Hansard, 1957-12-20

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang)-on 20th December, 1957.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this is the last day set down for debate on the Budget, I move, That the proceedings on the business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 8th January, 1958.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 8th January, 1958.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day ]: Resumption of debate on Question (19th December, 1957) proposed to Head 52 in the First Schedule of the Bill, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein."-(Mr R. Jumabhoy). FIRST SCHEDULE Head 52- Question again proposed. 10.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year I spoke on community centres and this year I have to bring this matter up again. I find that community centres run today are not making good use of the money we spend on them. I notice that the Government always cling to the policy of wanting to have advisory committees. They hand-pick their people and allow the community centres to be run by such people. I told the Government last year that community centres run in this manner would never produce good results. I related to them the events right from the beginning, probably in 1953, after they appointed advisory committees which have shown until today very little result. However, Government considered that it was still essential to have community centres run by advisory committees. Another year has elapsed and more advisory committees have been appointed but the net result produced is still negligible. I put it to the Government, Sir, that when it comes to community centres, the people feel that they are Government institutions and they feel reluctant to make use of such centres so that today apart from a few little boys making use of them and a little bit of activity like adult education, community centres are really not being used as they should be used. I put it to the Government last year that it should be best that people should be elected to run such centres. We have elections at the Assembly level for the running of the country. We have elections at the City Council level; we will also have elections at the Rural District Council level: yet, with democracy practised at such levels, we deny the people of a small village or a small community the right to choose their own natural leaders to run their little local affairs. This is most unsatisfactory. If Government want community centres to be fully utilised, the natural leaders of the people should be chosen to run them so that the people would feel that these centres belong to them and I am sure that community centres would then be properly used. I have put forward schemes as to how this could be achieved but so far I have not had the satisfaction of either seeing the schemes I suggested being implemented or a more workable scheme being put forward by the Government. I urge the Government to consider this matter more fully so that money expended under this head should not be wasted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Government is speeding up the Malayanisation scheme and that the Social Welfare Department is fully malayanised having a local officer as Acting Director of Social Welfare. Sir, this officer who is holding this appointment has quite a considerable knowledge of economics. I understand that he went to the United Kingdom to study this subject but what is most essential, Sir, in this department is that we should have a local man with practical experience rather than a man with a knowledge of economics because social work is such that you come in close contact with the people and you should have a complete knowledge of social work through contact with all communities in Singapore. The present holder of this appointment, I may say, Sir, is more suited in the Chief Minister's Economic Adviser's Department. We want, in fact, a local man to go into this department as an understudy to take over eventually the post of the Economic Adviser instead of an expatriate officer in that department. Shame! If we can malayanise the Social Welfare Department, why can we not malayanise the Economic Adviser's Department as well? Surely, local people can take over such appointments. Sir, as I said, this officer went to the United Kingdom for seven years training in economics. He came back two years ago and was attached to this department but what has been the nature of his work in this Department? I understand he was placed on research work rather than on the actual function of the department which is social welfare. Now, Sir, within a period of two years in that department doing research work, it would be rather difficult for him to know the practical side of social welfare - the requirements and the needs of the public in connection with social welfare. Social welfare is a very, very complicated problem and it takes time to learn and know the actual needs of the public. As I said it must be done by a man with practical experience. So Government should appoint officers in departments to suit their actual qualifications and the present holder, who is an economist, should go to the Economic Adviser's Department. Now, if there is an officer in the Social Welfare Department who has got practical experience. I think he should be appointed to take over that department. It is better to appoint one officer who knows the work rather than to appoint a man who has got all the theory but has not got the practical knowledge in the department and then in the end find that it is difficult to run it. I do hope that the Minister for Labour and Welfare will look into this and see that the Economic Adviser's Department will be malayanised very soon.

Sir, as a person who is closely associated with community centres in Singapore, I would like to contribute my experience to this Assembly. Sir, in Singapore community development has entered its first stage. During this initial stage, it is very necessary that the management of community centres should be in the hands of advisory committees. Up to now, the advisory committees have been responsible for stimulating the necessary interest of the community to participate actively in their affairs. Sir, this first stage of development has been very successful, in that it has encouraged those interested in community work to come forward to work hard unselfishly. Sir, I am told by the Social Welfare Department that the next stage in the development of community centres is in the offing. In the rural areas, of course, as we are all aware, it will be the District Councils which will be responsible for the management of community centres and these District Councils are shortly to be composed of an elected majority. I can see that community development in the rural areas will be much more vigorous and enthusiastic once these District Councils come into being and we will then see the elected representatives of the people playing their part in the shaping and in the development of their respective communities. Sir, I believe that there is ample room for the development of community centres in Singapore. I do not for a moment think that we have achieved all what we should have achieved in the past two years and I think one of the ways in which we can be actively helpful in the matter of community development is to see that politics do not become part of community development. Sir, there can be great harm done to community development once politics become part of their activities. Community centres are primarily designed to help the community as a whole irrespective of whether they are members of particular political parties and that is one aspect of the essence of community development, that politics should not be the order of the day. I do hope, Sir, that the people who participate actively in community centres will not engage themselves in party politics. 10.15 a.m. One other aspect I would like to deal with is the second stage of community development. Community development cannot be a success if one is to think that it is either a Government responsibility or that it is the entire responsibility of the people. Community development must be developed on the basis of the utmost co-operation between Government and the people and then only community development will come to stay in Singapore. Sir,I believe that with the coming of the District Councils and the new City Council, the community centres will take a new form, have new ideas and a new stimulus and if we all actively participate with the active co-operation of the Government, we will develop community life on the right and proper lines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) himself said that he brought up this subject of community centres last year and this year, he is just repeating what he has said last year. Last year, Sir, I replied to the points raised by him and I think I should not repeat what was said in order not to take up the time of this Assembly unnecessarily but I would refer him to what I said last year. With regard to the points raised by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) the officer who is now holding the post of Director of Social Welfare is an officer who has been in that department, if I remember rightly, from the very start when that department was formed after the liberation. He has a very close knowledge of the working of that department. It is true that he is very suitable in the economic field - the only man in the whole civil service who can take over from the present Economic Adviser. But the hon. Member must not forget that in regard to an appointment, this is left to the Public Service Commission. The Government does not post officers into any particular posts. The Government has plans for organising an economic research unit under Dr Goh who will, we hope in due course, take over from the present Economic Adviser.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after all that was said last year, I must still express my dissatisfaction that work concerning community centres is still at a standstill. It has been at a standstill for the last two or three years and I do not think that what the Government replied to what I asked last year would be sufficient. I have always told the Government that what we want to see are results and not just words or replies. I find that instead of the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare replying to what I said, another Assistant Minister, the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary, replying to affairs concerning welfare.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way. Mr Lim Choon Mong resumed his seat.

Sir, I quite frankly admit that I was not replying and that it was not my responsibility to reply to an item under this particular head. I said at the very beginning of my speech that I was only contributing to this Assembly my experience as a person who is closely associated with community centres.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Assistant Minister thinks that he is closely associated with community centres, then I think he is not fully versed with the affairs of community centres. He said that party politics should not come into community centres. So far as I know, I have never found it to be so. He said that community centres should be guided at first but I find that those centres which are free from governmental control and set up by the local people themselves progress to a far greater extent than those guided by advisory committees of the Government. Now, Sir, I believe that if Government is not going to put up a scheme whereby greater use is made of community centres, then Government will again fail in this aspect. I will now go on, Sir, to further aspects of social welfare work. We know that today in Singapore we have a large number of young people who because of the inadequate educational facilities are on the streets. They are too young to be employed and not educated enough. I believe that the Social Welfare Department can come in to help these people to a very great extent. I must state that they have been helping in this direction but I would like to see more intensified assistance being given to these young people. If the Social Welfare Department is not going to take a very active part in shaping the lives of these people and making them into very useful citizens, then I believe that the work will then pass on to other departments of the Government, say, the Police Department and later on the Prisons Department. If we do not spend money for education and for social welfare, then we will have to spend more money on a bigger police force and build more prisons to house criminals. Assistance has been given in this direction but I maintain that it is insufficient. Greater help must come. The young people must be looked after. They will be the citizens of tomorrow and Government should give greater assistance to such people. Even today, Sir, on this question of the problem with the young people, there is one great need and that is boys' hostels. Here again, I find that voluntary organisations are helping to a far greater extent. I refer to the Boys Town. They have done a splendid job. They have places for these young people but I think there are so many other people who want to get in but are unable to do so and Government should give further assistance in this direction. If it were possible, it would even be better if Government should undertake to run such an organisation as Boys Town. I hope that Government will take this into consideration and see that the young people of Singapore are given greater attention than they are being given now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the points raised by the Member for Serangoon regarding more active help to be given to teenagers and linking this with Boys Town and hostels, may I say this, Sir. The Government is doing every, thing that is possible within the limited means at its disposal. In social work of this kind, it is vital that the public should work hand in hand with the Government and if there are organisations as pointed out by the hon. Member which are keen to play their part to assist the youth of Singapore, I can on behalf of the Government assure such organisations that whatever assistance they may require from the Government in this co-operative work, will always be given favourable and sympathetic consideration.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13 therein. Sir, subhead 13 refers to "Public Assistance" and comparing the figures to be provided for next year with that for this year, I see that there is an increase of $380,000. This is a very substantial increase. Sir, in moving this amendment, I must make it clear that I am not trying to decrease or to reduce the vote. I only move this amendment to initiate a debate because public assistance is very essential in Singapore but what I cannot understand is this, Sir. Why should there be such a substantial increase? Is the Government expecting more unemployment next year? And if not, why should there be an increase then? I paid a compliment to the Government yesterday, Sir, pointing out there was less unemployment this year as compared with last year. So if we can have less unemployment this year, we can definitely have far less unemployment next year. We always look forward to progress and we must move in the forward gear rather than in the reverse gear. Sir, if the Government is not anticipating more unemployment next year, then this increase is not warranted. There should not be any increase. If Government provides more employment for the people, I am quite sure that the vote for "Public Assistance" will not be such a big amount as $6½ million for next year. The question is this: Government must have stability in this country and if Government does not have stability, then there will be more unemployment. It is not a question of providing more and more money for public assistance. It is a question of providing more and more employment which would reduce the number of applicants coming for public assistance. I am quite sure that no one would like to apply for public assistance if he is employed and if he can earn a decent living. I am quite sure that a man is forced to submit his application for public assistance through poverty and unemployment. So if Government provides more employment, then there would be less people applying for public assistance. So it is up to Government not to increase the amount required for public assistance but to provide more employment so that less people will be dependent on the charity of the public and the Government. 10.30 a.m.

Sir, the increase asked for this particular vote is not because of Government's anticipation of increased unemployment in the next year. The rates are still the same. There is to be no change in the rates next year. The relief granted is not only to the unemployed. It is also granted to the sick and to the aged and, from experience gained in the department, we know that more and more people are coming forward for this relief because they feel that they are qualified to do so. When we first started, it was with a small amount. It was not, shall we say, so popular. It is now becoming very popular to the poor, popular in the sense that they now know that there is a Government which is anxious to look after their welfare, and the fact that they know now that there is somebody to look after their welfare, the more anxious are they to make application for relief.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $11,872,120 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 53 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $265,800 for Head 53 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, under this head, I find that the name given to the Ministry does not cover transport but I take it that the word "Communications" covers transport as well and that it is one of the functions of the Ministry to look into the transport problem. In most countries, as far as I understand, transport is a state responsibility and not run on a commercial enterprise basis but in Singapore I find that it is run by an expatriate firm under a monopoly. Rightly or wrongly, most of the shareholders of that firm are expatriates or British rather than Asians and this monopoly is given to this firm in the name of the Singapore Traction Company. There are also Chinese bus companies running this passenger bus service in Singapore but the competition between these Chinese bus companies and the Singapore Traction Company is out of comparison. There is a move I under, stand to amalgamate all the Chinese bus companies into a big company to compete with this Singapore Traction Company. Whether it will materialise or not is left to be seen. At the present moment, the consideration of bus routes is left in the hands of the Transport Advisory Board - that may be the correct name of the Board. I do appreciate that all the members sitting on this Board are experts on transport but they are fully conversant with the theoretical side of the transport problem and not with the practical side. The question of bus routes, I think, should be considered more in the light of the needs and requirements of the public. Sir, the number of vehicles on the roads are increasing day by day. With the new serial lettering "SS" that is coming up, I am quite sure that we will have more vehicles by the end of the year. Car owners are finding it difficult to park their cars with this increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. Practically every road in the city is restricted for parking purposes. You either find a "white line" or a "No Parking" sign on roads within the city area. It is rather fortunate that Members of this Assembly are privileged to have a special car parking space in front of this Assembly House. If not for this privilege, I am sure that Members will also find it difficult to find a place to park their cars when attending sittings of this Assembly. It is my opinion that it is more convenient to come down to the city in taxis than in our own cars. Now, to solve this traffic problem, I think Government should consider introducing a light railway scheme. I believe, some years back, the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary who was then in the City Council suggested such a scheme. He is now in power and I think he should push this scheme through. This light railway scheme, Sir, could bring workers from the rural areas into the city, and if most of the workers or those who come down to the city for business would travel on small trains, I am quite sure that this would lessen the number of vehicles on the roads. In most countries, there are such light trains which go into the rural areas to convey the people down to work. Sir, I hope that Government will look into this and give consideration to the introduction of such a scheme whereby people can travel to and from the city. This will lessen congestion on the roads as I said and, at the same time, petrol consumption will be less. With the increase of 20 cents tax on a gallon of petrol, I am sure that the public will be quite happy to travel in light trains rather than in their own cars. They can leave their cars at home until the evening when they can then go for their pleasure rides. I sincerely hope that the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary who had this in mind some years back will press the Government to introduce such a scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister for Communications and Works whether he is aware that some of the buses in the rural districts are not running uniformly. Some of them run from morning to 12 o'clock midnight and some of them run to 10 p.m. I do not understand why this should be so especially for the rural people, Sir, who, late in the night, find difficulty in getting down to town, especially on emergency cases such as confinement or accident. If the buses run up to 12 o'clock midnight, I think that will give more help to the rural people. So I hope that the Minister for Communications and Works will consider this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to add to what the last two speakers have said, that the problem of public transport is very little nearer solution than it was 2½ years ago when the Labour Front stated that their policy was to nationalise transport. There is only a short time left under this head. So I do hope that the Minister will give us a resume of what is the intention of the Government in the last few months of its life.

With regard to transport, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already made a statement in the course of this Budget debate. I presume that some Members were out of the room at that time. They will get a copy in due course of what I said and they can see what my remarks were: they can also get it from their friends. So I do not think that I need say it again. With regard to the point raised by the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) that buses are running irregularly, I am aware of that problem. It is a complex problem which is derived partly from managerial inefficiency perhaps and partly from stresses and strains between employer and employee. When some workers dislike the management they do sometimes get the buses driven wrongly. In effect, they do not exactly go slow, but go in a muddled way; you get five buses close together on the roads and they pass the bus stops at the same time and then for half an hour after that there is no further bus. That kind of thing does occur. But, generally speaking, it is a problem derived from the long and muddled history of public transport with which I have had to grapple because it had been badly done in the past. It is a complicated job. We could, no doubt, have made a Ceylon approach to the problem and gone with great rapidity and passed laws - not provided money - and set up a Board. Whether or not that would, in fact, have brought any improvement remains to be seen. My own judgment is that it is much better to accept delay and to make sure that you are going forward over sound foundations than to say, "This is a bad situation and I assume that any action will make it better." You have got to get the right kind of action or you may merely make it worse. But we are in fact considering now whether it is possible to do anything interim about the bus services, particularly the rural bus services and the Chairman of the Rural Board has been pressing on this matter for some time. I hope that as soon as this Budget is out of the way, my Permanent Secretary can attend to other work and he will be able to get on with this one. Now, for the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng). As usual, he took a good deal of our time to say nothing of any importance at all. He knows a good deal about bus companies because he was or is still a City Councillor -

Until tonight.

- and was closely concerned with them for a number of years and knows a good deal about them but if he know about the workings of this House, he would know that in this House, we have already passed an Omnibus Services Licensing Authority; not a Traffic Advisory Board, but an authority with the duties and powers properly laid down and constituted by this House. It was typical of the approach which he makes to this House that he should not even know what he is talking about and talk about a Traffic Advisory Board. The light railway scheme is, of course, a very old chestnut. I have got lengthy reports which have been brought up to date since I was a Minister in my office and, of course, it would be worth considering but the capital cost would be enormous. Even using relatively vacant land, the mere fact that you have got either to lift the thing up in the air or run it down in the ground - foundations and that kind of thing - makes it a very difficult thing to carry out and highly speculative, particularly if the main work of development is not on the present line of the railway. If you are going to run a railway from Collyer Quay to Katong, the hon. Member can imagine the amount of cost that would be involved. Mr John Ede rose -

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $265,800 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54 - The sum of $3,273,910 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 10.45 a.m. Head 55 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,058,440 for Head 55 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on this subject, I do exactly know what I am speaking about because this is from my own practical experience. I believe that the function of this department is to study the atmospheric movements, with special emphasis on weather forecasts. From my experience, I emphasise again that the forecasts given by this department sometimes go wrong. Before big social functions, I understand that some hosts do contact the department to ascertain the actual weather forecasts for the day but as I have said, some of the forecasts given by the department go wrong. A forecast is given as "fine" for the evening and when the host is entertaining his guests in the evening, there is a big downpour or a big shower. So I think that there must be something wrong in that department. I am afraid I do not know where the fault in the department lies as I am not in that department. I can only speak of what I actually know, that the forecasts have sometimes gone wrong. So if there is something that has gone wrong in that department, I hope the Minister will look into it and find out where the fault is or what is wrong and let us know whether he can remedy the faults or right the wrongs of that department

Of course, the difficulty for the Meteorological Department, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that Singapore is surrounded by water and by relatively undeveloped areas and countries from which meteorological reports are not directly available. Even in Great Britain, which is a highly developed area, you still get mistakes over what is going to happen to the weather; whether it is going to rain tomorrow; or whether you are going to have light showers or heavy showers. Because what, in fact, the meteorological people can do is to check up on the clouds and the speed they are approaching, the height they are at and the type of cloud and all the factors involved and say, "It looks as though the result of this and this and this added together means a shower of rain in Katong." But the shower of rain may, of course, by some factor they have not completely been able to evaluate, fall on the sea instead or fall on Queenstown perhaps. However, I do not think that there is anything wrong with the department. I think it is a very good department. Its main function, of course, is not to provide information for V.I.P. tea parties but to advise the ships and aircraft which are in our meteorological area and to give them the best warning it can as to what sort of weather conditions they are likely to meet with. It is a safety-of-life service. It may give a safety-of-tea party service on the side as far as it can, but that is not its proper function. We are hoping to have the storm warning radar in use (it is now being erected) and this will give a further degree of reliable information but I do not think at any time in the foreseeable future will Singapore be able to say with absolute reliability precisely where and when rain will fall.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,058,440 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56 - The sum of $10,470,250 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57 - The sum of $4,552,630 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2 therein. Under this item, caretakers for unoccupied Government buildings, the approved Estimates for 1957 came to $62,000. For this year $85,000 is required - an increase of $23,000. We would like to know why there should be a sudden increase in the cost of caretakers, whether Government is doing all it can to prevent houses being unoccupied, as we know that deterioration and, sometimes, theft and damage occur when houses are unoccupied.

Is the hon. Member moving in respect of item (2) of subhead 2?

Yes. I beg to move. Question proposed, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 2 therein."

The hon. Member is quite right in presuming that there are larger numbers of buildings vacant. I think it is basically due to the large amount of movement by officers as a consequence of Malayanisation. The continual ebb and flow of people, either on promotion or on retirement or on transfer, has produced a confused situation with regard to quarters. The result of this is seen in the fact that there is half a page of vacant quarters, some of them running quite far back, others coming up very recently. As far as I am concerned, it is just a matter of seeing that they are secure and are looked after as much as possible during the confused period during which they are standing idle for one reason or another. I cannot give any more details as to why they stand idle.

Sir, will the Hon. Minister give us an assurance that every step is taken to see that they could be occupied as soon as possible?

Yes.

On that assurance, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 2 therein. This item, Sir, relates to Maintenance and Current Repairs, General, each year. Last year, the amount approved was $2,300,000. This year, we are asked to increase this item by $300,000. I see in the explanation that each year -

Order. The hon. Member has not given notice of this amendment. The next amendment on the Order Paper is, That the sum to be allotted for Head 58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4 therein." That is the next amendment we are dealing with, and I think the hon. Member pinpointed item (3) of that subhead, if I am not mistaken?

Yes. I will come to that under the general head, Sir. I will proceed with item (1) of subhead 4. That concerns the provision of $100,000 for Maintenance of Runway, Taxi Tracks, Aprons, etc. Sir, this is an entirely new item. I am not conversant with the requirements of runways and the maintenance of taxi tracks at the Airport. I would like to know why such a vast sum of $100,000 is required for next year when it was not required in 1957.

Can I get this a little clearer? Is the hon. Member moving in respect only of item (1) of subhead 4?

Yes, Sir.

The Question then is, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 4 therein.

In previous years, there was no head for this - runway, taxi tracks, aprons, etc. - and these items were dealt with under what is now item (3) of subhead 4 - Upkeep of Government Roads and Approach Roads to Government Buildings and Quarters - and that is why the vote for item (3) of subhead 4 is reduced this year, although I think it has gone up in other respects but down as regards this. There is this new item (I) where we show the Airport costs as a separate item because they are now of a significant size and deserve to be separately recorded. I think the costs have probably gone up as the work has been expanded and, of course, they have now been in use for 18 months.

Sir, I am satisfied with the explanation and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 11.00 a.m.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (8) of subhead 6 therein. It is a question of minor works, Sir. The footnote to this item says: "Increase required to meet essential requests for items not provided for under Head: Public Works, Non-Recurrent (General) - Development Estimates." I would like more information as to what are items of general works, non-recurrent, for which this extra $150,000 is required.

This represents a tussle between the Treasury, who are anxious to economise, and the Public Works Department, who are anxious to maintain and to provide what other people ask for. In 1955 the total provision was $485,000 for minor works - $60,000 for unforeseen minor works, $50,000 for Customs and Excise, $75,000 for Education, $100,000 for foreseen minor works, $100,000 for Medical, and $100,000 for Police. You can see that the fairly heavily spending departments have fairly large allocations, and obviously there is some temptation for heads of departments to say, "Now, I have a large sum of money for minor works. I will have a lot of attractive little jobs done." But in the interests of economy, the vote was pretty vigorously cut. I think for 1956 and 1957 the amount was very much less. It is only a proportion of the requests that come in for odd jobs of all sorts that are approved. A lot of requests are rejected straightaway as soon as they are put up. Others go as far as the requisition stage and there they get turned down. In 1957 a total of 570 requests were examined, total cost being $245,738. 494 jobs were carried out at a total cost of $149,988.75 cents. 76 requests were disapproved or postponed, their total estimated cost being $95,749.25 cents. I think perhaps the increased allocation in this case brings it a bit nearer to reality.

I hope this struggle will result in some economy for Government. I will withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, "That the sum of $7,725,680 for Head 58 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, I just want to touch on the question of the increase in the Estimates for maintenance and repair of government buildings for which another $300,000 is asked. While I do not object to the increase, because undoubtedly there are more government houses being completed, I do urge that extreme care should be taken to see that we are getting value for the money spent on the repairs. Sir, I understand this job is undertaken by a very limited number of contractors and something should be done to see that the number of contractors who are asked to do this job should be increased. Another point is this: The other day I met the head of a firm who sells cement-based paints in Singapore and he was in a fearful fit of temper. He told me that he had been quarrelling with his agents who had not been looking after his business, and I asked him what was the trouble. He said he had received complaints that cement-based paints were of no use. They were being washed away in about six months. Then he had scrapings taken down from a wall, had them sent for analysis and found that they were three-quarters local lime and only one-quarter was his product. It was a really bad mixture which was causing all the trouble. Sir, I hope such instances can be avoided where government expenditure is concerned.

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $7,725,680 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59- The sum of $5,325,080 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. SECOND SCHEDULE Head D 1 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - That the sum to be allotted for Head D 1 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $75,000 for Head D 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 2 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. Subhead 1 deals with additions and alterations to the Supreme Court. The note says that the Registrar's Court and chambers are now required for a sixth Court and provision is asked for to build an extra chamber and Court for the Registrar. I can speak with considerable authority on this matter, Sir, because I was Acting Registrar in the Supreme Court for over six years - between 1932 and 1938 - and I did my job so well that when after three years I got into the Colonial Legal Service, I was appointed as Registrar to the Civil District Court, a post now held by the chief clerk! Anyway, Government found it so difficult to fit me in the District Court that they sent me to Penang and Malacca! Sir, I was for six years the Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court, and I do not believe I ever had any occasion to hold any enquiries - probate, divorce or accounts - in any Court and I do not think, Sir, a Registrar really requires a Court for his work. His work is more chamber work and it can be done in a large chamber. $200,000 is a very large sum of money. I can do a lot of things with it. Take this beautiful Assembly Hall. The whole building was renovated at a cost of $600,000. Now I want to know whether or not you are putting a new Court on top of the flat roof. Where is this $200,000 going to?

It is a most complicated matter, Sir. We do propose to create two new Courts for Judges, to create a new waiting room and an extra Court for the Registrar, and an office for the Deputy Registrar, and all these rooms will be air-conditioned with furniture provided.

I might mention in passing that only two minutes was allotted for this head because there was no claim for time at the informal meeting.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $85,000 for Head D 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 9 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. Subhead 1 is my favourite, Sir. It relates to Division I quarters. I notice with satisfaction that no increase has been asked for this item. I think partly one of the reasons is that I have been consistently attacking these quarters for the last two years. Sir, this quarter is to replace the hut now used by the engineer at the Broadcasting Station in Jurong, but it is a big step from a hut to a Division I quarter. Why cannot we give him a Division II quarter which costs $18,000? This is a very reasonable sum. I caused a bungalow to be built for the chief clerk of a big rubber estate and it only cost $12,000 with sanitation complete. Sir, cannot we save at least $20,000 on this item?

The item is item (1) of subhead 1 - Division I Quarters, Jurong, one - is that correct?

Yes, Sir. Question proposed, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein."

I am not perfectly clear if I have got the hon. Member right, but I think he now accepts the cost of the quarters as all right, but he thinks there should be a lower grade of quarter. In regard to what quarter that officer should have, that is a matter which does not concern the builders but it concerns those who control the civil service. It comes within the terms of employment of the civil service and the availability of certain types of quarters.

Sir, I just want to find out if Government can reduce it to a lower cost.

Sir, the Resident Engineer at Jurong is a Division I officer and we are providing him with quarters for which Division I officers are eligible. In fact, it is only a Class V quarter which we are providing for this officer.

Did I hear the Chief Secretary say that the Government are providing a Class V quarter for a Division I officer?

Government quarters are divided into categories, Sir. The most senior Division I officers have Class I quarters. The most junior Division I officers have Class V quarters. The particular type of quarter suitable for the Resident Engineer at Jurong is a Class V quarter. It is the cheapest type of quarter.

Sir, I strongly advocate doing away with this type of quarter. I would rather add two extra rooms to a Division II quarter at a cost of another $5,000.

I think that would be a considerable architectural feat, Sir. I do not think we should contemplate that at the moment.

Perhaps the Estimates Committee will look into the details.

Question put, and negatived. Amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $120,000 for Head D 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 11.15 a.m. Head D 10 - The sum of $15,000 for Head D 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 11 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - That the sum to be allotted for Head D 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. In Mr Lee Kuan Yew's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2 therein. Subhead 2 comes under the Royal Malayan Navy and it deals with shipbuilding the estimated cost of which is $15 million. At last year's Budget sitting I said that torpedo-boats were obsolescent, and now I can claim that they are obsolete. With the advent of the Sputnik and intercontinental missiles with atomic warheads, warfare has made a complete circle in that it has returned to where it started, where the fighting is between leaders - like the stags at rutting - the winner takes all. It is clear that in the next war, which God forbid, the blows will fall on the nerve centres and the large centres of production, and far-flung areas like Singapore will fall like ripe apples to the victor. There will be no more blockades or mine-laying as was the case in the last war. Therefore the expenditure on building torpedo-boats will be unnecessary. In their place we can have more small patrol boats to patrol our shores and help in the preventive measures against smuggling. Furthermore, the saving of this very large sum of $15 million can be used for building more schools or carrying out other welfare schemes for the population of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support most heartily the mover of this amendment. The whole question before the House is briefly this: whether it is safer for Singapore to be known as an open city or as the Gibraltar of the East - the impregnable base of the British Empire in the Far East - and therefore we must have an army, a navy, and a strategic air force stationed at Changi Airport. Sir, I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar that we can save this money for many useful and urgent purposes, rather than spend it on what some people have described as a "toy navy". Sir, I strongly supported the proposal to scrap the idea that we should establish a Defence Department. A friend once said to me, "If we do not have an army or a small navy, and if neighbouring countries like Indonesia or China or even India just send a battalion into our territory, what are we going to do?" Sir, let me ask this question: whether any hon. Member of this House ever fired a single bullet or shed a single drop of blood to gain our freedom from the British imperialists? Sir, I must confess that without Hitler, who was hitting the imperialists and the colonialists in the West, and without General Tojo, who started the war from the East, I do not think we will today have so many independent countries in Africa and Asia. Sir, our independence and our security are based on our international relationships. We must have friends in this new age. No military power can conquer a people with genuine national aspirations. Therefore we have no fear. Let anybody try to conquer Singapore. They will have to withdraw at last. Sir, I repeat again, it is now a question of principle - whether Singapore should continue to be known as the Gibraltar of the East or be declared an open city.

On a point of information, Sir. I just want to ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the hon. Member is on the side of shipbuilding or against it.

I am so sorry, Sir. I should like to point out that the whole emphasis of my speech has been to scrap not only the Royal Malayan Navy but all the defence expenditure arising from it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a programme of $15 million to be spent on this item of shipbuilding. Nothing has been spent so far. If so, it should not be proceeded with and "money wasted in the water". The money should be utilised for the welfare of the people. Besides, Singapore is not responsible for external defence. This rests with the United Kingdom Government. If Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom want to have their interests defended, they may maintain anything they want at their expense. We should not be their cat's-paw. Sir, I give another instance. The United States of America is maintaining a naval reserve force in Near East waters, near Formosa, Vietnam and so on. If the United Kingdom Government want to follow the same course to protect their own interests in the Far East, let them do so. But certainly we should not spend our money on a shipbuilding scheme. It is a mere waste. You may need an army for internal defence and also you may like to build up an auxiliary air force, but it is a waste of money. We saw how money was wasted on such defence services in the last war. Singapore is a small city, Sir. In case of war, it can be declared an open city - that is quite easy. It is impossible for a small city to defend itself. We should not spend so much money on defence.

Sir, when I heard the views of the hon. Member for Telok Ayer and the hon. Member for Changi on defence, I was reminded of a remark which was attributed to the Duke of Wellington who, after reviewing his forces before a battle in the Peninsula War, said "I hope they frighten the enemy, for, by God, they frighten me!" I do not want to enter into a discussion on the question of defence policy, Sir. I cannot altogether agree with the views put forward by the Member for Paya Lebar, the Member for Telok Ayer and the Member for Changi. I do think there is still a need for small coastal defence craft. But I would say this, Sir, that this programme of shipbuilding is in abeyance because a decision has not yet been reached on the future of the Royal Malayan Navy. I think it can be taken for certain, Sir, that this expenditure will not fall to the account of the Singapore Government.

Sir, in that case, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the amendment be withdrawn? Some hon. Members: Aye.

No.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 9 therein. Sir, I come to subhead 9 which shows that an amount of $12 million is required to build permanent barracks for the Singapore Infantry Regiment. I have already described this Budget as unrealistic and this is one of the items which makes me form that opinion. Sir, $12 million is a very large sum of money. Although we are committed to the Singapore Battalion and troops to help us keep our internal and external security, I do not visualise the necessity of spending such a large sum for permanent barracks. Barracks can be made of different types and we can put up large buildings for less than half that sum. The objection has always been that the cost of maintenance of a semi-permanent building would be double that of a permanent one. That is true, but when you come to the question of arithmetic, if you can save $6 million out of $12 million, the interest saved on that large sum would be more than enough to be used for the repairs and maintenance of the buildings, and the sum of $6 million could be used for other projects. Sir, as I have said before, we are coming to a time when we must examine every item of expenditure, and I say that $12 million for any project must be examined with minute care and pruned down wherever possible.

These barracks are required for the 1st Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. They are based on a schedule of requirements drawn up by the War Council and on a programme of building for the Federation Regiment. The figure shown is merely a very rough P.W.D. estimate based on cubic footage of building and ancillary services required for a large military cantonment. The plans have still to be prepared. I imagine that very considerable reductions will be made, not perhaps so much on the cost of items but on the number of items in the schedule. I think, when the final plans are drawn up, the hon. Member will find that the total sum required will be very considerably reduced. At the same time, Sir, I should say that if he were dissatisfied with the estimate drawn up, it would be an appropriate matter to be taken up by the Estimates Committee. The matter is still in the planning stage. We have entered into no commitments and the hon. Member will in the Estimates Committee have every opportunity of determining whether the estimates are realistic.

In that case, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,475,570 for Head D 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 11.30 a.m. Head D 15 - The sum of $1,154,850 for Head D 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 16 - The sum of $1,000 for Head D 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 17 - The sum of $145,000 for Head D 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 22 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $33,100,000 for Head D 22 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, looking through the Development Estimates under this head, I feel it is a real shame on the part of the Government that no provision is being made for a sports stadium in Singapore. It is also a disgrace to Singapore that we do not have a sports stadium. Some years ago the Government set up a Sports Stadium Board. Members of this Board were representatives of local sports organisations, the City Council and, I believe, the Rural Board as well. I happened to be a member of this Board for two years, as a representative of the City Council. But last year I was compelled to tender my resignation from this Board because I was not satisfied with the set up. I felt at that time that I would serve no purpose by sitting on the Board if it could not do anything for the benefit of Singapore in the sports field. Any proposals made by members of the Board were just simply turned down - I see the Financial Secretary is nodding his head. The reason given by the Government for turning down any proposals made by members of the Board was that there was no money to carry them out. Yet this year's Budget Estimates could be prepared with a deficit of $35 million, and Government knows how to find that $35 million by increasing taxes and so forth. Sir, it was not only I who was disgusted with the attitude of the Government. All the members of the Board, excluding the ex-officios, especially the Financial Secretary, I think, were not happy at all with the state of affairs. Ultimately there was no alternative for the Government but to dissolve that Board. I think there is another Member in this Assembly who was also a member of the Board, and I believe he felt the same way as I did. At one time, Sir, some members of the Board suggested to Government to take over Bendemeer - the Member for Kampong Kapor is not here; if he is here, he will not feel happy about it, Sir, because that is the property he inherited from his ancestors. Bendemeer is a very suitable site for a sports stadium. If we could have taken that over, we would today be proud and could boast of having a sports stadium in Singapore. But Government was not at all prepared to listen to the advice given and the suggestions made by members of the Board. Another excuse that the Government always gave was that there was no response from the public. Would that be correct, Sir, that there was no response from the public? I am sure that the people of Singapore are quite sports-conscious and sports-minded. We often see big crowds at sports events. If there is no move made by the Government, how can they ascertain if there is any actual support and response from the public? Government must make a move or a start so that response or support from the public can be forthcoming. But no, Government was not prepared to make a move at all. Singapore is already on the sports map. We won many Gold Medals, Silver Medals and Bronze Medals in the Olympic Games. Why cannot we have a sports stadium and so be on a par with other countries? At least, Sir, the City Council of Singapore - a much smaller authority than the Assembly - can boast of a running track in Farrer Park. If the City Council can boast of a running track in Farrer Park, what have Government done and what have they to boast about? Nothing at all. A running track provided by the City Council and not by the Government! But it is never too late for the Government to realise and correct their mistakes, Sir. There is still time. If the Government are sincere in admitting that a mistake has been made, then I think they can have second thoughts about the sports stadium. Government can again set it up, but in doing so, let me tell the Government this - there is no purpose, as I have said, in having a board if its members have no voice at all under the dictatorship of the Government. No member would like to sit on the Board if the Government dictated to him. As a citizen of Singapore, I would like to see Singapore have a sports stadium which will be on a par with those of other countries. Let Government find out whether there is any support or response from the public. If the worse comes to the worse, why not run the stadium on a semi-commercial basis and ask Government to give a dollar for dollar grant and see whether there is any response from the public?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the last speaker. The idea of having a sports stadium was mooted about eight years ago. The previous Government encouraged the formation of a Singapore Sports Stadium, but during the last three or four years, no support came from the present Government. This year it was said that because there was no support for this project, there was no point in carrying on with it and therefore it should be suspended for the time being. But the fact is, as you have heard the last speaker say, no encouragement was given by the Government at all. Government's idea I think is, "Oh, we need a lot of money for schools, hospitals and housing." Well and good, but today when looking at the Budget we are asked to approve about $242 million. I can see no point why we should not have $1¾ million for a sports stadium and I think it is a shame for the Government in not having a sports stadium built for Singapore. There are, I think, in Singapore at least 300,000 people who are interested in sports. Over 100,000 are interested in various forms of sports and 200,000 are either supporters or onlookers. We were the first to cry for a sports stadium, and yet the Federation of Malaya, who did not clamour for one, were the first to build their stadium. It is because they have a great sportsman in Tunku Abdul Rahman and their Ministers are all sports-minded. Unfortunately, looking across the Chamber, I cannot see anyone on the Government benches who has even stepped into the Jalan Besar stadium. That is why, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government are not interested in sports at all. We are spending our money to fight subversive elements, and yet in a way I think the Government are encouraging their existence by not providing the youths of Singapore with healthier and better recreation. At one stage I was told by a member of the Government that we have a sports stadium in Jalan Besar. Sir, that is not a sports stadium; it is merely a playing field and not fit for major competitions. What we want is a stadium of international standard where games can be held on an international level, so that the citizens of Singapore can have something to be proud of. I hope the Government will change their views, and they will receive the blessings of the younger generation if they provide Singapore with a decent sports stadium.

Sir, if I may speak for the non-games playing aesthetes who sit on the Government benches on this matter of a sports stadium for Singapore! I do not want to go into this matter again at length. It has been ventilated in this Chamber on many occasions over the past four years. It may be true that we have disappointed the Stadium Board and that we have turned down requests from various sections of the community for a stadium in Singapore. We appointed the Board in the hope that it would be able to evolve a suitable and workable scheme for the construction and running of a stadium, but it failed to do so. Its idea was that Government should put up all the money for the stadium and, I presume, subsequently all the money for its running expenses. I would like to summarise briefly why this proposal was not supported by Government. First of all, we have an excellent stadium at the moment. We have Jalan Besar the capacity of which has never been fully utilised at any sporting event held there. It is perfectly suitable for all reasonable requirements at the present time. It could be expanded if necessary. We also have a running track in Farrer Park which is suitable for our athletes to train on. An even more cogent reason for not supporting the proposal from the Stadium Board is that our resources for development are limited and we feel that, while an international sports stadium might add to the prestige of Singapore, in present circumstances, the money required for it could be devoted to far better purposes, for example, to building houses, hospitals and schools for the population.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it really surprises me to see the Financial Secretary come to this Assembly and boast that we have Jalan Besar stadium and a running track at Farrer Park, and that all sporting functions can be held at these two places. Sir, Jalan Besar stadium belongs to the City Council, and not the Government. The running track at Farrer Park also belongs to the City Council, and not the Government. I should like to go further, Sir, and say that Jalan Besar stadium is not a sports stadium. It is a stadium built especially for football and hockey. Throughout the whole year the activities held in that stadium consist of nothing but football. Other sports activities are seldom held there, not because people are not interested, but because the place is not big enough by international standards. The size of that stadium is too small for the Olympic Games to be held there. Only small schools hold their sports there. It is really surprising to see Government trying to cover up their responsibility by saying that we are well catered for by having this stadium and the running track at Farrer Park. Sir, as the Member for Cairnhill has suggested, it is only through sports and games that you are able to teach the younger generation to do the right things. We have seen many teenagers going the wrong way, becoming either gangsters or subversive elements. Why? Because they cannot concentrate their minds on the right path and so they go into the wrong path, where you have subversive elements and gangsters and gang clashes and secret societies. 11.45 a.m. We should try to bring the younger generation to the sports field where they can mingle together, because it is through games and sports that the sporting spirit is cultivated, and the winning or the losing does not matter. It is better that the younger generation go in for sports rather than become subversive elements and extortionists. As the Member for Cairnhill has said, I hope the Government will change their minds and re-establish this Board.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the argument of the Member for Queenstown that we should bring teenagers to the stadium where they will learn to cultivate the sporting spirit and be good boys is most stupid. I thought the whole argument was that a stadium of international standard should be provided in order to enhance the prestige of Singapore. I think the Member for Queenstown does not understand the fight of ideologies in this country. It is not through sports alone that you can fight subversive elements or gangsterism. It is the provision of more employment, more housing and more schools that can fight these two problems - not sports alone. The other point which I wish to stress is this: the Member for Queenstown said that we should get teenagers to take an interest in recreational facilities to prevent them from becoming gangsters and subversive elements. If the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Cairnhill, as public spirited leaders of this country, will organise these youngsters into small sections and bring them to the Youth Sports Centre, I will say then that they are doing a duty to the public.

I was much impressed by the obvious deep feelings of the Member for Cairnhill, and even perhaps of the Member for Queenstown, in this matter. But I feel they might go a little bit further and make it quite clear to us by what means the Government are going to find this money. The Government cannot do all the things for which money is required - a minimum of $¾ million. To get the money they want, we must drop out schools, or hospitals, or public assistance, or whatever item they want to cut out. Alternatively, they can indicate what taxes they would like to impose to get this money. Let them make it perfectly clear, not in general terms but precisely - to show that they have studied very deeply this subject - exactly what item in the Budget they would delete or what additional taxes they would impose.

Sir, if there had been a failure to establish a sports stadium in Singapore, I think it should fairly and squarely be placed on the members of the Stadium Board. We have had some useless men on the Stadium Board. They, in their own way, had placed certain suggestions before the Government -

On a point of order, Sir. May I know whether the term "useless men on the Stadium Board", in referring to the members, is parliamentary or is it an inference? May I have your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Sir, I respectfully submit that it is not a point of order, but a point of information.

Sir, since the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary has given way, may I seek your ruling whether the expression he used "useless men on the Stadium Board" is an inference or is it parliamentary language?

It is not a point of information, Sir. If you will permit me, Sir. I would like to -

On a point of order, Sir. There is an argument whether it is a point of information or a point of order. May I have your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir?

It is a point of information.

Thank you.

Sir, it is quite usual for people to hold different views. In this case some members of the Stadium Board had made certain suggestions to the Government, and the Government had quite rightly told them they could not have their way. I would like to ask those members of the Board who had made these suggestions whether they had considered any alternative suggestions. In this country many people believe that improvements can only be made through Government's efforts alone and with Government's money alone. But they have not pondered over the capacity of voluntary contributions which people could make in matters of this kind. Sir, I would like to call upon the two Members of this House, who have championed the cause of a sports stadium in Singapore, to champion also the cause of raising voluntary contributions to build this sports stadium. I do not think for a moment, Sir, that the Government need feel any shame. Where is the shame? The Government have supported the Singapore Youth Sports Centre. There were responsible men who came forward and organised it and the Government made a dollar for dollar grant for that purpose. I do not believe this stadium is only the Government's responsibility. The City Council must come in, and so must various other voluntary organisations. We will then be able to build a stadium of international standard.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I never expected this lively debate to develop into a heated quarrel. Sir, I wish to answer the question put by the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary and the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works when they ask, "How are Government going to find the money?" Sir, if the House will just accept my proposal to scrap defence expenditure, we will have the money. Second, if the Minister for Commerce and Industry is keen enough to boost up tourism, one of the ways he can do so is to boost up sports. Build a stadium of international standard which can not only hold the Asian Games but also the Olympic Games, and that will be another way of increasing our national revenue. What I strongly oppose, to boost up tourism, is to extend the working hours of restaurants and hotels to 4 a.m. in the morning, or relax the immigration regulations to allow artistes to come into this colony and make Singapore be known as second to Tokyo in attraction or Paris. I think sports is one of the best means to attract the tourists and the Minister for Commerce and Industry should think about it. Of course, I support the view of the Minister for Education that Singapore's prestige would be enhanced by the provision of a stadium of international standard.

I have heard the views of the Government Members and, as I have said, they have never been present at sporting events. The Hon. the Financial Secretary has said that we have Jalan Besar Stadium and that it has not been filled up at any time. This is because it is not fit for international competitions. The Minister for Education talked about the Youth Sports Centre. Does he know what the Sports Centre is catering for? It is catering for the youths of Singapore particularly for those who may not have the privilege of joining clubs. To have that centre is well and good. But I am talking of having a stadium where we can hold sporting events on an international scale. I must say this, Sir, that the Government representative on the Stadium Board had been most discouraging. We put up suggestion after suggestion and when I said "we" I was referring to the Stadium Board, but all our suggestions were ignored. I accept the challenge of the Government - provide us with a site and a dollar for a dollar and we will have a stadium built in no time in spite of the present circumstances.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot allow the comments from the Government benches to go unanswered. First, I will touch on the remarks made by the Minister for Education. He said that it is not only teenagers who are interested in sports. I agree with him, because a sports stadium is not only for the youngsters. A sport stadium on an international standard is meant for international and Olympic use and not only for small children. So when I said teenagers I was only making a quotation or a reference. That is all. The second point raised by the Minister for Education was that it is not only sports alone that will turn a bad boy into a good boy. I again agree with him, but is not sports one of the most important factors, apart from others that he has quoted - employment, schooling and education - that will turn a bad boy or a subversive element into a good, loyal and faithful citizen?

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Will the hon. Member give way?

No, Sir. I now come to the remarks made by the Minister for Communications and Works. He asked "Where can we find the money? Tell me which of the items in this Budget we can cut down. Or can we increase any form of taxes?" Mr Deputy Speaker, if there is no extravagance in this Budget, there will not be this number of amendments that appear in the Order Paper. This clearly shows that there is extravagance in the spending of money by Government, and if they can cut out some of that extravagance, they can provide money for a sports stadium. Now I come to the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary. He asked, "Did any member of the Stadium Board put forward any alternative suggestion? Why were members of that Board silent about it when they were members of the Board?" Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many alternative suggestions were put forward, as the Member for Cairnhill has said. Apart from the case of Bendemeer which I have quoted, there were many other places like Anson Road and so forth. Was that not an alternative suggestion? The Member for Cairnhill has suggested that, instead of having a government-sponsored stadium, Government make a dollar for dollar grant, and in no time we feel sure the whole sporting public will gather together and pool their resources to build this sports stadium. The Government make out their case against a sports stadium under the guise of the Youth Sports Centre. Is this centre a sports stadium? What English is this? A sports centre is not a sports stadium. The Member for Cairnhill has said that none of the Members on the Government benches has any knowledge of sports. A sports centre is for training purposes only. What we want is a sports stadium of international standard so that we can have the Olympic Games held here. Rather than going abroad, we can invite other countries to come here for the Olympic and international games. There is only a minute left, and I will give way to the Government benches to reply if they feel like it.

On a point of information, Sir. All I wanted to make sure from the two experts on the sports stadium - the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Queenstown - is that if they can prove from their personal experience that they can turn bad boys into good boys by exercise and sports, I am all in favour of more sports stadiums. 12 Noon.

Order, please. Time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $33,100,000 for Head D 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 27 - The sum of $368,000 for Head D 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 37 - The sum of $453,000 for Head D 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 41 - The sum of $501,000 for Head D 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 42 -

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 42 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. Sir, in moving this amendment I am not attacking the sum involved as being too large for district offices. That is a matter which can in any case go to the Estimates Committee. But what to my mind is disappointing is the progress intended to be made in 1958. The District Councils themselves are to be in operation by April or May next year. One presumes that, at the earliest, district offices will be completed somewhere around the end of 1959 and only $250,000 is to be spent next year. It seems to us a pity that, as far as providing proper centres and offices is concerned, the District Councils cannot become more of a reality, more of a focusing point for the rural areas at an earlier date. District Councils have been planned by the Government for a very long time. This delay seems to be most regrettable.

Sir, as you will see from the subhead in the Estimates, this involves the construction of three district offices. It is our intention to farm this project out to private architects. Our estimate is that by the time these architects have prepared their sketch plans, and these are subsequently approved and the working drawings made out, the necessary contract documents prepared and the work put out to tender, tenders received, considered and a contract let, it will be August. That is only our estimate. Following from that, we have allowed $250,000 in the Estimates as the sum which we consider will be spent on all three offices next year. If, however, we find that that is not enough, that our estimate of time has proved to be faulty and that more progress is made, then we will certainly come to the Assembly and ask for further funds.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while accepting that statement for what it is worth, I would like to know what are the District Councils going to do in the interim? They come into operation in another six months. Where are they going to be housed? How are they going to function properly as District Councils should?

Sir, the land for these District Offices, depots and quarters has been acquired and work on site preparation and roads has already started. The intention is to erect new light steel type buildings immediately which will serve as temporary offices until the permanent offices are ready. These temporary buildings can subsequently be used for community centres, markets and for depots. They will be ready for use in April next year.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $250,000 for Head D 42 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it seems that people living in the rural areas are always forgotten by Government. In the case of elections, the rural areas have never had any yet, and this is the first time they are going to have some members elected. But still there will be some government-appointed members on the Rural Board. What I am thinking about is this, if there is going to be an election and the representatives of the people come in to sit down and consider matters affecting their own welfare, it is important that we should not start them off with a handicap. Previously under the Government they had handpicked men to sit on the Rural Board, in Empress Place - in a good concrete building. Now we learn from the Government that the rural districts are going to have elections sometime in April next year. I will be happy if the Chief Minister will confirm that they are going to be housed in prefabricated buildings. I also do not know whether the provision is going to be sufficient to enable them to run their affairs properly. I think this leaves the rural people with an idea that they can only have second best, not only in the matter of modern services but also in the matter of planning by the Government. If the Government had been thinking of having an election for the District Councils next year, they should have planned in 1955 or 1956 that all such buildings should be put up, and as soon as the representatives are elected, Government should at least have some decent place for them to discuss their affairs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I congratulate the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing on producing these "semi-temporary" buildings for district officers before April next year. I am very happy to learn that the P.W.D. are now seriously undertaking such work and I am quite sure they must be designing something which is eminently suitable, because we are now informed that these semi-temporary offices can be turned into markets and community centres when the permanent buildings for district offices are completed. Sir, it carries me to a further point: Why cannot this type of temporary buildings be adopted for the schools to be built in the rural areas and even for our barracks? A large sum of money can be saved if such buildings are considered fit enough to be used later for markets and community centres. Sir, I think we should examine these plans and adopt them for further use.

Sir, the leader of the Liberal-Socialists posed the Government a question, and a Back-Bencher of the same Party has answered it for the Government! I am indeed happy to know that a question asked by one is answered by another from their own ranks. In regard to the suggestion raised by the Member for Paya Lebar about cheaper costs in building schools, it will receive the serious consideration of Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was most surprised to find an Opposition Member opposing his own colleague on the question whether the Rural Board has been satisfactorily performing its duties. Sir, I think, to be fair, we must hand a bouquet to the Rural Board for the work it has done in the past year, especially to officers like Mr Chan Sek Kuan and Inche Hussein who have really contributed a great deal to the service of the people. One point worth mentioning is the remarkable change that has been achieved in the relationship between the people and the Rural Board officers. Before these new changes took place, the rural people were frightened when they heard the word "tigu". "Tigu" means any government officer coming to inspect a house. But since last year their fears have died down because the officer has such an easy approach, so much so that they have been pleased to co-operate with him. I wish the Government will confirm again that there is going to be an election for the rural district councils. If so, the earlier it is held, the better so that we will know exactly where the divisions of the three district councils are. I also wish the people who will serve on the Rural Board will maintain this co-operative spirit, and so be of more assistance to the people.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $250,000 for Head D 42 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. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

2.31 p.m. Head D 43 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 43 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. Here, Sir, I seek information. We are asked to approve an enormous lump sum of $10 million, of which $8 million is for general development. I think it is only right that we on this side should hear from the Minister something as to what is intended under this Head.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this vote is the combination of two separate ones which were provided in the 1957 Estimates. A sum of $8 million was entered last year for Purchase of Land. This year, there is a reduction of $2 million, and as you will see, it is $8 million for general development and $2 million for resettlement. The Estimates for 1958 are based on actual needs. Purchases of land are necessary if Government's plans for the expansion of the housing, education, medical, social welfare and other Government services are to be carried out. Purchases must be made not only for sites required for schools, hospitals and social welfare centres, but also for purchases of land on which to resettle people. From 1957 onwards, the Singapore Improvement Trust is a body primarily concerned with development. The cost of such resettlement, including compensation, still has to be borne by Government. Up to the present, Sir, a total of 70 areas have been investigated and, as I mentioned yesterday in this Assembly in the course of the debate on Head 42, on my Ministry, there are some 2,652 farm lots which are being investigated, or have been investigated and are due for allotment to farmers. I think that is about all I can give the Member for Tanglin. If he wants any further information I shall be pleased to give it to him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do realise of course what this vote is intended for, namely, for general development, for such things as schools and so on as my hon. Friend has mentioned. But I repeat, $10 million is a very large sum and we would like to have an assurance that it is in fact going to be spent. There must have been some calculations to arrive at this very large figure. There was estimated to be spent in 1957 under general development and resettlement, a similar sum of $10 million. We would like to know, for instance, whether this $10 million will have been spent by the end of this year. We should have rather more information than the Minister has already given, and we would be very glad of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are indications as to expenditure on these items. In 1954, the total expenditure on land purchases was $8.35 million, in 1955 $10.2 million, in 1956 $6.5 million and in 1957 it is expected that a total of $9.8 million will have to be spent by the end of December.

Sir, that was not the information that my colleague wanted. Actually he wanted to know how this enormous sum of $10 million is going to be spent, and I think possibly I can supply the information. I know -

Why ask then?

Well, to let you know. I surmise that part of this amount will be required for the acquisition of 500 acres in Woodlands for the Master Plan to settle the population of Singapore. In connection with this land, I can say that this is where our effort to produce houses has been stultified to the extent of nearly 1,000 units. About two years ago, we made enquiries whether we would be allowed to develop very low-cost houses in this particular area. For some reason or other, we have been put off repeatedly; then six months ago, we were told, 'Don't waste your money on contour surveys'; then about two months ago, a notice of acquisition was served on us. We now know what the reason is.

Sir, on a point of clarification - I notice, Sir, that the hon. Member says, "we" lost 1,000 housing units. We would like to have a definition of what "us" implies or embraces, it is not "us" on this side of the House.

Sir, I think the hon. Member has always been trying to trip me on this subject. Yes, I mean the two companies of which I am director and of which we are -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it not more proper for the hon. Member for Serangoon to state - An hon. Member: Paya Lebar.

- Paya Lebar to state categorically at the start that he represents them or has certain interests in these matters. Then we would not have had to ask him who "us" implies, who "us" embraces.

The Standing Order and the relevant Ordinance are quite clear on the point: if an hon. Member has a direct pecuniary interest, he ought to inform the House about that direct pecuniary interest before he speaks on any subject. But whether or not there is direct pecuniary interest, I am not at the moment prepared to find. Perhaps the hon. Member for Paya Lebar will explain?

Sir, I declare I have no direct pecuniary interest except from a director's point of view to help in the housing of Singapore. If I were to declare in detail I would take such a lot of time that there would be none left for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to carry on with his very important motion. Sir, I do not see why Government should try to develop 500 acres, a complete town, when it is already finding trouble in financing and developing other houses planned in town areas like the old Kallang Airport. If it had only concentrated its efforts there, and allowed and helped private builders to go on, we would have got somewhere and I am quite sure we would have put up an extra 1,000 houses there. Regarding the $2 million to be allocated for resettlement, I would enquire whether Government would encourage people who live in densely populated areas, where there are many plank-attap houses and where there is a danger of the landlord selling out to unscrupulous developers, whether Government would consider helping the people living in these attap houses by having a scheme to acquire the land on their behalf and cut it up into smaller pieces for sale to them. This will prevent hardship to people in attap dwellings and save them from being exploited by unscrupulous speculators of land.

Perhaps, Sir, I can tell the hon. Member how this vote is made up. I have the information at my disposal. I obtained it from my hon. Friend the Hon. Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing.

Helping each other!

Naturally! Early in the year, Sir, the Commissioner of Lands asked various heads of departments in Singapore to state what were their possible requirements for the purchase of land for the coming year. These were sifted by the Commissioner and it was on that basis that his application for a vote for the coming year was made. In this particular year, his bid was well over $10 million but it was thought that, on the basis of expenditure in the past, $8 million would be enough to enter in the Estimates. Correspondingly, in connection with the purchase of land for resettlement, the initial bid from the Commissioner was $5 million but it was thought that in all probability $2 million would be enough. But you will notice that the form of the vote has been changed this year and that both the items which appeared last year as subheads under the Head of Development expenditure, now appear as items under one subhead. This enables us to switch funds from one item to another, as is allowed. If, for example, the sum voted for the purchase of land for resettlement is insufficient, or on the other hand if the amount of money voted for the purchase of land for general development proves to be insufficient, and there is a saving in the other item, we can switch funds from one to the other as required.

Sir, the figure of $10 million does not include the probable or possible purchase of the land at Woodlands.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 43 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3 therein. I have only a very short time at my disposal and shall cut my remarks very short. I refer to the contribution to Rural Board, Appendix DB, page 434 of the Estimates, subhead 11, item (5) -"Link road Holland Road/Bukit Timah" - and to note with regret that the development of this road is going to be virtually delayed for yet another year because only $20,000 of the required $220,000 has been voted. I would refer to the explanatory note on page 470 which says: "...This road will open up a considerable area for development, and will be used by through traffic which at present uses the very narrow winding and dangerous Upper Holland Road." In view of the importance of this road in opening up this area, I express regret, as I say, and wonder why it is being delayed.

Sir, the items under this Head were drawn up and provision made for them after consultation with the Director of Public Works and his engineers as to the departmental capacity in the coming year. We will do our best to develop roads as quickly as possible, but we are limited to a certain extent by capacity

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $14,902,750 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 2.45 p.m. Head D 44 - The sum of $12,500 for Head D 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 45 - Question proposed. "That the sum of $16,061,260 for Head D 45 stand part of the Schedule.

Sir, on development of our education, I wish to ask a question, whether the Government has considered higher education. I think Nanyang University was mentioned by His Excellency the Governor in his Address not long ago. I am sorry to see that in the Estimates of development, this item is not included. I know that the Nanyang University has tendered an official memorandum to the Government seeking aid from it. I hope the Minister for Education can clear this point to the House.

The question of Nanyang University is a subject still under consideration not only by the Government, but also by the Executive Council of the Nanyang University.

Sir, I do not wish to join in any vote-catching scheme about Nanyang University. When the Chairman of my Party went to a forum organised by the Nanyang University Students Union, when all political Parties were invited to send representatives, quite a number went there for the express purpose of trying to win votes. In fact, I was told that one of them went there with a large symbol of some very lethal instrument and shouted fierce slogans which had no relevance to the rather intellectual subject then under discussion. But I do not think that Nanyang University is a subject for discussion merely between its Executive Council and the Singapore Government. If Nanyang University wants to settle its future, I think it has to do it, not only with the Singapore Government but, more important, with the Federation of Malaya Government. If it wants to cater for the education of the people of Malaya as distinct from the people of Singapore, then the important partner to discuss these matters with would be the Federation. That is where the final settlement will undoubtedly be made, and I hope will be made. I would like to touch upon certain other topics in connection with this head: It is with regret that I note that not so much money is being expended on secondary schools. We all understand the tremendous pressure on the educational facilities, so that we cannot muster enough to meet the growing demands of a fast increasing generation. I am told by teachers - and I have heard it with considerable alarm - that no less than 70 to 80 per cent of the students now passing out from primary schools will find no place in secondary schools next year. I see the Hon. the Minister for Education would be delighted to rise to refute this allegation, but unless more and more secondary schools are built to equal the pace of building of primary schools, it must logically follow that he who goes to primary school does not necessarily go to a secondary school. Unless you build as many secondary schools as you do primary schools, that is just not possible. Mathematically it is an impossibility. What I would like to find out from the Minister is how long does he think it will be before some effective approach can be made to this problem. We understand, of course, that the moment an elected or partly elected government comes into office, it is under all kinds of pressure. Whereas the old Colonial-type government could issue annual reports with a glossy cover-piece and nice pictures inside and nobody would put searching and uncomfortable questions, an elected government is not that well protected. Therefore, the moment an elected Government gets into office, all the dammed-up demands which have been mounting over the years suddenly burst through at some point or other. We understand also that the needs of the younger generation are more acute than those of the not-so-young, but you have to face this problem. If we do not put these children passing out from the primary schools into secondary ones, then we will be in for a big increase in juvenile delinquency and graver problems of unemployment, because employment cannot be created for all those in the unskilled category. If you want to create employment under modern industrial conditions, you have to create your industrial class to form the basis of your new industrial or commercial society. What I would like to hear from the Minister for Education is some disclosure of plans or of serious thinking that has gone into this problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has come round to our point, and that he is in fact now worrying about the young people. We have voiced that so many times and I think we must keep on voicing that need. I asked a few questions when the Head under Education was discussed, and if the Minister could give us some sort of a reply we would be very grateful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar says right when he says that I would be delighted to refute the statement that 70 to 80 per cent of pupils from primary schools will not be able to get secondary education. We are admitting next year into our secondary schools slightly more than 60 per cent of all primary school pupils who pass out. As I said yesterday, we have provided for, and are expanding, our evening classes to absorb those pupils found to be unable to profit from a secondary education. I said yesterday that no country in the world can afford to provide secondary education for every child who needs it. What we aim at is to give an education to those pupils who cannot get into secondary schools, to give them a chance to have further education in subjects such as those having a commercial bias, so that they can be made employable. That is one of the ways to combat juvenile delinquency. Secondary education is not an easy matter. We must have the teachers and we lack able and experienced ones to staff the secondary schools. We must also think of standards. If we are not to lower standards in all the schools, we must ensure that we get the right type of teachers. On the question of Nanyang University, it is in fact, as pointed out by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, a subject for discussion between not only its Executive Council and the Singapore Government, but also the Federation of Malaya. I am always in touch with the Federation Government and we are approaching the problem with common-sense and treating it with a realistic mind. As regards the questions put by the hon. Member for Serangoon, I think his main attack was that pupils were not given schools or placed in schools nearest to their homes. It is almost a practical impossibility to place every child in the school nearest his home. There are thousands of them living in the city area, and there are just not sufficient places in particular schools to cater for them. Therefore, there must be cases where pupils have to travel a bit further from their homes. It will take time to solve this problem and the officers in my Ministry will try to solve it as quickly as possible. The only quick method, I think, is by building more schools in the urban areas, skyscraper buildings if necessary, with very little space for recreation but with enough places to house all these pupils. As for evening classes, these have been expanded, as I said, and pupils will be given education in subjects with a commercial bias so that they will not be unemployable when they eventually graduate.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $16,061,260 for Head D 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 46 - The sum of $750,000 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 47 - The sum of $30,000 for Head D 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 48 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6 therein. This deals with the first District Hospital. The estimate of cost as first presented to this Assembly was $3,200,000; the revised estimate is now $7 million, an increase of more than 100 per cent. We on this side of the House would like to know how this increase has been effected, how much of it is for extra accommodation and how much of it is claimed for increase in cost of building. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of this District Hospital, which is optimistically called the first one in the Estimates, must be as much a source of embarrassment to the Government as that of housing on which it has failed so dismally. This business of a district hospital has been going on ever since the present Government took office. If I might refer the House to column 1064 of Volume 1, No. 19, of the Official Report for 21st November, 1955, in the debate on the Estimates two years ago this was stated by the Hon. the Financial Secretary. "As regards district hospitals, complaints have been made that we are making no progress with the work. It has been explained that we have changed our plan and that we are now going to Kallang and I think nobody would care to question that decision, which is putting a district hospital right in the middle of one of the major centres of population of Singapore. The site that has been provided will cost no money to the Government, but the site at Bukit Panjang which would not, in any case, have been suitable, had to be acquired, as would sites in other parts of the island. That is the major advantage of putting a district hospital in Kallang, that the site is free." Two years ago, we on this side were complaining about inaction. Now, Sir, we do know that difficulties were met with at the Kallang site after that optimistic speech of the Financial Secretary two years ago, and some explanation of this business was given to us by the Minister, (the reference is column 1030 of Volume 2, No. 14, of the Official Report for 23rd November, 1956), because by that time the estimate of $3.2 million had crept up to $6.5 million and the Minister said the first estimate of $3.2 million had been based on pure paper calculations of the cubic measurement of the schedule of accommodation for a 400-bed hospital without provision for residential accommodation. So from $3.2 million we jumped to $6.5 million, but in the interim, during the course of this year, I made tender enquiries into the health of this district hospital, the first, and on 22nd May, 1957 I asked (column 1931-2, Volume 2, No. 27): "Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction over the great delay in the building of the District Hospital, now extended over two years?" To which the Minister for Health replied: "Any delay, Mr Speaker, Sir, is outside my own jurisdiction." So at that stage, it appeared that the Minister more or less washed his hands of the matter. Now, Sir, having jumped, as I say, from $3.2 to $6.5 million, here we are jumping again to $7 million - another $500,000 more - in next year's Estimates; and of this jump of $500,000, only $200,000 is estimated to be spent during 1958. Now I suppose that if the Government is in office next year, it will want another $500,000 to bring up the estimated cost to $7.5 million, and so on, but fortunately we will be spared. Sir, we have heard of people suffering from imaginary illnesses, but it seems rather a novel idea to have an imaginary hospital in which to cure them. We do regard this business as wholly unsatisfactory and we would like to know what is going to happen in future because, at the present rate of progress, it does seem impossible for this district hospital to be completed before 1960 or even later. In this respect, we do know there have been revisions. First, 250 beds, I think it was, under consideration; then it was 350 and 400; and then it went up to 450 (if my memory serves me right, the Minister for Health himself was not sure) a year ago. We would like to know why it could not have been possible to get on rapidly with a 200-bed hospital or whatever unit would be regarded as economic, and then develop it into something larger at a later date. Even a hospital with a smaller number of beds would have been a start, and would have been more in keeping with the Government policy than the present failure to build anything at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have given adequate explanation in this House in the past as to the original rise in the estimates from $3 million to $6 million and I do not think that there need be a repetition on the question of the Kallang site subsequently found to be inadequate. The increase in cost from the approved $6.5 million in 1957 to $7 million now, is necessary, Sir, for the following reasons - the provision of access roads and the preparation of the site for water and sewerage. Furthermore, as the site of the proposed hospital is on the top of a steep hill, it is essential that an ante-natal clinic be provided near the main East Coast Road, as it is unreasonable to expect pregnant women to climb to the top of the hill for their routine clinical examination. If the hon. Member is interested, as the Member for Paya Lebar is, in certain figures, I am quite prepared to give him a detailed breakdown of the cost involved if he will come to my office, or I will send them to him. I have the details here but I am afraid they are much too lengthy to go into at this stage. Whether land is available or not, plans have to be drawn up, and the plans would serve as standards for district hospitals elsewhere. In consequence, great care is exercised so that the maximum benefit can be obtained at an economical price. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the decision to build a district hospital was taken soon after I took office. The complexities of the drawings have occupied the architects for a long time, as is explained on page 466 of the Estimates. Furthermore, acquisition of the land for the access road and the ante-natal clinic for the hospital is proceeding. The site chosen for this clinic is in the best part of the particular area, and the owners are making a claim for injurious affection to their land. This has also been the cause of some delay. The original cost, I think I have already informed the Member for Tanglin, was based only on hospital building which did not take into account the provision of quarters and so forth. We have now true estimates and I have every reason to believe that there should be some progress in building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister gave as an explanation for an increase from $6.5 to $7 million in 1958 that provision had to be made for the access road and for water and sewerage, those being the first two out of three items. Are we to understand then, that in the estimates for 1957 the provision of an access road and for water and sewerage had been overlooked, and that these did not exist? I fail to believe that that could possibly be so. That is my first question. The second is I would like to have, if I may, an answer from the Minister as to why it was not possible to start a smaller scheme and so bring hospital facilities to the Eastern side of the island, and to have expanded it at a later date?

I thought, Sir, I have already said that the $500,000 extra on the original estimate for 1957 is partly for the road to make access easier to the building for the ante-natal clinic at the bottom of the road. There will be access to it in two ways, one from Bedok Road and another from the main road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister mean that the access road, water and sewerage to which we arc referring is for the ante-natal clinic alone? That is my first point. The second point still remains: would not a 200-bed hospital or something rather more modest have been a better project?

I just want to make a point I think the hon. Member might perhaps feel comforted by. In general, the larger your project for a hospital, the more you can get costs down. You will have to provide certain common services in any case for a hospital - sterilising units or what have you - and these will not be fully utilised unless you have a full-scale number of beds to go with them. The units have to be there in any case.

I might thank the Minister for Communications and Works for coming to the rescue of the Minister for Health. I do now fully understand that the thing is not under the latter's jurisdiction.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, may I suggest that my next three amendments, (ii) , (iii) and (iv) be taken together? The main point I want to raise in all three is to seek an explanation as to why the estimates have shot up so much, and generally what proportion of them is represented in increasing costs.

Probably it will be a bit more convenient if we take them separately.

Very well, Sir. I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7 therein. This subhead refers to extensions to the Children's Orthopaedic Hospital. The estimated cost was $400,000 but now nearly $1 million is required. The accompanying note does say that 44 quarters are going to be built, but even these 44 quarters do not justify the increase. I would welcome some explanation as to what new projects are involved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the original estimated cost of $400,000 provided for wards and ancillaries but did not include special accommodation and quarters. Subsequently, a revised estimate was gone into and arrived at, which was $1,250,000. This included an operating theatre block. For the information of the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, I will give him details of the extra work to be added. There is a 340-bed ward, a classroom block, sisters' quarters, servants' quarters and a laundry block; and then there is to be a special block for an operating theatre, X-ray department, administration and stores. This alone was estimated at $263,000. There is a nurses hostel, medical quarters and ancillaries. However, it was eventually not considered that at this stage an operating theatre block should be constructed, so the sum of $263,000 was deducted from the $1,250,000. Since the medical plan was started, the Department has found it necessary to plan for a doubling of the size of the proposed hospital, that is for 120 beds more. 3.15 p.m. Now with regard to the classroom block, since the patients are children, some of whom would have to stay on for a long period in the hospital, this provision was essential. To use the end of a ward as at present would not be convenient. Sisters' quarters - the two extras were required. The laundry block was not included in the original proposal; at present there is no laundry block and one is definitely essential. The nurses' hostel - for both convenience and economy the existing hostel, standing on most valuable ground, is dilapidated and should be demolished to make room for new wards. A new hostel is therefore necessary. The proposal, as can be observed, include all facilities and has been subjected to very critical observation. Considerable economies in consequence have been effected and, as I just pointed out, the estimate of $1.25 million has now been whittled down to $987,000.

Sir, I am satisfied with the explanation. I beg to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I move, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8 therein." This subhead relates to the Hospital for the Chronic Sick in Thomson Road. Here the estimated increase in cost is nearly 300 per cent. That is a very large sum, Sir, and we would welcome an explanation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that that sum has already been approved by the House, but I would like to draw the hon. Member's attention to subhead 9 in the Draft 1957 Development Estimates, at page 383. The revised estimated cost is shown as $2.9 million and the previous estimate was $1.5 million. I can explain that the estimate of $1.5 million was made without knowledge of the exact site and on a diagrammatic line drawing of the cheapest possible envisaged pavilion-type hospital of 200 beds. Since then, available Crown land at Thomson Road was surveyed and it was decided that a pavilion-type hospital meant an extravagant use of land. It was therefore decided to use plans already drawn up and available for a multi-storeyed hospital building. The use of existing plans saved 18 months delay and enabled work to start in 1957. When estimating the $2.9 million this was to provide for a hospital of 180 beds. In the process of detailed planning, it was, however, found that it would be cheaper in the long run to build a 396-bed hospital on a single site rather than to build a 180-bed hospital on the site at a cost of $2.9 million and at a later date, another at the same cost. Had we progressed as originally planned, that is to say, built two hospitals of 180 beds each, it would have cost us a total of not less than $5.8 million. The present construction therefore shows a saving of $1.15 million. The construction of this hospital is proceeding satisfactorily and it should be ready for occupation by the middle of next year. When ready, we will be able to relieve the General Hospital of beds blocked by chronic or incurable patients. At present, there are more than 300 beds blocked by such patients in the General Hospital and the provision of a hospital of 396 beds for the chronic sick cannot by any means be considered excessive. It is hardly necessary, Sir, for me to say that the annual recurrent cost of running a chronic sick hospital is very much less than that of running an acute General Hospital.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like one further point of information from the Minister. I think he stated that the hospital will be ready for occupation in the middle of next year. However, there will still be $2,405,000 required to complete the building, which will presumably come in 1959. Could he explain how he reconciled these two points?

I am sorry, I meant the middle of 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first half of 1959, $2,405,000 worth of work can be done as against only $1.5 million during 1958.

I think, Mr Speaker, hon. Members do not quite appreciate how these things work. What happens is that the work is done and then the bills come in and it may well be that bills come in late for work done in 1958; but even if they do come in they may not be approved if the work has not been checked: and so they have to be paid in 1959 although the work might have been done earlier. This sort of breakdown of future expenditure is to be expected to some extent: you cannot be certain or precise as to what the progress will be; you cannot divide the sum voted precisely between one year and another, with absolute certitude that it will be spent precisely as set down.

I am extremely grateful for the information from the Minister for Communications, Works - and Health!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of subhead 15 therein. This item relates to the Students Nurses Hostel and Training School. Here we see an estimated cost of $1.2 million being revised to $2 million. While we do not want to deprive nurses of a fair standard of accommodation, we have always thought that the quarters provided so far have been rather on the lavish side. With requirements of money for other services, I would enquire whether a less expensive type of quarters could not be provided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to remind the Member for Paya Lebar that this is not only a students nurses hostel but also a training school. You will observe that we are only asking for a token vote of $1,000 for the project. The reason why there is only a token provision, which has probably escaped the notice of the Member for Paya Lebar, is that at present it is anticipated that there will be no need for opening all the wards in the Tan Tock Seng's Hospital immediately on completion. In consequence, it is expected to release one floor, which would lie vacant for a while. It is therefore proposed in the meantime to use this floor for training of assistant nurses, and to start construction of the student nurses hostel and training school in 1959 or later. This measure, while not impeding the training programme of assistant nurses, will assist the P.W.D. by not throwing too much of a strain on it and so forcing it to curtail activity in regard to other essential projects.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $10,033,030 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 50- The sum of $1,000 for Head D 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6 therein. Subhead 6 is on the Junior Approved School. Sir, we are not in principle against the establishment of this school. What we want is information as to why $683,000 is required now instead of the $400,000 under the original estimates, how many children are going to be catered for in this school and what the amenities will be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this project dates back as far as 1949. In that year, the Department of Social Welfare drew up its five-year plan and provision was made in the 1950, 1951 and 1952 Estimates, but the building did not materialise because it received a low priority. This item was then deleted from the 1953, 1954 and 1955 Estimates. In the 1956 Development Estimates, $100,000 was entered and this amount was later reduced to a token of $20. The total cost required for building was then $400,000. On 20th February, 1956, the Department was informed by the Public Works Department that the cost of building this Junior Approved School, with staff quarters, was approximately $566,000, and that more money would be required than that envisaged in the Development Estimates, that is $400,000. In view of this, $250,000 was entered in the 1957 Development Estimates under Head D 53, leaving $316,000 as the sum required to complete it. When the drawings were completed this year, the Department was again informed by the P.W.D. that the estimated cost of the project was then $683,000. This school, Sir, when completed can accommodate 120 boys.

Sir, I would enquire whether, when plans are set in motion and buildings are going to be built, a limit could not be set by the planners so that the architects would know what they have to work on, instead of having to ask for increases year after year. I have one particular instance, the building for Auxiliary Police Constables in Whitley Road, in the Police Training School grounds. I believe the architects, when they were asked for plans for this headquarters, said they could not do it for less than a quarter of a million dollars, but as the sum approved was only $200,000, the project was given to a private architect and the whole thing was completed for $195,000. Sir, can that principle not be applied to some of these present projects? 3.30 p.m.

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $937,680 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 54 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order paper, namely, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 54 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1 therein. Sir, in 1957 on items (1) , (2) and (3) we spent $2 million odd. Now we are asked to approve a sum of over $3 million for 1958. No details are given. May I have some details as to how and on what projects this money is to be spent? Then, Sir, looking at the Permanent Terminal Building, the revised cost is put at $8 millions. We have spent about $250,000 so far on that project. May I know how that has been spent? I happened to be a member in the old days of the Airport Committee, which started the project, and I am interested to know what are the prospects of completing the building. Is it being completed as originally designed, or is Government going to change it because of the different political position of Singapore today? And we do not even have a sporting stadium. We would like to have the details, Sir.

I think the hon. Member's amendment is in respect of the whole subhead?

Yes, Sir.

The Question then is, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 54 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein."

Sir, if hon. Members cannot submit their amendments precisely, it does probably defeat the purpose of putting in amendments. The information asked for can of course be given them but it will be rather difficult if a lot of Opposition Members put in amendments and it is found in fact that they do not speak on those amendments but on something else. The present terminal building is functioning but it is pretty tightly packed, with people coming in and out, and if the number of flight movements through the airport continues to expand, then there will be congestion and delay. I think it was the hon. Member himself who drew attention to the undesirability of letting people get a bad impression of Singapore because of slow handling through at the airport. The only way to get them through fast is to provide more channels and improve facilities. Therefore the terminal building is a necessity. If there was a slowing down in the development of aviation for some reason, the urgency would not be so great, but we are looking to the future and, as far as I can judge the future, it is essential. We shall be calling for tenders, I hope early next year. I think the main point of the hon. Member is the cost of about $1 million under "Other Works". I can give him the details of that. There is a sum of $350,000 required for fencing, turfing, levelling and completion of the drainage system, and miscellaneous work of that sort. He will appreciate that there are very large areas at the airport which have to be upkept and maintained. This work has been going on slowly but steadily, but there are still some eye-sore patches which I hope will be less of eye-sores by the end of next year. Then roads and car parks are needed, we have to get the perimeter road in and also the largest part of the access road to the proposed new terminal building site; and then the third major item of course is radio aids of which the most significant is the VHF omni-range beacon which will probably go on Lazarus Island although a final decision has not been made yet. It does require a level surface on which to stand in order to operate, and it is a question of deciding where this high level sounding-off ground for this beacon should be placed.

Order. Time has elapsed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $3,033,870 for Head D 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 55 - The sum of $60,100 for Head D 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 56 - The sum of $508,790 for Head D 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 57 - The sum of $661,770 for Head D 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 59 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 59 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead 31 therein. Sir, in moving this motion, I have to touch on item (6) as both items are inter-related. May I ask that they be taken together?

If it is convenient.

Yes, Sir, both these items relate to Division IV quarters, item (5) to 15 at Paya Lebar and item (6) to 18 at Jurong. For the 15 at Paya Lebar, a revised estimate of $90,000 is required, working out at $5,000 a piece.

$6,000.

Yes, I am sorry. For the 18 at Jurong, the revised estimate is $130,000, which works out at $7,250 a piece. There is a difference there of $1,250 per quarter. As the quarters at both places presumably must be from the same plan, there does seem to be a lot of difference, and a lot of money involved when the total difference is 18 x $1,250. I would like to know what the difference is due to.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 59 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead 31 therein", and discussion may range over the next amendment - "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 59 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 31 therein."

The Paya Lebar quarters of course are still in the planning stage and it is impossible to say, when we start building in 1959, what the cost will be then. Costs did go up very heavily earlier this year but they have now taken a downward swoop. In fact, cement is down below what we call the base line, below the 100 mark. Whether they will continue to go down or up, or whether items will vary in 1959, I cannot say. Apart from that, there is a presumption that anything built in Paya Lebar will, by and large for an equivalent job, be cheaper than something at Jurong: you have city services and that kind of thing more conveniently available at Paya Lebar, and the further out of the City you go, the more likely will you be to have higher costs. There is therefore a token provision of $1,000 extra which means that you will have room to change your mind if you want to. These would be the standard Division IV married quarters. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to know or not what such "quarters" comprise. I will give him an opportunity to ask if he wants to know any more about it.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Does the hon. Member for Paya Lebar wish to move his next amendment?

Sir, I beg to withdraw it. The sum of $2,932,930 for Head D 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 60 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7 therein. This head relates to construction of roads, phase I, half a million dollars. My first point is to ask the Minister if he would give some indication as to what is intended under this particular Head and how many phases there will be. The main point I wish to refer to is the expenditure on roads and some of the extravagance which I think is being indulged in and which perhaps could be saved. I realise of course that roads are expensive things in themselves and that if you make them cheaply, they fall to rack and ruin and have to be repaired more often. That is not my point. I have two points to make. The first is the question of roundabouts. I have a sort of fetish against them which possibly the Minister does not share, but they do seem to me to be extraordinarily extravagant not only in the use of land, but in the cost of metalling and the time taken to make them. Now it is of course a fact that roundabouts are no use unless you make them large, of a sufficient size, to keep a proper flow of traffic. Then they are ideal. But it does seem to me, when you look at the roundabouts being made at the moment at the junction of Thomson Road and Lornie Road, and the junction of Upper Thomson Road and Yio Chu Kang Road, that for the time being when we have not all that money to spend on these important things such as roads, traffic lights would be simpler and cheaper. We could save time and money in making these roundabouts and put them to the making of other roads which are more important. I think that would be putting first things first. The second point I would like to refer to is what I have observed recently in Mandai Road, that there has been a whole stretch of that road - for about a mile-and-a-half - on which re-turfing has taken place. It has got to the extent of the old turf being taken out of the edges of the road and replaced by new turf. Now again I appreciate that what is intended by turfing is to prevent wash aways and the damage to roads that would ensue, but what has happened in this particular area - and it is a waste of money - is that this beautiful turfing is being done at this time of year when there is heavy rain almost every day and that it is all being washed away almost as soon as it is laid. What is more, what is happening is that because the drains are not properly constructed, the labourers are coming along and digging out the silt that has gone into it, putting it in nice piles on the top of the new turf. The piles of silt are thereby burying the turf, which will be destroyed quickly, and you will be getting back to the same position you were in about a month ago. I would like the Minister to go and see what is happening. That kind of thing is of course a waste of public money and I would draw the attention of the Minister to these two points when he tells us what this item is intended for.

The vote under this sub-head is a "notional" vote. The fact is that we have not yet decided finally which roads ought to be the responsibility of the state or government, and which should be that of the local authority, and the matter has still to be sorted out and discussed. Consequently, this vote makes provision for work to be done but is not related precisely to any job which may have to be done. 3.45 p.m. In regard to roundabouts, I think that if you are going to have one, you might as well put it in as soon as you have the road up to that point. When making a new road system, you might as well put the roundabouts in with it. One particular reason is that corner sites are very popular with squatters - coffee shop squatters - and if you leave a corner site, a bit of turf at the edge of the road, you will find first a man sitting there and then a concrete floor laid and then a roof, and before you know where you are, you get somebody with the protection of some vigorous Assemblyman fighting for the rights of the poor: 'This man should not be turned out without a large compensation.' The best thing is to get the roundabout in first and then nobody can squat on the corners. With regard to the turfing in Mandai Road, I take note of the hon. Member's remarks and I value very much anybody who draws my attention to what appears to be a failure in efficiency.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 60 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 19 therein. I think the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has had his fair share of punches during this sitting. I would like to pull back my punch if possible, but unfortunately this item has given me a smack right in the eye. In the last Assembly debate on the 1957 Estimates, $5 million was asked for. Now we have here an explanatory note saying that the new provision is for an 11-storeyed building. Last year it was not an 11-storeyed building; last year it was only seven storeys. Its size is now suddenly to be increased in spite of my protest against an already palatial building for just one Ministry. The cost is now increased to $7.5 million and the 11-storeyed building, to be constructed on Shenton Way, is to be for the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing and the Ministry of Communications and Works, and departments that come under them. Probably the extra $2.5 million is for the second Ministry to be housed on top of the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. Sir, if two Ministries are going to cost us $7.5 million, heaven help us! I think housing all the Ministries, if we go on at this planned rate, will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars! Sir, when I attacked this item I pointed out the very nice and substantial buildings like those of the Chartered Bank in Robinson Road for $3 million, and of the Bank of China for about the same amount. I cannot possibly conceive how the two Ministries are going to fill three times the accommodation that can be offered in the Chartered Bank with all its very special expenditure on safe-boxes and luxury fittings. Sir, I have to ask that Ministers must come down to earth and possibly build prefabricated little structures which the Hon. the Chief Minister has promised to look into and which might suffice in future days.

Sir, it is not undesirable that we should have further Government accommodation. We are getting overcrowded as all offices tend to expand. We have read about Parkinson's law that they do expand, if only in relation to the increasing population; we must presumably keep on adding to the number of civil servants to look after the population as it grows. The Opposition, I am sure, will concede that we do need more office accommodation, and that it is only concerned that we do not need to spend as much as this. It may well be that this is a project which would be farmed out to a private architect and we should then have a useful case for comparison and be able to see whether in fact a private architect could provide what was required without our spending all the money; but the vote is a guess rather than an estimate, as we do not yet know precisely what the cost will be.

Sir, this is the third year in succession that we have heard the hon. Member for Paya Lebar give us his expert evaluation of the work of each project. If ever I get bourgeoisie tendencies and have to put up a magnificent building to house my industry, I shall certainly look for the Member, not only to give me advice, but to make sure that he builds it at the figure he advised me is possible. But, Sir, apart from the fact that I do not think he really believes it can be done so cheaply, I would like to add my concern that one cannot make the public believe that the Public Works Department exercises all the economy, skill, care and supervision in the world. In fact, my backseat driver, the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis, who has some practical experience in these matters, tells me just the opposite. To that extent I am inclined to share the anxieties which the Member for Paya Lebar has often expressed in this House. Perhaps we do not really get one dollar's worth out of every dollar we vote in this Assembly.

I rise to express my opinion that the Assembly does get a dollar's worth, sometimes more.

Sir, to that I must reply that we might have got a dollar's worth, but never, never more.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $4,357,310 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61- The sum of $1,171,630 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed. 3.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name. It reads: That this House deplores the decision on major issues like Malayanisation and one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments made by the present City Council during its last few days of office and urges that sanction, as required by paragraph (r) of section 29 of the Municipal Ordinance, to the payment of over one and a quarter million dollars for ex-gratia payment mostly to expatriate employees, be withheld until the new City Council to be elected on the 21st December has reconsidered the matter. There is a typographical error in the Order Paper, Sir. The last part of my motion should read ". . . has reconsidered" the matter, and not, as printed, ". . . has recommended". Sir, as the days go by, we approach Christmas time, and we all receive beautiful Christmas cards sent by fellow Assemblymen to one another. I hate to spoil other people's Christmases, but whilst I would like to convey my good wishes for a happy and merry Christmas, I cannot be urged to join in felicitations to the extent of letting pass unnoticed $1¼ million worth of public funds, most of which will go to expatriate officers already in retirement in the United Kingdom. Sir, there are two possible approaches to the subject that I have tabled for debate today, one on principle and the other on detail. Whether it is to be on principle alone or on detail and principle, I leave it to the Members on both sides of the House other than those of my Party. I propose to take the question of principle first. If Members, particularly those who are Members of the City Council up till midnight, choose to raise this matter in detail, I may inform them that I have been fairly well briefed by local senior officers in the City Council and I am quite prepared to go into the matter in detail. Briefly, the one question of principle that I object to strenuously is this: that at the second last meeting on the 29th November, when almost every City Councillor knew whether or not he was going to put his record of office before the electorate, and had decided that he was not going to do so, he joined expatriate officers - the President of the City Council and his colleagues - in bundling these two Christmas gifts by. Now, Sir, we all know that elections to the City Council should have been held in 1955. The P.A.P. supported the ex-Chief Minister when he moved a resolution that elections should be postponed so that the whole question of the local government structure could be reviewed. These people were therefore allowed to carry on, and they have carried on for over two years. Their mandate had expired. They had no right to decide on major issues such as this one costing millions of dollars - $1¼ in the case of the additional benefits of provident fund, and $14 million (in our calculation) on the other issue of Malayanisation. These were the two big issues on which there was a lot of hard argy-bargy for a long time but no decision was arrived at. No vote was taken until the Councillors knew that they were not contesting elections, either because their Parties thought they were too heavy a political liability, or for other personal reasons. The moment they decided that their future was not for the public to decide any more, since they did not think their past record worth putting before the public for its decision, they passed these two big things, and we strenuously object. We object in particular to the expatriate officers in the Council being not just a party to this, but being the prime movers of this. They knew that the next Council is going to be radically different from the present one. This is a nice, cosy little set up. We have nine nominated members, we have 18 elected on the old basis - small little elections, 800 people were involved; and nice little people like - well, I will not say nice little people but little people like the hon. Member for Queenstown; I mean it depends on whether one likes him or not, but they are people whom you can accommodate, you could persuade, you could talk them round - reasonable chaps. The next City Council is going to be quite a different proposition. These officers know it and so do the Councillors. And these officers know further that it is very unlikely that they will get such an amenable council as the present one. They are going to get people who will be very sensitive to what the public thinks and who have very decided views about how public funds should be dispensed. Therefore, rather than risk the matter receiving more careful consideration, and a final decision by the real representatives who will be elected on 21st December - tomorrow - they smuggled it through on 29th November. Now, Sir, I have worded the motion carefully because I do not want to apply it to each and every case of those who retired before the operative date. I think it was 1954 (I believe you are quite familiar with the matter) - when salaries were boosted up after the war and provident fund schemes were not similarly adjusted. The consequence was that those who retired before that date when the provident fund scheme was adjusted to fit in with the new emoluments, suffered in not getting the benefits of the new rates. There may have been a few individual cases where, quite properly, a case can be made out under section 29 (r) of the Municipal Ordinance. This section stipulates that the Governor in Council - but perhaps I should read the exact words: "The Commissioners are authorized to expend the Municipal Fund for the following purposes: - . . . (r) payment with the previous sanction of the Governor in Council in special cases of gratuities to deserving municipal officers or workmen prior to, on, or after their retirement or to their widows or children on their death". Now, Sir, people like Mr A. P. Rajah of the Liberal-Socialist Party, who gave away $50,000 to the City Council engineer (I think it was the Chief Engineer), and another, Mr Chan Kum Chee, who voted another large sum of money to some electrical expert for stopping the power failures, quite wisely did not offer themselves for elections. But here they have the impudence, these Councillors as a whole have the impudence, not to consider, according to section 29 (r) , each individual officer's case to see whether or not any injustice was made or had been inflicted in a particular case, but to make a blanket payment of $1¼ million. If they want to give away their own money it is their funeral, but this happens to be our money and it is our business. We in this Chamber have a right to urge the Government not to give this sanction, as the City Council is required under the Municipal Ordinance to get sanction from the Executive Council. Now, Sir, that is a nice legal point. This Ordinance will expire by tomorrow, and the question is: Can the Government under the new Ordinance give sanction, because the new Ordinance does not contain a similar proviso? In my opinion, there is not the slightest doubt whatsoever that if this is not done before the 21st December - before midnight tonight - then it cannot be done at all. But if my view happens to be wrong and another view is established that the sanction can be given even after the Ordinance is repealed, then I say very seriously to the Government that it would be an act of political folly to be a party to this rump of local political has-beens, and give away this amount of public money. I have been careful, Sir, in my drafting of the motion not to say that this is wrong in each and every case. There may have been some special cases where an injustice might have been done, but a blanket provision, if approved, would be a betrayal of the mandate of the people to us to look after public funds. Now, Sir, I shall leave the personalities involved, who voted through this $1¼ million, to the Liberal-Socialist Party because it issued a statement immediately after we brought public attention to bear on this matter. It washed its hands completely clean of this. It said, 'Oh, no, we are against the whole business.' In fact, but for the Member for Cairnhill who, for some reason or other, abstained on the whole matter and thereby connived at it, the Liberal-Socialists were dead set against it. They did not approve of this waste of public funds and doubtless it will be their duty to clarify their position. Now the more important issue, that of Malayanisation; this is a more complex subject and a larger sum of money is involved. Quite a number of minds have been at work on this topic for a long time. They have worked out a very nice and very complicated scheme whereby all City Council expatriate employees who are at present on contracts can opt to sign new contracts - type A, type B and type C. In short, it means money all round because there is no reason why any contract should be renewed. They are not Malayan Civil Service officers, the heaven-born who were in a special category. We were persuaded last year because the Government of the Federation approved the abolition terms in the Federation, not to attack the Government on the abolition terms offered to expatriate officers here. But of course that has acted as a great stimulus to expatriate officers in the Singapore Harbour Board, the City Council and all other semi-government corporations, to try to get similar or equivalent abolition terms. Everyone thought that this was a jackpot free-for-all - just put your hand into the kitty, grab a bagful of notes, put them into your pocket and push off. Better still, get another job in the Telephone Board where, subsequently, you might be able to persuade some stupid members on that Board to agree to give you further abolition terms. I think I should go into this in much detail and read to this House a letter which has reduced this complicated plot into fairly simple terms. This is a letter written by the President of the Local Senior Officers Association of the City Council of Singapore, an open letter published in the Press. It says: "The Singapore City Council at its meeting on November 29th agreed to offer expatriate officers the option of continuing on the permanent establishment on their existing terms and conditions of service, or as varied by agreements from time to time, or entering into one of the following three forms of contracts of service with the Council on the terms and conditions set out hereunder and referred to as contracts A, B and C." As this is a fairly complicated matter to the uninitiated. I will read a little slowly: "Contract A is to incorporate all the conditions of service applicable to all senior officers at present and, in addition, to provide that an officer who resigns after five years is to be paid a lump sum of the difference between the more favourable and the less favourable method of compilation for provident fund."- There are two methods of calculating provident fund, one the more favourable, one the less favourable; the difference is about 30 to 40 per cent. Sir, if an officer signs contract A, stays on for five years and resigns, and if he himself quits - he gets this extra 30 or 40 per cent, for no rhyme or reason whatsoever, because in any case he is on contract. If he does not like it, and has a better job, he goes, as some officers who have better jobs have gone. To continue: "If his service is terminated by the Council"- and this is the other proviso, this is the other side of this plot- "for any or no reason other than misconduct or ill-health"- in other words, you cannot sack a man other than for misconduct or ill-health; if he is downright inefficient you have to tolerate him. It is all laid down, you can only sack him for misconduct or ill-health- "and he be thereby compulsorily retired"- in other words, malayanised- "the compensation payable is to be calculated on the following basis: (1) The difference as in the first paragraph above [that is, table A and table B of the provident fund]; and (2) Government abolition terms." That is the big thing. That is what everybody is grabbing. Expatriate officers will have written into their contracts that if any expatriate officer is malayanised, then compensation is payable to all such officers and provident fund benefits will also be paid in addition. So all the officers who now have contracts - a hundred odd persons - sign new contracts. They all sign contract A, and then if they serve five years and they do not like it any more, they take this extra provident fund with no abolition terms. If they happen to stay healthy as they are bound to on their present salary, and they do not commit an indiscretion, then you cannot get rid of them. If you do get rid of them, then they get greater benefits of provident fund. This will no doubt serve their five years for abolition terms on Government rates. Furthermore, if you sack one, then all the other officers who have signed contract A, can also say, "Well, I am leaving too. Please give me extra provident fund benefits plus abolition terms." Now, contract B provides for an officer who resigns: "to receive provident fund benefits according to Table B of the Provident Fund Rules," That is the less favourable one. "and to sign a contract which is similar to contract A except in lieu of further provident fund benefits. He receives an allowance equal to 20 per cent of basic salary." That is not the important one, because I do not think many will plump for that one. Contract C provides for an officer who resigns: "to receive provident fund benefits according to Table B of the Provident Fund Rules and to sign a short-term contract for three years' resident service on the same lines as the present contracts for temporary officers. It has been agreed that gratuities, compensation of provident fund payments be made tax free." In other words, the Council pays the tax, and they collect. Now, we worked out the abolition terms and all these people who come in will collect $50,000 or $60,000 and that is tax free. They are not in that same privileged position because under the law of income tax, they have to pay a large slice of it in income tax. So they providently provide beforehand that on the sum they are going to receive, the Council will pay the income tax and they collect as much as they would have had if they were in Government service. Now, Sir, this is what the local officers have to say on this: "The Council has apparently approbated its rights to terminate any expatriate officer's contract for inefficiency or redundancy without paying compensation. In times of recession, it would be less expensive for the Council to retrench local officers than expatriate officers. My Association, [this is the President's writing] after its representatives had given evidence before the Malayanisation Commission, have not pressed the Council to implement the terms of this Commission's Report as it has viewed with concern the enormous sums of money which have been paid to expatriate officers in Singapore and in the Federation Government services." Those praiseworthy, public-spirited servants! In Singapore, it was stated that the direct cause of a deficit in 1957 - the deficit being $8 million - was that $9 million was paid out in abolition terms. Therefore the conclusion we draw is that but for that, there might not have been a deficit but a surplus of $1 million. This is according to the computation of the Hon. the Financial Secretary. I read on: "In the opinion of the members of my Association, these large sums of money could have been better spent in enlarging the local services which could have directly benefited the peoples of Malaya. The members of my Association feel further that whilst they hold the view that all the senior posts in the City Council can be fully malayanised with a few exceptions within four years, they should not press for immediate Malayanisation if vast sums of money are to be handed out to all the Council's expatriate officers. This money could be better spent on projects that benefit the people of Singapore." These are the facts briefly and succinctly stated. I am quite prepared to go into further details on this but I would like to take the matter on principle.

Order. I think the hon. Member did anticipate the Chair when he said that he would not go into the details but would debate the principle because, as I read the motion. it says, That this House deplores the decisions on major issues like Malayanisation and one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments made by the present City Council during its last few days of office and urges ..." etc. Of course, the hon. Member can touch on details to indicate that it is, in fact, a major issue but I would not allow a debate on the issue itself.

I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I merely indicated that in order to inform all Members in this House that we are fairly well briefed on the subject. I am quite prepared to answer any questions from our point of view regarding the subject matter which we have tabled for debate. Sir, everybody knows that over 520,000 voters are going to the polls tomorrow to elect 32 new City Councillors. Everybody knows that the Liberal-Socialist Party have had the impudence to put up 32 candidates many of whom are likely never again to contest elections, and also that the Liberal-Socialist Party were very anxious to wash their hands of this matter the moment we brought the spotlight to bear on it. Sir, when they shelved off the extra payment of provident fund, they were silent on the question of Malayanisation. It is necessary to remind them that they were the prime movers. Their Mr A. P. Rajah who was their leading man in the Finance and General Purposes Committee was responsible for this whole scheme. A long time was taken to work this out. In his last statement, which the national dailies were judicious enough not to publish, because it probably did him more harm than good, but which the not so judicious daily Free Press did publish - Mr A. P. Rajah said that the reason why he did all this, of course, was that he did not want to see the people being victimised. He is a presumptuous man. If he does not want to see anybody being victimised and he thinks that he is the man to do justice, then he should have come out to fight the elections. He should speak his Party's policy and explain to the people why he did so and so. Instead he has decided to retire from politics for the time being, and not to try and justify what has been done. What we would like to tell him and his colleagues is this. We are here to see that the people of Singapore are not victimised, and not to see that a few persons in the City Council are not victimised. Nobody is threatening to victimise them provided they do their duties. We do not want to cut off our noses to spite ourselves but if we feel that somebody is trying to pull a fast one over us, we will cut off their noses to spite themselves, even if we suffer the consequence. Now, Sir, in asking this House to approve this motion, all I am doing is to say that the matter should be reconsidered by the new Council. It may well be that the first new candidates of the Liberal-Socialist Party will duly assemble on Monday the 23rd to elect their Mayor. They will not be electing one who has been trained to be a Mayor because the one who has been so trained is not contesting the elections, but if that eventuality should arise, then so be it. But the suspicion one has is this: the President of the City Council does not believe that they are going to come in. In fact everybody who knows what is going on knows that they are not coming in and knows that these resolutions would never receive the same favoured treatment if the question were to be opened again. It may well be that on the question of the provident fund, certain individual cases may have to be taken on their merits and justice meted out. We do not want to be unjust. It may well be that the new City Council may be even more stable, more in a position to offer long-term prospects of employment and to keep its promise. But we do not want something to be bundled through so that we who come into the Council on the 21st (tomorrow) and meet on the 23rd December for the first time are prevented from doing anything about these major issues because they are already fait accompli. That is the principle that I am asking this House to join me in supporting.

I rise to second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar did point out what he called a typographical error. He has asked that the word "recommended" be read "reconsidered". The typographical error was of course his own.

I fully acknowledge that. Question proposed. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before this House is in two parts. The first reads: "That this House deplores the decisions on major issues like Malayanisation and one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments made by the present City Council during its last few days of office." And the second part reads: "and urges that sanction, as required by paragraph (r) of section 29 of the Municipal Ordinance, to the payment of over one and a quarter million dollars for ex-gratia payment mostly to expatriate employees, be withheld until the new City Council to be elected on the 21st December has reconsidered the matter." The first part, Sir, is concerned with a point of principle, namely that the City Council has made decisions on important matters within a few weeks of the expiry of its tenure of office.

A few days, not a few weeks - 29th to 31st.

It is still a couple of weeks. It is necessary, Sir, for the purpose of debate to take the two decisions separately before coming to any conclusion about the point of principle. Firstly, Malayanisation. It is I think implied in the motion and in the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar that this is a hurried decision made at the last moment and that -

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Inche Abdul Hamid resumed his seat.

I do not suggest for one moment that this was a hurried decision. I suggest that there has been a long time hatching this plot and that it has been smuggled through just before the cockerels came in.

I still think my interpretation of his speech is that he meant that it was a hurried decision. I must point out, Sir, that it is not true that the decision was a hurried one. Government is aware that it has been the result of very detailed study by various committees of the City Council. It is a problem which the City Council has lived with for a long time although I myself can say that it was rather unfortunate that they could not arrive at a decision, say, a few months before the elections. Concerning the decision to make ex-gratia payments amounting to about one and a quarter of a million dollars, once again I know that this is not a matter which has been decided swiftly or hurriedly. It has a long history and it has been the subject of much discussion and study by various committees. I am informed that it originally arose from a petition by ex-local employees of the City Council giving grounds of hardship owing to the reduced postwar purchasing value of the dollar. I have endeavoured to point out that these two decisions were not arrived at in a hurry and that being the case, Government therefore, Sir, cannot subscribe to the terms of the first part of the motion. The terms of the second part of the motion are quite clear. It urges upon the Government that sanction be withheld under paragraph (r) of section 29 of the Municipal Ordinance in respect of an ex-gratia payment of about $1¼ million. In regard to this matter, the City Council has made application to the Governor in Council and this application is at present under consideration and I cannot at this stage, Sir, commit the Governor in Council for their views. Government, Sir, does not have to urge itself to do something. We either do it or we do not. If the Opposition thinks that any urging is necessary, it is free to do so but I can assure the Opposition that Government will take due note of their views. 4.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had no intention of speaking on this motion when it was tabled. As there is exactly 7½ hours more for me to remain a City Councillor, I do not think that it is right for me to speak on the motion, but after having heard the attack of the Member for Tanjong Pagar that all City Councillors joined in with the President and senior officers to approve what is contained in the motion before the House -

On a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way. Mr Lee Choon Eng resumed his seat.

Sir, just in case the Member for Queenstown says a few brash remarks that he may have reason to regret subsequently, I would like to say that not all of them joined in this plot. If they had all joined in this plot, the thing would have been smuggled through with such deadly silence that nobody would have heard about it. It is because a few birds did make a lot of noise; they squawked away and so it reached half round the world and finally arrived in this Chamber.

Order. I think the hon. Member seems to be making another speech. He could probably have said that in reply and I think he has clarified the matter sufficiently. I think the point that excited the Member for Tanjong Pagar to ask for leave to intervene was that the Member for Queenstown thought that he was involved in this so-called plot and I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said 'No'. I think that clarifies the matter.

Sir, I would like to be quite explicit on this matter. On the question of Malayanisation, I would like to say that he was not involved at all. He voted against it, to his everlasting credit.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for clarifying the situation. I thank the Member for Tanjong Pagar for making it clear that I was not actually involved in one of the issues. That is why I stood up to speak. Now the thing is this. The manner in which he has tabled this motion shows that he is not quite fully aware of the internal affairs that went on in the City Council. The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing said that the motion appeared to him to be in two parts and as it now appears to me that it is in fact two parts which is framed in one motion, I am at a loss to understand what the actual motion is. Really I cannot understand where or what the Member for Tanjong Pagar is arriving at, whether it is Malayanisation or the provident fund. According to the extracts he read from some information he got, I am led to believe that it is more on Malayanisation than on the second part of his motion. The first part of his motion reads: ". . . decisions on major issues like Malayanisation and one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments...". Now, these one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments have got no connection with Malayanisation at all. And the second part is clear, as the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing pointed out just now. It reads: "...the payment of over one and a quarter million dollars for ex-gratia payment mostly to expatriate employees...". Now, Sir, there were actually two issues in the City Council: one, Malayanisation and the other, provident fund for those who retire after certain dates. So now if you mix both issues together, I am afraid that some Members of this Assembly will get themselves confused and will not be able to cast their votes in the proper way. The hon. Member (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) knows who has voted and who has not voted on this question in the City Council. Much as I would like to explain and go into detail of the actual facts of the two issues - Malayanisation and provident fund - I think I would prefer to keep him guessing. I would like to quote the Hon. the Chief Minister's words, "A little knowledge is more dangerous than to have no knowledge at all." Since the Member for Tanjong Pagar has only a little knowledge, it is rather dangerous for me to tell him more and so I prefer to refrain from doing so. 4.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the issue seems to be: "That this House deplores the decisions on major issues...", and Malayanisation and ex-gratia payments are taken as examples. I wonder why the Member for Tanjong Pagar has not brought up other major issues. I know that today is the eve of the City Council elections. It is the intention of the hon. Member that the Liberal-Socialists should not receive all the credit and that we do not get all the votes tomorrow. Such an attitude should actually be discouraged. For no better propaganda material, he has accused the Liberal-Socialist Party of one thing or another and later on he swallowed it all back to say, "No, they are not involved. They have cleared themselves." I just cannot understand how the leader of a political Party can just tell all these half-truths to the people of Singapore and get away with it and then come to this Assembly to tell us, "Well, they have cleared themselves. We are now on this issue and we are now on the other issue." I think that this is not absolutely honest.

Order. I think the Member for Serangoon should try and contain himself. The expression "not absolutely honest" with reference to a Member of the Assembly is unparliamentary.

Perhaps, Sir, I -

Will the hon. Member withdraw the expression?

I withdraw it. It may not be, Sir, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is the only leader of the P.A.P. There are also other leaders not in this Assembly who spoke the same untruth and I suppose I shall not be pulled up for applying such remarks to such people. On the second part of the motion on the ex-gratia payment, I shall repeat what has been said. There was a committee consisting of the following City Councillors none of whom are from our Party. They are Mr Sim Beng Seng, Mr Seet Leong Seng, Mr Theo Leijssius, Mr L. Rayner and Mrs G.C. Smith. They recommended that an ex-gratia payment amounting to $1,267,000 odd be paid to the retired officers concerned. Of course, the matter went before the Finance Committee and for various reasons it was voted against. Finally, it was brought up before an ordinary meeting of the City Council and the motion for this payment was approved, but not with the votes of the Liberal-Socialists. All of them voted against the issue with the exception of one who abstained. Sir, on this matter, I believe that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said that the Liberal-Socialist members have done this and that but finally he said that we were not involved. I would say that he should withdraw all those things he said. If he wants to quarrel with the Labour Front Members, he can go ahead and quarrel with them. We have no issue with them on this matter. On the question of Malayanisation, Sir, I think that it was the idea of the Member for Tanjong Pagar to get rid of all expatriate officers from Government service and he advocated buying them out, I think, when the question of compensation for the Malayanisation of the civil service came up. He said, "We can recover all the money from our savings and it would be cheaper buying them out."

On a point of information, Sir. Would the hon. Member quote me -

Order. Only if the Member will give way.

Even during this Budget debate, Sir, when he discovered that the interest from this money would not be sufficient to pay for the cost of Malayanisation, he advocated, "We will put up posters outside the banks and say, 'We seize them in the name of the people to pay for expatriation fees and all that.' " Well that confirms it. If he had not made that previous suggestion, Sir, then he would not have regretted making this other suggestion in this Assembly. If the Government is spending $21.4 million on Malayanisation, the City Council is following suit in trying to get rid of their expatriates and on that score, Sir, unless the Member for Tanjong Pagar can come up with a better suggestion as to how to get rid of them -

Order. I think the Member for Serangoon is going dangerously into a debate on the issue itself. I am trying to prevent that. The issue before the House is merely, "That this House deplores the decisions on major issues like Malayanisation and one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments made by the present City Council during its last few days of office...". That is all.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing said that the City Council sat through the problem for quite a long time and they came to that decision but I was saying that if somebody else has no better ideas on how to go about it, then it should be -

It will be done after the 21st.

Order.

- done this way. So far, Sir, I have heard no concrete suggestion as to how the thing could best be done. This motion is on two issues tied up together as one and it would be better to deal with them as two separate issues instead of one that is bundled up to be smuggled through this Assembly. 4.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand complicated matters of political plotting. To me the issue is quite simple. The approval of these two resolutions would cost the public millions of dollars. I am sure, if the European officers in the City Council expected the next City Council to be the same as the present one, they would not bother to rush these two resolutions through. The President of the City Council, Sir, knows that the term of office of his collaborators is going to expire at midnight tonight, and I know that they will never be elected again to the City Council. Sir, I object to this kind of plotting. If a thing is right, surely the next City Council will have the right to approve it. Sir, we have more than a suspicion that the thing is wrong. So do the people of Singapore. It is important, Sir, that the people's representatives in the next City Council should decide what is right or what is wrong in the future, not the European officers, nominated Members and political wash-outs. 4.45 p.m.

Sir, when I received notice of this motion, I read it through three times and I could not make out what it was. To me, it was a great surprise that a very learned and precise mind could have drawn up such a motion to be placed before this House. The more I thought about it and the deeper I went into it, the more I was convinced that it was an attempt to confuse the issue and to involve our Party which has stood honourably and correctly on the ex-gratia payment issue.

Hear, hear! Then vote for it!

I am glad that today the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar at least has the decency to admit that he was wrong when he imputed all sorts of things against us for wanting to give away millions of dollars. Sir, we are not concerned at all with the ex-gratia payment issue and we stick to the stand taken by our representatives on the City Council and we say they were correct. On the point of Malayanisation, Sir, we have to ask: Who has brought about this difficult position in which our country finds itself? We are in a position where we do not have enough technical people to run our City Council services, and we may be faced with the possibility of so many of these people wanting to leave this country at the very moment when we require them, because our local men who are in training overseas and in Singapore are not quite ready to take over. Rather than make a mess, surely responsible persons must look for a way to bridge the gap so that we can still have the services of people who are running the very important and essential public services of Singapore until such time as our own people can take over. That is exactly, Sir, what our City Councillors have done. They have gone very carefully into the problem without bias and have tried to take the proper attitude towards two sets of people with conflicting claims, and in their honesty they have placed before Government a scheme, and it is now for the Governor in Council to make a decision. Sir, I think our position is clear. We have not done anything wrong and our Party is proud that it is fielding 32 candidates in the field for tomorrow's elections. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar asked us what impudence made us put in 32 candidates. I ask him, "What impudence made the hon. Member put in 16 candidates?" Hon. Members: 14.

To be in order I think the hon. Member should say "What impudence made the Party put in. . .", not "the hon. Member".

I stand corrected. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you have clearly ruled that the debate on this motion is on the question of principle and that details should be avoided as far as possible. Therefore, it is not for us on this side to stand up and try to defend or condemn the decisions of a lawfully constituted body which has come to a decision of very grave character, particularly as the Council itself is very concerned with the staffing problem of the basic services. My colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has said that the Government is aware that there has been no rush in the consideration of this very important problem. I have personally been interested in this particular problem and have had discussions of an unofficial nature with members of the City Council, and I can say in all honesty that this matter has not been rushed nor smuggled through. With regard to the decision to make an ex-gratia payment of $1¼ million to ex-employees of the City Council, local and overseas, the Minister has said that an application has been made to the Governor in Council, and this application is still under consideration. Sir, as to the first part of the motion, we have made it clear that we cannot be a party to deploring something which we know is not right. To the second part, we say that we cannot prevent the Opposition from urging the Government to do what it thinks the Government should do. 4.52 p.m. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in reply?

It is very strange, Mr Speaker, Sir, that every time we have a live political matter for discussion, very few Members are prepared to express their opinions upon it. Sir, first, I would like to correct a misconception in the minds of both the Member for Serangoon and the Member for Paya Lebar. I would like to read them the P.A.P. statement on this matter, and they will see that right from the word go we had our facts correct. We condemn the City Councillors on Malayanisation and we condemn the whole lot of them, not just the Lib-Soc element, on the ex-gratia payment issue. I have the statement here but I will just read the relevant parts to assure the two Members that they have not been misrepresented. In fact, the case has been presented with great vividness over a series of mass meetings and the people of Singapore are quite aware of the position. What we said is this: "The P.A.P. condemns the decisions taken by the present City Councillors in their last few days of office on important issues like Malayanisation of the City Council and ex-gratia payment of a million and a quarter dollars, mostly to retired expatriate officers. They have no right to tie the hands of the new Councillors to be elected on 21st December. The P.A.P. does not consider itself bound by the decisions of these Councillors who are so ashamed of their record of office that they dare not stand for election." Two of them are very brazen types. They have presented themselves for re-election and we shall know their fate tomorrow. "If the President and Councillors of the City Council try to rush and finalise the legal formalities before 21st December and so deny the people of Singapore, through their newly-elected Councillors, the right to say what they think about spending millions of dollars of the people's money, we, the P.A.P., will take appropriate steps to rescind the decisions and reopen these matters. It is scandalous that this rump of local political has beens, led by Liberal-Socialist A. P. Rajah, should decide in the last few days of office that to malayanise the City Council in the future the people of Singapore must pay over $14 million for compensation to expatriates and it is the same rump that has decided to give away itself. We blame them for the Malayanisation. We blame the whole Council for the $l¼ million." Sir, I want to make our position quite clear. A lot of issues may develop out of the stand that we have taken today. My motion has been drafted with a certain amount of care. The Member for Queenstown wrote me a chit just now saying, "Why did you not break up the motion into two, and then I would vote for one?" It is clear that on the Malayanisation issue he would like to vote for it. The others are clear on the ex-gratia payment, except for the Member for Cairnhill who has very conveniently disappeared in case we call a division, and therefore they would like to have the two issues taken separately. "I am really not so bad, you know. I did right in one even if I did not do right in the other." Sir, we are taking up this issue on the question of principle. We have never suggested that the City Councillors have suddenly hatched this plan and bundled it through. What we do suggest is that there has been careful plotting and hatching and they have decided that, as the incubator is likely to pass under new ownership on the 21st of December, they had better hatch the egg now or it will never be hatched. That is what we are saying - that they have no right to do that. Now we are urging the Government not to give sanction under section 29 (r) of the Municipal Ordinance, because they have to come to the Government for that sanction or the whole matter will be ultra vires and we will hold all of them responsible. We will surcharge them and make them bankrupt for paying out public funds. As for the contracts themselves, I was delighted to hear the Member for Paya Lebar say that he is going to ask the Government about them. Sir, we are very preoccupied with the elections at the moment and our research bureau has not had the time to look up the legal implications of these contracts. But we will, after this election, if any step is taken about them. Whether or not sanction is required for payments other than what is already agreed between an individual officer and the Council, we say this: even if sanction is not required, if those contracts are signed before midnight tonight, or if they have already been signed, then this will become a live issue for the next Legislative Assembly elections. If they are validated, then we shall make this an issue in the next Assembly elections - that we shall pass a Bill in this Assembly to rescind and render null and void all those contracts. We say this knowing full well that tomorrow is Polling Day. That is the stand we have taken before the people. I am glad to hear the Member for Paya Lebar speak the truth because Mr A. P. Rajah was what they call in Malay "lichin" - it is like a big marble ball; you cannot pick it up because it slips away from your fingers every time. First, they said, "Oh, it is utterly ridiculous. Of course, the new City Council can be malayanised. It is quite untrue to say that they cannot be malayanised." But today we have heard from the Member for Paya Lebar that the whole object of the operation is to put a ransom on Malayanisation. He says the local officers are not ready and cannot take over. These technical men are valuable - I do not say they are not, probably many of them are. Therefore we shall make sure that they are not got rid of by putting up this ransom. A contract is signed. The officer gets extra provident fund. He is sacked, and he gets abolition terms. In other words, they are all like the armadillo - they go on with this armour-plating. But we say quite clearly here and now that if this scheme is pushed through - maybe we cannot undo it in the City Council if it is all signed, sealed and delivered before the 21st December. But if it is done, we will wait until August or September next year when we will come back here, move a Bill to rescind that and say, "That was an act of indecency," and scrap it. Sir, I would like to say this in conclusion before I call a division on this matter. First, I think they were just plain stupid to do what they have done, trying to bundle the thing through. Secondly, whatever merits there were in both the issues have now been tarnished and soiled by the suspicious manner in which the whole affair was handled. We are bound to approach this matter with a very considerable degree of suspicion, to see what this great haste was all about. There must have been something wrong or the whole matter would not have been bundled through. We say this: if the Liberal-Socialists are really against all this bundling through at the last moment, then they should vote for this motion. If they are not, then vote against it, knowing full well the consequences tomorrow. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

On a point of information, Sir.

I shall be delighted.

Yes, If the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar says he has not completed -

Oh, I am quite prepared to elucidate. I was just on the point of finishing and I will be prepared to elucidate, but I do not wish the Chief Minister to take this as an occasion to make a short speech.

Sir, I said on a point of information. I have not made it clear just now. I did say that on the first part we were against it, and on the second part we could not prevent the Opposition from urging us to do what they think we should do. As the hon. Member has said, he is going to call a division. As the Government has made no decision, it will abstain. Question put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 1: Abstentions, 18; Paired, 2. Ayes. Abstentions. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Chew Chua. Haji Jumat. Lee Kuan Yew. Braga, A.J. Chew Swee Kee. Hart, T.M. No. Jumabhoy, J.M. Lee Choon Eng. Ong Piah Teng. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim R. C. H. Absent. Lim Yew Hock. Ede, John. Mak Pak Shee. Goh Tong Liang. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Jumabhoy, R. Abdul Hamid. Lazarous, A.R. Nair, M.P.D. Lim Ching Siong. Seah Peng Chuan. Soh Ghee Soon. Shanks, E.P. Sutherland, G.A.P. Stewart, S.T. Tan, William. Tan Theng Chiang Thomas, Francis. Paired. Lim Koon Teck. Wong Foo Nam. Resolved, That this House deplores the decisions on major issues like Malayanisation and one and a quarter million dollars ex-gratia payments made by the present City Council during its last few days of office and urges that sanction, as required by paragraph (r) of section 29 of the Municipal Ordinance, to the payment of over one and a quarter million dollars for ex-gratia payment mostly to expatriate employees, be withheld until the new City Council to be elected on the 21st December has reconsidered the matter.

5.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with considerable regret that I have to make a few remarks on this motion. It has already served its purpose. Political Party broadcasts have already started -

Is the hon. Member moving his motion?

I am, Sir. Tonight is the last of the Political Party broadcasts, but I shall nevertheless formally move to record my disapproval of the obstinate and completely indefensible stand taken by the Government on this matter. Sir, I move, That this House is of the opinion that political parties competing in the present City Council elections should be given time over the radio to put over their party programmes for the City Council. In civilised countries where the modern conveniences of communication have reached the level where almost every other working-class home has a T.V. set, the work of the politicians becomes much easier. He does not have to shout and rant at the mass of people. He puts over his programme in a quiet and friendly way. This motion was introduced to compel the Government to acknowledge that fact. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I first took the occasion to raise the matter on a motion for the adjournment. As the position then was very uncertain, I decided that the best thing to do was to make it go to a vote, and I was quite right. This is definitely the way to compete. Last night the Liberal-Socialist Party had 15 minutes of radio time. As I was travelling from one rally to another with my little car radio on, I heard their Party representative say, in his best parsonic manner, "And now this Victoria Memorial Hall - everybody blames the Liberal-Socialist Party for it. It is very dishonest. Because we were not the only people to blame. The Labour Front Government appointed nine people. Therefore they are also to blame for the Victoria Memorial Hall scandal." I said to myself, 'Fifteen minutes well spent. Proof to the people of Singapore, an admission from the representative of the Liberal-Socialist Party that it is responsible, if only in part, according to the admission, for waste of public funds.' And they have also shown to the people of Singapore what a lot of intellectual duds and buffoons they are. That is the way the democratic system should operate. Put your programme over and if you cannot do it, then perish. I cannot think of any better way than to tell everybody sitting down quietly, under no obligation to listen, and without being able to do any greater harm than to switch the radio off if he does not like what he is hearing. It is therefore with great regret that I find that I need to set this motion down, before the wheels of the Government machinery could be made to work, to allow Radio Malaya to give us radio time. Sir, I formally beg to move, in order to allow other speakers time to make whatever remarks they like on this matter. But if nobody wishes to make any comment on what I have already stated, then I shall at some subsequent time beg leave to withdraw.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed. 5.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find that when people cannot put ideas over to the masses, then they want a lot of ways to try to win them, and they ask for radio broadcasts and all that. For our Party, I think our ideas and ideals have been well known, and whether we have or we have not these radio broadcasts, we do not bother very much. Well, it is our idea that since the P.A.P. wanted it so very badly, we would help them out. However, I feel that for a Member in this House to come over here and criticise those who have not the privilege to speak in this Assembly is not at all good. I think if you want to criticise anybody you should criticise those who are inside this House so that they have a chance to reply. In this instance, even on a matter of political radio broadcasts, he has something to say against broadcasts by our Party. Perhaps, Sir, the truth hurts. When other people know that the ideas and ideals of the Liberal-Socialist Party are the best for Singapore, they feel that they cannot let that go but that they should at least throw a few stones at it. We know that ideas can be propagated by action and not by just misleading the people and making them suffer for their political acts, by the action of the leaders showing that they really care for the people and will work for them and will not in any way put them into misery. Such, I think, will be a far better way of propagating your ideas than just asking for five-minute broadcasts. We have helped them and I hope they will be grateful for our helping them out. 5.17 p.m.

Sir, I would not have risen to speak if the hon. Mover of the motion had not said that the Government was obstinate. We explained to the hon. Member when he first brought this matter to the attention of the House that Radio Malaya is a pan-Malayan Department and that we had to discuss a question of this kind of broadcast with the Federation Government. At the conclusion of the last sitting of this Assembly, I found time to have discussions with the Federation Prime Minister and we came to an agreement. That agreement was conveyed to the Members of the Opposition and there was a discussion as to how best this radio time could be utilised. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the hon. Member should have found it necessary to rise and say something, to have digs here and digs there. I hope he is not doing it just because polling day is tomorrow. 5.18 p.m.

I am sorry if I cause the Government any embarrassment by pursuing this motion. I felt very strongly about it and I made my position quite clear to the Government that I intended to go through and force this matter to a division. It is vital, if we want competition of political ideas and political programmes, that the radio should be given to the political parties to put their programmes over. Now, Sir, I understood there were certain technical difficulties with the Federation Government but what I objected to, was that no effort was made earlier to clear the position until I had to table a motion. Only then was the effort made to clear the position. Sir, this should have been completely unnecessary. When I raised the matter on the adjournment, the Government should have been in a position to say, 'We are in agreement in principle and we are clearing the position.' I would have been satisfied. But we had such a wishy-washy answer about the position and so forth, that I thought if the matter was not pressed hard, nothing would come out of it. Now, Sir, as for the remarks of the Member for Serangoon, he said he wanted to help us out. Of course his Party is not really keen on radio time. My Party representative informed me that when all the Parties met in Radio Malaya, the Liberal-Socialist Party representative said he would not know what to do with the 15 minutes and he wanted three or four speakers to use them up. That is the real truth of the matter and the people of Singapore should know it. You can cover up a lot of things by just issuing pamphlets or leaflets. But put a man over the radio, put the party programme over, and be it good, or be it bad, the people are there to listen and to decide without anybody disparaging whatever is being put over, without anybody interfering with your delivery. If under those conditions you are not able to put your political views over, then you are not likely ever to compete successfully under any other condition, no matter how favourable they may be. If a political party cannot compete on a par over the radio, then it can never compete at all. Sir, I think I should take this matter further but will let it go until the vote is taken, because I would like to have it established that we are of the opinion that when political parties contest City Council elections, they should be given radio time. The matter will arise when the District Council elections come up in March, and will arise again when the Legislative Assembly elections come up in August or September. We should all make our position quite clear and if there should be a dissenting voice on this motion, then a division should be called.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House is of the opinion that political parties competing in the present City Council elections should be given time over the radio to put over their party programmes for the City Council.

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