Hansard, 1960-12-15

2.31 p.m.

In relation to the motion in regard to the Member for Hong Lim which was sought to be moved by the Leader of the House yesterday, hon. Members will now know that notice of the motion had in fact been given. The notice was to the effect that the Leader of the House would move the motion on Monday, the 19th day of December, 1960. The Leader of the House nevertheless appeared to have taken the view that the motion was of such urgency and of such importance that he was compelled to bring the matter to the House for debate immediately relying on the provisions of paragraph (e) of Standing Order No. 30 which reads as follows:- `30. Unless Standing Orders otherwise direct, notice shall be given of any motion which it is proposed to move with the exception of the following:-

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

2.42 p.m. DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES, 1961

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 502 of Paper Cmd. 26 of 1960. Head D8 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. Sir, we have been asked to vote a sum of $600,000 for the acquisition for slum clearance and improvement schemes. I would like to ask the Prime Minister (I think it is his portfolio) whether slum clearance within the context of this vote would also mean clearing slums in the rural areas?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision is for two purposes, both in the City and rural areas. These two purposes are as follows: (1) Section 15 of the Planning Ordinance provides for the service of purchase notices on Government in cases:- `(a) where any person whose land is allocated in the Master Plan for development for a public purpose (other than a green belt) completes development of any contiguous land belonging to him. He can serve a purchase notice on the Government.' 2.45 p.m. For example, the owners of housing estates, after completion of development, can serve purchase notices in respect of land within the estate which has been zoned on the Master Plan as "public open space" or for a "public market". Or, `(b) where any person has been refused permission to develop land allocated under the Master Plan for a public purpose (other than a green belt) in an area where permission would otherwise have been granted to such development of land.' I can give another relevant example. The Geylang Serai Trade Fair site. Here we refused permission for development of part of the site as a private market, and the owner could have served a purchase notice in this case. The sum provided in the Estimates will enable the Government to purchase land in such cases. (2) The sum is also to enable acquisitions for improvement schemes, back-lanes and roundabouts to be carried out, and to meet outstanding liabilities under the Singapore Improvement Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked a very simple question, whether this sum would be used for slum clearance in the rural areas as well, and I received a long lecture on the Master Plan. It is somewhat confusing. The Parliamentary Secretary did mention - I do not know whether the interpretation was correct - that Geylang Serai, which is my constituency, is within the scheme of the slum clearance. Can he confirm that?

(In Mandarin): I only gave an example of how the sum could be used.

Sir, will it be used for slum clearance in Geylang Serai?

(In Mandarin): This sum is not only to be spent on work in respect of Geylang Serai but in respect of other areas in the islands.

Sir, is the Parliamentary Secretary confirming that Geylang Serai also comes within the scope of the improvement scheme?

So I gather.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this vote "Acquisition for Slum Clearance and Improvement Schemes", as I understand it, is not for slum clearance itself but merely for the acquisition of some other land in order that particular slums might be cleared on to the acquired land. The second purpose for which the vote is sought to be used is for improvement schemes. If I am correct in my assumption, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister tell us how much of that $600,000 is for the acquisition of land for slum clearance, how much of it is for improvement schemes, which are the lands he proposes to acquire for slum clearance, and what are the improvement schemes he has in mind?

(In Mandarin): Just now, I gave an example relating to Geylang Serai. The application for a Trade Fair site was not approved. This sum is only used as a reserve sum for such cases that may arise in the future. Just now the Member for Farrer Park understood quite correctly.

May I rise to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I do not think it is in the interest of land owners to determine first the priorities upon which certain urgent schemes are being pressed upon the Ministry at this stage. It may well be for divers reasons that the priorities which we are giving at this moment may not be the priorities which will, in fact, be implemented. I do not think it will be practical or wise to name the priorities at this stage.

Sir, I agree with the statement of the Prime Minister that perhaps it might not be wise to divulge the areas where the Government wishes to go in and buy land, but at least he could tell the House how much of this money is for land acquisition and how much of it is for improvement schemes. I do not wish to know the areas in which he is going to purchase the land for these schemes so long as he could let the House know how much of this vote is intended for the purchase of land. But on the improvement schemes, Sir, I cannot see any reason why the House should not be told where they are going to be carried out. On the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister that this vote is intended to be used for compensation for deprivation of use, it seems to me to be a peculiar heading for a compensation of that nature. Now, most of Changi is in the green belt. We know that if an area is marked out as "green belt", then normal development cannot take place there. There are hundreds of acres marked out as "green belt". Is the Government saying that if any owner of property in the green belt wishes the Government to compensate him for loss of use, this vote will be used for such compensation?

We anticipate that the majority of the vote will be used for land acquisition for slum clearance As the Member for Farrer Park is well aware, for slum clearance in respect of the S.I.T., the amount involved for town improvement, backlanes and all the little bits of land required for straightening of roads and corners is fairly negligible. As to the wider issue which the hon. Member has raised about compensation for the non-user, I think the question does not arise at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that the Government has just put in this sum of $600,000 without really knowing what use it is going to make of it.

Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park will change his mind. Sir, if he wishes to, he could put in a query and he could be supplied with a list in the Estimates Committee which, I would add, would be a privileged occasion where land owners will not be given an advantage.

It was a remark I was going to make. Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park will raise it in the Estimates Committee.

I will, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been given to understand that an area in the Malay Settlement was approved by the last Government in 1958. I would like to know whether this provision includes the construction of Malay areas in Jurong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum of $12,800 has been provided mainly to pay for the salaries of temporary staff of a full-time Secretary to the Boards of Management, a typist and a clerk in respect of the Malay Settlement. This staff assists the Boards of Management in administrative and clerical duties. We therefore provide this sum mainly to meet the salaries because of the integration of the City Council with the Government.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the point brought up by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was not a direct answer to my question. I would like to know whether an area which has been approved by the Government will be made into a Malay Settlement.

(In Mandarin): Sir, on page 513 of the Estimates under Head D 20 - National Development - (sub-head 2), a sum of $500,000 is provided for Rural Development Projects which include the Malay Settlement.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I only want to know whether the Jurong area, which was approved in 1958 to be made a Malay Settlement, will be developed by the Government according to the provisions made, and will the plan be carried out or cancelled? 3.00 p.m.

It might be convenient when we come to Head D20, sub-head 2, in respect of which there is an amendment in the names of the Member for Geylang Serai, the Member for Farrer Park, and the Member for Kampong Kembangan, to deal with the topic of the Malay Settlement.

Sir, before the debate on the item proceeds, may I remind the House that I have promised to draw up a more comprehensive list in order to show how much of the vote, which has been spread in the various Estimates, is to be devoted to the rural areas, which include the Malay Settlement? But as I have explained earlier, when the Budget was integrated, the old format of the Rural Board vote disappeared, and therefore items which would have been collected together under the Rural Board vote had been dispersed over 20 different Heads. I have caused a summary to be prepared so as to give Members an opportunity at one sight to see how the spread-out of some $12 million for the rural areas, including the Malay Settlement, will be spent. If I may take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to leave some copies for the use of hon. Members on the other side of the House, and perhaps-

Table it. If the Prime Minister will just hand it to the Clerk, it will be made available to hon. Members. Copies of the list* handed in to the Clerk. *Copy placed in the Assembly Library.

I am rising on a question of principle, Sir. This is a Development Estimate and the total plan cost of this particular development is $12.8 million; 100 per cent of which is to be spent in the forthcoming year. My appreciation of the Development Estimates vote was that most of it, if not all, would go to capital expenditure, not so much consumed on Staff as in other matters. From what I can gather from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, it seems to me that all the money, if not most of it, is to be consumed in salaries of staff. If my appreciation is correct, is this then a Development Estimates Vote?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is only partially true. The item has been included under the Development Estimates because, as I have explained, such items in the past would have been in the Rural Board Development vote. This is a setting-up of a new office where furniture and other things, buildings and so on, have to be acquired. Subsequently when the office has been got going, the Personal Emoluments which are annually recurrent will appear in the P.E. Vote.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to get further clarification from the Prime Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. The area which I represent, Kampong Kembangan, is part of the Malay Settlement. Could I get clarification as to whether the Work Brigade, which is in this area or in the Kaki Bukit area, is to be transferred, or will it be there permanently. Although that is Government land, as far as I know, the land is allotted to those who apply for land from the Government.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to explain to the Member for Kampong Kembangan the work that has been done by the Work Brigade in Jalan Eunos, because the Brigade has been asked to work in the Malay Settlement. When the work is completed, the Brigade will be transferred to a place according to the scheme of those who control them. And the site used as the Work Brigade camp will be allotted for a market and shops.

Am I right in assuming that the topic raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan comes within the portfolio of the Minister for National Development?

May I clear this point, Sir? In so far as construction expenditure, i.e. buildings, levelling of land and so on is concerned, it will come within the portfolio of the Minister for National Development. But in so far as it comes within rural development, then it comes under my portfolio.

It is convenient then that we deal with the matter now, I take it.

Sir, as I have said, the difficulty arises because all the items have been dispersed over the whole of the Budget, some 20 Heads. It is really a matter for Members opposite to choose any particular point of entry on which they would like to enlarge their thoughts on the Government's plan for rural development.

I did remark sometime ago that it is, in fact, a matter of convenience. I was trying to channel the debate in its proper course because of the passage of time.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister could clarify certain points, as I would like to banish all doubts and misunderstanding. As far as I know, the Malay Settlement is, according to this Budget, under the office of the Prime Minister. I am neither hurt nor jealous, but I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is Chairman for every area in the Malay Settlement. As far as I know, as a Parliamentary Secretary, he has a lot of work and burdens to carry and, apart from being Chairman of three areas in the Malay Settlement, he is also a member of the Muslim Advisory Council. Could the Prime Minister explain to me why the opportunity has not been given to other Malay Members on the Government side?

Sir, I am deeply indebted to the Member for Kampong Kembangan for his suggestion as to how I should spread the responsibility amongst Members on my side of the House. I can assure him that, in my opinion, the Member most qualified to discharge these duties, and for this reason has been asked to do so, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. For one very simple reason: he is also in the Ministry of National Development, apart from the fact that he is a Malay and also a Muslim learned (as he has mentioned) in the laws of Islam and so on. As I have just explained, in rural development, when it comes to building, levelling lands, then it goes over to his Ministry. And therefore a convenient administrative arrangement is to have one person to co-ordinate needs which arise from two different Ministries.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $3,312,800 for Head D8 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D13 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $100. Sir, hon. Members are aware that the Federation Government is going ahead with an international airport of its own. In the light of that, does the Government not consider that the importance and usefulness of the Singapore Airport might be impaired to the extent that certain traffic might be diverted to the Federation International Airport? If such is the case, would not the Government think it advisable to reconsider its plans fur the development of the Paya Lebar Airport, and see in what way money could be saved, if necessary, before spending such a big sum, about $11 million, for an airport whose usefulness and importance might be impaired as the result of another international airport just 250 miles away? The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, we are fully aware that the Federation Government are very anxious to build their own international airport, thereby probably saving Federal citizens the trouble of coming down to Singapore to catch a flight overseas. However, I would like to remind the House, and in particular the Member for Cairnhill, that even if the Federation should have their own international airport, a considerable amount of air traffic will still pass through Singapore. We are in the privileged position that we have an international airport located almost within eyeview of the seaport. With such a favourable location, it is important that Singapore should seek not to diminish but to increase its prestige as an international communication centre. The plans for development of the international airport at Paya Lebar have been thoroughly studied by me when the Department came under my control. Estimates made in 1959 to spend $60 million on development on the Paya Lebar Airport have since been considerably cut down. The requirements for a hangar runway extension and passenger terminal building amount to only $6.5 million. The amount of money spent on these facilities should be clearly distinguished from that spent for telecommunications. The amount for telecommunications is $2.2 million. It is important that in these days, when jet planes are flying at a speed of about 400 to 600 miles per hour, we should be able to detect these planes several miles before they arrive at Singapore. 3.15 p.m. It is, in fact, one of the functions of Air Traffic Control to direct aircraft at what altitude and at what distance they should fly into Singapore. Without telecommunications, it will not be possible to do so. And in Singapore we are particularly faced with the problem of co-ordinating civil and military aircraft. As Members are aware, there are altogether four airfields in Singapore - one civil airfield and three military airfields, the military airfields being at Changi, Tengah and Seletar. Military aircraft are jet-powered aircraft. Civil aircraft today are also jet-powered aircraft. Changi airfield is very close to Paya Lebar airfield, and it has happened at times that military aircraft have mistaken the civil aerodrome as Changi airfield and vice versa. Under these conditions, it is essential that no accidents and no collisions should occur between fast flying aircraft, and the only way to prevent these collisions is to use the latest technological advances in telecommunications. We do not have radar aid, and it is proposed to install radar costing $1.1 million at Paya Lebar to assist Air Traffic Control. We have been very careful in estimating demands for extension of the runway. Let me inform the House that there are two considerations in the building of the runway. One is strength and the other is length. As far as the strength of the Paya Lebar runway is concerned, all airline operators are satisfied that its structural strength fulfils their requirements. At a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in January 1959 in Rome, there was some form of general consensus of opinion that the runway for all airfields where the first generation jets, the Boeing 707 and the D.C.8. will be landing, should have at least a length of 9,500 feet. In January this year, the International Air Transport Association -I.A.T.A. -reviewed the position, and considered that there should be, in fact, a length of 10,000 feet, plus 500 feet clear-way at each end, totalling 11,000 feet. In February this year, a Pan-American Airways jet survey team came to Paya Lebar to examine the facilities of the airport. It came to the conclusion that the runway at Paya Lebar was adequate for existing sector lengths, although it may be insufficient for full economic operation where the stage lengths of the Boeing 707 aircraft exceed 1,500 miles. All aircraft which fly from Singapore have a range of 1,500 miles. Djakarta, Bangkok. Manila, Saigon, Rangoon, Ceylon, Hongkong and Calcutta, all these airports are within 1,500 miles. The only sector on which the Boeing 707 does not carry a full pay-load is the Singapore-Darwin sector; this sector having a distance of 1,820 miles. As Members can see, there are conflicting views on runway requirements by different airline operators, depending upon the type of aircraft they used. We have today the first generation jets in the Comet, the Boeing 707 and the D.C.

8. It has been predicted that in 1964 the second generation jets will appear. One of them is the V.C.10, and it has been stated by the manufacturers that the V.C.10 will be able to utilise the Paya Lebar Airport on the existing length of 8,000 feet on full pay-load from Karachi to Singapore. In 10 to 15 years' time, it is predicted in the technical journals that supersonic aircraft will make their appearance. As aircraft designs improve and as aircraft engines improve, the length of runway for take-off need not be as long as is the demand made by the airline operators today. In fact, at the Farnborough air show this year, it was reported that an experimental aircraft came flying in, stopped in mid-air, and landed down vertically. Mr Speaker, when we consider the requirements and the developments of the airport, we have to look pretty far ahead, and we have to keep in touch with modern developments. We should not, therefore, consider developments just for next year or the year after. We should consider what will happen to the developments that we put up now at the airport in five years' time, in ten years' time.

Order. May I remind the Minister that debate on this Head must end at 3.30 p.m.? I do not know whether any other Members of the Opposition would like to ask further questions. Please continue.

I have said, Mr Speaker, that we have made a careful study of the development of Paya Lebar Airport, and the amount of money that has been allocated for its future development has been scaled down considerably from the original estimates. Moreover, we are encouraged by the promise of the United Kingdom Government to assist in the development at Paya Lebar. In a letter from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister, he has promised £210,000 sterling for runway extension; £296,700 for radar and other telecommunication aids; and £250,000 for a terminal building. I can assure the House, and in particular the Member for Cairnhill, that there would be no wastage of public funds when we come to extend the facilities at the International Airport.

Sir, it is not only the wastage that is involved, but the wisdom in carrying on with it.

Sir, wisdom lies in careful planning, and I think they go together. It does not necessarily mean that if you have an international airport at Kuala Lumpur, therefore we should close down the Paya Lebar Airport. I am sure the Member for Cairnhill is not suggesting that. Moreover, I may add that airline operators will continue to pass through Singapore in five years, ten years time, whatever may happen in other parts of South-East Asia; for one simple reason, and that is, Singapore is the centre for air traffic.

Sir, may I withdraw the motion? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,469,010 for Head D13 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D20 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1*. *The same amendment stood in the names of Mr Ong Eng Guan and Mr A. P. Rajah. Sir, a sum of $34 million has been set aside for housing in 1961. This is a huge sum. I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister some questions before I proceed in making my comments. These are the questions. First, whether this would be the total amount required for the building of 7,200 housing units for 1961? Second, whether this includes the cost of land? Third, the areas where the housing units would be put up? And fourth, the cost of each housing unit?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai must know how this $34 million will be spent next year in housing development. It has already been announced that for 1961 - announced outside this Assembly - plans have been put up to build 12,000 units in 1961. It is expected that about. 9,000 of these units will be completed next year. The areas where these housing units will be put up will be at Tiong Bahru, Queenstown, MacPherson Road, Selegie Road and St. Michael's Estate. 3.30 p.m. The cost per unit will be in the region of $4,700 for a three-room unit, $3,700 for a two-room unit, and $2,000 for a one-room unit.

There is another question to which the Minister has not replied, Sir, and that is, whether the amount of $34,000,000 asked for includes the cost of land?

In some areas, yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, the figures given by the Minister are not quite correct, as in some areas, as he admits, the cost of land is not included. In other words, Sir, there is a hidden subsidy in regard to this housing loan to the Housing Authority. I was wondering, Sir, whether in next year's estimates the Minister for Finance would give a proper figure so that this Assembly would be fully aware of the actual cost of each housing unit. That is to say, the cost of building and the cost of land. Another point, Sir, if I may draw, the attention of the Minister. He says here that the units to be put up will be in Tiong Bahru, Queenstown, MacPherson Road, Selegie Road and St. Michael's Road. You will see, Sir, that all these areas mentioned are within the City area. I was wondering whether the Minister would consider putting up houses in the rural areas as well. There is a great demand for houses in the rural areas. During the previous Government, I think it was in 1957, no less than 200 housing units were put up as a pilot scheme in Bukit Panjang. It was very successful and, if I am not mistaken, there were no less than 2,000 applicants for the 200 houses in Bukit Panjang itself. Similarly, Sir, it would be a wise move if Government would put up these housing units in rural areas where the demand is just as great as, if not greater than, in the City area.

Order. I notice the Member for Hong Lim is reading a newspaper. I was wondering whether it is in connection with this debate. If it is in connection with this debate, then, of course, he is in order.

Mr Speaker, it is in connection with my speech later.

I am not quite sure how the Member for Geylang Serai, Mr Speaker, Sir, comes to the conclusion that the figure in the Development Estimates contains an element of concealed subsidy because he, as the former Minister for Local Government, Lands, and Housing, is familiar with many aspects of public housing, and, perhaps, the most perplexing one is the question of subsidy. Hitherto, the main item of subsidy which the Government has given to the Housing Authority is by way of a very long-term loan - a 60 years' loan - so that the cost of amortization will be reduced. The curious thing about the policy of the previous Government - I do not want to make a political point here, but it is a fact that there has been a multiplicity of rents charged for practically similar accommodation. Partly, this was due to the fact that houses were built at different times and costs varied at different times. But there was also the tendency for rents to go down as polling day came nearer. But, be that as it may the Housing Board has represented to the Government that there is a case for subsidy. They base their argument on three grounds: 1. It is the general practice in many countries to provide either direct subsidy, by way of allocation from the revenues, or indirect subsidy, by way of remission of rates. 2. The Housing Board say that the are providing a number of services by way of maintenance of roads and properties which are, in fact, services they could have expected the City Council to provide since they pay the full rates to the City Council. 3. The Housing Board is an agency of Government in the implementation of its social policies. In other words, it is not a money-making concern. It does not rent out its dwellings to those who can pay the highest rent. In taking all these three factors into account, it does seem to me, at any rate, that they have a case for subsidy. Then, of course, you want to see how the subsidy is calculated. I, for one, believe that if any subsidy were to be given to the Housing Board, it should be an open one. It should appear as an item in the Budget. But the matter is, as I have said, an extremely complex one, because we have to make sure that whatever the basis of calculation of the subsidy, it should be one that can lend itself to long-term calculation, so that we will not saddle future governments with increasing amounts of subsidy as a result of what we do now.

Sir, while we are on the financial aspect of this matter, might I ask the Minister for Finance (this is a loan to the Housing Authority and I take it the loan will carry some interest) if he could inform the House of the terms of the loan, dates of repayment, and such like things connected with the loan?

The loan has not been negotiated yet. I think it will be a matter of negotiation between the Housing Board and the Government. There are two alternatives; one is to allow for an element of concealed subsidy in the loan by giving them a repayment period of 60 years; the other one is 10 charge them the current market rate, i.e., what the Government itself has to pay when it borrows from the market. No decision on this matter has yet been reached.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could I have the assurance from the Minister about putting up houses in rural areas?

Mr Speaker, in our Five-Year Programme of building, there will be units put up in the rural areas, and I think that should satisfy the Member for Geylang Serai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear that 9,000 units will be completed in 1961. However, I would like to point out that we all know that there is a housing shortage. I was surprised that 91 terrace houses at Tiong Bahru. 16 units at the Queenstown flats, and 13 units at the St. Michael's Road flats were left vacant. We were told this by the Minister on the 16th of November. When I asked whether the high rents had anything to do with it, you will remember, Sir, you very aptly reminded us that I was not to go into details because we were debating the speech of the Hon. the Minister for Finance, and we were dealing with general principles. Now that this debate is on housing, may I point out to the Minister (I will not go into details) that the rents that have been asked from the fire victims are in some cases nearly 40 per cent higher than what they are paying now. I do understand, Sir, that the present rents they are paying are subsidised by the Government to the extent of their paying $25 (I think the rent is $30) and the Government is subsidising $5. I also understand, Sir, that this cannot go on forever, but, seeing that this is a case of fire victims who have lost everything in the fire, could the Minister not extend this privilege to them? Moreover, Sir, the Government have always criticized the previous Government for building expensive houses so that the rents have to be high. If I am rightly informed, Sir, this project at Tiong Bahru is not a creation of the previous Government. The plans that have been put up for that have been scrapped and new plans have been made by the present Government and houses are built according to the present Government's plans. That is why I am surprised, Sir, that the buildings are so expensive. For a much inferior building which, as I have said the other day, offers no separate kitchen and bathroom facilities, the people have to be charged nearly 40 per cent more than what the previous Government had been charging all along for the S.I.T. flats down at the old Airport. Apart from that, Sir, as I have said, I have had complaints from 135 people whose names, particulars and addresses I have, and if the Hon. the Minister for National Development will be so kind - I do not want to bore the House - as to grant me an interview, I am prepared to come with some of these people and place the case before him. The other thing is a more recent complaint, Sir, about S.I.T. flats. It seems that formerly the S.I.T. supplied bulbs for all lights along the passageway of the flats. This is something that they have put forward to me. The tenants were asked to pay for the charges under conservancy charges. Two days ago, the S.I.T. mandore received instructions to take away all the bulbs along the passage-way. The excuse is that the maintenance of this type- Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Point of order?

Yes. Sir, is it in order to discuss these details in a debate on principles?

I have indicated that too much detail will probably take us a bit far away from the idea of a Committee of Supply, i.e., to debate the principle of Government policy in these matters. I have also indicated that there is nothing to prevent a Member in passing from airing a complaint.

Mr Speaker, Sir, letters were read out yesterday, and the Minister for Education was listening patiently-

Order. I have ruled.

Sir, I will then mention that there have been complaints that tenants of S.I.T. flats have been asked to pay for the use of the lights in the passage-way and although in the past bulbs have been supplied, the tenants now pay for the bulbs themselves. These bulbs have been taken away by the Government although they are their bulbs and not the Government's. The tenants were told that they were not to have lights any more. On principle, Sir, this is a bad thing, especially in this case where it happens at the old Airport. It is not a very good area, and to leave all those blocks in darkness, as the letter if I were permitted to read it would have told you, is just providing opportunities for scoundrels or bad hats to go into houses, un-noticed. 3.45 p.m. Secondly, these fiats are five and six storeys high and it is quite dangerous at night if people have to grope in the dark when going up and down. I hope the Minister for National Development will give his consideration to these cases, because I believe that not only are bulbs removed from these flats that I am concerned with, but since in principle the S.I.T. are not going to supply bulbs and have taken them away, any bulbs put up by the residents will be taken away in future. That is why, in principle, I do appeal to the Minister to give a second thought to their complaint.

I have just a few words to say. Mr Speaker. Sir. When I spoke just now. I did mention, in passing, that as polling day drew nearer last year

Order. The Minister did get away with that. He is now trying to draw the Speaker on too much. Let us keep away from that.

Sir, that is the essence of my argument, because the Member for Mountbatten alleged that the present Government was charging. rents that are 40 per cent higher than what they should be, and my answer was that the rents charged just before polling day - in the case of the Tiong Bahru fire victims who were moved to Geylang - were 40 to 50 per cent below what they should have been. It was, of course, unfortunate that the houses were burned out but it was very fortunate for them that that happened a few weeks before polling day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the one hand, it may be correct, but on the other hand, it is not. The fire victims were treated as a special case. At the time the fire victims were given flats, there were other people who were also given flats. They were not charged rents similar to those charged to the fire victims. I can assure the House that it was not a question of electioneering at that time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if my information is correct - I believe it is correct, because it came from reliable sources - that the fire victims had only a subsidy of $5, the rent was $30. The fire victims paid $25.

Sir, I would like to go back to the day when the Member for Mountbatten questioned about flats being vacant because of high rents. When the question was asked, there were 91 terrace houses in Tiong Bahru Fire Site that were completed and were vacant at that time. No offer had yet been made to the fire victims at that time. So the question of high rent did not arise. On this question of fire victims now being offered high rental flats or housing units in Tiong Bahru Fire Site. Sir, it was the intention of the previous Government to start this Tiong Bahru Fire Site scheme to build units so that they would be available to the fire victim families at low rent. As an interim measure, 566 families were accommodated in one-room and two-room flats at special rentals of $25 and $35 respectively. Sir, according to the Housing Board, these rents were given to the fire victims at a very heavy subsidy. The economic rentals of the flats at Kallang that were rented out to the fire victims at $25 and $35 worked out at $73 and $77 a month. Sir, you can imagine the amount of subsidy the Government had to pay for housing these fire victims. The Member for Mountbatten said that there was only a subsidy of $5. Perhaps her mind is a bit clearer now about the subsidy the Government has to pay. From these figures, it is clear that the subsidy for the flats rented out to the 566 families amounted to more than half the full cost of these units. Then on the question of these units that were put up in the Tiong Bahru Fire Site. When the present Government took over, the plans drawn up by the previous Government were already in an advanced stage. In order not to delay the project, it was decided to proceed with the scheme as previously planned, but with modifications in order to reduce the cost per unit as much as possible and, at the same time, to provide a larger number of units on the same area of land. The original scheme was to provide a total of 740 units at a total cost of about $4.8 million. The revised scheme provides for a total of 1,025 units at a total cost of $5.3 million. It will be seen that for an additional cost of $0.5 million, an additional 285 units - about 40 per cent more - will be provided. Despite the modifications, Sir, it was found that economic rentals for the units would still be quite high, namely, $40 for one-room flats, $45 for two-room fiats and $68 per month for three-room flats or terrace houses. To let these flats or units out at low rentals within the means of the fire victims as proposed by the previous Government would mean that the Government would have to meet a considerable subsidy covering at least half the actual cost of providing the units - a scale of subsidy which is quite unthinkable. Accordingly, the present Government decided that the more sensible course would be to make these units available to the public at economic rentals and to provide for the fire victims and other members of the lower income group a new basic type of low-cost unit that can be rented out at $20 per month. It is expected that 900 of these units will be available at Tiong Bahru next year and these will be offered to the fire victims in the first instance. Meanwhile, the victims of the fire are being given first option to occupy the units that are completed at the fire site if they are prepared to pay economic rentals. Sir, it cannot be said that the Tiong Bahru fire victims would suffer hardship as a result of the Government's decision to let out these Tiong Bahru Fire Site units at economic rentals. Those families have been given flats at Kallang at special low rentals. In addition, each victim has received cash relief of $90. All the fire victims, however, will be eligible to apply for the $20 units when they are completed at Tiong Bahru. As regards the complaints on lighting. Sir, in the past, the Singapore Improvement Trust had been lavish in the matter of providing lighting for the flats so that at night when we passed by these multi-storey flats, we saw a blaze of lights even till the early part of the morning - till 6 a.m. This, however, cost the Board a considerable sum in the electricity bill and burnt bulbs. As an economic measure, the Board is now providing, on a trial basis, only lights on the staircase and also one light in the centre of the access corridor, and all other lights have been taken off. This is only an experiment to reduce costs to the Housing Board. However, about bulbs belonging to the tenants that have been taken away by the Board, I am not aware of this, but I will look into it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems quite obvious that the Minister meant that the fire victims would be able to apply for the $20 flats even though they refuse what is offered to them now. There are fire victims who have been offered these present flats at Tiong Bahru, and there are others who have not been offered. I think it is the practice that those who refuse now will not be given a second chance. Sir, that is why I would like - if the Minister would be so kind - to get confirmation that if these fire victims refuse now what is offered to them (i.e. the present flats at Tiong Bahru) they would not have to forego their privilege of applying for the $20 flats in future.

If the Member for Mountbatten had listened to my last sentence, she would have realised that I said that all fire victims would be eligible.

I have two points. The Minister for National Development - I think it was last Sunday when he was opening the Housing Exhibition - made a statement that the Housing Board would charge $20 for one fiat. He has given to the House the cost of these units - $2,000 for a one-room flat. He has also said that a two-room unit would cost the Board $2,700 and for a three-room unit $4,200. I hope I have not taken him down wrongly. Those are the figures I took down: $4,200 for a three-room fiat, $2,700 for a two-room flat, and $2,000 for a one-room flat. Mr Tan Kia Gan rose -

Order. Probably the figures are wrong.

The cost of a three-room unit is $4,700 and the cost of a two-room unit is $3,700.

I am much obliged. Taking the figures then as $4,700 for a three-room unit, $3,700 for a two-room unit, and $2,000 for a one-room unit, the Minister made an announcement that the Board was intending to charge $20 for a one-room unit. On that basis, Sir, it would appear that a two-room unit will be let at $37 and a three-room unit at $47. Assuming that the cost per unit has some relation to the rent, it would work out that way. 4,00 p.m. But the House has also been informed by the Minister for Finance that the monies which will be utilised by the Housing Board will all be monies given to them on loan, the interest on which has not yet been fixed, and the manner of repayment, whether by annual repayments or in what manner the loan should be paid, has not yet been determined by Government. If in these circumstances the Minister for National Development is unable to say how much interest he would have to pay to the Government, and how much of the capital monies he would have to repay per year or at any other time. I am wondering, Mr Speaker, Sir, how the Housing Authority was able to advise the Minister and to commit the State to letting this out at $20 per month. Because if the Government is against any subsidies, it could well be that the Government might decide to charge an economic rate of interest at 5 or 5½ per cent, and those of us who have some experience of housing management by public authorities know that a vast portion of the rental charged is because of interest payments which have to be met on the loans utilised in the building of those houses. That is the first point. The second point, Mr Speaker, is this - I have it down as 12,000 units for 1961, that is the figure the Minister for National Development gave.

9,000 units to complete.

He hopes to build 12,000 units. This $34,000,000 is for 12,000 units of which he hopes to complete 9,000 in the year 1961. That is not quite a small undertaking, Mr Speaker, Sir,If the Government could complete 9,000 units next year, I think they would have done very well, and I should congratulate them. But the building of these units is a huge undertaking. Not only is it a question of bricks and mortar and land, it is also a question of providing services for these houses before they become habitable. Services mean water, light, sewerage, and things like that which go to make up modern living. Could I have the assurance of the Minister for National Development that he has in this matter consulted the City Council, or whoever runs these services now, and that they will be in a position to supply him with water, the light, and the sewerage facilities that he needs for these 12,000 units? And could the Minister for National Development also indicate to the House - the Minister, of course, is aware that in so far as the provision of light and water is concerned, the City Council adopts a certain policy with regard to the public at large - whether the City Council also is going to adopt the same policy with regard to the provision of water and light for the Housing Authority?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I dispose of the first of the three points made by the Member for Farrer Park? As I understand it, his contention was that, unless the rate of interest is settled between Government and the Housing Board, the Board itself will not be able to compute an economic rent, because payment of interest and more particularly the funding operations of the loan would be a major item of cost. If that is correct, what the Housing Board did take as a basis for computation-and that has been accepted by Government -is the current practice of allowing them a fairly extensive period of repayment in 60 years. This is the thing that really reduces the cost of amortisation. We can hardly grant the Housing Board less generous terms than those in the past, but in the event we require that they pay interest at market rates and on repayment periods normal to such loans, then, of course, they will have to pay more for interest because of funding operations which would be more, but that will have to be offset by a corresponding subsidy, so that it comes to the same at the end.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said just now that the plan was to built 12,000 units, and out of these, 9.000 are expected to be completed. As regards light and water and arrangements with the City Council, I shall be glad to supply the details to the Member when they are available to me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Part 2 of the P.A.P.'s "The Tasks Ahead", page 29, it is said: `A human being has three basic needs namely, food, clothes, and housing.' Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Budget debate we have already touched on the position of the first two needs, food and clothing. Under this Government with a policy of soaking the poor, the standard of living has gone down; in other words, less income means less food and less clothing. Sir, today we touch on the third basic need of a human being in this society, namely, housing. In the same page of Part 2 of "The Tasks Ahead", it is stated: `During the last four years [i.e., during the Labour Front Government], the S.I.T. produced an average of 2,000 units per year, and not all of these were within the reach of the poorer classes of people. It is estimated that Singapore needs to produce 10,000 units of housing for the public annually [in other words, a minimum of 10,000 units of flats for the people of Singapore].' Mr Speaker, when I took charge of public housing in June 1959, we immediately started to reorganise the S.I.T. on a semi-war footing. Mr Speaker. Sir, I was appointed Chairman of the S.I.T. so that I could have firsthand knowledge of the building programmes and firsthand charge of the whole programme. This is an idea of how we carried on with building. The officers-in-charge had to give a time-table for every project which we put up. We started in June, immediately after taking over the S.I.T. Among the many projects was the Kampong Koo Chye project. Each project had a time-table. Would you excuse me if I read, just for the purpose of illustration, the following time-table for Kampong Koo Chye? 1. Documents sent for typing [i.e., plans and specifications] on the 14th July; about a month after the taking-over of the S.I.T. 2. Documents completed, 17th July. 3. Advertisements in the Press, 18th July. 4. Tenders to be returned, 27th July at 10 a.m. 5. Tenders to be checked during 27th July (on the same day). 6. Tenders to Acting Deputy Manager, 28th July (on the following day). 7. Notice of acceptance to contractors on the same day, 28th July. 8. Contractors to finalise formalities, 30th July. Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, in about two weeks after the plans and specifications had been drawn up, the whole project was ready for work and the contractor was supposed to march in with his tractors and machines and work should be started. It is the same with the Kampong Tiong Bahru scheme, the MacPherson Road scheme, the Queenstown scheme, the Kallang/Tanjong Rhu scheme, the St. Michael's Road scheme, and various other schemes. At the end of this sitting, I shall lay on the Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, various schemes which had been put out for contracts to show that by February 1960 we should have 6,973 units under construction - 6,973 units under contraction - that is, within the space of less than eight months after the new Government had been formed. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to build houses with just plans and specifications, contracts, and other things. The last element is not forthcoming, i.e. funds from the Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, Sir, after the new Government was formed, the Minister for Finance, being very stringent with his funds as far as the public is concerned, froze all votes voted by the previous Government on housing. Some of the votes were, for instance, on specific schemes like the Kampong Koo Chye Fire scheme, the Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire Site scheme, and even these specific schemes which amounted to about $7½ million were being frozen by the Minister for Finance. Despite protestations, as usual, the Minister for Finance turned a deaf ear. So, on the 13th August, 1959, I wrote to the Minister for Finance, as follows: `Provision of Funds for Low Cost Housing Dear Keng Swee, As I have already intimated to you on several occasions, my Ministry will require considerable funds to carry out the Government's low-cost housing programme. We are aiming at the first phase on the construction of some 10,000 units at an average cost of $4,500 per unit, which, as you will see, will require funds to the order of $45 million. It seems to me that there are three ways in which these funds can be made available, namely-

Order. Serjeant at Arms, please see that strangers behave themselves in the Gallery.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I received the following reply on 19th August:- `I have discussed with you Government's proposal to float loans very shortly. In the circumstances, I do not consider it advisable for the S.I.T. or any other division of your Ministry to go into the market.' Immediately I replied, on the 21st: `I refer to your letter that the S.I.T. could not enter the market at the moment.' Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not true that I am not co-operative. I agreed to the request of the Ministry of Finance, and we were very co-operative. 4.15 p.m. Despite the fact that the Minister for Finance floated a Government loan of $30 million, he was more willing to put the money in the bank, paying $1.8 million interest a year, rather than lend it to the S.I.T. to build houses.

I am wondering why in this particular instance there must be a personal attack on the Minister for Finance. Is there not such a thing as Government responsibility or Cabinet responsibility?

Shame!

Order. If the Minister for Finance had not consulted his Government Ministers, then perhaps there is something in it. But I should imagine that all these decisions are decisions of high policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is far from the fact. He would consider this as high policy of Government, but it is not the case. Otherwise, I would not have raised it today. This is a typical example of a letter from the Minister for Finance: `Dear Eng Guan, We discussed the need for the S.I.T. to commence its building programme as early as possible. I am in sympathy with your proposal to get on with the job as this will provide a boost to the economy. For this reason we agreed that you would initiate action as soon as I give you the green light. Please take this letter as support for S.I.T. to enter into a total commitment of $15 million. We agree that as little of this should be spent in 1959 so that the amount to be entered in the Development Budget for the next year can be correspondingly increased. The statutory limit for your expenditure in 1959 is, as you know, $7 million, but I do not expect that anything more than a very small part of this would be spent. I have already asked the Accountant-General to arrange for the payment of $4½ million that you asked for. The 1960 Development Estimates are now being framed.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this shows who runs finance. This letter gives us a clear inication that there was no attempt to build houses, but he pushed forward the money to 1960, if possible, to show the public that we were going to build houses just for propaganda purposes. But despite the fact that the Minister- Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of information.

I think the Hon. the Minister will have time later on.

I just want to find out the date of the letter.

I see. If the Member will give the date.

17th October, 1959. So despite the fact that the Minister had in writing said that he had asked the Accountant-General to arrange for the payment of $4½ milllion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the cheque did not seem to arrive at all. So on the 9th November, I had to write again for clarification. `9th November, 1959. Please refer to your letter of 17th October. 1959, informing me that you are prepared in the first instance to make available a total of $15 million for S.I.T. housing for this year and the next. There are a number of points I should like to raise for clarification. Firstly, is it to be assumed that the $15 million includes the $7 million which has been provided for S.I.T. housing out of previous loans granted by the Government? If this is so, then the new money which is being provided for S.I.T. housing schemes is only $8 million. Secondly, I must presume that the $15 million is not intended to cover the two special Government housing schemes for which special funds were provided by the previous Government, namely, the Kampong Tiong Bahru and the Kampong Koo Chye schemes. As you are no doubt aware, money is provided for the two schemes as follows: $ (a) Kampong Koo Chye scheme 569,000 (b) Kampong Tiong Bahru scheme 4,800,000 I understand that the $569,000 for (a) has been released for expenditure. But out of the $4.8 million for (b), that is, the Kampong Tiong Bahru scheme, only a total of $1.2 million has so far been made available, leaving a balance of $3.6 million yet to he made available. In any case, it seems to me desirable that funds provided for these two schemes should continue to be kept distinct from the loan funds to be provided for S.I.T. housing projects for two reasons. In the first place, these are special Government projects to house fire victims which S.I.T. have been asked to undertake. Secondly, donations from public contributions, the City Council and the U.K. Government, totalling about $181,000 for the Kampong Tiong Bahru scheme and $206,000 for the Kampong Koo Chye scheme are involved in the scheme. In order that I may have a clear idea of the extent of funds I shall have available for my Ministry's housing schemes, I shall be grateful for your early clarification of the two questions raised above. If you prefer it, I shall, of course, be happy to have a meeting with yourself and officials of our Ministries to clear up the matter. Yours sincerely, (signed) Ong Eng Guan.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the last of the correspondence. Inche Yaacob rose -

Is it a point of order?

(In Malay): Yes.

Inche Yaacob, on a point of order.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to know whether we are now on the question of the duties of the ex-Minister for National Development, or whether we are now on the plans for 1961. It appears to me that we are now going on to another matter concerning the duties of the ex-Minister for National Development. We are going away from the matter before us.

As far as I could gather, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is inquiring whether it was in order or relevant for a Member to touch on past expenditure when dealing with expenditure for 1961. To my mind, it is relevant to try to draw a comparison between what has been done, what has not been done, and what will be done to enable the Members of this Assembly to decide whether or not the amount to be voted for 1961 is justified.

Mr Speaker, Sir, without the basic necessity of life - money - nobody can do much, however hard we work. So since money was not forthcoming, and despite the fact that most of the contracts had been signed with the contractors, we could not start work. Instead, what was done was to start a Commission of Inquiry into building rather than to provide the money which the Government had deposited, paying interest, and refusing to lend it to the S.I.T. and also refusing the S.I.T. to float its own loans. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that there are tens of thousands of people who have been waiting for years and years queuing up for S.I.T. flats. It is these flat-seekers who are the persons who suffer. To my knowledge, some of them have waited for five to six years, and even until now they cannot get a flat. We hope that the $34 million which has been earmarked in the 1961 Estimates for loan to the Housing Authority would not be meant just for propaganda purposes but would be meant really for building flats. In the past one and a half years, there was no construction by the Government at all, except opening hospitals and markets built by the former Government or the former City Council. The only new construction of this Government had been several community centres and opening the Telok Paku Rest House - a former house built by the Government and which was just whitewashed. But we hope from now onwards that the Government will honestly and sincerely build flats for the people. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this going to be the case? The 8,000 over units which the S.I.T. is now building and which are in the process of completion were built and started in 1959. As far as I understand, the Minister for Finance is still not yet sure of his new housing plans; whether they are going to have standard types of a one-room flat, or a two-room flat, or a multi-room flat. A decision has not yet been made. I urge the Government to leave the matter of housing to the Minister for National Development who is the best authority and who is the best portfolio in charge of the subject, rather than a Minister for Housing who, we see today, is the real person who runs the Housing Authority. Mr Speaker, Sir, the earlier a decision is made, first, on the sites, and secondly, on the plans of the flats, the better it would be for the people of Singapore, instead of arguing and disputing on small and minor technical issues for which we have to suffer.

I think I am going to enjoy myself. Mr Speaker, Sir, and if you will give me

So long as the mood is good!

I hope you will give me some latitude because I have been under personal criticism. The Member for Hong Lim started with an account of how he conducted operations when he was the Minister for National Development. He put the S.I.T. on a war footing and in two weeks' time could carry the whole process of planning and designing, from the typing of the plan to the contractor getting down with foot-rule on the field. Sir, I put it to you that this is purely a figment of his imagination. In one instance, I knew what happened because he got into an awful jam, and he sent his Parliamentary Secretary to me to sort out the mess he had landed himself into. And briefly it is this. He was uncertain how he could tender for a very substantial sum, some $600,000 or so, and he wanted to know whether the approval of the Senior Tenders Board was necessary. I told his Parliamentary Secretary that it was necessary, and that if they proceeded with it, then they may have to face the wrath of the auditors, the Public Accounts Committee and so forth. This brilliant war-like operation which he described just now -

Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.

The Minister will not give way?

No, Sir, It is as fictitious as the paper houses that he mentioned. The main substance of what he said was this. He could not build houses because he did not get the money. An hon. Member: You got the money, but you would not give it to him?

I would not give it to him, black-hearted Finance Minster that I am! During all this time the S.I.T. had ample money of their own to complete payments for whatever was on foot. By the time October came, and that was when he really thought he was done in, he was worried. He was very angry because I did not give him $15 million to spend for 1959. Sir, there were three months left for 1959. 4.30 p.m. Unless the Member for Hong Lim has magicians and fairy godmothers to construct real houses and not paper houses out of thin air in a matter of weeks, I say that the amount of money he asked for was quite unnecessary, as he had more than enough to spend on. Sir, he has read out extracts of letters I sent to him, commencing with a letter of 13th of August and ending with his appeal for more funds, to which I did not reply, dated the 9th of November, 1959. Naturally, he wanted money. Fair enough. He had to make out a case for wanting money. That was duly communicated to him between August and October. What we really want is, "What are your plans? You want to build houses. So what are your plans? What is your policy? How many houses? Where? What rent or subsidy?" These are all very complicated issues. 4.31 p.m.

Sir, on the 12th of September, 1959, in reply to my request for details of his housing project, I received this letter, and with your permission, I shall read it. We were on talking terms then, Mr Kandasamy. Sir, and the letter quite naturally started in endearing terms which will not be tolerated today. The letter reads: `Dear Keng Swee, During our recent conversations I have discussed with you our 5-year plan for housing. We propose to build about 80,000 units of flats within the next five years and we have confidence that it can be done. The total amount of funds required is about $400 million. However, I feel that if the Treasury can get $300 million it is sufficient for the purpose because some of the flats can be sold and in the meantime certain rents can he collected. Most of the land in the 5-year plan are now in the possession of the S.I.T. and I am confident that you will agree with me that every endeavour must be made to complete this 80,000 units of houses within the next five years.' And enclosed was the Minister's five-year housing programme. Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I shall have occasion to quote from his appendix to the Treasury letter, and with your permission, may this document be circulated to Members of the House?

You may lay it on the table. Dr Goh, do you have copies for distribution?

Yes. I have copies. It occurred to me that this subject might arise and I came equipped with the documents. Documents* handed in. *Copy placed in the Assembly Library.

Referring to the documents, perhaps-

They will be distributed. Dr Goh, you may continue.

Sir, this request for $400 million is contained in the annex to the letter. You will notice that there are 23 lines, Mr Kandasamy, Sir, and four columns -the year, the place, the number of units to be built, and the cost. Sir, anyone capable of doing elementary arithmetic will find that all that has been done in order to get $400 million is to multiply a figure by another figure to get the answer. This is done 23 times. The only mathematical operations needed are multiplication and addition. Sir, my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, has for some time been pestering me for a photostat machine costing some $600, and we have not yet come to an agreement because we have to assess whether he needs this particular machine. The impasse may be ended by sending the Organisation and Methods Branch to have a look. Now, for a small sum of $600, Sir, we do try to find out whether there is a need for such an expenditure. Here you have a monstrous demand for $400 million on this rag of paper. There is no description of what type of houses are to be constructed, what is the rent, what consequences will follow, what are the subsidiary costs by way of markets, creches, and schools. When I received this, I thought, well, perhaps this was just a summary of some grand master plan, which the despatch clerk in his Ministry had forgotten to send along. On inquiry, I was told that this was the plan. This was the $400 million plan. Obviously it was impossible to treat this application with other than contempt. Nevertheless, we were on speaking terms then, Mr Kandasamy, Sir, and I did ask him, "Let us have some more details." I waited for some time, until November, but no details were forthcoming. By that time we were aware that the position, so far as public housing went, was serious; that, in fact, the whole machinery had run to a standstill. Hence my request to him in November. "For God's sake, get going on public housing. Never mind the plan. We can check on that later." Far from being grateful that he got away with substantial sums of money, he had the effrontery now to complain that he had not been given his just due. I suggest, Sir, that in any government, in any country, be it the most backward, if a Minister in charge of housing were to ask for $400 million on the basis of a scrap of paper, copies of which I have distributed to Members, I suggest that the reasonable response that that Minister could have expected was to have been packed up to a mental home to have his head examined. Sir, it gives me no pleasure to dwell on the inadequacies and follies of a former Minister of the Government whose stupidities at that time we were responsible for. But I do want to point out that the Member for Hong Lim is no longer the Minister for National Development. He has divulged papers and documents concerning State business. May I remind him that there is such an Ordinance called the Official Secrets Ordinance, and that we shall be consulting our State Advocate-General whether or not his action in publishing correspondence between himself and myself in this Assembly has not constituted a breach of the Official Secrets Ordinance?

Mr Kandasamy, here is another typical example of sheer intimidation to take proceedings - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, on a point of order. Is it in order for someone to allege that a Member of the House is intimidating him?

No. I do not think he suggested that anybody here intimidated him. I think he felt it.

Oh, I beg your pardon, Sir. He did say that here was a Member of the House trying on another example of intimidation.

Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Kandasamy, I must thank you for your impartial stand. We have always listened, both inside and outside this Chamber, to so-called decisions of the Internal Security Council and the Cabinet coming from the mouths and Press statements of Ministers other than myself. Have I ever said that such and such a decision comes from the Cabinet and such and such a decision comes from the Internal Security Council? These are the people who always divulge official secrets. Mr Kandasamy, I wish to make a few clarifications. Firstly, it is on the $600,000 scheme for which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development went to see the Minister for Finance. I cannot remember having instructed him for this purpose, but I believe it must be about the 100 units of houses for the Malay settlement in Jalan Eunos. Secondly, the Minister for Finance has said that there had been no plan and that he does not know what this was all about. 4.45 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have here a list of all contracts which had been accepted and their respective dates: Queenstown. 26th October, 1959, 160 units, Kampong Tiong Bahru, Phase I, 26th August. 1959, 91 units. Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire Site, Phase II, 7th December. 1959, 470 units, Queenstown, Contract 4, 10th December, 1959, 331 units, Kampong Koo Chye Fire Site, 15th August, 1959, 192 units, Jalan Eunos Malay Settlement, 10th November, 1959, 120 units, MacPherson Road, 20th October, 1959, Piling Contractor, 2,360 units, making a total of 3,732 units. Dr Goh Keng Sweet On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I know whether the hon. Member was reading from an official document or a copy of an official document?

That is not a point of order. It is a point of information.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you so much. The schemes which were prepared and ready to go out to tender by the end of the month (that is, December 1959) and early the following month (that is, January 1960) were in respect of 3,241 units, making a total of 6,973 units by February 1960. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance was trying to confuse the matter by shifting the issue. He has learned a lot of debating techniques from the Prime Minister. What I was trying to drive at just now was not on the $415 million scheme. That is a different issue. It can come up for debate at some other time-if I am still here. But what I am raising today is the immediate issue for 1959 and 1960 - the $7½ million voted by the former Government on specific projects like the Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire Site and the Kampong Koo Chye Fire Site. The Minister for Finance even refused to release this small sum of money - $7½ million! Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that he did not see the plans. In all the world, I never heard of a Minister for Finance who wants to use a microscope to see whether the houses will stand or not. As a matter of fact, I did not see the plans myself. That is the work of architects. That is what we engage them for. They do the planning and the specifications, and they see whether the houses can last or not. That is not for us. This is just for clarification. The same architect who is now the head of the Building Section of the present Housing Authority and who is putting up a new five-year programme is the very same person who drafted and put up this five-year programme of 80,000 units. I promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the houses will not collapse. Sir, one thing is clear. The Government is not sincere in its planning programme, but I believe that with all the pressure against them now, they will start thinking it over and start building from now onwards.

Sir, I despair of the Member for Hong Lim as to whether there is any spark of human reasoning in his mind. On the one hand, he boasts of the fact that he has put up an enormous number of houses. On the other hand, he blames me for not having given him enough money to build houses. I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Member. Either one statement is true or the other is true. I am not interested

Sir, on a point of clarification.

If the Minister will give way.

No. Sir, I have dissipated his so-called five-year plan. I am not interested in whether his houses will collapse or not. That is not the point. But when you ask for substantial sums of money, it is necessary to back that request with full details, not with a one-page five-year plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim said that the same architect who did that piece of work is in charge of the present Government's housing programme. It may well be so, but that does not excuse the hon. Member for putting up that atrocious piece of work and when pressed for details he was unable to produce them. Either he had concocted this whole $400 million out of his own mind - I will not be surprised if that is the case - or he was unable to get across to his staff what exactly was wanted to substantiate his request for money. That is the important thing, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, In the case of the present Ministry of National Development, it has been possible for my colleague the Minister for National Development and myself, as Minister for Finance, to get on very easily whenever there are difficulties. There are certain complicated problems. I refer to the question of subsidy which was left to our respective officers to solve at the preliminary stage. There is the question of steering the course of building operations to fit into the general framework of industry. These and many other questions are relevant to budgeting for the development expenditure. These questions can be resolved at present simply, politely and expeditiously. But in the old days, it was not possible. The Member for Hong Lim either terrified the staff out of their wits - there was a failure of communication between himself and his professional advisers - or he was unable to understand what the Treasury and the Minister for Finance wanted. I think I have given the House sufficient details to show that the principal reason why he did not get the money he asked for-

On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

No. The hon. Member did not get the money he asked for in the early days simply because he never deserved it. And yet eventually he got more than he asked for, and indeed more than he could spend. May I say this in conclusion, Sir? All the things that the hon. Member has been saying are just to explain to the public his dismal failure, his inept bungling when he was in charge of public housing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to mention that at the time when my colleague, the Minister for Finance, was not on speaking terms with the ex-Minister for National Development, I was on friendly terms with him. I used to speak to him quite often. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, $415 million is a very big sum of money. If you will look at the first page of the Estimates, you will see that the total revenue that we hope to collect for next year is $344 million, and our expenditure is $347 million. Now, $415 million is a very, very big sum of money. I cannot remember a single occasion when the ex-Minister for National Development said to me that he was finding it difficult to get money and that there were differences between him and the Minister for Finance. Nothing like that was ever said to any of us. I have been his colleague; he has been with us; we have been members of the Central Executive Committee of the Party and we have been members of the Cabinet. The first time I ever knew that there was a plan for $415 million was when I read it in the Straits Times.

You and I must have read it at the same time!

We read it at the same time. It was the first time I knew about this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister for Finance has a duty to discharge. There are many of us who want various things. But he is the Minister who has to find the money. On many occasions I tried to apply to him for money and I sometimes tried to get away with it, but I never succeeded. That is the way we have to do our work. It is his duty. He is the watchdog. He is looking after the taxpayers' money. And we respect him for it. We cannot expect him to approve everything that we want. I have said publicly - in the way that the ex-Minister for National Development made his announcement - and it did not involve such a big sum that we wanted to build a court in the Kallang area. There has been a lot of work done with regard to that small item of expenditure. I thought we could get a court house built for, say, $600,000. On a number of occasions, I have had meetings with Government architects, architects, and so on. Various plans have had to be drafted. Various architects have had to be met. I met them myself. I discussed the project with them. But they advised that a court could not be built unless for a larger sum of money. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are priorities and they are considered by the Standing Committee on Public Works, They have ruled that for the present, because the sum involved is over $1 million, they cannot give priority for the court. We have to accept it. That is the way we have to work in the Government. We cannot just say, "Look here, I want the sum of $415 million. I must have it." That is not the way any government can operate. Unfortunately for us, that is the way the Minister for National Development had always been acting when he used to be our colleague.

Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir,I was disappointed when the Member for Hong Lim made a passing remark that he may not be here. So in view of that, I think I had better say what I have to say now. I am not a man experienced in planning houses and in planning the housing programme. But if this is all that is required to be a house planner, I am quite sure, when the Member for Hong Lim intends to build a house the next time, and if he will employ me on a project like the Kampong Koo Chye scheme - 219 units to be built in 1959 at an estimated cost of $900 each - that I am capable of doing this sort of thing myself without any great effort. And where the Member for Hong Lim said it took two weeks, I can do this sort of thing between now and tea-time and give him projects perhaps for the next 20 years on that basis.

On a point of clarification.

I think he can interrupt when I have finished what he has to hear.

Order. It is five o'clock. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and look the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this sitting until 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of Debate on Question, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.31 p.m. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier we had a claim by the former Member for Hong Lim - I am sorry - by the Member for Hong Lim that- An hon. Member: So soon!

- that he had produced a five-year housing programme costing over $400 million, and that it was the Minister for Finance who frustrated him in his designs to bring so many thousands of units of houses for the people of Singapore. Sir, I have never seen a more expensive paper produced in this House. This paper would have cost-if the Minister for Finance had accepted it at its face value - $400 million.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker.

Sir, no other-

Order. It would be much better perhaps for the Member for Hong Lim to bide his time because we are in Committee of Supply, and he will have all the opportunity he wishes to meet those points. Mr Rajaratnam.

Sir, there was only one other great man who produced a great thought in a very short formula. That was Albert Einstein who compressed a lifetime of work in a very simple formula which, I am told by Dr Toh, who is an eminent scientist, is E=MG2, which produced the atom bomb and also provided the means of atomic energy. And here we have a little piece of paper which would produce thousands of housing units. That, Sir, is not a plan which requires great ingenuity on the part of any Minister to produce. As I said earlier, I could produce a plan like this in half an hour. In fact, I am gratified to know that the Minister for Finance rejected this offer, and I would be horrified if the Minister for Finance had given any Minister $400 million on the basis of a paper like this. In fact, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has been trying to present a picture of the Finance Minister which seems to imply that he is an avaricious man who holds on to his wealth and does not want to disburse his funds. Now, let me give a definite illustration of how the Minister for Finance works. Once upon a time I said, "I and the Minister for Finance get on like a house on fire." I may now say like two houses on fire. But when my Ministry asked for a few million dollars for television - and this is one part of the correspondence that went on; I did not bring the rest as there are some three or four files on this - the Minister quite rightly wanted to know how I intended to spend something like $4 million. It was a long correspondence calling for detailed plans. So I can quite understand, when somebody asks for $400 million, why the Minister for Finance fights shy of approving money on the basis of a document which is not even worth the price of the paper. And one last point; earlier the Member for Hong Lim claimed that by the time he left he had plans in progress for some 6,700 units by February 1960. The Deputy Prime Minister, who was then acting as the Minister for National Development, revealed in this House after making intensive investigations that by the time the former Minister for National Development left, only some 821 housing units were in process of construction. And I am quite sure, Sir, that if any of these plans had materialised - there is a well-known proverb which says that the hen which lays even a small egg will cluck very loud, as loud as one which lays many eggs - and if there had been many houses completed or in the process of being completed, we would have heard a great deal about it in the Press. But the fact is that I cannot remember any housing estates or big constructions being proclaimed open by the former Minister for National Development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole housing policy of the P.A.P. for five years was being put forward to the people in less than 2½ pages. Yet the people voted the P.A.P. in. The whole Government was elected on two small books which we would get if we had 80 cents to buy. Otherwise, we would get a small manifesto measuring less than 8 inches square. Mr Speaker, Sir, this plan was not prepared by the ex-Minister for National Development, who is not a qualified person for the purpose. This plan was prepared by two qualified architects who were in charge of the building programme in those days, and they are still in charge today. A letter dated 11th September, 1959, from Tay Chiang Guan, head of the Building Department, S.I.T., reads: `Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the Five-Year Building Programme and Annual Programme of Construction. The Deputy Manager in charge, Mr Ng Chee Sen [another qualified architect] has agreed to the programme.' Mr Speaker, Sir-

Point of order.

Point of order.

I am not certain whether it is in order, Mr Speaker, Sir, for a Member of the House to read from documents over which there is doubt as to whether he is in rightful ownership. I can only presume that the Member for Hong Lim is reading from official documents. Now, would it be proper for a Member of the House to read such documents which he should not have?

Of course, the short answer is that he has, in fact, complete privilege in this Chamber. I have indicated, of course, in the past that the Member for Hong Lim is the only person who would be able to say for himself whether or not he is transgressing the Official Secrets Act or any other Ordinance. I am not here to advise him. It is up to him to consider the point himself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now while you were absent, the Minister for Finance produced this document. He produced it himself, a document which he knows is an official document. And I am only trying to explain how this document came into being. It is not fair to deny other people the right to give facts by indirect intimidation-

Order. I have not heard any suggestion of any intimidation! It is only an enquiry on a point of order on which I have ruled. And I take it the hon. Member for Hong Lim is not, in fact, intimidated. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order, yes. Dr Goh.

I do not want to be difficult, Mr Speaker, Sir, but surely it is quite proper for a Minister to produce official documents. But there may be a doubt whether a person who is not a member of the Government, not a Cabinet Minister, can read from official documents. That is the point I am making.

As I have indicated, it is not really a point of order nor a matter on which I could judge. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a saying which goes like this: it is illegal for the people to have a light, but it is legal for the Government to commit arson. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Government Benchers were trying to shift the issue by throwing the whole limelight on this Five-Year building plan. This plan was submitted to the leaders of the Government for discussion, There was no necessity for all the details of the plan to be adopted. But the Government cannot reply to this question: why did they freeze also the $7½ million earmarked for the S.I.T. by the former government for building flats for the fire victims?

Sir, the answer is quite simple and I have already given it to the Member for Hong Lim. The answer is that the S.I.T. had more than enough funds from other sources to continue with whatever projects they had in hand. But the Member for Hong Lim has not met my point. I said that first he tried to explain his failure to build any number of houses by saying "the wicked Finance Minister stopped me". And in defence I had to produce this document to show that it is absolutely out of the question to give any money on a request of that sort. On the one hand, he says, "I did not build any houses because I was stopped." On the other hand, he went on to say that he had built 6,700 houses. What are the facts, Mr Speaker. Sir?

There is a certain amount of repetition. Unless there is something new we can deal with under this item, I propose to inquire from Dato Abdul Hamid whether he wishes to put the amendment now to the vote. Unless there is something new to be contributed to this particular debate, perhaps Dato Abdul Hamid would indicate whether he wishes to take a vote on the item.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have spent the last half an hour before the tea break on production of notes and counter production of other notes, making it appear that there is an exchange of notes between ex-colleagues in the Government and ex-colleagues in the Party. I think the whole thing boils down to this: whatever the ex-Minister had done or had not done, whatever was done or was not done as a Minister of the Government, the Government cannot shirk its responsibility and admit that whatever wrong the ex-Minister had done was a wrong done by the Government. 5.45 p.m. To come and submit a paper like what we have got and say, "Look at the foolish things the ex-Minister had been trying to do to us." But when I look at this, Sir, I remember that there was a front-page report in the Straits Times, as referred to by the Minister for Labour and Law, which says it is the "Government". It is not the Minister for National Development. "Government proposes to introduce a $415 million housing scheme." Not the Minister, but the Government. And to lend credence to that, on the same day in the same paper, there was the Prime Minister driving a tractor, and there was the question, `Who is this man?' Ah ha! - `the Prime Minister laying the plans for a $415 million housing development.' I hope the time of this House will not be spent in just trying to push responsibility back and forth.

Order. I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill is being quite fair because I think the Member for Hong Lim has made certain allegations, and those allegations have had to be met. If the Member for Cairnhill thinks that those allegations are irrelevant, then, of course, he has a point of order, which perhaps I would not agree with. But the fact remains that documents have been produced to rebut something which has been said.

With respect, Sir, the speeches we have been hearing have been such that each is trying to say that the other was wrong, and it was because of that that I said, what is the use of spending time in this Assembly trying to say who is right and who is wrong? What has been done, has been done.

Mr Speaker. I feel that what the Member for Cairnhill had to say about the so-called Press announcement was not, as what he said, a Government pronouncement. This is according to Hansard. Vol. 11, No. 18, 14th December. 1959, col. 1207, when the Member for Hong Lim was then the Minister for National Development. `The Member for Farrer Park was trying to play up this $415 million programme which we have planned out. The S.I.T. has 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.' If there had been a leakage, deliberate or otherwise, it was on his own responsibility and not a Government statement. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Low Por Tuck) rose -

Is it on this particular subject?

Yes.

I might remind the Parliamentary Secretary that there is only a quarter of an hour left for another amendment. If the Parliamentary Secretary will be brief - does he wish to pursue the point?

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to what the Member for Hong Lim has said before the adjournment for tea - the Member for Hong Lim has accused the Minister for Finance that the $7 million which was provided for the S.I.T. estimates by the previous Government was frozen - in order to clarify the matter, Mr Speaker, I will quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 4, dated 5th August, 1960, col. 256. During the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech of 1960, I made a clear statement on this $7 million which was provided by the previous Government for the S.I.T. estimates. The second paragraph reads: `In July last year at the Cabinet Estimates Committee, documents relating to S.I.T. funds showed that the Minister-'

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Point of order.

Is it proper for the Parliamentary Secretary to quote his own speech?

I am really extremely puzzled. It is the first time, I think, that I have ever been so puzzled in trying to search for a point of order which is not there. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary is merely drawing attention to what he said on the 5th August, 1960, and I cannot see that that is out of order.

Mr Speaker, I quote my speech in order to show to the House that what the Member for Hong Lim has spoken is absolutely untrue: `In July last year at the Cabinet Estimates Committee, documents relating to S.I.T. funds showed that the Minister for Finance made a provision in the 1959 S.I.T. Estimates of $7 million. The remaining money was allowed to be used, for the Minister for Finance had marked the word "allowed".' I remember, when I spoke on this, that I produced documents in which was marked the word "allowed". Now I will turn to this. What the Member for Hong Lim has spoken on the number of units which he proposed to build during this time was also untrue. I refer to Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 6, col. 460. It is a speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister: `During the six months term of office of the Member for Hong Lim as Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust, work commenced on only 821 units. In the six months since he ceased to be Chairman, the Housing and Development Board was formed, and under its direction, work was commenced on 2,729 units.' The reason why such a small number of units was put up by the ex-Minister for National Development was this. Also in the same Hansard, col. 460: `The slowness - admittedly the Government was slow in getting housing development to start - was due to the depletion of technical staff and the haywire changes in building plans. A total of 79 monthly-rated staff left the service of the S.I.T. They were dismissed, or they resigned, or they retired. And of these 79, 22 were senior officers, five being heads of departments and five were heads of sections.' Now, referring to the tenders, the Member for Hong Lim has said that quite a number of tenders had been put out. Mr Speaker. Sir, I refer again to the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister on the same day. That is, in Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 6, col. 460. `Tenders for two phases for the Tiong Bahru fire site development were submitted to the former Minister for consideration in June 1959. These were turned down, and instructions were issued for fresh plans to be drawn up to substitute communal units for self-contained flats. On this new instruction, a revised lay-out was produced, but again there was a change of mind. Plans had to be drawn up all over again, and eventually only 280 communal units were included in the development. Because of this indecision and frequent changes of mind of the former Minister, these two contracts were not officially approved for letting until November 1959 and January 1960, a delay of over five months.' Mr Speaker, it is quite clear from this that what the Member for Hong Lim has said is absolutely untrue.

Dato Abdul Hamid?

I am not going to say anything, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2.* *The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr A. P Rajah and Inche Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Sir, we are being asked to vote a sum of $500,000 for rural development projects. Other than the water supply at Pulau Tekong mentioned in the footnote, we are somewhat in the dark as to what these projects would be. Could the Minister indicate the types of projects he has in mind?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Primary Production Department of the Ministry of National Development has continued to improve and expand the various services provided to farmers and other producers in the rural areas. There has been an increase in the number of free inoculations given for pigs and poultry. More and more farmers are availing themselves of our services for the treatment of livestock diseases. We have a stud boar service, and a special ploughing service which has been introduced with encouraging success in a number of areas. For fishermen who use powered boats, we have also been providing a repair service for engine faults and breakdowns. At the same time, research and experimental work on the development of better strains of pigs and poultry have been making good progress at the Sembawang Experimental Station. The Member for Geylang Serai asked for the projects that we have in mind for 1961. A programme of such projects has been designed to assist farmers and other primary producers, including the Malay population both in Singapore and in the Southern Islands and will be implemented in 1961. Of the $500,000 to be spent in 1961, approximately $180,000 will be reserved for projects designed for the benefit of the Malay population both in Singapore and the Southern Islands. Of the projects in mind, the Sungei Poyang Reclamation scheme will be implemented in January. There will be an intra-nasal chick inoculation service. 6.00 p.m. This service will be introduced next year and these inoculations will be carried out in the Telok Ayer Quarantine Station. But for this service, Sir, a small fee will be charged. We intend to set up also a special film unit to supplement our present information and instructional service for farmers. We will also introduce a service to deal with plant parasites and diseases and also to provide tests for the suitability of and fertility of soils. There will also be a fisheries training scheme for boys from fishing villages and rural areas. Students will be taught an elementary knowledge of fishing and fishing gear, carpentry work and repair of boat-engines. We also propose to establish two veterinary extension centres. We also intend to provide an outboard-motor hiring scheme to assist those Malay fishermen who cannot afford to purchase outboard-engines. We shall be implementing a scheme to help the Malay farmers by purchasing goats for distribution to the Malay farmers and fishermen to encourage them to rear goats in order to augment their meagre income.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask another question? Earlier in the afternoon, while we were discussing another Head on Malay Settlements, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister did say that the Malay Settlement projects would come under this Head. Could the Minister give us some information as to the Malay Settlement projects he has in mind?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, as far as I know, this does not include the Malay Settlement scheme, but it will be so distributed that all the Malays in Singapore can benefit from this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has misunderstood what I have said. Could I speak in Malay?

Yes, certainly.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, what I asked was this. According to the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, development of the Malay Settlement will be implemented and the cost of the development is under this expenditure which we are now debating. What are the schemes of development and where are they, including the area in Jurong?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have explained just now that this does not include the Malay Settlement scheme, but it embraces all the areas in Singapore where there are Malays living, it is in the development scheme and not specially in the Malay Settlement.

It is five past six. Time is up. I have no doubt that the Member for Geylang Serai could pursue his queries by correspondence.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $34,546,500 for Head D20 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D25 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 23. Sir, $22,000 has been asked for Chua Chu Kang Cemetery General Division Chinese and Free Division Chinese Bidadari Christian Cemetery. Sir, what I would like to know is why nothing is being spent on the Muslim Cemetery at Bidadari? For one thing, Sir, it is good to see that the Government has not forgotten the dead. But, apparently, they have forgotten the Malay dead. Sir, the conditions at this cemetery, to say the least, are very deplorable. First, the approach roads to the graves leave much to be desired. Sometimes coffins have to be carried over hillocks and boulders and, in some cases, over graves. Then, there is the question of fencing. There is no continuous fencing all round, and this has enabled herds of buffaloes and cows to roam about the graves. Could the Minister, Sir, assure the House that he would look into this and, if necessary, probably apply for a supplementary vote?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had anticipated that the Member for Geylang Serai would be raising such communal issues, and I had come myself prepared. It is my pleasure here to inform him that the Malay and Muslim cemeteries have been looked after very well, and, in fact, all the work that was outstanding has been carried out during the past year. In the years 1961 to 1964, it is our intention to bring the various other cemeteries up to the same standard as the Muslim cemetery is at present. I mean the Bidadari Muslim Cemetery.

May I beg leave to withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 26. In this provision it is stated, "Ten Dental Clinics and Huts and one School Clinic" to be built by the Government in 1961. I would like to be informed where are the areas where these are to be built in 1961?

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps it would be pertinent for me, first of all, to define what these various terms mean before I proceed with my answer. It does appear a little bit confusing to have dental huts, dental clinics, school clinics and the whole lot. However, a dental clinic is an outdoor clinic providing dental care for a number of schools in a large area, it may have anything up to 15 chairs. A dental hut is a smaller unit and probably has only 2 chairs. A dental unit is a unit with only one chair. In the course of the next four years, it is proposed to group the various schools together and provide dental service to the whole island of Singapore. Where the schools are very far apart, we have a dental unit so that school children need not have to go long distances to receive dental treatment. In areas where schools are congregated together, it is our intention to save on overhead expenditure and staff emoluments by building a single dental clinic to cover 4, 5 or 6 schools. It is because the Ministry of Health has the convenience and the interests of the people at heart that we make such definitions and build such different units of dental institutions to serve the people. I am unable to give the details as to where these huts and clinics will be built, because this is the first time such a scheme is introduced in Singapore. But I can assure him that in areas where there are many schools, dental clinics will be built, and in remote areas hitherto uncared for, there will be dental huts and dental units built. By the end of 1964, all the schools will be served with dental services. I am afraid I am unable to supply the exact locations of these various units as yet.

(In Malay): I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock:- *That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 44.

Amendment (3)* is on sub-head 44 at page 516 - Markets. Tun Lim?

I am not moving. Sir.

He likes markets now!

What did he say?

I think the Minister just said that you liked markets.

A moment ago he did not like markets -

Order.

No, he did not like fishy tales!

Order. Item (3) of sub-head 58 - "Out-door Clinics - Others". Dato Abdul Hamid.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this in order to seek information from the Minister. Sir, I formally move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 58. Sir, we have a number of items in this Development Estimate which says so much other projects, so much others and so on, without giving any specific details. Sir, here is another instance where $100,000 has been asked for outdoor clinics. It is mentioned "others". Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform us where these clinics are going to be put up, and the types of clinics? 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I have to define again the various terminologies used here, because it is a little bit confusing to have "Combined Clinics", "Kallang Out-door Dispensary" and "Out-door Clinics" all under this sub-head 58. A combined clinic is one in which outpatient services as well as preventive health measures such as maternal and child health services are provided. An outdoor clinic is one in which only out-patient services are provided. If the Member for Geylang Serai will look carefully at the Budget Estimates, he will see that the planned cost for the whole project under sub-head 58 (3) comes to $1,523,000 of which $100,000 will be provided in 1961. Quite unlike the last Government, we prefer to plan our schemes and services at five-year intervals rather than yearly, and the Ministry submitted a full paper on the whole development projects for the five-year interval. As it has been suggested that combined clinics would serve greater purposes for the time being, because we have given an assurance to the Member for Geylang Serai that we will give the utmost consideration to the lowering of the infant mortality rate, particularly among the Malay community, we have devoted much of our building capacity this year to the building of combined clinics in the rural areas. It therefore follows that the building capacity for outdoor clinics is reduced, and out of a total of $11 million, only $100,000 is given to us. The clinics that we expect to put up with this $100,000 would include the Queenstown Clinic, the Still Road Clinic, the Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire Site Clinic, the Kampong Bugis Clinic, and the Sembawang Clinic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a pity the Ministry has only got $100,000 for a $1½ million plan. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will put more pressure on the Ministry of Finance and get more money next year. Anyway, may I thank him for his clinical dissertation and, in view of his explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $6,155,700 for Head D 25 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 28 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. Sub-head 1 reads "Economic Development Board ... Plan costs $100 million Estimated to be spent in 1961, $40 million". The Hon. the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement told the House how important he considered the economic development of the country to be and that is why he had allocated $30 million from the current revenues of the State. He went on to say that the $10 million which the Federation was repaying in part payment of the $30 million loan was also being lent to the Economic Development Board, thereby properly stressing the importance of economic development in Singapore. Because we all realise, Sir, that if there is no economic development during the next year or so, then surely our economic life will come to a near stanstill. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the occasion of the last Budget debate, I ventured to suggest that nothing would take place this year. I hate to say it myself but I regret to say that I was right and that nothing has, in fact, taken place in the way of economic development and much to our distress. When the Minister for Finance was in America, the Minister for Labour and Law had occasion to mention to the House a number of limited liability companies that were willing to come in and undertake economic development in this State. He said that a number of them had received approval to carry on business and that they would be given favourable tax treatment. On that occasion, I ventured to ask the Minister for Labour and Law what, in fact, had taken place beyond that; whether those companies, beyond being registered, had had their shares subscribed and fully paid for; whether these companies - their shares having been paid for and fully subscribed - had bought the sites necessary for economic development, either bought the sites or had the sites allocated to them by Government; and what actual physical steps these companies which had been given tax exemption had taken which would give us an indication that they were not merely getting into the queue to get economic benefits, not really putting their effort into the development of this country, but were waiting to see whether they would come here or go somewhere else. Perhaps the Minister for Finance could tell the House what has happened to those eight or nine companies who have had this favourable treatment from the Government. Beyond that, Sir, the Minister also said that there were a number of people who had made applications to start projects in Singapore. I believe the Jurong Site is also intended for such people. Could the Minister for Finance tell the House whether the Jurong Site will be ready for economic development, in the sense that it will he able to receive these people who will help in the industralisation of Singapore. Or what are the plans of the Economic Development Board to spend this $40 million for the year 1961?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first take the point of the Member for Farrer Park that nothing is being done in the way of encouraging industralisation in Singapore. Sir, in my Budget Statement, I did give details of the number of applications we have had for pioneer industry status and the scope and magnitude of these proposals. This part of my Statement seems to have escaped the attention of the Member for Farrer Park and perhaps I may be excused if I were to read this passage again. I say in column 18 of the Official Report dated 29th November, 1960, Vol. 14. No. 1: `The rate of industrial expansion has shown improvement since the last budget. There are now no less than 54 projects under various stages of consideration for the award of pioneer status. Twenty-six projects can be considered to be firm proposals and gazette notifications have been issued or will soon be issued in respect of those that qualify for pioneer status. The two oil refineries have already been awarded pioneer status and construction work has commenced. Some of the new industries for which pioneer status is being considered include the manufacture of a wide range of consumer goods such as condensed milk, chocolates, toothpaste, garments, matches and so forth. Among the major proposals are flour milling, textile weaving and a steel rolling mill. The total capital involved in all these projects is well over $100 million, and when they are in operation, they would provide employment for more than 2,500 workers.' Then I went on to say something about projects that were still in their exploratory stages. Sir, if the Member for Farrer Park wants to have details as to what stages these industrial projects have reached, I shall be very happy to supply them to him provided he wants this information as a Member of the Assembly and provided this information will not be used -as I am sure it will not be used-for any professional purposes. The reason is that when a firm or concern or a group of persons decide to explore the possibilities of launching a new enterprise, they are very anxious that there should be some secrecy about it. We have experienced, at least on one occasion, where premature publicity had prejudiced any prospect of development. But I do assure the Member for Farrer Park that these are genuine proposals made to us - as far as we can judge - in good faith by people who have the capital and the means to establish these industries. 6.30 p.m. Now I have also made it clear that I do not consider that the volume of investments which we have so far received is anything like the volume that we do need. And, if I may quote from my Budget statement: "In normal circumstances, industrial expansion of the scale I have described can be considered satisfactory. However, in the present situation of Singapore with its population explosion, much more is required. An expansion of at least 2 to 3 times the present rate would be necessary. Much more needs to be done to accelerate the growth of industry." I do not think that the Member for Farrer Park can say that we are making any extravagant claims on what has been achieved by our policy. But it will be a gross exaggeration to say that nothing has been done. Sir, the establishment of any industry surely is a very long and complicated process. If, say, a manufacturer decides that he wants to open such and such a factory, there are many stages which he has to go through. He has to form a company; he has to raise the share capital; he has to acquire land; he has to meet the requirements of the Master Plan; there are health regulations involved, as there often are; he has to meet the health by-laws; and if there is a fire hazard, he has to meet the requirements laid down by the Fire Brigade, and so on and so forth. Even when all the preliminary calculations have been made - calculations of cost, calculations of market, calculations of output; when all these have been made - the sheer physical work of starting a project would take anything up to two years or more. And let us not forget, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in 1959, before the elections, there was a complete standstill of the economy, and for months after that too; and as a result of the scare campaign carried out by the opposition Parties, there was a widespread reluctance to invest. But I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that we have passed that stage and we are now in the position to say that the first initial steps have been taken and that the response has been encouraging. As regards the Economic Development Board, in the first part of my speech I did say that it was the intention of Government to set up this Board this year, and that we would approach the World Bank for assistance in getting the top personnel of the Board. Getting the money is an easy matter; we have finances and we can quite easily spare $40 million for the Board. But more important than money, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the men who are to use the money. We approached the World Bank nearly a year ago immediately after the last Budget speech, and the World Bank have cast the net far and wide in search of top-level personnel who could be of assistance to us in establishing and running the Economic Development Board. We require different types of men. We want a person who has experience in industrial financing and who can evaluate the worth of a proposition when it is put to him by potential investors. We need a person who has experience as an industrial consultant to act as adviser to the Government in initiating a programme of industrial growth. We need different types of engineers who can advise industry and who can, if need be, develop industrial projects which can be submitted to the potential investors. But above all, because our situation is so complex and so difficult, we need men of the highest calibre. It is necessary to have men of the highest calibre because whatever industries we establish in Singapore, they must be industries that are competitive by world standards. The market in Singapore and even the Pan-Malayan market is not large enough to sustain major industrialisation of many lines. It is therefore necessary that industrialisation in Singapore should be competitive in the export markets. Now, Sir, I think it would be useful for me to say a few words about the progress that we have achieved in making recruitment to the top personnel of the Economic Development Board. Although the World Bank had been most helpful, we were not able for some considerable time to agree that the recommendations that they made fitted into our needs. They recommended a number of persons, and when I went to the United Kingdom last August I took advantage of that occasion to interview some of these men. And my assessment was that although these people are competent in their own fields and they would be useful officers if the Economic Development Board had already been a going concern, they lack the experience and the high quality, the creative ability which is needed when we are starting a new project. Accordingly, to our disappointment, we were unable to accept the recommendations then made up to that date by the World Bank. Then I went to Washington and discussed the subject with top officials of the World Bank itself. The idea was discussed that a certain professor teaching in the Israeli Institutue of Technology in Haifa would be a suitable candidate. I happened to know this professor myself, when I visited Israel sometime ago. He had a very distinguished record in the Netherlands Civil Service and, if I remember correctly, was their advisor on organisation and served in the capacity as industrial consultant. In addition to teaching at the Israeli Institute of Technology in Haifa, he was also one of the industrial consultants of the Government of Israel. The World Bank thought the nomination a good one. It so happened that a delegation of the Israeli Finance Ministry was in Washington around that period, and it was agreed that an approach could be made to this Professor to accept appointment as Head of the Economic Development Board. Now, it became clear that when we went to Washington, our policy of recruiting to a post and accepting applications from whoever was willing to take on the job was a wrong policy, because if a man is really outstanding he would already be performing some useful work either in private industry, in a local authority, or in government, and the men you would get would either be mediocrities or, at best, less competent secondraters. You would not get your top-level man, and that is the type of man we want. So the Professor being engaged in teaching duties in Israel and engaged in a consultative capacity to the Israeli Government, we had to carry out discussions and negotiations with the Israeli Government. I am very happy to announce to the House that these negotiations are successful and that Professor Cahen would be released next year to take up duty in Singapore as Head of the Economic Development Board. He will be arriving in Singapore in February for preliminary talks, and he will take up his substantive appointment in June. We also surveyed the field for good technicians and engineers who are not only skilled and experienced in their specialist field of engineering, but who have had experience in the planning of industries and the promotion of industries. And I am very happy to announce to the House that we have succeeded in obtaining the services of Mr Jangbir Singh to be Head of the Industrial Division of the Economic Development Board. Mr Singh has a distinguished academic career. He took First-class Honours in Mechanical Engineering in the University of London and won the Bramwell Gold Medal. He has many years' experience in the Planning Commission of the Indian Government and currently is Head of the Industrial Division of E.C.A.F.E. Both E.C.A.F.E. and the Indian Government were kind enough to release his services for work in Singapore for a period of two years commencing March next year. At the same time, we have pressed on with recruiting our local talent. And here again we have met with perhaps more success than we deserve. Today I am informed by the P.S.C. that they have selected perhaps the most outstanding mechanical engineer to be produced by this country. He too, like Mr Jangbir Singh took First-class Honours in Mechanical Engineering in the University of London and won the Bramwell Gold Medal. There is also hope of getting a chemical engineer trained in Australia, who has considerable experience in his line and who has won the degree of Ph.D. in chemical engineering. Now, the alternative open to us a year ago was to press on and just get on with the job, taking whatever men we could. We decided that if we had done so, perhaps we could have started the Board much earlier than we did. But the Government decided on a policy of putting quality of men above everything else. Hence this delay in getting the Board going. But I think this policy will pay dividends in the years to come. 6.45 p.m. We have also sought expert advice pending the formation of our own panel of technicians. We have sought expert advice from the United Nations, and, as the House knows, the United Nations have sent two teams of experts, one on the establishment of an integrated steel industry in Singapore, and the other a general industrial survey team. Perhaps I may say a few words about the work of these two teams. As regards the team to study the establishment of an integrated steel industry in Singapore, the United Nations had despatched an eminent steel technologist in Mr P. L. Schereschewsky. But he was merely the vanguard of a much larger team to come. He has submitted his preliminary report to the Government which has been studied, and I will say no more than that it gives a picture of restrained optimism. It is feasible in his opinion. There are certain difficulties, both technical and economic, that have to be overcome. Later next year he will return to Singapore with a fuller team of experts in all technical processes connected with the steel industry. As regards the United Nations general industrial survey team, they have completed their preliminary findings, and I received the report only yesterday. Naturally I cannot claim, in the short time available to me, to have digested all that is said in the report, because it is a lengthy report. I would say that this commission was headed by a most able man - Dr Winsemius - who has a distinguished career both as a civil servant and as an entrepreneur. He has taken a very realistic approach to this problem. About his recommendations, so far as I can reveal them, I may say that it is an open question whether we should publish this report because there are many points of advice on policy and industrial strategy which we think we should keep to ourselves. Nevertheless, so far as I can make public, his recommendations fall into two broad groups. First, the immediate future, and second, the long-term view. For the immediate future, he recommended a crash programme of industrialisation to absorb as much of our unemployed workers as possible. He recommended that we pay special attention to our position as the fifth biggest seaport in the world. He thought that more Singaporeans could he employed on board ocean-going ships than is now the case. He has, on his own initiative, met various ship-owners and asked them whether or not they could employ more Singaporeans. And he has advised Government on how we could bring about a much greater employment of workers on board ships plying international routes. The other project on which he has advised us to concentrate in the immediate future is to extend the ship-breaking industry, because this is an industry that has a ready market, and in the case of Singapore, a ready supply of ships to be broken. Further, it is an industry that employs large numbers of workers with a very small amount of capital investment. If the Member for Hong Lim were here, I would perhaps go into a dissertation on the ship-breaking industry, in particular the way in which the Member for Hong Lim did his utmost to stifle this industry. However, he is not here to be at the receiving end, and I will merely say that the proposals of the U.N. team are being studied with great care. I think we have more than a sporting chance, much more than a sporting chance, of making a success of it in the immediate future. Now I come to the long-term future. Of course, this depends on having your Economic Development Board set up which has funds and men to lend money to the industry that wants to be set up here; which has technicians to assist our industry to work out new projects; and which has men who can go to intending investors with a case that has been examined and worked out-a proposition which they can accept or at least examine with interest. The specific technical reports of the U.N. team have not all been completed, but it is likely that by March or April next year, we will have the technical reports from the U.N. team. These technical reports will lay down what industries can be established in Singapore, taking into account the market for the product, the sources of raw materials, the supply of power, skilled workmen, roads and so forth. Then, of course, we have also asked the Japanese Government to design a plan for the development of the Jurong Industrial Estate. But since this particular item deals with the Economic Development Board, perhaps I will deal with it when we come to the second amendment.* *Amendment (2), standing in the name of Mr A.P. Rajah, reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.

If it is convenient we might as well take it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to suggest that perhaps the two could be conveniently taken together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is perhaps very fortunate in that there are two places on the coastline where we have access for deep-sea vessels. One, of course, is our present port area, the Singapore Harbour Board, and the other one is at Jurong. With this in view, we have decided that, if there is to be a substantial rate of industrialisation in Singapore, there must be an area reserved for these industries which have access to deep-sea vessels, simply because there are no raw materials in Singapore. Whatever raw materials our factories need must be imported from overseas. To cut a long story short, Mr Speaker, Sir, after I returned from Japan, I was greatly impressed by the tremendous expansion of the Japanese industry, and accordingly, I have decided that it may be a very good idea to ask the Japanese Government to send a team of industrial planners and engineers to develop this plan for us. We have made, for the purposes of a five-year plan, a preliminary rough plan as regards the area, the siting of wharves, railways, and so on and so forth. The Japanese team, which included some of their top planners in the Japanese Ministry, came here some time ago, and they have submitted their preliminary report. In their opinion, the scale on which we are thinking is rather on the low side; we wanted an area of 5,000 acres, and they thought that that was much too small. They have nearly trebled the size of the site and are making plans for the larger area. The U.N. experts on industrial planning thought that we should plan for a longer period and have marked off an area five times the area we originally intended. Anyway, I do not imagine that within the next five years we shall have enough industries to fill, say, 25,000 acres. I doubt that very much. It will take some time to complete the design because a lot of the details, such as the topographic map, the soundings of the sea and the straits off Jurong, have not been made in detail and to the specification that the Japanese planners need. Various departments of the Government, such as the Survey Department, the Master Attendant's Department, the P.W.D., the Land Office and so on are embarking on a crash programme to get the data in time for the Japanese experts to complete their final detailed plans early enough. That is all I would like to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the matters raised by the Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed obliged to the Minister for Finance, as I am sure the House is, for his very lucid and full explanation of what the Government intends to do in this matter. May I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah:- *That the sum to be allocated for Head D28 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5.

Amendment (2) * is not being moved. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ong Eng Guan:- *That the total sum to be allocated for Head D28 be reduced by $100.

Amendment (3) *. Mr Ong Eng Guan is not here. The sum of $47,600,000 for Head D28 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 7.00 p.m. Head D43 -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D43 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 3. Mr Speaker, on the subject of the expenditure of $40,000, I would like clarification from the Ministry concerned in regard to the proposals that will be carried out in the rural areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no children's playgrounds in the rural areas. All the children's playgrounds are located in the urban areas, and for that reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have provided in the Estimates under "Parks and Recreation" a provision for $40,000. We anticipate that with this money we will be able to build two children's playgrounds in the rural areas. Although there are vast stretches of land in the rural areas, Mr Speaker, Sir, these cannot be considered as lands which can be used as children's playgrounds. Many of them are in the occupation of squatters and farmers. Some of them are planted with rubber. It will be necessary, now that we have these facilities in the urban areas for children, that we also provide the same amenities for children in the rural areas.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, could the Minister for Labour and Law state the areas where these children's playgrounds are to be built?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now making a survey of the rural areas to find out where there are locations of concentrations of the population. We propose to build the two children's playgrounds in those areas where there are concentrations of population.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat and Inche Mohd. Ali bin Alwi:- *That the sum to be allocated for Head D43 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 4.

Amendment (2) * is item (2) of sub-head 4 - "Parks and Open Spaces - Other Projects". Dato Abdul Hamid.

I am not moving, Sir.

Inche Mohd. Ali.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D43 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 4. Mr Speaker, here also, as I have asked the Minister concerned previously, it is not stated clearly what are the projects which will incur an expenditure of $160,000 for 1961.

Out of this provision of $100,000, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is proposed to spend $10,000 on the improvement and development of existing minor parks and open spaces: a sum of $50,000 for the building of two large parks in the city area for which sites are already available at Tiong Bahru and Queenstown; and a sum of $30,000 for the extension to the King George V Park and the construction of the new fencing, walls and footpaths and seats on the land which was recently allocated to the park. This work, Mr Speaker, Sir, is necessary to prevent erosion and landslides. A further sum of $10,000 will be used for providing a children's playground in the urban area.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of

- *That the sum to be allocated for Head D43 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 5.

Amendment (3)* is item (2) of sub-head 5 - "Swimming Pools - Rural". Inche Mohd. Ali.

I am not moving. The sum of $811,000 for Head D43 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D44 -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D44 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1. Mr Speaker, concerning the provision of $100,000, I would like to know the objects and the ways as well as the plans which will be carried out by this Ministry. Another point, Mr Speaker, on which I would like to seek clarification regarding the subject of community centres, is: Could the Minister for Labour and Law clarify whether the new constructions include schools for poor children which are referred to as "sekolah makan" (feeding schools)?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Member for Kampong Kembangan for having raised this query. This provision is a carry-over of schemes for the provision of community centres which were approved by the previous Government and which we have scrapped. Mr Speaker, Sir, no part of these funds are being used for the building of community centres. All the community centres that we are building now are being built from the vote that was approved by the Assembly under the estimates for Social Welfare last year. We have entered a similar provision for a similar vote in the Social Welfare estimates for this year, so that we have all the money that we want under the vote for development and integration of community associations which has already been approved by the Assembly when the Social Welfare estimates were considered for the expansion of our work in building more community centres. So this provision is really unnecessary and it will be deleted.

(In Malay): I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $360,000 for Head D44 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D47 -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3. Mr Speaker, there is one new item, but in my opinion it is not extraordinary and I seek clarification from the Minister for Culture with reference to his programme which amounts to $1,300,000.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3." There is an amendment+ also in the names of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill in regard to sub-head 11. I do not know whether it can be taken together conveniently? +The amendment reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11.

Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first item relates to expenditure on equipment, the setting up of studios and so on. The second one, sub-head 11, which you are taking together, relates to television works and buildings. As regards the first, as you know. Sir, a couple of months ago, two experts from the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation came here and made a report, and our project for television is based more or less on their recommendations. I can state briefly what will be the nature of the television outfit. Firstly, the studios will be sited at Radio Singapore, because it is cheaper to do so, though we are told that perhaps in future years television might have to be a completely separate outfit. But for the next few years, we find it cheaper to operate it as part of Radio Singapore, so the studios will be sited at Radio Singapore and the transmitter will be sited at Bukit Batok. 7.15 p.m. The figures which were submitted were roughly estimated by the Japanese experts. So there might have to be some alterations one way or the other. But $2,740,000 is the rough figure given to us, of which we propose to spend $1,300,000 in 1961. We also have a plan for the training of the necessary staff for television both for the technical and programme sides. This plan is being worked out and it involves the training of some of the existing staff in Radio Singapore for television work and also the recruiting from outside for the purpose of training. As far as the actual channels are concerned, it is intended to start off with two transmissions to operate initially for four hours a day in all the four languages. The second one, sub-head 11, really relates to the cost of buildings and television works.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, it is indeed strange that Singapore will have its own television. But before that comes about, the Members of this Assembly as well as the people of Singapore would like to know from the Minister for Culture the kind of programmes or proposals that will be shown on television and the proposed tax on people owning television sets.

As regards programmes. One of the difficulties, even more so in the case of television than in the case of radio, is that the programmes are quite expensive, unlike radio broadcasting. Television programmes involve a great deal of expenditure and they will have to be broadcast in four languages. The types of programmes will be, first, educational, possibly for schools; and, second, the transmission of news in the nature of newsreels relating to foreign affairs because we can get them from foreign agencies, and also local news in the form of films, sports and cultural performances. In fact, we hope to relate television to the National Theatre where performances can both be shown for the theatre-going audience as well as broadcasts which can be viewed in the homes. A certain type of programme will be introduced. For example, I am told that sports programmes can be broadcast in all the languages in the sense that they are visual and most of them need very little commentary. You might even have to experiment with two or three commentators chipping in and introducing a few sentences to help the viewer to understand what is going on. But as regards certain other types of programmes, especially local programmes Chinese, Malay and Tamil - the bulk of them will have to be produced here because these are not available from abroad in these languages. Some of the films, for example, instructional films can be put across by using sub-titles and can be broadcast in English with sub-titles in Malay, Chinese and Tamil. As regards the increase in licence fees, I cannot give the precise details but I can give you the basis on which the fees have been worked out in other countries. By and large, I understand that you can increase by about 20 to 30 per cent of the existing fees, but that depends on how long television shows are going to be put on. We may start on a small scale with each language programme for only one or two hours a day, and as we go along, we may have to increase the length of time. So we have to work out the fees in terms of what our ultimate showing time will be. On that basis, there is a table which has been worked out but I cannot give details as to what the actual fees will be. I do not know whether that satisfies the Member for Kampong Kembangan or not. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye) rose -

Is it a business motion?

Yes.

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

7.22 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on the Development Estimates be taken after 8 p.m. today and that such proceedings be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1"-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

7.23 p.m.

We are on television.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance stated that we have to find a lot of money from outside as well as from inside in order to put into effect his development plans. In order to attract loans from outside, he considered it necessary to increase taxation next year so that a picture is given to the outside world that the Singapore Government has done its best for itself locally. I wonder, in that context, whether it is necessary in the economic interest of Singapore to want to spend nearly $4¾ million on television. What economic benefit can Singapore derive from this $4¾ million? Would it not be better that television be entrusted to a public corporation and the money that is to be spent on television could be better devoted to more housing, hospitals and schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the arguments are (a) whether we are justified in introducing television, and (b) whether we should not entrust television in the hands of a corporation.

7.24 p.m. As regards the first, the expenditure of over $4 million on television is no more a waste of public funds than spending money on libraries, museums, art galleries and radio, because television, especially in a multi-lingual society like ours, is a powerful and effective instrument for transcending language barriers and also because in television we have a medium using visual images and to that extent we can overcome language barriers. Further, it is a very effective medium for educational purposes. I was in Japan a few months ago. One of the things that were told to me by the teachers there was that, as a result of television, the powers of comprehension of a child increased by something like 100 per cent. Because through television a child can realise what a desert looks like, what Paris looks like, and what a green belt of tropical forest looks like. The children can see historical episodes and they can get a better impression of what they can only read in books and imagine themselves. So there is no doubt about the value and effectiveness of television, because every country today realises that television is as essential as radio and the many other types of mass media. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention that we cannot afford to spend this sum of money on television. Secondly, the Government intends to sustain television by introducing commercial programmes into television. In fact, the experts are of the opinion that, instead of the odd $4 million going down the drain, it will bring in revenue to justify that expenditure, apart from the effectiveness of television in educating and increasing the intellectual and cultural level of the people. 7.30 p.m. As regards the question whether we should hand this over to a corporation, I see no reason for this. For many years the radio has been in the hands of this Government, and in the hands of the previous government and many other governments before. There is no particular reason why it is necessary to put it into the hands of a corporation. Because at this stage we think that the Government can use television or any other mass media effectively to achieve certain objectives which we have in mind, including the creation of a Malayan culture and a Malayan consciousness. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Thio Chan Bee and Tun Lim Yew Hock:- *That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 11.

Amendment (2) * is not being moved?

I am not moving. The sum of $4,482,400 for Head D47 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D50 -

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D50 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 3. On a point of information, Mr Kandasamy: what is this "Dhoby Ghaut" and what is it intended to do at Changi Camp?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a "ghaut", according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means a mountain pass, or a flight of steps leading to a river-landing place. But it is also a Hindustani expression meaning a place where washermen do their washing.

Like Dhoby Ghaut!

In this case, it consists of stone slabs on which the soiled linen is beaten with a wooden stick. The Dhoby Ghaut at Changi Camp was originally meant for volunteer week-end and annual camps to have their soiled linen washed and cleaned. But with the increase in the number of regular personnel in the Brigade headquarters at Beach Road, it has been found that soiled linen may have to be taken over to Changi Camp and washed there. The present proposal, therefore, is to enlarge the Dhoby Ghaut at Changi Camp, so that a small ghaut originally meant for 20 men may now have a capacity for 500 men. It is considered much cheaper than a steam laundry.

Sir, I commend the Government for its economy in this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D50 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 4. Again, Mr Kandasamy, on a matter of information: what is the Ulu Pandan Camp and whom is it intended to serve?

The Ulu Pandan Camp was first erected in 1957, and it was intended to be a temporary camp for the Singapore Military Forces. It was hoped that permanent barracks at Woodlands could be taken over, but the latest indication shows that it will not be possible for the Singapore Military Forces to take over the Woodlands Camp until possibly in 1963. At the present moment, the Ulu Pandan Camp is being occupied by the Singapore Infantry Regiment. Since it was originally a temporary camp and now that certain semi-permanent structures have been erected, a certain sum of money has to be voted for maintenance and possible improvements.

Sir, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $137,900 for Head D50 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D55 -

(In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D55 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 8. Mr Kandasamy, in this provision, as much as $28,000 has been allocated for the completion of Pulau Senang Settlement, to be distributed under several items. I take this opportunity to submit my views in regard to Government's proposals to establish an improvement in the morale of the detainees for their past activities as gangsters. While I welcome this measure for the welfare of Singapore. I would like to make a request to the Ministry concerned to consider the welfare of the people in the Southern Islands. I have received a number of complaints and pleadings about the difficulties which they face or the obstacles which they meet since the settlement was established there. I would like to say that Pulau Senang, which is in the neighbourhood of the Southern Islands, is an island which originally had useful materials for the people of the Southern islands. For example, according to information given to me, there is plenty of fish in the waters around Pulau Senang, and the islanders often went there to catch fish. Moreover, this island has trees which provided the islanders with material to construct kelong. Since Pulau Senang island has now become a protected area, the islanders have been deprived of the fish and the trees. I do not question that. But I wish to draw the attention of the authorities to the prohibition to fish in the waters and to being challenged by the guards on the island. This does not mean that I am protesting against the prohibition to land on the island, as it is a protected area, but I feel that fishermen who go there in search of fish could be distinguished as dwellers in the Southern Islands, as their livelihood is fishing. In regard to this matter, I hope the Minister could appreciate the difficulties which the dwellers of the Southern Islands face. And if the Minister would like to have further information, I shall submit them in detail later, as I do not wish to waste the time of the Assembly on details. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, in fact, quite surprised at what the Member for the Southern Islands had said, because under this heading - Pulau Senang Settlement - it refers to (1) the completion of the Superintendent's quarters; (2) the completion of the water catchment project; and (3) the construction of a jetty. I see no relation between what the Member for the Southern Islands has just said and the various items provided for in the Budget. Anyway, for the information of the House, when we chose Pulau Senang to be the settlement, we had, in fact, considered the welfare of the fishermen. We had consulted the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of National Development, and I can assure the Member for the Southern Islands that due consideration had been given to the various aspects before we decided on this island.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am surprised when the Minister concerned said that this matter had nothing to do with what I was pleading for. I believe that the problem is not confined to the construction or developments made at the Pulau Senang Settlement. But it may well be that tomorrow we could not even go there because of the other developments which the Government may make there. Even now, when there are no fences around, difficulties have been created. So I feel that with the provisions made in the Estimates, large schemes may be put into effect. In this connection, I would like the Government to consider what I have put forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when it does come to that stage, we will consider what the Member for the Southern Islands had just said.

Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, on the same subject but on another aspect. We have read in the papers that Ministers and Assemblymen from the Government side have made visits to Pulau Senang. I was wondering whether the same facilities could be given to the Members of the Opposition - not to be inmates of Pulau Senang! - but we would like to have a look at what is going on there. As Members of this Assembly, we have the right to visit prisons, hospitals and institutions in Singapore. So I was wondering whether the Government would provide the same facilities for us to visit Pulau Senang and, at the same time, to provide transport for us, because they have the boats and so on. An hon. Member: One-way traffic, is it?

No, two-way traffic.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am really glad to hear that the Opposition Members are also interested in the Pulau Senang scheme, and that they have the welfare of the detainees at heart. I can assure Members of the Opposition that facilities will be provided for them to visit Pulau Senang. In fact, it is my intention sometime early next year to set up visiting teams to Pulau Senang, and in these visiting teams Members of the Opposition will be included.

Thank you.

(In Malay): With the explanation and the assurance by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,123,650 for Head D55 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D56 -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 12. Sir, judging by the amount to be spent on the acquisition of school sites, I wonder whether the Minister could tell us if, under this programme, all suitable school sites in Singapore have been acquired by the Government so that aided schools would have no suitable school sites left for their own expansion.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, the Government of Singapore has made plans for the development of schools. It has prepared figures from statistics, and owing to the population increase, it is felt that the Government should endeavour to build the equivalent of 19 schools each year, 14 of which would be primary and 5 secondary, and which, if all these 19 schools could be erected each year, would take in an anticipated enrolment of 40.000 per year. As I said earlier on during the Main Estimates debate, a responsible government should not avoid the responsibility of providing education for its citizens, and this Government is proceeding along those lines. In the past, it is true that aided schools have played their part in providing education where the Government has failed. But I think the time must soon come when Government must shoulder its responsibility to provide education for as many as possible in its schools. But it does not mean that we will push out aided schools if they wish to develop and erect new buildings, for which capital aid will still be available. But I must warn those in charge of aided schools that we are only reserving $1 million per annum as capital aid for aided schools, because we cannot do it both ways. We ourselves go in for a large building programme of about $11 million a year and, at the same time, offer millions of dollars to aided schools. So with that as a conditional qualification, we will be very pleased if aided schools will continue to build new schools where this dollar-for-dollar aid will be available, but it is only restricted to $1 million per annum.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we agree that it is only right that the Government should be the one to shoulder the main responsibility for the education of the children of Singapore. Therefore, it was with great reluctance that when the Government approached the aided schools for the use of available classrooms in the afternoon, we agreed, because we realised that by agreeing to expansion at this time it would mean an increase in our own problems. I do not think, Sir, that aided schools want to compete with Government schools in expanding their facilities, because economically they are not in a position to compete with the Government. But if because of circumstances a few aided schools are compelled to go further and start building schools because of this enforced expansion, would the Government make available any of their sites, at the cost that they acquired them, to enable the aided schools - I must say that only a few of them would be able to do that - to build new buildings or new schools in order to solve their own problems? Of course, the Government would give them a dollar-for-dollar grant, but we know that in practice usually the aided schools have to spend more than what Government gives them. But sites are difficult to find, and since Government has gained almost a monopoly on the suitable sites, then we hope, if the aided schools find it necessary to ask Government for aid in having a few of the sites marked for acquisition, the Government would give the necessary assistance. I wonder whether the Minister could give us an assurance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, subject to what I have said just now, I am prepared to give the assurance. But the Member for Tanglin mentioned that although aided schools get a dollar-for-dollar aid, they do not really get the full amount of aid. Here again, it has been the practice in the past for aided schools to build schools which are of a much higher standard than Government schools. I think that is a very peculiar state of affairs. If aided schools want to build schools, then I think they should follow Government specifications; and if the aided schools would like to have more ornamentation, more grandeur in the rooms and halls, then I think it is only fair that they meet the difference themselves. I think that has been done when the new Government came into power.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, aided schools are getting poorer and poorer these days, and I am afraid the future will not be as good as before. I am glad of the assurance given that there will be the necessary assistance. Therefore, I beg to withdraw the motion. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 18*. *The same amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ali bin Alwi In this provision, $3,500,000 is for the school building programme for 1961. I hope the Minister for Education could explain whether these schools will be built in 1961 and where their localities will be - whether they include primary schools in Blakang Mati. No schools have been built there up till this year. 8.00 p.m.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I can assure the Member for the Southern Islands that the 1961 school building programme will include a school at Blakang Mati. It is part of the 1961 programme. There will also be another one at Kampong Pasir, Pulau Tekong. The annual building programme, as I have said, is that out of 19 schools, there will be 7 primary, 7 post-primary, and 5 secondary schools, two of which will be for technical education.

(In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, Sir, with regard to the secondary schools as stated by the Minister for Education, could he say how many of them will be Malay schools?

To answer that question, Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I may go back, I think, to the 1959/60 school building programme. It takes some time to plan for a school and to really see it coming into operation. But, in any case, under the 1959/60 building programme, two secondary schools have been reserved for the Malay medium, the first of which will be at Aljunied, which should be ready for occupation in September 1961. The second one will be at the junction of Wilkinson and Mountbatten Roads, which will be known as the Kallang Secondary School, but which, unfortunately, because of piling difficulties, will not, I think, be available until August 1962. As for the 1961 building programme, we have not made any definite provisions yet. We shall build the schools and if we find that the demand for a particular language medium school is required, then it is reserved for that particular language medium.

(In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, Sir, according to the explanation given, there is no Malay secondary school to be built for 1961, but it will be considered according to future demands. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Education to the schools that are to be definitely built in Aljunied and Mountbatten Roads. I feel it is necessary for a secondary school to be built in Pasir Panjang, especially for those students who live there. I know it is quite far for them to go to and from their schools, and, therefore. I would like the Minister, in his plan for next year, to consider building a Malay secondary school at Pasir Panjang.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, could the Minister for Education say, if he has not forgotten, whether under his building programme for 1961 he is going to build a school at Alsagoff Estate? I feel that this is necessary because there are many children who have to go out of the area to attend school. It would be better if a school could be built in that area.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, the point mentioned by the Member for the Southern Islands is very much in the minds of Government. In fact, in the building of schools, we are endeavouring to build primary schools in the city areas and secondary schools in the outlying areas, so that the younger children will not have to travel too much by bus, but the elder boys could move more freely when they go by public vehicles. We also plan to have our schools so situated as to meet the needs of the population. That is why in congested areas the schools would be multi-storey - a six-storey school at Silat Road and a 10-storey school at the Selegie/Short Street site. It is our intention, therefore, since the first two Malay secondary schools would be in the eastern region of the island of Singapore, i.e. at the junction of Mountbatten and Wilkinson Roads plus Aljunied Road, that the third secondary school would very likely be on the western side of the island, which would be around Pasir Panjang. But I think we will first find a site and then say, "Well, we will build it around these parts." I think that also would be the answer to the Member for Kampong Kembangan. It is very likely that the secondary school which we will build at Jalan Kaki Bukit - we are already going to build a primary school there and we have an area reserved for a secondary school - may be turned into a Malay secondary school. I think sometimes it is a bit difficult to pinpoint a certain area and say we would like a school to be built there, because sometimes it is not possible to acquire the site for certain reasons. But we shall endeavour to build as close as possible in areas where the demand has to be met.

Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Education just now said that in certain very crowded areas, he proposed to have erected multi-storey buildings for schools. If these multi-storey buildings are to be used by primary school children, I wonder if it is a good thing for the small children to be in such schools, because I take it that it necessarily implies the provision of lifts. The experience of housing authorities where multi-storey flats have been erected and lifts provided even where adults live, has not been very satisfactory. That is the first point that occurs to me, Mr Kandasamy. The second point is what provision the Minister proposes to make in respect of playing fields for these multi-storey sites. Is he proposing that there should be a common user of playgrounds in respect of these multi-storey buildings?

Sir, as to the first point raised by the Member for Farrer Park, here again it is a question of choice between what is ideal and what is practical. These are days when, because of land shortage, flats are being built for citizens; whereas in the past, everyone could have a little plot of land a little away from town, perhaps, and have all the advantages of living space. So it is not something new for the citizens of Singapore to be staying in flats that are either 7-storey, 9-storey or even 11-storey, and the children will be living in such fiats. It can be safely assumed that adequate precautions would be taken regarding the operation of lifts and even for teachers to look after the children when they move up in these lifts. This multi-storey school where the lift difficulty would arise will be the one at Selegie Road, because the one in Silat Road, although it is a six-storey school, will have the approach road to the third floor. So it is a question of walking either three flights up or walking three flights down. So I think the Selegie/Short Street 10-storey school building could be regarded as a sort of an experiment. If it is proved successful, then we may consider building more of such multi-storey schools; but if it does not prove to be as satisfactory as we had hoped for, then it could be converted, I think, to a post-primary school for children who are in their teens. The second question posed by the Member for Farrer Park has escaped my notice.

Playgrounds.

Playgrounds. Well, in our plans, we are hoping to provide for every primary school a playground space of three acres: and for secondary schools, 4½ acres. These are things we work to, but if we are pressed. I suppose the only alternative would be to give them those facilities as mentioned by the Member for Farrer Park, i.e., to use a common user playground for their games and so forth. These are matters of detail which will have to be worked out, and every effort will be made to let the younger children have more play time than study time.

A five-day week?

(In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat:- *That the total sum to be allocated for Head D56 be reduced by $100.

Amendment (3)*, Dato Abdul Hamid.

I am not moving, Sir The sum of $22,042,040 for Head D56 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 8.15 p.m.

Head D57 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 2+. +The same amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ali. Sub-head 2 reads "Improvements to Rural Bridges . $70,000". Mr Speaker. Sir, while we are on this amendment, could I also touch on amendment (3)++ on the same head standing in my name - "Rural and Kampong Roads - Repairs and Making Up"? I think they are interrelated, Sir. ++Amendment (3), which also stood in the name of Inche Mohd Ali, reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 29.

Is it convenient?

Yes.

Please carry on.

Sir, this year, there has been somewhat slow progress in the building of kampong roads and kampong bridges. I do not know why, but this has been so. If I may refer to my constituency, that is Geylang Serai, because I happen to know more about this constituency than any of the others, a request has been made to the authorities concerned to metal Jalan Alsagoff, the main approach to the Alsagoff Estate, but it has been of no avail. Further requests were also made by the residents of a forgotten kampong - Kampong Paya - for a bridge and an approach road. Here again, nothing happened. If I may say something about this forgotten kampong, it is almost completely surrounded by marshy land. The only approach road there is mostly unusable in rainy weather due to prolonged flooding. The plight of the residents in Kampong Paya is not rare amongst the residents of other rural kampongs in Singapore. I therefore hope, Sir, that Government in implementing their rural schemes would draw up a priority list to the effect that those who are in need most be given help first.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take sub-head 2 of Head D57 first. Sir, according to the wording of this sub-head, which is "Improvements to Rural Bridges", I would like to inform the Member for Geylang Serai that this provision is for repairing, widening and strengthening of rural bridges. It is not a provision for building bridges. In regard to the building of Kampong and rural roads, the provision is for major repairs and making up of existing rural and kampong roads throughout the island. Work to the value of $500,000 is expected to be done in 1961. Sir, I have a list of roads with me here. This programme of making up and repairing roads is divided into three divisions. The north division covers Sembawang, Jalan Kayu, Nee Soon, and Bukit Panjang. The estimated cost of this programme is about $168,000. The second division is called the eastern division covering Tampines. Kembangan, Punggol. Serangoon, Geylang Serai, and Changi and the programme is estimated to cost $131,450. For the third division called the western division which covers Jurong, Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang, the estimated cost of repairing and making up roads is $31,400. Sir, in regard to the making up and repair of kampong and rural roads, priority is decided by the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Committee. Priority is given according to the urgency or the need of such areas as require the making up or repair of roads.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister concerned, that is, the Minister for National Development, to the subject of the construction of roads in the rural areas. Members of this House have spoken on many matters about pipes, bridges and roads. I have often paid attention to this matter, and though it has been explained to me that, in principle, this and that road will be built, I am afraid that the plans envisaged have not been fulfilled. Why is this so? If the Minister concerned wants to approach the problem in the right way, I can supply him with details. That is a matter which affects my area. I am saying this as a representative of Kampong Kembangan. I gather that whilst I cannot get what I want, there are others - whose names I would not mention - who can get what they want. I have asked for bridges to be built in villages, but so far there has been no response from the Government because they want to do it themselves. It is to be regretted that members of the Government have asked and got what they wanted. I would like to get an explanation from the Government.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am the President of the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Committee. The main duty of this Committee is to see that the work in connection with the provision of pipes, bus shelters and drains is properly carried out in the interest of all the people living in the various parts of this island. The Member for Kampong Kembangan has made an accusation which is not justified, because we cannot do all the work that is required in one year to satisfy all the people of the 51 constituencies of Singapore. We can only fulfil some of the wants of each constituency. As regards the work to be undertaken for each constituency in 1961, the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Committee has already directed its Secretary to put up a report for the information of all Members of this House. Therefore, it is to be hoped that the Member for Kampong Kembangan will await this report before he levels the criticism that his constituency is being treated unfairly.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to dwell at length on this matter because in my explanation I have said that I hope the Government will co-operate with the Opposition in regard to the rural areas. I am still left in doubt as to what the programme for 1961 is, and I consider it necessary that it be explained to the Assembly.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 5. Sir, sub-head 5 reads "Conversion and Furnishing of Government Buildings for Overseas Specialist". It is just one specialist. I am sure it is a mistake. It could be many overseas specialists. There are a number of Government buildings. But what I would like to point out is that a number of Government buildings have already been furnished. Is it therefore necessary to re-furnish and re-convert certain Government dwelling houses for overseas specialists? If there are only a small number of overseas specialists, would it not be cheaper to house them in hotels than to spend $150,000?

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the serious deficiencies in the technical departments of the Government, we have approached various Governments, including the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Israel and others, to provide us with suitable officers. It would be far cheaper to house them in Government quarters than to let them live in hotels. And indeed in the case of officers who are expected to serve in Singapore for any length of time, they would expect normal accommodation in order that they can bring over their families and children, if necessary. In the case of the larger Government quarters, what we have done now is to split them into separate flats so that our available accommodation can be used to house the maximum number of persons.

Sir, I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (3)* has been dealt with. Amendment (4) is in respect of item (2) of sub-head 31, page 536. *Amendment (3) reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $l0 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 29. 8.30 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $l0 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 31. Mr Speaker, Sir, the vote shows an amount of $1,830,000. Of this sum, may I know how many lamps are to be installed and how much is the cost of each lamp-post? And of the $100,000 estimated to be spent in 1961, may I know how much of this sum will be used in the localities for these lamp-posts?

The Question is. "That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of sub-head 31." Does the Minister know the cost of each lamppost?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the figure of $1,830,000 is the estimated cost of the next four or five-year programme to provide street lighting. Up to the end of this year, street lighting works costing over $500,000 have been put in hand. Of the balance of the programme provided for, it is expected that $100,000 worth of work will be done in 1960.

1961?

1961. Priorities for the various areas to be equipped with street lighting will also be allocated by the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Council. In deciding on these priorities, the Council will no doubt also have regard to the urgency of need in any locality, and depending on the representation of the people in that locality. I am afraid I cannot supply information in regard to the number of lamp-posts that will be provided in these areas; I am afraid I do not have the details.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker. Sir, even the Minister could not say how much is the cost of the lampposts! I do not mind. But what I want to point out is that in the Geylang Serai area there are lamps, but in my area there are no lamps. I admit there are lamps in Lorong Marican, but the installation of lamps stopped at the bridge leading to my area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister for National Development will do something about it; otherwise there will be a very big spilt in my Party! Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

Mrs Seow? Also on lamp posts?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to draw the attention of the Minister for National Development to this: he will remember talking about bulbs being taken away from S.T.T. flats. Well, it was because of the verandah lighting in the flats that the lack of street lighting was not felt. But now that it is the principle of the Government to take away those bulbs and they will not be replaced, street lighting will be imperative in some S.I.T. areas. You will agree with me that in some areas with S.I.T. flats, there are quite a lot of bad-hats and gangsters living there. So if the streets are not lighted and with all verandah lights being taken away, the whole S.I.T. area will be in total darkness, and the Minister will not be surprised to find gangsters' dens growing in that area.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from wanting standpipes and street lamps, every Member of the Assembly wants street lamps installed in his respective area. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, our provisions are not large and we must consider the general position instead of concentrating on any one area. If we compare this year's provision with last year's it will be seen that a considerable provision has been made for Kampong Kembangan. This is not buying the support of Kampong Kembangan for the Government. But I feel that the burden should be equally shouldered. A sarong that is short could be pulled up. We could all share our joys and sorrows together.

The Member is getting a share of the sarong!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wish to explain the position of street lamps. The Urban and Rural Services Advisory Council, in considering the installation of street lamps, will first consider recommendations and suggestions put up by the Police. For example, in the Tiong Bahru area and in Silat Road, because of recommendations and explanations by the Police that there have been gangster activities in those areas, they have been given priority in the distribution of Street lamps. My colleague has explained just now, and very clearly too, that if we have enough money and sufficient working staff, we will be able to provide street lamps in every street. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $31,886,500 for Head D57 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 D14, D16, D17, D18, D19, D26, D33, D40 and D54. D52 is not required, I take it, Mr Minister for Finance? D52 is really a blank and we can leave it out with safety, can we?

Yes.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the fourth column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 502 of Paper Cmd. 26 of 1960 stand part of the Development Estimates", put, and agreed to.

Have I left out Head D58? Mr Minister, is a vote required for Head D58? Could the Minister assist? On page 502, column 4, there is a total of $165,356,710, and there seems to be an addition of $872,940 in respect of Head D58 - Colonial Development and Welfare Schemes - and the final total then is $166,229,650.

That is right, Sir: the final figure.

So there has to be a vote on Head D58 as well. I will put that Question. The sum of $872,940 for Head D58 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Question, "That the sum of $166,229,650 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1960", 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.

8.45 p.m. Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Monday. 19th December, 1960."-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Nine o'clock p.m. to Monday, 19th December, 1960.