Hansard, 1959-12-14

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

31 p.m.

The Development Estimates-for the convenience of hon. Members I intend taking the totals for each head as they appear in the fourth column of the summary of expenditure on page 468 of Paper Cmd. (New Series) 32 of 1959. Head D9 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D9 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 1. Item (2) of sub-head 1, "Singapore River Project $2,000,000; Subject to Treasury sanction." Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember some years ago, a working committee was appointed by the Government to go into the whole question of the Singapore River and what should be done with it, not only from the point of view of the river traffic on it, but also from the sanitary point of view. The Singapore River, as you know, Mr Speaker, passes through the densely populated area of the City and the sanitary exits to most of the premises in this area are into the Singapore River. As far as I can make out, the Singapore River is not only an artery of trade but it also provides an exit for the sanitary facilities of the City. Because of this, the City health authorities were worried about the state of the Singapore River. Several approaches had been made to Government from time to time to see that something should be done to the Singapore River. Therefore, I am very glad, Mr Speaker, Sir, to see that some provision has been made in next year's estimates, although I regret to find under the remarks column "Subject to Treasury sanction". This very often means that the scheme might not be carried out. I would like the assurance of the Finance Minister that the scheme is sufficiently well in hand for it to be commenced next year and, should that be the position, that he will give sympathetic approval to this scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's main interest in this river project is, of course, from the point of view of trade. As the Member for Farrer Park has said, this proposal was first examined quite some time ago. In fact, a Committee was formed in 1954 to investigate the condition of the river and to make recommendations for its improvement. That Committee went into some detail in the engineering aspects of river improvement. Perhaps I may be permitted to explain briefly what are the improvements envisaged, and what is the Government's attitude towards these improvements. The river is important because it is one of the principal arteries of our entrepot trade. Many people may not be aware of the fact that more cargo is discharged through the river than through the wharves of the Singapore Harbour Board, that is if we exclude bunker oil. The traffic up and down the river is impeded in two ways. First, part of the river has been rather heavily silted up, so that at low tide movement of lighters is not possible. Then again at high tide there is not sufficient headway under the bridges, so that again lighter traffic is held up. The Committee proposed certain types of alteration. First, to repair or to reconstruct the bridges so that there is sufficient headway at high tide. Then it would be necessary to dredge a channel along the Singapore River so that traffic can proceed at low tide. Once dredging operations are commenced, there is every danger that the quays of the river may collapse. Therefore, before the channel of the river is deepened, it will be necessary to strengthen the quays by means of sheet piling. This will be a most costly operation. The original cost is $7� million and the latest estimate is that it will probably be nearer the region of $14 million. The estimated original cost of $14 million has now been increased to some $23 million. Now, it is obvious that there are independent aspects of this work, for instance, the reconstruction of bridges can proceed quite independently of the work of deepening the channel of the river, while repair to the quay side (for instance, attending to the deplorable state of some of the private quays) is again quite independent of any deepening of the channel. But no attempt has so far been made to assess the benefit from each item of this total programme against possible benefits; for instance, if you are to reconstruct the bridges, how many more hours' traffic will that permit? What will be the gain to traders and shippers? And if you are to undertake this extremely expensive business of deepening the channel, how much more will the Singapore River be open to trade, and how fast will ships be able to turn over the cargo and so on and so forth? Our Government is now engaged in weighing the benefits to be gained against the items of separate cost so that we can be sure that, if we do embark on this most expensive project, we will get good value for money. Now, if the channel were to be deepened, the advice of the engineers is that the waters of the Singapore River would flow at such a rate that it would eliminate the present malodorous state of the river of which the Member for Farrer Park has complained.

Sir, in view of the explanation by the Hon. the Minister for Finance, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $5,028,070 for Head D9 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D12 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Dl2 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. Sir, this particular provision is a token vote for equipment for new post offices. But I do not see anywhere under this head any provision, be it token or actual, for the building of new post offices. If there are no new post offices to be built, is there any necessity to have a token provision for the equipment for new post offices which are not to be built at all?

Mr Speaker, the Postal Department has a programme for the building of nine new post offices. This programme is divided into three phases. Phase (a) was the building of post offices at Thomson Road and Serangoon Garden Estate. This phase was completed in 1958, at the cost of $246,500. Phase (b) involves the building of five further post offices at Paya Lebar, the Singapore Harbour Board, Macpherson Road, Kampong Kapor and Killiney Road. Work on the Paya Lebar office was begun in 1958, and provision was made in the 1959 estimates for the work to be completed. Because of limited finances at that time, work on the remaining four items of phase (b) was deferred. No provision for these items was entered in the 1959 estimates and in those estimates, the four items were relegated to a schedule of Public Work projects deferred for consideration in connection with future loan programmes and the general availability of finance. So the new P.A.P. Government has inherited this problem. Phase (c) involves the building of two post offices at Simpang Bedok and Farrer Road. In preparing the 1960 estimates, the postal services hope that money could be found for the construction of some, if not all, of the four post offices remaining in phase (b). An application was made for provision to be entered in the Development Estimates. Simultaneously, a proposal was made for $3,400 to purchase equipment necessary to furnish the post offices. 2.45 p.m. In view, however, of the uncertainty as to whether funds would be provided and whether the work could in fact be completed in 1960, only token provision for the purchase of equipment was entered. If necessary and when the need arises, Members of the House will be assured that an application for supplementary provision will be made. I would add, Mr Speaker, that we in Singapore are fortunate that we have an excellent postal service which can guarantee us that when a letter is despatched it will be delivered, and when a man goes to the post office to send a cable it will be promptly transmitted. And if the Member for Farrer Park had gone- An hon. Member: Member for Cairnhill!

I am sorry, Sit. It is the Member for Cairnhill. I have got Farrer Park on my mind!

Naturally. It is a fine open space.

If the Member for Cairnhill had visited the exhibition - "Government at Work" - at the Victoria Memorial Hall, he would have found a map giving the distribution of postal services throughout the whole of Singapore. It is a service which, I again repeat, all of us can be proud of.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I brought this up because there does not appear to be a similar token provision for new post offices in this vote. It would appear, from the Minister's reply, that this matter is in hand and, if necessary, a supplementary application for funds will come before the Assembly in due course. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw. Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands) rose -

It appears to me that other hon. Members would like to take part in this type of debate. I would suggest that, if a Member moves an amendment, he pauses before asking leave to withdraw, waiting to see whether any other Member wishes to speak. Otherwise it is a question of having to put the amendment to the vote, when it is really not necessary to do so. But I have now to put the request that the amendment be withdrawn. No doubt the Member for the Southern Islands will say "No"? Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

No.

Inche Ahmad Jabri?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the sub-head concerning postal services, we have heard the explanation given by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government's intentions regarding the postal services. As has been narrated by the Deputy Prime Minister, there are three types of programmes and they all cover only the City area. No mention was made of programmes covering the Southern Islands. It is evident that I have already mentioned many matters concerning the Southern Islands, Mr Speaker, because I am of the opinion that there is room for improvement in the postal services in certain areas there. I find that one of these places is Palau Bukom. On the main Bukom Island there are no postal services. I feel concerned about what has happened previously. I have received complaints and appeals to the effect that the oil company at Pulau Bukom is prepared to provide a building for a post office at the place where the postal staff now only sell stamps. Unfortunately, however, until today I have not heard of any development regarding the company's offer. Therefore, I would like to draw the attention of the Government that it is only proper that a branch or a sub-post office be opened there, which can be of benefit to the residents of the Southern Islands, the majority of whom are found on Bukom Island and to provide them with easy communication with the Singapore mainland. Otherwise, in the absence of such facilities, it will be very difficult for them when they are in need of urgent communication.

Mr Speaker, I will certainly pay attention to what the Member for the Southern Islands has brought up about Pulau Bukom. Of course, he will agree that it is not possible to set up a sub-post office on an island where there are, say, 50 or 100 inhabitants who do not write letters every day.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $100,730 for Head D12 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D13 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3. Under this Head D13, Sir, 17 sub-heads have been itemised except sub-head 3. Under this sub-head, what is stated is just "General". Would the Minister be good enough to inform this House what kind of expenditure comes under "General"?

Mr Speaker, I can very well understand the anxiety of the Member for Cairnhill about having every item inserted in the Development Estimates. In the 1959 estimates, under "General", the items were a power supply unit, telegraph filters, test equipment, all amounting to $24,550. This year there are several trifling items which the Telecommunications Department wish to purchase, and if you want to insert each and every one of them in the estimates I am afraid it will take up a considerable amount of space. But to assure the Member for Cairnhill, the type of equipment which the Department of Telecommunications will need are aerial multi-couplets to cover maintenance and fog periods on 36 working units, air conditioning plant for expansion of air-conditioning room at the transmitting station, amplifier panels to provide stand-by for 18 v.m. channels, auto alarm for detecting automatically distress signals from ships, D.C. rectifying unit, diesel-electric generating sets, switch-board three-phase telegraph filters. Personally, I have great trust that the Acting Director for Telecommunications will use this sum of money to improve the running of his department. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill that there is no other underlying motive behind "General".

Sir, I did not insinuate anything at all in my speech that there have been any underhand motives in it. What I asked, as a Member of this House, was for information. As the information has already been given, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Dl3 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 10. Sir, in the 1959 estimates, there is a similar provision and I am wondering whether this 1960 estimate is a revote of that provision?

Mr Speaker, it is part of the revote. The reason why the full amount has not been entered is because the Ministry of Finance intends to set up a committee of supply, consisting of experts, to investigate into the claims made by other Ministries. It is important that laymen should at least be fully satisfied that technical claims made by technical departments are fully justified. The Civil Aviation Department relies heavily on Telecommunications for its proper operations. These services are provided by the Telecommunications Department.

Sir, in view of the explanation given, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $776,350 for Head D13 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 3.00 p.m. Head D 14 - The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr A. P. Rajah and Mr Thio Chan Bee- That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. I would like the Minister for National Development to inform us when the Housing Authority will be created and what plans he has to use this $25 million for the building of low-cost housing which we have read about so much; how many units there will be; and where they will be situated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some few months ago the Minister for National Development announced in the Press that he had a comprehensive programme for housing over the next five years which would total about $415 million, and that this $415 million would be spread over the five years of the P.A.P. being in power. Assuming that the report in the Press is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the provision for next year's housing is only $25 million - not even a fifth of the $415 million which the Minister said would be expended over the five years. I further find that this $25 million is also subject to Treasury sanction. It rather gives me the impression that plans have not been finalised to the extent that the Treasury has approved of them. Could the Minister for National Development also inform the House whether this $25 million includes the cost of sites or whether it merely includes the cost of buildings themselves? Could the Minister also tell the House how many housing units it is intended to build out of this $25 million, and how much the cost per unit would be?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume that most of the money allocated for next year would be spent on providing low-cost housing for the poorer sections of the population. At the same time, we know that the rate of population increase is such that, in order to cope with the annual increase, about 10,000 housing units a year should be provided. Together with the back-log and in order to cope with the situation, we should provide, say, 15,000 housing units yearly for the next five years. We know that the maximum building capacity so far achieved by the S.I.T. is about 4,000 to 5,000 housing units. Even with the best will and intention in the world, the S.I.T. or the new Housing Authority might be able to provide, say, 8,000 units. I am speaking on behalf of those families wanting accommodation, who are not provided by the S.I.T. We know there are thousands of families who have been queueing up and have not been able to become eligible because of the points system. Unless a family has at least five points, it is not eligible. So only large families are eligible. A newly-married couple or a couple with one child or two children cannot apply for an S.I.T. house. If the S.I.T. cannot provide houses for such people, then they have to turn to private enterprise. Therefore, Sir, I hope that the Government will give every encouragement to private enterprise to provide housing for those who are not provided by the Housing Authority. I hope an assurance will be given by the Government at this time.

Mr Speaker, when the P.A.P. became the Government, we were faced with problems which would take some time to resolve. We found, when we opened the cash till, that most of the money which the people had given to the care of the old Government had disappeared. As the Deputy Prime Minister said one day, Christmas Island was sold; luckily the people opened their eyes, or otherwise this Island of Singapore would also be sold. There are many problems to be solved by the new Government. Not only was there a shortage of money, not only were our reserves spent in a carefree manner, but there were also other problems which the other governments - the colonial government and the Lim Yew Hock Government - had left to the P.A.P. Government to solve: for instance, as the Member for Tanglin has said just now, a back-log of houses to be built, a shortage of accommodation which for the past ten years the colonial administration had never tried to solve, and which had been entrusted to us. In a word, Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. Government has had to carry the baby. We do agree with the Member for Tanglin that, in order to cope with the back-log which the colonial government had left us to solve, we need to build an average of 17,500 units a year. We understand that fact. But, Mr Speaker, in the present economic position in Singapore, we cannot do much better than what our Minister for Finance has done, to allocate $25 million for housing. There are many competing demands on the restricted financial resources available to the P.A.P. Government. Schools have not been adequately supplied and, as the Minister for Education mentioned yesterday, delinquency is high and many children have not been able to go to schools. There is a shortage of hospitals for the needy; a shortage of social services for the sick and the needy. Because of these competing demands, the Government has done its very best by allocating the sum of $25 million to one requirement alone, that is housing. Mr Speaker, this is the first year of the P.A.P. Government. In the first year of the Tun Lim Yew Hock Government, they only allocated $9 million for housing. $9 million versus $25 million! Of course, every sector of economic activity in this Island wants more money. We want $50 million for schools, $50 million for hospitals, $50 million for social service, etc, etc. But it is not possible to get all the money and it is the task of the Government to allocate the money judiciously and wisely so that we will do our best with the limited funds at our disposal. Mr Speaker, we are doing our very best as far as housing is concerned, with our limited funds. We have reorganised the S.I.T. almost completely. We have sacked or ousted the expatriate architects who had been guilty of irregularities. We forced them to quit or else action would be taken against them. We did not want to waste time by sending them to the Court because, in some cases, it would be just a waste of time. For instance, in the course of two weeks, we found that more than 20 to 30 items of irregularities had been charged against one architect. And to most of these items, he could not give a satisfactory answer. There were six expatriate architects and we took action to replace them with six local architects. Mr Speaker, there are some people still at large in this country who have no confidence in the ability of our people to put up plans for housing, hospitals, and to run this country. But, Mr Speaker, we have confidence in our own people and in our own professional men. As soon as we reorganised the S.I.T. from August onwards and took over full control, within the course of one month, we terminated the services of 30 expatriates out of 35, leaving a few engineers who have experience and who at the moment are a bit difficult to replace. But for the other sectors - the administration, the management and the architects - we have replaced them completely with local professional men. Mr Speaker, we have 100 per cent confidence in our local people. 3.15 p.m. In conjunction with housing, we need to have a good Planning Committee in the S.I.T. because the two are joined up - housing requires good planning - and it is important that there should be an honest and efficient Planning Department in the S.I.T. both for public housing and, as the Member for Tanglin says, for private housing. The corruption and filth in the Planning Department in the old S.I.T. has been mentioned many times in this House. As soon as we took over control in August and as soon as action was taken to investigate the Planning Committee, the most important person against whom many allegations had been made, scooted. As soon as he left the country, he submitted a letter of resignation. We have now thoroughly reorganised the Planning Section. Previously - and this is for the information of the Member for Tanglin - local architectural firms found it very, very difficult to get their plans expedited. But European architectural firms could build installations worth $10 million or even small installations, first, and then after a few years submit their plans for confirmation. Mr Speaker, we have rectified all these abuses and irregularities of the past. In the case of local firms, we now treat them fairly and on an equal footing with foreign firms. We have even gone one step further. And this is for the further information of the Member for Tanglin - one of the abuses of the past was that the Planning Committee could just reject a plan without giving reasons. In the new Planning Committee, what we have tried to do is that, if we feel that reasons can be given, we ask the planners to call the architects and give them the reasons and ask them to make the necessary slight adjustments, so that their plans can come in and can be passed. Previously, what they tried to do was they just rejected and the architects or the contractors or the builders had to go and contact the right persons in order to get their plans passed. It is a pity though, Mr Speaker, that the persons who have scooted are not the real persons who are responsible for the corruption in the Planning Section of the S.I.T. The persons who are really corrupted in the Planning Section are still at large, and it will take some time before the people of Singapore can lay their hands on them. The Member for Farrer Park has sat on the Planning Committee, and I am sure he knows that if the members and the trustees who sat on the Committee did not agree with the planning experts, the planning experts could not just pass the plans. It was the planning experts who suggested passing or approving the plans, but it was left to the Planning Committee composed previously of a group of trustees who said "yes" or "no" to the plans, and they had been given powers to say "yes" or "no". Perhaps a Commission of Inquiry into the previous Planning Committee might reveal many matters of interest. Mr Speaker, when we started reorganising the S.I.T. in August this year, we sacked the corrupt expatriate officials, but at the same time we went one step further and replaced them with local architects and engineers. We have long-term and short-term plans: the long-term plans are not in detail but the short-term plans are. We have short-term plans to build low-cost housing. The old government only talked about low-cost housing. They had been talking about low-cost housing for four years. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, to pay $89 or $99 rent per month for a house is not low-cost housing. Neither is a one-room flat, the rental of which is $25 per month and which was subsidised on the eve of the elections just to get votes-low-cost housing. The old Government built a few thousand units in Kallang Estate just on the eve of the elections; but they, knowing the elections were coming, said, "O.K., we subsidise these flats. The rent is $60 each per month. Never mind, we subsidise $20." The total electorate will have to pay out the money eventually to subsidise these flats. We believe in building real low-cost housing without any hypocritical measures in hidden subsidies. Even about the so-called low-cost housing in Kallang Estate, when I went there yesterday, I received so many complaints in respect of the construction; the rain coming in during rainy days; the rent which the tenants cannot afford to pay.... When we say low-cost housing, we really mean low-cost housing - a one-room flat which we have started, and which we will rent out at less than $20 a month. We will not announce the details of the rentals until the houses are completed. At present there are 1,364 units of S.I.T. flats under construction. There are sites available on which we can build another 5,000 to 6,000 units straightaway. The plans are ready, most of the specifications are ready, and as soon as the Treasury are consulted, we will announce the plans publicly, and for these units, construction will start straightaway. The Member for Cairnhill asked just now when the Housing Authority is going to be created. Mr Speaker, the new Government not only works on form, but it also works on content. Not only are we proceeding with our plans to build low-cost housing for the poor and for those who cannot afford higher rent, but we are also proceeding very fast with the creation of a new Housing Authority which we hope in January next year will be accomplished. The Member for Farrer Park asked about the building cost at present. The present cost of building a one-room flat on the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire site, which does not include the price of land and roads, is $1,344. The comparative figure in respect of a one-room flat at the old Kallang Airport is $2,986 - about double the price. The cost of building a two-room unit in Kampong Tiong Bahru is $2,206, and that in the Kallang Estate is $4,159. Mr Speaker, some people might query - perhaps the house will break down; it might have a beam without a ceiling; or it might have a ceiling without piling in the construction. But that is not the case. We have been able to get these low-cost houses because of many factors. One is that from now onwards, building contractors will not have to pay the usual percentage in order to get the housing contracts which may mean perhaps a saving of 20 per cent. The second factor is that our local architects have experience in building houses for local people. When I was in Kallang Estate yesterday, a woman complainant came to me and said, "The lavatory is broken." I asked her whether her husband was fat and she said that, on the contrary, he was as lean as myself. Then I said, "It must be that your husband squatted on the lavatory instead of sitting on it." Then she said, "Mr Ong, I am sorry. I am an Asian and I am not used to sitting. I am used to squatting on the lavatory." Mr Speaker, that is a clear example of European architects trying to build low-cost housing for local people; they do not understand low-cost housing. They cannot get out of their minds the conveniences to which they are accustomed in England. They do not have a system of urinals and lavatories where people squat and do not sit. In other words, the difference is between the Asian type of urinals and the English type of urinals. And this is a common complaint from all S.I.T. tenants - most of the lavatories have cracked. There are also complaints about cracks not only in one part of the room but in most parts. There is also not enough ventilation, because the expatriate architects who plan the S.I.T. units do not have to live there. Albert House in Rochore Road - there is no cross ventilation and when the tenants cook - chillies and blachan and brinjal and onions - then the occupants of the whole flat will have to be suffocated for many hours. They have complained but we cannot do very much. The only thing we can do is to take down the whole house. A few months ago I went to the Brickworks Estate where I heard the story of a flying saucer - the whole roof of a flat had flown away during a small thunderstorm! I was shocked to see the construction - no ceilings, because the architects thought that our local people can live in those places just like cats and dogs. The Sembawang Research Station for pigs and chicken is better constructed - $1 million has been spent on less than 50 pigs. Mr Speaker, the third factor whereby we have been able to reduce construction costs is that we choose suitable sites where piling is not necessary or less necessary. We have better layout so that one road can serve as many houses as possible. We have better layout for the houses so that one building can support as many square feet of floor space as possible. We have better layout for water and electricity service so that we have to pay less capital costs. We even have better layout for the roads. Mr Speaker, because of all these factors, we have now been able to reduce the construction costs to a very low figure. For the first time in Singapore, the people are going to have really low-cost housing. Some people might ask, "Why did the previous Government not build low-cost housing?" In the first place, they did not have the architects to build low-cost housing. They believed in engaging expatriate architects because they were not confident of their own local architects. Local architects - one or two of them in the S.I.T. - were allowed to swat mosquitoes in their rooms. Secondly, low-cost housing means less corruption. If a flat is going to be rented out at about $15 a month, the trishaw rider, the hawker, the poor worker who would be the tenants would not be able to pay $200 as tea-money to get it. But with a 3-room flat, a little more lavishly decorated and constructed, and rented out at $99 or $89 per month, then, Mr Speaker, directors of firms, managers of trading companies, professional men doctors and engineers-could afford to pay $1,000 or $750 tea-money and rent these S.I.T. flats, subsidised by the public. We have rectified all these. We have allocated fiats on the points system fairly and equitably. We have even gone one step further by going down to the S.I.T. Estates, and listening to the public complaints. We have sacked those housing investigators who were paid $600 to $700 a month, and who did not really go to work, and if they really did, complaints inevitably came, of rudeness and corruption. In a word, Mr Speaker, we have reorganised the whole of the S.I.T. and we are embarking on real low-cost housing. We are also taking steps to ensure that private development programmes will be expedited so that the problems of housing in this island can be mitigated, if not solved. For this matter, we wish to compliment the Minister for Finance on his ability to get $25 million for housing in comparison with the $9 million which the Tun Lim Yew Hock Government had allocated to the S.I.T. in his first year of office. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the debate on this budget has been going on for the past few days, the Opposition has come to expect such tirades from the Government benchers whenever a question is asked in plain and simple language just for information. They seem to think that the best way to show that they are good people or clever people is to try to say what the previous Government had done or had failed to do. Surely, Sir, they are not going to be judged by what the previous Government did or failed to do? But they are going to be judged by what they are doing and will continue to do. The Hon. Minister said that during my time of office we only gave $9 million to the S.I.T. I am afraid he is wrong in his facts. Even this book produced by their own Minister for Finance disclosed that $9� million was lent to the S.I.T. in 1954, whereas in 1957 it was $30 million. That is just to answer him, Sir. He seems to think that in 1954 the Rendel Constitution came into being. It was not so. It was in April 1955. Therefore, Sir, if he wants to attack the previous Government, may I ask him to be more sure of his facts? The Hon. Minister, Sir, also touched upon Christmas Island. I do not know what that has got to do with this question. But since this has also been brought up by the Deputy Prime Minister, may I say that Christmas Island was never Singapore's? The Singapore Government was only responsible for the administration of Christmas Island. For administering it, the Singapore Government was paid a fee, and also the royalty on the phosphates. The Government benchers said that we sold Christmas Island. It was not ours to sell or not to sell. In fact, when I was informed in London that the Colonial Office intended to transfer Christmas Island to Australia, I said, "Now, it means a loss of $1� million to Singapore." They said, "All right, we will try to get for you $20 million. If judiciously invested, it will bring you that amount." So if $20 million was judiciously invested, it would bring that amount for years and years to come, and not, as the Deputy Prime Minister would have us believe, that for 38 years we will be getting $1� million. But I say that we have already got $20 million in hand and with $1� million every year to come for many years if that money is properly invested. An hon. Member: Was it?

Even their own Hon. Minister for Finance in his budget speech called it a windfall - a windfall, not a sell-out. It was a windfall. I ask just a simple question. When will the Housing Authority be constituted and how many units will be built with the $25 million? I did not criticise that the $25 million was not enough. It is too small - not like we who gave $30 million, and why did you give only $25 million? I never said that. I asked how many housing units would be built. I had to sit and listen for about 25 minutes before I got the answer - that it is about 5,000 or 6,000 units. I do not know also why the Minister should go to the extent of saying that it was the Lim Yew Hock Government which liked expatriate officers and wanted them to remain and had no trust in the local officers. But it was the previous Government that introduced Malayanisation and gave the local boys a real chance.

It is really very difficult to get a simple answer, Mr Speaker, to a simple question.

A complicated lie.

If you want a complicated lie, says the Deputy Prime Minister, put a complicated question. But apparently the Government Benches, particularly the front row, are incapable of answering a simple question. They try to cloak it in words hoping that the point of the question will be lost. But we do not intend to lose the point of the question. We will come back to it and try to get reasonable answers. Now, the first point I made was that the Minister for National Development, when the Prime Minister visited his Ministry - I believe it was on that auspicious occasion - came out with his grandiose plans for housing. He announced most bravely to the Press that he was going to build over the next four and a half years, as the case may be, housing to the value of $415 million. That was a very good thing. Nobody can deny that. Housing is one of the most important factors in Singapore, and the people of Singapore were very pleased to hear that the Government was going to provide $415 million worth of housing. Naturally when the Budget was placed in my hands, I was hoping there would possibly be an allocation of at least $80 million for housing. But imagine my surprise when it was only $25 million worth of housing. However, I make bold to say here and now to the Minister for National Development that he will not achieve even this target, in spite of his brave words. So I am not suggesting that it should be $80 million. But when a responsible Minister says that he is going to build $415 million worth of houses, he must mean what he says. He is a Minister and not a back-bencher. Now what the Planning Committee has got to do with the Housing Authority, Mr Speaker, I do not know. But the Minister must necessarily drag in the Planning Committee in the hope that he will drag me into it. Certainly I was a member of the Planning Committee for a number of years. While I was a member of the Singapore Improvement Trust, I was a member of the Planning Committee. If the Minister is suggesting that there was corruption so far as the Trustees of the Planning Committee were concerned, I would certainly ask him to appoint a Commission. He should appoint his Commission and let us, once and for all, put to rest all these unnecessary aspersions about corruption, this, that and the other, when there is no proof. For the first two or three months of the Government, it is all right for Members to say this, that or the other. But let us get away from all these stunts and proceed with the work of Government, and not with the work of accusing people when there is no substantial proof. If the Minister for National Development must speak about the Planning Committee to this House, I think he should give a truthful picture and not a distorted view.

Order. I have been listening very carefully to the words of the Member for Farrer Park. I know that he is perhaps aroused by what has been said by the Minister for National Development, but when he alleges that the Minister has said something which does not give a truthful picture, that seems to imply that there has been a lie stated. Therefore, I must ask the Member for Farrer Park to indicate whether he meant a lie has been stated in this House, or whether what the Minister has said is not true. There is a difference.

Mr Speaker, if I have given the impression that the Minister was telling a lie, I withdraw it. But what I intended to say was that the Minister had not given a clear picture of how the Planning Committee worked. It is not correct to say that the Planning Committee had complete delegated authority to say "Yea" or "Nay" to any plan. It could say "yes", Mr Speaker, and if it did say "yes" then the plan would be implemented straightaway. But if it did say "no", that was not the end of the matter, because any "no" from the Planning Committee went to the full Board of Trustees. It was the Board of Trustees who decided whether it should be "no" or "yes". In any event, the Minister said that the previous Planning Committee did not assist those people who wanted to develop. The true position is this: in respect of every application which was to be rejected or on which the Planning Committee were not quite sure about giving approval, the developer was invited into the Committee room. He came in with his architect, and the reasons against approval were given to the person concerned. Where the answer was "no" he was told that if he and his architect amended their plan in a certain way, if they did this or if they did not do that, then the possibility was that they would be given planning approval. But, of course, where the plan inherently was such that it could not be approved, then it was turned down and the developer was told that no amount of trying would help; and he was told that in no uncertain terms. Where it was possible to alter the plan to bring about an approval, certainly the developer and his architect were given an indication of that. The Minister talked about low-cost Housing. He talked about the one-room flat. Does he mean, by a one-room flat, Mr Speaker, that there would be cooking facilities? Was it an entirely separate domestic unit? In other words, was it just a one-room dormitory which he thinks is low-cost housing, or does he mean, by one-room flat, a one-room bed-room, a sitting room, a kitchen, a bath-room and a lavatory? He did not make that quite clear. If it was just one-room in a tenament house, where the tenants have to have common facilities for cooking and bathing, then his $20 rental per month is exorbitant. He has not told the House how many units he hopes to build for the year; and how many units of one-room flats and how many units of two-room flats he hopes to build with this money. So, if we could have these answers plainly and simply without embarking on a tirade, the Opposition Members would be grateful to the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this present Budget debate has been a field day for the Opposition Members. Never have they been so vociferous and demanding in their questions and queries. Of course, it is only part of the game.

Order. I think I must from now on stop all irrelevancies. I think hon. Members must realise that Budget time in Committee of Supply is really Opposition time. It is in fact Opposition time in every parliament in the world. This is the only opportunity that the Opposition has of shining a searchlight on Government work.

Excuse me, Sir, I was going to say that they have been trying to show the people of Singapore that they are the watchdogs of Government expenditure. I do not think that is irrelevant. I would like to tell them that we, on this side of the House, have more vigilant watchdogs than all the Opposition Members put together. There is no denying the fact that all the pressing claims of the various Ministries have been assiduously checked and re-checked and trimmed so that we have now a budget which has been acclaimed by all the people of Singapore, which has been called an expansion budget, and which has even been called a Christmas present. If that is not a good budget

Order. We are now on loans to a Housing Authority. Perhaps the hon. Member will talk about the Housing Authority, loans, and housing and not about the budget in general. We have dealt with that already.

Excuse me, Sir, those were all just prefacing remarks. As we know, the Opposition Members did say something about $400 million for housing. But, Sir, the whole budget next year only amounts to about $260 million. Therefore we should look at things in their proper perspective. Since housing is only one part of Government expenditure, it is not expected that all the money should go to housing. It is through the diligent working of our Ministers that we have, as the Minister for Finance has previously said, a budget that is equally proportioned in all ways and in every direction, so that Singapore can really be proud of her budget which can be called a Christmas present. 3.45 p.m. As regards housing, they have been belabouring the point, and that is that, at the present moment, the Singapore Government has not the staff and the technical skill to carry out its programme. We would like to remind them that with all their technical skill and all their staff in the previous years, the previous Government managed only to produce reservoirs that cracked, houses with foundations that were loose and which finally tilted - I come from Queenstown and I happen to know a little about what happened to those houses there. In other words, something must have gone wrong between the drawing board and the actual building. And for that, I think, true and honest administrative skill will have to be required. That the P.A.P. Government has not as yet demonstrated to the Opposition as regards housing. But it is not too late for the Opposition to criticise after we have been shown that we are also not as good workers as the previous Government were.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill wants to know how we are going to carry out an efficient housing programme. Before we talk about the 1960 housing programmes in the S.I.T., we must tell the hon. Member what we have done for the past four months. First of all, however, the Member says he wants to know how we are going to use part of the money in the Estimate. He warns us not to talk about the previous Government. But if we do not compare the present Government with the past Government, we cannot show the Opposition Members the good or the bad; without comparison, we do not know the good or the bad points of a thing. Now that the P.A.P. has taken office as the people's Government, we want to build houses for the poor people. We must know the wishes of the people, and we must satisfy them. Since our Government took office, corruption in the old S.I.T. has been eradicated. We started our true work from August this year. At the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire site, the Kampong Koo Chye fire site, and the Jalan Eunos Malay Settlement, we have completed 1,364 units of low-cost houses. Furthermore, at Macpherson Road there are 2,368 units of houses. We have done piling for these houses. By the end of this year, we expect to complete 3,732 low-cost houses. We are able to complete, within this period of 4 months, more than 3,000 units of houses. This can be said to be a very noteworthy effort. The old Government was far behind this. I want to tell Members of this House that in 1955 the S.I.T. planned to build houses for the poor people in Jalan Eunos. But from 1955 to 1958 we still saw that the place was as bald as the head of a Buddhist monk! But during the past few months of our office, the S.I.T. under the new Government, together with the local engineers and architects, have started to build 100 detached houses together with 50 two-room and a hail houses and 50 three-room and a hall houses on the two sites - Kampong Tiong Bahru and Kampong Koo Chye. These houses will be completed in January next year and we will then let the Opposition Members see them. We hope they will go there and see and appreciate our great effort. Furthermore, everyone has heard that the Lim Yew Hock Government at that time expressed beautiful sentiments in the Press, that it was unfortunate for the poor people to suffer from these fires. They promised to complete the building of houses within a period of three months for the victims. But after three months had elapsed, the people still could not have the houses until the present time, when the P.A.P. took over the Government. We are truly and honestly building houses for these poor people. The old Government said something but they did not do it. Because of these empty promises, they failed in the last elections. I can tell the Opposition Members, especially the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Cairnhill, this: if you are free, please drive your car from East to West, and from South to North and see for yourselves. For example, Kampong Eunos, please see for yourselves that houses have been built, one block after another. The victims of the fires can therefore go back there and stay with their families.

Order. The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing the Chair. She should not address the Members direct. If the interpretation is correct, I think she is using the second person.

(In Mandarin): I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Because I see they are very interested in this subject, I therefore address them. Excuse me. Mr Speaker, in this short period of a few months, we have completed many houses. We did not have a lot of money to have this reorganised S.I.T. authority. We know that for 1959 the old Government appropriated a sum of $7 million for the S.I.T., but in 1958 the money was more than $21 million. There was therefore a great difference. From this, we know that the old Government did not take care of the housing problem of the people of Singapore. They simply played their tactics to gain their political positions. They understood that when the new Government took office the new Government would be faced with difficulties in tackling the housing problem with the sum of $7 million for the S.I.T. In this short period we have made use of only one-fourth of this amount. The Minister for National Development said that this time we are catering for the majority of the poor people in respect of their housing problems. Therefore we build houses at a low cost in order to cater for the majority of the poor people. We have confidence in the ability of our local engineers and are able to utilise their talents. At present, we have in mind many sites suitable for building purposes. We are now waiting for the consultations between the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Finance to take place. After this, I believe that in 1960 we will have more surprising achievements, and I hope, at that time, every one of the Opposition Members will admire our great achievements, which are a reflection of the ability of this Government.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have heard at length the speeches from the Government, from the Minister right down to the Government back-benchers. Originally the debate arose from two questions. First, how many houses can be built? Secondly where are the houses to be built? Only two questions. Unfortunately, the debate has gone astray, to the extent that I myself am confused as to whether we are today discussing matters concerning the budget generally, or matters concerning the policies of the past Government. However, since I was the Minister for Housing in the past Government, it is appropriate for me to clarify one or two matters which I think otherwise might lead to confusion. Just now - the Minister for National Development told us that in the Tiong Bahru area low-cost houses have been built, at $1,544 per unit, whereas under the previous Government, such a house would cost $2,260. This may be so, but we must not forget that the house costing $2,260, unlike that which was built at Tiong Bahru, required piling or foundation. Therefore the cost naturally was higher compared with the houses mentioned by the Minister just now. Similarly the houses at Kallang - $4,159 for a two-room house. The present Government say they could build a similar type of house costing only $2,986. 4.00 p.m. Mr Speaker, here again, in Kallang as you know, the houses which were built required piling and therefore the cost was sometimes one-third or one-fourth or so more than that of the present houses. So there is no need to compare the houses erected by the previous Government at a higher cost and those erected by the present Government at a lower cost. In this connection, the Minister surely can see the houses at Bukit Panjang where there was a Government programme for erecting 2,500 units of two-room houses complete with modern sanitation. Their cost was low. The reason why it was possible to build such houses at a low cost was that there was no necessity for piling. Another point which he referred to just now is about the so-called `flying saucer' type of house. The house was built in 1954 before Tun Lim Yew Hock's government came into power. It was built during the Colonial government. Therefore the blame cannot be shifted on to us. Another point; one of the Government Members said that the P.A.P. Government, during a space of six months, has managed to build 1,664 houses. If that is true, I congratulate the Government. But in my opinion, programmes to build these houses were formulated by the previous Government, in the same way as in April 1955, when the Coalition Government assumed office, we carried on with the work of the former Government. Therefore, since 1955, houses which were erected then were not as a result of plans formulated by the Government of Mr David Marshall or Tun Lim Yew Hock. They were merely carried over from the previous Government. Another point which was raised in the debate concerned housing in the Malay Settlement at Jalan Eunos. This scheme, Mr Speaker, was from my own plan. The previous Government originally did not agree to this scheme but because I pressed on with it, not as a Minister but as a representative of the electorate there, the Government then accepted the scheme. Agreement was reached only in 1958, not in the early part of 1958, but in the latter part. The site is on Crown land but we have made provision whereby we would put aside money to the amount of $384,000 for the purpose of building 120 houses to be sold to successful applicants for Crown land in the Malay Settlement. So it cannot be said that this matter has been delayed. We have already prepared a scheme and money has been allocated. At that time the Government was in negotiation with the applicants for land in the Malay Settlement. But because these approved applicants were the would-be purchasers of the houses, the negotiations between the Land Office and the applicants for land were necessarily protracted for some time, until a Malay-house type of plan was agreed upon. Agreement was reached early this year. In the meantime, the elections came and the present Government was obliged to proceed with the scheme. But from what I hear it seems that the Govvernment has altered slightly the original scheme from a Malay-type of house to another type of house. This is the responsibility of this Government. I do not intend to dwell at length on this subject except to say that the housing scheme in the Malay Settlement was originally a scheme which we formulated. Mr Speaker, that briefly is all I wish to comment on.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the query from the Opposition Member for Cairnhill, the Member for Farrer Park, and the Member for Tanglin and also from the Member for Geylang Serai, I am of the opinion that this is a small and simple matter. Our Government proposes to formulate a housing scheme with that $25 million, and we are sure that we can carry out the programme. Answers have already been given but I wish to talk a little about the Malay Settlement, mention of which was made by the Member for Geylang Serai. The Member said that the plan was delayed. In actual fact, we can say that the Member has been going round and round the mulberry bush. The object of building low-cost houses in the Malay Settlement is to provide houses for the lower income group, say, for those drawing less than $400 a month. But if we examine carefully the list of successful applicants who received allocation of Crown land in the Malay Settlement we will find that they were not the hawkers or taxi-drivers, but they were, shall we say, people from the middle-class group. There was no opportunity for the lower income group. When this Government assumed office I discovered that the previous Government had allocated not $380,000 but $340,000 to build low-cost houses. Among the applicants, I found some who, when the allocation for land was approved in June, had hurriedly built their houses without, in the first place, submitting their plans or waiting for approval from the Land Office, as though they wanted to avail themselves of the opportunity to build these houses before the old Government went out of office. We found that houses were built before plans were submitted to the proper authorities. Hence there was a delay in implementing the low-cost housing scheme. This was to ensure that the allocation of Crown land in the Malay Settlement was not abused. Now, we have altered slightly the type of house from the original type. If we adhere to the original plan, with that little amount of money only very few houses could be erected. Therefore, with a slight amendment to the former Malay-type of house, and with the same amount of money, more houses could be built, which means that more poor people can be housed in the Malay Settlement. On this scheme tenders have been invited and accepted, and work has already commenced, and I think, within the next two or three months, we will be able to see some of the down-trodden masses live in a better atmosphere.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I feel very strange to see that the Opposition Members are nervous, perhaps because they think they were accused by us, but they do not know that our Ministers and colleagues have answered them very correctly and fully. One of them has asked where the places will be for building low-cost houses next year. But the Minister has already explained it. They will be in Tiong Bahru, Geylang, Aljunied. Furthermore, we have said that the cost of a one-room flat, if I am not wrong, is $13,400, and of a two-room flat, it is $22,060. Did the Opposition Members not hear these words, or were they sleeping? Mr Speaker, just now our colleagues have said that we cater for the needs of the poorer people in respect of their housing problems. Our Government have tried their best to give the poorer people housing facilities. We hope next year we will build many more low-cost houses for the Opposition Members to see. 4.15 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length on this debate, because I see that it has been centred round Singapore - from the $25 million loan to the Housing Authority under the Ministry of National Development. As my colleague, the Member for Geylang Serai, has said, the question of erecting Malay-type houses in the Malay Settlement was under his charge. For my part, I congratulate the Government today for looking after my constituency and building houses; this matter is now well taken care of. There are one or two points which I wish to direct to the Member for Bukit Timah, who is also the Chairman of the Malay Settlement at Jalan Eunos, whether

The Member for Bukit Timah is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, so he ought to be referred to as the Parliamentary Secretary of that Ministry.

(In Malay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I direct my comment to the Parliamentary Secretary. To the best of my knowledge, I know that many people have registered for building sites for the purpose of building houses, with Government help or with their own money. Are these selections made in accordance with the plans carried out by a committee which was set up previously, or how are the selections made? Another point - as far as I know, most of the people, whether Malays, Chinese or Indians, need low-cost houses so that they may be able to get the help of the Government, and at the same time pay monthly instalments. Will the Government increase the number of houses which are being built in Jalan Eunos, or will they go for a new type of house, or is the Government scheme as cheap as the scheme which is carried out now? Secondly, Mr Speaker, can the Government clarify whether the successful applicants can make application with a view to getting Government help? Are such applications entertained? Are such applications included in this budget of $25 million? I ask these questions because I know many of the applicants coming from that constituency and I know their troubles. There are people who made applications many years back, but owing to lack of funds they were forced to borrow or pawn their belongings. It is entirely up to them now. So in order to avoid the hardships they have experienced and to save them from getting into debt in that manner, can the Government be generous enough to loan them money?

Order. I understand the hon. Member is suggesting that the Government should lend money for the purchase of land. I am just wondering whether that topic in fact comes under the Head we are discussing. Perhaps the Minister can say whether that topic comes under loans to the Housing Authority? Mr Ong Eng Guan indicated dissent.

The answer is no and, therefore, I must rule that it is outside the scope of the particular item.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to elaborate further. I now await replies from the authorities. I will welcome them. I hope with this vote we can accomplish great things in the future.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I did not think there was any need to reply to the Members for Geylang Serai and Kampong Kembangan. But since you have allowed that, I will reply. This matter does not come under the scope of the $25 million vote. Therefore, there is no need for me to reply to the queries raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the item of $25 million appearing as loans to the Housing Authority, the Minister for National Development in his speech to the Assembly just now said that so far as rentals are concerned (rentals which he proposes to charge), there will be no hidden subsidies. Could the Minister therefore in his reply to us also inform the House, particularly as the item appears as loans to the Housing Authority, whether the Government proposes to charge the Housing Authority any interest, and if so, what interest; whether it is on an annuity basis, or whether it is a loan which has to be paid back to the Government in 10 years, 20 years or 30 years in respect of which the Housing Authority will set up a sinking fund? Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will turn to pages 430 and 432, the Singapore Improvement Trust, to whom moneys were lent under items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. These moneys were lent from time to time and the manner of the repayments is set out on the respective opposite pages. The total amounts repaid on the sums already lent to the Trust come to almost $4.75 million. I raise this question for a specific purpose. In the rentals which the Trust has fixed for these properties, there is an element for the repayment of interest to Government. There is a further element in respect of the amounts which are annually repayable to Government on the capital account. For a number of years, the Trust had been trying to persuade the Government either to give these moneys as an outright gift to the Trust or, if the Government did not find itself in a position to give it as a gift, at least not to charge interest. The reason for the Trust asking for that position to be achieved, Mr Speaker, was this: that if the moneys were given to the Trust by way of a gift, then the Trust could reduce by about 40 per cent the rentals and, therefore, the public would enjoy the benefit of these reduced rents. Therefore, it is relevant for this House to know whether this $25 million, which is about to be lent to the Housing Authority by the Government, is a loan by way of interest, or whether it is an outright gift; or if it is a loan, in how many years would it be repayable, or whether there is to be an annuity charge?

Perhaps the Minister would like to wind up?

Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park is still thinking in terms of the old S.I.T., when the S.I.T. fought with the Government for lower interest or no interest, or for a free gift, on their loans for housing purposes. The People's Action Party Government do not think on the same lines in finance. We do not like, as the Chinese proverb says, "To cut out the left sleeve of the shirt in order to patch the right sleeve." This is, after all, an inter-governmental item. If the S.I.T. do not have to pay interest on the loan, it means the Ministry of Finance has to incur the cost of borrowing the money from the public, which might mean less hospitals and less schools. On the same basis, if no interest is charged on loans to other boards like the Telephone Board, it might mean less houses. Mr Speaker, we work on a different system. The Government is a whole set-up, whether it is a Ministry or a department or a statutory corporation. The Ministry of Finance does charge interest on the loans, but the details of the loans, the rate of interest and the repayment terms have not been settled. They will be settled in due course, but I wish to assure the House that, whatever they are, it makes no difference at all to the functions of Government. Previously, the S.I.T. was more or less independent of Government control, subject only to its Yearly Report to the Minister for Lands and Housing. In those circumstances, the persons who ran the S.I.T., namely the Trustees, and the civil servants in the S.I.T., always thought in terms of getting more concessions for themselves - less interest or, if possible, an outright loan or getting an outright gift to build houses. This would mean more money for the S.I.T. This would also mean more chances of receiving corruption, in the meantime to fulfil its construction of so many units per year, at rentals with hidden subsidies. We do not believe in charging rentals by such methods, because it is not a real reduction of costs. A real reduction of costs is achieved by checking corruption and having better planning, layout and sites. Mr Speaker, since the debate began on the budget, we have heard hon. Members of the Opposition talking of nothing else on housing, but that there are no plans, no units being built, no architects and engineers, and that nothing can be done. Mr Speaker, this is not the first time that I have heard these allegations. As a matter of fact, I have heard them many months ago. There is still a certain section of the people of this country who believe that when the expatriates are being replaced by local people, what can the local people do? This section could be the expatriates who still stay in this country, or it could be those local people who have no faith in our own people running this country. 4.30 p.m. I am sure that in the next few months more of such questions will come: no expatriate architects in the S.I.T. and the P.W.D.; no schools will be built because we have no expatriate engineers and architects; no houses will be completed; no plans, no specifications, no programmes, nothing at all. What can our local people do? Just now we have given complete proof that our local architects and engineers and local management can do as good as, if not better than, the expatriates whom we have replaced. Mr Speaker, the struggle against colonialism in this country still carries on, and this is a part of the struggle. Some might say that low-cost housing is divorced from politics, but I say that in the matter of building hospitals, schools, houses, politics comes in. Even in the case of the Rent Conciliation Board, and in the approving of plans. The hon. Member for Farrer Park said just now that he was on the Planning Committee - but I am sure, Mr Speaker, when plans were submitted to the Planning Committee by the firm of Tan, Rajah and Cheah

Order. I think the Honourable the Minister is not setting a very good example by being so irrelevant in this debate. I think we should now try and confine ourselves to sub-head 1, which is "Loans to Housing Authority". I have indicated that the debate should now continue on relevancies.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I was trying to reply to a point raised by the Member for Farrer Park about his sitting on the Planning Committee, and about the corruption there. The Member for Farrer Park was trying to play up this $415 million programme which we have planned out. The S.I.T. had put up this programme, but unfortunately it leaked out and was published in the Press. This programme shows the organising ability of the S.I.T. It does not say that the Government will carry out the programme. It says that the S.I.T. recognises the need for housing and that it has the organisation ready to carry out the building of so many houses. But, Mr Speaker, as a result of the lavish spending of the previous Government, and even after the "windfall" due to the sale of Christmas Island for $20 million to a foreign government, we cannot do better than to allocate $25 million for housing. Just now the Member for Cairnhill said that his Government had allocated $30 million in 1957. We are not comparing our first year of office with the third year of office of his government. We are comparing what the Lim Yew Hock Government had done in its first year and what the P.A.P. Government has done in its first year. In the 1955-6 Budget, which was the first Budget of the Lim Yew Hock Government, $9 million was allocated to housing; whereas in the first Budget of the P.A.P. Government, $25 million has been allocated to housing. Of course, we realise that the Lim Yew Hock Government later increased the money allocated to housing in 1957 to $28 million, and not $30 million, and which later in 1959 dropped to $7 million for the building of houses in Kampong Tiong Bahru and Kampong Koo Chye. Mr Speaker, we assure the people of this country that we have the organisation, and the policy to build really low-cost houses for the benefit of the people. With the money available, we can build, say, approximately 8,000 units, excluding the cost of land. Lands are already available to the S.I.T. We have enough land to build for another 5 to 10 years, and whatever money is allocated by the Government, we will make use of it to the fullest extent on the construction of low-cost housing.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2. Sub-head 2, Mr Speaker, shows "Rural Development Projects $800,000". I would like to know from the Minister what the rural development projects for the year 1960 are.

Mr Speaker, the 1960 Budget is a budget which was not framed entirely by the P.A.P. Government. It takes nearly a year to complete the framing of a budget. When we came into office, the budget was more or less completed, and we could only make certain amendments, and there was not enough time for each department to submit detailed schemes of development. That is why, you will notice, Mr Speaker, that in the Development Budget as well as in the Main Estimates for 1960, most of the items have a qualifying clause, "Subject to Treasury sanction". There are many items for the benefit of rural development. But, Mr Speaker, until we have finalised the details with the Ministry of Finance, I am sorry we cannot release them. But we will do so as soon as we have finalised the details with the Treasury.

Is there something so very top secret about these projects for 1960 that the House cannot know what they are?

Mr Speaker, the field of rural development is entirely new. Despite the fact that the previous Chief Minister had the so-called Rural Development Commissioner's Office placed under his direct charge, what had the Commission done? Practically nothing at all. For the first time in this country, the Government is looking after the welfare of the farmers and those who live in the rural areas. The $800,000 allocated for 1960 would be mainly devoted to the development of projects for the benefit of farmers and fishermen. In order to be able to meet the demands of these 30,000 to 40,000 families of farmers and fishermen who have been completely neglected in the past, we require many millions of dollars. As in the case of housing which we have debated just now, there is a shortage of funds in the Government. The Minister for Finance has done his best to allocate $800,000 for the purpose of rural development. This $800,000 will not go a long way, but we have to be satisfied with what we can get at the moment. We have a long list of things which we want to do; for instance, the Sungei Poyang project, where it is intended that swamps should be reclaimed in order that a section could be used for prawn ponds, another section could be used for the rearing of fresh water fish, and the upper reaches of the river to be reclaimed and used for the cultivation of vegetables. We have also in mind projects for helping fishermen, by the construction of jetties in order that they can land their fish much more easily, and other aids to fishermen. We have also schemes to help the co-operatives; how to grow tapioca on a mass scale; investigations into the breeding of chickens and pigs; investigations into the scientific growing of vegetables; investigations into the best conversion ratio for pig-feed and chicken-feed, and many other such schemes. Mr Speaker, the Government has limited funds. We are faced with competing demands on the limited amount of money at our disposal. In the Department of Rural Welfare, we are also faced with the same problem- many competing demands for the amount of money which this Government can afford to give. When we have decided on the priorities in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance, Mr Speaker, we shall disclose the details in full and there will be opportunity then for the Member for Farrer Park to ask all the questions he wants to ask in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, it would appear that the Minister's admission is this: that although he would like to spend very much more than $800,000 on his rural development projects, he has been unable to agree with the Minister for Finance as to the exact projects which the Minister would allow him to carry forward during the year 1960. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister for National Development at this juncture, but I would like to remind him that once this House passes this vote, it has no further control over the spending of the money, except for the Minister for Finance in whose safe hands we can commit it to. In view of that, Mr Speaker, may I withdraw the amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mr A. P. Rajah- That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 4.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 4. Sir, under sub-head 4, as far as I can see, there are two items, (1) and (2), which are revotes. These are projects which are to have commenced this year but have been postponed and are now included in next year's Budget. I would like the Minister to confirm this and to explain why it has been found necessary to have two separate heads: (1) Works and Buildings under Head D14, and (2) Rural Board under Head D19, under which there are similar items. Is it necessary to have two separate heads? Could they not be lumped into one Head?

Two heads are better than one!

Sir, the point I would like to have information on is this: whether all the plans for these four projects are now well on paper to the extent that they can be commenced and completed during the course of next year; whether it is intended that all these roads should be built by Government labour; or whether it is intended that they should go out to contract; or how it is proposed that these roads should be constructed during the year 1960, by voluntary labour or any other form of labour? 4.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, this is what it is. The Member for Farrer Park has no confidence because he thinks the expatriate engineers have scooted from the P.W.D. The construction of the link road, Jurong Road/Chua Chu Kang Road, is now in progress and by the end of 1959, $200,000 will have been spent. An additional amount of $213,000 is needed in order to complete the whole length of the road, which is about 2� miles. The construction of the link road, West Coast Road/Jurong Road, is an extension of the former road, so that we can link up West Coast Road to Chua Chu Kang/Lim Chu Kang area. In the normal process, this road would take about two years to complete. The total cost is $350,000. $200,000 is being earmarked for the first year and another $150,000 is required in 1961 to complete the work. The construction of a third road, a link road, Serangoon Garden Estate/Braddell Road, and another new road, Boundary Road/Jalan Teck Kee, have not yet been started. Mr Speaker, under the old government and for that matter under the old City Council, there were always items of capital expenditure which were passed from year to year. The Member for Farrer Park is so used to such a habit that he thinks that other governments would also like to pass expenditure from year to year. I have seen such items in the City Council: $1 million. $100 million. For instance, the Kallang Park item in the City Council went on from year to year - from 1956 to 1957 to 1958 - and nothing was done until the P.A.P. Government took over. We just constructed it straightaway. There was no talk about it. And in two months we completed the project.

Has the Member for Farrer Park got his answer plus?

I have "plus", Sir, but no answer! If I were to embark on a debate on the Kallang Park project, I should be here for some considerable time until you ruled me out of order! However, the question I asked was whether these projects will be carried out by P.W.D. labour, contract labour, voluntary labour, or any other form of labour.

Mr Speaker, these new roads are link roads in the sense that they are big carriage-ways, and we require to put the projects out for tender on contract.

May I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mr Thio Chan Bee- That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5. Sir, here again, the same question arises: whether these are not revotes, and why it is necessary that we should have under two separate heads provision for almost the same kind of work. For instance, roads and bridges appear under this Head. They also appear under Head D19. It is the same with lighting. Is there a difference between these two, or is one complementary to the other?

The hon. Member has had his answer - two heads are better than one!

Sir, I had the thought that perhaps this sub-head refers to the rural areas in the whole of Singapore. If by "rural" we mean "kampong", we know there are kampong areas within the City boundary limits which could really be treated as rural areas. I am asking the Minister whether he would not extend to the rural areas in the City boundary limits the same facilities which are now being extended to those areas under the Rural Board, in view of the fact that this sub-head is already under "Rural Board" and this particular one comes under "National Development"; because some of these rural areas or kampong areas within the City boundary do not have street lighting or roadside drains and are in need of footpaths and repairs to their lanes. Another thing, Sir. What I would like to ask the Minister at this point is, where the kampong people are eager to Improve their roads or lanes and are prepared to provide their own voluntary labour, will the Minister be willing to provide the materials and the mechanical equipment? Because that kind of a co-operative project would be a community project. It would be very near to their hearts in view of the fact that they are working to build or to repair roads and lanes in their own kampongs.

Mr Speaker, I must congratulate the Member for Cairnhill as being a shrewd person because, not being an accountant, he could find out that some of these items are duplicated - in the Rural Board and National Development - in the Estimates. I myself do not know how this came into being, but I can tell what the figures are. I believe the reason is that integration is still going on in the Government Ministries, the Rural Board, the City Council and other statutory boards. The main work on the Budget was completed before the P.A.P. Government took office, and in our trying to expedite the printing of the Budget so as to have money to spend in 1960, there was no time to integrate many of the items under the appropriate headings. In reply to the question raised by the Member for Tanglin, nobody is happier than we are on the Government side that the Opposition parties have now slowly realised that sweeping the drains, building roads, building the Kallang Park and the Promenade are useful projects which are very dear to the people. Was it because the Member for Tanglin yesterday in his sermon suddenly had a. change of heart, or was he taking a directive from the Dean of the Anglican Church to come forward here and support the Government for working on voluntary projects on Sundays? I hope, Mr Speaker, in our next Sunday project - we have one at Potong Pasir now and we shall have many more - we shall send an invitation to the Member for Tanglin and other Members of the Opposition to join us in this useful work. Mr Thio Chan Bee rose -

Mr Thio? Volunteering?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned this because in the past there was a division of labour between the City Council and the Government. I well remember one road in the Toa Payoh area where we asked Government to repair it. The people there were quite willing to help with labour, but the Government said "Sorry, it is not within our power; you must get the City Council because the road is divided into two." We went to the City Council and they said, "Sorry, we cannot do it because part of it is Government and you must get a ruling from them." I am glad that with integration now they can do it. Coming to the question of Sunday labour, Sir, there are those who, for religious reasons, cannot do it and it is written down in the Constitution that the rights of the religious minorities must be observed. So whether it is voluntary or not - I believe it is voluntary - it is voluntary in word but compulsory in action.

Let us not enter into a debate on that. We should confine ourselves to works in the Rural Board area.

Mr Speaker, you will see that under subhead 5, "Works in Rural Board Areas", we have an item "Roads and Bridges $200,000". If we can get voluntary work from all the communities, all religious bodies and all races in Singapore, if we can get the support of the villagers and the Special Squad, we can go a long way, and instead of building, say, 10 miles of agricultural roads, we can build 40 miles of agricultural roads to help the kampong people, who have been ignored so much in the past. For this we would like to know whether the Member for Tanglin objects to Sunday work himself.

I do not think that question is relevant.

Sir, six days shalt thou labour, on the seventh day shalt thou volunteer! In view of the information given, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $27,413,060 for Head D14 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

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

The Assembly is suspended. I shall take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m.until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. 5.31 p.m.

Head D21 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D21 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3. For information, Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister please tell the House how he proposes to spend this $1.925 million on furniture and equipment?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the $1.925 million in the Estimates queried by the Member for Farrer Park will be spent on expenditure for furniture and equipment in hospitals, dispensaries, and clinics. This provision will be administered by the Hospitals Board. It also covers expenses for equipment to be used for the chronic hospital and other hospitals, for items such as kitchen equipment and utensils which have to be replaced; also equipment and utensils for the new district hospital at Thomson Road, and so on. This, I think, answers the query asked by the Member for Farrer Park. It is actually a matter concerning the breakdown figures on how this amount is going to be expended. This will be thrashed out between my Ministry and the Treasury.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park will doubtless have noticed the ominous note in the last column against that item, "Subject to Treasury sanction", which means that the Minister for Health will not be able at this stage to provide us with firm details of how the money is to be devoted between the two headings which he described. As I said, various proposals are under consideration, and as the Minister for Health explains, this is a matter which will eventually be settled between the Treasury and his Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given by both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mr A. P. Rajah:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D21 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11.

Tun Lim Yew Hock? Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D2l be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11. "New Development Projects, $3 million." Could the Minister for Health - I know it is subject to Treasury sanction - give an indication of what development projects he has in mind?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, regarding the enquiry by the Member for Farrer Park, the allocation of $3 million is for new development projects of my Ministry. Among other things, one of the proposals in the development projects is to provide a Maternity Home at Maxwell Road, and many other clinics are to be built throughout Singapore, the exact number of which I cannot give here. It is also intended to enlarge the dispensary at the old Kallang Airport. Then there is the plan for enlarging accommodation at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, expansion of the Pathology Department and also the mortuary at Kandang Kerbau Hospital. These are included in my development programmes which are to be given immediate priority. However, these are subject to Treasury sanction.

In view of the explanation given by the Minister for Health, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $8,787,100 for Head D21 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D22 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D22 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2. "Economic Development Board $20 million." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance in his budget speech did touch upon the Economic Development Board, and what it hopes to do. I rather thought it was quite a brief statement, and he did not amplify that statement probably because he was pressed for time. I was wondering whether he could inform the House if this sum of $20 million to the Economic Development Board is an outright gift or by way of loan, and what he hopes the Economic Development Board will achieve during the year 1960.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer the second question first. It is the intention of the Government to make the contribution of $20 million as an outright grant. Now coming to the purposes and functions of the Board, I do not wish to anticipate more than the absolute minimum because of two reasons. Firstly, one does not want to raise the hopes of the people unduly. I think that is bad policy. Secondly, the experts for whom we have applied through the World Bank will be coming here before long and, in fairness to them, I wish to leave the position as open as possible. Broadly speaking, I would say that the primary purpose of the Board would be to assist in the establishment of new industries in whatever way possible, either by lending them money or by participating in the formation of new enterprises. There is also the work of preparing industrial sites so that the new manufacturing concerns may be more attracted to Singapore. This would be the case if they could find land, transport, power, water supply and other essentials laid down and made available for them at a very low cost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $20,500,000 for Head D22 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D34 - The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr A. P. Rajah and Mr Thio Chan Bee:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D34 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D34 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. The Minister for Finance in his Budget speech has already given some details as to how this $7 million will be used. I would ask the Minister for Labour and Law to inform the House as to when these work brigades can be formed. According to the Minister for Finance, it would appear that it would be some months before these work brigades can be set going. I would like to hear from the Minister for Labour and Law how he proposes to recruit these work brigades. Will it be from the register of unemployed and, if so, will it be in rotation, or will it be in accordance with age and need?

I do not wish at this stage to say anything, Mr Speaker.

Sir, further to the question raised, I would like to ask the Minister for Labour and Law whether he is limiting this assistance only to the unemployed young people, because sometimes older people who are unemployed may be in greater need, especially when they have children to look after. In such cases, they would be in greater need of work than those young people without any dependants. I would also suggest that, in the selection of the unemployed for work, it would be good to use a kind of points system, like the S.I.T. points system, so that there would be no charge of favouritism, as could easily happen, because jobs are now so scarce and the unemployed are so many. 5.45 p.m. Furthermore, Sir, may I be assured that - perhaps it is already in the mind of the Minister, but it could be made public - in the selection of the unemployed, consideration of political affiliations would not be considered at all?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I would like to remind the Opposition benchers that none of our plans bear the imprint of propaganda and panic. We are going to start afresh. The previous Government, when the elections were drawing very near, started to think in terms of relief work for the unemployed. On 1st December, 1958, they started planning for unemployment relief with a view to building up to a maximum of about 850 by the 16th of January. Circulars that were issued prove all this. They also appointed a committee on 23rd December, 1958, with the following terms or reference: (1) To investigate the existing conditions of the unemployment and the under-employment situation in Singapore, and to make their report thereon. (2) To consider the existing categories and grades of skills and to recommend priority as regards training for such skills and others that may be envisaged and the educational requirement there-for, and to make recommendations for a full employment policy. That committee was appointed on 23rd December, 1958, with those terms of reference. I had the pleasure of winding it up because we have got to get down to the task of finding work for the unemployed and not appointing committees to look into the reasons why there is unemployment in Singapore. Mr Speaker, the purpose of our plans and the object in view was adequately explained by the Minister for Finance in this House on the 25th November, and I do not propose to repeat what he already said. In answer to the question of the Member for Cairnhill, I would say that it is proposed to recruit through the unemployment register, but on the basis of age and need. We do not disregard the claims of those who are already working under the previous Government's unemployment scheme. They are a mixed bag, as I have said so publicly once before. Some of them are well reported on but others have bad reports. So it is our intention not to discriminate against those people and, as far as possible, to employ those who have been well reported on in our scheme. It is proposed to organise young people on the basis of age and need into work brigades, and we propose to have a separate brigade for women. I hope the Member for Mountbatten will interest herself in these work brigades. We will make her the brigade commander too, if she wants to! I have here a report from the officials who have looked into the previous Government's unemployment relief scheme. They said the scheme has not worked well, because many of the labourers who were recruited were unemployable on the grounds that since they were unemployed for so many years they were not amenable to discipline. Also, many of them were employed from the areas in which they lived. We do not propose to recruit on that basis. We propose to recruit through the register, and we do not restrict the recruitment to any particular locality. The recruitment will be done on the basis of age and need and according to suitability for the job. I would like to assure the House that we are now making detailed plans and are processing these plans with the various departments concerned. One of our first duties would be to recruit and train the leaders that we shall need for these projects. Only those with a sense of dedication and duty will be specifically picked for this work, for Members of the House must realise that masses of workmen who are employed on projects and who are not well selected or badly supervised and under inadequate leadership could easily degenerate into a disorganised rabble, and thereby frustrate the Government's intention. However, every precaution will be taken to ensure that this does not happen, and advance information will be given to the people as and when works on these projects are undertaken. That is all I propose to say at the moment.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning the subject under discussion, this House has just heard from the Minister for Labour and Law as to how he is going to carry out his programme, that is, how he is going to spend this vote on the unemployed. As has been clarified, one of the schemes is to form work brigades comprising youths who are considered fit and suitable to be engaged in any development projects for Singapore. Here, Mr Speaker, I wish to give a little criticism because the problem of unemployment is indeed the same problem everywhere. It exists in every country. It is indeed a problem which cannot altogether be overcome. I feel that the Minister for Labour and Law, with his specific responsibilities to solve the unemployment problem, must necessarily concentrate on giving employment to the unemployed, based on the register of the unemployed, who have been waiting for a considerable length of time. These registered unemployed persons have been waiting anxiously as to when they can get employment. Moreover, they have responsibilities to their dependants. Also, I think it is more appropriate that, in giving employment to the youth, or if we wish the youth to work with the object of building the State of Singapore this should be done through the sponsorship of bodies or community centres which we know that the Minister himself is trying to develop. Therefore, I fail to see if there is an alternative way in order to instil the spirit of awareness among the youth. If we do not recruit from the unemployed persons who have been on the register for a considerable length of time, and if the jobs are given to the youths who have no dependants, then it is not fair to the unemployed with dependants, who have at least two or three or four or five children, aged mothers, and likewise aged fathers, who are unable to work any longer. That is my only criticism. I think, Mr Speaker, this scheme should not be used by the Government merely to recruit youths. But priority should be given to those who have been on the waiting list for a long time. By so doing, we are helping also the dependants of the unemployed persons.

Mr Speaker, I would remind the hon. Member for the Southern Islands of the good old proverb: "While ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise." If he understood anything of the way we register the unemployed, he would understand that the registration means very little in Singapore. Now, people register and re-register for jobs. If you fail to re-register - you might have registered in 1949 or 1954 - you are still treated as a new registrant. The whole register system is one complete shambles. We have tried to bring some order into the present chaos. Since becoming the Government, we have asked the unemployed, who have previously registered to reregister their names, and, as a result, we have today a new register of about 25,000 people on whom we can draw for our needs for this new labour force. We cannot accept the position that anybody who has been on a dormant register - of about 70,000 names - for the longest time is the person who has got first right to a job. Such a thing is absolutely and entirely stupid, and you can depend on it that this Government does the right thing, and does not indulge in complete crass stupidity.

Order. I do not know whether the Hon. Minister was alleging that the Member for the Southern Islands was stupid or whether the idea was stupid.

The idea was stupid.

The Minister is in such a hurry to get up! If it is just the idea that is stupid, then, of course, it is in order. But if he alleges that the Member for the Southern Islands is stupid, then he is out of order. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our intention then to draw upon those who have already registered within the time that we have been the Government. The previous Government's unemployment relief scheme was based on the previous dormant register. For that reason, they recruited lots of people who were unemployable-people who had never been in jobs for years. They were found completely unsuitable for the type of work they were required to do under various capital development projects. Another scheme that the previous Government introduced was to give first preference to all those who are on our public assistance relief register. Those who are on public assistance get the first preference because, if you get them a job on this project, that means you pay out less on public assistance. That is a thing that we must look at also. We must also look at the suitability of the people for this job. We must also look at their age; we must also look at their need. Of course, we have, as I pointed out to Members in this House yesterday, already increased the public assistance vote considerably since we have been the Government. When we came in, we found that the previous Government had voted $5.5 million for public assistance. We immediately increased that figure to $6.7 million and we have taken it up further to $7.5 million for next year, so that where there are cases of real need they will be catered for under our public assistance scheme. But we will try to reduce the pressure on our public assistance scheme as much as possible. If there are people who are on public assistance and who are suitable for these jobs, we will give them these jobs so that we can use the public assistance scheme to its best advantage, i.e. for the assistance of those who are really in need. That is how we propose to work this scheme.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, it seems that the Minister for Labour and Law has different views from those that I have expressed. Of course, on the question of administration, as to how he is going to give employment to the unemployed by introducing a new system, I agree with his opinion. I know the position well, that all the unemployed are required to reregister. What I intend to convey actually is, how are we going to solve the unemployment problem? Some of the opportunities for employment should be given to those youths whose responsibilities are lesser than those of the unemployed who have more dependants. Unemployment relief can be made through community centres and an appropriate allowance can be given according to the days and number of hours worked on a certain project. If, however, we are going to have permanent work brigades, I think this is a system which is already outside the scope of our object of giving relief to unemployed persons with many dependants - wife and children. I give an example. We should not encourage the people so that they make it a habit of asking for relief from the Government. This will weaken the spirit, and they will get used to merely asking for relief from the Government. In the case of a person who receives public assistance, we know that it is not sufficient for his livelihood and that of his family - that it is not enough especially if he has children who are still in school. Apart from their clothing, they require money for textbooks, etc. With these necessary expenses, if the father receives aid from the Social Welfare Department, it will be a problem for him to find extra money to spend on books and things like that. Although the Government provides free textbooks, exercise books have to be paid for, as also sports fees and other miscellaneous things. These all require to be paid for. Hence I am of the opinion that as regards this scheme of the Ministry of Labour and Law, part of the opportunities for employment should be opened to the unemployed with dependants. For the unemployed youth, we can find alternative ways to give them jobs, say, for instance, voluntary work.

Mr Speaker, I have already made the position clear, that it is our intention, to recruit into these work brigades those who are at present employed under the previous Government's relief scheme, and most of them are not young people. Most of them are people who are married with families. Those who have got good reports will be readily accepted in our scheme. It is not intended that the scheme should be restricted only to the young people - the pemuda and pemudi - as referred to by the Member for the Southern Islands. But they would be a fairly representative group taken from a cross-section of our unemployed people in the State. I hope that that will allay his fears in the matter, Sir.

Mr Speaker, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $7,000,000 for Head D34 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D40 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. "Extension and Development of Radio, Information and Publicity Services $2,000,000." Here again I see that the Treasury is holding the whip over the Minister for Culture. But perhaps the Minister for Culture might be good enough to tell us what he hopes to do if the Minister for Finance would let him?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago the Member for Farrer Park rebuked me for what he thought was an unnecessarily defensive attitude. I have thought over the matter and I quite agree with him. I will assure him that if I take any attitude it will be an offensive one subject, of course, to any ruling on your part. As for his observations on the special expenditure on extension and development of radio, information and publicity services, I would like to assure the Member for Farrer Park that the business of trying to divide and rule does not work on this side of the House. It is true this $2,000,000 is subject to Treasury sanction - but I and the Minister for Finance get on like a house on fire. As for the special projects that we have in mind, here again I would not like to take the Member for Farrer Park as much into my confidence as I would the Minister for Finance, but I can say that a substantial proportion of the $2 million would be spent on commercial broadcasting, of which you have had a hint in the speech by the Minister for Finance. We hope to introduce commercial broadcasting some time in June. I do not know whether the Member for Farrer Park is interested in commercial radio, but if he is, I would inform him that it will be on a modest scale. It will not be a separate service, but it will be a part of the national service in that its air time will come from the national programme. Another scheme that we have in mind (as I have indicated, I think, on a previous occasion) is to build a number of very small open-air stages throughout the island so that concerts like Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat can be brought to more places in the island. In fact, I think one such theatre has already been started in King George V Park. We also propose to start short-wave broadcasts early next year and establish reading rooms and more news boxes, because, unlike the previous Government, we have obviously more to tell the people. We find that the number of boxes bequeathed to us by the past Government is insufficient, so we are establishing more news boxes throughout the island where we can display posters telling what the Government is doing. If hon. Members opposite do not know what to do during the evenings and if they take a stroll along Nicoll Highway or Kallang Park- 6.15 p.m.

It is a deserted place!

No, it is not deserted. What we propose to do is to set up loudspeakers which will relay musical programmes from Radio Singapore so that people can not only enjoy the view but also listen to excellent music. When Members from the Opposition have done with the debates in this Assembly, and if they do stroll along Nicoll Highway, they will be able to listen to accurate reports of what went on in the Assembly over these loudspeakers and in parks.

Of course, our tape records will not be available!

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the Minister for Culture, he almost persuades me that culture is the best thing in Singapore! I take it that what he was really meaning to tell me was that most of this money will go into capital expenditure either in the form of buildings or equipment. In view of that, Sir, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D40 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2. On a point of information, Mr Speaker, as I understand it, this provision is the balance of a three-year programme. In the remarks column there is a $375,000 contribution. I do not quite follow that remark. Does it mean that it has already gone into the income estimates somewhere in some previous year, or whether this is just an indication that the $2,154,000 voted was not entirely out of Government funds?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that this money was promised by the Lee Foundation and that it will be paid in whenever we request the money.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when that money is paid, this sum of $2,154,000 will be reduced to that extent?

The hon. Member for Farrer Park does not appear to have looked at the correct column. The amount to be voted is $1,454,630 and $2,154,000 is only an estimated cost.

Yes, Sir, I appreciate it. But there is a note in the remarks column which says "Includes contribution of $375,000 from The Lee Foundation", and the total cost of the project, as I see it, is $2.154 million. As the information is that this $375,000 has not yet been received, the question which follows on that, Sir, is, if it were received, would it reduce the revised estimated cost to that extent?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not fully equipped to answer the question in any confidence, but I doubt whether that would be the case. It may be that the note in the remarks column means that the whole project has taken into account the very generous offer from the Lee Foundation. But I will check on that, and if the guess that I have now made is incorrect, I will duly inform him.

I thank the Minister for that, Sir,In view of that, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,454,630 for Head D40 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D46 - The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D46 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2.

Tun Lim Yew Hock?

Sir, I am not moving the amendment. The sum of $2,226,500 for Head D46 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D47 - The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 6.

Tun Lim Yew Hock?

Sir, I am not moving this or the next* amendment. [Laughter] Sir, the Minister has already given - * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 14.

Order.

Because he laughed, I will explain. Sir, the Minister gave a full reply in his speech yesterday, so there is no need to waste the time of this Assembly.

The two amendments are not being moved. The sum of $21,888,960 for Head D47 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendments stand on the Order Paper are: D8, D11, D16, D19, D37, D42, D45, D48 and D49.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the fourth column at the Summary of Expenditure on page 468 of Paper Cmd. (New Series) 32 of 1959, stand part of the Development Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $106,584,340 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 32 of 1959" put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr SPEAKER left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in 1957, an international conference of 17 maritime countries met at Brussels to discuss the limitation of the liability of owners of sea-going ships. As a result of this conference, certain agreements were made and these agreements have been included in the United Kingdom Shipping Act. Singapore, being a free port for the ships of the world, should rightly have uniform shipping legislation in harmony with those countries which send their ships to our port. It is the purpose of this Bill to include certain provisions which have been made in the international convention at Brussels of 1957. The objects of this Bill briefly are twofold: (1) To extend the limits of the scope of liability; The amendment reads as follows: (2) To increase the quantum of liability. At present under section 340 (1) (c) and (d) of the principal Ordinance, the liability of ship-owners in cases of loss of life, personal injury and loss of property to a person in another vessel extends only to occurrences by reason of improper navigation or management of a ship. A new section 340 in clause 4 of the Bill extends this liability to include the infringement of any right and extends its application to acts or omissions by any persons (whether aboard the ship or not) in the navigation or management of the ship or in its cargo handling, or passenger movements. The new section 340 also extends application of liability to any other acts or omission of persons aboard a ship. The new section 340, clause 1 paragraphs (i) and (ii), changes the limits of a ship-owner's liability in the cases I have mentioned earlier. In cases of death or injury, either alone or together, with any loss or damage to property or infringement of any right, the existing limit of �15 per ton of the ship's tonnage is replaced by 3,100 gold francs per ton of the ship's tonnage. This is roughly equivalent to Malayan $634 per ton of ship's tonnage. For loss of or damage to property, the present limit is �8, or roughly Malayan $68, per ton of the ships tonnage. The new limit is the equivalent in Singapore currency of 1,000 gold francs which approximates to Malayan $205. Subsection (4) of the new section 340 extends liability under subsection (1) to occurrences in connection with disposal of wrecks. Subsection (8) enables the Minister to set up a fund for compensating the harbour or conservancy authority in respect of any reduction in the sums recoverable by the authority resulting from the operating of subsection (4). This fund is to be maintained by contributions collected by the authority. Where a person on board or employed in connection with a ship serves under a contract governed by the law of any country which does not limit the liability in accordance with the new section 340, the liability of such a person is excluded by subsection (7) from the operation of the remainder of the new section 340. Clause 6 of the Bill repeals and reenacts section 345 of the principal Ordinance to provide for the extension of the new liabilities of the ship-owners to various other persons. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion. May I proceed, Sir?

Order. This is an Order of the Day and need not be seconded. But, of course, the hon. Member can speak. 6.33 p.m.

Sir, I should perhaps explain that there has also been a need for international co-operation in maritime matters. Because ships sail along international highways of the sea and call at foreign ports in which the law of the land might differ considerably from the law of their own native land. It is easy to imagine what difficulties could arise if ships sharing the same sea routes adopted different navigational rules and practices. Or if a ship was subject to different laws and rules and regulations at each different port at which she calls. So the need for international agreement and co-operation has been recognised. And to this end, there were held from time to time international conferences from which emerged international agreement on matters of common interest and concern. The Bill before the House, Sir, deals with the liability of shipowners to make good losses and damage which occur in or in connection with the operation of their ships. In this particular field, Sir, it has for centuries been accepted by maritime countries of the world that ship-owners should be entitled to limit their liability for damages. But the circumstances in which limitation of liability might be claimed and the manner in which the limit itself is to be calculated have varied considerably from country to country. For some 50 years, Sir, attempts have been made to establish uniformity in this field till at last in 1957, after a conference in Brussels, a Convention emerged which represents a substantial measure of agreement between the maritime nations of the world as to the liability of owners of seagoing ships. Now, Sir, even before the Convention, there was United Kingdom legislation in the Merchant Shipping Act. But even in the U.K., it had long been recognised that the legislation was out-dated in many respects. Not least that the limit of their liability was too low. The sums were, in fact, �15 per ton for personal injury claims and �8 per ton for property claims. The Brussels Convention, therefore, provided an excellent opportunity which was readily taken to bring the U.K. legislation up to date and to bring it into line with the provisions of the Convention. The result, Sir, was the U.K. Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958. It amends various provisions of the U.K. Merchant Shipping Act which deals with this liability. At this point, I should explain that the Singapore Government agreed that the Brussels Convention should be extended to Singapore. It is, therefore, Sir, necessary that the provisions in our Merchant Shipping Ordinance which deal with the liability of shipowners should be amended and brought into line with the provisions of the Convention, in order that such extension may be formally effected. And this, Sir, is precisely the aim and object and the scope of the Bill which is now before the House for its Second Reading. I might, before I close, Sir, mention that the representative associations of shipowners in Singapore are agreeable to the application of the provisions of the Convention to Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee.

6.40 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

There is a typographical emendation at page 4, line 22, "millisimal" should read "millesimal". Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.42 p.m.

Sir, consideration deferred to the 13th January, 1960.

So be it.

6.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly approves the Improvement Rate of 2 per centum on the annual value of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements within the State of Singapore, fixed by the Minister for National Development under subsection (1) of section 22 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 259) for the year 1960. Mr Speaker, it has been the practice so far to fix the Improvement Rate at 2 per cent and to restrict the levy of the rate to properties within the City area. I want to make it clear that for the year 1960 there will be no change to the previous practice. The wording of the motion is quite different from that of similar motions introduced in previous years. The difference in the wording has arisen out of certain amendments which are made to section 22, subsection (1) of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance in connection with the reorganisation of local government undertaken by the former government. In the reorganisation, certain areas in the Island were transferred from the jurisdiction of the City Council to that of the Rural Board, and vice versa, with the result that the boundary of the City area is altered. The purpose of the amendments to the Singapore Improvement Ordinance was to enable the Improvement Rate to be applied to Singapore as a whole and, by means of orders to be made by the Minister, for properties situated outside the former City area to be exempted from the levy of the rate as hitherto. An order making this exemption with effect from the 1st January, 1958, was made by the former Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing and published in Gazette Notification S. 342 on 24th December, 1958. This exemption will continue to apply so that the status quo is preserved. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly approves the Improvement Rate of 2 per centum on the annual value of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements within the State of Singapore, fixed by the Minister for National Development under subsection (1) of section 22 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 259) for the year 1960.

6.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Shipping Casualties and Appeals and Re-hearings (Amendment) Rules, 1959, published as Notification No. S (N.S.) 164 in the Gazette Supplement No. 34 dated 6th November, 1959, as contained in Paper S.L. (New Series) 25 of 1959, be approved. Sir, from time to time Courts of Investigation are appointed under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to inquire into shipwrecks, shipping casualties, or into the conduct or competency of the officers serving on the ships. Assessors appointed to these Courts are paid $30 for the first day of hearing and $20 for each subsequent day or part thereof. These sums have remained unchanged since they were fixed in 1911, and recently their inadequacy at present-day values was brought to my notice. While I have taken due notice of the need to increase these fees, I have also borne in mind the fact that remuneration for a civic service of this nature should not be based entirely on the present-day value of the services performed. An equitable remuneration, therefore, will be to revise upwards the fees for the second and subsequent days of hearing, since the financial loss incurred by each assessor is in no way less than the loss incurred in the first day of hearing. I have, therefore, made an amendment to the Rules, which are the subject to this motion, to permit a sum of $30 to be paid to each assessor for each day of hearing, thus removing the existing differential rates between the first and subsequent days. This will mean an increase of $10 in assessor's fees when the Court sits for more than one day. I am sure that Members will agree that this revision is sufficient and adequate in view of the considerations I have mentioned. And I may add that shipwrecks do not occur every day. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Shipping Casualties and Appeals and Re-hearings (Amendment) Rules, 1959, published as Notification No. S (N.S.) 164 in the Gazette Supplement No. 34 dated 6th November, 1959, as contained in Paper S.L. (New Series) 25 of 1959, be approved.

6.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 5 of the Registration of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap. 261), resolves that the Registration of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Rules, 1959, published as Notification No. S (N.S.) 173 in the Gazette Supplement No. 38 dated 14th November, 1959, as contained in Paper S.L. (New Series) 28 of 1959, be approved. Sir, under the existing Rule 4 (1) (i) of the Registration of Imports and Exports Rules, 1935, the Imperial Government and the Government of the State are required to declare their imports, although particulars as to the quantity or weight at c.i.f. value need not be specified on the declaration. As these proforma declarations are not used for statistical purposes, and as imports by this Government are frequent and considerable, and it would be inconvenient for them to declare every import which arrives, Rule 4 (1) (i) and Rule 14 are now amended to grant the two Governments full exemption from declaring their imports and exports, instead of the present partial exemption on imports only. Similar treatment is also being extended to Commonwealth Commissioners, including Trade Commissioners who are resident in Singapore. Opportunity is also being taken to change the names necessitated by a change in the Constitution by the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 5 of the Registration of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap. 261), resolves that the Registration of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Rules, 1959, published as Notification No. S (N.S.) 173 in the Gazette Supplement No. 38 dated 14th November, 1959, as contained in Paper S.L. (New Series) 28 of 1959, be approved.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn to the 29th of December, 1959.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn to the 29th of December, 1959. Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to Seven o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 29th December, 1959.