Hansard, 1961-12-14

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (13th December, 1961), "That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 be reduced by $100."-(Dato Abdul Humid bin Haji Jumat). 2.33 p.m.

Head D8- Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I said that the Government, in the implementation of its policy on the acquisition of land, should pay attention to the livelihood of farmers and people living in the rural areas. In the implementation of its schemes and plans, the Government should not treat the people concerned unfavourably. According to the policy of the Government, the land allocated to farmers is not sufficient. To my knowledge, one family can only get one acre of land from the Government. I can say for sure that it is impossible for a family to make a living from one acre of land. Where can the labourers then go? We know that a serious situation has arisen in Singapore today. All these redundant farmers and labour hands will move into the city, thus aggravating the unemployment problem. Therefore, in the implementation of its policy on the acquisition of land and the resettlement of farmers, the Government should pay attention to the livelihood of the farmers and rural dwellers. Lastly, I hope the Government will reconsider the payment of the rate of compensation. Furthermore, the Government should give sufficient land to the farmers to enable them to make a living.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just a few questions to ask of the Minister concerned regarding resettlement. Could he tell us where these resettlement schemes are and for whom? The Prime Minister has said that the Master Plan will be revised and made public very soon. Those who are interested in development would like to know when the Master Plan will be made public so that they could plan ahead. Also, when will the Agricultural Leases Bill be out?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand Singapore is suffering from an acute shortage of land, but we should not ignore questions relating to the well-being of the people. I think this matter should be quickly resolved. It is imperative that it should be given due consideration, because we are short of land. One important question concerns land on this island which belongs to the Services and which is not put to use at the moment. I think the question arises whether the Government should acquire such land for development purposes. For instance, there are many vacant pieces of land in Blakang Mati. Applications have been received from Pulau Brani, which has no more vacant land, for the erection of dwelling-houses on Blakang Mati. I wonder whether it is possible to make use of land belonging to the Services in Blakang Mati for the erection of dwelling-houses. The Government should also give consideration to applications for sites on State land. It is not sufficient for the department concerned to give a reply merely acknowledging receipt of the application saying that it is being considered. This is not very satisfactory. If an application cannot be entertained, the reply should be positive and it should state that the application cannot be considered. The applicant should not be kept in suspense all the time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, every year millions of dollars are being spent on land acquisition by the Government and yet land hungry farmers still face the problem of a great shortage of land. As far as I know, the Government itself has not much land to distribute to the farmers and the unemployed who want land.

On a point of elucidation. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

It might be of some interest, because this is the first time I have heard that the unemployed want land in Singapore. If it is so, then I will look into the matter. It is something new to me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apparently the Prime Minister is out of touch with reality. When I was the Minister for National Development -

Did you give land to the unemployed?

Because there was no land to give. Often there are unemployed people who ask for a piece of land so that they can rear chickens or grow vegetables to tide over their difficulties. Now, the Government is faced with a shortage of land. Every year it spends millions of dollars to acquire land from big landlords and other people. It is high time to revise our thinking on the land question in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a place like Singapore, where land shortage is acute and the population is growing, this question requires that the thinking of the present Government leaders be reorientated. At present, in my opinion, the most profitable business is land speculation. So long as land speculation is profitable, much of the capital which would otherwise go into commerce or industrialisation would go into land speculation. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we antagonise a small section of the big landlord class, that is, the big land speculators, they are very few in number. If the Government is not prepared to antagonise them, land will never be released. My view is that the Government must acquire all lands which are held for speculative purposes and pay for them in bonds. We must achieve our ultimate goal of security of land tenure for all those persons who cultivate the land. Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I know, when a farmer is given security of land tenure, the yield goes up. He looks after the land. It is better for the country and in the long-term interests of the land itself. We can pay these land speculators in bonds which will be payable in 30 or 40 years' time, and we can sell land to the farmers on an instalment basis, as in Japan, Pakistan and other places, or we can sell it outright. Mr Speaker, Sir, in other countries where Right-wing governments are in control, like Japan even during the MacArthur regime, there are more far-reaching land reforms than this so-called socialist Government of Singapore. 2.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, land speculators are a different class from the industrialists. We want to and must protect the industrialists. We want to protect .the people in commerce. But land speculators are parasites; they do nothing but just speculate in land, as it provides a bigger return than if they invest their capital in factories or in business concerns. It is high time the Government did not protect land speculators. Sir, besides this land problem, I shall also discuss the treatment of tenants on land acquired by Government. Recently we have trouble in the Toa Payoh scheme. Sir, this, I feel, is due to mishandling by the Government. We also had, in 1959, a resettlement of tenants in places like the Aljunied housing scheme and the Tiong Bahru housing scheme, where we managed to resettle them with the least difficulty and with co-operation from the squatters there. But the Toa Payoh scheme is the first scheme this present P.A.P. leadership is confronted with. We see difficulties and heart-burning on all sides. If we are humanitarian and try to understand the problems of the squatters, for instance, under the Toa Payoh scheme, we will be better able to deal with the situation. As far as I know, there is no need to resettle all the squatters at one time under the Toa Payoh scheme. The squatters can be resettled in little batches at a time. We must convince them that they can come forward for negotiations so that we can settle any difficulties. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have always been told that the Master Plan is to be revised. From the progress the Government is showing, I think the Master Plan will not be revised unless and until this Government collapses and a new government takes over.

Is there a reply from the ministerial bench?

Perhaps a reply will be given in one elucidation to all the points raised.

If the Prime Minister thinks he has the time.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to talk at great length on this amendment. I merely wish to get clarification from the Minister concerned on one or two matters in respect of land, including the area of which I am the representative, that is to say, the Malay Settlement at Jalan Eunos. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to appeal to the Government to enlarge the Malay settlement areas. I think it is a necessity which the Government must undertake. But what I want is a definite assurance in this Assembly - according to the reply given by the Prime Minister in the past - that there is a possibility that allocation of sites will be completed during the course of this year. However, I hope the allocation of vacant sites in Malay settlements could be expedited not only at Kaki Bukit but also at Ayer Gemuroh and Jurong. Another point I wish to draw the attention of the Government to is the method of getting State land. For instance, those applicants who submitted their applications during the time of the previous Government paid $25 as deposit. Because these applicants were illiterate, they had complete trust in the staff of the department. In the case of my father-in-law, it happened that he paid $25 without a receipt being given for it. Until today it is not possible for him to get a refund of $25. This is a matter which I think should be investigated by the Government. If this practice is allowed to go unchecked, the people will suffer. So I hope a Commission of Inquiry will be instituted to look into the real position. That, briefly, is all, Mr Speaker. I hope I will get a satisfactory explanation.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the effects of acquisition of land by the Government, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the following points. The first is about the question of rental of land which is requisitioned by the Government. When the land is taken over by the Government, the rental of the land is increased. In some cases, it is increased by 100 per cent, and in a certain case a $2-rental has been increased to $20. Attap-dwellers are very poor, and it is not proper to increase land rentals once the land is bought by the Government. I want to cite two examples. In Lim Chu Kang and in certain areas like Toa Payoh, after the land has been bought by the Government, the land rental is increased. After the land has been requisitioned by the Government, the livelihood of the people there is affected adversely because of the increase of rental. Therefore, I hope the Government will consider the livelihood of the rural people, especially the attap-dwellers. Another point is that after a piece of land has been requisitioned by the Government it wants to develop it. I believe that after the land in Toa Payoh has been requisitioned, that place is intended to be developed into a satellite town. The people in those areas do not object to this plan in principle, but the Government has not given full consideration to the livelihood of the people living there. The Government has not considered the loss of properties incurred as a result of the development of that area. The people in those areas are faced with this problem. Therefore, I hope the Minister concerned will give full consideration to their problems and hear their opinions. There are two organisations which can reflect the views of the people. One is the Country People's Association, and the other is the Rural Dwellers' Association. The Government should consider their views because they represent the people living in the rural areas. Therefore, I hope the Minister concerned will pay close attention to their views.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. is a realistic Government, hence it cannot simply accept the suggestion by the hon. Member for Geylang Serai that the Government should buy up the land at Geylang Serai and then allocate it to the existing squatters. To do so, Sir, would just mean the transfer of public funds into the pockets of wealthy land-owners, in this case Alsagoff. There will be a hue and cry from the squatters too, as we are ,now experiencing in Toa Payoh where the tenants have for years paid little or no rent, because the landowners were not able to collect them. Now that it is under proper public administration, those who are asked to pay rent according to the area occupied have expressed dissatisfaction. The Barisan Sosialis politicians have tried to make political capital out of this situation by fomenting trouble because the Government is doing its duty of administering public property in a proper manner. After balancing all factors which include taking into account the existing squatters' conditions, Government will only purchase land if there is a bigger proportion available for resettlement purposes than for existing squatters. Resettlement has quite a different objective from that of buying land from private owners and giving it to existing settlers. Sir, on the subject of resettlement, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, as well as the Member for Toa Payoh, has made allegations about the rates of compensation. The Member for Choa Chu Kang especially has made allegations that the rates of compensation have not been amended but have remained the same since 1957. Sir, I must point out that he has his facts wrong. The rates were amended on many occasions as and when the resettlement department gathered more experience and adapted the needs to suit the circumstances that confronted the department. Members will note that on page 9 of the Report of the Land Clearance and Resettlement Party, there is an amendment slip which amends the existing Scheme "C" to provide for house owners and sub-tenants. This amendment was introduced on 1st December, 1960. There is also a further amendment slip attached to page 15 where the whole original scheme recommended was deleted and replaced by a cyclostyled sheet. 3.00 p.m. Items as amended are indicated in the footnote of page 2 of this sheet and the date of the amendment for item (g) is 8th October, 1959, and item (h) in July 1960. I am also to say that a special scheme has been devised to give an additional house exchange alternative to apply particularly to house owners in the Toa Payoh area. Sir, in this case, the Housing Board has bought a piece of land in Kim Keat Road adjacent to the Toa Payoh area, whereby the Housing Board will be erecting houses for the purpose of exchanging with those families who are not farmers in the Toa Payoh area. Sir, to say that this resettlement scheme had been the same ever since it was introduced in 1957 is, therefore, wrong, and indeed, intended to mislead. Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang also suggested that the development projects were held up because of resettlement difficulties. I quite agree with him, Sir. I can point a finger at the Barisan Sosialis for making things that way. While rendering lip service in support of the Government's development plan for the general good of the vast majority of the people, the Barisan Sosialis have gone out of their way to foment trouble among those affected by resettlement in order to stir up the resistance of the settlers. They have tried to obstruct and frustrate Government's development plans by telling the settlers that they should not move out but should make demands for more compensation. In this way, the resettlement problems stagnate into long long drawn out negotiations and thus development projects are being delayed. For instance, the Member for Choa Chu Kang now demands that attap-huts should be compensated at $3 per square foot as against the present $1 per square foot, which has been acceptable for thousands of cases. Sir, I would like the House to note the tactics adopted by those people who oppose the Government. For instance, the Member for Toa Payoh, whilst he was in the P.A.P., suggested that one-fifth should be a reasonable sum, but he did not press for it. Now, of course, the Barisan pays $3 per square foot, which is three times that of the rate the Government pays. Then there were suggestions made by the representatives of the Rural Residents Association. This Association suggested $2.

30. There is another association, called the Country People's Association, which demands $2.

50. These are the tactics which are used by people who are opposing the Government now to raise fantastic demands so that the development projects could be delayed by their agitation. Sir, we can see that there is no sincerity in all these proposals to solve the squatter problems. What these people want is to play to the gallery and to demonstrate to the farmers how clever, or shall I say, how unreasonable they are in that they can make so many demands. But the farmers are mostly responsible citizens. I am told that in Toa Payoh now, where the first stage of development is going to take place, out of the 19 families, several of these families have already moved out on their own, accepting the scheme that is offered by the Government. Sir, in the Bulim area, for instance, this subject was brought up by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. In this estate there are more than 200 acres of land acquired by the Government for resettlement purposes. On this land, there are 20 to 30 genuine settlers who have been there for some time. Some of them have cultivated small plots, and others have, without authority, extended their cultivation to cover large tracts of land after the Government has acquired the land. When it was known that Government was taking over, people from neighbouring areas encroached on this resettlement area and illegally moved into it. There are thus two categories of people, and not just one category, as the Member for Choa Chu Kang would like us to believe. Some of these cases of encroachment have been most vociferous and, through the Rural Residents Association, have demanded that they should be compensated at fantastic rates or given large plots of land for themselves. I have personally looked into this matter, and I am satisfied that where the settlers are genuine cases, and not those opportunists who tried to encroach, a sufficient plot of land, depending on fertility but up to two acres each, will be permitted to the existing farmers. The remainder of the land will be divided into lots for resettlement purposes. Those who are not farmers but who have huts and have actually been living there for some time will be allowed to retain their huts with their surrounding land area, between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet, these are fair adjustments. Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang was talking absolute rubbish when he tried to make out a case of legality. If the squatters had any legal status, the Government would be prepared to purchase their land from them. It is because they have no legal status and because the Government is generous enough not to go through the normal process of law that the present scheme for ex-gratia payment of compensation has been devised. In the case of Bulim Estate, Sir, the genuine farmers will, be allotted their farm lots and the genuine non-farmers will be allotted their house lots as stated above.

Sir, I just wish to add a few words to what the Minister for National Development has said. It is his Ministry that is primarily responsible for resettlement and rehousing. My Ministry, which includes the Land Office, is primarily concerned with the purchase and acquisition of land for public purposes. First, the Master Plan. Sir, I do not expect the Master Plan, and the complete revision of it, to be completed anywhere before the next 15 months. It is a matter of some importance, when an exercise of so far-reaching a nature is being conducted, that not only must all interests be carefully balanced, but also that the full implications of the competition between the high density demanded by the Housing Board and more land demanded by the Finance Ministry's Economic Development Division, should be weighed against the long-term interest of reasonable planning in an over-crowded island like Singapore. Members will recall that there was a question of who the Chief Planner is to be. It is because some considerable importance is attached to the duties of the Chief Planner, who will have to help complete the revision of the Master Plan, that I say it is not likely to be completed at an early date. First we have to find somebody who is not only theoretically qualified as a Planner of competence, but who has had experience of tropical architectural conditions. What I can assure the Member for Tanglin is that nobody is being held up in the present development because of the Master Plan. The Master Plan is there. From time to time minor adjustments and amendments are being made to it to fit in with industrial development and other housing development. But to give the Member an instance. A revision was made to the Tanjong Rhu industrial site, a belt that runs somewhere from the Singapore Swimming Club right up to the end of Tanjong Rhu. Because of the slowness of development in the Jurong site in laying out water and electricity services, we decided that here was an area which could assist in the immediate demand for suitable industrial sites with a water frontage. The planners were satisfied. So were the Land Oflice. And the land is now being reclassified for industrial uses. At the same time, because Kallang Park has proved to be a little bit of a white elephant, because there is not such a density of population to justify a large and barren park-land, readjustments have been made to allow part of Kallang Park to be used as a housing estate by the Housing and Development Board. The reasons are obvious. The uses of Kallang Park have been watched and scrutinised over the last two and a half years. For reasons not only because there is no density of population in the area but also because of transport conditions, the park is not used in the way it was hoped it would be used. Therefore, one sector amounting to about 35 per cent of the land bordering Mountbatten Road at the Nicoll Highway side is being test-bored at the moment to find out whether it is suitable for housing development. If it is, one sector will be set aside for housing, and that will provide the density of population for the use of the rest of Kallang Park. So it is a constant process of adjustments. If any developer wants to use a piece of land; if he thinks the Master Plan is not what it should be because he has adequate reasons why it should be altered, then his proposal for reconsideration will receive sympathetic and new scrutiny. There is nobody who is in any way being penalised as a result of our not, so to speak, republishing once and for all an amended Master Plan. There is no end to planning. 3.15 p.m. Planning is to fit in with human needs. Planning has to fit in with conditions which alter from time to time. Of course, there are certain basic principles which one observes in planning, because they are of some relevance. As I have stated, we are looking for a competent Chief Planner. Sir, I think the Member for Hong Lim is the person least qualified to cry on behalf of the farmers and the poor squatters. He is always crying on behalf of somebody, Sir. The trouble is that when we entrusted him with the responsibility of doing these things -

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was the Minister in charge of land problems, I remember discussing with the Prime Minister one day about trying to carry out a programme, the principles of which I have enunciated just now. I met with the same opposition as I met with in the building of houses and other things.

It is a strange thing! Thank God the Chairman of the Housing Development Board does not seem to meet with any opposition in putting up houses at the rate of about 10,000 units a year; something which even the Member for Hong Lim, in his healthier days as the Minister for National Development, was unable to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rate of progress on the building of S.I.T. flats commenced only after the Hong Lim by-election. It should be pointed out that during the Hong Lim by-election certain Ministers spoke on the platform that the rents of the flats were expensive because the flats were built on plans laid down by the ex-Minister for National Development, which was an admission that the plans and the organisation were laid down by the ex-Minister for National Development.

Sir, he cannot have it both ways. Either he had no opposition, and plans and development were all prepared and all he needed was to press the button and the houses would spring up; or he did meet with opposition, in which case that was why the houses did not go up. I suggest to him that the reason why nothing happened was that he went on a witch-hunt, and everybody was either a dangerous stooge, a spy or a reactionary, and the result was that he landed himself with a group of weak and sycophantic officials who were unable to put the buildings up. It is as simple as that. As for this land -

On a point of -

May I just finish this? This business about the farmers; there was no alteration. We said, here was the Land Office; here was the P.A.P. Five-Year Plan on land for farmers, drafted with considerable care by the Minister for Health and Law. In our minds we have certain patterns as to how we could, without in fact confiscating and expropriating the land of the landlords, compel the use of the land by farmers at cheap rates and give them security of tenure. It is all on the record. If we were to publish the draft Bill that he produced on his own without consultation -

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Order.

The Member will be given full opportunity to reply. These are things on the record. All we had was a Bill. Nobody can knock a nail down without the Minister first saying yes. Nobody can go from A to B or do anything without the Minister first saying yes. The Member's theory of planning is that the Minister is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Yes. No. Thou shall do this. Thou shall not do that. And it is all the Minister.

Omnivorous!

Sir, we put up a practical Bill which we withdrew because, as I explained to the House, there was the problem of those tenants. They are not tenants and they are not squatters. They are licensees. They collect fish and eggs on land belonging to other people who collect rubber and coconuts. We did not know how to resolve that problem. We had three possible alternatives. I gave my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Upper Serangoon, and the Member for Choa Chu Kang the honourable task of calling up the farmers, arranging meetings, and getting together to try and resolve it. The very fact - [Interruption]. Well, that is the tragedy, Sir. They can only say, why not accept the Country People's Association's proposals? The Member for Toa Payoh and the Member for Choa Chu Kang told me, "What shall we do about this Country People's Association? There are a lot of Communists inside. They are taking advantage of us. We get a standpipe put up and they claim the credit for it. What shall we do?" These are facts. We discussed this ad infinitum, time and time again - Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of clarification.

Surely.

(In Mandarin): Just now the Prime Minister has alleged that I told him that there were some people in the Rural People's Association and the Rural Dwellers' Association who were Communists. This is not correct. After the Select Committee meeting at that time I discussed with the Prime Minister about how to invite the representatives of the two rural organisations to take part in discussing this problem. They had suggested convening a meeting. At that time, Mr Speaker, Sir, you were the Chairman of the Select Committee discussing the Agricultural Leases Bill. The crux of the whole problem was that I only said that the representatives of these organisations should be invited to discuss this matter. The Prime Minister talked with me as how to solve this problem. I told him it was better to wait until the by-election was over. I did not say there were Communists in these two organisations - Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

The Prime Minister has not given way to the Member for Hong Lim yet.

There should be one at a time. I am pleased to know that after my absence of three days I am able to arouse so much interest generally! In the process of this investigation into the Chinese school students and the parents whom they rustled up to attend the Chinese High School Parents' Day on Sunday, this particular point, as to whether the Member for Choa Chu Kang said that, could be covered. I am prepared to say this on oath, give evidence and the date. If he denies it and there is evidence to justify it, then he will have to take the consequences - Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Surely.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has been talking about something entirely different. He has alleged that I said there were Communists in the two rural organisations. But when he stood up to reply, he talked about the parents of the Chinese school students. That is entirely irrelevant.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Order. I cannot even hear the interpreter. Now, Mr Prime Minister.

There was no contradiction in what I said. What I said was there is going to be a Commission of Inquiry into the students and the Communists manipulating the students. Since there is already this Commission of Inquiry, one of the items it will have to inquire into are the Country People's Association and the Rural Dwellers Association, more the Rural Dwellers Association than the Country People's Association. They are more heavily penetrated and communist controlled; they rustled up the so-called "parents" for the Sunday meeting at the Chinese High School.

Order. Let us not go into details. There are only five minutes left and the Member for Hong Lim is anxious to get up.

As I say, that matter has to be investigated, why did the Rural Dwellers Association rustle up rural dwellers to come along and say that they were parents of examinees? At the same time, it might cover the point that the Member for Choa Chu Kang asks me - what shall he do about the wicked Communist elements in the Rural Dwellers' Association who get standpipes installed as a result of getting his aid and then claim the benefit for themselves? We discussed this matter umpteen times in my office. These things can be investigated. But the point we have to make is this. Never deny something which can be proved. Now, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the general election, at one time I managed to convince the Minister for Finance, in those days Dr Goh Kong Swee -

He is still here.

- of this basic principle, that when we formed the Government, we should buy over the land and pay the landlords bonds and distribute the land to the land hungry farmers. But he met with opposition from the Prime Minister in those days. Because of that, we did not put that programme into the Five-Year Plan.

Sir, before . -

Order.

On a point of order -

Order. If it is a point of order, then the Prime Minister must say it is a point of order.

I want at least two minutes in the final reply and I think there must be some relevance. I mean, we are not going to go into bonds and so on. What the Member for Hong Lim has raised, I have replied to, namely, the Agricultural Leases Bill. His version was he would cure everything by saying yes or no to everybody -

Order. The point of order raised is whether or not the Member for Hong Lim is relevant. I think he is relevant. He is talking about land acquisition by way of payment. He suggests that bonds should be issued. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now we come to the Agricultural Leases Bill. This has been mentioned for the last one and a half years and we have never seen any Agricultural Leases Bill -

We must put him on the Select Committee the next time!

Sir, I had a Bill and it is true that it gave the Minister lots of powers. I do not deny it. But these powers were necessary to settle cases arising under the Toa Payoh scheme. The resettlement plan which was distributed to members was too rigid, and it was necessary for the Minister to appoint panels of assessors to negotiate with persons who were affected. But the Prime Minister opposed this type of scheme. In that particular Bill, it was important that the Minister should be given powers. But the Prime Minister did not object to his Minister for Labour just testing whether a girl of 18 should marry or not. That power should not be given to the Minister. But when it comes to matters involving $20,000 or $30,000, I think the Minister should be given power. But the power of deciding that a girl of 18 should marry or not should not be given to the Minister.

Order. I am just wondering whether this is on land acquisition or female acquisition! Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just trying to compare Ordinances where the Ministers were given power. I said in the Bill which I proposed, the Minister should be given power. In the Bill where the Minister for Labour and Law was concerned, those powers could be given to a registrar. There is no need for the Minister to assume the power -

Order. I think there are only two minutes more. I think the Prime Minister should be given an opportunity to reply. Mr Ong Eng Guan, half a minute more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I agree with the sentiments of the Member for Choa Chu Kang, because I know that the Prime Minister is very good at twisting and turning. As usual, he will come to this Chamber and repeat certain things mentioned in the C.P.A. Room which -

Order. This is all irrelevant. Mr Prime Minister.

The long and short of compensation is simply this. Whatever you pay to the farmers must come out from revenue, from taxes. We are quite willing to give everybody everything. But everybody must have to pay for it. It is as simple as that. The duty of this Government is to do what is within reason and within the limits of the economy. We can make it five times as much. But where will the money come from? Raise the income tax, the petrol tax, the workers' tax? Sir, there are simple tests of whether this Government stands for the landlord or for the non-landowner. At Bukit Ho Swee, a fire took place. Any other government would have left it alone and let the owner of the land benefit by it. Overnight, as a result of a national disaster, land which is worth, with squatters on it, 30 cents a square foot became seven times as valuable, because the squatters were dispersed - 3.30 p.m.

Order. Time has expired. Does the Member for Geylang Serai require a vote?

No. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,226,600 for Head D8 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D13 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D13 be reduced by $100. Sir, last year, I brought up this question and asked the Minister whether it was wise for an expenditure of $11 million to be spent on the development of the Airport, in view of the fact that the Federation Government was going ahead with the opening of a very big international Airport in Kuala Lumpur, and I think the amount involved there is somewhere around $16 million. Now I am asking the Minister to think again, particularly as it says in item 10 on page 7 of the White Paper (Cmd. 33 of 1961) - in the agreement reached between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore - that Communications and Transport are to be the responsibility of the Federal Government. In view of that agreement, can the Minister say whether it will have any impact on our own development, and whether he still considers it wise that so much money should be spent on developing an Airport which may have to compete with the international Airport that is to be built by the Central Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said last year that there was a real necessity for expanding the facilities at the Paya Lebar Airport, and I repeat again that we are proceeding with this plan this year. To enlighten the Member for Cairnhill, I would like to inform him of statistics which show the increasing importance of Paya Lebar Airport. First, I will give him the number of passengers who have embarked or disembarked at Paya Lebar Airport since 1959. In 1959, we had 122,000 embarking passengers; in 1960, 143,000; and in 1961, it is estimated at 172,000. In 1959, the number disembarking passengers was 129,000; in 1960, 149,000; and in 1961, it is estimated at 175,000. The number of aircraft movements at Paya Lebar Airport has also increased, in 1959, it was 26,925; in 1960, it was 31,991; and in 1961 it was 41,445. As you can see, the number of aircraft movements in 1961 has increased by more than 50 per cent over the figure for 1959. Secondly, in reply to the Member for Cairnhill, I have the assurance of airline operators that their aircraft will operate through Paya Lebar as long as there is traffic generated in Singapore, and it is obvious to the House, from the figures I have given, that this traffic, far from decreasing, is increasing. There is also the example of Australia. The first international airport in Australia was at Sydney, and for a very long time it was thought that it was necessary to have only that one international airport. But with more people wanting to travel by air, it was found that Australia required more than one international airport. There is now another one at Perth.

Order. Time has expired.

May I withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $8,035,230 for Head D13 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D14 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $100. The reason for my moving this amendment is that last year the development, project in Singapore was only a "paper tiger". It broke when it was touched. Therefore, I do not wish to speak at length on this. But as to the plan this year, I doubt whether the Government has any ability to carry it out, because this has something to do with the political life of the P.A.P. Government.

Order. We are on "Marine" and so far - unless the interpreter has missed out a part of the speech of the Member for Stamford - she has not touched on anything about "Marine". An hon. Member: The Singapore River.

Well, has she mentioned the Singapore River?

She says that the P.A.P. is sunk!

Miss Fung Yin Ching, the Singapore River?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that last year the Government planned to revise the Singapore River project but it has not done so. It depends upon the political life of the Government whether the Government wants to do it this year. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, we approved over $2 million. There are three items. One item concerns the Construction and Repairs to the Master Attendant's Pier. Another item is the New Marine Department Quarters costing $72,000. The third item is the Singapore River Project costing about $21 million. But so far $221,300 has been spent. I want to ask the Government why the plan was not carried out last year. Why did the Government want this vote for this year'? Does the Government intend to carry out this plan? When will it carry out this plan and when will it be completed?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D14 be reduced by $100.'' Perhaps the Minister would like to answer that question first. There is still time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Head D14, there are three items. Two are small matters: one is Construction and Repairs to Master Attendant's Pier which is practically completed, and there is a small sum next year to pay for final items; the next one is the New Marine Department Quarters which we expect to complete next year. But the main thing is the Singapore River. The original cost entered in the Four-Year Plan is $21 million. The Member for Stamford wondered why nothing was done. She said that this was a "paper tiger". Perhaps a more apt description would be a "paper crocodile". Perhaps I should explain what the Singapore River development scheme is, otherwise we will not know what we are talking about. In 1955, the Singapore River Working Committee submitted their Interim Report and they said, "The river is congested. You have these empty lighters going out to collect cargo from the ships in the roads and coming back to unload it on to the wharves by the river." Of course, it was a nasty business, as anyone looking, say, from the bridges over the Singapore River can see that the place is congested. The Committee came to the conclusion that the reason why traffic was so closely bunched was that the lighters could not get out nor come in during high tide, and at low tide, because of the silt on the river bed, they could not move. The Committee therefore recommended raising the five bridges and deepening the channels of the river almost right up to the quayside. In order to prevent the quayside from collapsing, steel sheet piling was found to be necessary. This was the report which gave the findings of experts on the subject. It received the general acclamation of the business world. Of course, it would take a rather brave man to say, "This is all nonsense." In fact, the diagnosis is wrong. As we drew up the plan, we said, "Well, experts and engineers have been working on it." But when we discussed which engineers were going to do which projects, it became obvious that if we were to put engineers on this project, then other projects would be held up even to a greater extent. So we decided to delay the implementation of this project for some time. In the meantime, I was watching traffic along the river - my office is in Fullerton Building - and I could see from one side the lighters going from the river mouth to the ships; and when I crossed over to the other side of the building to my Conference Room, I could see the lighters going up and down the river itself. I became more and more doubtful whether there was any substance in the report of the Working Committee, because they said - I do not want to go too extensively into that - that at certain times there was a congestion of lighters either at one or the other side of the river waiting for the tide to go down so that they can go under the bridges. I looked at the Singapore River every now and then, and never spotted any collection of lighters. So I decided to question the whole basis of this report. I had a team of officials to keep a watch on the Singapore River and to record the lighter traffic going up and down during daylight hours - there is hardly any traffic at night - through a whole tide cycle to find out whether or not the traffic was affected by the tides. 3.45 p.m. They collected a great amount of data which were subjected to very fine statistical analysis, using the most advanced techniques and they found that the flow of lighter traffic in the Singapore River was quite independent of the time of the tides. So it is obvious that, with this information, the whole River develop ment improvement scheme must be thought out afresh, because if it has nothing to do with the tides it is no use spending some $6 million - and that is the amount required to raise the bridges - to allow lighters to go under them at high tides, when, in fact, they could go under them in any case. Subject to this, it is true that at certain seasons of the year - neap tide or spring tide - or when the tides are usually high for about a few days -

Order. I think the Minister has made his point - that the whole scheme is being revised. There are two Members who have indicated that they would like to speak.

Yes. Perhaps I have made the point why the scheme was held up. Now I want to say what the present scheme is. Having found out that -

Order. If the Minister has the time, perhaps he can give details of that scheme. Otherwise he can make a ministerial statement tomorrow. Two Members wish to speak.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from what the Minister for Finance has just said, it is my impression that he is saying what he has said in the Four-Year Development Plan. I refer to page 82, "Improvement of the Singapore River", paragraphs 8.11 and 8.

12. It is quite clear that the Singapore River working Committee was appointed in 1953. That was eight years ago, and the P.A.P. Government have been in power for the last 30 months. If the Government were sincere in really improving the Singapore River, then I see no difficulty in it. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will realise that quite a number of people depend on the River for their livelihood. In paragraph 8.11, it says that about 2,000 lightermen and 4,000 stevedores depend mainly on the Singapore River. Now, it is stated here that the condition of the Singapore River is congested: 'River traffic is hampered due to insufficient quay length and difficulty of clearance during both high and low tides.' Mr Speaker, Sir, from the explanation of the Minister for Finance, it is quite clear that it is not only because of the insufficient depth of the River and the low overhead bridges but also because of the insufficient quay length.

Order. I think the Hon, the Minister has indicated that he will be quite willing to make a ministerial statement on it. Is that correct? If that is correct, then I will not -

No.

The Minister will not make a ministerial statement. Then the Member for Havelock may carry on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having read the Development Plan, we realise that if the Government were sincere in improving the Singapore River, I see there is no difficulty in doing it, because the Singapore River has been mentioned for the last eight years and the report of the Singapore River Working Committee had been submitted to the Government. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole Development Plan and the figures in the Development Estimates are merely a showcase. It says that the Government are very keen on development and industrialisation in order to solve the unemployment problem. The conclusion is that the Government are not really sincere in improving the Singapore River.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has admitted that the original Singapore River project required revision. So what was nut forward to the people in the Hong Lim by-election was a half-baked proposal. Sir, I have an interest in this project because half of the electorate of Hong Lim, and I think more than half of the electorate of Telok Ayer, depend on the Singapore River for their means of livelihood. And I think half the commerce in Singapore depends on the Singapore River. Sir, I think it is now time that the Government gave sufficient importance to the improvement of the Singapore River. We understand the difficulties involved - that if we take more silt out, it might damage the foundations of buildings in the area. But the Government must show that it is doing something to the people.

Sir, it is obvious that I have been speaking at some length explaining this whole business without the simplest of my ideas penetrating into the minds of those persons to whom I have spoken. I have said that we are not going through with this because when we examined -

Point of clarification, Sir.

There is no time.

I have said that, on re-examination, we found this report basically wrong and, therefore, what is the point of going on with the report which we know is wrong? That is not the way we express sincerity, Mr Speaker, Sir, - to waste $20 million on a project which, on re-examination, is found to be unsound. I hope I have made my point clear. The Development Plan report was drafted towards the end of 1960, before studies of Singapore River traffic were made. It is obvious that once we have the basic information, the way to improve the flow of traffic is not along the lines recommended by this Committee. You have to get a new set of technicians to revise the whole Plan, and that is what we have done. It is only in October this year that the new Committee made its preliminary recommendation, on a more modest scale, but I am sure it will be more effective than the recommendations of the first Committee.

Could the House be given a copy of those recommendations, Sir?

Sir, if this subject has stirred so much interest, perhaps I should issue a ministerial statement on a matter of public interest.

Order. I am trying to indicate that that should be the proper course to take, because hon. Members have only the Development Plan and the Budget before them. They have voiced grievances based on the Development Plan and, therefore, if there has been a radical change in the Development Plan, the Minister, I suppose, will either table a White Paper on the revision or make a ministerial statement. A ministerial statement at this time would, of course, be eating up Opposition time. That is what I am trying to indicate. Dr Goh.

The only reason for hesitation on my part is that the second Committee has only made its preliminary recommendations. I would like to think it over carefully - just how much to be made public, when they have not completed their findings.

Time has expired.

(In Mandarin): I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,865,700 for Head D14 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D16 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D16 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Head in the Development Estimates concerns Meteorological Services. In last year's budget, $27,000 was approved for these services but the Government has not made use of this money. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small island and so meteorological services are of great importance to us. We all realise that Singapore occupies a very important place in the world. Its importance is particularly felt in the Federation. We have to be certain our weather forecasts - whether there will be a storm or a hurricane. According to an engineer, if there is a hurricane, all buildings on the island will collapse. So I hope Government will put in much effort in these services. I want to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister can explain why the sum of money allocated last year was not spent, and when will they be able to carry out these services this year.

Mr Speaker, for the information of the Member for Choa Chu Kang, the subject of meteorology covers a very wide area. It does not cover Singapore Island alone. In fact, the smaller the territory, the less important meteorology becomes. Therefore, the meteorological service in Singapore is linked up with that in the Federation, North Borneo, and Sarawak. We have live territories combined together to form this meteorological service, in other words, it is at the moment Pan-Malayan. The weather or climate of a territory covers an enormous area. What happens to the weather in Singapore is determined by factors which take place in countries surrounding our island. 4.00 p.m. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has inquired why it is that we have not made much use of the vote given in the Estimates last year. The reason is quite simple. If you look at the Development Estimates, there is an item there called "Installation of Hydrological Station". A $10 vote is given as a token vote. It is pointless putting up one hydrological station in Singapore if there are no hydrological stations in the Federation or in Borneo or in Sarawak. A hydrological station by itself in Singapore will serve no purpose. It is, therefore, important that agreement with the Federation must also be obtained to set up similar stations there. Similarly for other items of equipment, it is essential that they can be duplicated too in other territories. Otherwise, I do not see how equipment installed in Singapore alone could make any weather forecast. In any case, Mr Speaker, I personally have very grave doubts about meteorological forecasts, judging by the amount of equipment that is being used. The reason is simple. The science of meteorological is a very young science, and to make weather forecasts you need satellites, which the Americans have used, to be able to photograph storms and, therefore, give several hours' warning of storms or the approach of storms. In any case, I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that there is no need to fear that he will be visited by typhoons. Our service is quite efficient. In fact, we have what is called a warning met service which broadcasts weather reports to aircraft which approach Singapore and the Federation.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister says that meteorological services are not very important to Singapore, as it is a very small place. But in the Budget for 1962, the Government intends to spend $95,000. This year it is intended to spend $26,700. If it is not necessary, why then should the Government spend some money on this? In view of the explanation given by him, I will withdraw my amendment.

The Deputy Prime Minister can speak.

What I want to say is that Singapore happens to be the headquarters of the meteorological centre. That is all. Therefore, one of the stations is located in Singapore. But it is pointless to have just a Singapore meteorological station when we do not have other stations functioning in the Federation and the Borneo territories. The clouds do not just hang above Singapore. They come from the Federation as well.

Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang now wish to withdraw?

Yes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $95,020 for Head D16 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D17 -

There is an amendment* standing in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock. I have here before me a written authority given by the Member for Cairnhill to the Member for Tanglin to move his amendment. Under the provisions of Standing Order 35 (1). * The following amendments stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock: That the sum to be allocated for Head D17 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. 'If a private Member does not move a motion or amendment which stands in his name when he is called upon, it shall lapse, unless some other Member duly authorised by him in writing or who has supported the notice of motion or amendment in writing shall move in his stead.' Dr Thio Chan Bee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D17 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. Sir, could the Deputy Prime Minister say which post offices are referred to under this item, and what extensions and alterations are being planned?

Mr Speaker, the post offices are the Joo Chiat Post Office and the Tanglin Post Office. The reasons for alterations and extensions given to me are as follows. For the Joo Chiat Post Office, the public lobby is only 54 square feet, and it is considered that at least four or five times this area is required to provide reasonable accommodation for the people using this office. In addition, the extremely limited space on the official side of the counter causes cramped working conditions for the staff, and this, in turn, affects the efficient and smooth working of the office. Moreover, reasonable storage facilities are also lacking. It is, therefore, necessary to carry out structural alterations internally to provide a larger public lobby and counter so that a better service to the public can be given at this post office. Incidentally, the Joo Chiat Post Office is situated in a very busy shopping area. The major alterations and extensions required for the Tanglin Post Office are counter positions. This is because of the increase of business handled by the Tanglin Post Office, and a larger sorting office is required to house the delivery postmen and sorting equipment.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D17 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year the Assembly approved $280,400 in respect of this item. But I understand the Government has only spent $5,050. This only amounts to .2 per cent of the Estimate. The Government has not spent the sum voted for. In other words, the Government has not built the two post offices in Macpherson Road and Simpang Bedok. We all know that the population of Singapore will be increased by next year. Therefore, with regard to postal services, the Government should also take into consideration these factors. It should provide more postal services in crowded areas so as to serve the people of Singapore well. Otherwise, the people will have to go to other post offices very far away. They have to go very great distances to buy stamps and so on. That is very inconvenient to them. That is why, I think, the provision in the Budget for this item of expenditure is correct. But then the Government did not make use of the provision last year. But this year the Government intends to build two more post offices from this vote. I now want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether these four post offices, as envisaged in the Budget, can be completed this year.

The vote for 1961 was $238,200, is that correct?

$238,200.

I think the figure given by the hon. Member is not correct. For the record, I think the figure should be stated correctly. The vote for 1961 was $238,200. Mr Ong Chang Sam, that is correct.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the 1961 Budget here. Item 1 is about equipment for new post offices, over $4,000; and two new post offices, about $230,000. Therefore, the total would be $280,400.

No, it is wrong.

The total should be $240,400.

Yes, $242,400.

The answer is very simple, Mr Speaker. The plan for 1961 was to build two post offices, one at Macpherson Road and another at Simpang Bedok. The plan for 1962 is to build another two post offices, one at Killiney Road and another at Farrer Park. The reason why the post offices at Macpherson Road and Simpang Bedok have not been completed this year has been given to me like this. The delay in the building of the Macpherson Road Post Office is due to the presence of squatters on the site for the post office. The Resettlement Department of the Housing Board is taking action on this matter. As soon as the squatters have been resettled, work on the Macpherson Road Pest Office can be started immediately. The delay in building the Simpang Bedok Post Office is because the Public Trustee, as trustee for the owner of the site, is not in favour of the purchase of the site by private treaty. The Commissioner of Lands, therefore, sought the approval of the Government to acquire the site compulsorily under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance, and the inquiry was fixed on the 20th of November, 1961. The latest information from the Commissioner of Lands is that an award of $10,125 has been made to the owners of the land, and he is arranging for payment to be made so that he can take possession of the land immediately. As you can see, Mr Speaker, the delay is not really due to my Ministry, but the delay is due mainly to the difficulty in acquiring the land and getting rid of the squatters or getting the land ready for building.

The reply of the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very important principle in budgeting these matters, Sir. When the various Ministries come to the House and ask for these votes, the House must suppose that when an item for $132,000 is put into this Budget, matters like the acquisition of land, clearing of squatters and the question of whether the land should be acquired compulsorily or by private treaty have already been settled. All this should be done before the House is asked to vote the money. To come to the House and ask it to vote big sums of money for projects in respect of which even the land has not been acquired, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest is not the proper way to deal with the situation. 4.15 p.m.

I do not agree with the Member for Farrer Park. As far as I am concerned, I have to build two post offices in that area and another two posts offices in the other area. My Director of Posts estimates how much money we require and by what time these post offices must be completed. It may be that in the course of the year, if you are lucky, you will not have any problem with squatters or be faced with the problem of acquisition of land, and therefore work could be begun immediately. I put it to you, for example, proposals in the Development Estimates to put up a post office in Killiney Road and another one in Farrer Park will go forward the moment we get the sites ready, because by the time we keep on negotiating we do not know whether the provision for building these post offices will have been obtained or not. Therefore, the estimates are given here and it is up to the House to study these estimates and approve.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Macpherson Road site, I entirely sympathise with the Government's position in that the site is at present occupied by squatters and there is difficulty in getting the land cleared. It is a difficult problem. I appreciate the Government's problem on that and I can understand it. But from the reply given by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister so far as the Simpang Bedok Post Office is concerned, it seems to me the site is clear. All that is necessary is for the Government to go in and acquire it. Very well, they start to negotiate with the Public Trustee and the Public Trustee will not sell. Then I am suggesting to the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government has adequate powers under the Land Acquisition Ordinance to go in on the site, after serving a notice, take possession of it and start to build. The question of what compensation is to be paid is a later matter. There are sufficient provisions in the Land Acquisition Ordinance to get on with the job. The Government is sufficiently armed with these powers. It has not been done in this case and I can only suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that somebody in the Land Office has blundered.

I suggest the question be referred to the Land Office. I am in charge of the post offices.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Deputy Prime Minister's reply, this post office cannot be built because the Government does not have the land. The Deputy Prime Minister can get the site through the Land Office. Therefore, if the Land Office delays this matter, I feel the Deputy Prime Minister should see that the Land Office get on with this work quickly.

Mr Speaker, if administration were as simple as has been described by the Member for Choa Chu Kang, then the art of government would be a very simple matter. You must remember that the Land Office has many claims made upon it, not only by my Office, but also by people who want to build community centres of people who want to build housing flats and so on. It is not possible for Ministers who are supposed to be in charge of community centres or post offices or housing all at one time to be in conference with the Prime Minister. There are official channels through which these applications are made and they all have to go through the procedure.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government says that this year is a construction year, what the people want to see is the result of the construction. According to the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister, I think we had better not talk about construction next time.

When we open these post offices and if the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Farrer Park so desire, I will invite them to attend the ceremony.

On that assurance will the Member for Choa Chu Kang withdraw?

(In Mandarin): I believe this post office will not be completed this year. I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $436,400 for Head D17 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D18 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. Sir, if I may, I would like to take the next item* also because they are related.

Yes, if it is convenient.

Sir, subheads 8 and 9 are about Malayan Trunk Services and Microwave Trunk Telephone System between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. In the item above i.e., subhead 7, there is already another related item, Malayan Trunk Scheme. So much so, Sir, we wonder why there should be these three separate items. Subhead 19 - Trunk Telephone Services. So what is the difference between a Malayan Trunk Scheme, Malayan Trunk Services, Microwave Trunk Telephone System and Trunk Telephone Services? They all seem to be different trunks.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8." The next amendment* may be touched upon. *The amendment [Amendment (2)] reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 9.

Mr Speaker, I do not blame the Member for Tanglin or the Member for Cairnhill for failing to distinguish the elephant's trunk from the elephant's tail. I myself was a little puzzled about this and I had a long chat with the Director of Telecommunications over what all this was about. I shall try to explain it in as simple a language as possible so that the layman can understand what it is all about. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, telephone communications and telegraphic communications between Singapore and the Federation are now by means of the microwave system. This microwave system has capacity of 600 channels. In other words, 600 telephone conversations, including telegraphic circuits, can be performed simultaneously. At the moment, this capacity is not fully taken up. At present, we have 144 telephone channels and 60 telegraphic channels using this microwave system. Under subhead 8, provision is made for 36 sets of equipment in order to bring in 36 more channels. Sir, this provision was placed in the 1961 Draft Estimates. The Treasury approved that sum of money. The reason was that it was making inquiries whether the World Bank would provide financial aid for telecommunications development. The answer came very late this year, that the World Bank was riot interested in assisting us in telecommunications development. So we have now a revote of the 1961 Estimates under subhead 8, i.e., $36,000. This will provide another 36 telephone circuits. So altogether we shall have 180 telephone circuits on the microwave system. Now, under subhead 7 - Malayan Trunk Scheme - although it is not mentioned in the amendment, this comes as part of the Four-Year Development Plan. Under this Four-Year Development Plan, we hope to open up another 60 channels on the microwave system. So we hope at the end of 1962 there will be altogether 300 channels which can be used on the microwave system. But the reason why one is called Malayan Trunk Scheme, another Malayan Trunk Services, and another Microwave Trunk Telephone is, I understand from the Director of Telecommunications, the insistance of the Treasury that they should spilt up item by item, and the Director of Telecommunications had to scratch his head for the terminology for each item, and the best he could think of were these. The name for each item had previously appeared in Budgets before.

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

Amendment (2)* is not being moved. Amendment (3)+, Dr Thio. * See footnote at cols. 2173-4.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 17.+ Here, Sir, the item is Teleprinter Section and just before that there is Teleprinter Equipment. Does it mean that a new section or a new department has been started different from the previous one?

No. It is not different, Mr Speaker, it is part of the same thing, just as the confusion that arose between subheads 7, 8 and 9. The same thing has appeared in subheads 16 and 17. The item included under subhead 16 was in the 1961 Estimates, so this also is a revote from an original item in the 1960 Estimates. The reason why it has been placed in this year's Estimates is that the greater part of the equipment which was voted for in 1960, although ordered, has not yet arrived. But it is expected that most of it will arrive by next year. That explains subhead 16. Subhead 17 is a scheme to enlarge the Teleprinter Section under the Four-Year Development Plan. As Members are aware, Teleprinter business is growing in Singapore. The total number of renters of teleprinter equipment is 97 and the total of machines in use is 450. Those who use this equipment include business houses, shipping companies, news agencies, newspapers, airline companies, the Police Force, the Meteorological Department, the Director of Civil Aviation. Incidentally, the annual revenue which comes from the Teleprinter Section is estimated to be half a million dollars this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how it is that not a single cent has been spent this year from the $308,000 which they have provided for in the 1961 Development Estimates?

As I have explained at the beginning, that just as for subhead 7, 8 and 9, the reason is that the Finance Minister was making inquiries whether the World Bank would assist us in telecommunications development, and we had to await a reply from the World Bank.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 4.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D18 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, Head D18 is about Telecommunications. The Government has emphasised that our economy depends on the entrepot trade. Therefore, this question of telecommunications is very important. If we do not have a proper telecommunications service. then we cannot carry out our activities as a centre of world trade. Therefore, last year, the Assembly approved about $3,900,000 for telecommunications in order to expand the service so that the economy could be improved and we would be able to compete with other countries in trade. But the Budget for 1962 shows that the Government has spent only $250,000 for 1961, and that in 1962, the Government is going lo spend $3,907,420. The Government has spent only seven per cent of the total vote. I want to remind the House that the Government said that 1961 was to be a year of construction and the Prime Minister also said that if there were to be no construction in 1961, then there would not be any construction in 1962 or 1963. From the figures I have quoted, the Government has spent only seven per cent of the total vote. How is it going to claim that this year has been a year of construction? 4.32 p.m.

I wish the Deputy Prime Minister can explain to the House why only seven per cent of the vote approved last year has been spent. I hope the amount of $3,907,420 will be spent on this particular service.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang must have been sleeping when I was explaining why we have to revote subheads 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 18. The reason I gave was that in 1961, when we had the vote in the Estimates and we were about to use the money, the Ministry of Finance froze the vote because they wanted to make enquiries from the World Bank whether it could finance the Singapore Government on telecommunications development. We did not have a reply until late this year. So naturally we could not spend the money. So because of this we have now replaced this item in the 1962 Estimates. Having been assured that the World Bank has declined to assist us in telecommunications development, we have to foot the bill ourselves. I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the greater part of this sum of money will be used for telecommunications development.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, just now the Deputy Prime Minister said I was sleeping. If I had been sleeping I would not have been able to quote the figures for his attention. As a matter of fact, the person who is sleeping is the Deputy Prime Minister himself. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not our responsibility if the Government cannot carry out this plan in time, or it cannot entirely carry it out. It must be the responsibility of the Government. As the Government could not carry out its plan, there was no necessity to make such a provision in the 1961 Development Budget. The provision was made but there has been no result at all. I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the Deputy Prime Minister. It was very improper on his part to say that I was sleeping.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the 1961 Estimates were prepared in 1960. We were about to use the money in 1961. Then came the big freeze. While I personally am anxious to advance the cause of my Ministry, I have also to be like the Minister for Finance. I have to look at the development picture as a whole - not just have a narrow-eyed view on advancing my own cause or the cause of my own Ministry. I see the difficulties of the Minister for Finance. He has a big project - the Jurong Industrial Scheme. He wants money for that. He has a project for filling up Kallang Pudding. He has also a scheme to subsidise the Housing Board. Obviously he has to find the money somehow. One of the ways is to see whether the World Bank can help us in subsidising some of our development schemes. So enquiries were put forward to find out whether it was prepared to assist us in telecommunications development, and because of that I was prepared to hold up the development for 1961 until I got a reply. I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the trade of Singapore has not collapsed just because we have spent $255,000 on telecommunications in 1961.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not satisfied with the explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a very simple question. For instance, if you say that you want to get married next year, your friend will ask you at the end of next year, "Why haven't you married?" You then explain, "I want to get married. But if you will not help me, I will not get married." In this case, you said that you wanted to get married, but you are not married now. This is all your fault. The Government has put up a big sum for the Development Plan and yet it has not done much. Can it be said that the sear 1961 was to be a year of construction!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would advise the Member for Choa Chu Kang not to get married if he cannot afford it or if his friends cannot help him. Sir, I think we are just going over old ground again. The money has not been used this year. It will definitely be used this year because we now know for sure that we have to foot the bill. That is all. It is as simple as that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, just now I heard that the Member for Choa Chu Kang is not married. The Deputy Prime Minister himself is not married. In this respect, we have a duty to assist him.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe the Deputy Prime Minister has no confidence in his Telecommunications Department. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I wish to vote on it.

The hon. Member is too late. According to the interpretation, the Member withdrew his amendment.

No. I did not withdraw.

I heard the word "withdraw". I have made a ruling on that.

I think it has been misinterpreted.

He said he did not want a vote.

No.

According to the interpretation, the Member indicated his willingness not to take a vote. That means he withdrew his amendment and I have made my ruling accordingly. It is too late. The sum of $3,907,420 for Head D18 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D19 -

Head D19 - Vehicles Registration.

I think he is deaf in one ear! [Interruption]

Order.

The Member has made a remark about you, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think nobody in this Chamber has ever made a remark about the Chair. Here is one man, the Member for Nee Soon, who was cheeky enough to say that you were deaf in one ear.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Nee Soon has said that, I think he should apologise to the House.

Since the matter has been raised by the Leader of the House, if the Member for Nee Soon has uttered those words, I ask him to withdraw them and apologise to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I withdraw and apologise to you.

We are now on Head D19 - Vehicles Registration. Mr Rajah.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D19 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. Subhead 2 is "Multi-storey Car Park .... $2,000,000". Sir, at page 24 of the Annual Budget Statement of the Hon. the Minister for Finance, it reads: 'The proposed site for the multi-storey car park is a piece of vacant Crown land bounded by Cecil Street, Cross Street and Market Street. Detailed plans have not yet been drawn up...'. Mr Mammen, I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister, under whose portfolio this comes, that while he is considering the scheme he should consider pulling down the building which is now occupied by the Commercial Crimes Department of the Police, and that the whole of that area should be developed as a car park. I do not know whether the Budget Statement means that, but if it does not, I suggest that that should take place. I do hope that this scheme, if not completed in 1962, will at least come near completion in 1962, because there is a very great need in Singapore for such a multi-storey car park. The Minister for Finance has said in his Budget Statement that this building will be capable of accommodating 800 to 900 cars and a fair number of motor-cycles and scooters. 4.45 p.m. I would like to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is the intention of Government then, after this car park has been erected, to prohibit parking in the vicinity; or what scheme the Government has to clear some of our streets from being clogged up by parked cars, particularly when the rate of expansion of cars in Singapore is, I understand from the Finance Minister, 500 cars per month.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed site for the multi-storey car park is a piece of vacant Crown land bounded by Cecil Street, Cross Street and Market Street, and includes the land occupied just now by the Commercial Crimes Branch. We are entering into negotiations with the Minister for Home Affairs to move that branch of his Ministry to some other site, so that we can get started with the piling, and work on the multi-storey car park can be started straightaway. As has been pointed out by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech, the increase in the number of vehicles, averaging about 550 new cars per month, is quite phenomenal for Singapore. We are fully aware of the increasing problems with regard to control of traffic and looking for car parking sites. The existing car parks around that area will still be maintained because we believe that the presence of the multi-storey car park will cope with the increase in newly registered vehicles only for a certain number of years. After that, I am afraid another solution will have to be found as to how to control traffic that is going to the centre of the city. The multi-storey car park has been designed for approximately 800 cars. It is quite obvious that there is an upper limit to the number of cars that can be contained in one building. Supposing we have over a thousand cars parked in one building, then the trouble of getting the cars into the building and getting them out again will mean a considerable waste of time, and we may very well meet with a situation where a traffic jam will be created around the area.

May I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by 1eave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the total sum to be allocated for Head D19 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving. The sum of $2,115,000 for Head D19 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D20-

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng. You will notice, Sir, that the estimated expenditure for the year 1961 was only $6,500, whereas the actual amount that was budgeted for 1961 was $46,500. This is only 0.2 per cent performance, and I am just wondering how the Government has helped the farmers as regards research and other matters as promised in 1961.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I notice that for this subhead, $6,500 was estimated to have been spent in 1961 and flow $40,000 is to be spent in 1962. In spite of all the extra money put into this project, I find from the Malayan Statistics that labourers for animal husbandry went down in number in September 1958 - it was recorded as 1,071; and for the same month in 1960, it was 955. I was just wondering why it is that in spite of putting in more money, it opens up avenues for jobs for less men.

The vote in subhead I is required for the alleviation of flooding in the agricultural section of the Sembawang Station, which is situated in the low-lying part of the area of the Station where floods are frequent. Owing to unavoidable delay in surveying and planning, tenders were invited late, and the position was further aggravated by unsatisfactory work by the contractor. The sum of $40,000 represents a revote of a part of the $46,500 entered this year in order to complete the job next year.

Mr Mammen, Sir, let us forget the past about contractors' sins and all that. Can the Minister assure us that with this extra $40,000 that is going to be spent, it will open up jobs for more labourers and not less, as it has been doing?

Sir, what the Member for Mountbatten is quoting is from the returns made by the Labour Department to show that there has been a decline in the number of laborers engaged in animal husbandry. Perhaps I should explain that the statistics quoted by her refer to labourers who are employed, and not farmers engaged in pig-rearing on their own account. They are different. These would be labourers, for instance, employed by the Cold Storage Dairy Farm; I think there are one or two rather substantial poultry and pig farms in Singapore. There is also, I think, an apiary (beekeeping). That was some time ago. And the Labour returns refer to people engaged in this type of commercially run animal husbandry business. Therefore, whether it goes up or down does not prove that in the whole industry more people are engaged or less people. It just refers to those particular employers who are snaking the returns. So I do not think we can draw direct inferences as she did.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, Mr A. P. Rajah. Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mrs Seow Peck Leng, and Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the sum to be allocate for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2.

Dato Abdul Hamid? Mr Rajah.

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. Sir, I want to come back to the statement I made on the Financial Statement by the Minister for Finance. Unfortunately, he did not have the time to reply to me, so I want to come back to the attack. The question, Sir, is this: loans are being made by the Government to the Housing Board. I take it these loans are being made at certain rates of interests, and there must also be terms on which those loans are to be repaid - whether it is by annual repayment to the Government, or whether it is a sinking fund, or whatever the conditions may be we do not know. I think the House should be told about it. Sir, it is with this intention that I have raised this question on the vote.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. Tun Lim Yew Hock? Mrs Seow.

Mr Mammen. Sir, the other time we spoke about property tax on vacant houses. I understand assessments have to be paid on vacant Housing Board flats - we call them the S.I.T. flats. The trouble is that this adds to the cost of those premises. If rents are determined by the cost of the premises. I am sure that is going to raise the rents. That is why the present Government is unable to charge them cheaper rents as it might have been for the poor people who occupy these Housing Board flats. I wonder whether the Minister for Finance will take that into consideration, although he has promised to take into consideration the problem of assessment on vacant premises. I just want to point out to him that not only other people, hut also the very poor people who are housed in Housing Board flats are affected.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to congratulate the Government on spending more on housing next year. We all know there is a very heavy backlog of people on the waiting list for houses. Sir, the Bukit Ho Swee fire and, before that, the Geylang fire show us that there are certain very densely occupied attap-house areas in town which are very risky fire traps, and the fact that there were no fatalities in the Bukit Ho Swee fire -

There were two.

Were there? There were two. There were not many fatalities. That was due to the fact that the fire took place during the day. Sir, it was pointed out to me, and I agreed with that observant gentleman, that if the Singapore Housing Board would give top priority - not merely to meet the backlog but to give top priority - to these fire traps and make sure that the people are properly housed in Housing Board houses, then we would not only save the property of these people because then their property would be moved intact into the houses), hut also the lives of some of them. This would also save the public and the Government more expenditure. I thought that was a very good suggestion which I would like to pass on to the Government. Sir. They would have not only a scheme to meet the backlog, but a scheme to prevent future disasters. Then, of course, later on the Finance Minister may not have so much money as he is now keeping. There is another suggestion that where people who are given Housing Board houses are badly off in the beginning - their income is under a certain limit, $800 joint income - but they prosper later (human beings often prosper) and want to buy over those houses, not wanting to move out because of the friendships they have formed, would it be possible to evolve a scheme for these people to buy over the houses? 5.00 p.m.

Order. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. Mr Deputy Speaker; Order. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. 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 subhead 2."

First, to reply to the question raised by the Member for Farrer Park on the terms of loans to the Housing Board. This is related to the question of subsidy. In this respect, the Member for Mountbatten also raised another pertinent question, that is, why the Housing Board is charging property tax on empty flats. I think I will take the two points together. The exact terms of the loans made by the Government to the Housing Board have not been settled. This is because it is related to the amount of subsidy we are going to give them and the manner in which this subsidy will be calculated. I can, of course, only express the view of the Government. What the Housing Board feels about it is another matter. But from the Government's point of view, we propose to make loans to the Housing Board at market rates. In other words, if we borrow, as we are now borrowing, at 5� per cent, on a 20-year repayment basis, we intend to offer the same terms on loans made to the Housing Board. Such terms, of course, are markedly disadvantageous compared with the terms of loans made by former Governments to the S.I.T. In respect of past loans made to the S.I.T., the practice was to charge the current market rate of interest, although sometimes the rate of interest, I think, charged was even less than the current market rate of interest. That is not so important as the fact that the S.I.T. were allowed repayment on a 60-year basis, so that charges for amortization of loans became comparatively reduced. Therefore, if the Government were to ask the Housing Board to pay the market rate for long-term loans, it is obvious that we must pay them a corresponding subsidy, if they are not to be compelled to raise the rents charged for the flats. In effect, of course, we will be making loans to them at least as favourable as those made to the former S.I.T. But I think, for accounting purposes, it is important that the true cost of building and maintaining these flats should be made known to the public; and the fact that a subsidy is made to the Housing Board should appear quite properly in the ordinary estimates and not disguised as a form of hidden subsidy, as was the practice in the past. Therefore, once it has been accepted that this subsidy should be stated openly and entered into the current estimates as an item of annual recurrent expenditure, it is necessary to examine in what other respect the Housing Board should be subsidised in the interest of reducing rents to the minimum, so that the poorer section of the community can benefit from the low-cost houses that are being put up. Obviously there is one clear element, that is, the property tax which we are charging now on empty flats. I think there is a clear case for that, because, unlike private builders, the Housing Board is performing a social service. It is not a profit-making concern. Anything that could reduce the cost of operation should be carried out. Here again, I think it is practical for us that the full cost which' the Housing Board would have to pay, if they were run on commercial principles, should be stated clearly in the accounts with the corresponding subsidy to offset the amount. Then, of course, there are other services performed by the Housing Board, such as the cleansing services. They claim they are being charged the full rate of property tax although, at the same time, they provide certain services which are properly the duty of the City Council or, in this case, the Government, to provide from the proceeds of property tax. So obviously, they have a case for a subsidy in that respect. Then there are minor other small items in respect of which there may be a case for subsidy, hut these are matters which will be negotiated between the Government and the Housing Board. We have been discussing with them, both at official and ministerial levels, for some time with a view to clarifying our ideas so that we can get a proper formula. I am glad to say that the Housing Board has only recently submitted its proposals which are now under examination. I do not think I will go into more details on that. The Member for Tanglin has raised the point on the menace of fire in certain attap areas. I think he raised this point on several occasions when other heads of expenditure were discussed. Obviously, this subject is causing him grave concern. But I do not think the remedy he has proposed is a practical one, that is. build houses for these people. We can say we will waive all the normal qualifications, such as size of family of income and so on, and ask them to take advantage of such flats that we put up for the general public. But we cannot compel them to leave their present homes to move into Housing Board flats. It is just not possible. You can bring a horse to a stream but you cannot force it to drink. In the same way, you cannot possibly force these people to move in. Unless, of course, we want to say that we are going to buy up all this land and demolish all these attap huts. That is another proposition. I do not know whether Member for Tanglin has been contemplating that line of action. As regards the other point he has made, that is, to allow tenants of Housing Board flats to buy these fiats. I confess the idea is attractive to me. You will encourage people to save money and, of course, the Housing Board would then have a new source of additional capital with which to build new houses. I say this is something which needs very careful thinking, if the Government were to follow this policy. The Government itself has been considering this subject for some time. It has not made up its mind. But if we were to follow this policy, there are changes in the law that would be necessary. For instance, the former S.I.T. was not allowed, under the law, to sell properties. I think the Housing Board is operating much under the same law.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard from the Government side about the subsidy. But, at the present moment, we are aware that those tenants who previously lived in low-rental premises, and who have now moved into Housing Board properties are being charged higher rentals. This is especially so in the case of those fire victims, with special reference to the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims. There are a few hundred Bukit Ho Swee fire families who are now living in high rental Housing Board properties. These properties were cheaper during the time of the S.I.T. But when the S.I.T. was reorganised into the Housing Board, the rental was raised. The reason for the increase of this rental is the lack of subsidy. Ever since the fire victims moved into occupation, they could not afford to pay the rental. The Housing Board has served reminders and notices warning the tenants that if they do not pay up their rents, stronger action will be instituted to evict them. 5.45 p.m. I think the Government should subsidise these premises so as to enable them to continue occupying Housing Board properties. Another aspect is that the premises put up recently by the Housing Board are, on the face of it, said to be low-cost houses when actually they are not. The rent for a two-room flat is about $46 a month, compared with a two-room flat in Geylang which is rented out at $35, which is still considered to be very expensive. On the other hand, the facilities provided in the premises are not satisfactory, especially the kitchen, which is very small. Sometimes, on rainy days, you cannot even cook in the kitchen. You will also see that the Housing Board has raised the rentals especially of those who are living in huts standing on Housing Board land. The rate of these rentals is based on the market value of the attap houses, which is about 40 per cent. In this way the Government will not be able to assist the very poor people in Singapore at all.

Perhaps when the Finance Minister has settled his first terms of the loans, the repayment of the loans and the quantum and manner of his subsidies, he might be good enough to inform the House of those terms. Sir, the other aspect of the problem on which I want to speak is a matter which particularly concerns the Minister for National Development. Sir, we have this afternoon listened to Head D17 - Postal Services - where two projects were not carried out - the Macpherson Road Post Office and Simpang Bedok Post Office - merely because, in the first case, the land is now being occupied by squatters and difficulties have been experienced in clearing them. In regard to the Simpang Bedok Post Office, although the land is free of squatters, acquisition delays have taken place. Therefore, the two post offices have not been built. May I ask the Minister this? He has a vote of $41 million for next year, which is $7 million more than he has spent, on which performance I sincerely congratulate him. Now, spending $41 million next year is not going to be an easy task. If he can exhaust that vote, Sir, I think he will merit the thanks of the country. Before you can build houses, you must have land, That is self-evident. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has all this land earmarked and whether it is now, in fact, ready to take these building projects on it, or whether this $41 million is merely an expectation of what he hopes to do and yet he is now - if I may use the colloquialism - scrounging round for the land?

Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang talks of the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims, the Housing Board rentals and the Housing Board raising Crown rents in Housing Board land. I would like specifically to answer him on this question. Sir, about the Bukit Ho Swee tire, some 16,000 people were put out from their homes, but quick action by the Government ensured that most, if not all, o them were able to find alternative accommodation within a very short time. All those who have any knowledge of rehabilitation and rehousing problems connected with a fire of this magnitude have marvelled at this achievement, in addition, the Government also ensured that these victims would be immediately assisted, and various means of relief had been extended to pay fire victims in cash and to assist them in kind. It is no exaggeration to say that every fire victim family with five persons or more would have received at least $500 in cash plus various food parcels and housing subsidies for at least three months. Yet, because of the possible political capital that could be made out of the big number of victims, a few of the fire victims, also Barisan Sosialis members, have tried to organise protest marches and a signature campaign against the Government for not helping the fire victims enough. Sir, these people went around stirring up tire victims and telling them that if they banded together behind the Barisan Sosialis in the present political situation, the Government would be forced to give more rental subsidies, reduce rentals for the houses they live in and so on. They even engineered a group of fire victims, more gullible than the rest, to petition or to go in groups from Minister to Minister in order that more could be obtained for these victims. Sir, while everything within reason will be done to help the fire victims, the Government Will not be forced into doing something that will make them a permanent liability in the community. The fire victims themselves are capable people who could within a short period readjust themselves to the new circumstances. The vast majority of them have already so adjusted themselves, and in many cases have found that the flats provided by the Housing and Development Board are many times better than what they used to have. Apart from a few difficult cases for whom special social welfare measures will be used to assist them, the majority are satisfied with what has been provided and have now settled down in their new circumstances. Sir, to the fire victims who are in arrears of rent, the Housing Board has already agreed that their arrears can be resolved by instalment payments. Despite the fact that I have personally informed the representatives of these fire victims a week ago about this, they have not bothered to inform the fire victims whom they are supposed to represent. In regard to the question of rents, in which the Member for Pasir Panjang says that rents of Housing Board flats are higher than those of Singapore Improvement Trust flats, I would say that when the Housing Board came into being as successor to the Singapore Improvement Trust, the organisation for the implementation of Government public housing policy underwent a complete reorganisation. Every effort is made to cut down costs and to increase the number of public housing units to be constructed. Where 1,000 to 2,000 houses were built on the average per annum by the Singapore Improvement Trust, the subsidy was about $3 million. The Housing Development Board is now required to build on the average 10,000 units a year. But the Government has not agreed to increase the subsidy and the Board for the first two years has been required to carry on within the limits of the $3 million deficit per annum. This being so, the Board has found it necessary to charge economic rents for those buildings it has completed and let out to the people. In many cases the projects were originally planned with land acquired at very high prices: for instance, in Clarence Lane at $2.89 per square foot, and Selegie Road at $10 per square foot. It is not expected that rents can be brought down although the Housing Board has been able to reduce the cost of construction by 20 to 30 per cent in every case. It is therefore not fair to compare rents charged by the S.I.T., which had almost unlimited funds of subsidies, 1,000 to 2,000 units, against those charged by the Housing Board which are in most cases economic rentals. Sir, the Review Committee of the Government and the Party has, however, drawn attention to the fact that rents are high and tenants have found difficulty in paying them. The Housing Board has, in the meantime, devised new methods of construction and provided one-room self-contained units which, with a slight subsidy, can be let out at $20 a month. The Government is actively pursuing the review of the rental structure with a view to getting a definite rental policy for the future. This is a very complicated matter and will need detailed study in order that the subsidy may not be in such a proportion as to become a burden in future at the expense of other social services. For the moment. Sir, rents are based on the following items: loan charges, which depend on the rates of interest and period of amortisation. management and administrative costs, annual maintenance and periodical redecoration and property tax. Hence if the initial cost of a building is high, then the rents will be proportionately higher than others. It is not true to say that the Housing Board rents are higher than the rents of the Singapore Improvement Trust, because in many of the cases where the S.T.T. had let out its flats at economic rentals, these were flats which were more highly subsidised than those charged by the Housing Board. It is only in those cases where S.I.T. flats had higher subsidies that the rents compare low with those now charged, it is the intention of the Government eventually to reach a position where people can rent flats from the Housing Board at rentals of $20, $40 and $60 for one-, two- and three-room accom modation respectively in normal housing estates. In special circumstances, for instance, in central areas where land costs are high, these rates may not be maintained and special consideration may have to be given. Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang mentions that a two-room flat, i.e., one room and a hail, built by the Housing Board is rented out at $40 to $46, whereas the rental for a similar type of fiat in Kallang built by the S.I.T. is only $35. Sir, this aspect of the rent of the Kallang fiats was touched upon last year. I mentioned that though the rental is $35, the economic rent should be somewhere around $78 or $79. So the subsidy is in the region of about $40. Whereas the rental charged for a Housing Board flat at $40 to $46 is an economic rent and Government does not have to subsidise it. 6.00 p.m. As for the raising of ground rent in Housing Board land, I have already touched on this question when I spoke about land and resettlement earlier in the day. As I said, some of the people who live on land acquired by the Housing Board have not been paying rent, or the landowners have not been able to collect rent from them. Now the Housing Board has an administrative machine which is efficient, and when these people are charged according to the area of the land they occupy, there is a hue and cry to the effect that the Housing Board is raising the ground rent. This is not correct.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1959, the P.A.P. Government made a promise regarding the allocation of houses to the fire victims. The Minister for Culture does not seem to be happy. I would like to quote the promise made by the P.A.P. in 1959 - one or two sentences about the P.A.P. housing policy from The Tasks Ahead (Part I) printed in Chinese: 'The previous and present governments have never considered the housing needs of kampong dwellers. This aspect of housing will be seriously studied by our future government. Many of the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire victims will tell you that they want to live in a place where they can literally "live off the ground".' This was a promise by the P.A.P. The victims of the Bukit Ho Swee fire are dissatisfied with the policy of the Government on housing. Many of them at that time lived in attap houses in the kampong areas. They reared chickens, ducks, etc, and they had land on which to grow vegetables and fruits. Now the Government has not considered the problem of their occupations. They had houses to live in, and all along they were depending for their livelihood on the rearing of chickens and the growing of fruits. Though they now have houses to live in, they do not have the land to produce vegetables and fruits. This is a hardship to them. Therefore, the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims are not satisfied with the way the Government is tackling their housing problem.

I do not know whether I heard the Minister right or not, but I do not think he has answered my question whether he is still scrounging around for the land or not. Perhaps he will answer me when I sit down. The other point which I wish to raise and which arises out of the Minister's speech is this. He says that the Housing Board fixes rents on certain factors - loan charges, amortisation charges, property tax and administrative charges. These are the usual matters that go into the question of what tent should be fixed. The Minister for Finance has said that insofar as the loan charges are concerned, he has not arrived at any decision. Insofar as the amortisation charges are concerned, he has not arrived at any decision. I am just wondering how the Housing Board is able to fix the rents of the houses they are now building and renting out. It must be a hit-and-miss rental they are now fixing and thinking that the Minister for Finance might agree on a certain rate of interest and on a certain manner of repayment. So perhaps both the Ministers know exactly what the terms are, but we do not know. The other point is this. The Singapore Improvement Trust has been subjected to a left-handed attack by the Minister. The Trust does not exist any more, but I was a member of the Trust once upon a time and I continued to be a trustee until 1957. I think, in fairness to the Trust, somebody must defend it and I am going to defend it. The only subsidy the Singapore Improvement Trust received in respect of its housing projects was on the question of the cost of the land made available by Government to the Trust. That could be considered a form of subsidy. The other form of subsidy which could be considered as such was the low rate of interest which the Legislative Assembly had to agree to by resolution in respect of every loan made to the Singapore Improvement Trust. On pages 562 to 565 of the 1962 Estimates, there is a list of the loans made by the Government at various periods. In Loan for Building Scheme (No. 1), the rate of interest was three per cent. The date of repayment was half-yearly. In Loan for Building Scheme (No. 2), $5 million, the rate of interest was three per cent; Loan for Building Scheme (No. 3), three per cent; Loan for Building Scheme (No. 4), four per cent; Loan for Building Scheme (No. 5), four per cent; Loan for Building Scheme (No. 6), four per cent; Loan for Building Scheme (No. 7), three per cent; Loan for Building Scheme (No. 8) 5� per cent. Mr Speaker, Sir, the 5� per cent is not a subsidised rate of interest, but I think that most people will agree that three per cent was, in fact, the subsidised rate of interest which the Legislative Assembly sought by resolution every time the loan was made, so that the only subsidy which the Singapore Improvement Trust received was in a reduced rate of payment of the land - if it was Crown land - which Government made available, and in the rate of interest which Government made available insofar as the loans were concerned. These were the only two factors of any form of subsidy that I know of. The Minister has said that the Singapore Improvement Trust was subsidised to the extent of $3 million. I think, if I heard him rightly, in respect of housing. I venture to suggest to him that that is not correct at all. I would like to hear him say how the Government subsidised the Singapore Improvement Trust to the extent of $3 million every year on its housing projects. If the Minister is merely trying to get out of his own little difficulties in respect of the Housing Board by saying that the Singapore Improvement Trust was subsidised to the extent of $3 million a year, then I think he is going a little bit too far.

I would like to make just a brief reply to the question raised by the Member for Farrer Park. I am not certain whether, in fact, the rate of interest of three per cent was below the market rate at the time the loans were approved. It was well below the market rate. Of course, there was an element of subsidy there, but I think the more important thing is that the former S.I.T. had 60 years to pay back. I think there is a greater element of subsidy in respect of amortisation. When I said that no agreement was reached between the Housing Board and the Government, I meant, of course, no firm agreement, but that does not mean that we did not come to sonic understanding about what could be the form of final agreement. Speaking from recollection - I think I have a very clear recollection - the Housing Board was calculating on a repayment basis of 60 years and an interest rate at the market rate. It was therefore not hazarding a guess one way or another. I would like to make just a rejoinder to the Member for Havelock. He made the point that the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims were neglected because when we housed them in flats we deprived them of the facilities for the rearing of pigs, ducks, chickens and the growing of vegetables, and so forth. Now, Sir, surely everybody knows that the reason why the Bukit Ho Swee fire was so calamitous was that it was a very congested area. I was there myself before the fire on several occasions in the course of my official duties, and it was so congested that there were no roads between the attap houses. There were just footpaths about three or four feet wide, and that was all. Under those circumstances, could it be seriously maintained that large numbers of people were growing vegetables, rearing pigs, ducks and poultry? If, in fact, there were large numbers of farmers in this area, the fire would not have been so disastrous, it is true that a few people did keep a flock of birds. When T was there, I did see a pig resting on its back and possibly a few piglings, hut this is not a major problem at all. To suggest that we have let down the victims because we do not allow them land or facilities for the rearing of pigs, ducks and chickens, I think, is too utterly ridiculous.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development mentioned a little while ago that the Government did not want the fire victims to be a permanent liability to the community. I do not think anyone of us wants that to happen, Sir. But surely the Government must realise that this was a national calamity - as they have said - and that those fire victims were used to paying only low rents. They are poor people and they cannot possibly afford to live in flats which are let out at rentals of $60 to $70 a month. If the whole income of a family man amounts to only $100 a month, surely the Government does not expect him to pay rent amounting to $60 or $70. Do you not think that the Government should be more reasonable and be more compassionate in their policies in respect of people who have experienced such a calamity? We want an assurance, Sir, from the Minister that he will give due consideration to all the just grievances of the fire victims.

Sir, in reply to the Member for Farrer Park about land being available for development, I can assure him that for our programmes in 1962 and 1963, the land is available, and it is just a matter of carrying out the plans.

Squatter-free.

As regards the problem of squatters, we have been able to overcome this in the previous year and I am quite sure, Sir, that we will be able to resolve it in the other areas too. 6.15 p.m. As regards the Member for Queenstown, when I mentioned just now about the Barisan Sosialis being involved in stirring up trouble among the fire victims, he was the Member who led a team of representatives to see me. He marched into my office without making an appointment, and I had an appointment at that time with some people. I came out and told him, "Mr Lee, you know, I am quite a busy man. I have an appointment." And you know what he said to me, Sir, in front of the fire victims? "Well, since I am here, can't you see me?" Sir, I had the politeness to go out and tell him that I had an appointment at that time and that I was meeting somebody. But he did not have the decency to accept what I told him. He wanted to make a show in front of these fire victims, just to impress them. Sir, everything possible has been done for these fire victims in the first few months. It is now entering the seventh month. Some of these victims have genuine grievances, and I promised the representatives, who came with the Member for Queenstown, that I would look into them. That was the first time. The second time, of course, the Member did not turn up for fear his name would be linked with the trouble amongst the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims. But to these representatives, I promised that the cases of those who had their rentals in arrears due to difficulties would be looked into. For those who really owed about four to five months' rent, I would instruct the Housing and Development Board not to take action against them but to allow them to pay by instalments. Sir, the agreement reached with the representatives was written in the form of a letter to one of the representatives. But this representative and the other members of the team who came to see me did not even bother to go back to these fire victims and inform them of what I had decided to do for them. And now we hear from the Member for Queens-town that he wants an assurance from me that I will do all I could for those people. Sir, all that could be done for these people will be done. There will be investigations into all those individual cases where they say they have hardship. But it is difficult, Sir, for us to pinpoint those who really have difficulties. The Barisan Sosialis want us to believe that all these fire victims are in difficulties. But I can assure this House, Sir, that some of these families are living in high rental flats which they have specifically asked for and are paying rental. So how could you say that all these fire victims are people who only earn about $100 a month and pay rental at $60 a month? Sir, there are victims who are housed in the $20-flats that have been completed in Bukit Ho Swee. Altogether 900 units have been completed and more than 800 of these fire victim families are living in these $20-flats. Yet the Member for Queenstown says we require the fire victims to pay $60 rental. What rubbish is that!

The Minister for National Development has seen fit to link the Barisan Sosialis with all the troubles that are cropping up.

Unfortunately it is true!

Sir, we do not mind being linked up. We are fighting for the just grievances of the people, and if, by doing so, our Party gets linked up, we are happy, and we shall not mind getting our names linked up. But from the story you have heard from the Minister for National Development, Mr Speaker, Sir, you know straightaway that he is merely showing off his so-called patriotism. As a representative of the people, Sir, if I could not lead any delegation to see the Minister, then what are elected representatives for? On this particular occasion, Sir, these fire victims happened to be housed in Queenstown. I am the Member for Queenstown, and it was only right that they came to me. And I, at their request, led them to see the Minister. Sir, I have been to see you on many occasions without any prior notice. Yet -

Order. Now I think the hon. Member for Queenstown is trying to link the Speaker with it! I do not think he ought to do that.

But for the Minister to say that I had to make an appointment before I could see him, then I say he does not deserve to be a Minister. Surely he must realise that he is also, or rather was, an elected representative of the people. Does he mean to say that he is sitting on such a high pedestal? That he has only to look down -

Order. I think the hon. Member for Queenstown is misrepresenting the Minister. The Minister simply said that he had somebody with him and could not see the Member for Queenstown. That is all he said. Let him not misrepresent what has been said.

Well. I will quote the words that he used, Sir. He said that I marched into his office. Sir, I went with the delegation at about 9 o'clock and we waited for him until 9.35 am. If he denied that, he can look it up. We waited 35 minutes for the Minister who is supposed to come to office at 9 o'clock. When he came in, I very politely asked him - I called him by his name, "Kia Gan, what about seeing us for a little while?" He very politely spoke to me, but, unfortunately, he went into his room and must have rung up his chief somewhere who, in turn, must have directed him, I suppose, to put me off. After that, when he came out again - and I can produce witnesses, Sir - he completely ignored me. I did not mind that, Sir, as I knew that was what was going to happen. He spoke instead to the delegation. He put on airs and said, "You never made an appointment with me. You can't come to see me." The people cannot go to see the Minister. Sir! Is that what he is trying to tell us? Is he trying to tell us that, as a representative of the people, the people cannot see him? I remember, Sir -

Order. I think the Member has made his point. It is completely irrelevant to the subject we are discussing. He has made his point.

I will not pursue that part of it then. He said that I never want to see him a second time. Can I refer to that?

Order. I think it is completely irrelevant now.

I only want to point out that he distorted the story.

That is on the record.

Anyway, Sir, to say that these people have no just grievances is not correct. If out of 100 people, one or two persons happen to be able to afford to pay high rentals, it does not mean that the other 98 persons will be able to afford such high rentals. The mere fact that these fire victims had been staying in Bukit Ho Swee is proof enough that they could not possibly afford to pay high rentals. Nobody would like to live in an attap hut, Sir. Everybody would like to live in beautiful Government bungalows and pay only a small rental. These fire victims lost not only their homes but all their belongings, and the Minister now comes here and tells us that these people can afford to pay high rentals! If a few people are found to be able to afford, because of help from friends or other business, then I think the Minister should be fair enough to say that the majority really cannot afford. As a Government elected by the people, it is only fair that the Government should lock after the interests of the people.

Does the Minister wish to reply to that? Mr Tan Kia Gan indicated absent.

If not, does the Member for Farrer Park wish for a vote?

I withdraw.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be withdrawn?

No. A vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.* *The same amendment also stood in the names of Inche Mohd. Ali, Mr Low Por Tuck, Mrs Seow Peck Leng, and Dr Thio Chan Bee. Sir, it is only a small matter. I would like to know what sort of rural development projects the Minister has in mind.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Four-Year Development Plan we can see that the P.A.P. Government intends to allot half a million dollars for rural development projects. But since 1960 up to now the so-called rural development projects have not been implemented. and the Government has not disclosed anything concrete in relation to these projects. Yet in every yearly Budget the Government provides nearly $500,000 as provision for rural development projects. How is this? Does it mean that the Minister for Finance imagines that if there is a provision of about half a million dollars, it will make the Budget look impressive? Does it mean that the Government by making this provision is showing that it is interested in rural development and is paying attention to the interests of the rural people? Does it mean that the Government intends to reserve this sum so that it will not be used on other items of expenditure? Last year, the actual sum spent on this item did not amount to $30,000. From this the people can see whether the Government is sincere in its rural development. The Government still insists on using very beautiful phrases, such as we see here - "Rural Development Projects" - for the purposes of propaganda and to make the people who live in the rural areas believe that the Government is still very much concerned with their livelihood. 6.30 p.m. The people have a right to know what are the so-called rural development projects, and what kind of benefit these can give them. Therefore, the Government should say clearly what is the content of these so-called rural development projects. The Government should not waste time by taking a propaganda line by mentioning in very vague terms the provision of $500,000 under this item. Mr Speaker, in the Four-Year Development Plan issued by the Government last year, you will be able to see on page 66, under Table 7.3. on the item, "Other Rural Development," that the total sum there is $700,000. This was meant to be used up in 1962. If we look at the provision of $700,000 for rural development projects in 1962, we know that these projects will not be completed because the estimated expenditure in 1962 amounts to $470,200. But the balance required lo complete the projects is $200,000. This shows that the Government is unable to complete the work. From this very small item, we can know that the Government's so-called development projects are all bankrupt. The very small provision of $700,000 will have to be used up in 1962. From this we doubt very much whether all this work can be completed. Only heaven knows when they will be able to use up all this provision.

The Member for Mountbatten is not here. I do not know whether the Member for Tanglin wants to take any more time on that?

No.

Mr Tan Kia Gan.

There is a provision of $470,200 under subhead 3, "Rural Development Projects." This provision is required for the following schemes: fishery training scheme, $20,000; Film unit, $11,350; Diesel outboard engine hire scheme, $15,000; soil testing and anti-pest service, $1,100; four new veterinary extension centres, $130,700; goat scheme, $34,000; expenditure on improvement for the Southern Islands, $180,000; concrete platforms for standpipes, $5,000; water supply to Pulau Tekong, $34,000; and miscellaneous, $38,000. The Member for Havelock accuses us of just having the provision only for propaganda purposes. I think it is necessary for me to put him wise about what we have done. The Member for Upper Serangoon is not here. During last year's debate on the Budget speech, the Member for Upper Serangoon sang a lot of high praises for the Finance Minister. He said all the schemes and all the things we set out to do for the year 1961 were something which only the Finance Minister could do. In other words, the ex-P.A.P. Members who are sitting opposite there, thought at that time that all our projects were good ones. But now that they are on the opposite side, they say different things. Sir, before the P.A.P. Government assumed office in July 1959, the Departments of Agriculture, Veterinary Services, Fisheries, Co-operative Development and Rural Development were separate departments. Each of these departments had some sort of extension service in operation. For example, the extension service of the Agriculture Department was limited to only an advisory service for farmers who approached the department for assistance. The Fisheries Department had a similar advisory service, as well as a mobile unit which went round the various fishing villages to teach fishermen how to maintain and repair their fishing boat engines. The Veterinary Department had a free anti-ranikhet inoculation service for poultry as well as a Farm Animal Disease Treatment service under the charge of only one qualified veterinary officer. There were only four disease treatment centres for the whole island. These services were extremely limited in scope. After the P.A.P. Government assumed office in 1959, immediate steps were taken to step up these services and to start new ones in order to ensure that the farmers and fishermen are given adequate assistance to improve their technique. For instance, the number of disease treatment centres was increased to six. The number of veterinary officers in charge of these centres was increased to live, so that farmers could get their sick pigs and poultry attended to much more quickly. In order to reduce the mortality of chickens during the first few weeks of their lives, a new scheme for the inoculation of day-old chicks in the natal cavity was also started. Pigs of good strain were sold to farmers at cheap prices to improve their stock. The number of boars used for the free stud boar service was also increased at the same time. In order to help the farmers to plough their land by mechanical means to increase the productivity of their land, a cheap ploughing service was started with one tractor. The number of tractors was later increased to three as a result of the popularity of the service. Experimental work on animal improvement was intensified at the Sembawang and Lirn Chu Kang Experimental Stations. Experimental .work was also carried out to find a cheap fertiliser mixer as a substitute for prawn dung. These experiments have proved successful and steps arc now being taken to arrange for the sale of these fertiliser mixers to farmers in the near future. Two fishery training courses were also started in Pasir Panjang to teach youths the construction and repair of fishing nets and fishing gears. They were also taught the repair and maintenance of fishing boat engines as well as the building and repair of fishing boats. In order to assist Malay fishermen in the Southern Islands to diversify their productive activity a goat rearing scheme has been started in four islands, namely, Ayer Merbau, Ayer Merlimau, Seraya and Termolo. A total of 201 goats purchased specially from Kelantan have been distributed to a total of 76 families in these islands. In 1962, it is proposed to expand some of the existing schemes, and also to start new ones to further assist the farmers and fishermen. For instance, the disease treatment service will be extended by the construction of four new veterinary extension centres, one in each of the following areas: Tampines, Changi, Yio Chu Kang and Thomson Road.

Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head D20 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the names of Mr Ong Chang Sam, Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammed Akib, and Mr Ong Eng Guan, was not proceeded with: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $100. The sum of $41,810,200 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 subhead 1. I do not have to go into details, Sir, but you will notice from the figures that only a meagre performance has been carried out by the Ministry of Health and Law. Although a suitable sum has been budgeted for this time, we hope the Government will be able to carry out all their projects under this head. The actual performance for last year was only .5 per cent. If there is any explanation possible, we would like to have it from the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is what is known as the residual vote of the Ministry for the purchase of equipment for existing buildings. Hon. Members will see that in the other votes where there are new building projects, to each of these projects is attached a special development vote for furniture and equipment. For instance, a new building is built. Then there is a separate sum of money voted for the purchase of furniture and equipment for that new building. This residual vote is used to meet requests for equipment for hospitals, for which no specific provision has been made. It also includes some items in respect of orders placed in 1961 for Woodbridge Hospital, the Chronic Sick Hospital, outpatient services and the Thomson Road Hospital, for which delivery is expected next year.

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 sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2.

The Member for Geylang Serai is not here. Dr Lee Siew Choh. Amendment (3).*

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) f subhead 6.* I wonder if the Minister would care to explain what has happened to the works and buildings in the Thomson Road Hospital.

The intention is to provide a surgical unit for the Thomson Road Hospital. As Members know, it is functioning now as a medical unit. It is proposed to put up this new building which will incorporate a theatre suited for general surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, an X-ray unit, a casualty and follow-up clinic, an admission room, and a medical records section. 6.45 p.m. These facilities are needed to build this hospital up into a District General Hospital. The plans are nearly complete and we expect to complete this building by the end of next year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from last year's Development Estimates, the vote provided for this item is $837,000. But it seems from column 5 - Estimated Expenditure to 31-12-61 - that not a single cent has been spent, and the Minister has told us that the works and buildings are nearly completed.

The Minister said they would be completed by the end of next year.

The building plans are nearly complete. The building itself will be completed before the end of next year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Health and Law tell us what is the cause of this delay in the Thomson Road Hospital?

Mr Speaker, Sir, before we became the Government, we announced our medical plan and we appointed a doctor as the Parliamentary Secretary in the Health Ministry. When I took over that Ministry three months ago, I was surprised and shocked to find that very little had been planned. One building which had been planned was the Still Road clinic. The piling has just been done. The plans are completed and tenders will be going out. The next clinic to be planned was the Queenstown combined clinic. Building operations will begin on the 15th of this month. As Minister for Labour I had pressed for a clinic in Kampong Bugis and I was able to get the Kampong Bugis community centre and clinic built. But other than these three buildings, I was very shocked to see the state in which this Ministry had been left. Very little planning had been done. That is why everybody is disgruntled in the Health Ministry. Surely the blame should be laid at the door of the former Parliamentary Secretary. He is a doctor. He knows the conditions in the Ministry of Health better than anybody else does.

I agree with the Minister that he should be shocked. But the shock should not be directed towards the ex-Parliamentary Secretary, but towards the Finance Minister because he had been too ham-fisted. All the money had been kept back by him. The plans were all ready but the money was not forthcoming, although it was voted for and budgeted for. Why?

Sir, that is not true. I have gone into all this. When we became the Government, we changed the system of organisation in the Ministry of Finance. I remember sitting through all this and discussing it. The Treasury was broken up into two sections, the Treasury Sec, lion and the Development Section. It is true that the Treasury Section goes through all estimates with a fine comb. That is their duty. That is the purpose of a good Treasury Section. But in the case of the Development Section, the idea is to spend money on development projects. That is why the Development Section was introduced. It has been functioning well. How is it that other development projects are carried out in the other Ministries? It is because there are people in the other Ministries planning these projects and pressing them on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Minister for Health says is entirely not true. If you will allow me to read out all those items provided for in last year's Budget sittings, you will be shocked because quite a number of items were not completed or not even spent.

Order. Probably other Ministers might get equal shocks, but let us confine ourselves to the Ministry of Health. Does the Member for Queenstown require a vote?

No, Sir, I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7. Sir, this is a vote for Alterations to Mortuary, and the vote asked for is $80,000. I would like the Minister to consider whether it will not be more economical to build a new mortuary than to spend $80,000 just on alterations?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the work which could not be done last year because the provision entered was inadequate. A sum of $20,000 was provided. I am informed that the mortuary is in a very unsatisfactory condition. There is no proper waiting room or lavatories for the public. There is inadequate office space for the Coroner. I believe he has to look at dead bodies out in the open. There is insufficient space for mortuary staff. There is inadequate ventilation, poor lighting and lack of storage space. The mortuary tables are unsatisfactory and it is not possible at present to conduct examinations without blood and other fluids contaminating the floor. The drainage is also unsatisfactory. Mr Speaker, Sir, these alterations will provide long-needed improvements and facilities for the public. The drawings have been completed and we are ready to call for tenders. The work will commence early next year. In this case, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need for us to build another mortuary. The alterations will be sufficient to improve it. It will cost very more than $80,000 to build a new mortuary.

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

Amendment (5), Dr Lee.

Sir, can I take all the amendments* -5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10- together? *The amendments read as follows:-

Are they all connected?

Well, I am only bringing out the fact that the social services are not looked after properly.

Subhead 8, Alterations to Wards; Subhead 11, Dispensary and Pre-packing Rooms; subhead 13, New Boiler Room with Equipment; Subhead 14, Renovations and Alterations to Outpatient Clinic, Medical Unit I. Is it convenient to take all these together?

Yes, Sir, and amendments (9) and (10), subheads 27 and 31.

Does the Minister agree? Mr K. M. Byrne indicated assent.

Subhead 27, Extension to Dispensary and Bulk Store, and subhead 31, Maternity Home. It is convenient. Dr Lee.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. You remember, Sir, we said a few days back that a lot of money had not been spent from the Ministry of Health and Law, and this is a clear indication of the P.A.P. not having kept their promises to serve the people. $3.7 million budgeted for, but not spent. We are just wondering whether or not they are using the money instead on something else. As we already indicated the other day, possibly they might be using the money to earn interest elsewhere. Sir, I understand, all these projects have not been carried out simply because of the staffing personnel not being ready. They are afraid they might have to build white elephants without anybody to staff these buildings and projects. If they had only carried out all their promises, Sir, if they had the personnel to look after all these projects, then I am sure the facilities and convenience to the people would have been considerably improved. Now that the Government have budgeted for extra expenditure this year, we hope they will carry out their promises as regards the health services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to subhead 8, these are renovations and alterations to wards of the General Hospital. Much of the work has already been completed. There is only a very little more to be done to Ward 43, and then the whole project of renovations will be completed. With regard to subhead 11, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is money to provide for another store to the outpatients clinic at the General Hospital, to provide storage space for the pre-packing of medicines, and to provide additional space for a dispensary store to relieve the congestion because of lack of space. The attendance at this outpatients clinic is about 3,500 a day. There is very little space available and the dispensary there is very cramped. It is proposed to extend the dispensary facilities with this vote. Subhead 13. This is for the installation of a new boiler. There were two old boilers. One has already been replaced some time ago, and this provision is for the purchase of another boiler to replace the second old boiler and also to provide sterilizing equipment. These boilers are required to supply hot water to the wards. Subhead 14 is a vote to provide facilities for an outpatient clinic in Medical Unit I. The present space arrangements are improvised and inadequate and unsatisfactory. The idea is to provide the same outpatient facilities for Medical Unit I, as there are in Medical Unit II. With regard to subhead 27, this is an extension to the present dispensary at Kandang Kerbau Hospital, which is inadequate for present requirements, and also to provide a waiting room for outpatients. In the Bulk Store, the alteration would be to provide space for dental stores which have been transferred from Maxwell Road and to provide office space for the general surgical store staff. Tenders have been called for and the work has started. 7.00 p.m.

Subhead 31.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the con version of the hospital at Maxwell Road into a maternity hospital with 72 beds. The plans have been completed and they are going out to tender. We have the medical staff and the nursing staff that are required for the operation of this hospital. The tender for conversion is going out very soon and we hope to have this work completed in the course of next year.

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

Amendments* (6) to (10) are not being moved. Amendment (11)+? * See footnote at cols. 2213-4. + Amendment (11) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 32.

I am not moving.

Amendment (12)++? ++Amendment (12) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 33.

I am not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 35.# #The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh. This reads "Markets - Works and Buildings". In the 1961 Development Estimates, details were given as to the sites where these markets were to be built, but this has not been done for 1962. I am less interested in the sites than in wanting to know the policy of the Government in regard to markets vis-a-vis hawkers. There is a tendency now for hawkers' pitches to be built around the markets. If the Government think that this is desirable, then I would suggest that a lot of saving could be made by not building markets, because if you build them and you ask people to go in, they will not have business at all. According to the revised plan cost, the amount is $3,808,900. I think we could save this money and put it to better use. If the Government feel it is better to have hawkers' pitches, then have them on all the proposed sites instead of building markets with hawkers' pitches surrounding them, so that no one can go into them, with the result that the stalls in the markets are not occupied.

Sir, there are now two or three two-storey markets. They have not proved successful. I wonder whether the Minister will look into the policy of the construction of such markets. As regards the hawkers, the Member for Cairnhill has already touched on this question. But I think it is only fair that the Minister should clarify the policy as regards pitches in and around the markets.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members know, under the Municipal by-laws, it is an offence to put up a hawker's stall within 50 yards of a market. That by-law is being flouted by hawkers generally. The Government will be announcing its new policy on hawkers very soon. The intention is to charge a nominal licence fee for hawkers who are both itinerant and who occupy permanent pitches. As far as the markets are concerned, those hawkers who ply their trade outside the markets will be required to pay the same fee that is payable by those who are in the markets. That is the only way of dealing with the situation. This will induce them to take up positions in the markets as the stalls fall vacant, so that there must be a differentiation made between hawkers who ply their trade in pitches away from markets and hawkers who ply their trade in the vicinity of markets. It is only by equating the fees of hawkers who ply their trade in the vicinity of markets to the stallholders inside that you can control the problem. As to the two-storey markets, I will look into the matter. There might be a need in certain congested areas where market facilities are inadequate for us to build upwards. However, we will go very thoroughly into that question before making any decision.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to bring up a problem concerning my constituency. Last year, provision was made for the building of a new Serangoon. Gardens market, but after about half a year now, this market has not been opened. I wish to ask the Minister when the Government wants to open that market, because the people in my constituency have a great need for it.

As there is only a little more work to be done, it will be completed very soon. I think we will be able to open the market by January. The work is nearly finished.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh - That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 37.

I am not moving. 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 subhead 38.

I am not moving. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh - That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 43.

I am not moving.

Amendment (17)* - Outpatient Clinics and Dispensaries. Dr Lee Siew Choh.

I would also like to touch on amendments+ (18) and (19). They are all under the same subhead. +The amendments read as follows: (18) That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 44. (19) That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 44.

If the hon. Member will move amendment (17), he can touch on amendments (18) and (19).

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 44*. The outpatient services of the Government have been a great disappointment. The outpatient clinics and dispensaries which were supposed to have been built have not been forthcoming. The money voted for the clinics in 1961 has not been used. As we have already pointed out, the combined clinics, the Kallang Outdoor Dispensary and other outdoor clinics have not come up to expectations. Surely the Government realise that in their election platform in 1959 they had made a specific promise that they would bring the medical and health services to the people. In this, the Government has failed miserably. Let us hope that in the coming year something will really be done.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 44." The debate may range over item (2) of subhead 44 and the whole of subhead 44.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have touched on this before when the Member for Queenstown discussed the provision of outpatient clinics in the Estimates of the Ministry of Health then under review in this House. Briefly, we have a plan to divide the island into a number of areas with the main roads of Singapore as dividers. We hope to build clinics between Changi Road, Geylang Road and the sea. In that area, as Members know, the Kallang Clinic is now being extended. We have received clearance for funds to turn the community centre at Siglap into an outpatient clinic with one doctor in charge, and work will be proceeding almost immediately. Further up, in Still Road, the piling has been done for a combined clinic. This clinic will provide outpatient facilities as well as maternity and child welfare facilities and also dental facilities. Further up Changi Road, at Peng Ghee Road, we are building a new maternity and child health clinic for the Kampong Chai Chee area. And still further up the road, at Somapah Road, we are building an outpatient clinic there. So these clinics will cover the east side of the island between Changi Road, Geylang Road and the sea. In between Changi Road, Geylang Road, and Serangoon Road, we already have the maternity and child welfare clinic and ante-natal clinic at Lim Ah Pin Road and we hope to build a standard outpatient clinic in Kampong Chai Cheng in Yio Chu Kang. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is , an outpatient clinic at Jalan Kayu and in the Thomson Road area, the Housing Board is putting up a clinic for us in the Sembawang area. We hope to build also an outpatient clinic for the Thomson Road Hospital in the Hospital grounds. Going on from there, in the Bukit Timah area, we have the present maternity and child health clinic at the 7th milestone. There is a vacant piece of land behind which is used as a store for the Health Department. We propose to put up an outpatient clinic there so that we will have a combined clinic here. There is already an outpatient clinic with two doctors at Bukit Panjang. Going into Jurong, we shall build a small clinic at the 14th milestone. At Thong Hoe Village, the community centre there has been turned into a maternity and child health centre. Coming back into Bukit Timah Road, at Kranji, we are turning the community centre there into a small outpatient clinic and a maternity and child health clinic. Going into Pasir Panjang, we already have a clinic at the 5� milestone, a maternity and child health centre at Kay Hai Road, and we propose to build a combined clinic in Keppel Road so that if could serve the dock area. Once we have built these clinics, it will relieve the pressure on the general outpatient clinic at the General Hospital. We will turn the North Canal Road Clinic into an outpatient clinic for all Government officers and City Council employees. In the town area, Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope to put up an outpatient clinic in a bombed site in Bencoolen Street. These are the projects we have in mind and we shall complete most of them by next year. 7.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in talking about outpatient clinics, the Minister has just now mentioned many projects. I want to ask the Minister whether these projects have been carried out or not. I wrote a letter at the beginning of this year to the Ministry of Health asking them when the Chia Keng clinic would be completed. They replied that this clinic would be completed this year. So far the work has not started yet. Perhaps it will be completed next year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been offered a piece of land in Serangoon Garden Estate. But it is a bit too far away from the main road, and the public cannot be expected to make good use of the clinic if it is some distance from the main road. So that site is not suitable. If we could have used that site, Mr Speaker, Sir, a clinic would have been built there before now. We have to look for another site in Yio Chu Kang Road. There is a site available at the corner of Highland Road and Yio Chu Kang Road which is ideal for the purpose. We will have to acquire that site for the purpose. All this takes a lot of time. Suitable sites have to be carefully selected. But now that we have the site, Mr Speaker. Sir, and we know the locality, we will be able to acquire the land and get on with the work. And that is what we propose to do.

It has taken the Minister quite some time to get on with the idea. For example, I know the Poly Clinic in Queenstown was scheduled to have been completed before the end of this year. What has happened?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that question should be referred to the gentleman who sits on his left.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Minister for Health and Law wants me to answer the question, I will certainly answer. First of all I do not know how the question could ever be directed to me, because I never held a ministerial appointment in the Ministry of Health. Nevertheless, even though I was only the Parliamentary Secretary, I had urged the Cabinet so many times to get things going It was the Finance Minister who was the stumbling block to all my appeals, because his argument was that since we were not able to find the doctors to staff the clinic, why build a clinic? Therefore, everytime we applied for an unfreezing of funds to build clinics, they said, "Show us the doctors first." It was the Minister for Finance who was responsible, not me.

Is that a satisfactory answer?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have now back from England, Australia and elsewhere 35 junior specialists. I can give their names if you want me to. 35 doctors were sent overseas for specialist training. We do not need any more specialists from abroad. For the medical officers, there are 55 vacancies. We have 47 housemen. We have another 21 doctors coming, 17 from India, three from Pakistan, and one from Formosa. So that we will have more doctors by March next year than the money to pay for them, and we will have to use other votes for the purpose. So that if the Finance Minister had asked the Parliamentary Secretary to state where he hoped to get the doctors, it would have been quite easy for the Parliamentary Secretary to have made diligent enquiries in the Ministry and to have given him this information, and the Minister of Finance would have been satisfied.

I assure the Minister, Sir, that that information was given to the Minister. The Minister for Health and Law himself puts it, "These doctors will be available by next year." So how could this question, when asked of me last year or early this year, be answered when the doctors are not expected to come until next year?

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments* (18) and (19) are not being moved. * See footnote at cols. 2217-8. 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 item (2) of subhead 46.+

I am not moving amendment (20)+. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 48. Sir, this is a very big item - $1.6 million for Institutional Quarters. We would like the Minister to give us some details of what kind of institutional quarters it is proposed to build for $1.6 million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is also one of the promises that the last Government made. Mr Speaker, Sir, only two days ago tenders were accepted for the building of four blocks, of 24 units per block at Woodbridge Hospital and seven blocks of 24 units per block at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, so that there will be 96 units at Woodbridge Hospital and 168 units at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital for medical servants. We are getting on with the work. A lot of the servants in these hospitals are unhoused, and reports are that this is a disgraceful state of affairs. So this work is now in hand.

May I withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah and Mr Ong Chang Sam - That the sum to be allocated for Head D25 be reduced by $100.

I am not moving.

I am not moving. The sum of $12,700,800 for Head D28 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D28 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D28 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Sir, I understood from the Finance Minister's speech that with integration there would be a lot of savings. It would appear, from this vote, that with integration there is to be more spending. Can the Minister please explain?

This expenditure is required to carry out the integration of the City Analyst's Department into the Chemistry Department. Internal rearrangements and alterations are required in the two ground floor laboratories in the Department of Chemistry to provide working bench space, and unification of certain functions which are at present duplicated in the Department of Chemistry and the City Analyst's Department. This would involve the reorganisation of fittings and existing works benches, installation of new work benches, and installation of fluorescent lighting. The proposal for the second phase in 1962 is to erect a new apparatus store to take the place of the present store which would be converted into a laboratory. This converted laboratory would provide extra laboratory space and could also meet any additional demands for chemical services that may arise from the industrialisation of the State. It is proposed to convert the one-storey chemical store, which is situated outside the main building, into a two-storey building. The first storey could then accommodate the apparatus. This is required because of the integration of the City Analyst's Department with the Department of Chemistry.

I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $66,750 for Head D23 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Minister for Health is the first Minister to save half an hour!

Very healthy! Head D32 - The following amendment stood in the names of Dato Abdul Hamid, Dr Lee Siew Choh and Dr Thio Chan Bee - That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

Dato Abdul Hamid is not here.

I beg to move, Sir, That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Sir, may I first refer you to the Development Estimates of 1961 at page 519? It says there (in the middle column) "Estimated to be spent in 1961 - $40,000,000". And what do we see in the Development Estimates of 1962? In the "Estimated Expenditure to 31-12-61" column, it is also "$40,000,000". I want to congratulate the Minister for Finance on his ability in having spent so much money - the only item where there is 100 per cent performance. But -

No.

He knows it.

No.

But when we look into it, we see that the expenditure is only paper expenditure - a paper transfer. In fact, the performance is 0-0-0 per cent. There is no expenditure at all. Then why put it down there - "Estimated Expenditure - $40 million"? If the Minister for Finance has to use his ingenuity, I believe -

Point of elucidation.

All right, since he is so anxious to explain, I will give him a chance to explain very quickly, Sir. The only thing, as I say, is to let the Minister for Finance use his ingenuity to better purpose. Make sure that whatever brains he may have be spent on providing good services for the people.

Is it Head D32, Sir?

The Member for Tanglin is far behind!

Sir, I think under this Head I can refer to the Commission of Inquiry into the Constructional Capacity of Singapore, because the Report relates a great deal to economic development. Sir, in this Interim Report by that Commission, the recommendations are very important and we wonder whether the Finance Minister can say that they are being implemented. The second question, Sir, is this: this Commission has on it several members of the Barisan Sosialis and -

One.

One? Perhaps the Minister may want some other substitutes -

No!

Order. Perhaps he might want an Alliance member!

In any case, Sir, we feel the Commission must go on, and perhaps the Finance Minister will be able to say when the final report will be ready. According to this Commission, Sir, there are grave shortages in various departments in the Ministry and they recommend that the shortages be met quickly, otherwise it is going to be very difficult to implement the various schemes which Government has. I hope the Government will be able to enlighten us on the Commission's recommendations on shortages. 7.30 p.m.

Sir, as several young innocent maidens have said on unexpected occasions, "This is all so sudden!" Therefore, I am not fully prepared, in view of the suddenness with which Opposition Members have sprung their comments on this, really to gather my material. However, Sir, if you will pardon me while I go through my papers.

Perhaps another Opposition Member would like to speak? No? Dr Goh.

The trouble in the Ministry of Finance is that we have to deal with a lot of papers, and quite often there is difficulty in sorting out which file to pull out the right moment. One paper is left behind. I shall first deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Tanglin. He raised two points concerning the Report of the Building Commission. First, he asked whether the recommendations arc being implemented. The answer is yes. Second, when will the final report be out? Actually the final report is with the Government Printers. The Minister for culture, of course, controls priority of work governing the programme of the Government Printers. I hope we will get this final report as soon as possible. The Member for Queenstown, Mr Speaker, Sir, has produced an image of another paper article. We have today paper tigers. I have suggested a paper crocodile. And the Member for Queenstown when referring to the $40 million voted for the Economic Development Board, says it is a paper transfer. Sir, I do not quite know what is the point that the Member for Queenstown is making. There was a transfer of certain funds belonging to the Government to the Economic Development Board, which was constituted under an Ordinance passed by the House. If that was the point he was making, I say it is quite correct factually. But if his point was that this $40 million should have been spent by now and he rather regretted that there had been so much delay in spending this $40 million, then I say. Mr Speaker, Sir, all the things I have said in explanation of how the Economic Development Board is set up, and what its functions are. I have dealt with all these matters, not only in my Budget Statement this year, but also in my Budget Statement last year. I have explained that there are several stages we have to go through before we set up the Economic Development Board, let alone spend the money. If the Member is contending that we should have spent a sum of $40 million worth of taxpayers' money before we have set a properly constituted Economic Development Board - if that is his point - then I say he is merely talking through his hat. I have explained in my two Budget speeches that this is going to be one of the major instruments of implementing Government policy. Therefore, because it is so important and because it is going to cost so much money, we have to go through this process carefully and meticulously, and with the advice of experts in other parts of the world who have had experience in this sort of thing. I have already admitted that we are not geniuses, that we are not going to spend $40 million off the cuff. So what exactly is the point the Member for Queenstown is making? Perhaps, Sir, if he is prepared to elaborate on his statement, I will then continue with my reply.

I will explain what I have been trying to tell the Minister for Finance, If you will look at page 8, the Summary of Expenditure of the Development Estimates, 1962, you will find that the biggest item is under Head D32, Ministry of Finance, $47,600,000. The point is this. Did the Minister spend that money?

No.

Therefore, why put it down to give the impression to the people that you have spent that amount of money? Why give the impression that you have done something when you have not?

Sir, when he was referring to the $42 million, he was referring to the vote for 1962. I thought he was referring to the expenditure in 1961, which was $47.6 million. That is clear. That is an elementary point.

I think he is probably wearing the wrong spectacles! You see the figure $47.6 million, and the other figure is $42.3 million. It is the same figure, when nothing has been done by the Ministry.

Dr Goh Keng Swee. Please be brief. The answer is so simple.

There are times when I do not know what year we are in! I believe this is the year 1961.

Take both years.

In 1961, the amount voted for the Ministry of Finance is $47.6 million, of which $40 million would be for the Economic Development Board. In 1962, it is a different proposition. The Economic Development Board get $20 million, and the other sums are for other items. However, Sir, the Member for Queenstown really did not make the point that we should have spent this $40 million in the Economic Development Board in the two years. That is the point. No doubt the Member for Queenstown, who is a doctor -

On a point of clarification. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

If you will turn to page 29 again, Sir, "Estimated Expenditure to 31st December, l961 - $40 million". In other words, the Minister is trying to tell the House that $40 million will be spent by the end of this month. Is that correct? Will that amount be spent?

Sir, not only will it be spent, but it has been spent. The Government has transferred $40 million worth of assets to the Economic Development Board. This is the point he made. This is a real bright star! - Sir, Government having made an advance - I think it was sometime in October - within the brief space of October, November and even December (three months), he expects the Economic Development Board to spend $40 million! Could anything be more stupid than this, Mr Speaker, Sir, that you expect a statutory authority, vested with the power of spending Government money to useful purpose, to spend $40 million in three months' time? The Member for Nee Soon [Interruption] -

Order.

- made a fair statement of expectations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance is trying to mislead us. Surely the Economic Development Board, even as at this time last year, was already aware that $40 million was due to it, and it could well have made calculations to spend that money. It is wrong to say that it only got the money in October this year. As early as November 1960 it already knew that that money was forthcoming. And knowing that that money was forthcoming and not spending it - that is what we are pointing out.

I am indebted to the Member for Nee Soon for pointing out this so-called alleged fact. He says that the Economic Development Board knew last year that it had this money to spend, and why did it not make plans to spend it? The answer is very simple. The Economic Development Board was formed on the 1st of September this year. It did not exist last year. So how could it make plans? How could a non-existing body make plans to spend this money. Perhaps the Member for Nee Soon would like to amplify?

The shadow CaBinet, so to speak, Sir, of the Economic Development Board was already in existence long before that. After all, this was one of the P.A.P. promises. Although the Board was officially a pointed on 1st September, a mock Board, if I may phrase it, was already in existence ever since the P.A.P. declared its economic policy in 1959. I think that is a very long time ago.

Order. I might remind Opposition Members that they have saved half an hour of good time. It looks as though they are throwing away that time. Dr Goh Keng Swee.

Sir, after hearing from two medical practitioners, I think the people of Singapore really should thank their lucky stars that doctors are not in charge of financial and economic policy. Sir, I had a talk with my colleague, the Minister for Culture, and I said that I had gone to great lengths to explain the Singapore River project to Members of the Opposition and why the original plan could not be carried out. It is obvious that all my work then was wasted. I said to him that I had spent so much effort in trying to put across a message to human beings whom I thought to be in possession of their faculties, reasonably intelligent, but I found the whole effort was wasted. He assured me that if a person were short of normal intelligence, he might be able to comprehend about 15 per cent of what a normal man is trying to get across. In the case of the Barisan Sosialis, there is no hope at all because their powers of comprehension are extremely limited. Therefore, all that I can do is to recapitulate the things I have said before. I hope this time they will understand how it is not possible for any organisation to spend $40 million in three months, unless, of course, it is a charitable organisation which is prepared to dish out money to all and sundry. 7.45 p.m. I have said that before you can set up an Economic Development Board, you must first make a comprehensive study of what the potential is for industrial expansion in Singapore. Singapore is a trading centre. There is a small manufacturing class, but they are not capable by themselves of mounting the effort.

So it was necessary to seek advice from experts outside Singapore. That is why we approached the United Nations to send two special missions to advise the Singapore Government on its industrial programme. I think this may be the proper occasion for me to give an account of the principal findings of these two industrial missions. I know, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I say will be completely lost to the two doctors on the Barisan Sosialis benches. It is quite evident that it is beyond their powers to comprehend the most elementary propositions in economics. Nevertheless, for those who takes a more serious view of our economic future, I intend to give an account of the main findings of the team of industrial experts whom the United Nations sent to Singapore. The U.N. team recommended two courses of action. Firstly, a 10-year industrial programme; secondly, a crash programme to mop up -

P.A.P.

- the large numbers of unemployed persons now in Singapore. They estimated that to contain the problem some 78,000 jobs must be created in the manufacturing industry in the next 10 years. To achieve this, a total capital of about $800 million will have to be invested. The United Nations team went at length into certain policy matters of how the industrial effort in Singapore should be mounted. But I will not say anything today because, on various occasions in the past, I had referred to some aspects of the industrialisation policy. But I would like to inform the House of some of the specific proposals which the United Nations industrial mission made in respect of establishment or expansion in certain fields of industry. The mission was divided into a number of experts, each making recommendations in his special field. First, we had the experts on metal and engineering industries. They calculated that the projects they thought feasible of introduction in Singapore would involve a total - Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. If it is going to be a long statement, could the Minister give us a ministerial statement instead?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think so. The reason is this. The Barisan Sosialis, whether in jest or not, have thought that the Government have made a poor show because they failed to spend $40 million in the brief three months that the Economic Development Board was in existence, and therefore - Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of explanation.

If the Minister gives way. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

It is not so much their failure to spend the money as the deception that has been practised in putting the money as having been spent or is to be spent, when it is not going to be spent and has not been spent, and is merely a paper transfer. That is the point.

We are discussing the Economic Development Board's estimate and it is proper for the Minister to give details because the Opposition Members have asked for them. It is also proper for the Minister to explain the functions of the Economic Development Board.

Sir, I have already said that the money has been spent by the Government. $40 million worth of assets have been transferred - An hon. Member: Not enough!

- from the accounts of the Accountant-General to the Economic Development Board. And there is that foolish young man from Choa Chu Kang who expects results in Industrialisation in two or three months! Sir, is this the sort of intelligence we expect from the Barisan Sosialis? Everyone knows that industrialisation is not a process that you complete in two or three months. We are extremely lucky if we can complete this process in two decades, let alone two or three months. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have the disadvantage of trying to put before this House and the people of Singapore a serious problem and to explain to them the manner in which we are tackling it. In this very serious attempt (and this is vital - the happiness and welfare of the people will depend on whether we succeed or not in our effort to industrialise Singapore), I find that Members on the other side are incapable of grasping the most elementary statement that I make. They treat this whole subject as a joke. Why they do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know. The only comment I can make is that it is an indication of the absolute immaturity and childishness of their approach to national problems. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can enlarge on this point; I mean, it pains me to have to lecture to adults who claim to be representatives of the people. When they are faced with a serious problem, and when the Minister in charge of this problem wants to give a serious exposition of how it is solved, they do not meet it with seriousness. They laugh it off as a big joke. Do they think this is the way in which affairs of State are conducted? Perhaps the Member for Choa Chu Kang would like to explain. If he does, I am prepared to give him two minutes.

I am not an economist. But from the Development Estimates produced by the Government, it is quite clear that the House has approved 350 days for the Government in which to develop the country, but instead what do we have? Only 25 per cent performance. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is commonsense. These are facts and figures.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I heard the very capable Minister for Finance mention just now that I had alleged that the Economic Development Board had not made progress in its performance. He termed me a fool for not knowing certain economic facts. According to the explanation of the Minister for Finance, the Economic Development Board was established only in September this year. But in the 1961 Budget, there was provision made amounting to $40 million for the Economic Development Board to use. In other words, provision was made for the Board to loan to those industrialists who wanted to develop any industries in Singapore. We as an Opposition Party do not oppose this economic development plan of the Government. We deem it to be a rather good plan. This is what the P.A.P. promised to the people in 1959. But what is now before our House? We can see from the figures envisaged that there is a provision of $40 million. How much benefit have the people of Singapore gained? In other words, how much money has the Government loaned from this provision for the promotion of industries? We know that one of the jobs of the Economic Development Board is to industrialise Singapore and to give pioneer status to pioneer industries. In other words, it is in order to provide more employment opportunities through this kind of industrialisation. In the past two years, the Minister for Finance has issued several pioneer status certificates to a few industrialists. This is quite all right. The best performance of the P.A.P. in 1959, according to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, was that the Government intended to issue, pioneer status, $10 million to the Shell Company, and the Minister for Finance for the first time used an axe to cut down a tree. At the same time, the Minister officiated at the opening ceremony. I was in attendance then. The Minister for Finance can proudly say that in one year there was a very great oil refinery established in Sin gapore. He was extremely glad about this achievement. But let us see. The Minister said that the oil refinery could employ 200 people. In other words, this could solve the unemployment problem for 200 people in Singapore. This was a grand achievement, but then, according to the information received by me, what has been the result? The oil refinery employed only one new worker, and he was a technician. The other workers were transferred from other old establishments and installations in various islands belonging to the Shell Company. That is the so-called $10 million investment. The Minister promised employment opportunities for 200 people -

Order. And it being 8 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen) left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Development Estimates, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow, 15th of December.

So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.