Hansard, 1958-12-18

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 Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang) - from 22nd December, 1958 to 12th January, 1959.

Sir, I do not propose to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper: [That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, 19th December, 1958.]

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]: Resumption of debate on Question (17th December, 1958) proposed to Head 46 in the First Schedule of the Bill, "That the sum to be allotted for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 29 therein."-[Mr Lim Cher Kheng].

FIRST SCHEDULE Head 46- Question again proposed. 10.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir at the moment of interruption yesterday, I intended to give an answer to the hon. Member for Changi in regard to the question of salary scales of teachers, but as it was not possible then, I will therefore take the opportunity this morning. It is not possible to explain in detail the salary structure in the public service as against the qualifications of Chinese school teachers, because the hon. Member for Changi, who is absent today, will not be able to understand it. It is not because the salary structure is complicated, but because the qualifications of Chinese school teachers are more complicated than is the salary structure; the reason being that for a long time, while Chinese schools were outside the control of my Ministry, the teachers were recruited by the school committees of management without any uniform requirements at all as to their qualifications. Therefore, it is no wonder that the assessment of Chinese qualifications has caused so much difficulty. If there is any teacher who does not know how his salary is arrived at by my Ministry, the proper course open to him is to make enquiries from my Staff Officer. On the question of University degrees and their recognition, I must remind the hon. Member that it is the Public Service Commission which advises the Government on the value of certain qualifications; and as to who advises the Commission, I am afraid the hon. Member must direct his question to the Public Service Commission, and not to me; I cannot answer on behalf of the Public Service Commission. I also want the hon. Member to understand that, as Minister for Education, I am not an adviser on qualifications or on the public service. The recognition of certain qualifications has a wider implication than for the purpose of teaching when you consider the public service as a whole. Sir, I do not know if I may be ruled out of order if I should touch on Tamil education?

Has the point been raised?

No. Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 53 therein. Sir, we have in Singapore the Council for Adult Education which is run under the direction of the Minister for Education. The function of this Council is to educate the adults who could not and did not attend either primary or secondary schools. The Council are now conducting about 630 night classes teaching in almost all languages, in the Adult Education Association. Sir, when the Rendel Constitution comes to an end, elections to the next Assembly will be ready and the voters in Singapore will have to play a more important part than they were hitherto doing. Double the number of Assemblymen will he elected from more than double the number of voters. Therefore, it is as important to educate the adults as to educate the children, not only as voters but also as parents. If the adults of today are steeped in prejudice or superstition or some sort of bad behaviour of one kind or another, naturally the children will inherit these habits in spite of all the textbook knowledge pumped into them, and we would not be able to get independence in Singapore. So, Sir, it is important, as I have told you, to educate the adults. We have seen in this Estimate, for the Council for Adult Education, that only $500,000 is allowed. Sir, we have in Singapore, 252,000 children in primary schools, 42,000 in secondary schools, 3,000 in universities, and 2,000 in technical schools. Therefore, out of a total of 300,000 children after completing primary education, we have roughly 45,000 children attending secondary schools, universities and technical schools. Sir, what happens to the other 255,000 children? They are not getting any further education. At least in the interest of these children, apart from so many adults who wish to educate themselves, adult education is important. Sir, to convince the Members of this Assembly, I am quoting from the Annual Report of the Singapore Council for Adult Education presented to the Annual Conference on 6th December, 1958, page 1: "Though we hope for a greater expansion in our activities this year, because of the economy drive of the Government of Singapore, we have had to be satisfied with consolidating what we have done rather than to increase our classes. Originally we had planned $613,317 estimate for the year to be received from Government grant. This had to be reduced to $522,387 estimate. Hence, there has been little expansion, and out of the request for 204 more new classes in basic education, only 51 could be approved. We had to be satisfied again with only a token grant of $10 for cultural education. It should be pointed out that though, from Government, we have received $522,387 the total expenses of the Council have been in the region of $700,000, the balance being met from our own General Fund. In our opinion, in the present stage of rapid development in Singapore and with its large body of new citizens, to curtail our work would be disastrous to the community and it should be strongly urged that it is the responsibility of the Government to help us to expand our work. To reduce one adult class means one policeman less." I will just quote one more sentence from page 6: "The Basic Education Committee met on 15th October, 1958, and considered various possible measures. It finally decided to ask our Association running classes to close their classes on 23rd November, 1958, about 3 weeks earlier than the scheduled time, so that there would be a saving of expenditure sufficient to meet the deficit." I do not think it is necessary for me to explain further than what I have read from the Report, and in view of the above I hope the Hon, the Minister for Education will consider giving a bigger grant to the Adult Education Council.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will notice in the Estimates that the grant for next year in respect of the Council for Education is the same as the grant for this year. At the outset, I think I must explain that the Council for Adult Education was formed on one principle, and that is to provide literacy classes for the adult population. It is not supposed to run classes for the Ministry, and therefore there must not be duplication of classes such as providing lectures on Cambridge examination subjects, commercial subjects and further education. These are being run by my Ministry in many spheres, such as commercial schools running in several centres. We have also secondary commercial schools. Therefore, the Council should not duplicate the work and incur unnecessary expenditure. The Council should confine itself to providing literacy classes for adults for which it is formed and not embark on providing classes on further education, instituting law lectures and such like subjects. I admit that the Council's constitution does give it very wide powers and room for discretion, but as I am entrusted with public funds I cannot allow the Council to go on merrily spending money on duplicated work without a check. I will, however, if I am reasonably satisfied that the expenditure asked for is justified, come to this Assembly for a supplementary vote, as I have done sometime this year. If I heard the hon. Member for Farrer Park rightly, he mentioned something about cultural education. May I remind him that we have a cultural section in my Ministry for which we have asked for a vote of some $50,000?

I am glad, Sir, that the Hon, the Minister for Education admits that there is need for adult education. But to answer his point that the Council is spending too much money not only on adult education but also on further education - by which he means cultural and other activities - I want to assure the Minister that the Council has already stopped these activities and to convince him, I will just read one paragraph on page 9 of the Report: "It may not be out of place to point out in this context that the Council recognize that, as far as possible, they should avoid duplication with the Ministry of Education or the Polytechnic or the universities. It is because this year the Polytechnic and the Ministry of Education itself have started offering facilities for secondary level classes in the evening that the Further Education Committee decided to start economising by cutting down secondary level classes." 10.15 a.m. Sir, I think this clears the Minister's anxiety that the Council are spending more money on further education. I shall quote some figures to convince the Minister. Sir, the total amount of money allowed by the Ministry to the Adult Education Council is $500,000. Sir, the Minister admits that basic education is necessary. For teachers' salary and basic education alone, they have spent $364,954. For teachers' salary and further education (that is what the Hon, the Minister complains about) - only $36,990 was spent. But the fees collected from students on basic education is $129,050; and the students' fees for further education, which the Minister complains about, is $27,596.90 cents. Sir, this figure shows that, from the grant which this Council have received from the Ministry, they have not wasted anything. They have conducted classes for basic education; they have almost maintained themselves. They have collected fees from students for further education, which were sufficient to maintain their classes. I think the Hon, the Minister need not be anxious about their wasting money. Actually they are not. They have more or less stopped all these classes.

Does the hon. Member realise that they stopped further education only at my intervention, when I found out that they were embarking on such duplicate subjects as I have pointed out just now?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the sum of $63,539,180 for Head 46 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want just a few points of clarification from the Minister for Education on the running of evening classes. Do I understand that there will be places in the evening classes for all the students who are not able to gain entry into normal schools? Do I understand again that the evening classes will be run on more or less the same footing as the day schools, enabling the students who join them to come up to the level of Senior Middle III in Chinese schools and the Cambridge School Certificate in the English stream? If it is the case, then I think the people of Singapore will not have any grouse at all. It assists them a great deal. Of course, when I am talking about this, I do not for one moment forget about students who may be at school all the time and yet are unable to benefit by it. I am aware that there may be a great number of students whose parents want them to become great men - doctors, lawyers and all that - and they cannot even pass Standard V or VI. Now some useful outlet must be found for such people, and I wonder if the Minister has in mind plans to assist them, to help them with some sort of a vocation so that at that age, when they leave school and are not able to go for further studies, and too young to get a job, they are able to absorb some useful learning of some sort at institutions which will train them for a job. I am aware that the Minister has had that plan in mind for quite a long time, but it has not been put into practice - for reasons which I do not know. I would also remind the Minister that there are welfare organizations which are prepared to assist Government in that direction. In fact, last year I made an offer to the Minister that the Federation of Boys' Clubs has been thinking of starting classes - in fact, they have started classes which teach motor repairing, wood-work, and such other crafts - and that they would be prepared to assist the Ministry in helping these young people. Another point, Sir, which I would like to ask the Minister is the policy in respect of youth movements in Singapore. We have had the Ministry sending over to us representatives to sit on our Management Committee, to learn and assist the youth movement, the Federation of Boys' Clubs. Previously they had an officer sent to us. This officer, of course, had notices of meetings sent to him all the time, but he never attended meetings! However, we are grateful to the Ministry for sending the present officer, Mr Peter Lim, to represent the Ministry on our Committee, because he is particularly interested in the youth movement and has been very helpful - suggesting a lot of improvements and ways of co-operating with the Ministries for the betterment of youth. I am talking about this co-operation in connection with the limited playing fields we have in Singapore. All this time the Ministry has assured us that they will help us out over this matter at the highest level; but when it comes to actual practice, we find the red tape is such that it is almost impossible to make use of school playing fields! We have put forward our views to the Ministry that schools are meant for the youths of Singapore, and whether they are within school hours or outside school hours, they should be made use of instead of being left idle. We have not had much success at that. I would like the Minister to know that the education of our young people must not be confined only to classrooms, and to within the hours of teaching in schools, but that it should be an all-round affair, and we should take care of our youths inside the schools as well as outside them. If the youth movements are prepared to help Government on that basis, to look after the young people when they are out of school and see that they have something useful to do, instead of ganging up with the wrong type of people, then Government should help them. I am certain that if the Minister will assure us in this House that he will do so, and that he will give a directive to all his officers concerned to give the youth movements full and tangible co-operation in helping the young people, it will be appreciated by all.

Sir, I would like to raise the question of Tamil education and I would invite the Minister to speak on his plans on further Tamil education in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said on the Second Reading of the Budget that I was very perturbed to note that the Government, instead of building more secondary schools to absorb those pupils who pass out from the primary schools, have provided only 9 secondary schools to 59 primary schools. Sir, we all know education is very important in this world. Education is a human problem and also a human need, like health and housing. We must pay particular attention to education, particularly for the younger set. The Government say they are unable to build more secondary schools on the flimsy excuse that they are unable to recruit able and experienced teachers. Sir, we must have teachers. We do not care whether they are able to recruit or not. We must have them at any cost! [Laughter.] You may laugh, Sir. What I know is that the Ministry of Education -

Order. I must point out that I did not laugh at all!

Sir, what I meant was that there was giggling in the House. We know the Government is always very smart, I mean in the way they cook up something - "We cannot get teachers; we are unable to get teachers", or "We have no money." They are very fond of saying the same thing again and again, in spite of the fact that they say they want to provide six years' free education for all the children. Look at subhead 11, "Free Text Books" - page 256. Under this item $300,000 was provided for Free Text Books for the previous year. 10.30 a.m. Now we have this grant for Free Text Books under three subheads: subhead 11 on page 256; subhead 28 on page 257, and subhead 34 on page 257. These three totals of grant for Free Text Books amount to $151,000 for 1959 as against the $300,000 provided for this year. Why has this amount been reduced? Sir, we know very well that free textbooks should be provided for the children of those who are poor. They cannot even pay the school fees. They cannot pay for the textbooks. So Government has provided a grant for free textbooks. But now Government has the effrontery to reduce this amount. Why? I can tell you the reason. It is because many of these students have been kicked out of school because they have failed in their examinations. We know very well that the population of Singapore is increasing. Year in and year out we have more and more children attending school. I am quite sure many people will be affected by this reduced grant. What is the Ministry of Education doing? There is another aspect of Government which I have already condemned, and that is, they only know how to look after their own interest. They use sugar-coated words when they say they want to provide education for all. I have been patiently sitting on this side of the House for nearly four years. Sir, I know that if the Government had been doing its job properly, the recent leakage in the examinations would not have happened. Do you know how much worry, anxiety and trouble the school children went through to prepare themselves for the examinations? After having sat for the examinations, we can imagine their disappointment when they came back home and the news broke out that the examination papers could be bought for $30. Sir, you know of this situation. The leakage happened not only in the English schools but also in the Chinese schools. Sir, for so many years under the Colonial Government - I was educated in a Government school for nearly ten years - we never heard of such a silly thing as a leakage of examination papers. We never heard that examination papers could be bought for $30. If there are any excuses which the Minister for Education could give, I would still not be satisfied, because as Minister for Education, he must be responsible for his Ministry. It is his duty to see that his Ministry is properly run, and he should not blame the Printing Office or anybody else. He may cry to heaven and earth! He may cook up excuses! I am not interested.

Order. The expression "cook up", of course, is very unparliamentary. I think the honourable Member must be careful in his choice of words. Will he please withdraw the expression?

I withdraw it, Sir,I wish to know the policy adopted by the Ministry of Education in regard to the registration of children in all the schools in Singapore. Does the Minister know that when a parent has four or five children, he would naturally prefer them to go to the same school or to schools nearest his home? Instead, they have adopted a nonsensical policy in the Department. Do you know what has happened? I will refer to the case of a parent living in my area. One of his children was studying in Tiong Bahru School. The next child was posted to Trafalgar School. The third child, who was registered at Tiong Bahru School, was given the excuse that there were no more places. They said they were sorry, and could not find him a place in Tiong Bahru School. He was posted instead to Kim Seng Road (West) School. The fourth child was transferred to Trafalgar School. Imagine a parent having his four children going to three different schools! In addition to the members of his family whom he has to support, he has to pay rent. He has to pay everything on a salary of, say, $150 or $200. With all these commitments, he has to send four children to different schools in different parts of the island. Has he enough time, or can he take the trouble to send his little children to Trafalgar School, Kim Seng Road (West) School, and Tiong Bahru School - three different places, Sir? I, for one, Sir, send my children every morning to school - to three different schools. I do not mind that much, Sir, because I can get in my car and send them off. But can an ordinary working-class parent, who has four children, do the same? Some wives may have lost their husbands, or a housewife may have a tiny tot nestling in her arms. Do we expect this woman to send her children to different schools, when their ages may be just around seven to nine years? Is it fair to this poor woman? When you ask the principal of a school to put all the children in the same school, he will say: "I am sorry, I cannot do anything. We are instructed by the Ministry of Education." Who controls them? The Ministry of Education. The principal cannot do much. He realises the plight of the family. The excuse is every time given that it is the Almighty, the Minister for Education, or the Ministry of Education, who controls the destiny of our children. The Minister may be God in his Department, but I have the liberty to speak in this House. The Minister then talked about secondary schools. He said that many children, on passing their primary school examination, would go to a trade or a technical school. May I ask the Minister how many children who fail in their primary school examination manage to get a place in a trade or technical school? For example, we notice in the papers that 15,000 students sat for their examinations, and only 7,000 were accepted, leaving 8,000 students stranded. Do not forget that they are the citizens of tomorrow. These 8,000 students will be our people. Yet he is talking about trade schools and technical schools. He likes them to go there. Sir, may I also remind the Minister that it is the parents' wish to decide what education is good for their children? The Minister has no right to dictate to me and ask me to send my children to a trade school. In my case, I will not listen to his advice. I will choose to send my children to any school I like, whether to a trade school, a secondary or a carpentry school, or any school I like. He gives the excuse that we have trade schools to absorb the people. Sir, look at the students roaming in the streets. In my area in Tiong Bahru alone, there are thousands of them, not hundreds. What is the reason? It is because they are over-age. It is because they have failed in their Primary VI examination. It is also because the Government want to save money, as in the case of the reduction in the grant of free textbooks, under cover that it is necessary to economise in order to give education for all. Cook up excuses!

Order. If the hon. Member is not careful with his language and his tone of voice, he will be prevented from speaking further at this sitting. He has used the expression "cook up" once. He has withdrawn it. He has now used it again. I ask him to withdraw it again and to be careful with his language.

I withdraw that, Sir. I will use the word "invent".

Order. That word "invent" also is unparliamentary. The honourable Member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that word. You cannot blame me for being angry, Sir, because I have seen parents coming to my house or my office, weeping, particularly those poor women who have no husbands, or whose husbands were jobless, saying that they have to send their children to various schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a strange thing that since Mr Opposition, the champion for the poor, has decided not to participate in this debate, this House seems to have been monopolised by the two ex-Democrat Assemblymen.

Order. I have permitted "wisecracks" - I do not know whether that is unparliamentary or not - but I do ask hon. Members not to make any personal references to honourable Members, but to get on with the debate. We are debating Government policy, and, therefore, whether an honourable Member is an ex-Democrat or not makes no difference. We are now debating Government policy.

Yes, Sir. I beg to withdraw, but actually it is relevant to what I am going to debate. I wonder whether the Minister for Education can recollect what he said yesterday when he answered my first question. What is the policy of the Government right now in building so many schools and granting so much money - even those schools which we call vernacular schools under the item of Grants-in-Aid - spending so much money -

Order. We have completed the debate on Grants-in-Aid on the honourable Member's own amendment. He was not here this morning when the Minister replied to his amendment. A vote was taken, and therefore this topic of Grants-in-Aid is now closed. 10.45 a.m.

Sir, I am fully aware of my position. The Minister gave me an answer yesterday that he is not the Minister for Employment. Therefore, it is not his duty to answer my query as to what is in his mind or in his Government's mind in respect of Singapore's education policy - whether he has made any move to co-ordinate our education policy on a Pan-Malayan basis. That is, of course, what I intended to mean. So I can quote, to show my point on what I already said yesterday on this question, from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of yesterday's date. There is a feature article written by a student by the name of Tsu-hua, a new graduate from the Senior Middle High School. December 17th. "MY ACCUSATION The name-Tsu-hua Confession of a newly senior graduated student". In order to save time I will just quote two sentences. It says:

Why I purposely wish to quote this feature article is that I want to emphasise the line along which our education policy is taking in this country. The education policy cannot be separated from language and culture. One curious thing about this country is that, as I have already explained once or twice before, on the eve of the Rendel Constitution there was a controversy on multilingualism. It was argued that multilingualism should be introduced into this Assembly, with equal treatment for all languages; for example, by adopting a bilingual system of education in this country. Now, on the eve of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, we have a most serious question on language being raised. It is that Malay should be the lingua franca of this country. Sir, I wonder why all political leaders who champion the cause of making the Malay language the lingua franca are not interested in this debate so that we may be given a more detailed explanation, especially from someone who has sat on the Education Committee. This Committee has decided and formulated our education policy - a policy which gives equal treatment to all schools; in other words, English schools, Malay schools, Chinese schools and Tamil schools. Now suddenly on the eve of the elections, we have this serious question of language being raised, that is, Malay must be made the lingua franca of Singapore. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Education whether it is a political move or whether it is actually a necessity for this country, especially when we consider the Budget lying in front of us. We can see how much money is going to be spent on Malay education and how much money is going to be spent on English, Chinese and Tamil schools. I wish also the Minister for Education to answer this question. What improvement is expected in introducing various languages in English schools'? We learn that Chinese is being taught in English schools, Malay in English schools, Tamil in English schools. What progress has been made? I do not know whether he has at hand any figures of any survey to show the extent of the cultural stream of this country, and the various cultural influences which have an important bearing on our life. Has the Government failed to tell the people and the leaders (of course, not much blame should be attached to the Education Ministry alone) that multilingual education has already been accepted in this country as our education policy? Why is it that on the eve of the elections the question has been raised to make Malay the lingua franca in this country? Sir, I have figures supplied by my friend, Mr George Thomson, about the various newspapers circulating in Malaya and Singapore. A large figure of about 400,000 copies a day is given as being in circulation. But, Sir, you will be surprised that among these 400,000 copies of various newspapers of various languages, the Chinese newspapers have 210,000 copies, excluding magazines, and those which we call "mosquito" papers. We are judging only from the Chinese language newspapers. Of the English language papers, the figure given is about 130,000 to 140,000 copies a day. Malay is about 30,000 to 40,000 copies a day. Tamil is about 7 per cent of the total. Therefore, judging from the papers, we can know which language is influential and which language is popular in this country. Yet, Sir, at this juncture when we are just coming towards self-government, we have this language question being raised again. I want to know why. If I am not wrong, even in the Federation of Malaya, the Chinese Schools Conference on Malay have forced the M.C.A. to have a big conference in Ipoh not long ago to fight for the Chinese to make Chinese an official language in the Federation of Malaya. On the contrary, Sir, in Singapore we see some ambitious, selfish and shortsighted political leaders who want to confuse the issue again by bringing up this controversy, since they have already said that the Progressives were strongly against multilingualism. Now where are the Progressives? This language problem arises again on the eve of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. I wish the Minister for Education can give us a clear-cut analysis, so that we can recollect what we have agreed in the All-Party Committee on Education, and whether this Government is now prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to make Malay the lingua franca of this country, and deny the Chinese language, the English language, the Tamil language, the status of official languages. What we have agreed to have in Singapore is multi-lingualism. Sir, you may be surprised at what connection all this has with our education policy. I have quoted from a newspaper which says that "graduation means unemployment". A student, either from the primary school or from Nanyang University, does not know what to do or where to go after graduation. After he has spent, say, 17 years of his education in Chinese, he is told suddenly to take up Malay because this country has not accepted the Chinese language as the official language. That would mean more unemployment. There would be no chance to find employment. Therefore, to me the education policy, especially one that has a Pan-Malayan outlook, is of vital importance to this country. Every language in this multi-racial country should be respected. I am a very poor linguist, and I know very little of languages. Yet I do not care. Language is only just an instrument of expression. The language itself is, I should say, a dead or lifeless instrument. It is only our feelings and thoughts that make the language lively and beautiful. Why must we deny the Chinese language and the English language their proper place in our culture? Why should we elect, on the eve of the elections, to hail the Malay language, and make it the lingua franca of Singapore? We do not have the courage to tell our people here that language itself is nothing; that it is lifeless. It is the person (his thoughts, his mind and his feelings) who controls and exercises it, and who uses it to express himself, that counts. How many Englishmen in this world today can challenge the beautiful English, either in speech or in writing, of Mr Nehru? How many English poets dare to deny that the Indian poet Tagore is not great? Who can say that, because Tagore and Nehru are so expert in the use of the English language, therefore they are traitors? That they are not genuine nationalists? Nobody dares to deny that. In this country, I think none of us has made so much sacrifices as Mr Nehru had when he fought for his country's independence. It is a shame to the national leaders in this country who have achieved high positions. I am not excluding myself. I include myself! It is a real shame! We have not been imprisoned for one day. We have not shed a single drop of blood. Yet we say we are the champions of nationalism! We must abolish the English language! We must deny the Chinese language! Instead, we must hail the Malay language! I have full confidence in and great respect for Tunku Abdul Rahman's wisdom, sincerity and honesty. I bet you, Sir, the U.M.N.O. leaders never fool the Malay ra'ayat. The Malay ra'ayat have never been fooled by opportunists who say that if we hail Malay as the lingua franca, there will be a merger and all the trouble in this country can be resolved. Sir, I would like to go a bit deeper into this subject. We have read from the Press that there were riots in Ceylon, Bombay and Calcutta - three big cities. Over what, Sir? Over the language and cultural issues. After that, racial clashes followed. So this is a serious warning for this country. I hope the Minister for Education can give us an assurance that he will not make Singapore a second Ceylon and have language and cultural conflicts just over the question of language. 11.00 a.m. Let the students in all schools have a full assurance that what they learn in school will be useful to the country in future. In concluding my speech on the general aspect of language, I have two questions to ask the Minister. Has he decided to open all available classrooms in all schools? From information I have gathered, there are vacant classrooms in Chung Cheng High School and Chung Hwa Girls' School. Secondly, what is he going to do about the large numbers of over-age students, especially those from the rural areas? The Minister assured us that they were going to secondary evening schools. But the rural residents have to attend evening schools in town. I think it is quite difficult for them to attend evening schools in town. Therefore, I wish the Minister will find a solution for those over-age students who attend schools in the rural areas and who are denied the right to attend secondary schools here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to see that the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru is absent.

Order. I have requested honourable Members not to make any personal references.

Sir, I am making that reference because he is not here to listen to the reply that he is after.

Order. I think the Hon. Minister knows that Members of Parliament do not sit right through Budget debates. I think the honourable Member for Tiong Bahru will have ample opportunity to read the Hansard.

As you please, Sir, I am bound by your ruling. Sir, the hon. Member for Serangoon has asked me several questions. I will answer them one by one. Evening classes are meant for all those who have, either for one reason or another, failed to get into the secondary section because they are over-age or because they have failed the entrance examination to the secondary schools. There will be places for all these people. There are, of course, exceptions. I will not make places available for those who are already attending day schools or private schools and wanting to attend evening classes just to brush up on their studies. These evening classes are the same as the day schools. The pupils in these classes will be given, as I have stated in this House many a time, education leading up to the Senior Middle III examination, the Royal Society of Arts, and the Senior Cambridge. The hon. Member also referred to the youth movement and playing field facilities not being made use of. I wish to inform him that there is already a section called the Youth Recreation Section in the Ministry of Labour and Welfare under a Director who has been seconded from the United States of America. He is working in close liaison with my Ministry to see that all the playing fields are being made use of and not being left idle; and he is to co-ordinate all youth activities in this Colony. As regards Tamil education, I take this opportunity to inform the House that Government has taken over two Tamil schools as Government schools. One is the St. George's Road Tamil School and the other is another Tamil school near the Hospital quarters. The question of giving better salaries to Tamil teachers with the requisite qualifications is also being pursued vigorously, and I think the Tamil teachers will have no qualms about their salary scale. The question of further Tamil education will be the subject of discussion by the Education Council which is being set up under the new education law. The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru insisted that we must have teachers at any cost. I hope he can, by magic, produce them out of a hat! Teachers must be trained and it takes time to train them. To staff the secondary schools, we must have graduate teachers and it is difficult to get them because there are other professions which they would like to join. The Ministry has been trying to make the teaching profession as attractive as possible for University graduates, in order to get them to become teachers or Education Officers. We have not been very successful. Therefore, we just cannot say the word and the teachers will be there. The hon. Member also deplored the provision for free textbooks. He accused me of reducing the grant for free textbooks from $300,000 this year to $151,000 for 1959. I wish he had made some efforts at getting the facts. It is true in 1958 we have provided a sum of $300,000 but up to this very day - in fact, up to the end of the year - only about $131,000 has been expended under that item. I think hon. Members of this House will appreciate that we must have a realistic estimate. We cannot come to this House and ask for $500,000 just to make it impressive when the expenditure will only be about $100,000. Based on the experience of providing free textbooks for 1958, we have put that figure at $151,000, which is more realistic. The hon. Member also mentioned that pupils are being thrown out of classrooms or schools just because of free textbooks. I wish he could produce facts and give me evidence of students leaving school just because they have no textbooks. In my three years and nine months' experience in the Ministry of Education, I have never come across one single case. The hon. Member also mentioned something about the leakage of examination papers and that I should be responsible. I gave a statement to this House not so long ago regarding the leakage in the English entrance examination. We know the source of the leakage. I cannot certainly be held responsible just because a man became dishonest. I cannot be responsible for the workings of the minds of people, much less the workings of the mind of the Member for Tiong Bahru! He also deplored the fact that children had been posted to schools far away from their homes. Well, this system of placing children close to their homes was instituted by me in 1955 or 1956. The Ministry has been working under great pressure, and it is almost inevitable that there must be some children who will have to travel a bit further from their homes. I myself, when I went to school, had to walk six miles through an estate road to go to school. I never complained; neither did my parents complain. I think the public should not be pampered too much. They want schools right at their door-step! They must make an effort to go to school. For a person living in Tiong Bahru to go to Kim Seng Road, less than half a mile away, I think that is a very lame excuse indeed to make in this House. The hon. Member also mentioned that out of the 15,000 children who sat for the entrance examination, about 7,000 would be able to get into the secondary section. I think I made a public statement through the Press that anyone who passed that examination would be given a place in the secondary section and those who failed would be given a place in the evening classes. Well, that leads me to the question of secondary education, a subject on which the Member for Tiong Bahru laboured for a long time. I think in this country we are putting secondary education on a basis which far exceeds that of other countries. Even in very advanced countries like the United Kingdom, the percentage is only about 25 to 27 per cent of the primary section going up to the secondary section. Now in this country we are promoting about 46 to 50 per cent of them. The crux of the matter is - can we afford it? When the Government raise taxes, people shout at us. We have criticisms from the Opposition. Now what is that money for? The money is for providing education. Yet, in view of the financial stringency, we cannot afford to give everyone a secondary education merely because he needs it, he wants it, or he demands it. The Education Ministry is responsible for seeing that those who can benefit by it will get it. The hon. Member for Changi touched on the question of a Pan-Malayan education policy, Malay being the lingua franca. I cannot voice my policy here in that regard. I have been faithfully carrying out the recommendations made by the All-Party Committee on Education of which I was the Chairman and of which the hon. Member for Changi was a member. If I had not faithfully carried them out, I would have heard murmurs of protest. But not one murmur have I heard from any member of that Committee saying that I had failed in my duty in carrying out those recommendations. Everyone of the recommendations has been implemented. As regards the question of Malay being the lingua franca, I think that is a political matter which must be decided by the political parties in the coming elections. I am not competent to formulate my own policy on that matter. As regards the vernacular classes being carried on in the English schools, the hon. Member for Changi asked whether there was any progress. I told him, I think, in this House and in private, that there is progress. The teaching of vernacular languages in English schools is made compulsory, and the marks obtained in this examination count in the record, and every child has been made to take his own vernacular language. 11.15 a.m. As regards the vacant places in Chung Cheng and Chung Hwa Schools, about which the hon. Member for Changi is anxious, I will say this: I will not allow them to be opened merely because of over-age pupils. No. Over-age pupils can get, as I say, into the evening classes for which they are meant, and I will not open them merely because there may be a few over-age pupils who want to study in those schools. The over-age pupils can get into the evening classes, including those over-age pupils in the rural areas to which the hon. Member referred. If the need arises, I will open evening classes in the rural areas to suit the convenience of those over-age pupils. I think those are the points that I have to answer, Sir.

Just a clarification from the Minister, Sir. The Hon. Minister has just said that in the United States only 26 per cent are able, after passing the primary school examination, to go to secondary schools, if I heard him correctly.

The United Kingdom!

Then in Singapore almost 50 per cent of the primary school students are able to go to secondary schools. When I quoted my figures, the Minister did not contradict them. My figures are - in English schools we have 145,000 children; in Chinese schools 135,000 children; in Malay schools 15,000 children and in Indian schools 2,000 children. There are approximately 300,000 school-going children. Out of this number, we have in primary schools 250,000 children, taking it as a whole, and in secondary schools only 42,000 children. That is the 1957 record. In the technical schools there are only 2,000 children and in the universities there are 3,000 children. So, from among the 250,000 children in the primary schools, only 42,000 children are going to secondary schools. How does the Minister reconcile his statement that 50 per cent of the children are being given facilities to go to secondary schools?

The hon. Member for Farrer Park must not confuse himself with those figures. The 300,000 children now in school - they have been there since the last six years and the increase in the intake in the last few years has been phenomenal. Each year we take in about 20,000 children. The children take six years to reach the Primary VI stage where they will have to take the entrance examination. I have said that 46 to 50 per cent of the children who gain admission to the secondary section are those who have sat for the examination. That means not all the 300,000 sit for the examination surely, but those who sit for the examination are the Primary VI classes. The hon. Member must not confuse this with the total figure of 300,000 in the schools.

I just want to ask about the progress of the reorganisation in the Ministry of Education since the appointment of the able Permanent Secretary to the Ministry. I understand that the Chinese Section of the Ministry has been abolished entirely and absorbed into the administration. As a result, there have been many complaints of inconvenience raised in the editorials of the daily newspapers and also in the column "Man-in-the-Street". I wonder if the Minister can enlighten us on the progress of the reorganisation in the Ministry. Chinese school principals who receive notices, although they are now being written in Chinese, do not know which officer to go to. Letters have been missed and some files have been mislaid. They cannot directly go to the officer who controls the matter. I hope the Minister for Education will take this opportunity to enlighten us on the complaints and the inconveniences caused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to have been given this opportunity to answer the question as regards the reorganisation in my Ministry. It is not the result of the appointment of the present Permanent Secretary. That idea was mooted just before he became the Permanent Secretary.

It was not.

Thanks to reorganisation, we have been able to streamline the administration. Previously, the Chinese section only knew the Chinese Inspectorate. Only the Chinese Section knew everything about the Chinese section, and matters never went further than that section. Now, it is being streamlined and administrative duties are being separated from professional duties. I think the accusation that Chinese school principals do not know where to go to get advice in the Ministry is utter nonsense.

It is not nonsense.

It is utter nonsense because they have been told where to go to. We have Chinese officers who speak Mandarin and other dialects in the various Sections. For instance, in the Staff Section, we have a Chinese Inspector of Chinese schools helping the Staff Officer to interview all the Chinese school principals. In the Professional Section, there are also officers who know the Chinese language dealing with professional matters. So the complaint that the Chinese school principals do not know where to go to is sheer utter nonsense, uttered without any responsibility at all. The irregularity of files missing is another bit of sheer nonsense. Because of the previous practice of having one Section dealing only with a special section of the public, there was no co-ordination at all between the professional side and the administrative side. That is why the files were missing. It is not because of reorganisation, but it is because of the pre-reorganisation practice.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $63,539,180 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 47- The sum of $289,060 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $135,450 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy - That the sum to be allotted for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Sir, I have already dealt with what I wanted to raise in Head 7. Therefore, Sir, I withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

The hon. Member is not moving. Will the hon. Member indicate whether that also applies to Head 50* and Head 54+? The following amendments stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy - * Head 50- That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein. + Head 54- That the sum to be allocated for Head 54 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1 therein.

Yes, Sir.

We will then delete the amendments from the Order Paper. Question proposed. "That the sum of $34,362,690 for Head 49 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, I want to make a few remarks for the benefit of the incoming Government. This is the Department of Health - there is one run by the Government and another run by the City Council. If this can be made into one, either under the City Council or under the Government, the taxpayer will be saved the cost of administration. Further, there will be co-ordination. This has been clarified by my colleague, the hon. Member for Tanglin. I want to emphasise that the incoming Government should do its very best so that administration costs come down, but with co-ordination remaining, of course.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $34,362,690 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 50- Question proposed, "That the sum of $782,560 for Head 50 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, this is a department which exists not only in Singapore but in many other countries as a result of what happened during the war and after the war - that is the misery brought about by war - and it has become a very essential department, costing the taxpayers a lot of money. We do not object to that. What I want to suggest is this: that, as far as Singapore is concerned, unemployment has grown to a very, very large extent. I would suggest that the incoming Government should formulate a policy that at least one member of a family should have some sort of employment. If that is done, the cost of giving support from the revenue to the unemployed will be greatly reduced. At the same time, the head of the family, or the bread-winner, will be proud that he is not living on the dole or at the mercy of charity. That is all I have to say under this, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $782,560 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 51- The sum of $1,106,620 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52- The sum of $888,530 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 53- The sum of $11,664,400 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54- The sum of $150,870 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55- The sum of $3,293,000 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56- The sum of $972,500 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $10,350,430 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58- The sum of $3,859,220 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59- The sum of $7,847,200 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60- The sum of $4,948,410 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. 11.30 a.m. SECOND SCHEDULE- Head D 11- The sum of $415,000 for Head D 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 15- The sum of $719,100 for Head D 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 17- The sum of $1,501,500 for Head D 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 22-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. Sir, it is very regrettable that the amount for the building of houses for the public should be reduced next year under this Head to $7 million when we have spent $21 million for building these houses this year. Only one-third of the amount will be spent on providing houses for the public next year, and it is all the more regrettable because there are 15,000 people on the waiting list. It is very sad for me, Sir, to have to inform those who come to seek my aid to get a Singapore Improvement Trust house for them, that unless they were registered a few years ago their hope of ever getting one for the next ten years is exactly nil. Sir, this situation is aggravated by the private housing estates having come to a grinding halt: firstly, because they are now unable to obtain loans from building societies; and, secondly, because the City Council has suddenly changed its policy by demanding payment for electricity and water mains leading to the estate. These charges up to a few months ago were paid by the City Council based on a consumption rate of a period of five years. Now, developers are asked to pay for public mains leading from the last section on the main road to the estate - and it may be half a mile. To do this for an estate of just over 100 houses may cost $150,000, and this money must be paid to the City Council before the water and electricity mains are laid and taken up to the boundaries of that estate. Sir, housing, next to employment, is the most important need in Singapore today and we cannot possibly sit tight and do nothing about it. To my mind, there is one solution to that problem, and that is by studying the growth and position of the illegal houses that have sprung up during the past three years. These houses are built with plank and zinc out of the poorest material - in many cases of waste timber, and the zinc is of the thinnest gauge and will rust and leak within two to three years. It is no use closing our eyes to the defiance of the law by people who have just gone right ahead to build these houses, and exploit the unfortunate people who are short of housing, without submitting plans, without trying to subdivide the land and provide proper drainage or roads. They just go on to the land and build. There are now today about 9,000 to 10,000 of such houses and they are inhabited by people who have paid from $3,000 to $8,000 per house, the price depending upon the distance from the main road. In addition to this cash payment, they have to sign leases of 20 to 30 years, under which they have to pay to the owner of the land or to the lessee (the developer) $10 or $15 per month, and at the end of the period they will have to vacate the land. Sir, I have studied the position carefully because many people have come to ask me to try and get these houses approved by the City Council or the Rural Board. I have spent much time going and seeing these houses and interviewing the people who have bought them. From my own investigations, I have found that the illegal speculator has made at least $2,000 per house, and taking an average, say, of $2,000 per house on 10,000 houses, these people have cleared a fortune of $20 million. No wonder, Sir, this racket is now spreading like wild fire, and hundreds of such houses are going up every week. No one can be so blind as not to notice them on the roadside in the course of construction, row after row and street after street. If you will only take the trouble to look behind these houses, you will see rows and rows going right into the hinterland. What better business can you have than this one? It is better than running a gambling farm or even smuggling. Sir, the dreadful part of it is this. When these operators run out of land, which they have obtained with the consent of the owners, they simply go on to any vacant land and build without the permission of the owners. We know two or three cases where the owners protested; they took action, and a murder was attempted. These operators protect themselves by making purchasers sign receipts that the houses have been built by the purchaser at his request. To my astonishment, there are many people who are willing to pay for such flimsy houses which require constant repair, without light or water, and sometimes no drainage, and they are liable to be pulled down over their ears. Let us examine the legal aspect as I see it. The owner of the land and the speculator have committed three offences under the law. First, by subdividing the land without the approval of the Competent Authority; secondly, by granting a lease of more than seven years without subdividing the land; and thirdly, by building houses without approved plans. For each of these offences, the builder is liable to a fine of $1,000, and/or a fine of $50 a day for a continuing offence until the houses are demolished. Sir, this is indeed a severe punishment and I understand some owners of the land and some speculators have already been before the Courts, but this is not all. In my humble opinion, there is no legal liability for any of the occupiers or tenants of such illegal houses to pay the $10 or $15 rent under the lease, for it is a fundamental principle of law that anyone who comes to Court for justice must have clean hands, and I cannot see any Court granting judgment or a writ of distress to people on contracts which are based on such breaches of the law. The legal position is that if such tenants, who have already been extorted to the tune of $2,000 to $5,000, refuse to pay any further for the right to stay in their houses, they cannot be brought to Court. Sir, we must now face the situation squarely. Are we to punish those people who have parted with their savings because they were so desperate for a house that they have had to pay for something which they knew to be of no value, taking the risk of being prosecuted in Court and having their houses demolished? Are we not in part to blame for it? If the Singapore Improvement Trust had not broken down in its programme in 1955 and 1956, many of these people would have got a roof over their heads. What have we done to discourage the unscrupulous people from flouting the law? Clearly, Sir, no government in power and none of us in this House can have the heart to see 10,000 families thrown into the streets. It is a situation which we must accept but which must not be aggravated under any circumstances. The situation is like a reservoir that has burst its darn. There is no way of stopping the raging torrent. We can only control its course or contain it by letting the flood run into proper sites. I therefore make the following suggestions. First, accept illegal houses which were constructed and inhabited prior to the 31st of December, 1958. All such houses, except those which have been built against the wishes of the owner of the land, should be given temporary permits. Secondly, encourage and approve with all possible speed schemes of private building estates for the construction of low-cost houses for sale under $6,000. Thirdly, use all the land that is earmarked for satellite towns in the areas of Woodlands, Sembawang and Jurong for subdivision into small lots, and sell it to the people who will then be able to build their own houses according to approved plans. Fourthly, take drastic steps to prevent any further attemps to build after this year by imposing maximum fines. Sir, punishment is not enough. Such illegal development must be contained, and it can be done if the Government acquire land around these settlements and then proceed to cut up this land into small lots after providing drains, roads, light and water. These lots can then be sold to the people who will have houses to live in. By doing this, you will have stopped the extension of these illegal houses and will have saved private owners from the headache of putting watchmen on their land. 11.45 a.m. The first reaction to my proposal will be that it infringes upon the Master Plan, but this is not so. It is provided for under the Report of the Land Clearance and Resettlement Working Party issued as Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 27 of 1956. At page 13, I read: "It is emphasised that considerable reliance is placed in the Master Plan on the continued erection of temporary dwellings on `tolerated' sites in the Urban Area and on rural resettlement in the Rural Area. They make a significant contribution to the overall housing problem, and the estimated requirement of 10,000 permanent houses a year to be built to solve the housing problem over the next 20 years, which is a basic assumption of the Plan, would have to be revised if this contribution were not made." There is under this paragraph a table giving the names of 16 kampongs where such houses could be built together with areas and the numbers of families which can be housed. I do not propose to read the figures, but I would like hon. Members to hear the names of the Kampongs: 1-Heap Guan San; 2-Radin Mas; 3-Geylang Serai (Malay Farm); 4-Bukit Arang; 5-Bartley Road; 6-Chantek; 7-Bukit Theresa; 8-Woodleigh; 9-Kallang Pudding; 10-Bedok; 11-Paya Lebar; 12-Tampenis; 13-Serangoon; 14-Jalan Eunos; 15-MacPherson Road South; and 16-Wak Tanjong, covering an area of just over 2,000 acres where a population of nearly 100,000 already live, and where there is a site capacity for a future 9,000 families which is about the number of families already settled there by this illegal housing system. Sir, it will be noticed then that most of these houses have been built in the "tolerated" sites, and if the developers had chosen to bide their time and submit plans to the Competent Authority, these houses would have been approved; but being unscrupulous businessmen they could not afford to wait for the time. It has taken me, in some cases, nearly two years to have plans approved for 100 houses, and at that rate, for 10,000 houses it will take an eternity. Therefore, who can blame them for building before the plans are approved? Sir, why should we then not decide to accept the houses already built, but from now to decide that anyone who chooses to try and build houses for the public must conform with the law and provide houses at a reasonable price and not at an extortionate price? The time is now ripe because I consider illegal houses have reached a saturation point. Some builders are finding difficulty in disposing of hastily built houses. Buyers are more selective. Now is the time to move in and build a dam so that the torrent which has now subsided should not be allowed to run wild again. Let us give notice to intending breakers of the law that after the end of this year we shall no longer tolerate any further action to build without plans being approved. Are we so blind that we cannot make use of the clear indication given by these 10,000 houses? They show that people will help themselves if Government will not, that they do not have to be pampered and live in ten-storey flats with modern facilities; that the Government do not have to spend $60 million on Singapore Improvement Trust houses, and after having spent $60 million, to have to subsidise half the rent again, thereby running into many millions more. They show that the people are prepared to pay thousands of dollars for a shack, maintain and repair it, and live for years without light and water and even drainage. All they want is Government to provide the land, subdividing and selling it to them in small lots, and they will do the rest. By using a revolving fund of $1 million, Government will not have to spend a single cent to enable another 10,000 houses to be built by people who are only too anxious and waiting to help themselves. Sir, this $1 million can easily be raised by selling some of the Singapore Improvement Trust flats to the people who live in them and who can well afford to pay. I believe there is a block built for the particular purpose of being sold to tenants. I think it was at Dawson Road. Surely that block should be sold to provide the money for this scheme. This is not the first time that I have brought to the attention of this House this very difficult position. It has caused me considerable worry. I have spent much time and trouble studying the whole position and I think I have presented a case to this House which is reasonable and which can be accepted by all Members.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein." The hon. Member has ranged far and wide in his speech. I have allowed him to continue, as I take it that housing is remotely connected with this grant for the Singapore Improvement Trust. The motion is now open to discussion and there may be a debate on housing in general.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support every word spoken by the Member for Paya Lebar. In my opinion, Sir, the two main problems which face Government, and for that matter any future Government, are education and housing. Since I was elected a representative of the people in 1950 to this very day, the main work that I have got to do for the people of Singapore, especially in my ward, is to get housing accommodation for them. I have been a constant nuisance to the Singapore Improvement Trust, visiting them practically every week and trying to find out for those who have applied for accommodation for the last three or four years, whether they could get it, and the answer that I receive week in and week out is practically the same, "Be patient, and you might hear some favourable results in the near future." I think the Singapore Improvement Trust has not been successful in tackling the housing problem. As has been said by the Member for Paya Lebar, we now see a lot of illegal houses being built, in spite of the fact that the people who buy them and live in them know very well that there is no likelihood of staying in them permanently. This shows very clearly that there is a pressing need for housing. I am just wondering why, apart from the suggestions put up by the Member for Paya Lebar - that is, to legalise these illegal buildings; to encourage private enterprise to build low-cost housing of not more than $6,000; and to sell some of the S.I.T. houses - Government has not also considered raising loans from the public. Is it because Government is afraid that if a loan were to be raised, it would receive the same response as the City Council received some time back, Sir? Personally, I maintain that in spite of the criticisms made by Members of the Opposition, this is a good Government and it has got the confidence of the people. I believe that if a loan were to be raised, it would be fully subscribed, if not over-subscribed. The people of Singapore, especially those in responsible positions, have a high sense of duty and any stable Government's project to help the lower income group in a big way will have the support of these people because, if they have made their money in Singapore, I am quite sure they will consider it their duty to help the people of Singapore. I hope, Sir, that the Government, which is asking for $7 million, will not stop at that but that it will find ways and means of providing more houses for the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at Head D22, I am surprised at the low figure that is earmarked for housing for next year. According to the Estimates, the amount approved for the three schemes totals over $91 million. In 1957, $30 million was paid out; this year, $21 million is to be paid out; but for next year the amount to be paid out is only estimated at $7 million. I cannot see why this figure should be reduced from $30 million in 1957 to $21 million this year and then to $7 million for next year. It appears to me that the S.I.T. is not pushing ahead with its housing schemes and that it is rather backward with its housing schemes. To combat this, I am glad that the Minister has made an announcement in today's Singapore Standard that the Government will build low-cost houses. I quote from today's Singapore Standard: "Singapore Government will early next year sell 100 low-cost houses to Malays whose monthly income is below $400." 12.00 noon. This is very good news indeed because this will help quite a number of people, who have applied for S.I.T. houses, to be housed under this low-cost housing scheme. But I am disappointed that this low-cost housing is only for the benefit of the Malays. I would prefer that the Government, in introducing this scheme, looks after the interests of all communities rather than only one community, because the Government is responsible to the whole of Singapore and not to just one particular community. As I say, if this scheme is open for allotment to everybody then everybody will have a chance to apply for these houses at low cost. At the moment I am told that there are more than 14,000 on the waiting list for houses. How is the S.I.T. going to house all these 14,000, when only $7 million is earmarked for next year? This is really too slow. The S.I.T. has been attacked on many occasions for its allocation system. A special committee was recently set up to call for suggestions from the public, Assemblymen and City Councillors, and all other organizations and political Parties. It is very disappointing to note that only 21 sent in suggestions for allocation of houses. If there are criticisms against the S.I.T., it is the duty of the critics to send in suggestions for consideration. I cannot understand why the public or political organisations are not interested in making any suggestions. I can only hope that, with the introduction of this new scheme, it will beat the racket of illegal houses, as quoted by the Member for Paya Lebar. It is a known fact that illegal houses have sprung up everywhere - in the Amber Road area, in the Bartley Road area, and many other places. Cases have gone to Court, as quoted in the papers recently, and certainly I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar that it is not the occupants who break the law, but the racketeers. Unfortunately, the law is such that although the buildings of the racketeers are considered to be illegal, the landowner, ignorant of the law, is also brought to Court. This is really unfair. When the City Council was considering the question of housing in the attap areas, which was reported in the newspapers, a few racketeers get themselves together and started building houses either on their own land or on other people's land. As quoted by the Member for Paya Lebar, these unscrupulous racketeers take advantage by selling these illegally erected houses to people who are looking for houses and who are prepared to move in, not knowing that the houses are illegal. And when these people apply to the Council for assessment after a few months' occupation, they realise that these houses are illegal, and the poor tenants are thus victimised. I cannot see why the Government should not stamp it out now. As the Member for Paya Lebar said, "This is now the time to step in and stop further illegal houses." He has put forward three suggestions one of which is: accept illegal houses which were constructed and inhabited prior to 31st December, 1958. All such houses, except those which have been built against the wishes of the owner of the land, are to be given temporary permits. I fully agree with him, but not with the date, because there are about 12 to 13 days between now and 31st December, and when this debate gets into the papers after today's sitting, and if the Government really considers this scheme acceptable, I am afraid the operators will again start building illegal houses within this short period. We have known that such houses can be built within a day or two or overnight, as in the case of Amber Road. So within these 12 days if about 100 houses can be built overnight, we will find another few thousand houses springing up within this short period. We should take action against those who build after today, and that is quite fair. We have relaxed the law so much that such operations have been going on and on, and I think the Government should stop it as from today. Only then are we able to protect the occupants of such illegal houses. They had to borrow money to buy them and, after having borrowed money to pay for them, they find that the houses and the land do not belong to them, nor can they stay in the houses. If the Government is really accepting this scheme, I hope it will not be the 31st of December, 1958, but it will be from today, and drastic action should be taken against those who build houses as from today onwards. The Member for Paya Lebar said that a fine is not sufficient. I agree. What is the use of imposing a fine on a man who puts up a house illegally and benefited by it by a few thousand dollars? Apart from the fine, the house should be demolished. Concrete action should be taken, not on paper only, or mere words. If a demolition order is issued by the Court, action should immediately follow and the house pulled down. But for those who have already received demolition orders, as quoted by the Member for Paya Lebar, I hope the Government will try to introduce something so that the Court could be given the powers to withdraw those demolition orders and that they be given assessment, or given the authority to stay. This requires some amendment to the law, and I do hope the Government will consider taking quick action to do so. The Minister for Housing made a statement to the Singapore Standard, which I now quote from that paper of today's date: "He said that as far as the Malays were concerned, Singapore Improvement Trust houses are a failure. The majority of them, he said, could not afford to pay the rent for S.I.T. houses." But where I am concerned, I think the S.I.T. is a complete and a total failure. It is not only the Malays who consider the S.I.T. a failure, but all the communities in Singapore - the Chinese, the Malays, the Indians, everyone who requires a house - consider the S.I.T. is a complete failure. So the sooner the Housing Authority comes into being, the better it is for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the hon. Member for Paya Lebar's views with great interest, because they are of considerable merit and because my Ministry is in fact already working along lines similar to those he has outlined. As my Ministry is in charge of housing, Sir, I am still convinced that the best policy for Government in the long run will be to provide permanent housing, as the saving in the cost of repairs and maintenance will eventually offset the additional expense of erecting permanent buildings and as in "land-short" Singapore, the maximum ultilization of land is desirable. However, in view of the present economic situation, limiting the number of permanent houses which can be built, and on the other hand, taking into account the alarming number of unauthorised temporary houses that have sprung up, it has become clear that a fresh approach to the problem has to be made. Our main problem, therefore, is how the present monies allocated for housing can most profitably be used for permanent housing needs, as well as take account of this emergency situation. The present policies my Ministry is following and the new approaches being explored to solve this problem are: Squatters on land required for permanent development are either offered S.I.T. accommodation or, alternatively, they are offered a plot of land and a temporary house. One of the hon. Member's solutions is an extension of this alternative scheme of resettlement; My Ministry is now working on a small pilot scheme, whereby Government will provide the main services including road access, layout into building lots and will invite applications from the public; The suggestion of facilitating the private development of low-cost housing is already being studied. This involves two main proposals: (1) S.I.T. planning approval in respect of densities, layout, sub-division, and (2) local authority approval in respect of building requirements laid down in the building by-laws. The hon. Member may be aware of a prototype scheme which is already under consideration, having been carefully examined by both the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Rural Board. We shall be better able to judge the merits of this scheme once it has been completed. The hon. Member will appreciate that temporary solutions often give rise to greater problems in the long run. Minimum standards of density, open space, community requirements would also have to be agreed in each case. There are also fire, health and social hazards to be considered. Access roads, layouts and building standards are also important. It is essential that the greatest care must be taken unless we want to add to our problems instead of solving them. From my foregoing remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Paya Lebar can feel assured that housing in all its aspects is receiving the closest attention by my Ministry and that his views will be followed up. Sir, in reply to criticisms about the delays in respect of applications for approval of plans, I wish to tell hon. Members in this House that all applications received up to 19th March, 1958, are being dealt with on 6th May, 1958, and those received on 1st April are being dealt with by 20th May. The latest lot that the S.I.T. received on 8th October are being dealt with on 4th November. Sir, from these, hon. Members will know that plans received by the S.I.T. are now dealt with with the minimum delay. In reply to the hon. Member for Queenstown, I have to tell him that the $7 million estimated to be paid in 1959 is a standstill figure, and we have got $2 million more in addition to this $7 million estimated for 1959, and it is up to the next Government to plan for any additional expenditure. 12.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of the growing population and the 15,000 applicants who are still without accommodation, the Government has allotted much less than the previous year for housing. Although $7 million has been allotted for the Singapore Improvement Trust for the building of houses, I have not seen any other allocations on this item.

Order. The hon. Member will probably take some time?

Yes, Sir.

Then it is time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this Assembly. I will take this Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.17 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of debate on Question, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein."-[Mr Lim Koon Teck].

2.31 p.m. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the interval I was reminded by a Member of this House that I should have read the Budget and the Budget speech. I have read the Budget and the Budget speech. I realise the difficulties of the Government, the difficulty of geting more revenue and the difficulty of meeting more urgent needs, such as education, medical and other necessities. If we cannot allot more money to housing, that does not mean that we can just forget about it. We must start finding some remedy to improve the situation where practicable. When we mention housing, the people of Singapore automatically think of the Singapore Improvement Trust. The Singapore Improvement Trust has two duties to perform - one is housing and the other is planning. I have seen the Singapore Standard this morning, where the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing was quoted as saying that, as far as housing for the Malays is concerned, the Singapore Improvement Trust is a failure. I would like to go further than that. As far as housing in Singapore is concerned, the Singapore Improvement Trust is a, failure. When I say that, Sir, I do not mean that the houses being put up are bad. What they have put up is, I think, as good as is expected of them. But the Singapore Improvement Trust is not the only body which can carry out housing development in Singapore. Other countries which do not have an organisation like the Singapore Improvement Trust manage to solve their housing problem. The private individuals of Singapore have also contributed towards solving the housing problem. If I remember correctly, Sir, I think the number of buildings put up by private individuals is more or less what the Singapore Improvement Trust has built in all these years. The approach of the Singapore Improvement Trust to the housing problem is entirely wrong. It thinks of ideals. If we can, we all like to have ideals. But if we cannot, let us be practical. Housing is one of the three primary necessities of life. The other two are, of course, clothing and food. If a person cannot find a nice flat in which to stay, he ought to be satisfied with a room. If he cannot even get a room, then he should be satisfied with, say, a shack or a portion of a shack. If he cannot get even that, then he should be prepared to accept even a shed, whether there is any enclosure or not. On that question, I think the Singapore Improvement Trust's policy as regards housing is a failure. In this island, Sir, there are hundreds and thousands of attap huts. I do not think these people would like to stay in them. On the question of attap houses, Singapore is not the only example. All over Malaya, in fact, most countries of the world have this problem. I do not think any country, however fortunate it may be, can say there are enough houses for its people. I have mentioned the example of housing in Hongkong some months ago in this House. I was told by the Minister that is not good for Singapore. I have personally examined those buildings, and I have also examined those shacks built by them before they vacated to these apartments, with some of the Ministers of the Federation. I do agree that living in one room in a block of flats with five or six storeys with no elevators, is not ideal for anyone, and if possible, we should never do it. But necessity is really important in this matter. If you cannot afford to let them have bigger flats, with one bedroom, one sitting room, or even when the bathroom and W.C. are attached, then they should at least have a room where they can be protected from the weather. That is the reason why the Hongkong Government put up those flats. That is the reason why the housing officers in Hongkong told me to do the same. Today, there are 15,000 people on the waiting list for houses, and there is no chance in the near future that they all could be satisfied. So, as I said, we must try to find some other solution that can ease this housing shortage. I think I can safely say that I have been studying the housing problem for the last twenty years. Whenever I visit any foreign countries, whether in the East or the West or anywhere else, my primary concern has always been housing. Although I am an architect, I take more interest in trying to solve the problem of the poor man, by trying to find out how we can provide him with the maximum shelter which he can afford, than the problem of how to make the millionaires' houses more beautiful. The millionaire's house may be less beautiful but he will not suffer as much as the poor man. So, in this respect, the question of housing the poor is always close to my heart. From my experience for the last twenty years, it seems to me that the officers of the Singapore Improvement Trust who are responsible for planning are more concerned with how to make the gardens of the millionaires beautiful, rather than how to meet the necessities of the poor man. They possibly think that the sweat of the poor man could contaminate the air which the millionaire breathes, and as they are there to protect the millionaires and not the people of Singapore, they must turn down whatever reasonable schemes are submitted by the people. They are not the officers of the people. They are there to protect vested interests! They are there to protect the millionaires' gardens! They are there to protect the investors! Even today, having a small house or a semi-detached house next to a bungalow is considered a disgrace to them. It would automatically bring down the value of that district. Such is the type of officers we have in the Singapore Improvement Trust. I can say, Sir, that personally they have done me no wrong. But I am not here to speak for myself. I am here to speak for the people, and as far as the people are concerned, all these officers can go. When carrying out their duties, they may think, "I have created a few ideal towns. I have a few ideal planning schemes." They might even get some medals from the Town Planning Institute. But I can assure the officers concerned that these medals which they may have are stained with the blood of the people of Singapore. Their children would be only too pleased to get rid of them as a reminder of their forefathers' crime to the people of Singapore. When you ask the S.I.T. officers concerned, "What is wrong with my plan? Why do you not approve it?", they will reply, "It is not we who do not approve it. It is the Committee appointed by the Governor." I do not know under what qualifications these so-called committees have been appointed. But to me I can only conclude that they are appointed because they know nothing about housing so that they can be fooled by the officers of the Singapore Improvement Trust. I am not exaggerating when I say this. With your permission, I wish to quote a case which occurred only two weeks ago. I attended a meeting to consider some of the plans. They concerned a semi-detached house in Holland Road. The officers objected to it. Naturally I asked them what was the objection. They said that the area had nice residences, and the bungalow was a semi-detached house. I asked what was wrong with it. They said that it did not conform to the amenities of the area. I asked them what amenities they were referring to, since opposite there was a graveyard and there were a few bungalows. Then I asked the planning officer at the meeting whether he agreed that the plan conformed to the density in the Master Plan. He replied that he agreed, but said that it still did not conform to the amenities of the area concerned. So I asked him what he meant by amenities and whether he could explain to me clearly. He said it was very easy. Since my house was a semi-detached one and the others were detached houses, I was not conforming to the amenities. For example, if a house was a two-storey building and the other a one-storey building, that was not conforming to the amenities. This was the reply I received from one of the officers. So I turned round and asked him to consider the whole lot of bungalows at Meyer Road and the six-storey hotel, whether he considered the six-storey hotel conformed to the amenities as reflected by the bungalows in Meyer Road. He said no. I was on the point of telling him that maybe it was because he had been so influenced by string-pulling that the word "amenity" had already changed its meaning. But I thought that it was no use talking to this type of people. They do not listen to your arguments. As I have said before, they have already made up their minds before you go in. So what is the use of talking? In another case, Sir, I went with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. After long consideration, they said: "Well, I have no objection now, but what about the future? You may change." That is the attitude you get from the Trust. About the future, Sir, who can foretell? Who can foretell what will be in 10 years' time? Could we have thought, 10 years ago, that we could have such political advancement in 1958? We never thought of it. We may plan, but really there is no way of foretelling the future. Such is the type of argument and obstruction put up by the Singapore Improvement Trust. Sir, every time I go to Hongkong, I am stunned - there is so vast a change that I sometimes think whether I have gone to the right place. They have apartment houses or flats, as you call here, 10 and 20 storeys high on the main road. But if you ever try to put up such sort of scheme in Singapore, they will ask you first, "Where is your car park?" Even if you tell them, "Oh, these are poor people; they do not have cars. They do not need car parks", the reply, Sir, will be, "Oh, these people will be rich one day. They will then have cars. Where is your solution?" I told them, Sir, and we also discussed this fully in the Building By-laws Revision Committee in the City Council some years ago. The question of a car park is not the responsibility of the individual. It is almost the universal practice all over the world for Governments to solve the question of car parks. If you consider that there should be no parking in the streets or side streets, then you should prohibit parking. If you are thinking of a way to prevent people parking, then the only thing to do is to impose a fee on it. You find it all over America. I think you can probably find it even in Hawaii. So, money alone is not sufficient to solve the housing problem. We must have an atmosphere in which sympathetic consideration is given by the Government officers concerned. It is then that we can attract not only foreign capital but also a lot of other capital which is now either in the bank or somewhere else. 2.45 p.m. Another point about the S.I.T. policy. The Member for Paya Lebar has suggested that S.I.T. flats could be sold to the people staying there and the money could be utilised to build more flats. I am strongly in support of that proposal, Sir,If the flats in town could be sold, why should not the fiats built by the S.I.T. be sold too? Another suggestion I would like to make is this. Governments all over the world, especially the United States, are subsidising housing in another form. They have made available to the people loans at a nominal interest. In that respect, Sir, we do not only solve the housing problem of that particular person, but also it can be used as the best weapon against Communism. If a person owns a house or owns property here, I am sure he is more attached to this country. He will also have less hatred and enmity towards those who have property and houses. We know very well, Sir, that we collect a lot of money in the Employees' Provident Fund from the public. Instead of investing this money somewhere else - I do not know whether they have or not, but I do know that a lot of money in Singapore has been invested somewhere else - I would suggest that this money be made available to housing estates towards solving one of the problems. The third question, Sir, concerns squatters. We are very sympathetic towards them. Whether they have the right legally or illegally to the land, they are there. Although there are some squatters who occupy the land and build houses for profit, most of them, however, stay there, not because they like to stay there but because that is the only place available for them to stay. The Government had recommended certain scales of compensation for these squatters, but every time it approached the squatters with this scheme, it was always turned down in the hope of getting something else. I think it is high time the Government should step in to solve the squatter problem. Without solving this problem, housing estates could not be built. If it is considered by the Government that those developers should contribute towards the cost of solving such a problem, I am all for it. This is a problem that is facing not only the developers but the Government as well. So I think the Government should formulate a policy and try to assist the developers. In the past, Sir, the question of private housing seemed to the Government to be a matter not worth considering. They would insist on what they wanted, although it could easily be relaxed under the circumstances. So, in this respect, I hope the Government will consider all these points, not as points of attack but as points of suggestion. I hope the next Government will take heed.

Sir, since my hon, friend has brought up Hongkong as an example - I was not quite sure whether he was advocating that Singapore should adopt the same policies for relieving the housing situation or not - but, since he has brought it up, perhaps I might advise the House of the size of the problem in Hongkong, with which the Hongkong authorities were confronted in comparison with the size of the problem here, because I think it is necessary that this matter should be put into perspective. In Hongkong, they were faced with an influx of population in 1949, 1950 and 1951, of round about three-quarters of a million people and they set up their attap huts and structures, little leantos, wherever they could find a space on the hillsides, in the open areas, on the pavements of the roads, in the streets and on the rooftops. In December 1953, a very severe fire broke out which rendered something like 50,000 people homeless. When I say homeless, I mean they lost just the attap shacks, the leantos in which they had been living. It was at that stage that the Hongkong Government decided that it was necessary to take the matter in hand in a big way, and in view of the size of the problem, it could only be solved by speed and by providing sub-standard housing. The squatter resettlement housing units to which my hon, friend has referred are seven-storey blocks, and each floor has communal bathing and latrine facilities, and the rooms are, to the best of my recollection, 10 ft. by 12 ft. in which a family of five are permitted to live. And they pay a rent of HK$14 a month. Through this means of putting up substandard basic subsistence housing, it has been possible for the Hongkong Government to house at the time I left, about a year ago, between a quarter of a million and 300,000 people who have been accommodated and taken off the streets. The size of the squatter problem still remaining was roughly the same number, about a quarter of a million to 300,000, and of those, some 60,000 to 70,000 were squatting on rooftops and there were still a certain number in the streets. Sir, I do suggest that in considering what has been done in Hongkong and what is desirable and appropriate for the people of Singapore, particularly in regard to the standard of housing, it is necessary to remember and put into perspective the respective problems confronting the two Governments.

Mr Speaker, in the jungles of Malaya monkeys swing from tree to tree with their long prehensile tails. In this Assembly the debate swings on from day to day with the long prehensile tongues of our Assemblymen.

Order. We had some reference to a monkey god, I recollect, and now I think the hon. Member is drawing a comparison between monkeys and Members of this Assembly. I suggest that that is unparliamentary. The Minister should withdraw that comparison.

I will certainly withdraw it, Sir, if you think it is an uncomplimentary comparison to make. I was really applauding the vigour with which this Assembly pursues the debate and the flood of oratory which has been poured forth! However, I come to the point I wish to make. I do not agree with the attacks made on the S.I.T. The matter has been discussed very frequently before. I would just remark in passing that, by quoting particular cases, or a selection of cases, you can make anything appear good or anything appear bad. You must have a much more thorough examination than that. But what I want to point out are two dangers which appear to me to follow possibly from the sort of speeches we have had made about the S.I.T. Even if all the faults alleged against the S.I.T. were true faults, then we would still need to have the services and the controls which the S.I.T. provides.

Not these men! 3.00 p.m.

It may well be that in any public service there are defects. They are operated by human beings, and human beings have defects; but you must not sacrifice the services for that reason, particularly in this matter. The housing and development matters of Singapore are absolutely vital for the poor people of Singapore - for the workers. And they must not be sacrified to ruthless exploitation by private property and private profit-making interests. That is the thing we have to guard against. That is why we have to have controls of all sorts, because the pressure of population on the land and housing resources is so great and the chance of exploitation is so great that you must have the best system of controls you can. Inevitably whenever you have controls, you have people who do not like them and there will be hard cases and there might even be injustices. This has to be accepted. But you cannot do without them all the same. The other point I wish to make is that you must have public services in Singapore. We have heard a great deal, as democracy has become more powerful here, of violent attacks on public servants. I am not referring to expatriates - whether they are European expatriates, or Indian expatriates, or Japanese expatriates or whoever they may be - I am referring to local boys and girls, educated here, born here, brought up here and serving here, and these are the people who are now already beginning to say, "Perhaps I had better move to another place because this is an intolerable town to work in." If you are a public servant, your mouth is shut, you cannot reply and you have got to listen to endless public noisy attacks on you. If those who attack our public servants succeed in driving them out of the territory, they will have nothing to replace them with. You cannot replace, at short notice, the experience and skill acquired over a period of years. I do see the most serious danger that if these attacks go on for the next few years, there will be a serious rundown in the already hardpressed local officers who have got to carry on the public services of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I will be allowed to clarify one point which has been raised in connection with the Estimates. We have been criticised for making only $7 million available for housing this year. I thought, Sir, that I had explained the situation when I presented the Budget. There are three reasons. The Development Estimates provide only for the completion of work in hand. These reasons were, firstly, the amount which we could still make available from reserves was limited. In the second instance, development in the future would have to be financed mainly from loans, and we did not know how successful we would be in this respect in 1959. Lastly, we did not wish to tie the hands of the next government by commencing too many costly public works. These are the reasons why no more was provided for housing. We merely provided enough to allow the S.I.T. to complete the contracts in hand. It is not that Government does not appreciate the importance of housing. I think the expenditure over the past four years indicates just how much importance Government does attach to housing. Over 25 per cent of all development expenditure was spent on housing. I am sure that the next government will feel much the same way about it as the present Government. It is a most important matter. I should imagine that one of the first things that the new Government will do will be to consider housing in connection with the Supplementary Development Estimates which will be put forward once they have decided when and how much they will obtain from a loan. At the same time, I must again draw attention to a point which I made before, and that is that, with the best will in the world, it is doubtful if any future government will be able to make as much available for housing as we have been able to do in the past. The money will just not be there. It would therefore be necessary to make what we obtain for housing go as far as possible, and to think out alternative and complementary schemes to meet the demand for it. It is for these reasons that Government welcomes all the suggestions which have been made today. I can assure hon. Member's that all the suggestions which have been made will be examined with great care. Some of them, of course, have already been examined, or are in the process of being examined by Government. I have much sympathy with some of the suggestions. I have felt for some time that we should explore the one-room flatlet concept more thoroughly than we have done. At the same time, I must point out that our examination of the problem to date has indicted that it is not as easy as some hon. Members would suppose. In point of fact, Sir, the cost of a one-room flatlet which would be acceptable to the people of Singapore is not very much different from the cost of a two-room flatlet. But I think we should examine the matter yet again and again, because I feel there is some solution which will enable us to meet the housing problem. With regard to the suggestion from the Member for Paya Lebar that we should create a revolving fund, I would like to be certain that the fund would revolve and that the people who would benefit from it would be able to repay the sum which they borrowed from the fund. Even if we could have an assurance on that point, there would still remain, at this particular point in time, the trouble of finding money for the fund. But then again, Sir, if this scheme were to offer a part solution to the housing problem, I am sure the Government will go a very long way to try and provide facilities for the scheme. One hon. Member did mention that he saw no trouble in floating a loan for housing. With respect, I doubt whether that is the case. I think we will find it extremely hard to float a loan for housing specifically and, in any event, Sir, the proceeds of any loans which we have to float in the future for development will have to be divided amongst all the projects to which Government attaches priority; one of which, of course, is housing. Another hon. Member, Sir, said that the money subscribed to the Central Provident Fund should be used for housing. I think he also said that the money in the Provident Fund should be invested in this territory. On that latter point, Sir, I have every sympathy and I would say that I hope that the Board of the Provident Fund will in the future see their way to invest rather more locally than they have done in the past. On the other point Sir, I would say that we will have to rely to a very great extent on the support of the Provident Fund for any future loan which is floated in Singapore and, as I said, we cannot devote all the subscriptions from that fund to housing. It would have to be apportioned amongst the other projects to which Government attaches importance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the Member for Pasir Panjang has brought up two points. One is the question of money and the other is the question of building standards. With regard to the allocation of money, I think the Hon, the Financial Secretary has replied to that. With regard to the lowering of standards, I think this morning the Assistant Minister has already spoken on this point in his reply to the Member for Paya Lebar. The prototype scheme is being studied and when it has been completed, we shall be able to come to our conclusions. For the purpose of this scheme, the standards are being reduced in many ways. Maximum densities are being allowed, and certain local government building by-laws with regard to room space, height of ceilings, foundations, roads, drains and sewerage are being waived to agreed standards. However, this scheme is only in respect of low-cost housing, that is, for houses which can be sold for not more than $5,000. This does not mean, of course, that the standard of all types of houses should be lowered. Earlier this morning again, Sir, I think the Member for Queenstown did ask why there should be preferential allotment of money for housing the Malays. Sir, Members are aware of the poverty of the members of my community. If we were to look at the social strata of the people of Singapore, we will find that in the case of the Chinese community we have the capitalist class, the professional class, the upper middle class, the lower middle class and the workers. The distribution is the same with regard to the Indian community. But when it comes to the Malay community, we have no Malay capitalists, no Malay professional class, no Malay upper middle class, very few in the lower middle class; the majority of them are workers. In fact, I can say that in Singapore 99 per cent of my community come from a class drawing a salary of not more than $120 a month. It is for this reason, Sir, that we on this side of the House feel that the time has come for Government to come forward and help the Malay community with regard to housing. Of course, I know that there are also members of other communities faced with the same difficulties, as poverty knows no communal barriers, but to them the housing provided by the Singapore Improvement Trust built on long-term loans, at lower than normal rates of interest, provides some relief. Generally the Malays find the Singapore Improvement Trust houses unsuited to their requirements, as is evidenced by their very sparse representation in the Singapore Improvement Trust rentals and on the housing register. The Trust tenant is not asked to provide any capital contribution towards his own housing, and it is considered equitable that the Malay settler should be assisted in the provision of such housing. We must not forget, Sir, with regard to housing in Singapore, that for years now the Government of Singapore has spent millions of dollars on resettlement and compensation; but there again, unfortunately, the Malay community has not benefited at all and I think, Sir, it is the duty of this Government, or of any government in the future, if it wants to be honest and fair to all, to see that every citizen of Singapore gets a fair share of the country's wealth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that the Minister has misunderstood what I said this morning. As a matter of fact, I congratulated the Government for introducing such a scheme for the Malay community. What I said this morning was that I would be far happier if the same type of scheme could be offered to all other communities instead of introducing it for a particular community. 3.15 p.m. Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary gave reasons that the Government did not want to tie the hands of the next government when budgeting only $7 million for housing next year. By such an explanation, do I take it that whilst this $7 million was provided for in the Budget, he took into consideration the life of this Government which may be up to next April or the life of the S.I.T. which may be a matter of two or three months, or is it budgeted for a whole year? If it is for a whole year, then that $7 million is inadequate. I would also like to know how many housing units will this $7 million provide in Scheme No. 6. Scheme No. 7 and Scheme No. 8. Mr Chew Swee Kee rose-

Is it a business motion?

Yes.

Order. I will then suspend the sitting of the Committee to enable a business motion to be moved. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

3.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have the general assent of this Assembly, under the provisions of Standing Order 72, to enable me to move three business motions?

Perhaps the Minister could indicate the purport of those motions.

Sir, I am asking for exemption from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7; that the business of the Committee today be continued after 4 p.m.; and that at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 21st January, 1959.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that those motions should be moved? Hon. Members: Aye.

Sir, I move, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Sir, I second it.

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

Sir, I also move, That this day the business of Supply be taken after 4 p.m.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this day the business of Supply be taken after 4 p.m.

Sir, I move, That at its rising this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 21st January, 1959.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 21st January, 1959.

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

We are still on the Question, "That the sum to be allotted for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein." 3.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Improvement Trust have been tackling the problem of housing and planning. They have asked the public to come forward, as the Member for Queenstown said, to help them in the allocation of houses. I have received such an invitation, but I have declined to appear. The reason is very simple. With so very few houses and with so many applicants, it is just impossible to allocate them to all the applicants. No matter how much of a genius you are, you cannot solve that problem satisfactorily if you do not have enough houses. It is like in a state of famine - you have two bags of rice to feed a population of 10,000 people, and you are invited to distribute the rice as best you can. No matter how it goes, there will be a larger number of people going hungry, and only a few are satisfied. I view the problem of housing in a general way. If the S.I.T. were efficient in its housing and planning, the housing problem would not be so acute. If it cannot build enough houses, I am certain that private enterprise could have been encouraged by the Trust to help build enough houses. The failure of the Trust can be seen by the fact that more than 10,000 unauthorised houses have sprung up. There are a few reasons given for this. One is that anybody who wants to build a house finds it very irksome to go to the S.I.T. to ask for their plans to be approved. In fact, in the minds of the people of Singapore, or anybody who wants to build a house, the building and planning authorities of the S.I.T. are more an obstruction to them than a help! In fact, many of them, when told, "If you want to build a little house, you must first go to this department and then to the S.I.T., and then come back again to the other department," feel, "Well, this is too much for us. We will rather put up a house in any old way possible. We will face the consequences. We will appear in Court after receiving the summons and we will happily pay our fines and live in our houses." Now such has been the attitude of the people and, in many instances, I regret to say personal experience has borne out that fact. If the Planning Department and the Housing Authority had been sympathetic with the public (one of the officers in the Planning Section is very helpful to the public) the public would be encouraged. Now I will say what is the attitude of this particular officer that the people want to praise him for? You go to him with a problem and he tells you what the situation is. He goes further, and advises you as to the many ways in which you can utilize your land or alter your building or whatever it is to dovetail with the Master Plan. Now, that officer has the support of the people generally. Sir, not all officers in Government or in the Trust are condemned by the people. No, Sir. Many are praised. We have heard in this Assembly praises going out to so many of the Government officers. Of course, if there are praises, there must be grouses too. I would say that if a grouse comes from one or two individuals about one or two civil servants, we will say that their view is probably biased; they probably have an axe to grind. But if it is the general opinion of the people of Singapore, whether supported by facts or not, there must be something wrong! I am not a builder or a developer. I have not put up houses of my own, except public institutions, and yet I speak in this trend not for anything else but merely to point out to Government that if there is a grouse, that grouse must be investigated. In all probability, it might be justified, and if the people are satisfied with Government departments, work can be done more smoothly. I am certain that with more people like the Planning Officer I have mentioned just now, Singapore can build houses much more rapidly than we can imagine. I know that sometimes it is very difficult for us to say whether the Planning Department is the authority for education, or the Education Ministry is the authority! I have had a case of a school which has to go through that department. This happened to be in the rural area - the burial ground at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. According to the Master Plan, if you have one acre of land, you can only have five classrooms and no more. I happened to be a Member of the Select Committee on the Education Bill, and I remember the Minister said, "We are very short of playing fields and when this matter comes up, we will consider every case most sympathetically." I remember this clearly, because I had his assurance before I withdrew my amendment. Then we have cases where the Government agree, and even the S.I.T. agree. I know that it stares us in the face - the school at Coleman Street with little playground is allowed to carry on with its building. We know that there is another school in Telok Ayer Street that is allowed to run, with practically no playground at all. These are Government-aided schools. Yet I know of another school, a Government school, the Stamford Girls' School that is built on land with almost no playing field. And yet when any plan goes to the S.I.T. for a school building, they insist on large tracts of land as playground for a school, either in town or in the rural areas. I fail to see eye to eye with them, and I fail to see where the co-operation is between the Trust and the Ministry of Education. Now with so many unauthorised hr uses coming up in the rural areas, Sir, I think there is also another reason, and that is because the public are house-hungry. They are prepared to pay anything in order to have a roof over them. This situation is created, of course, as you know, by the slow planning and slow passing of plans, and this situation is also exploited by many people. I know that landowners with large estates will not stop at exploiting people who want to build houses. I know that they charge something like $800 for permission to be given to the person wanting to build a house, say, 20 feet by 40 feet; or they give that permission based on a fee of a dollar per square foot. The builder has no alternative. He has no money to pay for a big piece of land, because land is always sold in big lots. And he has to build. Again he comes across difficulties with the authorities. He dare not build his house. Therefore, the racketeers come in to cash in on such difficulties. That problem is created by difficulties experienced by the people wanting to build their own houses. The racketeers come in, build the houses and tell them that they have been passed by the proper authorities, otherwise they would not be there. Money changes hands and the person living in the unauthorised house, of course, will receive a summons. He faces the consequences, not the builder. Sir, I have advocated in this House many times the allocation of land for people wanting to build their own houses. I remember on many occasions I have related what the squatters did - they banded themselves together to pay the land, as in the case of the Union Housing Estate in Upper Serangoon, where they got together and bought the land from the landowner. They subdivided the land into lots amongst themselves and built their own houses or improved the houses that were existing on the estate. 3.30 p.m. I support, Sir, the move made by the Member for Paya Lebar to get the Government to have a revolving fund to buy land for attap dwellers. If an attap dweller or anybody wants to pay a dollar per square foot for land on which permission is given to him to build, then I see no reason why anybody who wants to build cannot buy that piece of land from Government at $1,000 or $2,000 - probably not at $1 per square foot, but at fifty cents per square foot. It will help when the people have the land, for then they will dare to sink in their money. There will then be less grouse about this housing shortage. I have always advocated that Government should help the people to help them solve their housing problem. If we have little plots of land laid out properly, plans put up simply and easily, and passed quickly by the authorities, it will go a very long way towards helping the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all hon. Members will agree with me that we are deeply impressed by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing for his emotional and sincere reply about providing houses for the Malay community. If I am not mistaken, this Government is unfortunately only responsible to the Assembly, and the Assembly does not have direct administrative control over the planning and housing problems of the S.I.T. Therefore, the responsibility is unfortunately in the hands of the energetic and sympathetic Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, who is close to the mass of the people. If I may use an English proverb - the tackling of the housing problem up to the last few years has been just like putting the cart before the horse. Everything was done to provide for the middle class. The middle class, in the mind of the City planner, is a very important group; they are a stabilising factor in our country; and therefore all housing projects (although the taxpayers' money has been expended for this purpose) have been concentrated on building houses and providing for the convenience of the middle class. Sir, I hate to term this the old colonial policy, but it looks exactly like a colonial policy. It is entirely removed from the poor masses, who cry out for a little security and to be able to live in attap houses. But they do not get the chance despite the efforts of the hard-working Department of Information Services Officers who have issued pamphlets and pictures to publicise the Master Plan. Sir, I am telling the truth. The kampong folks, whether they are Malays or Chinese, are farmers or fishermen. They just could not care less for the so-called Master Plan. What do multi-storey buildings mean to them? Nothing! They know they cannot afford to pay the rent to live in them. I wonder whether the Minister has any figures at hand so as to inform this House of the number of eviction notices that have been served by the S.I.T. authorities on those tenants who have failed to pay their rent. How many summonses have they served? Why? It is just because these tenants cannot afford to pay the rent. The Minister will say that there are thousands of people who are on the waiting list for houses, and if the tenants cannot pay the rent they must quit. The Government do not care where they go. The S.I.T. authorities serve the eviction notices, and if the tenants fail to pay the rent, their furniture is seized and auctioned. The S.I.T. could not care much about the consequences. As long as the tenants are unable to pay the rent, they have to quit. It is not easy to find a piece of land. I mentioned yesterday that the landlord knows that if he wants to make a piece of land valuable, he must not allow squatters to settle on it. If there are any squatters, the price will be reduced to nothing. That is the problem. That is the main reason why the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has moved to build a Malay settlement scheme. Naturally, Sir, he deserves the full support of this House. I hope that it will be only the first step. Any government and any Ministry in charge of housing should bear this problem in mind. Do not make the silly mistake of supporting only the middle class who can well afford to pay a rent of $20 or $30 a month. But do the Government know that many of the poor ra'ayat - whether Malays or Chinese - cannot earn as much as $20 or $30 a month? I know too well that many farmers in my kampong at Siglap receive public assistance allowances from the Department of Social Welfare. On the subject of encouraging people to buy their own houses, I have advocated several times that the Government should ask the S.I.T. to sell their flats to those tenants who are willing to buy them. With the money obtained from this sale, Government could build more houses for the lower income group. Of course, the Minister will reply that in some places, low-cost houses have been put up and that there are a lot of houses at Paterson Road for the lower income group. But they are still not sufficient. What I would like to advocate is this: stop building multi-storey flats, which are usually rented to tenants who own cars, estates and have houses of their own. I have already made a statement that the tenants of S.I.T. flats often have two or three wives. Sir, this is, of course, very true. These tenants are able to pay the rent charged for S.I.T. flats whatever the amount. The Government should find ways and means of raising money from these wealthy tenants of S.I.T. flats by compelling them to buy their flats. If the tenants fail to do so, they must quit the flats. The money obtained from this sale could be spent on building more low-cost houses for the lower income group. My third point is to urge the Government to survey the future. Is it possible for the planners of housing projects to make a thorough survey of the capital income of the population in Singapore, before any planning of housing projects is started? If the Government are sure that the majority of the population belong to the middle class, or that the majority of the wage-earners will be able to pay a rent of, say, $20 per month, then Government should build more houses at a rental of $20 per month. But at present the majority are not able to pay even this rent. So it is common for these tenants of S.I.T. flats to be served eviction notices when they fail to pay their rents. These eviction notices are also served on those who share their flats with one or more families. The authorities could not understand why the tenants share their flats. Why cannot these families live in one flat? This is an economic problem. It is because the tenants cannot pay the high rent charged that they are forced to share their flats with some other families. The sub-tenants need not be their friends. Any stranger who can help them pay the rent will be accepted as a sub-tenant. This is a fact, and yet the S.I.T. have no mercy on them. As long as they find that there are unauthorised tenants in the flat, they force them to quit. I cannot understand why. Everybody likes a comfortable home; everybody likes to occupy a whole flat if he can afford it. But if he cannot pay or is unemployed, there is no harm in his sub-letting his flat. I came across a case two weeks ago of an unemployed tenant who had been in receipt of public relief assistance for nine months, and who was sharing his flat with two bachelors - one a teacher and the other a clerk. But unfortunately, these two occupants were told to quit when the S.I.T. authorities discovered the sub-letting. This tenant was forced to sub-let his flat to two other families, one a newly-married couple and the other a family of three - husband, wife and a son. But the S.I.T. officers also discovered this and the tenant was told either to quit the flat or to evict the unauthorised sub-tenants. The tenant was prepared to quit, provided I could find him accommodation that is within his means. This tenant, and many like him, cannot afford to pay even the rent of an S.I.T. flat. The examples that I have quoted will be sufficiently clear to show to the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that the past housing policy was wrong. The policy was framed not to help the lower income group, that is, the ra'ayat, but to benefit the middle class. Actually the middle class can, with a little subsidy from Government, buy their own houses. Sir, in conclusion, I wish to extend my hearty support of the move made by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to provide a settlement for the Malays. I only wish that he will erect such a settlement not only for the Malays, but also for the attap dwellers of other races. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree entirely with the remarks of the Minister for Communications and Works that good and experienced officers are difficult to find, and that we must not do anything to discourage them and make them leave this place, especially when we are on the verge of self-government. But I am very shocked at his contempt for this House by comparing the Members here to the inmates of the forests in the Federation!

Order. I thought I did pull the Minister up for being unparliamentary. Once I have done that, I do not think any other Member should comment on it.

Yes, Sir. As regards the one-room flats which I mentioned, there are many such examples put up by the Government as well as by the S.I.T. in Singapore. Take, for instance, the flats in Cross Street, Mosque Street, North Bridge Road, Kreta Ayer Road and, I think, in Banda Street too. All these are one-room flats. They share a communal bathroom and a communal kitchen. In fact, in the building by-laws, it has been provided, in the case of shop-houses especially which were originally built for renting out to different families, that for every three cubicles you have to provide a bathroom, a W.C. and a kitchen. These are for cubicle flats of not less than 100 square feet, and in case it exceeds that size, the facilities should be increased in proportion. You will agree, Sir, that this is not the ideal way to house the people. But as I have said, Sir, these people have not enough money, so the best way is to spread out to as many people as possible. Even if they have the money, then the question of rent arises again, because the Government is expected to receive rent at least at the normal interest rate, even if, as is said, the flats are subsidised. The Financial Secretary has just mentioned that the cost of these one-room flats is not very much lower than the two-room flats or the three-room flats. I think he misunderstood me. What he means by a one-room flat is - it has a room, a kitchen, a bathroom, a W.C., all self-contained. What I mean, and what Hongkong provides, is this: you have a one-bedroom, a common sitting room; the approach is by a corridor and a communal bathroom and W.C. are shared. If the Government are fortunate later and can provide better accommodation for the people of Singapore, there is no difficulty at all in converting, at only little expense, a one-bedroom flat into a two-bedroom flat or a flat with two bedrooms cum sitting room. But we must face realities now. What are we going to do with the people of Singapore now? What is the use of talking, "Yes, you keep quiet now. We will try to solve your problem in 20 years' time. In the meantime, you may die; but never mind, your children will benefit by it." What good will that kind of talk serve? Also, are we sure that the housing problem will be solved in 20 years' time? I do not see how it is possible to provide accommodation as outlined by the Improvement Trust and other organisations. My personal opinion is that you give those who want houses whatever is possible and then, if you are fortunate enough later, you can provide them with better accommodation. By this means, not only can you provide more housing for more people, but also you can in a way charge them at the rate which they can afford. Secondly, this question of land. There is no reason why the Government cannot buy some land, although I know the Government have not much land. Buy it and have it laid out. Have drains made; provide approaches, not necessarily first-class ones, and sell or let out to the people who, in turn, can build houses. Or provide them with some standard plans which they can get from the Rural Board, say, for a dollar. I know by saying this the architects will be angry with me, but this is the way to help the people, so that they can build with whatever money they have - $3,000 or $5,000 - and build to a type which is more suitable to their needs. We have an example of this, Sir. In pre-war days, we had to evict a lot of squatters from the Bukit Berlayer River Basin in the Harbour Board area. The attap huts there were all built hastily. We consulted these people and offered them flats which were built further inland, but they were all of the opinion that they would like to have huts. So what we did was to get the land levelled, drained and had the lots marked out. We said, "Now we give you a lot; you go and build." The same conditions exist now in Aljunied Road. I think it is the Government which have provided the land there, have it laid out and properly drained. I think they must have let it out to the people who were dehoused somewhere else. They have put up quite decent houses there. I am sure anyone who goes and see these houses put up under such circumstances will agree with me that they are not so bad, for they too provide accommodation like the S.I.T.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very grateful to those Members of the House who have spoken in support of the proposal that I have made this morning. Even the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, and the Financial Secretary have also given my proposal their blessing. The only doubt that has so far been raised has been the Hon, the Financial Secretary. He says he is not certain whether the $1 million which I have suggested should be created as a revolving fund would indeed be a revolving fund. Sir, from my experience, I can give him that assurance. If 10,000 people have already paid $20 million profit for these houses, is it not possible now for another 10,000 families to find $500 to $1,000 each to pay for a plot of land after which they do not have to pay $10 or $15 a month as rental? The hon. Member for Pasir Panjang has drawn my attention to the Aljunied Housing Estate. Indeed, Sir, that is within my area and I can say that when it was decided to resettle the people in Upper Aljunied Estate, the original suggestion, I think, was made by the Hon. the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare, that the land should be parcelled out to the settlers in small plots after water had been laid on and road paths made. Half of the lots were issued in that respect. The people were allowed to build any type of houses they liked. Unfortunately, we had a very prim and proper Governor - His Excellency Sir John Nicoll. He happened to pass that way; he saw what was taking place, and he suddenly called a halt to everything and said: "Good heavens! They are now making a slum of that area again by having these ugly houses. They are very comfortable and livable, but they are not pretty, and there is no standard design." So he stopped the scheme half-way and asked the Singapore Improvement Trust to put up blocks of flats, all one-storey houses, costing $3,000 each. I must say, Sir, on the whole, these $3,000 flats have not been satisfactory. They are very low and everyday I receive complaints of leaks and heat, and there is a tremendous amount of maintenance to be done. Whereas on the other side, where a man was allowed to put up his own house, the Singapore Improvement Trust did not have to pay a single cent on maintenance. The settler there undoubtedly takes in a few more tenants to help him pay for his service charges, but they are all happy and no further demands are made on the Government. I am quite sure that if the Financial Secretary will seriously study the position, he will agree with me and his doubts will fade away. Sir, as the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has on the whole accepted my proposal and says that he will take the matter up, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, "That the sum of $8,340,000 for Head D22 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I will not be accused of bringing up a very stale subject which was raised by me last year. It refers to the sports stadium. Why I call it stale is because, in the opinion of Members of this House, we have prolonged the debate on the Appropriation Bill -

Order. Will the hon. Member please indicate the Head or the subhead referring to the sports stadium?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to Head D22 under Treasury, provision of a sports stadium which is not included in the Budget. I would refer you, Sir, to Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 46, 20th December, 1957, col. 3331, where I was allowed to raise the same question under Head D22.

Perhaps the Minister in charge of that aspect of Government could indicate, or, perhaps, any one of the Ministers could indicate which Minister is responsible? I cannot imagine the Minister in charge of the Treasury would be responsible.

I am responsible for Head D22 Treasury, Sir,I doubt very much whether the question of a sports stadium could appropriately be accommodated under any of the subheads of this Head.

Could the Member please indicate his reference again?

Vol. 2, No. 46, dated 20th December, 1957, col. 3331. 4.00 p.m.

I think I must, in that event, allow the Member for Queenstown to comment on that subject.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I am trying to comment on the fact that no provision is being made for the establishment of a sports stadium. Personally, I feel, Sir, that this is a very important issue, because in Singapore we do not have a proper stadium of international standard for the holding of the Olympic Games. As I have said, this question was raised by me last year, but I have not pressed the matter further this year because I expected the Government would initiate a move to arouse public interest. But during all this period the Government has not initiated this move and I have now take in the opportunity during this debate on the Appropriation Bill to speak on the issue. I fully realise, Sir, that the Government have no money at all to provide a sports stadium, because year in and year out we find a big deficit in the Budget. There is no money even to build schools. A stadium may be considered a secondary matter compared to schools. What I want, Sir, is for Government to initiate a move as a test case, to find out whether the public are interested or not in the establishment of a sports stadium. Frankly speaking, I do not want the Government to provide money for the time being. What I want the Government to do is to find out if there is any response because the Hon. the Financial Secretary and the Hon. the Chief Minister last year said that there was no response from the public and that there was no necessity to build a sports stadium. So what I want now, Sir, is that Government should initiate a move first and then wait for the response. The Singapore Standard started a Cheer Fund and money came in. Many kinds of relief funds were started to collect money for this and that, and money came in. So why not we start a Stadium Fund and see whether we get any public response? If the public are not interested at all in contributing money towards this fund, then let us scrap the whole issue. But if the public are interested, after Government has initiated a move to start this fund, then I think the Government should take a keen interest in it and assure the public that they will provide a dollar for dollar contribution for the establishment of a sports stadium. I do not like to compare Singapore with the Federation, because the Federation has already got a sports stadium. In fact, it was Singapore which first started the move to have a sports stadium, but today the Federation Government can boast that they have a sports stadium first. When the move for a fund is initiated, Sir, I will ask Government to set up a Board to administer this fund. Sporting personalities such as those who are involved in the Olympic Games, football or other games, can be nominated to be trustees of this fund. When this fund develops to such an extent that the money is sufficient to start looking for a stadium, then only let us look for a site. In the meantime, let us forget about where the site should be, or how the stadium should be built. What we want is let the money come in first. I hope the Government will take this into consideration and start a fund as quickly as possible.

May I be given permission to speak on this subject also?

I was just going to remark that my leniency has caught up with me!

Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year I spoke a lot on the question of reviving the Stadium Board and I also requested Government to consider having a stadium in Singapore, but I am afraid that all this must have fallen on deaf ears because nothing has happened since then. To me a stadium in Singapore is a necessity, Sir. First and foremost, we are known today as a modern city and practically all the requirements that we need for a modern city are here, except a stadium. Quite rightly too, as the Member for Queenstown has mentioned, Government started a move first on the question of having a stadium, but unfortunately up to this day nothing has happened at all. In the Federation, there are now three stadiums: one, the Merdeka Stadium, one in Penang and one in Malacca. Sir, we have been accused in the Press that the standard of sports has generally gone down in Singapore, because we have not got the facilities for international teams or sports organisations to come here and take part in the games. Without a stadium the standard cannot improve. Sports organisations in Singapore have done their bit. Money was lacking, but through the enthusiasm of their members, they have managed to do whatever they could to provide sports for the Colony. But Government has not given the least encouragement at all. The only encouragement Government has shown was that, when our teams were going to the last Asian Games and the last Olympic Games, it contributed the meagre sum of $25,000. It is lucky for the Federation of Malaya that they have a Prime Minister who is a great sportsman and Cabinet Members who are sports-minded. They have now approved a vote of $100,000 to be utilised for sports activities. Sir, I am still very worried about it. You will realise that, on the one hand, we are spending a lot of money to fight subversive elements, but, on the other hand, we are not trying to stop them because we allow the youth of Singapore to go into dance-halls, cinemas and coffee-shops instead of spending their time on the playing fields. As I have said over and over again the question is this. Are the people really interested in sport and can the sports stadium be filled? I can say, and I have said so before, that there are at least 300,000 people in Singapore directly or indirectly interested in sport; and if we have a sports stadium here and we invite international teams and sports organisations to come here and take part in sports, it will act as an incentive to our athletes to better their standard. As it is now, they can only compete among themselves and the standard is not high. If we have a sports stadium, Sir, the athletes of Singapore will say, "We will have to improve our standard and put up a good show against visiting teams." For these reasons, Sir, I really beg the incoming Government to consider this matter seriously, because it is a good thing for the youth of Singapore to be of sound mind and to have a healthy body.

Sir, eleven years have passed since this stadium business first saw the light of day, and my recollection of all the details may not be strictly accurate, but I think the basis of what I now say is accurate. There were interested parties, I think probably about eight years ago, who thought it would be a very good thing to have a stadium in Singapore. Government thought that it would assist them to form a stadium if they could show that they had a large measure of public support. An Ordinance in connection with the creation of a stadium was promulgated. A Stadium Board was set up. It was then left to the Board to work out plans for the establishment of a stadium. Many years elapsed, but the Board was not able to do more despite the promise of land from Government for a site for the stadium. The Stadium Board was able to put up many proposals for the stadium, but no proposals were put up whatsoever for financing the stadium, other than that Government should put up the money. When the matter was last discussed at considerable length in this Chamber, it was made clear to those people who were responsible for the idea that if they could show that there was financial support in Singapore for a stadium, Government would be only too prepared to assist. So far, no indication has been given of any desire on the part of the people in Singapore to contribute financially towards the cost of a stadium - and there the matter lies. There is no need for Government to start a fund. The Member for Queenstown can start a fund. Or he can start the necessary propaganda to start a fund to show to the Government that the people of Singapore are prepared to support financially a stadium. Sir, as regards the need for a stadium, we have an excellent stadium at Jalan Besar which, even on its best days, is probably a quarter full. What we are now being asked to do is to put the money to create a vast stadium which will be nothing more than a white elephant. Perhaps on one occasion in four years it may be half full. For the rest of the time it will merely be a liability which Government will have to meet from its own resources. As regards the statement that there are no stadiums in Singapore for sport, we have an excellent track at Farrer Park We have numerous swimming pools where people can learn to swim and even attain Olympic standards. We have numerous playing fields where the various football leagues can play their games. As regards the suggestion that a stadium would be a sound measure to counter subversion, it is merely a means of encouraging people not to play games themselves but to attend games - rather like the crowd who attended a display of gladiators in ancient Rome - and to offer them facilities for betting on the outcome. Even if this money were available for a stadium, Sir, I would much prefer to use it to provide facilities for people to play games rather than to watch 11, 22 or 30 people playing games. The prospect of getting any international events to be held in Singapore could not take place more than once in four years at the outside, and only on these occasions would the stadium be full. I think, Sir, the hon. Members who raised this and who are so interested in the matter might be well advised to devote their attention to other matters, and to let this drop. But as I have said, Sir, if they can show beyond a shadow of doubt that they can raise a substantial proportion of the $2 million or more required to create a stadium, Government will be prepared to consider the matter again. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if Government will make a statement that they will be willing to provide the land and will be prepared to contribute a dollar for a dollar of the public subcription, and to allow the public to have a voice in the administration of the stadium and share in its profits, I am quite sure it is not mere wishful thinking on my part that there will be big support for a stadium. I can tell the House, Sir, that if Government can give that assurance, within one week a hundred thousand dollars will be raised. The question of it being a white elephant will not arise at all, because holding games there will help to pay for its upkeep to a very great extent; of that I am very definite and certain. To say that the stadium will only be filled once a year or once in four years is incorrect. It is not that only one kind of sport will be held there but also other sports too. What we have today in Singapore, Sir, are only playing fields. We have plenty of them, but no stadium. I think the Hon, the Financial Secretary does not realise that, to invite teams of international repute to come here, there must be some way. But what is that way? I think next year eight international soccer teams are coming to Singapore to compete. Now, what have we got to offer them? A big city of Singapore with a stadium no better than Malacca's! I am not talking about the Federation capital in Kuala Lumpur, or Penang, but Malacca. The Malacca stadium is much better than the playing fields that we have here. Is this not true? I have said we have no real sportsmen on these Benches. The incoming Government, if they have some Members who are going to be Members of the Cabinet and who are sports-minded, will, I am sure, be a great help not only to sportsmen in Singapore but to the City of Singapore, because then we will have a place where healthy and clean-living people can gather together instead of what we now have - a mixed assortment of clubs.

I just want to point out, Sir, that to suggest that the Government gives the money is perhaps short-circuiting the argument. It is the people's money, paid for by taxes paid by the people. If money is provided for a stadium, then either less money will be provided for something else - for example, we cut out housing for a few hundred families; or we cut out outpatient clinics; or we cut out the grant to the Nanyang University - some cut has to be made on something for which money is provided: or alternatively, we must increase taxation, and I think the hon. Member should now rise to tell us either precisely what he proposes to cut, or precisely what new taxes he proposes to put on, and to assure us that be is not speaking for himself but for the people of Singapore who would welcome the cut he proposes or who would gladly pay the tax that he wishes to impose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the attitude of the colonial officer clearly shows how adamant he is on this issue. To attack or criticise a member of the Stadium Board is really uncalled for and unwarranted. I was a member of that Board and it put up several suggestions to the Government. At no time did the Government ever think of considering any suggestions. The Financial Secretary was also a member of that Board, and he was very adamant in his attitude towards the suggestions put up. To come here now and attack members of the Board is nonsense and uncalled for. This Board did put forward suggestions, but the Government was not in the least interested. Coming to the question of funds, Sir, I am not asking the Government to provide funds right now. What I am asking them to do is to start a fund-put it to a test case, to find out whether there is public response or not. It may take three years to get that money; or it may take five years. By that time a new government will have come in, and there may be an excess of income over expenditure. We may have a surplus rather than a deficit, and by that time the Government could well provide money for the Stadium. Why talk about cutting this or cutting that? If I am insisting that Government should provide the money now, then I will have to put forward suggestions to cut down the building of schools or universities, or to increase taxes. I do not want from the Government any money at this juncture. The Financial Secretary boasts of the Jalan Besar Stadium and Farrer Park running track. I do not want to repeat what I have said last year. The Jalan Besar Stadium and the Farrer Park running track belong to the City Council, and the Government, which is responsible for the running of this country, cannot even provide a decent stadium of international standard. Are we proud of that? At least the City Council, which is a local government authority, is proud to say that they have a Jalan Besar Stadium and a running track at Farrer Park. Can we boast of anything? To say that the stadium may be half-full is out of the question. If you do not have a stadium, how can you attract foreign athletes to come here? If the Olympic Games should be held here, would other countries be prepared to come here if we could not have a stadium to hold the Games? Why say that the stadium may be half-full, or quarter-full, or that it may be a white elephant? There is no question of it being a white elephant. During certain times of the year, it can be opened to schools, organisations, sports clubs, and so forth. These are the facilities that will attract them here. We talk of tourism; we talk of attracting tourists to come here. Cannot we attract sportsmen to come here if we have a decent sports stadium? As the Member for Cairnhill has rightly said, if international soccer teams come to Singapore, what can we provide them with? Jalan Besar Stadium belonging to the City Council! Not a Government Stadium! The Member for Cairnhill has also said, "If the Government can assure us now that they are prepared to give a dollar for a dollar, he is quite sure that money will be forthcoming." Why not give it a try? No money is required now. What we want is a Stadium Board Fund and appoint members to administer that Fund. It is not a question of money.

I shall be very brief. I am afraid the hon. Member for Queenstown has quite misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that there was a temporary shortage of money. The Member suggested that in five years' time the Government might be called on to provide the money. In five years' time there will be another 300,000 or 400,000 children in the families in Singapore and the Government would then be faced with the problems of education costs, for example. My colleague the Minister for Education has outlined how these costs are going to increase all the time. The need for money will be more acute year by year and, I am afraid, will not be less acute for a very long time to come.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Federation Government can provide $3 million for a stadium and $100,000 for sports facilities this year, I cannot see why the Government cannot begin building a stadium here. I do not think the Government needs more than $1� million, because the other $1� million must come from the public before such a project can be carried out.

Sir, I thought I made it clear that the Stadium Board of which I was a member was prolific of ideas but not of the idea where the money was going to come from. As regards the question of Government support, I would refer hon. Members, who have spoken, to an exchange of correspondence which passed between the Government and the Stadium Board and in which the terms of Government assistance were laid down. The last case that I had of assistance to the Stadium was for over $2 million. If it is going to take five years for the public of Singapore to reach their share of the $2 million, I think that, Sir, is indicative of a lack of interest in the Stadium.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $8,340,000 for Head D 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 27- The sum of $38,810 for Head D 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 37- The sum of $108,000 for Head D 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 41- The sum of $280,250 for Head D 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 43- The sum of $3,500,000 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 44- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. Jumabhoy- That the sum to be allotted for Head D44 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 therein. In Mr R. Jumabhoy's absence, the amendment was not proceeded with. The sum of $2,288,000 for Head D 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 46- The sum of $8,228,960 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 47- The sum of $1,440,000 for Head D 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 49- The sum of $5,962,000 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 53- Question proposed, "That the sum of $313,840 for Head D 53 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, another disappointment that I find in this Head is that there is no provision for the building of community halls. With the creation of a new department, the Community Recreation Division in the Social Welfare Department, I think the Government should try and build more community halls for community centres rather than omit this item in the Estimates. Community centres play a very important part in helping the Government on many matters. These community centres provide out of their funds amenities for their own members and they also help the Government in many respects, like health and citizenship registration. A case of such assistance is seen in the recent polio epidemic where the community centres volunteered their services to register children for polio vaccine vaccination. Another case is the time when the Government introduced citizenship registration. Most of the community centres also offered to help the Government in the registration of alien citizens for Singapore citizenship. This has relieved the Government appreciably. Some centres also have their own volunteer police to guard their areas or estates. This also helps the Police. There are many other kinds of work done by these community centres which help the Government. There are at the moment, I understand, three types of community centres. One is sponsored by the Government, and assisted by the Social Welfare Department. The second is sponsored by the residents in S.I.T. estates and is provided by the S.I.T. with a clubhouse at a nominal rent. The third type is organized by the residents living in kampongs or villages. Now for the first type of community centre, Government provide money to build its own community hall, and provide furniture and other necessities of the centre. As regards the second type, the management committee has to raise funds to upkeep its amenities. In most cases, some of these centres cannot be self-sufficient and have to depend on the running of open-air cinemas at 10 cents per head. With this little income these community centres can manage to exist. The third type of community centre is in kampongs or villages and it does not have any facilities at all. Some of these centres, I understand, do not even have a clubhouse. Such a centre can be found in West Coast Road. They have to function within a Chinese temple. This is not right, Sir, because it is the responsibility and the duty of the Government to provide community halls so that the residents living in the area could gather together. exchange views or to create a closer community feeling. I do hope that the Government will look into this matter seriously and try and assist, as far as possible, the underprivileged - I term them underprivileged because most of them are not assisted. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have every sympathy for the hon. Member for Queenstown. I hope that when the Supplementary Budget is brought out it will make provision for community centres.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $313,840 for Head D 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 55- The sum of $2,416,010 for Head D 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 56- The sum of $20,500 for Head D 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 57- The sum of $281,330 for Head D 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 58- The sum of $80,140 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60- The sum of $2,459,150 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61- Question proposed, "That the sum of $3,304,240 for Head D 61 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now four years since I asked the Minister for Communications and Works to look into the communication system in Serangoon Garden Estate. Questions had been put to him; requests had been made; and promises had been made by him. He had promised to widen Yio Chu Kang Road. A new road had been promised to be made from Serangoon Garden to join up with Braddell Heights. That was two or three years ago. Today, I think, with his more intimate knowledge - because he is now living on the fringe of that estate - he should experience the difficulty himself. I am interested to know what the Minister is now thinking about, whether his promises can come to fruition. How long more will the people in that estate, who pay a great deal of taxes, continue to have their amenities not looked after? Will Yio Chu Kang Road be widened? Will the new road leading from Serangoon Garden to Braddell Heights be made up? Or will the Minister consider the crocodile tears that will be shed if they should be moved? On the question of Unemployment Relief Works, subhead 12, Sir, I would like to know what scheme the Minister has in mind to help these unemployed people, and whether the work that is done will relieve the difficulties of rural people and bring them better amenities in the form of new roads to be made up or bad roads repaired - at least repaired to the extent whereby it is possible to move along them.

I have had complaints from my constituents that when pipelines were installed, they were not able to get stand-pipes. I just wonder if the Minister responsible for this will explain how the selection was made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the debate on Development Estimates is about to come to an end, I would like to say a few words about the cost of Public Works building. Public Works building is known to be the highest in Singapore, if not in the whole of Malaya. Much as I want to find out what is the reason behind such high costs, I am unable to do so. Of late, I have had the privilege of examin ing some of the schemes put up by the Public Works Department, namely, the quarters for medical officers in the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. Mr Hart rose-

Is it a point of order?

A point of order, Sir. This financial subject is under discussion in the Estimates Committee. It is inappropriate to discuss it in the open House.

I think the Honourable the Financial Secretary is a Member of the Estimates Committee?

I am a Member of the Estimates Committee, Sir.

I think the honourable Member for Pasir Panjang is also a Member of the Estimates Committee?

Yes, Sir.

If, in fact, the Whole subject is now under discussion in the Estimates Committee, I think it is wrong to debate it in the Assembly until the Report of the Estimates Committee reaches the Assembly.

Public Works building is known to be very expensive.

Order. Perhaps the honourable Member did not understand me.

But I am not referring to the quarters, Sir.

As I understand it, the Financial Secretary has pointed out that the whole question of building Costs is now being discussed in the Estimates Committee. If that is so, then it is wrong to debate the question of building costs in the Assembly until the Report of the Estimates Committee reaches the Assembly.

Yes, Sir, I will try to avoid what has been discussed, or what is expected to be discussed, in the Estimates Committee. I have seen the Report of the Estimates Committee for the year 1957. In it the then Director of Public Works was asked for his opinion about the houses built by Ideal Homes in Whitley Road. His reply, Sir, was, "If I had $30,000 I would rather throw it into the Singapore River than buy one of those houses." These were exactly his words. I did not fabricate them myself. Such was the attitude of the Public Works Department officers, and I believe it is the opinion of the public officers now. If these are the type of people who really have no intention of trying to cut down expenditure for the Government, then how can we expect them to reduce the cost? A lot of building schemes have been put up in the Estimates which are very much more expensive than those put up by the public. Sir, there are so many reasons. The Estimates could be very high, or the cost also could have been very high. One reason, Sir, is the corruption of the officers concerned. I am not accusing anybody because I have no evidence to show that the officers are corrupted. Secondly, it is that they put up too luxurious a type of building to suit circumstances and needs. Thirdly, they specify a lot of expensive materials which should never be there. When I criticised the cost of the Polytechnic last year, I was asked by one of the members of the Board of Governors to go and see the opening of the tenders. I refused to go, because by looking at the opening of the tenders, it would only satisfy me that the tenders were not made up specially for the occasion. What I mean is that the tenders were properly sent in and not substituted later. But I had never any intention of seeing it, and it was never my intention to criticise the Polytechnic costs on account of underhand methods of tendering. As I have said, Sir, there are many reasons that could put up the cost of a building: for instance, like putting a $3 - finish to a block of flats at Leonie Hill; the suggestion of putting brass hinges in servants' quarters, because I have examined a copy of the specification of one of the jobs. I have designed many buildings of millionaires, and I have not even on one occasion put brass hinges in servants' quarters. The cost of brass hinges is about ten times that of steel hinges. If the brass hinges last twenty years, and the steel hinges last only two years, then I would say the cost is justified. I know very well, Sir, that a door with steel hinges will definitely last as long as that with brass hinges. So why push up the cost ten times higher? Is there any justification for it? Every time we criticise the Public Works Department for the high cost of building, they say it is because their buildings are much better than those built by people outside. But have we any evidence to substantiate such statements made by the Ministry? If people can build a flat for $15,000 and the Government's flat costs $45,000, there is something wrong with the Government. But have they, after having inspected the flats and schools built by the public at one-third the cost, come back and made a report on how much difference there is in the costs? 4.45 p.m. No, they can do no wrong. The white men can do no wrong. The devils are only the Asians. The devils are the Members who come and complain in the House. That is the kind of attitude adopted by the Minister and his colleagues - when I say his colleagues, I mean his subordinates. So how can they expect to cut down the cost of buildings? If the cost of P.W.D. building is 20 per cent or 30 per cent higher, for instance, we can understand that; but if it is 200 per cent higher and no explanation is given whatsoever except to say, "Our's is the best!" - are the Public Works Department buildings the best? Even if they are slightly better than others, are their costs cheaper than others? Definitely not! As I have said about the Polytechnic, the squandering of public funds must stop, and stop now. If the Minister thinks that he is unable to set up an inquiry, or bring down the cost of buildings, then I think he should not stay in the House.

Order. It seems something has got into the Assembly! I am being intimidated! But I will ask the Member for Pasir Panjang to consider whether or not what he is saying could appropriately be said in the Estimates Committee. It is a question of detail which perhaps the Estimates Committee can well examine - and the hon. Member is a Member of that Committee. We are now considering policy.

Thank you, Sir. I am very much obliged for your advice on the matter, Sir. What I want to say is not about the details of any building, but I would like to have a Committee set up to investigate the prices of P.W.D. buildings, with members who will not definitely toe the line of the Minister.

Sir, point of order. The question of Public Works building costs is under consideration by the Estimates Committee at the present time. Under these circumstances, I cannot understand why a Member of the Estimates Committee should suggest that there should be a public commission to go into the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Estimates Committee, it is up to us only to consider the matter, but I think it is necessary to convince the public that either a committee or a commission be set up to make such an inquiry.

There are quite a number of matters which were referred to me, Sir, in the course of the last speech or two and I would like to clear them up before I forget what they were all about. Regarding the high cost of public works, I am sure my colleagues are feeling surprised that the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang feels it necessary to suggest another committee or commission when he has already got the Estimates Committee with democratic representatives of the people sitting on it - he himself is there. I do not think he intends to have that Committee to toe my ministerial line! No, that would not serve him in the least.

Will the Minister please address the Chair?

I beg your pardon, Sir,I cannot see the necessity for any more investigation than that. I would like to warn him about turning the question of public building costs into a communal issue by crying that the white man can do no wrong, because he will very shortly be treading on local corns, since the number of white men remaining in the Ministry is rapidly decreasing and very soon he will have to justify his attacks on his own Singaporean fellow citizens and see whether they are inclined to accept his criticisms which he expresses with great vigour. I am glad at least that he has not accused us of corruption in the P.W.D. That is something to be thankful for. We had, Sir, one or two remarks about unemployment relief works. The selection of unemployment relief recruitment is done by the Labour Ministry, which has the appropriate facilities, and I would not wish to attempt to outline the methods there. I understand there has been some difficulty in filling some of the projects initially when they were seeking to recruit in the rural areas where the works are to be carried out. The tendency has been to give more employment to people in the town and move them out to the rural areas where work has to be done. The works in hand so far are improvement of rural roads and tracks. The hon. Member for Serangoon will be happy to note that some work is starting on the Yio Chu Kang Road improvements. It is not the sector in which he is interested. There will be some very large-scale work in connection with the runway at the Airport. I think I better not prejudice other works by referring to them ahead of the time at which they go into operation, since the developments are to some extent conditioned by the experience obtained as the work goes forward. The hon. Member for Serangoon referred to the need for improvements of Yio Chu Kang Road or, alternatively, for some other roads to be made up to get the quite heavy traffic out of Serangoon Garden Estate for those who want to get into the City. I have been living just beyond Serangoon Garden Estate now for about eight months and I have had the opportunity of experiencing traffic on this road. It is certainly a very inadequate road for the load of traffic it has to carry, particularly remembering the children, pedestrians, and bicycles in addition to the motor-car traffic and the buses. But I must remind the hon. Member that this is a matter for the local authorities. The money is provided to the Rural Board from the Government, but the decision and the action rests with the local authorities. It is up to them to give instructions to the executive engineer to carry out the works. It is not for me to take upon myself to instruct the local authorities as to what decision they should take. I can perhaps cheer his anxious heart by telling him that in the months after I had moved into that area, I did take the trouble to time my journey from my house to my office. I filled up one page of my notebook - 16 journeys. From the door of the house to just beyond the traffic lights at the Paya Lebar police station is one mile, and that mile took me the following times: 3 minutes 15 seconds; 3� minutes; 2 minutes 50 seconds; 2 minutes 45 seconds; 3 minutes 20 seconds; 3 minutes 50 seconds; 3 minutes 30 seconds; 3 minutes 20 seconds; 3 minutes 25 seconds; 4 minutes 5 seconds; 3 minutes 45 seconds; 3 minutes 5 seconds; 2 minutes 20 seconds; and 7 minutes and 5 seconds-that was when part of the road was up and there was a considerable block. I forget precisely what the average speed comes to, but it is obviously between 15 and 20 miles an hour over a one-mile stretch, and there are two traffic lights to be negotiated. So the road is not an excessively slow-moving road on an average. If the unhappy motorist finds himself behind two or three buses, all of them stopping at all the bus stops, he will have a very exasperating time indeed. But, nevertheless, the average of my figures is not a too discreditable average. I am more concerned personally about the danger to human life, or the difficulty to the public in getting across the road without excessive danger. The children, the hawkers and the people who do not own motor cars come much nearer to my heart in this matter than the motor-car owner who loses, perhaps, two minutes of his life in traversing one mile. It will not do him very serious harm.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $3,304,240 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 62- The sum of $432,520 for Head D 62 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

4.55 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $8,797,141 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 47 of 1958. Sir, hon. Members have already received a copy of the statement of account for 1957. This message contains the applications for supplementary votes which are required to cover excesses in expenditure over the voted provisions and finally to wind up and close the accounts. The reasons why expenditure has exceeded the approved provision in each case is given in the message, but I shall be happy to add to these explanations if hon. Members so desire. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Motion committed to Committee of Supply. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply. 4.58 p.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 16. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title $ 1 The Governor 441 9 Broadcasting 11,180 12 Defence Services 50,022 15 Information Services 8,741 18 Prisons 48,681 23 Treasury 334,690 5.00 p.m. Head 25- Question proposed, "That the sum of $9,978,089 for Head 25 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir,I shall thank the Hon, the Financial Secretary to elucidate on item 284, New Subhead - Compensation under the Malayanisation Scheme ... $8,565,000. It is stated: "These payments were charged in the first instance to a below-the-line Advance Account until such time as the exact amount paid in 1957 had been determined." Would the Hon. the Financial Secretary elucidate on this?

If the Member wishes me to explain what I mean when I say "below-the-line Advance Account", it merely means that the money has been paid from Government funds but not from a vote. This particular money is paid by law under the Compensation Ordinance. We have legal authority to pay, and it was considered desirable and appropriate, in this particular case, that we should pay from an Advance Account until we knew precisely how much was required in 1957 and thereafter to take a vote.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $9,978,089 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title $ 37 Imports and Exports Control and Registration 52,126 41 Trade Marks Registry 318 48 Museum, Raffles 505 49 Medical and Health 583,983 53 Social Welfare 11,369 54 Ministry of Communications and Works 443 55 Civil Aviation 66,808 56 Meteorological Services 10 57 Postal Services 14,086 59 Public Works Recurrent 18,675 60 Telecommunications 11,627 D44 Land and District Offices 2,454 D49 Medical and Health 7,176 The sum of $8,797,141 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the Motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $8,797,141 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 47 of 1958.

5.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $891,100 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 48 of 1958. Sir, this is a rather lengthy list of A.S.Vs. requiring additional funds to the extent of $891,100. The great majority of applications refer to votes for recurrent expenditure which, as a result of the increase in cost in the services of the Government, have been or are in danger of being overspent. Some of the applications of this nature are substantial, for example, items 206, 221, 224, 238 and 247. It will also be noted that $500,000 is sought for the Constitution Exposition. Each application is described very fully, Sir, but I shall be happy to augment the explanation in any particular case. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Motion committed to Committee of Supply. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

5.05 p.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 24. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title $ 2 Judicial 8,800 4 Legislature 2,778 6 Audit 7,815 7 Chief Minister 26,913 8 Chief Secretary 205,699 9 Broadcasting 13,000 11 Defence Services 84,865 14 Information Services 523,538 15 Police 407,752 17 Prisons 105,330 20 Legal 6,403 Head 22- Question proposed, "That the sum of $8,113 for Head 22 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am concerned about is item 237 - Losses of Public Money and Stores. This involves a case where a steel locker was stolen from the office of the Commandant, Special Constabulary, over the weekend, 29th-31st October, 1955. I am at a loss to understand how this locker with guards at the front gate in the "In" and "Out" entrances and with policemen around was stolen. Can the Hon, the Financial Secretary explain why this steel locker was stolen from the police station?

I think the reason why it was stolen was because the people who stole it wanted to get at the contents! I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulty in understanding how a steel locker could be stolen from this particular place. I confess that that particular problem has baffled everybody who has investigated it! We have not been able to obtain clarification. It is one of those insoluble mysteries which we will never be able to solve. The officer responsible has been surcharged to a considerable extent and has been relieved of his post. As I said, I do not think that we will ever discover how the locker came to be removed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been to the Commandant's Office at the Central Police Station. Besides the two guards at the "In" and "Out" entrances, there are two more constables; one sitting in front of the office of the Commandant, and the other one in the corridor; and yet the steel locker - I suppose it was kept in that office - was stolen from the office with four armed guards.

It is now some time since this took place and I read the file very carefully at the time. I think it is not the Central Police Station -

The Central Police Station.

- it is a fairly big building. The theft took place at night and there were guards at the main entrance, but - subject to correction - it did appear to me at the time when I read the file that it was possible to move this locker out of the Commandant's room without ever going near the main entrance. As I said, Sir, it is one of those insoluble mysteries how the locker ever got out of the police station! I do not think we will ever be able to obtain a satisfactory solution. I am sorry that I cannot give more information to the hon. Member.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $8,113 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title $ 24 Pensions, Retired Allowances, 175,000 Gratuities, etc. 25 Contributions and Charitable 13,052 Allowances 27 Customs and Excise 40,500 30 Ministry of Commerce 8,070 and Industry 45 Education 15,075 48 Medical and Health 1,988 52 Social Welfare 452,700 54 Civil Aviation 57,900 55 Meteorological Services 20,865 58 Public Works, Recurrent 92,000 D43 Land and District Offices 89,710 D59 Telecommunications 4,235 D61 Colonial Development and 7,314 Welfare Schemes The sum of $891,100 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the Motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $891,100 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 48 of 1958.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to 21st January, 1959.