Hansard, 1961-12-15

Resolved. "That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Saturday, the 16th December, 1961."- [The Deputy Prime Minister-Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (14th December, 1961), "That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.-(Dr Lee Siew Choh)."

2.34 p.m. DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES, 1962 (Cont.) Head D32 - Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I stated that one of the more important tasks of the Economic Development Board is to issue pioneer status certificates to industrialists. The Minister for Finance has issued many such certificates to industrialists investing in Singapore. A pioneer status certificate was issued to the Shell Company with a capital of about $10 million. This is quite a large investment. As I said yesterday, this company has employed only one new worker. In principle, we do not oppose the Minister for Finance and the Economic Development Board in their effort to promote industrialisation in Singapore, but we are doubtful about its success because the Shell Company has only engaged one new worker. In view of the fact that the Assembly has been asked to approve $20 million for 1962, we must be very careful to ascertain whether the desired results can be achieved. The Minister for Finance has given pioneer status for a period of five years to promote new industries. Let us take the example of Shell Company which has engaged only one new worker after the investment of the so-called $10 million. This shows that the unemployment situation in Singapore has not been improved and the problem has not been solved. The company invested such a large sum of capital and it obtained pioneer status for five years. This has been a great loss to the people of Singapore because the company has not contributed anything to the solution of the unemployment problem. I would like to ask the Minister whether other new industrialists seeking investment and pioneer status for their industries will be allowed to follow the same footsteps of the Shell Company. If such is the case, then it is very regrettable. The investment of $10 million by the Shell Company has not contributed anything to the people of Singapore. From this fact alone, we can see that the Government will not receive any taxation from these industries for some time and, generally speaking, this is a great loss to our country. I will use a Chinese saying to describe what advantages the people of Singapore will derive from such industries. It is a double loss. Not only do you lose your wife but you also incur defeat through a military manoeuvre. I hope the Minister will look into this question and review its policy so that pioneer industries and new investments will help solve the unemployment problem in Singapore. 2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for 2 ½ years, we have been listening to the Government talking about economic development and industrialisation. What has the Government done? Almost nothing. What it has done is to change the name of the Industrial Promotion Board to the Economic Development Board. What is the use of a change in name? The people want jobs and not a change of name. The failure of the Government in its so-called industrialisation plan is partly due to a lack of personnel with practical experience. If the Ministry of Finance and the Industrial Promotion Board had been staffed with people of practical experience instead of armchair economists and paper-flappers, I think the position today would have been much better. Sir, we must not depend entirely on foreign industrial missions. They are sometimes useful, but how can we expect them to do marvelous things by spending a few weeks here?

I trust the Member for Aljunied is not reading from a script.

He is reading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can form industrial advisory boards composed of local industrialists instead of depending on foreign industrial missions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the main emphasis on industrialisation should be on medium and small scale industries. The Government should undertake research into the types of products that can be manufactured in Singapore and readily supply such information to interested parties. The Government should relax immigration controls and allow people with manufacturing experience to come in and invest or work here. I ask the Minister to make a ministerial statement at some future date on his industrial programmes.

Mr Speaker. Sir, after the debate on the last Budget, I remember reading in the newspapers of Government's plan to start a steel mill with a capital of $50 million. What I want to ask the Minister is this. Of the $50 million authorised on nominal capital, how much would be paid up? It would not be useful if only $500,000 or $5 million of the $50 million is paid up. It strikes me that this so-called steel mill is not a steel mill. It is just like one of those factories which pull out steel bars and steel plates; from local scrap iron. We have such a factory in Bukit Timah Road. Sir, it seems to me that the particular person who is going to form this supposed steel mill has already got another concession from the Government by obtaining $ ½ million loan. From what I see of the activities, of the Industrial Promotion Board and the Economic Development Board, it seems they are all centred around this person. Is it because there are no other persons in Singapore who have applied for similar loans, or that their applications were not substantiated with enough facts to obtain the loans, or is it because their schemes were not practicable? But what I cannot understand is that two schemes - I have only been able to see two schemes - have been taken over by the same person. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, these are doubts in my mind which I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang made the point that since the Shell refinery at Pulau Bukom could give employment to only one new employee, that project, into which more than $10 million worth of capital has been sunk, did nothing to solve the unemployment problem in Singapore. I do not know from this whether one could infer the conclusion that this project should not have been proceeded with. I do not think that is the point that the Member was trying to make. If indeed it was, I say it is an extremely foolish conclusion to come to. Sir, the refining industry is what the economists call a "capital intensive" industry, indeed most industries connected with any form of chemical operations require a lot of capital as compared with labour. In the nature of things, that is the way production processes are made. It is not correct, however, to say that the oil refinery just gives a job to one person. That is a completely distorted way of representing the position. The refinery gives jobs to more than 70 persons, most of whom were already in the employment of Shell Company. But the Shell Company, through modernisation of its organisation, has found that there may be some 200 workers redundant. And this is in the nature of things. Every industry is trying to improve its methods of production; productivity per worker increases. And., therefore, unless there is scope for expansion, you will find the labour force of your existing industry getting smaller and smaller. By establishing this oil refinery, the Shell Company has been able to give jobs to more than 70 workers who otherwise might have been retrenched. Further, as a result of refining operations, they will branch out into other lines. I believe they are now contemplating the manufacture of pitch tar, which will require them to start a new factory to make drums for the packaging of this product. So once you have a major industry, it generates employment by creating a secondary industry linked up with it. That is why, when we discuss the total effects of any new industrial project, we have to take into account all the repercussions that the project leads to. The Member for Aljunied claims that the Economic Development Board is merely the Industrial Promotion Board under a new name. Sir, I have on previous occasions dealt at great length with the steps taken to start the Economic. Development Board; the expert personnel recruited from abroad, the extra new staff of economic engineers recruited from local sources, and the additional $40 million worth of capital which the Economic Development Board has and which the Industrial Promotion Board did not have. May I recapitulate some of the things said of the Economic Development Board? We have recruited a director who is a top-ranking economic planner in the Government of Israel. We have a former Permanent Secretary in my Ministry as Chairman of the Board. We have two young civil servants and one young local engineer to be in the promotion and technical branches of this Board. We are also recruiting some five to six experts through the United Nations and they should be here by about April next year at the latest. These are experts in various fields, such as chemical engineering, industrial cost accounting, and so on. At the same time, the Industrial Research Unit will be set up by the first quarter of next year. This Unit will be able to give technical and production advice to small and medium scale local industries. To say that this is just the Industrial Promotion Board under a new name is absolute nonsense. The problem that we are facing - let me repeat - is a most dangerous one. The Member for Choa Chu Kang brought up the point which allows me to bring out the fact that if in Singapore there is no expansion of industrial output, that does not mean that the number of workers will remain at the present level, because techniques of production are always improving. With improved methods, more machines are used and the labour force becomes smaller. And that is going on all the time. The United Nations mission calculated that within the next ten years some 12,000 workers would not be required in existing industries because of increased productivity and because of better methods of production; just to maintain the existing level of output, quite apart from giving new jobs to people looking for work. We have to find jobs for people who would be redundant because improved techniques of production are introduced in our industry. Sir, Members did say that we have announced our industrialisation plans in general terms. They say, "Well, what are the actual industries the Economic Development Board has in mind to assist and to promote?" This is the final test. It is no use saying chemical industries or metal industries or what have you. The United Nations industrial mission has made a number of specific recommendations. These recommendations are being studied by the staff of the Economic Development Board. Contacts are being made with local and foreign industrialists interested in pro ducing the goods recommended. There are to date three major fields that have been examined by this mission. They are, briefly, metal and engineering, where it is expected that an investment of $5 million could be made in Singapore in various industries which will create jobs for 200 people. The specific industries recommended are as follows: under metal and engineering - production of abrasives, bicycles, building, hardware, galvanishing of iron sheets, metal furniture for home use, steel bolts and nuts, steel wire rods, steel wire nails, steel wire netting, welded steel tubing. Under electrical equipment and appliances, 32 products have been recommended for immediate production in Singapore. They involve an investment of $13.5 million and would create employment for about 1,400 persons in the initial stages. The products recommended are as follows: - fluorescent light fittings, domestic plugs and socket outlets, switch gears and flat irons, motors and fans, accumulators, chokes, transformers, refrigerators, cookers, radios, television, insulated cables. As regards the chemical industries, a $26 million investment would be justified in creating employment for some 3,000 people. The products that could be produced in Singapore, according to the mission, are as follows:- insecticides and disinfectants, rubber processing, plastics industries, paints, oil processing, pineapple industry, soya bean processing, wheat mix, urban garbage disposal, sulphuric acid and aluminium sulphate, storage batteries, fire extinguishers, ceramics, certain categories of pharmaceuticals, cement, calcium carbide, alcohol distillation plant, foam plastics, washing powders, detergents and blues. Finally, there are a number of priority industries which the Economic Development Board is anxious to promote. These have been studied in some detail and the Board, as I have stated before, is making contact with local and foreign manufacturers who may want to produce them. The Board is prepared to assist these industrialists with all the resources at its disposal. The industries are, of course, first, the rolling steel mill which is in the course of construction; production of window panes, pans, rattan furniture, noodles and beehoon, woodwaste utilisation, reinforced plastics workshop, oil refining, sulphuric acid, detergents, matches, wheat mix, fruit juice canning, jams, sausages, and fish curing. So, you can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have moved away from the stage of just framing a general policy and are going into the realm of actual project evaluation, actual work in promoting specific industries for which details of marketing costs, techniques of production and so on, have been worked out. As regards the steel mill, the Member for Hong Lim thinks that the Economic Development Board is staffed by people whose only experience is selling kachang puteh. I think I should inform the House of the progress to date. The United Nations Technical Assistance Board despatched a steel mission to Singapore, and this mission recommended that -

Point of clarification, Sir. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

When I raised the question of the steel mill today, I was asking about the steel mill which the Government announced in the papers last week, not about the United Nations report - which can come as a separate paper in the form of a ministerial statement to be made later perhaps. We want to know the details of what the steel mill is.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Point of order?

Yes. I am anxious to get on with this business. The steel mill will come tinder subhead 4. Could all this be discussed then, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Subhead 4 is "Industrial Estates including Jurong Project". I am completely in the dark as to what could be discussed under any of these subheads, but if the Minister says that this is the proper subhead, then this should be the proper subhead. 3.00 p.m.

I will be very brief then. The reason why I brought up the United Nations mission is that this steel mill which we are putting up is in accordance with their recommendation. Briefly, they recommended that a steel industry could be developed in three stages. The first stage would be the establishment of a mill for smelting scrap, rolling steel ingots, re-rolling of ship scrap, with an output of 30,000 tons a year which could be increased to 60,000 tons eventually. This is the industrial project which is now being carried out by a group of local businessmen and the Economic Development Board. The Member for Hong Lim made certain statements which hinted rather darkly that the Board is showing favouritism to a particular person. For instance, we are lending this person half a million dollars for the steel project. I can assure you, Mr Speaker. Sir, that this is completely untrue. I do not know whether he has in mind the loan for ship-breakers. The ship-breaking firm, or the person interested in ship-breaking who carries out ship-breaking, who has a loan from the Economic Development Board, is also a partner in the steel mill. But he is by no means a major partner. He is rather a minor partner in the project. The main capital comes from a group of wealthy businessmen who are putting their money into it. The paid-up capital in the first stage is $6.5 million. This is a considerable sum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what we are trying to drive at. The Government should announce, with regard to last year's project, that the nominal capital is $50 million but that the paid-up capital is $6.5 million.

Order. That is exactly what the Minister is telling the House. There is no clarification. Dr Goh.

That is all I have to say about the Economic Development Board. Only one concluding word, Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the ignorance and malicious attack made on the Members and staff of the Board. I say that we have a fine team of men working on it and it deserves the full support of every citizen in this country. We cannot get a better team to tackle the problem ahead of us.

Sir, since the Minister has said that one could probably discuss the Jurong project under this item -

Order. The item discussed, I think, is the steel mill only.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to use very simple language to bring up my point. The Government has issued a pioneer status certificate to an enterprise with a capital of $10 million. But that enterprise employs only one extra worker.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang brought up this point. He repeated the statement yesterday that Government gave $10 million to the Shell Company. This is completely untrue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is due to a mistake in interpretation. What I said is that Government has given a five-year tax holiday to that enterprise. I do not mean that the Government has given a loan of $10 million to that firm.

I do not think the Member for Choa Chu Kang should always blame the interpreter. I do not know what the report in today's Press has about this matter. But the interpretation that has come through all the time is that the hon. Member has stated that a loan of $10 million has been given to an enterprise.

Sir, that is exemption under pioneer status. If we were to follow what the Member for Choa Chu Kang recommends, then we would not have a Shell refinery here. We would find it in the Federation. That is the effect.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not oppose the setting up of the oil refinery. But my point is that the Government has given tax exemption for five years to a firm with a capital of $10 million. But that firm employs only one extra worker. That does not solve the employment situation in Singapore.

This is repetition. The Minister has answered the point. All the Minister has to do is to give the same answer. That is repetition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will give my view on this oil refinery. The Shell Company have to establish an oil refinery in Singapore because a Japanese oil refinery has been established. If the Shell Company do not establish one, they are in no position to compete with the Marusan Toyo Company which has established one at Telok Blangah. Sir, my view is that there is no need to give tax exemption for five years to this Shell Refinery. If we want to give tax exemption, we should give it to more worthy enterprises. I am sure there are many who have applied for pioneer status and tax exemption, because they have to come into the market here. Otherwise, they are in no position to compete. Once we give tax exemption to the Shell Refinery, they can negotiate or arrange among themselves. I do not mean that they necessarily did. But I say they can have made arrangements among the Shell Group. There are three or four Shell companies in Singapore. One is exempted from tax; the profits are exempted from tax. The others are not. They can sell at the highest price. Suppose the oil refinery produces oil at $10 per ton and the market price is $30 per ton. This refinery can sell at $29.99 to the Company which has to pay tax, for the simple reason that the refinery which makes $19.99 a ton profit does not have to pay income tax for five years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is what the Member for Choa Chu Kang was trying to drive at and the Minister for Finance should clarify this.

Mr Speaker. Sir, that was not the point the Member for Choa Chu Kang was driving at. although he nodded his head very wisely when an accountant made the point, which is supposed to be quite telling. The answer is quite simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. Surely we are not suckers. The Government has income tax experts and accountants. In the agreement which we signed with the Shell Company, this point was described in minute detail, not merely the cost of production and selling cost but also finally the distributing services. Also more important, the price at which they buy from outside and the price at, which they sell to their distributing agents outside Singapore. All these matters have been gone into in great detail. There are no loopholes for Shell. The answer is quite simple. If you say you do not give pioneer status to Shell, there is a bigger refinery in the Federation if you do not have one.

Just one line, Sir. I do not want waste the time of the House any furl I want to refer to one rather deceptive and twisted report from Radio Singapore last night. Radio. P.A.P. reported that Dr Goh said that a Member Barisan Sosialis had complained the Economic Development Board not having used $40 million. Therefore, he said, if he thought that the Board could spend $40 million within a short time, then Dr Lee was talking through his hat. Well, I think the News Division of Radio P.A.P. is here. They did take this down very cleverly and clearly -

Order. There must be no direct reference to any stranger in the Strangers' Gallery.

I just want to have this point clarified, Sir. The point that we have made, and which we are still making, is that the Minister for Finance has practised a deception on the House by giving the impression that $40 million will be spent by the end of this year. If the sum put down there is $5,000 or $10,000, we would not have minded so much. As it is, it is $40 million, and we have been given to understand that $40 million will be spent, whereas not a single cent has been spent.

May I explain this thing in simple terms? These are the Estimates of the Government of the State of Singapore. We deal with the money estimated to be spent by the Government. It is incorrect to say that the money would not be spent. The $40 million has been spent by the Government. It has been given to the Economic Development Board.

It seems to be clear enough.

To continue. What the Economic Development Board does with this money will come out in the report.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh - That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.

I am not moving my amendments on subheads 2 and 3.

Amendment (3), Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh. "Industrial Estates including Jurong Project... $45,000,000." Sir, in the first column on page 29 of the Development Estimates, 1962, for the Ministry of Finance, under Head D32, item 4, Plan cost is given as $45 million. In the second column, Revised Plan Cost is $45 million. If I may refer to the Development Plan for 1961/64, at page 73, paragraph 7.62: "The total cost of the new town can only be estimated after detailed geological and other surveys. A provisional sum of $45 million has been allocated which will be supplemented as development progresses." 3.15 p.m. I take it that the total cost of these estates is not yet known to the Government, that this is merely the first instalment in the project, and that the Government's revised plan on the first instalment still remains the same at $45 million, of which the Government hopes to spend $600,000 by the end of this year. The estimated expenditure for 1962 is $20.4 million and the amount required to complete the project, i.e., the first phase of it, is another $24 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Hon, the Minister for Finance first spoke to the House about the Jurong project, I get the impression from him that the whole of this scheme was attuned to the steel mill that was to be established in that area, that the steel mill was going to be the focal point around which subsidiary industries were to be established, and that this $45 million which the Government proposes to spend initially is to be spent on items which normally a government or a State would spend in order to put the site ready for private enterprise to come in and develop it. I take it that it is correct this $45 million does not include the cost of establishing the steel mill itself. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government still holds the view that the focal point of the industrial estates in the Jurong project is still the steel mill, and whether Government hopes that private industry will then cluster around this steel mill on objects subsidiary to it? That is the first point, Sir. The second point is whether the Government has made any progress in the establishment of the steel mill and what aid the Economic Development Board is going to give to any person or persons who wish to establish this steel mill; and whether the Minister is now in the position to give definite information to this House as to what exactly is going on in Jurong? The Government has estimated that they will spend $600,000 at the end of this year under subhead 4. Under subhead 6, Sir, land acquisition for industrialisation at Jurong, I take it, is $5 million of which $4.3 million has already been spent. So by that, I assume that all the land which the Government hopes to acquire in that vicinity has been acquired and possibly' paid for. So that over and above that they are now hoping lb spend $600,000. Could the Minister tell the House exactly on what he has spent this sum .of money whether it is on levelling the hills and filling the land there? The Minister also made a statement, Sir, a few minutes ago that the Jurong steel project is in the course of erection. I definitely heard him say that.

Construction.

Construction. Did the Minister mean by that that the walls of the steel mill are going up; that the site is being filled in, and did he mean construction by that? Or was it just a slip of the tongue?

Dr Lee.

The point has already been raised, Sir.

Dealing with the last point first. When I said the steel mill is under construction, I meant two things. First, the site has now been levelled; second, members of the Board of Directors have gone abroad to order the equipment. The design of the mill itself has been made by the United Nations Mission. If all goes well, the mill should be established either at the end of next year or early in 1963. Whether the steel mill will be the focal point of the whole Jurong industrial project is something of which I am afraid we have to make a reappraisal. Our original plan was to start a mill on a very substantial scale in conjunction with Japanese steel mill interests. But both the United Nations Steel Mission and the Japanese experts themselves formed the view that we could do it in three stages, starting with a small smelting rolling mill, and it production problems have been overcome, markets established, then the question of eventual extension to the real thing, i.e., the mill, plant and furnaces. That could be considered. Now, aid to the mill. As I have said, this venture is a venture of local businessmen. They put up the capital. The Economic Development Board itself is just providing, I think, a small minority share, something like 15 to 20 per cent of the capital - no more than that. They are just appointing some two Directors to the Board of Directors of this enterprise. As regards the works in Jurong at present - I think I reported this rather briefly in my Budget Statement; perhaps there could be just some repetition - a considerable amount of earthworks are in progress. That part of Jurong is fairly hilly and hills have just been levelled; swamps have to be filled; roads have to be constructed. So at present, the works currently going on are levelling of hills, filling of swamps, construction of roads and also the construction of a culvert on the eastern shore of the Jurong River. This is necessary because a causeway will be built over the Jurong River which will dam the northern reaches of the river and turn it into a reservoir for industrial water. Then that causeway will, at the same time, provide communications between the Jurong industrial estates and the port of Singapore through Ayer Rajah Road. That part of the work of building roads and the causeway together with the industrial water reservoir is in progress. Also electrical supplies are being stepped up. We hope also to provide an adequate supply of water. But this is in some doubt now. I am not sure whether the Water Department could move fast enough to provide sufficient water, at any rate, by the first half of next year. The position of electricity seems to be all right. But as regards piped water, I think they are somewhat behind time. Now, if Members are interested in seeing what is going on in Jurong, the Government will be very pleased to arrange touring parties for them to have a look. I think it is worth a visit because the amount of work in progress there is quite substantial and will go on increasing in the next year or two.

The Minister did say that the participation of the Economic Development Board in this project is, I believe, to the extent of 20 per cent of the shares. It is difficult for us to know how much the quantum is unless the Minister tells us what the 100 per cent

$6.5 million.

Thank you, Sir. The other point which I wish to impress upon the Minister is that he should use his utmost endeavours with the Water Department to get on with the water project, otherwise, I am afraid - and I mentioned this before in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, - the whole of the Jurong project will be stymied.

Dr Goh? Dr Goh Keng Swee indicated dissent.

Mr Rajah?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5. Mr Speaker, Sir, subhead 5 - Kallang Land Reclamation. This seems to be in a more difficult condition than the Jurong project. The Jurong project seems to be fairly healthy. If we could only get water, I think we will get it squeaking and squawking. But Kallang Land Reclamation, Mr Speaker, Sir, seems to be in the doldrums. In the original scheme, as you will notice from col. 1, it was $43.124 million, and if you will be good enough to look again at the 1961-1964 Development Plan, page 70, paragraph 7.44, we have a split-up of the $43.124 million: $ Construction of approach road from quarry 2,130,000 Preparation of polders and pumping 1,984,000 Filling 30,000,000 Dredging Channels 1,660,000 Sheet piles and river walls for channels 7,000,000 Surveys, Supervison and Clerical 350,000 And then, what is more interesting is paragraph 7.45, Mr Speaker, Sir: 'If the total is taken as $50 million, so as to include contingencies. .'. In other words, the people who planned this felt that $43 million would not be enough to be on the safe side to include contingencies. They thought that $50 million was nearer the mark. That was when this plan was published sometime in April or May this year. But within six months Kallang Land Reclamation has dropped from near $50 million to $28.50 million. Perhaps the Minister might tell us how this reduction in cost has been affected; whether the area of development is going to be reduced from 1,035 acres to half, or what the position there is. So far as this year is concerned, Sir, there is no expenditure of money. But for the year 1962, they estimate that they will be spending half a million dollars. Now, under either of these headings, it seems to me that the only thing they are going to do there next year would appear to be on Surveys, Supervision and Clerical, and nothing more.

Sir, the Kallang Land Reclamation project has indeed hit a number of snags. Altogether we have been most unfortunate in this business. As regards the change from $50 million to some $28 million, I think there were two schemes to fill up this swamp. One is by moving earth from Paya Lebar, and the other is by pumping mud from the sea. And the cheaper one is this one. As regards progress, Mr Speaker, Sir, I did report to the House that we have written to the Government of West Germany for technical assistance. We have not had any reply. In the meantime, we have asked the United Nations to despatch an expert on polders. The United Nations was good enough to get us one, but unfortunately the man fell sick and he could not pass the medical test. So I am afraid that is another trough in the Kallang Land Reclamation project. However, I do not think there is such urgency in getting going with it, and I hope that in future years our luck will be better with this one.

May I say something, Mr Speaker, Sir? The Kallang area is of some value to the Ministry of Health, because it provides the city with its only controlled tipping ground. I am advised that it is uneconomic to operate the present incinerator, which is 35 years old and has outlived its useful life. So that, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Farrer Park will be patient, we will in the course of the next five years produce a reclamation there which will be more or less comparable to the reclamation along Beach Road, now known as the Nicoll Highway.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Low Por Tuck and Mr Ong Eng Guan - That the total sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by $100.

Mr Low?

I am not moving.

Mr Ong Eng Guan? He is not here. The sum of $42,331,000 for Head D32 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 3.30 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D44 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1*. *The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh and Dr Thio Chan Bee. Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to bring up a few points for clarification concerning the Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House. When will this Hall be completed? Will it be completed during the lifetime of this Government or of the next government? Will this Trade Union House be used by trade unions under one leadership or under the leadership of the various trade unions existing in Singapore? I fear that all the community centres in Singapore are under the influence of the Party in power. If the Singapore Conference Hall is to be subjected in the same way as the community centres have been subjected, then it will be bad. I know that $1,150,000 will be spent on the Trade Union House, with another $3 million required for its completion. The important question is, whether this House will engender a spirit that is pro-Communist, anti. Communist, or Communist in nature because I know that there are two opposing factions who will fight each other to the end. So, Mr Speaker, Sir what will happen to the unions who remain neutral? Will the non-aligned trade unions become the victims? Will restrictions be put on the use of the House? I fear that tape-recorders may be planted and pictures may be taken by hidden photographers in the House.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D44 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1." Dr Lee Siew Choh is not here. Dr Thio Chan Bee?

I am not speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed Trade Union House was one of our election pledges and there is no doubt that this Government will redeem this pledge. Sometime last year, the present Minister for Health and Law, with the assistance of a few other trade unionists, formed themselves into a Committee with a view to implementing this pledge. The Committee has studied this project very carefully and it has located a site somewhere in Shenton Way. A design competition is now on and it will be closed on 30th December, 1961. The winning design will be selected by the Cabinet. So there is no doubt that this project will be completed as soon as all these preliminary procedures are completed. In addition to being a Trade Union House, it will also have a Conference Hall. The Trade Union House will be used for any international conference held in Singapore. The purpose of building this House is to assist the trade unions in Singapore to consolidate themselves into a strong unit to meet the employers. Of course, facilities will be provided to help the workers of Singapore to protect their interests. There will be no discrimination between workers of this or that union. The Member for Kampong Kembangan has asked whether pro-Communists will be allowed to use the Trade Union House. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government policy on this is very clear, and there is no doubt that no facilities in the State will be provided for use by any force for a pro-Communist or a Communist cause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also have an amendment* on the same Head which amounts to the same thing. May I speak now so that we can dispose of the two amendments at the same time? *The amendment, also standing in the name of Mr S. T. Bani, reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D44 be reduced by $100.

Yes.

Sir, the first question I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is, who are the present occupiers of Nantina Home in Queen Street? When the Government mooted the project of a Trade Union House, it decided to place one of its houses in Queen Street at the disposal of the T.U.C. In fact it was occupied by the T.U.C. and it became known as a sort of Trade Union House. Sir, on every occasion when the subject of a Trade Union House was brought up, I objected to it on the ground that the P.A.P. was trying to offer a sop to the workers of Singapore. The workers of Singapore do not require such a sop. Events have proved that so long as the workers are not with the Government, they can be branded as Communists, pro-Communists, Communist sympathisers, etc. If it is the intention of the Government to help the workers to own a house, then the proper thing is for it to lease a piece of land at a very nominal rent to the trade unions so that they can build a house of their own and not be indebted to the P.A.P. for a house which they themselves can afford to build. A dollar from each worker in Singapore will bring in enough money to put up a Trade Union House of their own. But land is difficult to get in Singapore, and if the Government is really keen on wanting to help the workers, then it should lease a piece of land to them at a nominal rent. Now let us see what kind of a Trade Union House it is going to be. It is not a Trade Union House. It is a Conference Hall. This building is going to be 3, 4 or 5 storeys, and I think one storey will be given to the trade union organisation to be used as an office. It will not be correct to describe that building as a Trade Union House. The Parliamentary Secretary in his reply just now said that it was the intention of the Government to help the trade unionists so that they could consolidate themselves and get unified. But how can they get unified if the law providing for their unification has not been assented to? How can they be unified if the Government encourages their particular group of unions to go out fighting against other groups of trade unions? In fact, Sir, the cause of the present industrial unrest can be laid at the door of the political struggle that is being waged in the trade union field. There are unions under the control of the P.A.P. trying to prove that they are better, and there are unions belonging to another group trying to prove that they are better too. Therefore, we have all this industrial unrest that is going on. If the Government means to unify the trade union movement, then it should reintroduce the law to see that the trade unions are unified, otherwise they cannot be unified as there is no law providing for their unification. Sir, I think the Trade Union House will be used more as a Conference Hall. In the light of the constitutional advance, foreign relations and external affairs will be in the hands of the Central Government. The Central Government already had a Conference Hall known as Tunku Abdul Rahman Hall. How are we going to arrange international meetings in Singapore when we are going to lose our identity? At the present time, Singapore still has some identity in the international field, because although its foreign relations are in the hands of the British, its trade and cultural relations are in the hands of the Singapore Government. There fore, United Nations missions and delegations of a commerical or trading character can hold their conferences here and Singapore can be a member. But once we are in closer relationship with the Federation in 1963, we will have lost our identity. All representations will have to be made through the Central Government. So why should we go to the extent of spending $4 million or $5 million to put up a building that may not be used for the purposes it is intended for? It should not be done, because Singapore would then have no standing whatsoever in the international field. But what I am more concerned about is this claim of the P.A.P. that this is one of its pledges which it is going to fulfil. There are so many pledges of the P.A.P. that are never fulfilled and it does not want to talk about them. Why does the Government say that it is going to fulfil this pledge? Is it just because it wants to get the workers on its side by giving them a little bit of sugar? The workers of Singapore are no longer that foolish. At one time, they could have been foolish, when the P.A.P. with its wonderful propaganda could proclaim militantly in the trade union field that it was the champion of the workers. In fact, the champions of the civil service were the ones to effect the pay cuts. Sir, I object to the Trade Union House on principle. If the Government is very sincere, it should lease to the workers a piece of land at a nominal fee and let them build their own trade union house. If in this particular building you are going to have international conferences, the use of that floor may be restricted. Suppose the unions go on strike - a Government-controlled union may go on strike because we have read in the papers that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has said that Government has said that Government staff may go on strike: you may even have a P.A.P. union saying that it is going on strike - then the particular floor allotted for the use of the T.U.C. will be full of activities and if, at the same time, there is to be an international conference, then there will be a mix up. 3.45 p.m. Moreover, if you are going to give one floor to the T.U.C. in a building which is under Government control, I do not know what kind of gadgets may be put in by the Government in order to find out what the workers are doing. Surely that is not the intention of the Government. But it can lead to suspicion, and the suspicion is justifiable in the light of what has been happening in the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel it is not the serious intention of the Government to build this Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House. I think it has been put here in the Development Estimates - the figure $4 million appears there - purely for the purposes of making political propaganda. Sir, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the building of a Trade Union House was an election pledge of the P.A.P. I believe they said then that they wanted to put up a Trade Union House at a cost of $2 million. Then about one year after the elections, sometime last year, I think the former Minister for Labour and Law told us that the Minister for Finance said he could not give $2 million. So it had to be somewhere around $1 million. And, the next thing I see, Sir, is $4,150,000. The Parliamentary Secretary says it is going to be a Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House. I do not know what Singapore Conference Hall the Government has in mind. I do not think they are seriously suggesting that if the International Animal Lovers' League wants to hold a conference, they want the hall in the Trade Union House to be used. Anyway, I do not know for what particular purpose this Conference Hall is supposed to be used. May I venture to suggest, Sir, that the main purpose of putting this vote in is to build a Trade Union House? I am not like the Member for Cairnhill, Sir. I do not look upon this Trade Union House as a bribe to the workers. I associated my self with the election pledge that the Government made, and I think I can safely say that the majority of the workers and the unions do not mind getting a big Trade Union House - ten storeys, air-conditioned perhaps from the ground floor to the roof top, comfortable chairs, and so on. They will be happy to accept such a house from the Government, so long as - An hon. Member: Under Barisan control!

- there are no political strings attached. Sir, it is like accepting a gift - financial aid from the Soviet Union or from the United States of America. There is nothing wrong in the gift itself. It is the motive behind the person who makes that gift. One can accept the gift and still make certain that the one who gives it does not get away with his motive.

Ask the Soviet Union to give you a Trade Union House!

Sir, I want to suggest here that -

Order. It seems to me that the Leader of the House is not setting a very good example. Mr Bani.

Sir, I can quite well understand why the Leader of the House is thrilled at the idea of receiving American aid. Perhaps he has been dreaming of American aid for the last few days. Anyway, that is his business. But quite seriously, I think the important thing we have to realise is this - what the labour movement in Singapore needs is not a huge structure like the Cathay Building or the Asia Insurance Building. That is unimportant. It is only secondary. I do not say the workers or the unionists would not like to sit in an air-conditioned office with press buttons, and all you have to do is to press a button and secretaries, typists and stenographers come running round. No trade unionist dislikes this, and I am sure no worker dislikes having a really comfortable and convenient Trade Union House. But this is not the motive for it. You can put up a Trade Union House without there being a trade union movement, but it becomes a waste of public money. I was really disturbed to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that this Trade Union House is going to be used by what he said only those unions that are within the camp of the P.A.P. group of unions. Sir, I want to make this point quite clear here. S.A.T.U. has been mention ed so many times. In the first place, S.A.T.U. is not registered and we have stated quite clearly that so long as it is not registered, it shall refrain from participation in any trade dispute. But, nevertheless, S.A.T.U. has been smeared and I am not going to defend it or say anything in favour of it or against the N.T.U.C. That is not my purpose now. But I want to make this quite clear - that when the previous T.U.C. was dissolved, 82 trade unions representing -

Order. That, I think, is going rather far away from what we are debating. We are now debating the Trade Union House.

It is directly connected with the Trade Union House. The fact is that whatever it is, S.A.T.U. or not, the conference that was held was attended by 82 trade unions representing a -

Order. Did they discuss the Trade Union House?

I am coming to the Trade Union House.

Order. I think I must rule very strictly on this. Time is passing. Let us deal with the Trade Union House. The Member is quite correct, in passing, in defending S.A.T.U., but if he goes into details, he is going very far away from the item.

It is not my intention now to defend S.A.T.U. But the point that I want to make is: if you build a Trade Union House with $4 million, and if that is to be used by some cronies who lead the National Trade Union Centre, which is a 14-man body, it is no use wasting $4 million of public money to build a Trade Union House for the exclusive use of a small group of unions. In that context, I say that if you seek to, exclude the large group of unions that are outside the control of the P.A.P., then you might as well not build the Trade Union House. As I have said, what the trade union movement today needs is not a building structure but assistance in any form to strengthen its collective bargaining position. All that the Parliamentary Secretary said was just that the building was going to be put up for the purposes of strengthening the trade union movement so that they can fight the employers harder. I do not see how it can happen especially if the structure is merely going to accommodate a handful of unions. In conclusion, Sir, I say this: that a Trade Union House, without a plan to unify the trade union movement, consolidate and strengthen it, is useless. As the Member for Cairnhill has pointed out, the Bill to provide for a unified trade union movement is still in cold storage. And it appears it is not the intention of the Government to provide for the unification of the trade union movement. If that is the case, then I say there is no point in having your $4 million Conference Hall for the Animal Lovers' League.

Is there a ministerial reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson is never more entertaining and less persuasive than when he speaks with his tongue in his cheek. He knows this: that when the building of this Trade Union House was mooted, an invitation was sent from the Ministry to the T.U.C. and we sought their participation in the planning of this project. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of that invitation, the T.U.C., which was then constituted by the Ten Tall Men, appointed -

Point of clarification, Sir. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Can the Minister state the time? I do not deny the fact that an invitation was sent out and we participated in the Committee. The only point that I wanted to make is that the Trade Union House was thought of in the context of a unified trade union movement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the charge was made that this Trade Union House project was just a camouflage; that we were trying to bamboozle everybody; that we were never in dead earnest about what we had said about unifying the trade union movement and about providing facilities for a unified trade union movement. Mr Speaker, Sir, the first plan was to build a Trade Union House in the city. We selected the site of the old St. Andrew's School in Armenian Street. But the grounds were not sufficient. For that reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, we had to consider moving this project to Shenton Way, opposite the Polytechnic. Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot of planning for this project was required. The members of the Planning Committee consisted of myself, Mr Woodhull, Mr Jamit Singh, who was always absent, and Mr Kandasamy. After considerable thought had been given to this project and to the detailed planning, Mr Speaker, Sir, we associated the Board of Architects in this project, and we put out a design competition. The design competition was announced and the closing date is the 31st January, 1962. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is intended to be an expensive building, and the cost of maintenance is going to be considerable. We do not expect the T.U.C. to be able to afford maintaining a building of this size on its own. For that reason we incorporated in this Trade Union House project a Singapore Conference Hall as well. It will be possible then for the Government to maintain this building and to lease floors to the T.U.C. The control will still be in the hands of the Government and the T.U.C. will be leased floors for offices. It is unfortunate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that whilst the planning was in progress, there was this rift in the trade union movement. But it does not follow, that just because there has been this rift, we should abandon this scheme. It is a worthwhile scheme and we should continue with it. As to the point made by the Member for Cairnhill, Mr Speaker, Sir, he says that we will lose our identity when we are merged into a greater Federation. But Singapore will still be a great emporium, and it is the biggest emporium in South-East Asia. There is no reason why we should not have a proper Conference Hall here in Singapore. We have no place which can serve as a conference hall. When we build the Trade Union House, why not associate with it a Conference Hall? 4.00 p.m.

Order. Time has expired. Inche Mohd. Ali.

I beg leave to withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,150,000 for Head D44 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D47- The following amendment stood in the names of Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, Dr Lee Siew Choh, Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib, and Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.*

I am not moving, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh.

I am not moving.

Inche Ahmad Jabri, amendment (1)*.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.* Expenditure for 1962 to build parks and children's playgrounds and other works amounting to $80,000. I would ask Government to consider increasing playgrounds in the rural areas and not concentrating them in the city. Mr Speaker, it is important for children in the rural areas to get the same amenities as the children in the city.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng, we are on children's playgrounds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move -

Order. This must be the strain of the last few days or nights. We are now on amendment (1) to Head D47. An amendment has been moved by the Member for the Southern Islands. Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Katong Park is already existing, and within half a mile or so we have Kallang Park. In front of Kallang Park we have the People's Association, which is also a sort of recreation ground. All that is on one side of Merdeka Bridge. At the other end of Merdeka Bridge - Merdeka Bridge is about one mile, I think - we have the Crawford Children's Playground. I was just wondering why in that area, which the Prime Minister, I think, said a few days ago does not have sufficient density of population to occupy the Kallang Park and which he calls a white elephant, we need so many "lungs". There are four or five lungs all within that little area which is said to be not of sufficient density.

The amendment is on children's playgrounds, not on lungs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, children's playgrounds are known as lungs for the children to breathe through.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum provided in the Estimates under these items is meant for the development of children's playgrounds in Lim Chew Chye, Jalan Ampat - that is what the Member for Mountbatten wants - Chancellor Road, Liang Siah Street and Bukit Ho Swee.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, about two years ago, Kallang Park was built by the former Minister for National Development, the Member for Hong Lim. The same park has not been developed any further. May I ask what is the reason?

Order. I think the hon. Member is now going away from the amendment, as the Member for Mountbatten went away. We are now discussing children's playgrounds as such. If there is time, parks in general, I suppose, could be discussed under either subhead 3 or the whole Head D47 itself. We are now on children's playgrounds. Mr Lingam.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, before .I speak in general about children's playgrounds, I would like to cite Kallang Park as an example.

Order. If the hon. Member is talking on parks, he will have to wait until we come to subhead 3 or the whole Head D47. We are now on children's playgrounds as such - just children's playgrounds. Does the Mem ber wish to speak on children's playgrounds now?

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the past two and a half years, the Government has established playgrounds in certain constituencies only. They have not been constructed in all constituencies. My constituency is an example. There are no facilities there for people to spend the evening hours with their children. There are no playgrounds available. Other Members also have a similar situation in their constituency. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the Government.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to children's playgrounds, if we look at the 1962 Budget, we can see that the Government has only spent $5,000 in 1961. If we look at the development project for 1961, on page 522, we can see under this item that the Government is going to spend $20,000 in the town areas. In the rural areas, the Government is going to spend $10,000. In other words, the Government is going to spend $60,000. But on this item the Government has spent only $5,000 for this year. What is the reason for this?

The hon. Member was interpreted as having said that only $10,000 was to be spent in 1961 for the rural areas. It is really $40,000, is it not?

Not exactly, Sir.

On page 522.

Page 522, yes. The item on children's playgrounds. In the city area the Government is going to spend $20,000 and in the rural area $40,000. But in the 1962 Development Estimates, the estimated expenditure up to the end of the year is only $5,000.

Mr Speaker, we have concentrated our efforts in building playgrounds in the congested areas of the city. It is very hard to find suitable open spaces in the city itself. For that reason, we have developed the Crawford playground and park for children. We have tried to develop every available piece of open land that we could find in the city into a suitable playground for children. There is one piece of land in Manila Street, off Queen Street, in very heavily built-up area which has been converted into a children's playground. We have gone round looking for these places and have put up seesaws, swings and round-abouts for the children. The Member for the Southern Islands asked why we do not concentrate our efforts also in the rural areas. But in the rural areas, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are more open spaces. They are not heavily built up. In the kampongs there are plenty of places for the children to run about. The concentration of effort must obviously be in the city area. As far as the question by the Member for Mountbatten is concerned, we have or, the water-front tried to link stretches of open ground, for example, Kallang Park with Elizabeth Walk. You will notice that you can walk on that waterfront -

Order. Was that for the purpose of the children's play grounds?

Mr Speaker, Sir, children's playground and parks are connected subjects and I am now talking about the Kallang Park area. There is the safety first children's playground in the park itself and the Crawford playing ground which are linked up with Elizabeth Walk. So it is very hard to discuss this vote in isolation from the other votes relating to parks and open spaces. I have touched on this because the Member for Mountbatten raised this point.

I am trying to save time for the Opposition Members. It seems to me that we should now concentrate on children's playgrounds, and then we can develop this discussion under subhead 3. Anything further on children's playgrounds. The Member for Havelock raised a question. Would the Minister like to answer?

As I have already indicated one of the reasons is that we have opened children's playing grounds on all the land that we can possibly lay our hands on. If he can show me other places in the city which the Govern ment could take over, we will be only too glad to take them over as play grounds for children.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.* *The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mrs Seow Peck Leng. Parks and Open Spaces - the provision for 1962, Mr Speaker, Sir, is $340,000. In the 1961 Development Estimates on page 522, the provisior last year for parks and open spaces was $175,000, spilt up into two heads: (1) Safety First Playground, Kallang; (2) Other Projects - $175,000. I notice iron Head D47, that only $51,700 has been spent. Could the Minister tell us how it is that where a vote of $175,000 was provided, only less than a third of it has been spent? Could the Minister also tell us where he hopes to establish these parks and open spaces for the sum of $340,000, and how many of them?

Dr Lee? Dr Lee Siew Choh indicated dissent.

The Member is not speaking. Mrs Seow? Mrs Seow Peck Leng indicated dissent.

Not speaking. The Member for Aljunied if he wishes to add anything further on parks?

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, about two years ago, the former Minister for National Development of the P.A.P. Government constructed a number of parks. Kallang Park was one of those constructed at that time, but it still remains in the same state. There has been no improvement and no new construction. It was intended originally that the National Theatre should be constructed on that site. But that scheme was later changed and the new site selected is on King George V Park. I do not understand the reason for this change.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to some of the money which has not been spent in the 1961 Budget, firstly, it is because the Parks Department was under the City Council and it took some time for the City Council to be integrated into the various Government departments. I think this department was quite lately integrated into the Labour Ministry. That partly, is the cause of the delay in implementing the 1961 programme. However, as far as 1961 is concerned, the Ministry has submitted all its development programmes to the Development Planning Committee in conjunction with the Government's Four-Year Development Plan. I understand from my officer that the Development Planning Committee has approved all the programmes submitted by the Ministry. The full programme for development is contained in the Four-Year Develop ment Plan. As far as 1961 and 1962 are concerned, the programmes proposed are for large parks in the Queenstown neighbourhood, Beach Road Reclamation. Farrer Park, that is, for resurfacing and parking bay, Farrer Park Athletic Centre and Jalan Besar Stadium, repairing the spectators' stand. Also out of this total sum $100,000 is for the development of Kallang Park and $20,000 for the extension of King George V Park. With regard to the comments made by the Member for Aljunied, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the usual habit of Members from the U.P.P. to remind the people of Singapore what wonderful things the ex-Mayor of the City of Singapore did when he was the Mayor. On Kallang Park, Mr Speaker, Sir, the other day the Prime Minister pointed out that, from statistics, the Park has not been put to full use. So the Park officer has proposed a scheme to develop it. More facilities will be provided and the Park will be put to proper use, such as providing for a football pitch, a tennis court and so forth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I must clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has said just now. When Kallang Park was built, there was no intention to show posterity that the Park was built by Ong Eng Guan. There was no bronze plate put up to show that it was opened on such and such a day by the Minister for National Development, Mr Ong Eng Guan, as we see in the community centres. recreation centres, the National Theatre, and I am sure, the Trade Union House and Conference Hall. The main purpose of most of these projects is to leave something to posterity to show that "my great grandfather built a Trade Union House and Conference Hall". What happened in Kallang Park was this. When the Prime Minister took over the City Council, he stopped all work, all extensions, all improvements and other phases to complete Kallang Park. That is why some people are still inquiring why Kallang Park is half done, just as Changi Beach was half done. We started one phase; money was stopped; it was taken over. They did not want to complete the whole project because the theory was, "If the Member for Hong Lim started it, we must stop it." But, Sir, rest assured that in all the construction I did in the City Council and during the time I was a Minister, I never left my name to posterity. It was meant for the benefit of the people, not for myself. Yesterday I heard from the Prime Minister that he is now going to build houses at Kallang Park. We have investigated the possibilities before we built Kallang Park. We found that it was a swamp before and that if we built houses in that particular site, the rent would be so expensive that nobody would be able to afford it.

Order. I think the Member has made his point. He is now a hit irrelevant. Mr Low?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, all the development projects by the P.A.P. look very fine. But if we look at the Four-Year Development Plan on page 126, the question of Parks and Open Spaces is clearly mentioned here. In 1961, the sum estimated was $175,000; in 1962 it is $340,000. According to the Development Plan, we must put in this amount of money in the first year, but whether we can carry out the project is another question. In the second year, 1962, we put in that amount of money, but whether we can carry out the projects or not does not matter. Therefore, I say that all these plans are only paper plans to mislead the people and give them the impression that the Government wants to do something about all this. If we look clearly at these items we will see that there was $175,000 in 1961 for the Government to carry out its project. But in the 1961 Budget, only one-third of the whole vote will have been spent. This is just to bamboozle the people.

Sir, the Member for Havelock knows that this is not true. He knows that in the old railway sidings in Tanjong Pagar, there is now a children's park. He knows that in Manila Street, off Queen Street, there is a park for children. He also knows that in the Telok Ayer area there is a park for children. We have been building little playgrounds and parks for children on every piece of vacant land that we can find. We have entered sufficient provision in this vote for our purposes. All this work has been completed, including the park at Beach Road for children. We have linked up Kallang Park with Elizabeth Walk through the grass verge along the Nicoll Highway. Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot of planning has gone into this. I have been out of touch for sometime now. But I have visited sites in the Queenstown area for development as a big park. All this takes a lot of planning and a lot of time, Mr Speaker, Sir,I have no doubt this work is now in hand and there will be further extensions made with the money that is being provided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour mention that within the $340,000 vote, some of it was hoped to be spent on Farrer Park. Whether he said Farrer Park running track or just Farrer Park I am not quite sure. But whatever it may be, I would like to draw his attention to the condition in which Farrer Park finds itself today. Sir, Farrer Park is probably the biggest single playing area which the Government provides for Singaporeans. It is a place which is used not only by people who live in the vicinity, but by all football teams that find themselves scattered all over the island. An hon. Member: Farrer Park?

Farrer Park. A good place, Farrer Park. A very sensible ward! Sir, the position prewar was that the football pitches at Farrer Park were very good. During the war, what happened was that the Japanese confiscated all sorts of vehicles and used Farrer Park as a dumping ground for these vehicles, with the result that the drainage of Farrer Park suffered thereby. This drainage has not been restored to its fullest capacity since the war. As a result, flooding takes place on the pitches. If there is a heavy downpour of rain, it is not possible to play off these games. From that point of view, Jalan Besar Stadium is well looked after, because even after the heaviest downpour, it is possible to play a football match there. But in Farrer Park, which is used by Second Division and Third Division teams, if a heavy downpour takes place, say, within half an hour of a game starting, it becomes almost impossible to play the matches there. So I ask the Government to look into that matter and see what they can do to put the matter right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise. Just now I was discussing a matter with the Member for Tanglin. That was why I was taken by surprise. I did originally intend to point out to you that the two items - children's playgrounds and parks - could not be separated because in every park .there are children's playgrounds. Both parks and children's playgrounds, whether with or without a park, serve the same purpose, for children to play in and for them to have a breath of fresh air. What I was trying to point out just now is that with all these open spaces, be they parks or playing grounds, there is a congestion of parks and not a congestion of people in a small area. 4.30 p.m. As the Minister for Health and Law pointed out, they are meant to join up with Elizabeth Park on the seaside. Sir, .that is the place which needs the least numbers of parks because of the sea air and the open space. This is in my area, and I am glad the Government is making the Mountbatten Ward as healthy as possible, with as much fresh air as possible. But what I would like to point out is that while these parks exist for the people going there to have fresh air, the air is polluted by the ikan belis spread out all over the place - in, outside and around the parks. In fact, the empty spaces meant for the people going there to have fresh air are giving out foul air.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is in the daytime that some ikan belis is dried on the promenade and not in the parks. [Interruption]. I do not think anybody can be blamed for the obnoxious smell produced by the drying of this fish. The Member for Mountbatten says there is no need for any development on the seafront because the people have a lot of sea breeze to inhale. Mr Speaker, the Member for Hong Lim tidied up the piece of land fronting the sea all along Nicoll Highway. He had it paved and developed as a promenade. It is a place which the public of Singapore use every evening. I do not know whether the Member for Mountbatten goes out at night, but if she does, she will see that the crowds flow over Nicoll Highway on to the promenade. You can see them every night. It just shows that she is not nocturnal in her habits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to find out one thing. The Minister says he could not be blamed for the smell of ikan belis. But are those side paths meant for that purposes? They are meant for the people to use. Why should ikan belis be spread out on them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question has been bothering me for quite a while. I am assured by experts that it is just the treatment of ikan belis that gives it that special flavour. I have two solutions to this problem. One, of course, is for the residents of the area who object to this practice to rear a lot of cats and to let them go, all over the pavements. The other solution is to devise some system of mechanical drying of ikan belis.

Order. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will look into that when he revises his Development Plan.

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

Amendment (3)*? The Member for Geylang Serai is not here. Mr Rajah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4*. *The same amendment also stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Low Por Tuck, Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib and Mrs Seow Peck Leng. Mr Speaker, Sir, the same position prevails here. Although a fair sum of money running into six figures was voted for the year 1961, only $1,500 is expected to be spent. Perhaps it is no use crying over spilt milk at the moment. But I notice that the Government has put in $950,000 for swimming pools for the year 1962. From my own experience, I think it costs about $4 million to put up a pool. So am I right in assuming that the Government intends to put up four pools for the year 1962? If that is correct, where are the sites going to be?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4." The Member for Cairnhill is not here. Is the Member for Queenstown speaking?

No.

(In Mandarin): Sir, on this question of swimming pools, the Government is using the figure of expenditure to play the fool with the people.

Order. I think the hon. Member has made that point about ten times. If he carries on making that point, there will not be much time left for the Opposition.

(In Mandarin): I remember in 1958 when we were in the City Council we intended to build two swimming pools, one in Kallang and the other in Queenstown. But we are now coming to the end of 1961 and we still do not know whether these two swimming pools are to be built. I remember these projects were approved by the P.A.P. City Councillors, but up to now they have not been built.

Inche Ahmad Jabri?

I am not speaking.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng?

I am not speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been out of touch for some time, but I know the proposals are to build two swimming pools - one in the Kallang Park area in that part of the park which faces the premises of the People's Association, and the other in the Queenstown area. The $1,500 in the Development Estimates has been expended in making test borings. It is proposed to build a big swimming pool in the park. As you know, it is an area in which the ground is very soft and we are getting engineering advice on how best to build a swimming pool on such ground. We have in the Ministry of Labour an advisory council on sports. They have looked into this programme of building a swimming pool in the Kallang Park in great detail, and have taken the advice of engineering experts. I think this project will be under way very soon.

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

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5.+ +The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Low Por Tuck. Sir, you will see that $560 is supposed to have been spent on improvements to the Van Kleef Aquarium. We know that a new fish tank has been put in the Prime Minister's Office. We are wondering whether the money for improvements to the Van Kleef Aquarium has been spent on this tank.

I think it is correct. The small aquarium put up in the reception room was paid out of that particular development fund.

May I find out from the Minister for Finance what kind of fish the Prime Minister likes?

Sir, the Prime Minister has not got any fish. They do not belong to him. I suggested that small turtles should be added to the usual tropical fish there, but I was advised that this was not possible be cause the turtles would eat up all the ordinary tropical fish.

Exotic fish!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Revised Plan Cost for the Van Kleef Aquarium was $30,000, but the Government has riot improved the Van Kleef Aquarium. On the contrary, it has improved the Prime Minister's aquarium. The fee for a visit to the Van Kleef Aquarium is 30 cents. Is it also necessary to pay a fee for a visit to the Prime Minister's aquarium?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum of money provided is to, be spent on necessary improvements. If no improvements are required, then, of course, the money will not be spent. This depends on the experts who are looking after the aquarium.

Working in the Prime Minister's Office?

With regard to the aquarium, it is situated in the reception room and not in the Prime Minister's Office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister for Finance whether that is the basis on which he allows all these votes to go in?

Since the Minister for Finance has admitted that he has misused the funds, I think we are entitled to a vote on this subhead.

I do not, for one moment, admit that this is a misuse of public funds. Of course, it is beyond the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of fish in a well-decorated aquarium. But the Prime Minister does entertain guests and important people from overseas, and while they are waiting in his reception room, what better way is there of putting them in a nice frame of mind than for them to see a delightful aquarium? I do not think it is a waste of money. It is a small sum and I do, not think anybody should quarrel with this modest amenity.

Perhaps the Member for Queenstown would have been better satisfied if the subhead had a different title. There is half a minute more.

The aquarium also gets some publicity from the fish tank which is decoratively placed in the Prime Minister's anteroom.

It is the deception that we are against - just like all the other items in the Budget!

There is no deception, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is there for all to see.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head D47 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck, was not proceeded with: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D47 be reduced by $100. The sum of $1,419,450 for Head D47 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 4.45 p.m. Head D48- The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri - That the sum to be allocated for Head D48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.

Inche Ahmad Jabri? He is not here. The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head D48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.

I am not moving. The following amendment stood in the names of Inche Ahmad Jabri and Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head D48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5.

I am not moving. The following amendment stood in the names of Dr Thio Chan Bee and Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the sum to be allocated for Head D48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

I am not moving. Mrs Seow Peck Leng indicated dissent.

Amendment (5)*. Dr Thio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7.* Sir, I see here an item given as "Rural Settlement", and in the Develop ment Plan it is described as a settlement for the aged. That is a good object and I think we are all for it. But I wonder if the Minister in charge would not also consider a rural settlement for those who are tired of living in the slums, who are, unemployed and whose future in the slum areas is bleak, and whether, if they want to resettle as farmers, that could be provided. At the moment, there is only a resettlement scheme for those possibly evicted, but for those who voluntarily want to get away from the slums there is no provision. I wonder whether the Minister in charge will consider a possibility like this in the future.

I am not speaking.

Of course, what the Member for Tanglin proposes is very praiseworthy if only we have the money and only if we have the land. Unfortunately money must be spent on other more urgent tasks, and the, total area of Singapore is just over 215 square miles.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what the Minister for Finance has said, the Government's Development Plan then should be thrown into the waste-paper basket. In the Development Plan there is an item for social welfare development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Havelock has mis understood what the Minister for Finance said just now. He was replying to a proposal by the Member for Tanglin that we should try, from these funds, to resettle people in the city who are unemployed. The reply of the Minister for Finance was that we would like to do all these things if we had the land and the money. Mr Speaker, Sir, that vote relates to the resettlement of the aged poor. Mr Speaker, Sir, you know there are two homes for the aged poor; one is at Woodstock in the Tanglin area, and the other is at Bushey Park in the Chinatown area. It is proposed to move the aged to a new habitation in the Mount Vernon area. There is a site available for that purpose. We hope to build small houses for them and get these people to live not in barracks or dormitories but in detached buildings where they can keep their own poultry and do a little bit of farming. That is the project we have in mind. It will have to be paid for from this vote if approved.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D48 be reduced by $100.+ +The amendment also stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng. The reason for my amendment is that for the year 1961 we approved a vote of $360,000 for the Development Plan. $6,000 has been spent on social welfare from the estimated expenditure. Mr Speaker, in this year's expenditure on social welfare, the Government proposes to build at least three creches. In the 1959 election campaign the P.A.P. said they were going to fight for women's rights. If the Government could build more creches, then it would be very helpful to women. Women then could ,go out to work and leave their children in the care of those in charge of the creches, so that they could work without any worry. The three creches are to be built at Tanah Street, Bukit Ho Swee and Geylang Serai. Mr Speaker, I wish to answer a question raised by the Member for Delta. There are no creches there. There is also no creche in the Stamford area. The Government are going to improve themselves. I am not going to say any thing about the good relationship with U.M.N.O.

Order. There seems to be a very interesting conversation going on between the Member for Stamford, the Member for Delta, the Member for Bras Basah and the Minister for Finance! I would suggest that the Member for Stamford address her remarks to me and ignore what is said on the other side.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am talking to you but since they asked, I have to answer. If they had not asked, I would not have answered. Concerning the other items, I think that if the Government is not sincere about them then I propose that the money should be used to build more and more creches and not community centres in order to allow women to leave their children in the creches. Another point I wish to raise is this. If the Government does not build more creches, then I hope it will build more homes to provide amenities for the old people.

I am not speaking.

The Member for Stamford rather grudges the small creche in Kreta Ayer, Sir. I would willingly exchange this creche for a swimming pool or for the National Theatre.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Stamford has accused the Government of having made a provision in the 1961 Budget but not spending it. The simple reason is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. The major items in the Budget, you will see, are the Junior Approved School and the Rural Settlement. The difficulty is to locate sites for these two projects. That accounts for the delay and why the money could not be spent.

Point of order.

The point of order being?

I need your guidance, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour mentioned the two items in the 1961 Budget as the Junior Approved School and the Rural Settlement. In fact, they are the Girls' Hostel, the Junior Approved School and the Muslim Welfare Home.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will repeat what he has said.

Just now, I explained that in 1961 the major items budgetted for were the Junior Approved School and the Rural Settlement.

Rural Settlement?

That is the last subhead in this Budget: Rural Settlement.

Order. In 1961 nothing was provided for Rural Settlement. I think that is, the Member for Havelock's point.

Anyway, all these are institutions and we require sites to build, them. There is difficult in finding sites and so there is a delay. And, of course, this money will be required for construction purposes. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Stamford does not seem to under stand this point: The Government is spending over $1 million to build a home for those old people who are homeless. These people are at the moment confined in Outram Road Prison and will be transferred to the new home when it is completed. In fact, this is the recommendation of the Prisons Inquiry Commission.

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

I will take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

5.31 p.m.

Does the Member for Stamford wish to withdraw, or does she want a vote?

Vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $755,700 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D49-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, subhead 1 - Academy of Arts. The total plan cost is $500,000. I see from the Estimates that the Minister has put in a token vote. Could the Minister inform the House what exactly he has in mind and what he expects of the Academy of Arts?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Academy will really bloom out of the National Art Gallery which we propose to build next year. The National Art Gallery as I will disclose when we come to that item -

Mr Speaker, they could be taken together.

If it is convenient, yes.

Yes.

We will take amendment (3)* as well. *Amendment (3), standing in the name of Mr Rajah, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7.

Yes. We propose to start a National Art Gallery sometime next year. The purpose of it is to exhibit paintings and works of art acquired by the Government, and also to provide a gallery where local artists can dispose of their paintings for sale. When the National Art Gallery gets going, it is proposed eventually to develop in the same building an Academy of Arts where, in addition to just exhibiting paintings and so on, there will be courses teaching painting, music and dancing. At the moment, this is no more than a conception. For that reason, we are just putting in a token vote of $10. Probably the Academy of Arts will not get going until perhaps in 1963.

Now the National Art Gallery. I see that the Government has put in a vote of $500,000 for next year. Will that expenditure be incurred in the purchase of pictures by local artists, or is a part of that, money intended to be spent on building and furnishing of the Art Gallery?

This is expenditure both for the building, for which we have acquired a site near the National Library, and also for equipping the building for exhibiting works of art.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to, move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead 2. Sir, this item (5) is in respect of replacement of seven studio doors. The vote asked for is $8,200. I am wondering what kind of studio doors those could be costing more than $1,000 each.

Sir, I understand that these doors, unlike the front door of my house or that of the Member for Cairnhill, are studio doors. If anybody has gone to one of the studios of Radio Singapore, he will find that these doors are not the kind that they can enter, for they are specially constructed. They are "accoustic" doors, one side of which faces an air-conditioned room and the other side faces outside, which is of ordinary room temperature. I understand from the engineers that under such conditions a door of this kind will be subjected to considerable stress and .strain on account of the differences in temperature, and will have to be specially constructed to be able to stand both the differences of temperature inside of the door as well as to be accoustically sound. These costs have been worked out by the engineers. That is why it costs $8,200 for seven doors.

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

Amendment (3) * is not being moved. Amendment (4), Tun Lim. * See footnote at Cols. 2287-8.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 10. Sir, this vote is in connection with television. The vote asked for is $1.8 million. Would the Minister be good enough to give us more details? Where is it going to be, and where is it hoped that television will be shown in Singapore?

It will be convenient to take both these matters together, unless we deal with some different principle, such as equipment or building.

There is no amendment in regard to equipment.

Is it?

But the Minister may speak on this as well. He may speak on both.

The preparation for setting up a television station has proceeded to the extent of our having started negotiations with the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company and the Japanese firm of Marubeni-Iida Company, Limited, to provide us with equipment for television. In fact, the work will be shared out between these two firms. We also intend to purchase a piece of land next to Radio Singapore because the present site is not sufficient to accommodate both the Radio Singapore building as well as the new television studio. The moment the land has been acquired, it is proposed to start building the studio itself. But I am told the studio would take about two years to complete, because it is a specialised type of building. But during this period it is possible to have a sort of temporary television service from a semi-permanent building or a reconditioned Radio Singapore studio building. I am told the target date for broadcasting television would be sometime in September or October next year.

I see there is, in fact, an amendment to the whole of subhead 10 standing in the names of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Mountbatten. Dr Thio, perhaps we could deal with it now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that, according to the 1961-1964 Development Plan, there should already be one channel of television functioning. It says here: 'In 1961 a one channel television station with film unit will be completed ...'. Apparently there has been a delay of one year. Sir, television is something new to us here. I hope the Minister will not just transplant everything that goes on in other temperate regions to Singapore, because some of our surroundings are different. In a temperate country one could easily pack a dozen or 20 or 50 people in a small room. But here, we do not want to encourage such a large group to view one television set. The other point is this, Sir. There is always a fear on the Opposition side - especially the Barisan Sosialis, but sometimes we also share with them their fears - that when the Government organises something, it is thinking not of the educational or cultural value of the new thing but its propaganda and political value. In order to -

Order. If my recollection is correct, I think we have discussed the principle of television and television programmes when we discussed the Estimates. If I am right, then I would suggest to the Member for Tanglin that we should not go back or, that discussion. But if I am wrong -

We have not.

We have not. Sorry. Dr Thio, please continue. 5.45 p.m.

I would suggest, Sir, that he take the same approach as the Minister for Education in dealing with his 4:2 and 3:3 controversial educational issue. He refers it to a so-called body of experts. If there could be appointed an advisory committee on television, that would help a great deal. Parents may want to know what sort of programmes will be provided, because I see here a statement that there will be commercial programmes, and that it is, hoped the fees will meet all running costs. Sir, we know that television is going to be very expensive but if, for the sake of meeting all the running costs, we, sacrifice , the educational value of television and instead suffer, something that is injurious to the progress of our younger generation, then it will not be good to introduce television. So an advisory committee will be a great help. I would suggest also that if all Party representatives be on that committee; then that would prevent suspicious ideas being entertained by Opposition Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt the Minister for Culture must have contacted technical experts before he mooted the idea of television in Singapore. I do not pretend to know anything of the technical side of television. But there is, I would suggest, the other side of any project, and that is the effect of television on the people, especially the youth, and how it is going to be accepted by the people. As I have said, I have no technical knowledge but I was fortunate enough, when going through different countries, to be able to put up in homes where there were television sets. My special interest being in the welfare of women and youth, I have had discussions with those people who used television sets and with mothers about the effect of television on the children. We have also had round-table discussions whenever subjects such as vice and television and their effect on children come up. Apart from that, Sir, my interest in this subject has taken me through Melbourne. I saw the Director of the Audio Visual Department of the University of Melbourne. Apart from discussions with him when going round his University and seeing the things connected with audio vision we discussed it again recently when he visited Singapore on his way back from America after having studied the educational use of television. After he left Singapore, we still correspond, and I have very valuable suggestions made by this expert, who has made it a special study when going round the different parts of the world to see how television can be used for education. Sir, in all these discussions and experiences of mine, there is, one prominent feature on which everybody seems to agree - that television, if handled the wrong way, can be a curse to the nation; but if handled properly right from the beginning, can be a very very important arm of the education system. I would like to quote just a few lines of the correspondence between this Melbourne University expert and myself on this. He says: 'Television could either help solve the problem of teacher shortage, swollen classrooms. more knowledge in less time; or it can be a serious competitor with all existing educational and communal welfare efforts.' He continues to say: 'In undeveloped countries [meaning the developing countries, I suppose] where the governments are using every possible means to focus education on national construction for the national future, urging its citizens to help even to the point of self-sacrifice, it seems incongruous to me to waste funds and efforts in establishing an instrument which will have the very opposite effect.' Sir, I have also learnt that once television has been accepted as mere entertainment (the countries that have made that mistake are regretting it now and they feel that any country that is beginning, to introduce television should be very careful), it is very difficult indeed to bring education into it. That is the opinion of most experts, mothers and others that I have met. It says here: 'Entertainment television as opposed to instructional television is acknowledged everywhere as, at best, one of the most successful time consumers ever invented.' And it says: 'Undeveloped countries can use the new television medium ...' Now, this is the most important part -

Order. Could the hon. Member indicate what document she is reading from?

Sir, these are some suggestions given by this man who has gone to study television and, if you like, I could hand this over.

Is it a private document?

It is.

Order. What the hon. Member should do is not to read from a private document, but to paraphrase it and say that she has the same views.

Yes, Sir,It just shows television with all its novelty and glamour and attractiveness as something new being introduced. This quality can be used very successfully to introduce education into it. Television has been known to have the quality of holding people to the set. As I have said, that can be a curse or an advantage. Now, Sir, this is a private document, but if the Minister would like documents, which are not private, on articles such as "Automation coming into School" and telling how television has been very successful in certain schools in America and has been a failure in others, and "T.V. finds its place in U.S. schools", I can assure him that they are very useful and are the results of study made 'by an expert on the matter. I do hope, Sir, that the Minister for Culture will give this very serious thought, because I have, as I have said, come across people who think that television is a curse to their nation.

With regard to what the Member for Mountbatten has said, I could not agree more. Definitely, any instrument, whether it is television, radio or cinema, if badly used, becomes a curse. If it is well used, it becomes valuable. In designing programmes for television we have borne in mind both its entertainment and instructional value, i.e., we want to make a success of television, so as to entertain as well as to instruct. We have an expert from Australia who is helping us in our programming, and we also had valuable suggestions from the N.H.K., Japan, as regards programming and the extent to which television could be used for school broadcasts. In the formulation of school programmes, we will naturally consult and get the advice of teachers on how best television could be used to assist teachers in their work. In fact, when I was in Japan last year, I went to see some of the school programmes. They told me that, as a result of introducing television, the powers of comprehension of a child have increased by about 100 per cent, when a child begins to understand what things are which he only reads in books. So I certainly agree with what has been said by the Member for Mountbatten. I also agree with what the Member for Tanglin has to say. We must use television to good effect, and to beware of its social effects. As regards the role the Opposition can play in making television a success, if anybody is interested and can play musical instruments, dance and sing, I shall be glad to consider any suggestions they have to offer in that respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister mentions experts. Can I ask him whether they are all technical experts, or are any of them educationists? He did mention getting teachers. Could I suggest that teachers who know nothing about television and teachers who have not even seen television are not likely to be very helpful in the subject, unless they have made a study of how television can help the children. When the Minister mentions the Opposition doing some dances and music, he may have meant it as a joke. But that is exactly what we are warning him against - the wrong type of culture, which is thought to be culture when it is not really culture. When you talk about it, it is not so bad, but when you actually see it, Sir, it becomes worse than yellow culture. I do not know what colour to call it.

At least for the next five years, our television will be in black and white. So there will be no particular colour attached to it. As regards the role teachers play, it is not so much on the technical side. As we are going to have school programmes, the teachers should let us know what exactly they want. It is no use, say, in a particular year, they have, as part of the literature textbooks, some famous novel and if we have films depicting scenes from some other world, it may not be valuable. For example, this year, we are playing King Henry V. That is a textbook. So we make it into a film where scenes from the play are enacted. So the teachers' role is not to help actually in devising the programme but to give their suggestions and to say what value such and such a programme has, and how they think it could be put over to the children. As regards the general content of what is good culture and what is bad culture, I am quite contented that so far the radio programmes have Managed to avoid rather deplorable examples of yellow culture. The nearest we got to, I think, was when the Member for Hong Lim said we had a song about "I am my own Grandpa", and I am told since then, we have never exceeded the bounds of decency.

Sir, from the Minister's answer, I realise he still does not quite catch what I mean by the potentialities of television in education. Probably not being an educationalist and not having studied television enough, he does not understand. But can I suggest to the Minister that he get an expert on the subject? Evidently it is difficult for me to explain to him here. I would try in the C.P.A. Room if he would like to talk to me. I am not such an expert in the technical part, but in the social part of it, I can tell him quite a lot of things. But would he, before he really launches on the subject, make up his mind that an expert on the educational side of television be consulted?

Would the Minister like to talk to the hon. Lady?

Yes, I will talk to her.

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

Amendment (5)* is not being moved. Amendment (6)+, Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $100.+ *The amendment standing in the names of Dr Thio Chan Bee and Mrs Seow Peck Leng, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10. Mr Speaker, Sir, because there is only 15 minutes left, I therefore intend to cut short my speech. In the whole estimates we can see clearly here that the Government is very interested in and concerned with Malayan culture and its early conception. Therefore, this House also feels that the development of a Malayan culture is very important to the whole nation, and that it is necessary that we must have Malayan culture as soon as possible. Therefore, last year, when a meeting took place in this House, we approved a sum of $4 million for the development of the Ministry of Culture. But the Ministry of Culture has spent only about $1 million this year. That means only one-quarter of the estimated expenditure. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Culture, since its inception, has carried out a great deal of cultural activities. It has disseminated its efforts and has tried to encourage cultural organisations in their activities. We know that there is no central organisation in the Ministry of Culture to co-ordinate all the cultural activities in Singapore. Therefore, at present, all the cultural activities in Singapore are carried out by amateur organisations such as the Old Boys' Associations, the trade unions and the rural organisations. If these organisations do not make an effort to carry out cultural activities, then the so-called Malayan culture will not take shape, because the Ministry of Culture itself does not encourage cultural activities. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that almost every cultural body in Singapore was invited to take part in the National Day celebrations and in the Cultural Festival. Unless these cultural organisations are prepared to contribute items and talent, then the results of these celebrations will not be so very good, and this is not conducive to an early conception of Malayan culture. The Ministry of Culture expresses doubts in respect of the items contri buted by the people's organisations. They are invited to contribute items for the celebrations, and when they apply for their performances to be approved, they are always turned down. The Minister for Culture and his Parliamentary Secretary have publicly appealed to the people of Singapore to take part in cultural activities and to contribute literary works, dances and music. But the Ministry of Culture takes a doubtful attitude and sometimes it even looks down upon the works of local artistes. These people are therefore discouraged and they are unable to present their works to the people of Singapore. If this state of affairs is to continue, then I think the establishment of the Ministry of Culture is nothing but a propaganda organisation which just disseminates the policies of the Government, and the whole significance of such a Ministry will then be lost. The main objective of the Ministry should be the encouragement of local cultural activities. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, we heard the Yang di-Pertuan Negara saying that the Government would establish a Cultural Brigade and the Minister for Culture also spoke on this subject. At that sitting of the House I asked the Minister for Culture when the Cultural Brigade would be established in order to put more life into the cultural activities in Singapore. I am asking him again when the Cultural Brigade will be established. Could it be that the Cultural Brigade has not been established up to now because of political reasons? At that time, the Minister said he had nothing to do with politics. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see no provision for the Cultural Brigade in the present Estimates. We can only see provision for the establishment of the National Theatre. It is a good thing to have such a theatre. But if we do not have more programmes and more cultural activities, what is the use of having the National Theatre? From the speeches of the Minister and of Government Members, we can see clearly that the Ministry of Culture is not sincere in establishing the Cultural Brigade. I feel the Government should establish the Cultural Brigade. It is a good idea and it will put more life into the cultural activities in Singapore. The attitude of the Government towards cultural activities is decided by its political views. Sir, I understand many workers interested in cultural activities are not allowed to participate in the Cultural Brigade because, in the eyes of the Government, they are Communists or pro-Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, a man interested in cultural matters must take an active part in cultural activities, but in the view of the Government he is a doubtful character because he is taking a very active part in the promotion of culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel the Ministry of Culture must re-consider its attitude towards the establishment of the Cultural Brigade and it must not doubt the character of the cultural workers. Those people who are active in the cultural field must be absorbed into the Ministry of Culture so that culture may be actively promoted. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past two years, the Ministry of Culture and the Government have been talking about the people's attendance at the Aneka Ragam and so on, but this year the attendance at these performances has dropped. The attitude of the Government towards cultural organisations is one of suspicion. The Government is rather superficial in its dealings with the local cultural organisations. This goes to show that the Government is not sincere in the promotion of culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister for Culture will realise that, in order to have more cultural activities and more enthusiastic work in the field of culture, those who are now engaged in cultural work must be encouraged to take a more important part and be given more opportunities to present their works and to express their artistic abilities. It is only in this way that we can build a true Malayan culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that next week the Minister for Culture may go to Kuching. It is reported that he is going to lead a cultural mission to Kuching. I do not know whether he is going to treat the members of this mission as the future pillars of the Cultural Brigade. In conclusion, I hope the Ministry of Culture will try its best to encourage local artistes and it should not in \any way try to interfere with their work. It should not be suspicious of the works of local artistes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all that I can gather is this. The Mem ber for Choa Chu Kang feels that some local artistes are not being encouraged as they should be, because when he talks of local artistes and local cultural organisations being let down, he is not referring to all local artistes and local cultural organisations. There are certain types of organisations which have tried to introduce politics into, their cultural activities; they have tried to introduce programmes which do not conform with our intention to build a culture which is Malayan in character and in orientation. Of course, the Government has been careful not to allow itself to be used by them. Although it has been repeated before that the Government itself cannot create Malayan culture, all that it can do is to encourage cultural activities and hope that, as a result, of doing so, something worthwhile can come out of it all. The hon. Member has said just now that we have prevented local artistes or local cultural workers from expressing themselves. But he knows that the songs that have been banned and the dances that have not been allowed to be performed are Communist items and songs which everybody knows about. The tunes are there. They come at the last minute and give us a play which they all know has been banned before, because it is of Communist origin - not necessarily because it is of a Communist nature; there are some good Communist plays which we allow people to perform. But where you find a certain Communist play, poem or music is in conflict with our intention to create a Malayan loyalty and a Malayan con sciousness, we have prevented it. In each case where we prevent them or say, "You cannot play this," they try to smuggle it in. They then go and see a few Assemblymen and say -

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Sir, I have only a few minutes left.

There is only one more minute.

There are certain types of cultural organisations which have primarily political motives that are detrimental to the country, and they will certainly get no encouragement from this Government. But where cultural workers are interested in culture and in promoting Malayan culture and Malayan loyalty in conformity with what is accepted even in theory by Members of the Barisan Sosialis - the creation of a non-Communist, Socialist Malaya - they will get every encouragement they need. As for culture not flourishing, I am told, Sir, that the Victoria Theatre has been fully booked next year. To that extent, the Member cannot say that culture is not flourishing. Obviously it is flourishing very well, but perhaps not in the direction some of his friends would like it to go.

Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $8,518,560 for Head D49 stand part of the Development Estimates. 6.15 p.m. Head D53- The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng - That the total sum to be allocated for Head D53 be reduced by $100.

The Member for Mountbatten is not here. The sum of $2,637,520 for Head D53 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D55-

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D55 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. This Police Radio Equipment, as far as we know, was recommended to be changed since "1960. According to the Four-Year Development Plan, the Director of Telecommunications had suggested an overall change of all net works in a three-year phased programme starting from 1960. The networks that were supposed to have been changed were 3 for the Combined Operations Room and 3 for the Divisions, and in toto about $600,000 was expected to be spent in 1961. We just cannot understand why the Minister has not sanctioned this, and also why the whole programme has been deferred.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Member for Queenstown thinks it is time this radio network is changed so that the efficiency of the police is improved. I thought he had all along developed a kind of phobia against the police, and I am glad to hear from him that he thinks that the work of the police should be improved. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1961 we provided a sum of nearly $600,000 for this item. But we thought it was quite an expensive item and perhaps it would be better if we got a second expert opinion on this subject, hoping thereby to save the State a considerable sum of money. But in the end we found it was not possible, and a complete overhaul is necessary because spare parts for the existing equipment are no longer available. It is intended that the work should be completed by the middle of 1963.

Sir, far from having a phobia against the police, we on our side would like the efficiency of the police to be improved. But what we object to, Sir, is the wrong use of the police. The P.A.P. has been making use of the police as their own private organ. A State department is being used as a private P.A.P. organ - and is being asked to look after P.A.P. branches, and to tail their ex-colleagues, using young girls who look like I-do-not-know-what as decoys. The police is also being used against the strikers. That is not the way to use the police. It is for the protection of the people, not of the P.A.P.

Hear, hear!

Order. I will not have a debate on that. I think the Minister was wrong in bringing in personalities. Is there anything else on Police Radio Equipment? Dr Lee, any vote?

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2)*, Tun Lim. He is asleep!

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum -

Page 87, subhead 12.

- That the sum to be allocated for Head D55 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12.* Sir, this is a vote for the Special Branch, and the whole amount is $2 million. The vote for 1962 is only $200,000. Sir, in view of the fact that in the light of constitutional advance, internal security is to be in hands of the Central Government, do the Government now consider it advisable that they should go ahead with their plans to put up a new headquarters for the Special Branch?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember a few days ago the Member for Queenstown alleged that the Special Branch rules the Minister, and now suddenly I find him saying that the police are under the control of the Minister. As for the Special Branch building, Mr Speaker, just as the Member for Cairnhill has said, it is because internal security will come under the Central Government on merger that we have decided not to proceed with the $2 million building. However, it is necessary to make certain structural alterations to the present Special Branch building to meet the needs of reorganisation of the various sections of the Branch.

Sir, do I understand that the vote asked for is now meant for alterations to the building? When this vote of $200,000 was put in, merger was not in the air. Of course, I accept the explanation that the vote now asked for will be used for alterations and not for a completely new building. May I withdraw?

There is a note there. Perhaps the hon. Member has missed it - "Improvements to replace new project". Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh -

Amendment (3). Dr Lee.

I am not moving.

Amendment (4)?

I am not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D55 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 20. Sir, this vote of $12,000 is for a "Dumping Ground for Vehicles damaged in Accidents". May I ask the Minister, Sir, how will this vote be spent? Is it just to buy a piece of land, or is it for some structures to be built on the land?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present, damaged vehicles, especially vehicles involved in hit-and-run fatal accidents, are dumped along New Bridge Road, opposite the Traffic Court. For the purpose of obtaining evidence of blood stains and so forth, wrecked vehicles are normally retained there for about three to five days, but there may be occasions when such vehicles are kept there for as long as two months. It is, therefore, essential that such wrecked vehicles should be placed under cover in a secured parking place or a dumping ground properly fenced with gates to ensure security.

May I withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - That the sum to be allocated for Head D55 by reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 22.

I am not moving. The sum of $3,564,660 for Head D55 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D56- The following amendment stood in the name of Dato Abdul Hamid - That the sum to be allocated for Head D56 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

Dato Abdul Hamid is not here. The sum of $2,048,150 for Head D56 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D57-

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck.. These capital grants are meant for the expansion and modernisation of schools, old and new, and earmarked for last year was the sum of more than $3 million. Of this, only $250,000 has been spent. There is already a complaint that this grant-in-aid has not been fully used, and many grant-in-aid schools are wondering if the Minister is not a little too ham-fisted in the granting of aid. 6.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, under this item, we have approximately $3 million for schools. But we have spent only $250,000. May I ask the Minister, on what schools this sum of money has been spent?

Mr Speaker, Sir, when discussing the question of the Annual Estimates, I believe I had occasion to answer the Member for Changi in respect of capital aid for schools. I did say that the main difficulty about giving aid to schools was that such aided schools normally did not have free unencumbered title to the land on which the school was built. Because of that, even though approval to give aid had been given to schools subject to their being able to produce title to the land, they were unable to take on the grant which had already been allotted for them. I have already stated that we are attempting to relax rules for the granting of aid, but not without conditions as suggested by the Member for Changi. I hope to be able to pass the amended rules after which it will prove easier for such aid to be given. On the other hand, it will be noted that if the Ministry had paid out only more than a quarter of a million dollars for 1961, the balance of the year's allocation is being revoted so that the sum involved will still be available for distribution. That is why for subhead 1, we have a total of $3.3 million for 1962, which really consists of a $1 million vote for 1962 and a revote amounting $2.3 million.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. We see here, Sir, only an item - "Contribution to the Development of University of Malaya". What many of us are really interested in is what is happening to Nanyang University?

Has the matter not been sufficiently discussed? Does the Member really wish to discuss it again? I may be wrong, but I think we did discuss it under "Contribution to Nanyang University" in the Estimates. But if the Member wishes the Minister to repeat what he has said, he can do so.

If it has already been said, I will not bring it up again.

We will take it that the amendment has been moved and withdrawn. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3. I ask this question because I have noted in the estimates that in 1961 the Government has not spent a single cent on the development of the Singapore Polytechnic. If you look at the Development Estimates for 1961, on page 530, the vote is $778,930 for the year 1961. But not a single cent of that amount has been spent. The second question is that in the Five-Year Plan, it was stated that the Government wanted to train people. There is a scheme for training local people. But the Government has not spent a single cent on this. I hope the Minister concerned can explain to us about this question.

If the Member for Havelock will look at the 1961 Estimates, $778,930 appears to be for Phase I, whereas the 1962 Estimates are for Phases II and III. Perhaps he has not noticed that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry I have overlooked the figures.

I just want to put the record right. That is all.

In that case, I withdraw.

The Member withdraws his comments on the $778,930, is that right?

Yes.

It saves the Minister something!

May I ask whether it is on the second point?

It is on the second point. The Member for Havelock has another point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government has fulfilled the Phase I project, then I will speak on other items. I wish to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (4). Dr Lee Siew Choh.

My colleague will be moving.

Mr Low Por Tuck.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4. Under this item, the provision is for Equipment for Technical Schools. I have noticed that on page 530 of the 1961 Development Estimates, we approved $556,880 for equipment for technical schools under five items. But in the 1962 Development Estimates, Queenstown Secondary School is to spend $48,000, and Tanjong Katong Secondary School is to spend $53,070. But the other schools do not spend a single cent. On the other hand, for Queenstown Secondary School we have allocated $128,000, and for Tanjong Katong Secondary School, the sum allocated is $128,880. But the sum already spent is only $53,070. On Queenstown Secondary School, it has spent only $48,000. In this connection, I would ask the Minister why the provision has not been spent. In regard to some other schools the provisions are not going to be spent at all. In certain schools, only a small sum is being spent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks as if the Member for Havelock, who was formerly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, is rather anxious to know why the Government is not spending money fast enough. He has asked why, after having been provided with a sum of $128,000 for two schools - Queenstown Secondary School and Tanjong Katong Secondary School - we have managed to spend about $50,000, and, therefore, the balance of $75,000-odd has not been spent. I thought I explained sometime back that Queenstown and Tanjong Katong Secondary Schools were called technical schools a few years ago when they were opened by the previous Government. But they were no different from any other ordinary academic secondary school. So it was necessary for us to convert these schools into really technical schools by purchasing expensive technical equipment, which takes time even after the order has been placed. Perhaps it takes six to eight months before the equipment can arrive. That is partly the explanation. It is true that although there is provision this year for the purchase of equipment amounting to $100,000 each for the three technical schools - at Serangoon Garden Estate, Dunearn Road and Ngee Ann Kongsi - these schools will probably take till the end of 1962 before they will be established. So I do not think it is wise to order equipment even before the schools are available. That is why we have to provide similar sums for 1962 so that by the time these technical schools are really in existence the equipment will be available to go into the schools for 1963. 6.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the reply given by the Minister, the three schools, namely, Serangoon Garden Estate School, Tanjong Katong School and Ngee Ann Kongsi School, will only be completed by the end of 1962. But the question is, if it is the case, why then should we in the 1962 Development Estimates provide these provisions for these three schools, namely, the provision of $100,000 for each school, since no school is going to be completed within this year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the last item, you were kind enough to assist me by referring the Member for Havelock to another section of the Development Estimates. To answer the Member for Havelock, may I request him to be kind enough to turn to page 43, at the bottom of the page, where he will see that work has been going on at the Secondary Technical Schools at Dunearn Road, Ngee Ann Kongsi and Serangoon Gardens. For this year, $40,000, $40,000 and $120,000 respectively have been spent. In 1962, another $600,000 each will be spent. So that, as I have stated, we hope to have these schools ready by the end of 1962. The $100,000-odd for equipment will have to be placed, so that by the time that equipment arrives in Singapore, it can go into the schools and be ready for 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Minister has referred to page 43. If we look at page 43, these three schools will not be completed in 1962, because the estimated expenditure in 1962 is just a part of the original plans for these three schools, and there are sum of money required for a further year to complete these three schools.

It looks as if we will now be discussing not only the 1962 Estimates but also 1963. To really provide a secondary technical school with full equipment, it will be necessary to have equipment worth $150,000. But for the first stage, we think that $100,000 should suffice, because machines and fitting equipment would amount to $63,000, woodcraft equipment $20,000, metal craft $11,000, foundry equipment nearly $7,000, and building equipment $3,000 - a total of $100,000. That is the first stage. When the workshops have been equipped with this $100,000 worth of equipment, then perhaps we will have to make provision for an additional $50,000 per school to make it a really first-class secondary technical school.

Mr Low, withdraw? Mr Low Por Tuck indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 5.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh. Sir, the same question arises from this item. Last year's Budget providing furniture and equipment for these three types of schools are: (1) Primary schools $25,000, but $22,000 has been spent; (2) Post Primary Schools $243,000 voted for this year's expenditure, but not a cent has been spent; and (3) Secondary Schools, $822,100 was provided, but only $47,600 has been spent. Can the Minister kindly explain to us why all this money has not been spent?

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, it will not be necessary really to answer the first part of the question - Primary Schools' allocation $25,000 and only $22,000 has been spent. As regards the item of $243,000 meant for furniture and equipment for post primary schools, may I say that Government wants to be careful with its expenditure, and not just because there is a vote, therefore, we should spend it wildly. The Commission of Inquiry's Report on Vocational and Technical Education which has been tabled in the Assembly does give an indication of the repercussions that will take place in the education system of Singapore Whereby it is intended that one half of primary school leavers would be given vocational education in secondary schools; so that for the time being, although we call these schools post primary schools, this is only a transitional arrangement. When the Government publishes its White Paper to indicate how far it is prepared to accept the recommendations of this Commission of Inquiry's Report, we will be in a position to go full steam ahead. That is why for the post primary schools - or to be more up to date, the secondary vocational schools - we shall not actually spend the sum of $243,000 until we have decided how far we are prepared to purchase the equipment for these schools for the future. As regards the furniture and equipment for secondary schools this year, where there was a vote of $822,000 and only $47,000 has been spent, here again the building programme has not progressed as fast as we had hoped, and unless there are new secondary schools available for which we would have to supply furniture and equipment, there is no reason why we should just use the money to buy furniture and equipment and keep it in storage until the buildings are available. So we may as well defer spending this money and push it on to next year when, as the Member for Havelock is aware, we will have reached a stage where the Government is practically opening one new school every month. So I think late in 1962, I hope the Member for Havelock will not complain that the Ministry of Education is spending money too quickly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one small point that I have left out. That is in the 1961 budget, on page 530, there is under subhead 5, item (4), the Teachers' Training College. It seems that this item provided for a vote of $37,000 for the Teachers' Training College, but I could not find it in the 1962 Budget. Can the Minister be kind enough to point out where it is, and is it the intention of the Government to scrap this item?

Have you solved the mystery, Mr Yong?

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is like trying to look for a needle in the haystack. I shall try and find it and let the Member for Havelock know later.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 6. Under this item, that is, the Singapore Polytechnic, in the estimate for 1961, a provision of about $1 million was allocated to the Singapore Polytechnic for its expansion, but in the result, only $300,000 has been spent. So I hope the Minister will give an explanation for this. That is my first point. Since the Government is em phasising the raising of the standard of technical education of the people of Singapore, how much work has the Government done in this respect? It is useless to talk about how to raise the standard and how to train technical personnel and not do anything about it.

Sir, Phase I - Workshop building at the Singapore Polytechnic - it would appear that, according to the Public Works Department, this workshop will not be completed until well into 1962. They have spent a sum of $300,000, and therefore .there is this revote of $700,000 to make it a full $1 million. As for the second question raised by 1h Member for Havelock regarding the training of technical staff, the lack of technical staff and what Government proposes to do to remedy this deficiency, Sir, this is a world-wide problem. Every country is seeking the services of technical men and it takes time to train people to become technical men. I suppose we have to try somehow to make do; exhaust all possibilities; sometimes import people from outside. I suppose we have to consider paying them reasonable salaries to attract them to work in this country and just make the best we can in the circumstances.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are raising, this question because the Government is always saying that the shortage of technical personnel is a world-wide problem in order to evade the answer. This is not enough. The main thing is that we must make efforts to overcome this problem. If all the time we say there is a shortage of technical personnel and scientists and it is a world-wide problem, it is no solution to the question itself. But at least we must do something about it. From these Development Estimates we can see that the Government is not doing its part well.

I am sure the Government, of which the Member for Havelock was a member until recently, will be very pleased to hear constructive proposals from the Member for Havelock as to how to meet this situation. If he can put up proposals, we will be very glad to take heed of them and even adopt them. 7.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard my colleague, the Member for Havelock, asking the Minister for Education a question. Of the $1 million provided, the Government has spent only $300,000. Now what we are concerned about is whether the number of new students to be recruited for the technical schools next year will be reduced. The second point we are concerned about is whether the students who have passed out can meet the requirements in the practical field. If we do not have a good workshop, then I believe that the students passing out will not be able to meet the requirements in the technical field. Since the Government has a provision of $1 million, it already has a good plan. That is why it is shown in these Estimates for the approval of the House. It is up to the Government to have a plan and the Member for Havelock should not have been asked to make proposals. If the hon. Member were to make proposals, the Government may say, "The proposals suggested by the Member are not the same as those we have in mind." So I feel that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to find a way to build the workshop as soon as possible in order to help ease the shortage of technical personnel. We know that technical schools are very important. The establishment of the Singapore Polytechnic is also very important. That is the main reason why the question has been raised by the Member for Havelock. So I want the Minister to assure us that this workshop will be completed as scheduled.

Sir, it is surprising how people on the Barisan Sosialis side expect things to be done by just waving a magic wand. Perhaps we may explain to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that when we rear poultry, the laying of eggs is not done overnight. It takes time to put up a building or a workshop. You do not just stand up and shout. Plans have to be drawn up and it takes months to do the necessary things. It is not just like erecting an attap shed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Minister that it is not as easy as laying eggs. I know that it takes time. But if the Government expects 10,000 eggs to be laid next year, then it should ensure that it has the right number of egg-layers for the required number of eggs. Now if you have a plan but you do not carry it out, it is useless. What is the point of having figures! So I feel that the Minister's reply is not sincere. In all sincerity, we have raised this question in the hope that the Government will complete this work as scheduled. We are not trying to be difficult with the Government. We only hope that Government will try to do the work as soon as possible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Education gave a reply which was very discouraging and disappointing to me. According to his logic, the blue book of the Minister for Finance is useless. It would seem that the Development Plan contained in the blue book of the Minister for Finance- is just a plan. Time is required to do the work. So that means, according to the logic of the Minister for Education, that the 1961-1964 Development Plan will not be completed until 1971.

Sir, I do not think we need any lessons on logic from Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They can reserve all such lessons on logic for themselves. But I say, as regards the development performance by the Ministry of Education, the test is this. Is it providing enough schools for students who want to go to school? I say that the performance in regard to development expenditure by the Ministry of Education has been eminently satisfactory. In framing the Development Plan for the Ministry of Education, we had to work on past lessons to a great extent because this Plan had been prepared for some time. What happened was this. When the P.A.P. Government came into power, the long-term scheme for school building was at that time already several years in arrears.

We are talking about the Singapore Polytechnic.

No, schools in general. Both the Member for Havelock and the Member for Choa Chu Kang were making the point that,, generally speaking, there was under fulfilment of the development plans of the Ministry of Education. I was just making a reply to rebut this general statement.

I think now we had better concentrate on the Singapore Polytechnic.

As you wish, Sir.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 9.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee. Just now, we were talking about the building of schools. Under item (1), the land required for 1960 Schools was estimated at a cost of $364,200. I wonder how the expenditure for this year has been put to use. As regards the land required for 1961 Schools, the Government has only spent a quarter of the provision. In the case of the 1962, schools, there is nothing much to say. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter cannot be camouflaged by a very beautiful blue book or by empty talk which may appear to be interesting. But in actual fact, as regards the building of schools and land acquisition, the Government has not gone all out to carry out its duties and plans.

I am not speaking on the amendment.

I think it is getting somewhat monotonous to hear the Member for Havelock on the same old refrain about our having been provided with money and not having used it to purchase land. I suppose what he wants to see is some sort of land grabbing - here is the money, just buy every vacant piece of land available and say you want to build your schools. The idea of making a provision is that if you can do it, you have the money and the means to purchase land, plans can be drawn and the buildings can be erected. Personally, I do not see how I can go on answering the Member for Havelock if he keeps on asking the same questions.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the pro vision of money, we know there is no question about it. In the 1961 Development Estimates, we have already approved a great sum for the Government to carry out its work. As regards the plan, the Minister for Finance says that he already has a plan but that he has not carried it out yet. So what is the point of the Minister for Education talking about money and plans? We already have the plans and the money. How is it that the plans have not been carried out? The Minister cannot evade his responsibility by making excuses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Member for Havelock is really complaining about. I only said that the development performance by the Ministry of Education was quite adequate. I explained in my Budget Statement that schools completed this year would give places to more than 10,000 new pupils, and those schools to be completed shortly would give places to another 10,000 pupils. So long as the completion of school buildings can keep pace with the demand for new places, I would say that the responsibility of the Ministry of Education has been fully discharged.

(In Mandarin): Sir, all this goes to show that the Government has not carried out its development plan. In the case of the Ministry of Education, an examination will show that the plan for the building of schools in 1960 was not carried out.. The development plan on education has consumed only less than 30 per cent of the estimate. That is why I am pointing out that the Government has not done enough. There is no point in talking about propaganda. For 1962, we have facts and figures and we can tell from them that in the course of the last 2½ years, the Government has not done anything about the Development Plan. If we carefully review the whole situation in the light of the 1962 Estimates, then more than half of the work has not been done. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been accused of repeating the same questions. I have done so because I want it to be known that the Government has not discharged its duty with regard to the Development, Plan. We have given the money to the Government but it is clear that it has not done anything. If anybody looks at the Development Estimates carefully, this state of affairs cannot be denied. We are not trying to carry out propaganda work. It is all very obvious. The facts and figures are in the Estimates. The Minister for Finance is a Doctor of Economics and I was nothing but a middle school student; therefore, it can be said that I do not know very much about these things. This has been the attitude of the Government all along. If the Government had accepted the views of the people, then it would not have been in its present position with only 26 Members in the Assembly.

Time has elapsed. I take it that the Member for Havelock wants a vote.

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head D57 having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mr Low Por Tuck: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14. That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 15. That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 17. Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 18. Mr Low Por Tuck: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 18. That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 19. Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 20. That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 20. Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 20. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 21. That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 21. Tun Lim Yew Hock: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 23. Mr Low Por Tuck: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $100. The sum of $30,801,790 for Head D57 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 7.15 p.m. Head D58-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take items (1) and (2) together?

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, these two items concern the construction of bridges. According to the Development Estimates, the House has approved $1,500,000. Can the Minister for National Development explain why there has been a delay in the work and whether it can be started this year?

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1." The debate may range over item (2) of subhead 1*, i.e. two bridges: Bukit Timah and Adam Road, and Jambatan Merah. Mr Rajah. * The amendment, which also stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

I move it, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I think the problems involved from my point of view are different.

Well then, we will reserve that.

Sir, for Head D58, subhead 1, item (1) - Bukit Timah and Adam Road - the provision is for the construction of five bridges; three bridges across Bukit Timah Canal, and two across Adam Road. The three bridges across Bukit Timah Canal are required to provide crossings at suitable intervals when the one-way traffic system at both Bukit Timah Road and Dunearn Road is put into effect. Bridges of 40 ft. span will be built similar to the one at the 6th milestone. Plans for the work are nearing completion, and the work will be put in hand as soon as possible. As regards the other two bridges at Adam Road, they are to carry a traffic island along Adam Road and Farrer Road joining Dunearn Road and Bukit Timah Road. These projects are to be deferred for the present, pending finalisation of the Bukit Timah flood alleviation scheme. There is now an alternative proposal for this - to turn the flood waters of Bukit Timah Canal across to Ulu Pandan at the 6½ milestone. It will not be necessary to construct this project at Adam Road if the alternative proposal for flood alleviation in Bukit Timah is implemented, and, instead of bridges, possibly a culvert will be built at a very much reduced cost.

Would the Minister like to touch on Jambatan Merah? I think the same question was asked.

I think I shall not touch on it.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the same Head, I have also given notice of an amendment: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 26, which is shown in page 55 of the Development Estimates - Jambatan Merah Gyratory System (Thomson/ Norfolk/Kampong Java Roads). Mr Speaker, may I speak on that too, as I think they are linked together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a very great need to introduce a gyratory system at that particular junction. If one gets to that point, Sir, at, say, between half-past seven and eight o'clock in the morning, there is absolute pandemonium there. The whole system of roads there is such that it is very difficult to control traffic. Unless one has two traffic policemen spaced at, I think, literally 20 yards, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is just impossible to do anything with the traffic in that area. The roads in that area have been built up in such a way that with the housing development along Thomson Road (Sembawang Hills Estate), that road carries a lot of traffic. Just when it is about time for school, it is impossible to do anything about that place unless one has two or three traffic policemen controlling two or three points - one on one side of the bridge, the other on the other side. Sir, I welcome the Government's suggestion to improve Jambatan Merah in 1962 - the vote is $180,000. But I do suggest to the Government that the problem of the expansion of the bridge is intimately linked with the gyratory system at that place. It seems pointless to expand the bridge without doing something about the gyratory system. I do ask the Minister to consider the widening of Jambatan Merah in conjunction with the installation of a gyratory system at that place. Just to enlarge the bridge without doing something about the gyratory system is, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a waste of time and money. So I do ask the Minister whether he will give consideration to the construction at Jambatan Merah in 1962 for the sum allocated and ask his officers whether they will not propound a scheme for the gyratory system at Thomson/Norfolk/Kampong Java Roads. If the Minister will look at some of the old files of the Singapore Improvement Trust, I think he will find plans in connection with this. I am aware of these plans.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1." As indicated, the debate may range over item (4) of subhead 26 at page 55.

Sir, I agree with the Member for Farrer Park that in this area - Jambatan Merah - traffic is almost at a standstill during the busy hours, and traffic policemen have to be stationed there at these hours to ease the flow of traffic. The provision under subhead 1, item (2) is to build a new bridge. This new bridge is to be part of a proposed gyratory system at the very congested junction of Thomson Road, Kampong Java Road, Keng Lee Road, and Norfolk Road. The proposal includes two traffic islands and a central dividing strip. The existing bridge will carry traffic going north, and the new bridge will carry traffic travelling in a southerly direction. Work on the bridge has already started and the contract is due for completion on 5th September, 1962. As regards item (4) of subhead 26, this is a provision to build road works. Road works will commence when all the bridges are completed in 1963.

I am happy to hear the explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir,I have just one other request for the Minister. After this new bridge at Jambatan Merah has been erected, I do hope that the officials in charge of erecting and painting this bridge will paint it red. Because the name for that bridge in that locality, Mr Speaker, Sir - and I know it as it is in my ward - has always been Jambatan Merah. Once upon a time there was a move in the City Council to paint ft green, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the City Council stopped it.

Sir, this bridge will definitely be painted red, otherwise it will not be called Jambatan Merah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dato Abdul Hamid - That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2.

Dato Abdul Hamid is not here. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Ong Chang Sam -

I am not moving amendments (4) and (5). The following amendment stood in the name of Dato Abdul Hamid - That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8.

Dato Abdul Hamid is not here.

Sir, can I take amendments* (7) to (11) together? *Amendments (7) to (11), standing in the names of Mr Ong Chang Sum, reads as follows: (7) That the sum to allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 11. (8) That the sum to allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 11.

That the sum to allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of subhead 11. (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 12. (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of subhead 12.

Are they all connected?

Yes, they are all connected.

Please move.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 11. Mr Speaker, Sir, we see that from the Development Plan of the Govern ment that only about 33 per cent of its provision has been used, particularly in respect of the P.W.D. where only some work has been done. The other point I want to raise is that the Minister for National Development must take note that all construction work, especially flood alleviation works, must be considered in respect of the interests of the people's livelihood. But the P. W. D. seems to be more concerned with air conditioners and air conditioning plants. But this is of minor importance. What we want is to give better benefits to more people. 7.30 p.m.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 11." The debate on the general principle is, to range over item (3) of subhead 11, item (7) of subhead 11, item (6) of subhead 12, and item (7) of subhead 12. The general principle is that not enough of drainage work has been carried out.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will use the same words. I say the same thing to the Minister concerned. That is to say, in the 1961 Budget, there was such a provision for this use, but the Government has not made use of it. For instance, there was $200,000 voted for certain items. For Geylang Serai, there was a provision of $800,000. At Circular Road, $20,000 has been provided for flood alleviation work. But then only $10,000 was spent. And this sum was spent only during the Hong Lim by-election. When the P.A.P. was defeated, the remaining work to the value of $15,000 was not carried out. It was cancelled. If I were to enumerate every item; then this would dishearten everybody, because this will only show that the Government has not done its work well.

It is all on the point that the Government has not enough of work. Dr Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Havelock was for nearly two years my Parliamentary Secretary.

That is something!

If he had, during his two years, bothered to learn the simple elements of financial procedure, he would not have drawn inferences from the Estimates in the way that he did. The fact that the whole of a certain vote has not been spent in that year is no indication at all about the state of completion of this particular work. For one thing, the financial accounts had not been closed at the time these Estimates were prepared. A lot of the figures entered there were very likely in the nature of estimates of what the vote condition would be by the end of the year. Before we could draw any inference from any particular development expenditure, we must take into account the amount revoted. I have gene to great lengths to explain that development expenditure is less easy to fore cast in advance than ordinary estimates, because the date of completion cannot be estimated so accurately in advance. It depends on how you deploy your engineers; how quickly tenders are put out; and how fast the work is completed. Sometimes work is held up because of the weather. Sometimes it is because the originating Ministries or departments put in last-minute changes in designs and so forth. Therefore, merely to draw an inference, as the Member for Havelock has been doing during the whole of the two days' debate on the Estimates, from the figure put in under the amount estimated to be spent in 1961, is completely erroneous. Anyone with a knowledge of the simple elements of financial procedure will know that the Member is just doing the wrong thing, a thing he would not have done if he had learnt his job properly when he was Parliamentary Secretary. An hon. Member: That is right.

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dato Abdul Hamid is not here. Amendments* (8), (9), (10) and (11) are not being moved. Amendment (12)+, Mr Ong Chang Sam. * See footnote at Cols. 2323-4. +That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 14.

Sir, can I move amendments* (12) to (16)? *Amendments (13) to (16), standing in the name of Mr Ong Chang Sam, read as follows (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 14. (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of subhead 14. (The same amendment also stood in the name of Dato Abdul Hamid.) (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (6) of subhead 14. (16) That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (7) of subhead 14.

Amendments (12) to (16). They are all on the question of flood alleviation. That seems to be convenient. Please move.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 14. Mr Speaker, Sir, these five items are all about flood alleviation schemes. In 1961 the Government asked the House to approve $3 million on these flood alleviation schemes. But the Government has only spent $1,400,000 on these schemes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the flood situation has become more and more serious in Singapore. At present we in Singapore have water rationing. But when there is a little rainfall many places are flooded. Perhaps when your car comes from Bukit Timah, it will not be able to pass certain areas because of the flood. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Government must double its efforts to carry out these flood alleviation schemes, because if there are no such schemes there are many farmers and people whose property will be swept away by the floods. Therefore, I hope the Government will expedite its efforts this year to carry out this work so as to alleviate or stop the flooding, and thus prevent loss of property. Their livelihood will be protected and they will not suffer any loss.

The debate ranges over items (4), (5), (6) and (7). I see the Member for Queenstown has also given notice of an amendment+ on the whole of the subhead which also concerns flood alleviation. + The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14.

I will not be moving.

The Member will not be moving. Mr Tan Kia Gan, on the general question of flood alleviation.

Sir, under subhead 14, flood alleviation, we see items on Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation? Schemes; Drainage of Catchment Areas, Singapore River and Sungei Ulu Pandan; Geylang Flood Alleviation Scheme: Geylang River - Concrete Lining; Radin Mas/Nelson Road Flood Alleviation Scheme. These are major flood alleviation schemes and mainly in the town area. When the Member for Choa Chu Kang talked about flood alleviation in the town areas, he mentioned farmers and other things. This has no connection with the farming areas. In fact, as far as the flood alleviation schemes are concerned, when , they are major schemes, plans have to be made. In the case of the Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme, as I mentioned just now, an alternative scheme has been devised. Under the new proposal, the water of the Bukit Timah Canal will be diverted. Instead of allowing it to come down to the city, it is now to be diverted at the 6½ milestone to the Ulu Pandan Canal.

When will that be built?

You can ask that question later on.

We have enough of questions.

About the Geylang Flood Alleviation Scheme, we have met with some snap speakers. This area, in which a flood canal will be dug from a point south of Airport Road to Geylang Serai and connecting finally with Geylang River near Geylang Road, is a very congested area, and negotiations will have to take place to move out the settlers. It will take some time before the plan could be carried out. There is another flood alleviation scheme in which we have to do some concrete lining of the Geylang River. Part of this has been finished and the other part will be done next year. In the Nelson Road/Radin Mas area, the first part of the scheme was completed in 1960. The second part of the work was started in April this year and will be completed in June next year. Since the Government took office in 1959, it has been paying attention to flood alleviation, and in various areas flooding is a matter of the past. For instance, Sir, in the Kampong Bahru area two big canals have been dug, costing over $1 million. Work has been completed and flooding is no longer a curse there. In Orchard Road and Scotts Road, the flood alleviation scheme has been finalised and there is no longer any flooding. In certain parts of Geylang Serai or Geylang area and Aljunied, the flood alleviation scheme has been carried out and such areas are no longer flooded. I cannot see why Members opposite should worry about Government pursuing this subject. We will do all we can to accomplish this scheme.

Can we ask the Minister when the flooding at Bukit Timah and along Dunearn Road will be alleviated?

Can the Minister for National Development answer that? Mr Minister for Finance, can you answer that? 7.45 p.m.

I was wondering whether the Member for Queenstown has bought or is contemplating buying properties in this area. [Laughter]

Order. Time has expired. Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang require a vote?

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head D58 having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mr Ong Chang Sam: Mr Low Por Tuck: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 16. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 21. Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) (ii) of subhead 21. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 21. Dr Lee Siew Choh: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 21. Mr Ong Chang Sam: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 22. Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Ong Chang Sam: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 22. Mr Ong Chang Sam: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 22. That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (9) of subhead 22. That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 24. That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 25. Mr Ong Chang Sam: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 32. That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 34. Dr Lee Siew Choh: Dr Thio Chan Bee: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 36. Mr Ong Chang Sam: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 37. That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 39. Mr Ong Chang Sam: Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib: That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 40. That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 41. Mr Ong Chang Sam: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $100. The sum of $36,287,630 for Head D58 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper are D23 Public Works, D31 State Advocate-General's Chambers, D37 Customs and Excise, D51 Defence Services and D59 Colonial Development and Welfare Schemes.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads as they appear in the fourth column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 8 of Paper Cmd. 36 of 1961 stand part of the Development Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $206,684,278 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 36 of 1961," put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr SPEAKER left the Chair of the Committee and took the chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions reported - "(1) That the sum of $352,920,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 35 of 1961." (13th December, 1961); "(2) That the sum of $206,684,278 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 36 of 1961.".

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

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

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