May I also remind the Minister, Sir, that life is also short. Sir, I would like to refer to my question on 16th October, 1957, on the progress of the establishment of this housing authority. I will refresh his memory by reading what he said (column 2656): "I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member wants a report or a statement on the question of the progress of the establishment of a Housing Authority. He has asked me to make a statement. A statement can be in one sentence or in twenty sentences. I have made my statement in one sentence." He made his statement very, very short in - one sentence - and I think that is what he meant by a "short time". In his reply, I may say - if I may be allowed to continue on this subject - he said, "there is no delay in the establishment of a Housing Authority." I will read again, from column 2656:

Is the Minister aware of the concern of the public in the long delay in setting up this Housing Authority?

There is no delay, Sir." Now, Sir, he has been two-and-a-half years in office and he has promised this House that he will, "in a comparatively short time", set up a housing authority. Two-and-a-half years is not enough for the Government to set it up! Every time this question is brought up in this House, the reply is that it is still under consideration and that 'we will submit a report very soon, or "in due course," which is the normal term of the Government'. How long more will this delay be? Is it going to be until he leaves the Ministry or until he is no more in office? Now as long as this Housing Authority is not established, there will be no proper authority to take over the S.I.T. The Minister himself realises that the housing authority is most essential to take over from the S.I.T., as he stated on 22nd April, 1955, column 40 of the Official Report. Yet, after two-and-a-half years we do not have a housing authority to take over. And what is the result? - there are still thousands and thousands of outstanding applications for S.I.T. accommodation. They are still waiting and waiting. Is it the function of the S.I.T. to keep people in suspense, waiting and waiting for accommodation? How long will it take? May I say that it is a real shame for the Minister to say, in reply to a question of mine sometime this year, that so far in 1957 not a single house has been allotted to the public. What a shame! And what a government which states that it will provide houses and so forth and yet has not one single house or one single flat allotted to the public this year. May I remind the Government or the Labour Front, Sir, that on its posters during Election time, it was stated in Chinese, "Clothing, food and housing: If elected, if we come into power, we will provide the public with these three essentials. Number one is clothing; we will provide the public with clothing. Next, we will provide the public with food; and next, we will provide the public with housing." This is the poster put up by the Labour Front at that time. I was lucky that I did not use these Labour Front posters for my election purposes - I had my own posters - and I am therefore not responsible or a party to that statement. Housing is of the most important platforms of the Government or Labour Front, yet after all these years it cannot find a house for the public! What is this, Sir? Is this what the Government is trying to do, to neglect its duty and delay and delay? When are we going to have houses? When do we expect to have the slum areas cleared? I would like to ask the Minister: when can he make a final decision on this housing authority? I am quite sure his reply again will be, 'Within a very short time'. But I would like a definite and a specific 'short time' - is it to be a matter of a day, a week, a month or in another l½ years when he may be no more in office! Sir, the next point I would like to refer to is the decision made by the S.I.T. on citizenship and eligibility for houses, which is now being referred to the Government. The Board of the S.I.T. has decided that only Singapore Citizens can apply for accommodation and that no one else can. Prior to this decision, aliens who have been here 10 years and more could apply. What is the S.I.T. going to do with the applications now in its hands from aliens? The reply may be that since they are aliens, they are not considered to be local people, and will not be provided with S.I.T. accommodation. May I remind the House that I asked a question: what would be the fate of those who wanted to become citizens but could not get themselves registered by 31st January, 1958? I believe my question was ruled out as being hypothetical and I could not press the matter further. Now is it the fault of these aliens? Is it that they do not want to become citizens? It is not their fault. They are anxious to become citizens of Singapore but just because of the rush, the crowds and the long queues lined up at all the registration centres they cannot have a chance to get themselves registered in time. Is the S.I.T. going to deprive them of a house? Is it going to scrap all applications from these aliens, applications submitted long ago? Some might have submitted their applications five years ago, or even 10 years ago. Yet today the S.I.T. has decided, and the Government may decide, that they will be removed from the register or waiting list. Is it fair, Sir, that after waiting in suspense for five to ten years, and with no fault of not wanting to become Singapore citizens, they will have to be chucked out of the register? I hope that the Government will take note of all these points and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Queenstown, particularly those concerning the housing authority. The delay in the establishment of this housing authority, up to the closing stages of the life of the present Government, has thrown the whole housing programme, particularly those of private builders, completely out of gear. With no central authority to deal with plans, and with plans having to be submitted in seven copies to different bodies - the Singapore Improvement Trust, the City Council or the Rural Board, the Health Department and others - and the insistence that everything must be cleared before being passed from one body to another, plans have taken over a year to be approved. Sometimes even after a year, plans are sent back and the architects who sent them in are asked to submit new ones, because new ideas have come up about the siting of roads and their standards. This has caused such delay that, instead of building the 3,000 houses which I anticipated two companies in Singapore could have done, they have only completed about 1,000. Sir, unfortunately this delay has now caused the collapse of all private development because of the money tightness and the disinflationery squeeze. No loans can now be obtained from the building societies. Therefore, you are not going to get any more houses built by the public investing people. Sir, I have always advocated that housing should be the work not only of Government, but private developers as well, private developers to cater for those who earn more than $400 or $500 a month - particularly senior Government servants who are about to retire, who can buy their own houses and when the time for retirement comes have a house of their own - and the S.I.T. to house people with smaller incomes who are unable to buy the houses, and of course some unfortunate people who always have to be helped by subsidy from Government. But all this now, Sir, has been thrown completely out of gear and I do urge Government to bring this housing authority into being as soon as possible, so that we can get on with the work. Another very important aspect of this housing authority is in the provision of factory sites, as we are now striving for secondary or light industries. If we are to encourage the establishment of industries, we must not insist on standards of building which make it impossible for a small man with a capital of, say $10,000 to $20,000, to start a factory. You have to be realistic. You have to provide sites quickly and allow them to put up their own buildings as cheaply as possible consistent with safety. I have seen plans being refused because the standards of building are not high enough. Well, in the past, nearly 100 years in Singapore, not a single factory has collapsed on the workers. It is important that we must get plans for factories for light industries approved within three months at the latest; not when you sent it in, it is sent back again and the reason it is asked to be withdrawn is because it does not conform to the requirements of the Master Plan. They put it very nicely of course; they say, 'Will you do this and that?' But all that takes time. I am sure if Government wants to help, it can be done. And it must be done, otherwise we will be burdened with more and more unemployment. 10.30 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly endorse the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, on the establishment of a Housing Authority in Singapore. We have allotted large sums of money to the Singapore Improvement Trust and what has been done with all of it? No houses have been built and, as the Member for Queenstown has said, there is a long waiting list of applicants. I can inform the Hon. the Minister for Housing that at the moment, if he were to pay a visit to the office of the Planning Section of the S.I.T., he will find piles and piles of plans, development plans, lying idle there. Those plans have been there for months and months, yet no action has been taken. Why? The Planning Section was formerly run by four officers but now I understand that one of the officers is on leave, one has been boarded out and the third transferred to be Acting Chairman of the S.I.T. (because the Chairman of the S.I.T. has been transferred to be adviser to the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing). Why cannot more officials be put in the Department in view of the fact that those development plans are essential for this country? People want to invest money in this country. They submit their plans but what has the S.I.T. done? It has done no work! It is really a shame.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like just to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Queenstown regarding citizenship registration. I understand that 500,000 application forms have been given out by the Department concerned. I read in the Press this morning that 166,000 people have been registered by now. I think it is high time the Department looks into the matter very carefully - how many persons it expects will be registered, how many have registered and what is the balance of expected registrations, and to appoint more registration teams. Surely Government can appoint more teams because people are finding difficulty. When they ask for a registration team, they are given dates further and further off and the people are not sure that they can be registered within the period. I agree that the registration period should never be extended but the opportunity should be taken of having more teams so that people who want to get registered can be satisfied.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is really gratifying to note that all Members of the Opposition support and endorse the housing authority which is one of the principles of the Labour Front and not of the Opposition. I am glad to note that they endorse something which they never even thought of when they stood for election.

In reply to that, the housing authority was thought of and was planned long before the Front came into being.

Sir, it is also very fine to see that the Liberal-Socialists have now got new friends. With regard to the report of the Working Party on land clearance in 1956. I think we have done a lot, but in so far as this Government is concerned, we do first things first, and amongst the things that we have done was the resettlement of the squatters in Queenstown and other parts of the city from areas primarily required for Singapore Improvement Trust schemes. I think we have done a wonderful job, although the Opposition does not think so.

Self-praise!

There are at the moment 70 areas for resettlement under investigation which will comprise almost 2,600 farm lots. With regard to the allegation by the Member for Queenstown that I have made promises during my election campaign to attap dwellers and so on, may I remind the Member that I made no such promises? All I did say was that I would do my very best for the people of Singapore, irrespective of whether they lived in Ulu Bedok or Queenstown. On the question of the housing authority, Members of the Opposition seem to think that you can put up a housing authority within a matter of months, and even within a matter of weeks or days. Well, Sir, the legislation for a housing authority is a very complicated one. I know we have taken two and a half years but I did promise at an earlier sitting of this Assembly that a Bill for the housing authority would be introduced at the very first opportunity during the next session of the Assembly. I hope to have it introduced for its First Reading at its very first sitting. On the allegation that the S.I.T. has been sleeping and has not been building any house, may I remind Members that, at the time I replied to questions in this Assembly to the effect that no housing units had been completed or allocated between August 1956 and April 1957, there were no less than 4,000 houses under construction? By the end of 1958, most of these houses will have been completed - and probably allocated as well. There is the other allegation, about delay in passing plans. Here again, Sir, I have explained to the House that the S.I.T. is not the only authority responsible for passing plans. For instance, you have also the City Council, and I , as Minister, cannot in any way interfere with the workings of the City Council. Similarly, you have the Rural Board, probably the Ministry of Health and other departments, whose "chops" you must have on the plans before you can proceed with the building.

Do something about it!

But if I may say this, if there are any members of the public who feel that they have been let down very badly by the Planning Department of the S.I.T., I shall be only too glad to be of any assistance to them, particularly, I think, to the Member for Paya Lebar.

Mr Speaker, I think this House will agree that the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has failed to answer the allegation raised by the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru about shortage of staff in the Planning Department of the Singapore Improvement Trust. Of course we accept that it is quite a complicated matter for a plan to pass through the Rural Board, the City Council and other bodies, but I think it is generally known that the S.I.T. is the main body causing all the delay in passing plans. My second point is that this House has yet to be informed by the Minister when he can promise it that the housing authority can be set up to take over the S.I.T. I wish to add my last point for the Government to consider. Since under the Master Plan, satellite towns are going to be set up, I wonder why Government insists on building multi-storeyed houses to house what I should say are middle class people able to pay at least $30 per flat. But how about those who live in cubicles and pay from $10 to $20 for a single room? Does the Government ever consider building more low-cost housing to house those who are really poor? These people cannot afford to pay the lowest rent charged by the S.I.T., i.e. $30. I suggest that there are many vacant pieces of land in the rural areas or outskirts of the city on which we can build cheap houses (especially as we have an expert on houses with us - I mean the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, Mr Lim Koon Teck, who can build low-cost houses) and charge a very low rent. This will enable the poor to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine as others do. I wonder whether the S.I.T. in its planning has studied the surveys made by the Social Welfare Department of the average income of the people in Singapore, and considered how many people can afford to pay the rent it charges. Many people cannot pay the rent by themselves and are forced to invite relatives or friends to share their flats, which is against the regulations, and they are asked to quit. But does the S.I.T. not know that these people would like to have the whole flat to themselves as much as do those who can afford to pay? As they cannot afford to pay the rent themselves, they therefore have to invite relatives, friends or even strangers to share their flats. Yet the S.I.T. rules that this is against regulations. In order, therefore, to save all the trouble to be to visit the Courts, I wish and strongly suggest that Government will follow the summoned in and summoned out, and principle of setting up satellite towns and build many, many more low-cost houses in them for the poor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not the duty of the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to pay a visit to the Planning Section of the Singapore Improvement Trust? He will find there the cause of the delay in the approval of the development plans. In that small office, all around, even in the corners, he will find piles and piles of plans, plans which have lain idle for months and months. We want prosperity in Singapore. If you have those plans passed, we will create it. They are development plans; they are essential. They will create employment for our people. They will lead to the building of more factories. Why then are there delays? As the Minister responsible, it is his duty to pay a visit to this office. I understand that the department is understaffed. Before, its work was done by four officers, as I said earlier in my speech, but it is now being run by only one officer. Why should there be delay? It is his duty to check it up.

Mr Speaker, I want to make a few comments in reply to the Minister. I think he said that he has 70 areas comprising about 2,600 farm plots for clearance and resettlement. I am not clear whether he has already cleared these 70 areas, or that there are 70 areas in all in the Colony to be cleared. If it is 70 areas to be cleared, I would like the Minister to tell us how many has he cleared so far. 10.45 a.m. My next point is that he said he made no promise during his election campaign to provide better conditions of living for attap dwellers. May I call it a tradition, Sir, for promises always to be made by candidates during election time, but when they get into power, they forget the promises? So I will not blame him for not being aware now or not being able to remember having made such a promise. As a member of the public who was at his election rallies, I think I can remember better. The third point is on the housing authority. He said that at the first opportunity he would report to this Assembly on its establishment. I do hope sincerely, Sir, that the next time we sit here, he will place legislation for a housing authority before this House, and that after the next sitting we will in fact have a housing authority to take over the S.I.T. My fourth point is that he said I accused him or the Government of not having built any houses. My accusation was that the Government had so far not provided a flat to the many thousands of applicants on the waiting list for S.I.T. accommodation. He had clearly stated in his reply to me some time earlier that so far this year no houses had been allotted to members of the public. Is it not a shame for the Government that not even one single house has been allotted while the main posters of the Labour Front - may I quote again - promise three main items "clothing, food and -"

Sir, point of order - the Member is repeating.

Under Standing Orders I can of course stop tedious repetition, but I do not think the hon. Member has become tedious at the moment.

Sir, I am not repeating but just quoting. The Minister has also said that by 1958 he would have all these houses, as planned by the S.I.T., completed. Is the Government going to wait until the end of 1958 to allocate houses? He has not said in his reply that he will commence forthwith to allot houses to those on the waiting list. He only said that he was quite confident that by the end of 1958 there would be quite a number of houses completed. Is the Government going to wait until all those houses are completed before the S.I.T starts any allocation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the figure I gave for 1958 was 4,000 units but I should mention that by the end of 1957, approximately the same number of houses will have been completed. The allocation of houses is not the responsibility of the Minister but that of the S.I.T., as the Member for Queenstown knows. As regards the 70 areas which I mentioned are for resettlement, I would refer the Member to the Annual Report of the Commissioner for Lands for 1956, page 13, last but one paragraph. As to the "piles and piles of plans" in the S.I.T., I think, Sir, the fault there lies not so much with the insufficiency of the present staff of the S.I.T.; it has in fact not been able to get enough qualified men although it has a number of Asians. Many of the posts were advertised but there was no response.

Rubbish!

Order.

It may be rubbish, Sir, as the Member for Tiong Bahru thinks, but I feel if we do not get enough staff for our public services, whether in the Government, the S.I.T. or the City Council, then there will be a total breakdown in the administration of the Colony of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this subject of housing is a very important one, with our population growing day by day. The reply given by the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing means that he is not the only person concerned, but that there are other bodies like the S.I.T., City Council, Rural Board, Health Department and so on. Am I to understand from him that during his 2½ years in office he has not been able to get proper co-ordination and co-operation from these other bodies so as to hurry up with this important project of housing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I respectfully suggest to the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Tiong Bahru that if they cannot speak in a normal voice, not to -

Order.

What a shame!

Order. I am trying to keep this debate on a proper level, but if provocative speeches of the nature attempted by the Minister for Health are made, I think my job will be made a little more difficult. Let us be relevant. Let us carry on with the debate in the right spirit. Hon. Members: Hear! Hear!

We are not deaf.

Sir, no one is as anxious as the present Government to provide homes for the people of Singapore. Members of the Opposition have accused us in these terms: What have we done? Where are the homes built? But I have yet to hear a true appreciation of the problems in housing, and no expression has been made to show the gravity of the situation except allegations like this: Where are the houses? What is the Minister doing about it? Has he not been working in the Ministry for 2½ years? Sir, if Opposition Members are to look around in Queenstown and the old Kallang Airport, they will find homes being built there. If they realise that these houses are being built by the Government, they will not be saying all the things that they have said today. It is true, Sir, that for a few days now Members of the Opposition have been suffering from election fever, and in view of that fact, the Government will try to see whether some medicine can be administered to clear them of this disease. I think probably their election fever will, stop by the 20th of this month. The hon. Member for Paya Lebar. Sir, said that the delay in the establishment of a housing authority has a relation to the loans being granted by the housing societies. Mr Lim Koon Teck rose -

Is it a point of order?

No, Sir, I seek elucidation. That was not my point at all. I never mentioned that. I said it was unfortunate that this delay in the passing of plans had coincided with loans being discontinued.

I do not think that the delay in building houses has any relationship whatsoever either with the delay in passing plans or the delay in giving loans by the Malaya-Borneo Building Society. The delay in building houses is due to the reasons given by the Minister and to the various implications of the matter. Sir, I do not think that any other Government in Singapore will be so humane as the present one in dealing with human problems. It is true that in dealing with housing matters, in cases of eviction this Government has been particularly careful to avoid causing any difficulty to the poor and unfortunate people being evicted, and in trying to help them, there has been delay. But I do not think that it is true to say that that has been the reason for the delay in building homes. The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru said that he has seen piles and piles of plans in the Planning Section of the S.I.T. Sir, if I am a blacksmith and if I start talking about carpentry, what does it mean? I am in some profession and I can only speak with authority on that profession. Planning? - I do not know planning -

Shut up!

Order. The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru will please withdraw that expression.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I think it is very bad to make accusations without knowing the true facts. These accusations, Sir, will cause the morale of the staff to fall, and thereby cause more delays in the Planning Section. I hope, Sir, that in dealing with these matters we will realise that we have to be tolerant. Sir, I think there is a real test coming very soon to all Members of this Assembly and all members of all Parties. Let us face this test. Opposition Members have said the Government is causing delay in building homes. Sir, nearly 18 months ago, the Singapore Improvement Trust planned the redevelopment of Covent Gardens. In Covent Gardens there are a number of tenants facing eviction. Government has offered them alternative accommodation. The S.I.T. has taken care to offer all of them alternative accommodation. There have been some difficulties on the part of the tenants which were brought to the attention of the Minister, and the Minister has done all he can to relieve them. And very soon, some of these people will have to give way for the redevelopment of Covent Gardens. However, Sir, I have received reports that political Parties are very active in the area trying to tell the people, 'You don't go unless you get a house for $10 a month. You don't go unless you get a house plus compensation. You don't go until something substantial is received by you.' What are these "substantial" things? The S.I.T. has already offered them alternative accommodation. I do hope, Sir, that the Members of the Opposition who want more homes will advise those people to take advantage of the offer of new homes made by the S.I.T. and so help Government to redevelop Covent Gardens. This is a test for the Opposition. Let us see whether they will share the job of providing homes for the people of Singapore, whether they are true and sincere in this. Sir, I do not think that anyone in Singapore can accuse this Government of trying to delay building homes for the people. I say it, and unless I have proof otherwise, I cannot for one moment believe that those allegations are true. 11.00 a.m.

Sir, no one has ever suggested that the Government is trying to delay the building of homes for the people. What we say is that it has not been done, that is all. Apparently the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has not tried to justify the number of houses that have been built, but the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary now tries to justify it. On what grounds? I do not know whether he was here when I mentioned that only 3,000 houses had been built within the last two and a half years - the life of this Government - out of a total target of well over 10,000. If he mentions those which are now coming up beautifully in the Kallang Basin I have to tell him that out of the 3,000 houses that have been completed in these two and a half years, 1,500 have been a carry-over from 1954. So I do not think there is anything to be proud of if you read the figures and think of them carefully.

Sir, I think we must forget the idea that in Singapore we can at any time build a certain number of houses each year. There is no question of building 4,000 or 5,000 houses each year. The capacity for building and various other incidental factors make it difficult to have a certain quota per year. The cost of building materials, the cost of labour, and the availability of both these items, are contributory factors in building, and I do not think for a moment that I need remind the hon. Member for Paya Lebar of all these difficulties. What we would like to hear from the Opposition is an appreciation of the housing problem in general in Singapore and the part played by the Government in solving that problem. If anybody can challenge us and say that there are no difficulties in building houses in Singapore and that the Government has not taken any steps to build them, then we will bow down to the Opposition and we will say we have failed. But if nobody can do that and yet they want to say things as they like, well, Sir, we are not going to give in.

Sir, I find that right from the beginning of this debate until now we have not got satisfaction from the Government. I would say to the Government that only a bad workman quarrels with his tools. Faced with difficulties, the Government seems not to be able to do anything at all. We want results. We do not want plans. We do not want to hear of all the efforts that have been made by Government being wasted. I was teaching some boys in physics the other day, and I told them that if they started pushing a pillar and wasted a whole day sweating all over pushing it and yet not moving it an inch, then they were doing no work. We have heard from the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary that there is an election fever and that he is trying to put over a cure. All the little pills that he has prescribed in the matter of explanation will not cure it. The best cure is to quit and, when the Government quit, I think that will be the greatest cure for all these grouses.

Sir, for the first time I have heard in this House the leader of the Liberal-Socialists suggesting to us that we should quit. If the hon. Member can form a government, I will quit. [Interruption.]

Order.

Sir, I just want to point out to the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary that if there is a breakdown in any particular year, I have no quarrel with the Government. I am taking an average which is a fair picture. I would suggest to the Government that, when they meet with an obstacle in one direction, they should look for an outlet in another direction. In this case, I suggest that they cut up small plots of land and sell them to people with small means so that they can build their own huts. But instead of doing this, they just run around in circles and nothing has been done.

Sir, nobody on this side has suggested that we want to form a government. What we want to see is this: that the minority Government, which is undemocratic, should not continue to hold office. It is not in the interests of the public. They are not fulfilling their promise. What we want is a caretaker All-Party government till the elections next year and they should not be the tools of the colonial power.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some time ago the hon. Member mentioned a caretaker government of all Parties in this Assembly. I have asked him whether that is his Party's policy. If that is so, say so and this Government will consider it.

Sir, when this was asked the last time, I replied that the leader of my Party would reply to it. But what I wish to say now is this: it is much more honourable for the present Government to quit, since their elected Members are not in the majority. But an All-Party government which can co-operate together should form a caretaker government or a national government, but the present Government should not be holding office on an undemocratic basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed very sorry that the debate on this item should have developed to this extent. The hon. Member says that we are a minority Government. He declares himself to be a believer in the democratic principles of government. Surely he understands that in a democratic setup, he can topple the Government at any time if he can get sufficient support to pass a vote of no confidence in this Government. But he is still debating the issue, Sir. I asked him whether his call for a national government - by that he meant that it should be a caretaker government composed of all the political Parties represented in the Assembly - is a Party call and the leader of the Liberal-Socialists said that if we cannot do a job we should quit, to which I replied that if he could form a government I would give him the undertaking that I would quit. Will the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party please declare his Party's stand?

Answer, Answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think anybody who has undertaken to do a job and has failed to do it should realise that himself. It needs no prompting from any quarter. You realise what you have done. You see the results. You know what you are heading for. And it is up to you to make your move. We in the Opposition are not going to put up suggestions for the Government to consider. Not at all. We are in the Opposition. Our duty is to make sure that the Government do their job, and if the Government do not do their job, it is for us to criticise them, to bring public opinion to bear on them, and make sure that they justify the position they hold.

Order. I think we have had enough of irrelevancies and, unless any hon. Member wishes to come back to the subject of the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, Head 42, I propose to put the Question now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I once thought this room was very cold, but now it is so hot! What I am going to say is this: one thing that Government can do to ease their burden is to buy up land, cut it into small lots, and let the people build houses according to their means. This is in support of what my colleague the Member for Paya Lebar has said.

There is just one small matter, Sir. I can give the Member for Queenstown the exact figures in 1957. There will be under construction and completed in 1957 6,321 housing units.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned last year that I am one of the oldest Members in this House and also that I am not a firebrand. My point in taking part in this debate is to urge the Government to build more cheap houses in the rural areas, because it is there that we can get cheaper land. One thing that I am not happy about is that in the rural districts, when people want to build a house, they have to submit plans to the Rural Board and these plans are then passed on to the S.I.T. for final approval, and then the people have to build according to the building regulations laid down for the City area. I suggest to the Government that the building of rural dwellings need not follow the same regulations as for the City area. Sir, on one occasion I approached the Building Surveyor's Office for permission to build a mosque about one mile away from the main road. They demanded the building plans. We gave them the plans. They then turned round and said, "Well, this matter has to go to the S.I.T." So I approached the S.I.T. The Town Planning Officer told me, "Mr Goh, I am very sorry. These plans cannot be approved." I asked, "Why?" He replied, "Mr Goh, you know very well you must have 36 feet of road reserve." I asked, "Why do you want 36 feet of road reserve when the land does not belong to the people who are going to build the mosque? The mosque is not for living purposes." So he said, "Mr Goh, suppose there happened to be a fire. How could the Fire Brigade get to the scene?" I said, "Why do you want to have 36 feet of road reserve just in front of the mosque? Is there no other place to get in? Where is the fire hydrant for the Fire Brigade? Is it not utter rubbish?" One mile from the main road and they must still follow all the regulations laid down by the City Council. Mr Speaker, I just do not know what to say. How can you expect poor people to build a house which must adhere to the City Council building regulations? 11.15 a.m. Sir, I have been to the Building Surveyor's Office several times, and they make all sorts of trouble for the poor people. I am not blaming all the government departments, but I suggest that the Minister look into such matters, especially where they affect the poor. The overseer will not go to the rich people and worry them because he knows such people could get legal advice. They have plenty of money. But in the case of these poor people, it has happened that some of them have been served with a notice that they must demolish their house in 14 days. My God! The house may have cost them $2,000 and it may have taken them five years to save all that money. If a man builds a new house without a plan, or a permit to do so, and the Government gives notice that he must pull it down within 14 days, that is some reason. But to give notice to pull down a house that is not newly built - that is ridiculous. There was such a case. It was the work of the Building Surveyor's Office. I approached the Chief Surveyor. I do not want to mention his name, because I do not know whether it is right or wrong. If it is right, I will mention it. I said, "Sir,"- and I called him "Sir" because he was a tuan besar - "you have asked this poor man to pull down his building in 14 days. Why?" He replied, "Oh, you know, this man put up a building without submitting a plan to the Chairman of the Rural Board." I said, "Do not be stupid. His house is not a new one. It is an old one." Then he said, "The Cable and Wireless has written to us to say that it is a new building." So I said, "Because a European officer has written to you, you are now frightened?" He replied, "But you do not follow the law." Then I said, "Send for the Inspector." The Inspector came in. He said, "Mr Goh, you must not trust your men." I said, "I must not trust my men? What are you talking about? I have seen the place myself. It is not a new building. Why do you people cause the poor so much trouble? What have you done for the poor?" Then I challenged him, "Well, tomorrow, or the day after, or any day, I will go with you to see the building, to find out whether it is a new one or an old one." Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a poor man. I was a contractor once but I am now retired. I have no car. I had to hire a taxi to go to the house in question because I stay about two miles away. When we reached it, the Inspector said, "Well, you see that the floor has been newly rendered." I asked him, "You mean to say that rendering the floor will make this house a new building? Suppose the floor of your own house is full of cracks, will you not render it? Naturally you will. You do not expect these poor people to sleep on a cracked floor? Now that you are here," I continued, "can you prove that this is a new building?" He replied, "Oh, Mr Goh, you see those pillars? Are they not new?" I said, "Yes, they are new." He then asked me, "You see this wall? Is it new?" I said, "Yes, it is new. Is there anything more? What about the roof?" He said, "Mr Goh, it has been put up for over a year?" I told him, "I was born in an attap house and lived there till I got married. At that time I was 24. So I have lived in an attap house for 24 years. I am an expert on attap dwellings." [Interruption.]

Order. I think the hon. Member has given the House a very interesting story, but I would ask him, in view of the fact that we have only until 11.30 a.m. for this item, to come to his point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I mention all this because the Inspector might think me to be a fool or a man living in a bungalow all the time and therefore do not know what an attap house is. So he said, "Mr Goh, it is now one year since the roof was repaired?" I said, "You mean to say that an attap roof lasts for only one year - should it not last at least seven years? It is now one year, but you can see the holes through which the rain water will come down. How can you say this house is rebuilt? It is not. To rebuild a house means you have to take down the roof, pull down everything and put up a new building. That will require a lot of workmen." So at last we came back to see the Chief Building Surveyor, and he said, "All right, Mr Goh, we know it is not rebuilt." Sir, all sorts of unnecessary trouble took place because the Cable and Wireless Manager happens to be a European, so the people in the Building Surveyor's Office are scared. "Banyak takut!" Mr Speaker, Sir, we the P.A.P. will support the government when the government is right, but we will strike when the Government has done something wrong. But we know the difficulties of the Government too. How much can you expect them to do? To build better houses for all these people? I just want to urge the Government to build cheap houses for the poor people in the rural areas.

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, we all welcome this most helpful contribution from the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis, a refreshing change from the irrelevancies of the Liberal-Socialist Party and the inaccuracies of the Independent Member for Queenstown. I wish to make one little point about the remarks of one of the more practical Members of the Liberal-Socialists, the hon. Member for Bukit Panjang. He suggested that the Government should buy up land and then cut it up into small plots and hand them out to people to build on them. If I remember his words rightly, they are: "houses according to their means." Last week I was asked to go to the house of a widow. Her husband, a hawker, had suddenly died and she was left with an aged mother-in-law and six young children, the youngest being only five days old. She was under notice to quit from the house she was occupying. I am happy to say that the company, which had acquired the land where her house was and which proposed to evict her, is taking a most generous view of her lot and is prepared to give her a site for a new house free, and she would also be getting some money from the company towards the cost of a new building. But I was advised by a representative of that company that the minimum amount she would need to build the lowest quality of house for herself and her family would be at least $3,000, after getting a free site. Of course, she had not a hope of getting that money from her own resources. Even if her husband had been alive, and living as a hawker, I cannot imagine how he, with very heavy transport cost from his residence to his place of work in the centre of the city where he had a stall, could by his own efforts have secured $3,000 to put up a house even if he had been given a free site. Therefore I am afraid that the hon. Member's proposal that the Government should simply give out plots of land to all comers to build houses according to their means would mean that those who had means would get houses and those who really are in need of houses would not; and I think that suggestion is one which the Party had better reconsider very carefully before they put it into their next election programme, unless they wish to subsidise the middle class and not to help the poor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to the Minister for providing me with the figure of 6,321 houses now under construction and which will be completed by the end of this year, that is another 12 days. Is that correct?

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I did not say that all would be completed in 1957. Some would be completed in 1957 and some in 1958, but all of them are under construction in 1957.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now out of this figure, I believe a certain percentage will be completed by the end of this year. I wonder if the Minister will look into the matter and give an assurance that the S.I.T. will commence allocation forthwith, that is in January 1958, and not wait until December 1958.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole morning we have debated housing, and the fire was all concentrated on the S.I.T. who, I suppose, are building multi-storeyed concrete houses. Sir, there is one most important point - how about attap houses? Many a time I have been approached by the poor farmers and fishermen. They have had trouble with the Rural Board Architects Department regarding the passing of their plans or the repair of their attap houses. Sir, I think it is high time for the Government to consider a classification of the various types of attap houses into the $500, or $800, or $1,000, or $1,500 category. The Rural Board should also have plans drawn up of all these types of attap houses ready for any farmer who can afford to pay $1.50 to buy a plan and build an attap house, instead of having to engage a contractor to draw up plans and the Rural Board architect to take a long time to pass, them. Sir, I think this is another way to solve the housing problem. I wish the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing would give me a reply to this suggestion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many types of plans in the Rural Board which are for sale to the public. They cost about a dollar each.

Sir, I just wish to inform the Minister for Communications and Works that the resettlement houses at the 9th mile Tampenis are now being built at $1,000 each.

Sir, I do not dispute the hon. Member's figures at all; I was merely quoting the figures given to me by a private enterprise man who was concerned with resettling people when his company were clearing land for development and were resettling them elsewhere on a site they were providing. I quoted the figure which he gave me, which is another private enterprise figure again.

I wish the Minister would inform me also whether it is still necessary for the squatters to apply for permission to repair their attap roofs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not given me the assurance that I called for, that is, whether he will see to it that the S.I.T. will commence allocation of houses in January 1958.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to repeat again that the allocation of S.I.T. houses is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the S.I.T.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $276,690 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 43 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3 therein. Subhead 3 refers to clearance and redevelopment of Crown reverted properties and I find there is an increase of $15,340 in the vote as compared with that of last year. The reason given in the footnote says: "Increase due to additional staff for the new Re-housing Section." Sir, would the Minister elaborate on his rehousing section and say why he requires the additional staff to run that department? 11.30 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the administration of Crown reverted properties was handed over to the Singapore Improvement Trust from 1st April, 1953 to 1955 and the average annual expenses charged by the Trust for such administration for this period was $52,300. Towards the end of 1954 it was decided that it would be wasteful and uneconomical for the Trust to exercise elaborate management control of the whole Crown reverted properties. Such control included the taking of a complete census, maintaining rigid control against new occupation, and effecting eventual clearance, including court action and execution of warrants. From 1st January, 1955, it was decided that the Trust should retain management of only certain reverted houses in areas scheduled for clearance and redevelopment and properties declared by the P.W.D. as being in a dangerous condition for which new housing would be required. The remainder of the properties would revert to the management of the Land Office. The sum of $35,340 represents the estimated cost of the Trust in the management of such properties. If I may give a little more information, Sir: there are approximately 2,500 families living on these properties and the rents payable by them are $250,020 per annum.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, am I to take it that the additional staff required are employed by Government and seconded to the S.I.T., because, as the Minister himself has clearly stated, it was decided sometime in 1953 to hand over the responsibility for administration of Crown reverted properties to the S.I.T.? I may also point out that the expenditure during the period from 1953 to 1955 was around $52,000. Why is now an additional sum of $35,340 required?

Because there has been an increase of Crown reverted properties coming under the jurisdiction of the Trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this point is clear, but the Minister has not answered my first point - whether the officers employed in this department are, in fact, government employees and seconded to the S.I.T., or whether they are employed by the S.I.T. direct. And if this is so, why should we bear the expenses then?

Because we are responsible and we get revenue from the Crown reverted properties. The S.I.T. are merely acting as our agents.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $3,482,340 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 44- The sum of $1,135,310 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7 therein. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are extremely perturbed that thousands of students, who have completed the primary stage of education, have no facilities for further education afforded them. If you look at the Development Estimates you will find that there is provision for the building of 66 primary schools as against, I think, 19 secondary schools and one technical school, or 20 in all. Students who leave at the Primary VI stage are virtually unemployable at that stage. They have that little learning which is a dangerous thing. Only one out of three or four students in the present circumstances can go on to secondary education after the age of about 13 or 14. To put it in another way, in Government schools alone, I think I am right in saying that at the present time 2,000 to 3,000 children out of 6.000 have to be turned out into the streets, as it were, each year with little prospects of further education of any practical value, and therefore of getting a job. As the Minister must know, there are thousands of worried parents in Singapore today whose children have just been refused promotion to secondary schools next year. Sir, one of the ways to combat this very alarming situation is to institute evening classes on a much larger and more comprehensive scale than is being done at present. Such classes as have been organised seem to us to be totally inadequate and are not of lasting enough duration - they last only an hour or so each evening - and therefore we consider that this increase of only $20,000 under this subhead is insufficient. It means that the Minister is not getting sufficiently to grips with a very alarming situation. Sir, we do ask what is being done and is going to be done to tackle this state of affairs. An unemployable student after Primary VI is virtually told that he cannot be catered for. As each school year comes to an end, year by year this problem becomes more and more acute and more and more vital for the future of this country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not true to say that the Government have not provided adequate facilities for children who are not found fit to profit from a secondary education. The evening classes as they are now cater, I think, for all such children, but it may be a surprise to the House to learn that they have not made full use of these evening classes. We have vacancies this year and this shows that some parents are not sending their children to the evening classes which Government have instituted. In spite of that, Government have increased this vote to $360,000, as we are going to increase the number of evening classes to cater for those who need them. It is also not true to say that only one out of four pupils gets into the secondary school. We will be promoting to the secondary level next year slightly over 60 per cent of all those who have sat for the Primary common examination this year. In the evening classes we are giving education in subjects which will make these pupils employable, but if they do not want to make use of these facilities, I cannot go to their homes and force them to do so. It is up to the parents and the children to make use of the facilities that are offered. Our estimate for next year for these evening classes is slightly over $390,000, but in view of the fact that the facilities offered this year have not been fully taken up, we have only provided for $360,000; but if the need arises that more money should be found, I will have no hesitation in coming to this House to ask for more money to run these evening classes. In addition, I would also like to say that there is a grant to the Adult Education Council of $500,000 which will provide some sort of education for those who seek it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am certainly surprised to hear that these evening classes are not being taken up as perhaps they should be. I wonder what the reason for it could be. Is it that they are not sufficiently attractive for some reason or other and that they should be advertised? Or are they in certain areas which may be too far away for some of the students to get there inexpensively? As the Minister has mentioned, unless there are alternatives for this 40 per cent who hope to get further education, it does seem to me that something should be done - maybe a drive of some kind to make it clear to the students that they will be given a chance of further education. There must be something wrong somewhere which needs looking into.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Tanglin has brought up the point. I really do not know the reason why all the places in the evening classes are not being taken up. Sufficient publicity has been given to these evening classes which are housed in strategic centres. For instance, we have them at Outram Road, Siglap and Beatty Road. They are all scattered about in order to cater for people coming from the rural areas. Frankly I do not know the reason why they have not been taken up, but we will do our best to tell these people that the education provided for in the evening classes will make them at least employable.

Mr Lim, Sir, it is indeed a surprise to hear the Minister for Education say that there is no shortage of facilities for secondary education, but to me the biggest surprise is the news that there are many vacancies in the evening classes. Sir, I wonder if everyone who follows local news closely knows that Mr Yap Pheng Geck, a well-known community leader, has concerned himself very much with this problem of secondary education, especially the over-age students. I wonder whether the Government have ever tried to inform the public that they are providing adequate facilities for these over-age students. I also wonder whether these evening classes provide the same curriculum as in the daily schools and what is the position regarding the fees and the teachers' qualifications. I wish the Government would make it clear to the public that there are adequate facilities for secondary education. I also wish the Government to make a statement regarding Mr Yap Pheng Geck's proposal to form a subsidiary educational body. 11.45 a.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on Friday last I said in this House that I welcomed the efforts made by community leaders like Mr Yap Pheng Geck and others who are trying to help solve the education problem and I have instructed the officers in my Ministry to give all assistance they can to such voluntary bodies. Now I want to stress to the hon. Member for Changi that education in the evening classes is not secondary education. These evening classes are for those who have been found unfit to profit from a secondary education. Therefore the subjects given in these evening classes will be of a commercial nature to make them employable. No country can provide a secondary education for every child who wants it. If this were done in Singapore, it would cost more than $100 million to provide every child with a secondary education. Sir, I wish to inform the Member for Changi that the teachers in the evening classes are qualified.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 33 therein. Sir, I wish to make this quite brief as I have a further amendment to move shortly. I wish to enquire the reason for the reduction of about $300,000 in this vote to provide for the teaching of English to Malay school pupils. The reason as given in the footnote says: "Decrease due to reduction in the number of hours for teaching English." But I should have thought that, if anything, the vote should have been increased. Malay students in increasing numbers are, I think, anxious to gain entry to secondary schools and to higher education. There may be some other reason for the reduction of which we are unaware, and we would like to have an explanation from the Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the main reason for the "reduction" is actually the absorption of temporary teachers into the Pensionable Establishment, thereby incurring a transfer of the emoluments of these teachers to another head. There is actually no reduction whatsoever.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 52 therein. My intention in moving this amendment is to obtain from the Minister what, so far as I am aware, has never been disclosed, and that is the Government's intention in this first venture - and a welcome venture it is - as patron of the arts. One of the most exciting things in modern Singapore has been the spontaneous growth of cultural societies - the Arts Society, the Photographic Society (to mention but two) which are post-war in origin, and perhaps I might mention in all modesty the Singapore Musical Society, which is 55 years old and with which I have been actively connected for many years, particularly now that it is being malayanised, so to speak, by the return from overseas of many talented and well-trained young people. The other societies are, of course, the China Society, the Indian Fine Arts Association and so on. At the same time, a group of about nine of the leading cultural societies, including those I have mentioned, have now banded themselves together as members of the Singapore Arts Council which is planning, among other things, a Festival of the Arts to take place very soon. Sir, the question arises: What are going to be the duties and functions of this Grade G Cultural Affairs Officer, and how is the grant of $100,000 for the promotion of cultural matters going to be spent?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must apologise for not having publicised fully enough this new department in my Ministry when it was decided to set it up. I am glad that the hon. Member for Tanglin brought it up so that I can make use of this opportunity to do so, The object of the Singapore Cultural Advisory Council is to co-ordinate and assist the various cultures represented in this colony and develop these cultures along the right lines. In the past, it has been known that a number of worthwhile projects in the arts had to be abandoned because voluntary bodies which wanted to sponsor these projects had to give up because of nothing else but lack of funds. Government have therefore given the task of co-ordinating cultural activities in Singapore to the Ministry of Education. In future the Singapore Cultural Advisory Council will, firstly, consider and make recommendations to the Minister on cultural matters with a view to providing a stimulus to the development of the various cultures represented in Singapore; secondly, to co-ordinate and encourage private efforts in any field of the arts; and thirdly, to educate the ordinary citizen towards a more active appreciation of the arts. The composition of the Cultural Advisory Council will be the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Education as ex-officio Chairman. I intend to appoint a Vice-Chairman and he will of course be elected from among the members of the Council. They will be the Director of Information Services, the Director of Raffles Museum, the Director of Broadcasting, the Director of Raffles National Library, four nominees from the Singapore Arts Council, one representative from the University of Malaya, one representative from the Nanyang University, and the Chairman of the Singapore Council for Adult Education. The Cultural Affairs Officer will, of course, be the Secretary to this Cultural Advisory Council. I intend to make these members hold office for two years, or any lesser period as the Minister may direct. Now the duties of this Cultural Affairs Officer. He will be the Chief Executive Officer in the Ministry dealing with fine arts and cultural relations. As I have mentioned earlier, he will be the Secretary of the Cultural Advisory Council and will also deal with all cultural matters on an international level. Because of the scope of his duties, this officer should have a sufficient status. That is why we intend to appoint a superscale G officer because we expect him to deal with international bodies and to be able to co-ordinate all the private efforts that are floating about in Singapore. The provision of a block grant of $100,000 is subject to the sanction of the Treasury. It is difficult to estimate now exactly how much will be spent on matters relating to fine arts and cultural relations, because this is an entirely new field. We have no precedents to guide us in this matter. However, the system of working will be that the Cultural Advisory Council will advise the Minister from time to time on how this money should be spent. If there is any organisation that has a worth-while project relating to fine arts or culture, but which has not been carried out for lack of funds, it can apply to this Cultural Advisory Council for consideration of a grant. It is also hoped that expenses for meeting the reception of cultural missions from abroad will come from this block grant. This is only an experiment, as I say, and it is to be undertaken after very careful consideration of how to co-ordinate and channel the various cultural activities in Singapore in the proper direction. For this reason, the Cultural Advisory Council is to consist of as many interests representing the various cultural bodies in Singapore as possible.

I only rise, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to correct one very small point from the Member for Tanglin's remarks. He said that the Arts Society was post-war in origin. It is true that the Arts Society itself came into being post-war, but it was developed from a seed which was sown back in 1936 and nourished through the years thereafter - the Inter-School Art Exhibitions. The present Chairman of the Arts Society was, in fact, originally a school-boy who won prizes in these Exhibitions. He went on to organising them and is now an admirable Chairman for the Arts Society; just as the former Secretary of the Arts Society was also a schoolboy who became interested in arts and continued his interest for many years and helped to lay the foundation. I only want to give credit to those who did the work before the war from which the Arts Society finally emerged post-war.

I thank the Minister for Communications and Works for correcting me. I would not want to be wrong on a point like that. I would like to say how much we welcome the statement of the Minister for Education, and I do hope that there will be no voices raised that $155,300 should not be spent next year. There might be people who say, "Who wants difficult plays or ballets or art exhibitions or expensive additions to museum collections?" The answers to objections of this sort, I feel, never vary. The lives of most people are badly in need of illumination. One of the ways in which this can be achieved is by showing as fully as possible what can be done when the imagination of our multiracial country is stirred. The scientist benefits from this as much as the artist, and the shopkeeper as much as the aesthete. A feeling of quality is indispensable in a competitive world, and quality in one field soon gives a taste for quality in another. Money spent on promoting this taste is well spent and encouragement of this kind should come from the state. I would plead, however, that there must be continuity in a project of this kind. Money granted one year and withdrawn the next will be money wasted. If a cultural project or a cultural society is to thrive and produce results, there must be the confidence that finance will be forthcoming for more than a year, or it will wither and die and the grant will have been thrown away. Nevertheless, this Government's recognition of the importance of the arts is greatly to be welcomed, as I have said. All I would plead is that there should be as much imagination put into the administration of the $100,000 grant as has been put into the creation of it. The words "Subject to Treasury sanction" in the margin have an ominous ring, as if a painting might be equated in value to a typewriter or a symphony to "filing cabinets, two." I make this point because a previous imaginative project was ruined by the ineptitude of the Department of Education. Four professional musicians, each an expert in their instruments, were engaged on 3-year contracts a few years ago to play in Radio Malaya's Orchestra and to teach their instruments to pupils in the schools. They arrived and played in the Orchestra, but were unfortunately ignored by the Education Department for a considerable period of time, because nobody got down to arranging the teaching periods, and when these were finally arranged, it was realised that instruments such as bassoons and oboes, horns and so on cost money and there was no grant from which to buy such instruments on which the pupils could play and practise. So after two years the musicians had their contracts terminated and hardly a single student had learnt to blow a note. 12 Noon. I only mention this because I do feel that one has to be very careful, through this new Advisory Council, to see that this amount is imaginatively administered. With that there must be the realisation that results cannot appear at once but will only come through patience and persistence.

Sir, I am sure the House will join me in extending hearty congratulations to the Minister for Education, but I would also like to remind the House that he is very lucky to have a most cultural-minded Permanent Secretary who will be taking a great interest in the creation of this new department. The House has heard the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Tanglin, but I would like to point out that this department is not only going simply to promote culture. Culture in certain people's minds or in some other place may be regarded as a luxurious hobby. But Singapore today is much in need of this department, because we are faced with the possibility of racial conflicts, which is especially very obvious when we merge with the Federation of Malaya. Who can solve this problem? Who can meet this danger? And by what method? I am sure this Cultural Advisory Council should take full responsibility for solving this problem. Unless we have a unification of all the cultural streams of our own people, we cannot escape the danger that will arise - cultural conflict and racial conflict. So I sincerely wish this new department will carry on with the job of bringing together Chinese culture, Indian culture, European culture, and Malay culture, help them to understand and appreciate one another to their mutual interests, and unify these four cultures into a true Malayan culture with loyalty towards a Malayan culture. The responsibility of the Cultural Advisory Council is very great. The unification of the various cultures into a true Malayan culture can be termed as a political necessity of this department.

I just want to make one or two further points. I can assure the hon. Member for Tanglin that the phrase, "Subject to Treasury sanction" does not have an ominous ring at all. I think I can speak for the Hon. the Financial Secretary when I say that it is only designed as a check to see that money will not go down the drain and produce no results. We want every grant that is made to be scrutinised and it will only go to the Treasury for sanction after the Cultural Advisory Council has fully considered the matter and after I have satisfied myself that it is proper to give it. In this connection, an application for assistance has actually been received from the Singapore Arts Council, which is planning a Festival of the Arts, in order to enable it to carry out its plan. The Government have considered that such a Festival of Arts, depicting the arts and cultures of the various races in Singapore, is one which should receive support. It is thought that $20,000 might be an adequate sum for the Singapore Arts Council and it might well come from this block grant of $100,000. Of course, we have to look into the merits of each case. I can also assure the hon. Member for Tanglin that whatever grants made will, if found necessary, be continuous and not just abandoned halfway.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may correct the Minister on one small point. The $20,000 which he has mentioned has already been sanctioned by this House under the previous head, Contributions and Charitable Allowances. That is an entirely separate head from the $100,000 under discussion at the moment. However, I do not want to labour that point. I would like to say that, in moving the reduction of $10, I was only using the time-honoured method of procedure in this House. I would now like to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanglin is of course quite right when he says that we have already included the sum of $20,000 for the Singapore Arts Council under Head 25, Contributions and Charitable Allowances. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 53 therein. Under this item "Miscellaneous" $4,000 is required for next year, but in the column "Approved Estimates 1957" I see a blank. There is no money provided there for the item "Miscellaneous". Sir, the provision of $4,000 as a block vote is most undesirable. I would not mind a miscellaneous item of $500 or $1,000, but a block vote of $4,000 may be subject to misuse. It so happens that this item is "Subject to Treasury sanction". The Minister has, however, explained that every detail will have to be scrutinised before money is granted. Whatever it may be, a block vote has been given and it is at the pleasure of the Ministry to spend at random, though the details may be scrutinised. Sir, I would like to have a breakdown of this block vote of $4,000 because, as I have said, it covers too wide a scope. Going through the Budget, I find that in most other Ministries there is also a miscellaneous item, but under that item, the vote provided for is only between $500 and $1,200. I feel there should be a breakdown of this $4,000 and if there is a balance after the breakdown, it can then be provided for under this miscellaneous item.

Sir, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, nothing is shown in the column "Approved Estimates 1957" because the department was not in existence in 1957. The sum of $4,000 shown in the column "Estimated 1958" is a block vote to cover such matters as stationery, purchase of publications, transport and travelling, and maintenance of office equipment - in fact, all the items which normally appear under the head "Administration Charges" of a department. We have entered the block vote in the Estimates this year because it is impossible at the moment, in advance of the operation of the department, to say what precisely it will spend under these various items of administration expenses. For that reason, we have entered a block vote of $4,000 which should give the department, and the Treasury which controls the vote, sufficient latitude to enable it to operate efficiently next year. In 1959, Sir, we will of course have had some experience of expenditure and in the Estimates for that year we will detail the administration expenses, as is customary in the case of other departments at the present time. I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied with the explanation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the explanation given by the Financial Secretary, I am happy that in next year's estimates a breakdown of the vote will be shown. May I have the permission of the House to withdraw my amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed. "That the sum of $65,220,520 for Head 45 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after talking about the fine arts of life. I think we must come down to the hard facts. There is about two or three minutes left and I think I will have to put over our grievances in the form of short questions. Today we find that children living in one area are unable to go to the school nearest to their homes. In many cases, they have to travel long distances. In many cases, too, you will find that one brother may be in one school, another brother in a different school, and a sister may go to yet another different school. It all boils down to a great loss of time, much inconvenience to the people concerned, congestion of traffic, and a waste of money. On the second point, Sir, there is a dearth of technical training for secondary schools. Many of our youths are able to benefit from such teaching, but because of limited space and limited facilities for training, many of them have to forgo technical training. Some fortunate youths with rich parents may find that they will be able to get such training overseas, but by and large it leaves us with a lot of good material that is not being made use of. In such circumstances, would the Government think of increasing the teaching of technical subjects in all schools? The third point, Sir. The University of Malaya came into being after the war. Before the war, it was a college, a much smaller one. We find that there is a limited take-in by the University of students who want to join it. There are many capable people, hard-working people, people with initiative, who would like to have a university education. The Singapore Polytechnic is no doubt coming up. But would Government consider assisting the University of Malaya in order that it might give evening classes based on the lines of the London University so that it could grant degrees in that way? Finally, Sir, we have vernacular education each heading its own way. We want to cultivate a Singapore loyalty. What would Government do in such circumstances?

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $65,220,520 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Order, order. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend the sitting now. It will be resumed at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m.until 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Head 46- The sum of $297,800 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 47- The sum of $136,160 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $34,267,120 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 49 be reduced by $29,990 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. Sir, when I moved the same amendment last year, the Minister promised me that he would look into the matter. May I quote his remarks which appear in column 983 of Hansard, Volume 2: "The reason why this vote remains in the Estimates is because I am not so sure what is going to transpire in February. As hon. Members know, if this time we go again and we do not succeed in our mission. Singapore will have to find a new Minister for Labour and Welfare." Now, since February 1957 up till now nothing actually has transpired. Everything is as what it was and I think that this appointment should have been filled by now. This post today is still vacant and I cannot see why it should remain so. The Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare has been in office, I think, for roughly two years and by now he should be fully qualified and experienced to be promoted as Minister for Labour and Welfare. I am quite sure that in the absence of the Minister himself from that Ministry, the Assistant Minister has been handling all the ministerial work. Sir, if the Minister can give me an assurance that this post will be filled, then I will allow that $30,000 vote to go through because it serves no purpose to have a vote of $30,000 in the Budget and nothing coming out of it. That money is shown as a sum carried over from the old Budget and I believe that is the reason why this sum again appears in this year's Estimates. I am against this, Sir, but I am not trying to take the whole vote away. The purpose of my amendment is to allow a token vote so that in case the Minister feels that the Assistant Minister is really fit to be promoted, then he may come back here and ask for a vote of $29,990 to make up the sum of $30,000 as salary to the Assistant Minister. Sir, if the Minister for Labour and Welfare gives me that assurance, I may withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I reply to the points raised by the Member for Queenstown, may I seek clarification on what he means by an assurance. Does he want an assurance from me that there shall be a Minister for Labour and Welfare?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is exactly what I mean; not the same Chief Minister or another Chief Minister holding two appointments. As clearly stated in his last year's speech, the Chief Minister does not draw a dual salary. So why then have the $30,000 vote in the Estimates?

Sir, the vote of $30,000 for the salary for a Minister for Labour and Welfare is there not because that vote can be used by me. I have to explain again that I do not get double salary but from the debate this morning the hon. Member may feel that there might be a different Minister for Labour and Welfare. So I think it would be advisable to let that vote remain in the Estimates. Moreover, the general elections have been planned to take place in September next year. So by then, I think there will be a Minister for Labour and Welfare. I do not know whether that Minister for Labour and Welfare will want to take another Ministry but just for that eventuality, the vote is there. To reduce it by $29,990 is just negligible. It is so immaterial in a deficit of about $8 million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Hon. the Chief Minister is anticipating that after the general elections the Liberal-Socialists will take over the Government as has been challenged this morning and that by then the $30,000 will be required but for a matter of only three months. As I said, I am not taking the whole vote away. I am still leaving a $10 token vote in but in case the Liberal-Socialists do come into power by September next year, they can very well come back to this Assembly and ask for a supplementary vote to cover the three months' salary of the Minister for Labour and Welfare.

I do not know whether the hon. Member is speaking for the Liberal-Socialists. I say that there will be a new Government. I did not say that the Liberal-Socialists will be the next Government.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed. "That the sum of $427,760 for Head 49 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that there has been a vast improvement in the labour situation this year. There has also been an improvement as regards the strike situation. I notice that the number of strikes this year is very much less than that of last year. The strike situation has improved quite a lot but one thing I am quite sure, Sir, is that the Government was only prepared to deal with labour strikes and I do not think that the Government ever anticipated that there would be hunger strikes. So Government therefore was not prepared for such an eventuality. I quote, Sir, this instance of a hunger strike. I went to the Singapore Harbour Board Association last night and there I found about 200 employees of the Singapore Harbour Board on a hunger strike. I was there at about 10.00 p.m. and I remained there until 11.45 p.m. I understand that this hunger strike started on Monday, 16th December at 8 p.m. and when I arrived at the Association's premises at 10.00 p.m. last night I was told that about nine of the hunger-strikers had collapsed and had been sent to hospital. From 10.00 p.m. (the time of my arrival) until about 11.45 p.m. when I left there were another three to four of the hunger-strikers who collapsed and I accompanied them to hospital. I believe that by this morning there may be a few more such cases. When I arrived here this morning, I was told that the total number that collapsed from last night till this morning was 13. Out of this 13, I understand that 10 have not returned to the Association's premises. They may or may not be in hospital now. I do not know. What has Government done about this hunger strike, or what is Government going to do about this hunger strike? Have they taken the trouble to investigate into this hunger strike? I understand that this hunger strike is due to the refusal of the Harbour Board to accept the reinstatement of the employees as was recommended by the report of the Court of Inquiry. May I, Sir, with your permission quote paragraph 9 (5) from that report which appears in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957: "There may be a number of former employees of the Board still awaiting re-engagement. They may have been dismissed by the Board during the go slow and their place taken by new personnel. We feel that these men should not be too severely treated for following an industrial practice recognised where trade unionism is in operation. The go slow was a general movement and the men followed the instructions of their Union. They have already suffered a loss of wages and overtime benefits. However, the Port is again in full operation and for the promotion of improved industrial relations, we are of the opinion that it is desirable that any such men should be speedily re-employed as the Board will find possible. We do not think that it would be very difficult - at least not as difficult as it was submitted to us during the proceedings - to convince serangs that they should take back their former gang members, and to re-engage the remaining M.E. personnel." 2.45 p.m. Sir, the Court of Inquiry recommended that they should be taken back as "speedily" as possible, as quoted in its report. This report, Sir, was tabled before this Assembly on 6th September, 1957. Three and a half months have passed and Government has not stepped in to find whether the Board has actually reinstated these employees or not. If the Government had done so, I am quite sure that these employees would not have gone on a hunger strike. Since the Government did not take the trouble to do so, and since the Board refused to reinstate them as was recommended in the report, there was no other alternative for these men but to go on a hunger strike. There is no more question of a strike because they are not employed now. So to show their protest, they had to go on a hunger strike. This is one of the legitimate weapons of trade unionists. So they have resorted to the legitimate weapon of trade unionism and they are now on a hunger strike. Sir, if they have no work now, what else can these men do? Can they support their families? Their families have to go hungry because there are no wages and there is nothing at all to be brought home to feed their families. The report says that they have already lost wages and overtime benefits. Sir, is the Government fully aware of all this? Why has the Government not stepped in again? Is the Government going to wait until some death occurs before it will step in? I understand, Sir, that there was also a strike in the Singapore Harbour Board in 1955 and at that time the then Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall) put heavy pressure on the Harbour Board and all the strikers were reinstated. This, I understand, is quite reliable and at that time I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar, the leader of the P.A.P., was also interested and assisted in some way or other to get them reinstated. I believe that the present Chief Minister could also do the same thing and if he were to do so he would be fully justified because he is only accepting the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. He would be fully justified to put heavy pressure on the Harbour Board to see that all these men are reinstated. Sir, as I said, quite a number of the strikers have collapsed and I do not know whether any of them will die through hunger. If any one dies, I will put the responsibility on the Government and on the Singapore Harbour Board. I suggest that the Government should step in rightaway to see that they are reinstated and the hunger strike called off. Both employers and employees were prepared to submit their case to a Court of Inquiry and since the recommendations have been published, both parties should honour those recommendations rather than have the position where one party is prepared to honour them and another party is not prepared to do so. In order that lives may be saved, may I then, Sir, ask the Government to take immediate action and step in to intervene in this case so that we will have an end to the hunger strike and the men reinstated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now on Head 49 - Ministry for Labour and Welfare. Firstly, on the subject of welfare activities, I would like to congratulate the Government on the improvements we have witnessed since last year but there are still many suggestions and criticisms put forward by hon. Members of this House which have not been carried out or met. One of them is the decentralisation of social centres in connection with public relief distribution. Sir, I mentioned last year the case of a poor man living in the island of Pulau Tekong who asked for public assistance. The sum was about $5 or $10 and he was asked to travel a distance of over ten miles to the Social Welfare Department to receive this allowance. Sir, I think that is quite ridiculous because the whole of the allowance would be spent on transport. Therefore I wish the Government to take note of this point. Sir, secondly, on the labour situation, all of us have been very pleased to witness a stability in the labour affairs of this colony with no more labour unrest and riots but I am still not very happy about the so-called stability of labour relations between employer and employee. The position is still not very firm. One thing which we witness is that many trade unions seem to rely upon the advice of politicians or men from the legal profession in connection with their activities. Sir, I think that is a great mistake. I think that trade unions should invite economists to advise them in their activities rather than politicians. May I put forward to the Government a suggestion whether they would consider sponsoring a training class for union leaders? There are economists now available in the University of Malaya and in the Nanyang University who know exactly the economic position in Singapore. It is time that all workers and their union leaders should realise that a one-sided demand for increased wages would not be beneficial if industrial output is not increased. Lastly, I wish to endorse the statement made by the Member for Queenstown about the hunger strike in the Singapore Harbour Board. Sir, it happened that I was there at about 9.00 p.m. last night and I spent until 1 o'clock this morning in the General Hospital. The latest report I received from a clerk in the hospital (Mr Chew) was that the eleven workers sent by the union for observation and treatment were discharged as outdoor patients. Sir, I learned from the Union Secretary, Mr Jamit Singh, who also accompanied me to the hospital to look into the plight of the workers who collapsed, that the Singapore Harbour Board is totally ignoring the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry which was appointed by the Government. I wonder how it is possible that the Government can allow a semi-government body like the Singapore Harbour Board to ignore the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. Repercussions will result, Sir. In future if the setting up of a Court of Inquiry is suggested, the union will say, "Six months after the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry into the trade dispute at the Singapore Harbour Board have been published, yet they have not been implemented." Sir, the attitude of this semi-government body is most regrettable and the Government's neglect of duty is also most regrettable. Sir, I wish to support the Member for Queenstown and would ask the Government to take immediate steps to call off the hunger strike. I would like an official statement from Government in this House on this question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall reply to the various points raised by the two previous speakers but the most important one they raised was in regard to the hunger strike - as they call it - that is taking place in the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. Sir, my sympathies go out to these hunger-strikers. My sympathies as a trade unionist too go out to these people and as a trade unionist I am indeed sorry that they should have been foolish enough to follow evil advice from people who claim to be trade union leaders.

Condemn them.

I am here speaking, Sir, as the Minister for Labour and Welfare and, as Minister for Labour and Welfare, I have personally interested myself in trying to bring about industrial peace, in the settlement of strikes and in the prevention of strikes and every time being a conciliator, I have avoided taking sides. Today, I am indeed in a very unhappy position to be forced in this Assembly to say something which will be against, shall I say, my line of action in that I should not try to defend one side against the other side or to decry the misdeeds of one side so that the other side can take courage and go ahead and do some further damage. 3.00 p.m. Sir, a Court of Inquiry was set up. A report was submitted, and in regard to this particular group of workers, the Member for Queenstown has read to us the relevant paragraph. What has been recommended, Sir, by the Court of Inquiry is this, and these are the words: "We are of the opinion that it is desirable that any such men should be speedily reemployed." According to what my Ministry knows and what I personally know, the Singapore Harbour Board attempted to implement this recommendation. The Singapore Harbour Board wrote to all employees concerned asking them to report to the Labour Office; the Singapore Harbour Board would then consider reemploying them. Some went - I do not know how many because I do not have the figures available to me here - and when they went, of course, they were asked by the Singapore Harbour Board labour officer certain questions. The trade unionists, I understand, took umbrage that such questions should have been asked. The Singapore Harbour Board, when questioned by me, told me that surely they had a right to ask an employee or even an ex-employee who had been going on a "go slow" for so long and causing so much economic damage to the country whether he would work and work properly for the Singapore Harbour Board. It would appear that the workers resented that; that they should not be told that they should work and work properly for their wages. They took umbrage. The Union or, I should rather say, the General Secretary of the Union advised these workers not to report - "not to report" - and surely can one blame the Singapore Harbour Board for not considering re-employing people who did not make an appearance and declare that they wanted re-employment? Can we blame the Singapore Harbour Board? I am indeed very unhappy to have to take sides as I said earlier. The workers did not report. They said, "We must go in as a body." Did they say that? I do not think they said that. It was the General Secretary of the union saying that, in order that he was not going to suffer any loss in prestige or the respect of the workers who were led by him for whatever damage he had done. They stuck firm and I got in touch with the Board again and again. The answer given to me was, "If they do not make an appearance and if they do not declare that they desire to be re-employed, how can we re-employ them?" So I said, "All right, I will advise the workers to go back and register and then I will ask you to give immediate and sympathetic consideration to take them back." I advised the union accordingly but this particular General Secretary - this man who has led them for his own good, I am sorry to say - tried to cash in on the situation and led all the workers as a mass into the Singapore Harbour Board and said, "We now demand re-employment." I told them, "That is not the way to go about it. There is no longer any fight. You want re-employment, go and register quietly. Do not seek publicity. There is no reason why you must feel that this man who has led you or misled you should have his own position protected and should be given the opportunity to be able to tell other workers and thereby mislead them, 'It was I who brought them back to the Singapore Harbour Board.' " Surely, as an employer and even as a worker, no organisation can give in to intimidation and it should not give in to intimidation. Even if the employers were to intimidate any trade union organisation, that organisation must resist to the bitter end in the same way as the Singapore Harbour Board resisted by saying, "If you want to get publicity and play this kind of a stunt with us, sorry, boys, we cannot register you." Then they got in touch with the T.U.C. The T.U.C. got in touch with me. Later they came to see me and I told them that things could have been solved and would be solved if they would just forget all about their prestige and all about the desire, particularly of the General Secretary, to pull himself out of the fire. Since they got in touch with the T.U.C. and then myself, I went to the extent of saying, "I will undertake to have it done." Many reports appeared in the local papers condemning my inaction. There was even a march to my office when I was away and there was this Jamit Singh carrying a baby trying to get publicity and trying to intimidate the Minister himself into trying to help him out of a difficulty which he himself had created. I too will not tolerate intimidation and I too will never give in to intimidation. The T.U.C., the Chairman of the Harbour Board and myself had a discussion and we came to some arrangement. I felt that the sooner this General Secretary was kept totally away from all these things the easier would it be for all things to be solved but no, in spite of the discussion and the hope of a solution, the next morning it was reported in the same paper that they had taken a vote to go on a hunger strike. Is that not another method of intimidation? We have assured this union, "Please, I feel just as much as you feel for these workers. What we want is to see these workers get back to work." You can call the Minister a rotten man; I will take it. You can call me any names; I will take it but I find it very difficult to have to tell the press all these things that have been done by this so-called leader of the workers. I did not wish to expose him because I felt in exposing him it would strengthen the hand of the Harbour Board and it would make things more difficult. We know that, although it has not been officially said, it is felt that the clash between this and that is just a clash of personalities. That is unfortunate and I do not like it. But then as a Minister, it is my duty to try and make personalities forget themselves and sink their differences in the bigger things. Every time we tried to pull off something, something else was being done by this paper to damage what we had been doing and, in spite of all that we have done, we now have the Member for Queenstown ask, "What has Government done? Is Government going to allow these people to die from hunger?" Government, particularly myself as the Minister for Labour, wants to do a job quietly without hurting anyone because it does not pay to hurt workers or employers in the scheme of things. We must try to bring about better understanding and in trying to bring about better industrial relations one must try not to run down one organisation or the other. That should never happen, and now it is suggested that the Government should call off the hunger strike. I cannot understand that and I say this again, "If this so-called trade union leader and if the responsible leaders in the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association will just keep away from seeking publicity and will just forget everything in order that these people can be re-employed, the Government will see that they are re-employed."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I read the morning press with some interest when I discovered that three leading politicians had suddenly taken an interest in the hunger strike at the Singapore Harbour Board and they all happened by some strange coincidence to follow one another into the union's premises: The Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng, the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) and the former Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall). It also happens that Saturday is polling day for the City Council elections.

Nonsense.

Sir, the Minister for Labour and Welfare has only told half the story and I want to tell the other half.

Tell the truth.

Order.

If people like the Member for Changi and the Member for Queenstown knew what this is all about, they would think twice before trying to make capital out of such situations.

Like you.

You cannot win mass support by cashing in on somebody else's roost.

I think the hon. Member is perhaps skating on thin ice. He is implying improper motive which is of course disallowed by Standing Orders.

Sir, the motive of trying to win popular support, in my submission, is a very honourable motive. The manner in which it is done may not be so honourable. What I hope to do today is to explain how it should be done. You cannot hope to get other people to gather popular support for you. The people who are there on the ground working 8 and 15 hours a day hold the loyalties of these men at the base, and you think that you can come in for two hours, once in a year, and swing their loyalties over. It cannot be done on that basis. The homing pigeon comes back because it has been trained to come back. The first thing Members in this House and politicians must understand is that if you want mass support, you must work and organise for it.

Like you.

Thank you. I am much obliged. We do work a lot. Whether we are successful or not is another matter as the City Council elections and subsequent elections will show.

How long.

But let me explain some of the things which the Minister for Labour and Welfare has not explained. The story starts back in 1952 when I became the legal adviser to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. That was some five years back - and I have been in close association with it ever since. Sir, in 1954, I introduced Mr Jamit Singh as the permanent General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board's Staff Association. He was a member of the University of Malaya Socialist Club. I introduced him and was responsible for him as a result of that. I believe at that time that his energy and enthusiasm would be to the advantage of the workers. Sir, I have to weigh my words very carefully because there are long-term repercussions on whatever we say and do in these matters.

Tell the truth.

I must ask the Member for Changi to forbear from making unseemly interruptions. We are in Committee and the Member will perhaps have a chance of replying, if he chooses to, later on.

The next part of the story starts with the strike of the clerical and monthly-rated sections of the Singapore Harbour Board in 1955. The strike went on for 60 odd days and was finally concluded to the advantage of the workers. Then in late 1955, it was decided to expand the membership of that union and take in the daily-rated workers. There were 2,000 odd monthly-rated workers and there were 7,000 to 8,000 daily-rated workers. Amendments were subsequently made to the constitution and the workers were to be registered as members of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. Mr Jamit Singh felt however that it might be better to have some other name and formed a union called the Singapore Harbour Board Workers' Union. He started registering workers for that union. This is the crux of the matter: there is a fight in the Singapore Harbour Board. In the course of a fight, one makes use of every possible source of support. All expendable material is used, be it David Saul Marshall, whom the General Secretary of the union denounced three nights ago on a P.A.P. platform in Jalan Besar. If David Saul Marshall thinks he wants to cash in on it, the General Secretary quite rightly says, "Good, you want to play me for a sucker, I will play you for a sucker." This is a tough game and those who are not tough, had better not try to play this game. There was a real fight, and the fight was between Mr Chrimes, as Chairman of the Singapore Harbour Board, and Mr Jamit Singh. Mr Chrimes believed - and I am sure he still does to this day - and I have heard it said in an aside during the Court of Inquiry which sat for days on end, "Mr Jamit Singh is a saboteur determined to wreck the Singapore Harbour Board, to bring it to a standstill and to ruin the economy of the country, and is a person who should be put behind bars." That is Mr Chrimes' honest to God opinion. Mr Jamit Singh, on the other hand, thinks of Mr Chrimes as a so and so who should be properly dealt with before he is allowed to go away with his pension. 3.15 p.m. Now, Sir, if you want to break a man, you try to take his support away from him. If you can get the mass to yield to you, then you break him. The first thing Mr Chrimes did was to refuse to allow the premises in Cantonment Road to be used by the Singapore Harbour Board Workers' Union. Of course, there were a lot of technicalities. It was said in the Court of Inquiry that the General Secretary never, in fact, made a formal application, and so on. Thousands of formal applications could have been made and the answer would have been 'No'. There was a fight already on in 1956. So the merger which was intended of the Staff Association into the Workers' Union was stalled because merger meant losing the union premises and in any massive organisation, premises are important. You must have a place where the workers can come together and when workers come together then there is effervescency. Therefore, things stalemated for a few months. Both sides were sparring, looking for a soft spot where one could knock the other fellow out. Early this year, the Tanjong Pagar by-elections started. I think that Members will remember that, at that same time, there was a go-slow of the National Union of Railway Workers. Mr Jamit Singh decided that there should be a boycott of all goods which were intended for Port Swettenham in sympathy with them - a legitimate trade union practice. Now, Sir, I was the adviser to the Association; I am still the adviser to the Association. I knew of that decision only after I read it in the papers. However, that was a fair and legitimate trade union practice and then the fight started. The Board retaliated immediately, looking for an opportunity to bring the matter to a head and detain Mr Jamit Singh's pass. The fight was on. Mr Jamit Singh squatted for one day in a police station as a gesture of protest, not comparable to what Mahatma Gandhi did, but a laudable local effort. Next day, a mass, meeting was called; I was present. The situation was weighed and a go slow was called, that is, a slow up of the whole operation as a weapon of pressure. The Board retaliated by suspending more workers. It was just like when Hitler wanted to attack Poland. He found all kinds of things that went wrong between Poland and Germany. Of course, when you find lots of things going wrong you apply pressure and say, "That is wrong." and if something else happens you say. "Oh that is wrong too." and you do this and the other. Eventually a declaration of war must be made. The suspended workers led to greater pressure on the union side, greater pressure on the union side led to more suspensions. In that situation, the House will remember, I tabled a motion that the matter should go to a Court of Inquiry and the whole matter be sorted out. Before my motion came up, the Minister for Labour yielded and called a Court of Inquiry. You will, I think, remember that he said to me then when he was first considering it, "We must make sure that both sides will abide by it before we set up a Court of Inquiry otherwise it is useless." And by the time he called a Court of Inquiry, both sides had agreed to abide by its findings and we went before the Court of Inquiry and put the facts. The report was put before the House and the real issue was, as far as the Court was concerned, whether we could prove the fight for recognition of either the Workers' Union or the Staff Association as representing all the workers. Now, for reasons of the legal formalities, and so on, the whole of the Workers' Union membership was brought over into the Staff Association. Backdating and other complications do not concern the main point we are discussing. Sir, there was no doubt that we had the majority of the workers in the Staff Association. And if a ballot is held, as the Court report recommended, it will be proved that we have got the majority of the workers. Throughout the whole of the Court of Inquiry, Mr Chrimes had to show his hand. Every time the Court made a finding, he blocked and stalled it because his purpose was not to settle the dispute. His purpose was to show the workers: Follow Mr Jamit Singh, you are in for difficulties and you will get nowhere; so discard him. That is Mr Chrimes objective. Sir, I have not always seen eye to eye with the General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, particularly on the manner in which certain administrative arrangements were done, but I say this: Mr Chrimes is about the most vicious employer-type that one can ever meet. He told me once, "I like a man who has got fire in his belly." and Mr Chrimes obviously is a man with fire in his belly because he must like himself. He is determined, whatever the consequences, to break Mr Jamit Singh even if it means breaking the union. Sir, I am not interested in Mr Chrimes breaking Mr Jamit Singh. But I am very interested to see that Mr Chrimes does not break the union because years of work has gone into building it up. This is another aspect which the Minister for Labour did not bring up. We are fighting to build up one union in the waterfront and so is the T.U.C. They had the Waterfront Workers' Federation or Confederation. There are about seven or eight little piddling unions inside the Singapore Harbour Board, like the Stevedore something or the other, and others. We proved it in the Court of Inquiry that they were all hollow and that they did not have numbers. Every one of them is recognised by the Board as representing one sector or the other of the daily-rated workers in the Singapore Harbour Board. So the real fight is the fight between the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association on the one side claiming that it represents all the workers and Mr Chrimes of the Singapore Harbour Board on the other side saying, "No, you don't. I will break you. If you say that you are representatives of my workers, then I think you are in for a lot of trouble." With the T.U.C. also saying, "That would be completely wiped off if recognition were given to us". Now, I have to oppose this and this is the basic issue. The Hon. the Chief Minister is right; he can solve this matter. In fact, he gave the undertaking in the presence of the General Secretary of the union and of myself when he dictated a statement saying that he would take full responsibility to see that they were backed, but that Mr Jamit Singh was not to interfere. How could you expect Mr Jamit Singh not to interfere? This is a fight for survival. If he does not cash in, the workers will honestly believe that he is useless. So he has got to be in the battle. This is the technique of fighting for mass support. It goes on all over the world and those who do not understand this should go and read about it because these things have happened in other places. Now, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister was prepared to solve this on his terms and his terms were: No credit to you, credit to the T.U.C.: no credit to Mr Jamit Singh. Dr Lim Yew Hock rose -

No, no. Let me finish. There are a few minutes more.

I hope the hon. Member will give me at least one minute to reply to this allegation.

Let us put it fairly and squarely. Mr John Ede rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Let me finish please. There are a few minutes more. The hon. Member can speak on other topics and I do not think what the hon. Member has to say will make much difference to what I am going to finish up with. This is a fight in which the 200 workers are pawns and that is a fact. They can go on a hunger strike. They can bear out all the sores and say, "Ah, look at my guts, they are coming out," The real fight is Mr Chrimes out to break Mr Jamit Singh and the union if necessary, the union determined to preserve its membership, the General Secretary determined to maintain his leadership in the union, and the T.U.C. standing by asking, "Where do I come in?" Now, Sir, I think the Hon. the Chief Minister deserves or the T.U.C. deserves full credit to take the men back. We do not want credit for this. Take them back. But there is still the bigger issue to be settled and the bigger issue is, that this union represents all the workers. At some time or other, the Hon. the Chief Minister knows that there is going to be a big debate on this matter and that there will be a final settlement. Either the ballot will have to be taken, or there will be a crisis, or there is a compromise solution. I am suggesting a compromise solution. My compromise solution is well known to the Hon. the Chief Minister and to his T.U.C. colleagues, that is, we get all these piddling little unions to come together with the big union, the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, and form a federation. The federation as such will represent all the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board, but membership of the individual worker to any component part of that federation should be free and voluntary. In other words, there will be free and open competition between the component parts of that federation to hold the loyalty of the men. Workers all over the world are not loyal to just "isms" and principles. They are loyal to the people who fight and work for them -

For political reasons.

- and if the T.U.C. cadres are prepared to work and fight for them, they will get their loyalty. That is the real fact of the matter and I hope the Hon. the Chief Minister in his one minute reply which I have left him will help further to elucidate the situation.

Sir, I think we are quite disgusted with the rubbish, vague statements and lies told by the Member for Tanjong Pagar -

Order. If the hon. Member will not keep to parliamentary language, he is merely wasting time. I will call upon the Chief Minister. Mr Chief Minister.

There is just one more minute. Sir, I am sure that hon. Members are already aware that in doing this work, one must not try to get credit nor to try to place discredit on anyone else. Let us bring about industrial peace at nobody's expense but in the best interest of the people of Singapore.

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $427,760 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 3.30 p.m. Head 50 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12 therein. This item is in respect of a lightweight motor-cycle for which a vote is required in the sum of $650. Sir, this amount appears to be a very, very small amount. But what I say is that there was no such vote provided for in last year's Estimates. Now going through the footnote, it reads: "Required for despatches and collections of mails to and from other Government departments." Sir, may I enquire from the Government how was mail delivered and collected during all the months from January up till now? Now, if for the whole of this year, mail has been delivered and collected satisfactorily, why then is it necessary that a vote for $650 is required to purchase a motor-cycle? Can we not maintain and continue the present procedure of delivering and collecting mails? I would like an explanation from the Government on that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal to purchase a lightweight motor-cycle for the purpose of carrying mails between the department and other departments is dictated by the desire to effect the maximum economy in the transport expenditure of the Immigration Department. Whilst in 1956, Sir, the Department maintained four motor vehicles, the number has been reduced to only three in 1957. Of the three vehicles, one of them, an Austin station wagon, which has already performed more than 140,000 miles has been certified by the Mechanical Engineer, P.W.D. as beyond economic repair. It is therefore necessary to replace one vehicle and the replacement is by a lightweight motor-cycle which is more economical to use. It is also easier for a messenger to ride on a motor-cycle to deliver mails thereby freeing the two station wagons for the transport of immigration officers in their duties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the explanation from the Minister, may I have your permission to withdraw my amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,101,270 for Head 50 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister mentioned in this House a day or so ago that the question of passports for Singapore has not yet been finalised, and there is also the question of re-entry permits for Singapore citizens which I think is in the same state. Now these questions may not have been finalised but no doubt the Government has a definite policy on them. Would the Minister state what the intentions of the Government are in this respect as there is considerable public interest in this matter?

Sir, if the hon. Member is desirous of knowing what the Government's intention is in regard to the issuing of passports for, say, citizens of Singapore, all I can say is that the matter is at present under consideration but citizens of Singapore who are already registered will have re-entry into Singapore when they leave Singapore for countries where travel to is permitted.

I would like to raise three points on this immigration matter. Firstly, many aliens seeking to study abroad have no British passports - of course, they have only certificates of identity - and are refused entry by certain foreign countries unless they have a certain assurance from this Government that they can return to Singapore at any time or at least after their period of study. I wish the Minister would consider this matter. The second point, Sir, is with regard to the stability of this region. I wonder whether the Government will consider loosening some of the immigration regulations in order to attract more investors who can bring in "invisible capital." Thirdly, some of the local-born citizens of this country have been away without a re-entry permit. Will the Government consider allowing - them especially those who went to China and who were local-born - to come back?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have experienced that the Immigration Department takes an unduly long time to deal with applications for entry permits. There is one case I know of. I think, if it is a question of shortage of staff, Government must then provide the additional staff so that the public should not be unduly inconvenienced.

Sir, the delay in considering applications for entry permits, particularly from immigrants from China, is not mainly due to a shortage of staff. It is due, in most cases, to the inability of the sponsor to produce satisfactory evidence. The Immigration Department cannot accept it as satisfactory evidence just because a sponsor states in the application form that so and so is his wife or his parent. There must be other documentary evidence which the sponsor has to produce and which can satisfy the Immigration Department. With regard to the point raised by the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) on the question of certificates of identity issued to students who intend to travel overseas to further their studies, one case has come to my notice, Sir. If these students who intend to go overseas are citizens of Singapore, they should come and see me or the Controller of Immigration and the necessary assurance to the Government of the country to which the student intends to go will be given.

Thank you.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,101,270 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 51 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $955,570 for Head 51 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must take this opportunity of begging your pardon when I was pulled up by you during the debate on the Singapore Harbour Board strike. I cannot understand why certain facts have been hidden and why we cannot be told the truth. Firstly, Sir -

Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is endeavouring to reopen the subject. If he is, he is out of order. The subject has been closed. Of course, the hon. Member can speak on other aspects of labour.

Yes, I have to abide by the Standing Orders. On the question of labour stability, I did put forward a suggestion to the Minister for Labour and Welfare that we should now sponsor a training course for union leaders whereby the workers themselves can select their own leaders instead of politicians. As we know, some politicians fully utilise the union movement and they can even put one of their own men as a General Secretary. In this instance, I wonder if the Member for Tanjong Pagar can answer these questions. He said that Mr Jamit Singh was selected as the General Secretary to lead the Singapore Harbour Board Workers' Union because he was a very enthusiastic socialist. Did he become a member of the P.A.P.? Is it in the best interest of the workers to establish a new union knowing very well that there is already a trade union existing? Did the legal adviser to the Singapore Harbour Board Workers' Union advise them that they should join the T.U.C.? If we allow politicians to appoint their Party stalwarts into a union and if they want to grab power and make political capital out of labour, I think the stability of the trade union movement can never be achieved. Therefore, I strongly suggest to the Government to consider the sponsoring of training courses for trade union leaders. There are economists and lecturers in our Universities who can give them the right and sound advice instead of being misled by politicians who are opportunists and so-called trade union leaders, seeking only political interest!

Mr Speaker, Sir, in supporting the Member for Changi regarding the setting up of a training course for union leaders, I would suggest that it should be more a course for the members rather than the leaders themselves. As far as I know, there is a course for leaders of trade unions who undergo training in the management and administration of trade union but I would suggest and emphasise more strongly that a course or lectures should be given to the members of trade unions and not to the leaders. It has been proved now, Sir, that most leaders are nothing else but politicians who really make capital out of trade unions and who give wrong advice to trade unions, just as in the case that was debated a few minutes ago. Now, it is only the members of political parties who penetrate into and make capital out of trade unions and not Independents who belong to no party at all. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said, "It is the fight for survival," - the fight of survival of his own political Party. Independents are not interested at all. The Independents are only interested in the humanitarian side of trade unions and not in the survival of any political party. So I would strongly advocate that Government start a sort of a course or get lecturers to advise or lecture to trade unions so that they will not accept the advice of politicians who come into trade unions as supposed trade union leaders. Are they really trade unionists, Sir? Are they really in the trade itself? They are nothing but paid to penetrate or infiltrate into the trade unions for their own political ends. I have been a trade unionist myself as founder of the Army Civil Service Union - the biggest union in Singapore today - and I know what trade unionism is. On the question of politicians making capital out of trade unions, I think it reflects on members of political parties and not on Independent politicians. 3.45 p.m.

Sir, I just want to make one comment on the general remarks of the Opposition about trade unions. To be a good organiser of a trade union requires knowledge of organisation, ability and experience and this, I think, is in short supply in Singapore. Not only are the technical skills or technological aids short, but also absent is the long tradition of how to do things, how to negotiate, how to strike a bargain, how to understand the workings of an industry, and so on. The result is that unions very often do not get the finest quality of people as organisers, because such people have already gone for more remunerative or more attractive occupations somewhere else. They do sometimes get a man with a chip on his shoulder, a man with an inferiority complex - suffering from a complex of aggressive and defensive mechanisms which do not operate in a fully sane way. He may be inspiring on some occasions, but on others he may be rather a menace. Such a man may get things in a muddle. I think the idea to improve conditions by trade union courses and so on is very desirable, but the basic requirement is a general widening of organisational experience which can only come by a process of time and learning the hard way.

Sir, before I speak on what I think is the more important aspect on this particular head, that is, the efficient enforcement of the Ordinances we have passed - the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance - I would say this. When an expert holds a big Samurai sword, it is firmly held with two hands. But when people like the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) and the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) use a Samurai sword the way a rapier is used, then some very odd gestures result.

Especially from you.

Sir, the first quality one needs to be an organiser and a trade unionist is not as the hon. Mr Thomas said organisational experience, and so on. The first quality is drive and idealism. Trade unionism does not mean the occasional meeting where one harangues the member. It means sweating day after day in your little office, running around attending to multitudes of little problems, and the drudgery can only be done by those who have got sufficient idealism and drive. That is the first quality and the first difficulty is to find a man with that idealism and that drive. Sir, if we could find more and more of such people, there will be no danger. Then we can make such people work the democratic trade unionism. Then there is every reason to believe that the democratic system in Malaya will flourish. The task is one of finding the men, and not one of giving leadership grants to train people to be leaders. They send these people all over the world, but they start with material that would never make leaders. I do not yet know of a man who became a leader as a result of having undergone a leadership course. But coming to the main topic, it is an open secret - one which must be very well known to the Minister for Labour and Welfare - that employers, particularly coffee-shop owners, are not observing the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance. I myself have referred several cases where there has been non-observance by coffee-shop owners, to his department. Although it is only a few months since the Ordinance was passed, it is time that he got down to getting an inspectorate to see that the provisions of this Ordinance are observed. If a union is strong, and the overall labour situation is one favourable to the worker as against the employer, the services of an inspectorate to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance do not become so important. But where the union is still in the formative stage and gathering strength, and the employers are able to gang-up and either punish or otherwise make it uncomfortable for individual employees or union officials who try to get them to observe the provisions of the law, then an inspectorate which lends itself to the unions where employers are in breach is a very desirable thing. Sir, there are other difficulties also for which we did not make provision when we passed the Labour Ordinance. For example, what happens when an employer refuses to engage doctors to certify that a man is unfit for work before he can get his leave, and other little loopholes like that, which must have come to the notice of the Minister's department. I want to know from him whether he is making a study of all these deficiencies, and when we can expect an Ordinance or an amending Ordinance to fill up all the loopholes which by lack of experience or lack of anticipation were allowed to pass unnoticed.

I believe, Sir, that we are on this subject till 4 o'clock.

We have only one minute left.

Thank you, Sir. I will give the chance of speaking to the Hon. the Chief Minister.

Sir, under this portfolio, I am known as the Minister for Labour and Welfare and not the Chief Minister. The point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in regard to the non-observance of certain Ordinances particularly by shops is that he has brought to the attention of the Labour Department certain complaints against certain shops. I can assure the hon. Member that complaints whenever received from the workers concerned or their representatives will be looked into expeditiously and if it is necessary to strengthen the labour inspectorate, this will be done. I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that there are certain loopholes in the Labour Ordinance and arising out of the Labour Ordinance in the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance but a study is being made as a result of experience gained and as soon as the study is completed, an amending Bill will be put forward.

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $955,570 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. I do not want to make it difficult for the Minister for Labour and Welfare, who is a good friend and a very old colleague of mine, but I would like to make some enquiries regarding this department. Now, Sir, during the post-war period, this department is very necessary and is useful. There is no doubt about that. I would like him to give me some statistics now or tomorrow morning of the number of people receiving help and the amount given yearly. Sir, complaints have been made that if a person has got to receive a very few dollars from the department he may have to travel and spend bus money to and from the department. What arrangements have been made so that these people who receive a very meagre sum - a family may receive more - should not have to spend money to travel to the department and wait for long hours? Now, Sir, I do not know whether I am in order, but I would also like to have statistics as to the number of those labourers, skilled labourers, shop assistants, and so on, receiving help from Government. What is being done for such people by the Social Welfare Department to make them self-supporting? I believe that the duty of the Government is to reduce the number of people dependent on public dole and that they should be made self-supporting. They must be given jobs; they must be taught certain trades in small-scale industries, and so on, so that they can earn their own living.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the statistics asked for by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer can be gathered from the Annual Report of the Social Welfare Department.

Thank you.

Sir, I think community centres and community centre development come under the control of the Social Welfare Department. I have brought to the attention of the department that many community centres are being run by advisory boards appointed by Government.

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I have to report that progress has been made in the Committee of Supply and beg leave to continue tomorrow.

Tomorrow it will be.

Resolved, "That the Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock p.m.