Hansard, 1961-12-19

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson) - from 18th to 25th December, 1961. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - from 18th to 24th December, 1961. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Labour -from 18th to 24th December, 1961.

31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last Thursday, 14th December, 1961, a delegation of seven, purporting to represent an organisation styled the "All-Singapore Chinese Secondary Students/Parents Association" called on me. I met them for about two hours together with my Parliamentary Secretary and two senior officials of my Ministry. Although there was no mention of this meeting in the English Press, both the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau issues of 15th December, 1961, carried a report of the Press conference which they gave after the interview, and there are indications that this organisation will persist in its agitation over the recent examination boycott issue. Also, since the new school year is due to begin a fortnight from today, and in the meantime graduation ceremonies and tea parties are being held in various Chinese secondary schools whilst the proposed Commission of Inquiry into the examination boycott has yet to be appointed, I feel it my duty, Sir, to acquaint this House of what transpired vis-a-vis the interview. On Wednesday, 13th December, I received a registered letter in Chinese from a certain Tan Kong Eng stating that a delegation of seven representatives of the "All-Singapore Chinese Secondary Students/Parents Association" would call on me on 14th of December at 10 a.m. to discuss - this, Sir, is the English equivalent: I quote - "matters concerning the change of system in the Chinese secondary schools with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement". The letter said that as the matter concerned the development of Chinese education, the Minister should spare some time for discussion though he might be very busy. After the interview, it was agreed that they would go back to re-discuss what had transpired at this interview and that they could come back again for another discussion, if necessary. I advised them that, in the meantime, it would be desirable to avoid issuing Press statements until the matter was resolved to mutual satisfaction. But, Sir, I see in the 15th December, 1961, issue of both the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau that a Press conference was held immediately after the interview, it was reported inter alia - here again, Sir, I quote the English equivalent: 'We wish to reiterate the nature of our representation. We would seriously point out that this delegation was created by the "All Singapore Chinese Secondary Students/Parents Association" to maintain and protect Chinese education, to look after the personal welfare of our children, to find a reasonable solution to the problem of changing the Chinese secondary school system. These are the responsibilities entrusted to us by over 2,000 parents.' What, in fact, is the true character of this committee of seven, who purport to represent the "All-Singapore Chinese Secondary Students/Parents Association"? It should be remembered that the meeting of 2,000 so-called parents held in the Chinese High School on Sunday, 3rd December, 1961, was convened by the so-called Action Committee of Students who boycotted the Government Secondary IV Examination on the issue that it was an "unreasonable condition" for Government to insist that only those who pass the Government Secondary IV Examination can present themselves for the Government Upper Secondary II Examination, which examination will only take place for the first time at the end of 1963. This normal educational practice and procedure has been accepted without question by 27 principals of Chinese secondary schools and the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee-Teacher Association. Of the seven representatives who met me, four of them claimed that they were not able to fill up a form in Chinese which I asked them to complete, and they had to be assisted to do so by my officials. They were Mr Lee Swee Seng, Madam Liu Geok Lan, Madam Yap Kim Lan and Madam Tan Wei Lam. It was a simple form, Sir, that I asked them to fill up in order to check on their credentials before the interview got started. Briefly, it asked for the name of the student each represented, his school and class, the relationship of the representative to the student, his occupation and address, whether he or she is a Singapore citizen and his or her signature. They were at first reluctant to complete this form and it took me nearly 15 minutes to persuade them they must establish their credentials. At one stage, they insisted on calling in the Press. Later on, they even asked for an adjournment to consider this matter, but I said it was unnecessary and that all I wanted to know was whom they were representing. Now, Sir, of this committee of seven which claims to represent "Parents of all students of Chinese secondary schools", not a single one is, in fact, a genuine parent of a student studying in a Secondary IV class. One of the representatives, Madam Yap Kim Lan claimed to have a step-daughter in a Secondary IV class in Chung Cheng High School but was unable to say which of the 15 Secondary IV classes she was in. However, a tedious search was made of the school registers by my officials, but they failed to find the student's name that was supplied. Two of them did have some relationship with Secondary IV students, namely, Tan Kong Eng and Ong Ban Song as brothers of students studying in Secondary IV classes at Sin Min High School and Chung Cheng High School respectively. The third, Lee Swee Seng, is not even a relative but a "friend" of a Secondary IV student in Chung Cheng High School. Of the remaining three representatives who had nothing to do with Secondary IV students, one claimed to have a younger sister studying in Secondary II at Yoke Eng High School, and two others claimed to have daughters studying in Secondary III at Chung Hwa Girls High School and Kong Yiong High School. It will be seen, therefore, that this committee of seven cannot claim to speak for parents of Secondary IV students who boycotted the examination - not to say of all parents of students in Chinese secondary schools. They were so told at this interview. Contrast them with the genuine parents who accompanied their children to the examination centres despite the picketing and thus proved that the boycott and the picketing was organised by a minority of agitators who misinformed the students and others over the issue involved. We have, Sir, the following interesting additional information on three of the seven representatives. Firstly, Tan Kong Eng - the man who wrote the letter seeking the interview - is also known as Tan Kwong Yong. He is the brother and not the parent of Tan Kwong Buck, aged 19, a Secondary IV student of Sin Mm High School, who was a member of the student delegation which met my Parliamentary Secretary on 16th November, 1961. Secondly, Ong Ban Song was a Communist terrorist who surrendered to the Johore police on 8th March, 1954, after deserting from the 5th Independent Platoon at Kulai and was released on 31st May, 1954. He has been Welfare Officer of the Kampong Kembangan Branch of the Singapore Rural Residents Association and its General Affairs Officer since June 1961. His younger brother, Ong Ban Kim, aged 17, is in Secondary IVA of Chung Cheng High School and was one of the picketers. Thirdly, Lee Swee Seng, also known as Wai Tau, is an active supporter of the Barisan Sosialis. His Secondary IV student friend, who boycotted the Government examination, Ng Way Ten aged 21, of Chung Cheng High School, Secondary IVK class, was one of the spokesmen of the student delegation which met my Parliamentary Secretary on 16th November, 1961 and an active picket leader at the Ministry of Education. It will be remembered, Sir, that this student delegation was responsible for distorting what actually took place at the same interview with my Parliamentary Secretary. And their circular letter dated 17th November, 1961, which was distributed to students and Members of the public, first received prominence in the second issue of Barisan, organ of the Barisan Sosialis, on 22nd November, 1961, which I made mention of in my earlier statement. In order that the House may have a true picture of what transpired at this interview last Thursday, and to avoid misrepresentation, I wish to summarise the position as follows. These so-called parents' representatives were told that the Ministry could not agree to their request to do away with the so-called "unreasonable condition" - that only those who pass the Government Secondary IV examination can present themselves for the Government Upper Secondary II examination, which will not be held till the end of 1963. It was suggested by one representative, Sir, that the "unreasonable condition" was not accepted by the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee-Teacher Association hut that it was surreptitiously inserted into the Press statement by the Ministry without the knowledge of the Committee-Teacher Association. This is not true. After a two-hour discussion over the issues, agreement was reached and a joint Press statement as published in the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau on 6th October, 1961, was first read out by my Parliamentary Secretary in the presence not only of eight members of the Committee-Teacher Association but also members of the Press. There is a photo, Sir, in the Sin Chew Jit Poh showing the Parliamentary Secretary in the act of reading the agreed Press statement. After this the President of the Committee-Teacher Association, Mr Ko Teck Kin, put his signature to the document to signify his agreement to the joint statement, which fact was also reported in the Nanyang Siang Pan of the same day. For purpose of record, the names of the eight members of the Committee-Teacher Association who were present that day were:- Ko Teck Kin Kheng Chin Hock Lim Keng Lian Foo Chee Fong Madam Lin Fang Lan Kao Hung Keng Tan Choon Teng Phua Chay Long One representative of the so-called parents suggested holding a referendum amongst all Chinese secondary school students over the so-called "unreasonable condition". This could not be accepted as no government in the world would consult immature school children on educational policies. What would be the situation if a referendum were asked on whether there should be examinations at all? I think it was indicated by the Member for Farrer Park that the likely result would be "No". Sir, from the evidence we had about this so-called parents' representatives and the students' boycott, it is now clear that the whole operation of the examination boycott was part of the pro-Communist campaign to stir up feelings against the Government. After the boy-Cotters had failed in their attempt to wreck the Government Secondary IV examination, they organised a four-day "student congregation" from 5th December to 8th December to have so-called "collective life" and "Hsueh-hsi", similar to the 1956 period, at the Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High School. During these so-called "Hsueh-hsi" sessions, student leaders read aloud the article on examination boycott from the Barisan, the organ of the Barisan Sosialis. At these sessions student leaders reminded those present of the Communist-inspired student movement which began on 13th May, 1954. One of the girl student leaders asked those present not to be afraid of brutal force and cited the May 13 incident as a worthy example to emulate. She urged that they should consolidate and prepare for a more bitter struggle ahead. She stressed, Sir, that in this Assembly, instead of debating the question of merger, the Government, she alleged had brought in the motion for police protection for parents of students taking the Government examination in order to divert the main issue with the hope that this bogus merger proposal could be carried through. Students were also taught to sing the following songs, "The May 13 March", "Holding Hands", "Praised be the month of May", "May 13 Remembrance Song". For the Current Affairs test, the following questions were among those set for verbal answer:-

The Minister made some reference to the Barisan Sosialis. He said that there was one Lee Swee . . . something, an active -

Active supporter.

- an active supporter of the Barisan Sosialis. Can we ask the Minister if he knows that there are the large numbers in Singapore who are active supporters of the Barisan Sosialis? Does he know that there are thousands and thousands actively supporting the Barisan Sosialis?

Order. That does not arise on the statement.

Well, we are glad in having so many active supporters. He also mentioned something about our Barisan being quoted by students holding their Hsueh-hsi classes. I think not only the students, Sir -

Is the Member asking a question?

Is there anything wrong, Sir, in our Barisan being quoted? He used to quote a lot from the P.A.P. Petir before.

A question has been asked. Does the Minister wish to reply?

I just thought, Sir, that to reply to the Member for Queenstown, all that was necessary for me in a ministerial statement is to make mention of facts: that so-and-so used this, and students were using that in their Hsueh-hsi sessions.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a motion standing in my name and that of the Member for Jon Chiat. In the circumstances of the somewhat explosive atmosphere around education, I have indicated to the Minster this morning by letter that I would appreciate it if he would let me know, since Government had indicated it was as anxious as I to appoint a Commission, whether he would, in fact, make a ministerial statement appointing a Commission so that we could avoid a debate wherein this educational policy might take on unhappy political slants, Sir. I am anxious that we should avoid that and have a non-political approach. Would the Minister indicate whether that is under consideration?

I wish to assure the Member for Anson that his request is under consideration.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

2.59 p.m. DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES, 1963

For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the totals for each head as they appear in the fourth column of the summary of expenditure on page 7 of Paper Cmd. 38 of 1961. Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. 3.00 p.m. Head D8 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Sir, there are certain large blocks of property in a very densely populated city area which will be reverting to the Government at the end of a ninety-nine year lease. I remember at one time that a certain school was offered a piece of that property. I think some of the leases might be expiring at the end of this year or at the end of the next two or three years. Sir, this will give the Government an opportunity to remove some of the very unhealthy areas there and do some clearance work. At the same time, we realise very well the great difficulty in resettling the people affected. I remember visiting one family living in a very dingy and poorly ventilated room and the rent was $20 to $30 per room in that area. I asked them why they did not go for the Housing Board houses, where they could get similar accommodation for about $20. The answer was that they wanted to be near their work. "Besides, if we go for the Housing Board houses in Queenstown, it means more transport money, loss of time; so we would rather pay even $10 per month more than go over there." Sir, these are some of the difficulties, and we wonder whether the Minister has made plans on the development of the area and how he proposes to resettle these people.

I do not think we can rebuild the slums of Singapore just on the basis of property reverting to the State on the expiry of the ninety-nine year lease. It is only bits of property here and there and not a continuous purchase of property that will revert to the State. But I think the Member for Tanglin has raised a very vital issue which has been exercising the minds of Government for some time. But we do not see it as something that we can do as part of the present Development Plan, because the Housing Board has enough on its hands to carry out its own housing programme which will be mainly outside the centre of the city. But obviously something must be done about the slums of Singapore. The building are old and dilapidated and are not being maintained. One possible approach which the Government has been thinking about is not only to make use of the properties which revert to their ownership at the end of the leases but also to buy up all properties in areas to be re-developed. But this is going to be a massive operation. Certainly it will cost several hundred millions of dollars, and it will perhaps take more than a decade to complete. We have asked the United Nations to send a specialist who can advice us on how to proceed with this long-term development of the city itself, how we can get rid of these slum buildings, and how in their places a proper and modern city could be built. But as I said, this is really a rather long-term problem, something perhaps for consideration in the second Five-Year Development Plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that in the past, when these 99-year leases expired, the Government renewed them on a similar basis with certain conditions which the Minister calls in a haphazard fashion. There are certain areas in Singapore, Sir, where a 99-year lease is granted in respect of large tracts of land on which a very great number of houses stand. Is the Government in fact, pursuing the old tradition of renewing these leases when they expire? And secondly, whether they would survey the problem, say, for the next ten years, to have an adequate understanding of the areas that would, in fact, fall due, and have an overall plan before issuing fresh leases in respect of those which already expired.

To the best of my belief, properties which revert to the State remain with the State. They are not being leased out to new holders. As regards the long-term development plan to rebuild the city, I have explained, in reply to the question of the Member for Tanglin, that we have taken note of this problem. We have made preliminary steps towards solving it. But, as I have said, it is going to be a long-term process.

I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,000,000 for Head D8 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D13 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D13 bereduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1. Sir, I have tabled in all 206 amendments under the Development Estimates. Sir, they have been put in because the Standing Orders require me to give notice if I want to raise any matter on which I would like to ask questions or seek information. But in order to cut this debate short, Sir, I think it would be convenient if you would allow me to roam over the Development Estimates. If I get satisfaction, I will therefore not find it necessary to move all the other amendments standing in my name.

If it is convenient, certainly.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, that being so, I would like, first of all, to say that from a close study of the Development Estimates which we have here for 1963 - it would appear that little work has been put into it. With only one exception, it is a very convenient reproduction of the 1962 Development Estimates, with different amounts estimated to be spent in 1963. Sir, the 1962 Development Estimates have at least been prepared with care, giving details of plan costs, revised plan costs, estimated expenditure up to 31st December, 1961, estimated expenditure in 1962, expenditure required to complete, and notes. The 1963 Development Estimates, Sir, just show plan costs, revised plan costs and estimated expenditure in 1963. These, therefore, do not give a complete picture. The 1963 Estimates have to be studied alongside the 1962 Estimates in order to have a clear understanding of what the 1963 Development Estimates are about. Sir, may I touch on this? From a close study of the two Development Estimates, it would appear that the 1963 Development Estimates can be divided into five classes. The first class is that under the item, a full vote has already been provided for in 1962, and yet for 1963 a token provision of $10 is asked for. I find it difficult try understand this. As far as my little knowledge goes of how budgets are drawn up, when one puts in a token vote of $10, it means that while the principle has been accepted, as in the case of the hospital at Kandang Kerbau which is to be built, the details have yet to be studied or finalised. But in this case of a token vote in 1963, it is an extra $10 that is asked for on an item for which full provision has already been provided in 1962. Therefore, I say, Sir, that these 1963 Development Estimates have been prepared with little or no work at all. It makes it difficult for the Opposition to understand and appreciate what is behind the motive in presenting as a rush matter the Development Estimates that do not coincide with the regular yearly Development Estimates, where full details are given. The Government wants a rush job of this for reasons which they have already explained. We have accepted those reasons. But they have made it more difficult for the Opposition to understand what they are driving at. That is one of it. One class is where full estimates have already been provided in 1962, and yet for 1963, a token provision is asked for. A token provision of $10, as far as we understand it, and as has been explained by the Minister in this House, it always put in where a principle has been accepted, but the details of the works have not been finalised or completed. How could it be a token provision when the work has already started, and the full amount has already been given? That is one class. The second class is that full votes have already been provided in 1962, and yet for 1963 some more money is asked for. I think there are over a hundred items where full votes have already been provided in 1962. 3.15 p.m. Just take a case in point, the multi-storey car park. Now, for 1962, $2 million has been provided, and the cost of that multi-storey car park is estimated to cost $2 million. Yet for 1963, $1 million is put in. Of course, I can understand, Sir, that $1 million could be a revote, because the Government does not expect that the full amount could have been paid or that the car park could have been completed in 1962. But then in 1962, in cases where it is a revote, it is clearly stated that the vote asked for is a revote. That is in 1962, where actual facts are given, it is revote. But for 1963, just "Multi-storey Car Park, Plan Cost $2 million, Revised Plan Cost $2 million, amount asked for $1 million." If we were to approve that $1 million, it could mean that the Government could use that extra million to pay for a multi-storey car park over and above the revised plan cost. Unless it is put in the notes column that it is a revote, we can have no control. Sir, it seems that the Ministers cannot be serious about it. They want the Opposition to vote a million dollars for them to put in an extra storey.

I do not want it.

Sir, they are now trying to tell a cock-and-bull story about the way they present this Budget which-they say - what did the Minster for Finance say? He explained in page 37, paragraph 3 ["First copy" of the Hansard]: 'To settle the details of allocation of votes and revenue between State and Central Government. additional work will devolve on Treasury officials and those Ministries affected by transfers of responsibility, and it is not likely that the 1963 Budget will be ready in time. This may well expose the Government to criticism. There might even be a loss of confidence in the administration. For this reason and in fairness to the administration, I will be asking the House to approve a vote on account for the first six months of 1963. I also intend to ask approval for the Development Estimates for the whole of 1963.' "In fairness to the administration"- May I say to the administration, in fairness to the Opposition, that they must present something that contains full details and not present something with no details at all and ask us to vote for it, as I have tried to explain in the case of this multi-storey car park. If we were to approve that vote of $1 million, although in fairness to the Government it means a revote, it means we would give the Government the authority to spend $1 million over and above the $2 million asked for in 1962. Sir, that is the second class. The third class is this. In 1962, you will find that the revised plan cost is so much; so much will have been spent by the 31st December, 1961, and a vote is asked for in 1962, and there is still some more money required to complete. Therefore, that money required to complete would, of course, have to be found in 1963. But then in the 1963 Development Estimates, what is put in to complete the work is more than what is inserted in the 1962 Budget as required to complete. Take a simple item, Civil Aviation. [Interruption] That happens to be the first one. Sub-Head 9, Passenger Terminal Building. According to the 1962 Budget, what is required to complete this sub-head is $1,140,000. But for 1963, the vote asked for is $2,140,000, which is $1 million more. And yet there is no explanation at all in the space provided for notes. Sir, if we were just to consider the 1963 Development Estimates without bothering to check every item bit by bit with the 1962 Estimates, we would not know. It would just disclose that the cost of the Passenger Terminal Building is $4.8 million, the revised plan cost is $3.14 million, and what is asked for for 1963 is $2.14 million. It does not give the true story. The third class is that the vote asked for in 1963 is much more than what is required to complete the work, according to the 1962 Budget. There is another class, Sir, and this is really very funny. For 1962, $10, a lot of $10, that is to say, a token vote of $10 to say that they want to build a hospital, but the details have not yet been completed or finalised or worked out. Therefore, a token vote of $10. And our approving a token vote of $10 for 1962 will allow the Government to go ahead with the scheme and to work out plans for whatever project the token vote is for. And for 1963, yet another token vote is asked for. That shows they do not want to do any work in 1962. If they do not want to do any work in 1962, then why ask for a token vote for 1962? Why not come to us in 1963? They think it is a playing matter that they do not want to do any work for the good of the people of Singapore [Laughter]. A laughing matter when they do not care to do that work with which they are entrusted. So you have a token vote in 1962; another token vote in 1963; there may be further token votes in 1964 and 1965. I do not think it will go beyond 1963, Sir, because they will be no more by then. The P.A.P. Government will have been finish ed by then. That is class four. Now, class 5. This is another funny thing, Sir. They have in 1962, if you make a comparison, work which started in 1960. They paid some money in 1961, They asked for money in 1962. Then is a balance to complete in 1963. And yet in 1963 they put down a token vote. Do they not know what is required to complete? Must they put down a token vote of $10? This just goes to prove, Sir, that the Ministry of Finance has done no work on this. If it had done some work, it would have presented to this Assembly a picture of the real development that is going on in the country and the development plans, instead of giving us something which is so difficult for us to understand. Sir, if we were just to take these 1963 Development Estimates, we would be thinking these are new items. The sixth class I have no quarrel with the Government when they put in an amount which is less than the full amount to complete a job. That shows there is some work. Let us take the case where the work has been started in 1961, is to be carried on in 1962, and to be completed in 1963. An amount is given and then another amount is given here where, instead of $1 million, the amount given is about $800,000. This shows that the secretary in charge of this has at least done some work, for he thinks that for 1963, only $800,000 worth of works will be done. I do not complain about that. But if it is true that there is work to be done, and if real work had been done, there would have been a fairer picture presented to this Assembly, instead of the Finance Minister coming to us and saying, in fairness to the administration, he is putting this. I say, in fairness to the Opposition present, something that does not try to hide a lot of work that should have been done but was not done. Those are the six classes, Sir. Can the Minister answer them? In the case of votes that have already been given, why is it that a token vote is now asked for? And is my interpretation of a token vote right? That is one. Why is it that when the full vote is already given up to 1962, another amount is asked for? If it is meant to be a revote, why not say it is a revote? If it is not so stated, it could mean that that extra money could be spent by the Government on the project. The third one is, why is it that more money is put in to complete the work than what has been stated in the 1962 Development Estimates as money required to complete the work? The fourth one is, why two token votes, one in 1962 and another in 1963? Do the Government now say that for the whole of 1962 they will have no time because they will be in, I think, the fourth round or fifth round of the fight with the Barisan Sosialis and therefore they will not be able to do any work? So that they still want a token vote for 1963. Why two token votes? Does it mean no work in 1962, or does it mean that is the convenient way of putting $10? The fifth one is, when work has already been started and some monies are required to complete. why should a token vote of $10 be put in? I do not think the Minister for Finance can satisfy us on all those points. No matter how he satisfies us, once we have approved these Development Estimates as stated in this Cmd. Paper 38, it will give the Government every right to spend an extra million dollars on a multi-storey car park or wherever such extra money is asked for. I would therefore urge the Government that, in fairness to the Opposition, the Minister should take the Development Estimates back and get his Ministry to do some real work on them, and then come back to us. There is no rush for 1963; even in July, August or even as late as November, he can present the Development Estimates, as merger in 1963 will have little or no impact on the Development Estimates. So why rush all this? I would urge the Government to withdraw these Estimates and re-present them, otherwise it shall be the duty of the Opposition to oppose them through every amendment that I have under my name - 206 of them.

The hon. Member for Cairnhill has amendments under Head D13, D14, D16, D17, D18, D19. I stopped at Head D19 because I notice under Head D20, the Member for Tanglin also has certain amendments. I do not know whether he is dealing with his amendments on the same principle.

On a different principle.

So if the Member for Cairnhill is dealing with his amendments up to Head D19 on the same principle, then I would suggest we say the time fixed for completion of consideration of these Heads up to Head D19 should be five past four, unless the hon. Member for Cairnhill wishes to move any specific amendment.

Excuse me. Sir. I also have amendments under Heads D19 and D20 in my name.

I am taking Members up to Head D19, to start off with.

I see. I have nothing more to add other than that.

Under all those amendments?

Yes, Sir.

So it is now decided that the time at which consideration of all the amendments up to the amendments under Head D19, shall expire at five past four p.m.

I am sorry. Under Civil Aviation, I have just one question to ask of the Deputy Prime Minister, but that could be put aside until this more important question of principle has been resolved.

Yes. Anyway, the time will expire at five past four.

Sir, I must congratulate the Member for Cairnhill on having done his homework well.

While you are in the boxing ring, we are working!

Honestly he has spent some time and effort on this, and I think he has raised some very pertinent points which I will try to explain to the House. First, he grumbles about the fact that the 1963 Development Estimates are a virtual reproduction of the 1962 Development Estimates. That is so, and I did explain in my statement that both in respect of the Ordinary Estimates and the Development Estimates we intend not to introduce any new items. So, I think, that comes as no surprise to the Member for Cairnhill. Now, the six classes of items - combination of items. The first one is where a full amount has been provided for in 1962, a token sum of $10 is also entered in the 1963 Estimates. 3.30 p.m. I think we should best discuss this in terms of concrete examples, so that everyone will know why this procedure is adopted. Let us take Head D13, subhead 14 - High Capacity Foam Tender. I do not know what a High Capacity Foam Tender is, but my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, in fact, intends to buy one in 1962. So the full cost of the High Capacity Foam Tender has been entered for 1962. Now it may just be possible that the Department of Civil Aviation might place the order and there might be some delay in delivery and, in fact, the bill might not be presented for payment in 1962, in which case payment must be made in 1963. The only reason for putting a $10 vote in 1963 is to meet such eventualities. They are not expected to happen but, on the other hand, we cannot be sure. If in the unlikely event the bill for the High Capacity Foam Tender does not arrived in time in 1962, then in 1963, we shall have to make use of this vote to pay for it - of course, through some transfers from other subheads. That disposes of the hon. Member's first point on the items in the Development Estimates. Now the second one cited was an instance where the full amount has been provided in the 1962 Estimates and yet a substantial sum appears in the 1963 Estimates. The multi-storey car park is a good example. Of course, the explanation given by the Member for Cairnhill is correct. It is, in fact, a revote. The hon. Member asks, "Why not say a revote?" The reason is that before any item is entered in the Estimates as a revote, certain procedures will have to be complied with; that is, a progress report will he made to the Treasury - explanation for delay of payments and so on - and then it is approved as a revote and entered accordingly. But I think it is obviously too early to enter this item formally as a revote because a start has not been made on the project at all. Nor, on the other hand, can we just enter a token sum of $10 because, in this particular Head, there is not enough money under other subheads to effect a virement of transfer of funds. If you look at Head D19, you will see that there are only two subheads; one, Construction and Installation of Parking Places, a sum of $120,000 has been asked for 1963. And should the Multi-storey Car Park be not completed in 1962, then there is absolutely no money to pay for the completion of this project. Therefore, we put in a fairly substantial sum to meet this eventuality. Of course, I have had a word with the Deputy Prime Minister and urged him to get on with this project as soon as possible. I understood from him that he has already got cracking on it. That explains the second class of items. Now the third one refers to instances where a vote is provided in 1962 - let us get this right.

More than what is required.

Yes, the case of subhead 9 of Head D13, Passenger Terminal Building. The revised plan cost is $3,140,000; $2 million is voted for 1962 - leaving therefore $1,140,000 as a balance - whereas the amount asked for in 1963 is just $1 million more. Here again, the sum of $2,140,000 consists of two parts: one is the balance and the other is, in fact, a revote item just in the event that the progress on the Passenger Terminal Building is not as fast as one would hope it to be. Then we come to the fourth class of items. He refers to the two $10 token votes for the consecutive years 1962 and 1963. He refers to items in the plan where either there is an order of priority for getting it off the mark where we can wait for some time and there is no urgency about the matter, or else it means that the Ministry concerned are having second thoughts on that project and they have not finally made up their minds whether they want to include it or throw it out or substitute some other project. So for the time being in case they revert back to the original plan and if they want to proceed with it in 1963, they can do so. The fifth class is where work has started in 1961, sums have been spent in 1962, and a token sum of $10 is entered in 1963. This is really the same as the first instance where we have provided a full total for 1962 but just in case the expenditure is not completed, where the work is not completed -

Can I explain?

Yes.

What I have said is that the work has been started in 1961, is carried on in 1962, and there is a balance required to complete; and yet for 1963, instead of working out the actual amount that would be required to be spent in 1963, a convenient way has been adopted by just putting in a token vote of $10; whereas in other cases where some work has been done some amounts have been inserted. But in most cases, a mere $10 is inserted. That shows that no work has been done.

Could the Member give one item?

Yes, in the 1962 Development Estimates on page 21, item (1) of subhead 5 of Head D25 (District Hospitals) - Second District Hospital, Works and Buildings; $12,000 is voted for 1962 and there is a balance of $4,988,000. This shows that the work will have started in 1962; and yet for 1963 there is a token vote of $10; whereas in other cases where there are big amount, some work has been done.

I think, in this instance, the explanation is quite simple. When the 1962 Development Estimates were prepared, the Ministry of Health asked for this sum. I think it was for the preliminary investigations, soil-testing and so on, and then later on the Ministry decided not to proceed with this project. The whole development plan of the Ministry of Health is now under revision. But as I have said, until they can definitely tell us that that is to be scrapped and they want something else, I am leaving the thing as it is and just maintaining its existence by a token sum under this Head. I think the Member will find that there may be a number of instances of that nature in the Ministry of Health. That is the fifth class. Now as to the sixth class.

I think you have done your work.

Well then, I think that completes the list.

The Member for Cairnhill is satisfied with the sixth class?

Excuse me, Sir, in certain cases where we have a double token vote, I am satisfied. It shows that the Minister wants to have second thoughts, third thoughts and fourth thoughts before he does anything. Well, I am quite happy to let the Minister have as many thoughts as he wants so long as he does not squander public funds. I can understand the $10 token on the first one. I do not have any serious objection to that. But on the other one where a full vote has been given and a big sum is asked for for 1963 without mentioning that it is a revote, it is going to allow the Government to use the money should the revised cost exceed the actual revised cost here. There will be no control. Take the Multi-storey Car Park. The revised cost is $2 million and the plan cost is $2 million. They ask for $2 million for 1962 - it is all right. Then they ask for an extra $1 million for 1963 to the extent that it is meant to be a revote. If it were clearly stated as a revote in the Estimates, I would have no objection. But to vote that $1 million is equivalent to giving the Government the right to spend an extra $1 million so that, as they have said, if they want to put up a storey, they can do so with this $1 million if it is approved by us. They could put up another two storeys. If they suddenly think they might want to have a P.A.P. house on top, they can still put it up. So there is no reason why we should vote this extra $1 million. If it is a revote, say so. Put it in there and make it clear. I still maintain that these Development Estimates have not been properly prepared and they do not present a correct picture. I suggest that they should be taken back and a new one presented, using the 1962 basis with an extra column to read "Expected to be required in 1963". 3.45 p.m. Then there would be no objection. But why the rush? Cannot the Minister take the Development Estimates for 1963 back and present them in a way that can be understood, in a way that will leave no ambiguity, in a way that will kill all suspicions that the extra million dollars asked for for a Multi-storey Car Park could mean that the Minister might want to put up another two storeys - one for the P.A.P. and maybe the other one for the Barisan Sosialis if they should' suddenly reconcile?

Sir, I can see that the Member for Cairnhill is really being a bit far-fetched. Use the Multi-storey Car Park as a test case, Now, if all goes well with my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, specifications will be completed and tenders will be out, say, in March, April or thereabouts next year. At that time, surely whoever is in charge of the Estimates and financial operations for this, must see that the amount tendered for does not exceed $2 million; otherwise he will be ultra vires. He would not have any money to pay for it. It is only in the event that there could be a delay either in the date in which designs are completed or projects let out to tender that the sum to be voted would be required. I have made it quite clear, Sir, that in such cases they can be identified quite easily by reference to the 1962 Estimates. The position is quite clear.

Sir, the Minister says they can be easily identified. But it is the work of the Government to make it easy for the Opposition to identify, instead of which we have to go through these two books, after sitting for 23 days, to find out what kind of tricks the Government is up to now. And the Minister says that no new item has been inserted. May I point out to him that a new item has been inserted, and no mention has been made by the Minister? Sir, may I point out to him that a new item has been inserted, although he has said just now and also in his statement that no new item has been inserted: "Head D18" at page 17 - "Telecommunications Board" - not in 1962. All these things simply show that he is not making statements which are helpful to us in making a study, in an attempt to help him over his troubles and all that. He makes it more difficult. Therefore, if it gives him pleasure to give trouble to the Opposition, I will say that it is the duty of the Opposition to return that pleasure with interest.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I for one am indebted to the Member for Cairnhill for drawing the attention of the House to these grave inadequacies in the Development Estimates for 1963. I am particularly perturbed, Mr Speaker, at the second and third classes to which he has drawn the attention of the House. That is, as in the case of the car park, a full vote having been made for $2 million for 1962, we have another $1 million for a car park in 1963. And in so far as I can judge, there is nothing to prevent the Government from having a car park for a million dollars in 1963 in respect of which there is no real authorisation. The third class, Sir, is where more money has been voted during the years 1962 and 1963 in respect of items such as the Passenger Terminal Building, the cost as indicated. This means, Sir, that within that particular Head, Government would be free, by way of virement, to utilise these additional monies for other items where they wish to expand the original scheme. I say, Mr Speaker, that the Opposition, and I trust the whole House, is indebted to the Member for Cairnhill for drawing attention to the Government's extraordinary fashion in presenting a budget and seeking a free hand in respect of public monies. One final matter, Sir, which is rather a matter of procedure which has not the same gravity as this extraordinary confession on the part of the Minister - that he has for 1962 a $10 token vote is respect of matters on which the Ministry has not made up its mind. That is why he seeks another $10 for 1963. Mr Speaker, is it appropriate that the Government should trouble this House to make up its mind on principle in respect of matters in connection with which the Government itself has not made up its mind? What are we playing? Marbles in this House? It is even more surprising, Mr Speaker, that we have had the confession made by the Minister in respect of Head D25, item 5: that $12,000 is expected to be spent in the year 1962 in respect of works when, in so far as I can understand him, it is intended to abandon the Second District Hospital. How is it that the money has already been allocated or allocation has been sought in respect of payment for something which they do not wish to use? If the work of exploration has been done in 1961, is it not covered by the 1961 vote? If it is, why do we have to pay it in 1962? Finally, Sir, if, in fact, that $12,000 is in respect of work which it is now intended to abandon, is it not appropriate that this House should have been so advised?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to take the Minister to task on his statement on Head D19, subhead 2, "Multi-storey Car Park". He mentioned just now, Sir, that if the planner for this car park were to start work by, say, April, and decide to build a car park that is worth more than $2 million, he would obviously be ultra vires. I submit, Sir, the planner who plans a $3 million car park in April 1962 is not ultra vires because, in so far as this House is concerned, if the two Development Estimates had been passed, we would have authorised the expenditure of $2 million in 1962 and a further $1 million in 1963, making an estimated total expenditure of $3 million for the years in 1962 and 1963. No doubt, Sir, the plan costs and the revised plan costs only permit the planner an expenditure of $2 million. But this House which has sat, considered, debated and passed the Budget, allows the planner expenditure to the extent of $3 million. I will, therefore, say here that it is a matter of grave doubt whether the planner should allow himself to be guided by the plan costs or by that exact amount of monies voted by this House. I would urge the Minister, in the same tone as the Member for Cairnhill has urged him, to bring this Development budget hack and revise it; put notes if necessary to explain that this $1 million would only be spent should the $2 million be under spent in 1962. And whatever vote that has been underspent should lapse in 1962, thereby making it necessary for this $1 million to be spent in 1963. In view of the absence of any explanatory notes, it would appear, Sir, that if the two Development budgets have been passed, any planner who has any respect for the decisions of this House would be within his right and within his power to plan a car park which is worth $3 million.

Sir, over and above the difficulties of the Member for Cairnhill as experienced, I myself have experienced another difficulty which I wish to bring to the notice of the Finance Minister. In his 1962 Development Estimates, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will be good enough to look at page 7 of Paper Cmd. 36 of 1961 being Development Estimates of the State of Singapore for the Year 1962, and previous to that page "Development Fund Account", there is a statement of Estimated Receipts and Payments. Mr Speaker, you will notice that the Balance as at 31st December, 1961, is $131 million. Then there are a number of items which set out the monies which are going to be paid into that Fund. On the right-hand side is Estimated Payments cut of that Fund for the year 1962, after which the total sum on the Receipts column is exhausted. So that on the basis of total expenditure on the Development Fund for the year 1962, the Fund will remain nil as at 31st December, 1962. If I am correct in that, then on the 1st January, 1963, we start with nothing in the kitty except for $80 million which was transferred by the Assembly - I think it was last week - from the Consolidated Fund into the Development Fund, together with the $30 million which will be transferred by the Ministry of Finance from the Consolidated Fund for the year 1962 into the Development Fund. There will then be $80 million plus $30 million, i.e. $110 millions. So that. Mr Speaker, Sir, we start off then on 1st January, 1963, with $110 million, and the Minister for Finance is asking this House to approve Development Fund expenditure up to the extent of $173 million. In other words, he is asking this House to approve expenditure payable out of the Fund, the capital of which is not sufficient to meet the expenditure he is asking us to meet. The curious thing about these 1963 Estimates, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Statement of Estimated Receipts and Payments which appears in the 1962 Development Estimates does not appear. It is conspicuously absent. The other point I wish to ask and which is causing some confusion amongst the Opposition Members is this car park. Will the Minister assure the House that the governing factor for the expenditure of monies will be the total revised cost?

Sir, in view of the guillotine, may I say this to the Minister? There is no rush for these Estimates to be approved today. If he will just take them back and get them done in the proper way, instead of in this haphazard way, things would be much better. But if he insists on wanting us to approve the Development Estimates done up in such a haphazard way, it shall be our duty to oppose every item in every Head. 4.00 p.m.

We share the opinion of the other Opposition Members in saying that there has been absolute hurry in preparing this Budget, and so far as we know, as has already been pointed out, there has been no adequate preparation. All we in the Barisan Sosialis know is that this Budget has been put forward with the intention of befuddling the Opposition and also -

Order. I do net think the Member for Queenstown is proper in imputing an improper motive, I think there is a Standing Order which says that no Member should impute any improper motive. If the allegation is that the Government has introduced this Budget to befuddle the Opposition Members, I think that is an improper motive. Let us debate this soberly.

Sir, we think they want to give the impression that the merger proposals are already all under way and that merger is right on our doorstep. As far as we know, they have not even held a referendum. So how can they be so sure about anything?

May I explain this? When I was bending my mind to the problem of how to present the 1963 Estimates to the Assembly, I had two alternatives. One is to present them in a simple way, with three columns, which is fairly straightforward. The other one would be to take into account what happened in the plan cost, the revised plan cost, expenditure in 1961 and 1962, amounts required to complete amount estimated in 1963; whether there are revotes or no, and so on and so forth. That would make the matter of presentation rather complicated. If the Members opposite so desire, it is a simple matter for me to do. I am quite willing to reproduce the 1963 Estimates absolutely on the same basis, because we have all the working papers in our own files. It is only to save Members of the Opposition from trying to read columns that we have presented three columns only. If they want eight columns, so be it. I am quite happy to present to the Assembly the same stuff by the same identical method. It is not a question, as I said, of whether we have been working on them or not working on them. It is a matter of presentation. They want a more complicated presentation. If that satisfies them, I am quite happy to take these Estimates back and come back to the Assembly again next month. But I do ask Members of the Opposition to think carefully about it. Do we want to waste the time of the Assembly all over again over a set of estimates which would differ only in presentation, only in the number of columns they should have? The substance would be absolutely the same. If Members of the Opposition want it, I am quite happy with it. I have no objection at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is there a way whereby the Finance Minister can withdraw? If he can, may I explain that we prefer it that way. We just raise our objection to the fact that something which is meaningless is placed before us. We want it to be in clear and unequivocal terms before we can give our vote on it.

I might remind the House that one of the duties of the Estimates Committee is to suggest the form in which the Estimates might be presented. So perhaps, to satisfy the Opposition, the matter should go to the Estimates Committee as to the form in which these Development Estimates should be presented. Does that satisfy?

That satisfies us. Mr Speaker, Sir.

Could I have an indication from the Opposition whether that would satisfy?

That would be so.

Perhaps the Minister could undertake to do that.

A matter of clarification, Sir. Do I understand that the suggestion is that it goes now to the Estimates Committee?

No.

I am sorry.

May I make myself clear? I just draw the attention of the hon. Members to paragraph (3) of Standing Order 93 which deals with the Estimates Committee, and the relevant parts read: 'It shall be the duty of the Committee to examine any of the Estimates, to report what economies consistent with the policy implied in the Estimates might be effected, and, subject to the provisions of the law, to suggest the form in which the Estimates might be presented.' "subject to the provisions of the law, to suggest the form in which the Estimates might be presented." I draw the attention of the Minister and that of the Opposition to that provision. It might be a convenient way of satisfying the Opposition if the matter went to the Estimates Committee. But meanwhile, if the Minister is agreeable to Cmd. Paper 38 of 1961 being withdrawn, I will draft a motion for him. Is he agreeable to that?

I do not know what Members of the Opposition think about it. It does seem a pity if, purely on a matter of presentation, we have to go through the whole of the exercise all over again. If the Opposition is prepared to consider these Estimates now, and then get the items considered in detail in the Estimates Committee, possibly for formal tabling in this Assembly, that might save a lot of time all round.

No.

Order. Let the Minister complete what he has to say.

Sir, once the Estimates have been approved by this House, that is the end of it. The Government can do what it likes with it. Then there is no need to refer to the Estimates Committee. The reason why they should go to the Estimates Committee to consider the form in which these Estimates should be presented is that no decision has been arrived at by the House. Once the House say yes to it, there is no more question.

But you could outline the steps that would take place if this were referred to the Estimates Committee and what happens after that.

If the Minister agrees that this Command paper should now be withdrawn, then a motion will have to be moved that the order for the consideration in the Committee of Supply of the Development Estimates for the State of Singapore for the year 1963 be discharged, and that Paper Cmd. 38 of 1961 be withdrawn. Once that has been agreed to. I take it the Minister will then go to the Estimates Committee and get their decision on how they require the Development Estimates for 1963 to be presented. They will then be presented in a different Command paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the only thing the Estimates Committee will be asked to do is to settle the form in which the Development Estimates should come back to the Assembly. But The contents to be inserted and the form to be agreed is a matter entirely for the Minister.

I might add, Sir, that once the proper form has been agreed upon, all the objection that I have will not be raised by me, because those objections will have been met.

I am quite happy, Mr Speaker, Sir. My own opinion is that it is hardly necessary to go to the Estimates Committee be, cause the points raised by the Member for Cairnhill could easily be resolved if we, as I said, put in another four or five columns with some notes of explanation. I do not know whether we should bother the Estimates Committee. If the only purpose is to say this is a revote or what amount should be carried over, and this is a token vote and so on, it is quite a simple matter to redraft the Estimates. I am trying to accommodate myself as much as possible to the Opposition.

The only reason why we suggest to the Government that it might go to the Estimates Committee was to ensure its smooth passage when it came here, so that there would not be any more trouble about the format. But if the Minister can satisfy the Opposition on the format, then the Estimates Committee need not be bothered.

I have indicated that there are the Standing Orders. It is up to the Minister to decide whether or not he wishes to go to the Estimates Committee. Is that agreed then?

Yes.

I will resume my seat in the Assembly. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee.

Resolved, "That the order for the consideration in Committee of Supply of the Development Estimates of the State of Singapore for the year 1963 be discharged and that Paper Cmd. 38 of 1961 be withdrawn."-[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

We have a resolution to dispose of, the resolution in connection with the vote on account. Dr Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported, "That the sum of $194,106,820 shall be supplied to the Government on account under the heads of expenditure for the public services specified in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 39 of 1961." (18th December, 1961).

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

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

Dr Toh.

Mr Speaker, under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 33, I name the first available sitting day after the 1st of January, 1962, for this motion to be placed on the Order Paper.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, part of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was devoted to the problems of Singapore - Federation merger. This has already been debated en a separate substantive motion and I can, therefore, do no better now than to quote the epilogue of the speech as the prologue of my speech: 'The question of Federation - Singapore merger and the question of forming a united Malaysia no doubt are problems which are now uppermost in our minds. They are major questions which will determine the destiny of ten million people spread over nearly 130,000 square miles of territory. It may be that the scope -'

Order. I think the position is that no aspect at all of the merger should be touched upon. Even the conclusion should be excluded because we have dealt with merger. Because once the conclusion is read out, then, of course, it may open itself to rejoinders. I do not know. But I would suggest that we leave out every aspect of merger.

May I just then quote one relevant line, and that is, "that the scope and importance of these political questions overshadow mundane matters like the development plans projected for next year and which I have just outlined." Mr Speaker, much of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech in detail has been said by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech and has been discussed in extenso in the Committee of Supply on the 1962 Estimates. Sir, it is comparatively easy to formulate political policies. But political policies which are not geared to economic realities become mere slogans and are doomed to failure. The harsh reality that we must constantly remember is the rapid increase of the population - about 4 per cent per annum - one of the highest in the world, which is confined to a little island of 200 square miles, so that within the next 20 years we will not only be packed like sardines, but there will be real competition for land between the living and the dead. It is estimated that in 1962 there will be a net increase of 14,000 people looking for employment; and by the end of 1964, it is necessary that some 84,000 jobs be created. The problem at unemployment is aggravated by another threat. Traditionally a city that has lived on its entrepot trade, we now find that this prop of our economic life is being slowly eaten away because of neighbouring countries resorting to direct trade arrangements and to the improvement of their own port facilities. In order to prevent the unemployment problem from growing to unmanageable proportions within the next five years, it is, therefore, very necessary that the foundations for industrialisation should now be made and a crash programme carried out. Such a crash programme has to be mainly in building and construction and in the export industries. The importance of building and construction can be gauged by the estimate that 5,000 people lost their jobs between 1957 and 1960 when there was a slowing down of building activities. This year saw the revival of the construction industry initiated by the building programme of the Housing and Development Board and the revival of private building activity due to the favourable change of policy towards the development charges for main City Council services. The number of houses expected to be completed by the Housing and Development Board this year is 7,454; and next year, the Board hopes to achieve its target of 10,000 houses a year. All this, of course, means, firstly, fulfilling the dreams of several thousand people who have applied for public housing for as long as six years. Secondly, the increase in building activity means that the estimated 5,000 building workers who became unemployed during the building slump of 1957 to 1960, have now been re-engaged in construction and it is possible that new labour has also entered the building industry. The increase in building and construction also means an increase in demand for building materials, especially cement, sand and steel. In fact, imports of cement have increased by 40 per cent for the first nine months of this year, and the supplying of sand for the building trade has increased to such an extent that the Government has recently found it necessary to introduce a Bill to control sand washing activities. The boom in the building and construction sector has generated considerable activity in many spheres and ought to quicken the setting up of the $50 million steel mill which is to be located in Jurong. Steps to stimulate the setting up of export industries in Jurong and other industrial estates have already been explained in detail by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech on the 7th of this month. The Industrial Development Board has already been set up and it will be assisted by the Industrial Research Unit which is now being formed. As ancillaries to this industrial leap forward, it is necessary that there must be an adequate supply of electric power and water. A consultant firm of engineers has already been appointed to study plans for the construction of a new power station. The first stage of the power station will have a capacity of 60 megawatts. This plan should be ready by next year when work commences. Recently, an agreement to extract water from the Scudai River was concluded with the Johore Government. Work on the Scudai Waterworks should commence next year and the first phase is aimed at producing 15 million gallons per day. The tempo of industrial activity ought to heighten next year. The industrial estates will have to be served by roads. This means that the road-building programme will be accelerated and also facilities at the Harbour Board and Airport must be increased. All these plans will be set in motion now that the Development Estimates for 1962 have been passed by the Assembly. Three berths will be completed by the Singapore Harbour Board next year, and the extended runway at the Airport should be brought into operation by the end of January next year. Industrialisation is synonymous with the availability of technicians and skilled workers. Recently, a survey of technical education was presented to the Assembly and the Minister for Education will present a White Paper on the Report sometime next year. Meanwhile, the Polytechnic is now training nearly 2,400 students in various technical subjects. All avenues of employment should be explored. Industrialisation cannot take place overnight or, for that matter, within a year. We have therefore investigated the possibilities of increasing the number of Singapore citizens for employment on board ships. Nearly 100 vessels are cleared each day from our harbour, and as the fifth largest port in the world, it is right that more of our people should look towards the sea for their career. At some opportune date I will present a report to the Assembly of the steps that Government will take to increase employment opportunities for seamen and other categories on board ships. Between 1959 and 1960, when we first took over the Government, we had to feel our way and study the problems that face the administration and the people. Between 1960 and 1961, concrete plans for economic development were drawn up. These plans, called the Four-Year Development Plan, were presented to the Assembly in March this year. The second half of 1961 marks the beginning of the implementation of the Four-Year Development Plan. Next year, 1962, should see the Development Plan being carried out with increased tempo and activity. Sir,I have tried to present in a very simple form the general problem that faces us in this country. Since the postwar years of Singapore have been very stormy, it is important that we in the political forest should not lose our way by only looking at the trees, and it is important that we should also be able to see the picture as a whole. Whoever may be in charge of the administration will be faced with this vexations problem of the rising birth-rate and, at the same time, the problem of providing jobs for the people. Here I have tried to present very simply what the Government proposes to do in 1962 and which has been outlined in the Negara's speech. As I have mentioned earlier, we have dealt in very particular detail with that during the Budget debate and in Committee of Supply on the Estimates for 1962. Sir, I beg to move, That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.".

The Question is, 'That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.".'. On the Order Paper stands an amendment in the name of the Member for Queenstown*. If the Member for Queenstown requires a vote, it has been agreed that he could now at this stage move his amendment simpliciter for the purpose of taking a vote. *The amendment reads as follows: "at end, to add - 'but regrets that the Government is pursuing a "merger" policy of unequal rights contrary to the interests of the people of the two territories, and urges the Government to re-orientate its policy in conformity with the ardent desires of the people for genuine unification'." 4.28 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move that the amendment that stands in my name -

Order. All the Member need say is that he begs to move his amendment simpliciter.

Sir, I beg to move my amendment simpliciter.

The Original Question is as I have proposed it, since which an amendment has been moved, "at end, to add - 'but regrets that the Government is pursuing a "merger" policy of unequal rights contrary to the interests of the people of the two territories, and urges the Government to reorientate its policy in conformity with the ardent desires of the people for genuine unification'." Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Division. The House divided: Ayes. Noes. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammad Akib. Miss. Buang bin Lee Siew Choh. Omar Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Hoe Puay Choo, Tan Cheng Tong. Madam. Tee Kim Leng. Kandasamy, G. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Abstention. Lim Cheng Lock. Nil. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Paired. Byrne, K. M. (Absent). Lingam, S. V. (Absent). Absent. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Koh, C. H. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Yew Hock. Marshall, David. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Teo Hock Guan.

: On a point of order, Sir.

In a division, an hon. Member must raise a point of order whilst seated. Yes, Mrs Seow Peck Leng, the point of order being?

About pairing. Yesterday I paired with the Prime Minister. It seems that the Press and the public do not understand the parliamentary procedure of pairing. I was misinterpreted in the Press as having spared the Prime Minister.

Yes, I did notice that, but that is not a point of order. There are 13 Ayes, 26 Noes, 10 Absent, and 2 paired. Amendment accordingly negatived.

The Question now is, 'That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.".'. For the information of hon. Members, I might draw their attention to the relevant Standing Order 13 (2) which reads: '...Debate thereon [that is, on the Address] shall be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech and on amendments (if any) moved by Members regretting omissions from the speech or advocating alternative policies.' So the debate now will be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech, and not on amendments regretting omissions, as no amendments are now on the Order Paper regretting omissions. 4.41 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Acting Prime Minister only touched upon the construction of houses, the partial solution to the unemployment problem, and the industrialisation plan. But all this will not help solve the unemployment problem. He said nothing about development in the rural areas. I feel that if the Government can do something good in the rural areas, then it will help to solve the unemployment problem partially. 4.43 p.m.

But I feel that the P.A.P. Government is not very concerned with the problems of the rural people. This attitude is not quite correct. So I think I must touch on some of these problems as they have been referred to in the pamphlets of the P.A.P. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the last few months, the Prime Minister has been talking about the phoney merger and he has been going up to the Federation and back to Singapore many times. On many occasions he has been to Cameron Highlands. He is trying to get support from the Right-wing people in Singapore. On the one hand, he has to deal with the reporters here and, on the other hand, he has to write his own stories and make speeches over radio. I feel that perhaps he is too busy with all these activities.

Order. The hon. Member must bear in mind that we are debating the Address thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech, and he must confine himself to it.

(In Mandarin): I know about this, Sir, but I am just trying to say what has been happening before I come to the Address. I feel that because the Prime Minister has been busy with such activities, the problems of the people in the rural areas have been overlooked. So the question of the livelihood of the people has been ignored for the time being. In the speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, there is no mention of anything which can truly solve the problems affecting the livelihood of the people and of improvements in the rural areas. In the policy speech, mention has been made only in regard to items such as social services, which are not very important. I feel that social services are only of minor importance and that there is no need for any emphasis on it. I feel that this emphasis is only given to cover up the opportunistic means of the P.A.P. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the last two years, although the P.A.P. has installed some standpipes and built some parks in the rural areas, let me tell them: do not make use of these minor improvements to bluff the rural people. Everybody knows that every year the Government taxes the people a great deal, and so these social services are a responsibility of the Government. There is no need for any emphasis in this respect. Personally I feel that the installation of standpipes and construction of roads in the rural areas are not very important, because they are part and parcel of the social services which do not actually go towards improving the basic livelihood of the people in the rural areas. Since colonial rule, many people in Singapore have been in a very difficult position. This difficulty is well known to the P.A.P. Government, because in the past the P.A.P. had many branches in the rural areas and some P.A.P. leaders were in touch with the rural people. At that time these leaders made some suggestions to improve the livelihood of the people. There were also some good and valuable ideas put forward, but up to now the P.A.P. Government has not done much to improve the livelihood of the rural people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us recollect the 1959 general elections. At that time the policy of the P.A.P. was stated in the pamphlet [The Tasks Ahead]. The first point mentioned was the development of the rural areas and the improvement of the people therein. This policy was welcomed and supported by the people in the rural areas. The farmers thought that by supporting the P.A.P. their livelihood would he improved and so they voted for the P.A.P. The P.A.P., which depended on their support, finally was very successful in the elections in all the rural areas. But since taking over the reins of government, the leaders of the P.A.P. only knew how too consolidate their position in the Government and their political influence. They just did not care very much for the rural people who they thought are simple-minded and gullible. They thought that if they could do a bit of social service to the rural people, the people would be satisfied. But as a matter of fact, that idea is all wrong. The rural people are generally dissatisfied with the Government. Everybody says that the P.A.P.'s The Tasks Ahead proclaimed during the general elections were nothing but a bluff. They cry out wine, but sell vinegar instead. The rural people thought that since the P.A.P. has been in power for some two years, it should try to go all out to improve the lot of the rural people. But up to now we, have not seen the P.A.P. Government fulfilling its election promises. The P.A.P. has made certain promises to the rural people but after having been in office for half the term, none of the election promises has been fulfilled. It is obvious that the P.A.P. Government is not willing to go all out to serve the rural people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now quote the pamphlet [The Tasks Ahead] issued by the P.A.P. in 1959 during the general elections. I would like to quote some paragraphs to show that the policy speeches of the Government for this year or for next year are not very helpful in regard to the promises made to the rural people. This will also show that the P.A.P. Government is not concerned with or interested in improving the livelihood of the rural people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this pamphlet outlining the policy of the P.A.P., there is one section regarding the economy of the rural people. The first question on "Rural Development" concerns the improvement of the lot of the rural people. Now, let me read out several paragraphs which were then very impressive but which now show that the P.A.P. Government is not responsible for what it said. In the first paragraph, it is stated: 'Our farmers in the rural areas are already producing all the poultry, eggs and pigs which our population needs and there is a surplus for export. This they have been able to do with very little support and encouragement from the government.'. The past and the present governments have not given very much encouragement in this respect. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this paragraph shows that the farmers in Singapore play a great role in the produce of Singapore, but the colonial government and the Lim Yew Hock Government gave them little encouragement and support. During the election time these words made the people in the rural areas very happy. But now the P.A.P. Government has done hardly anything to encourage and to support the produce of the rural people. As a matter of fact, the P.A.P. Government is toeing the line of the Lim Yew Hock Government. In my constituency most of the dwellers are farmers, and so I can clearly understand their livelihood, and more so when I myself am a farmer there. Some of the farmers are concerned with the rearing of domestic animals; some are engaged in agricultural activities. We know that to rear pigs, we need pig sties, and to keep poultry we need chicken runs. But it was very difficult to get approval for the construction of these facilities due to the stringent conditions and regulations of the previous Government. As a result, the farmers in the past suffered great inconvenience. At that time we could not see any application from a farmer being approved for the construction of pig sties and chicken runs. But now under the P.A.P. Government these unreasonable and unfavourable regulations still exist. When a farmer wants to put up a chicken run, he has to go through a certain procedure and a lot of trouble is involved, as otherwise he will be fined. Even in repairing old structures, it is still necessary to go through such procedure and trouble, to say nothing about new structures. Furthermore, as the farmers are not aware of the procedure and where these departments are, very often they have to waste a lot of time and money going from one department to another to get things done. They have gone through a lot of suffering, and so they cannot help thinking that the promises made by the Government during election time were wild promises. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me again quote from this pamphlet the last paragraph on rural development to show that the Government is not sincere and is bluffing the people. (Well, the Government has bluffed me at least.) The last paragraph reads as follows: 'A source of considerable irritation to dwellers in the rural areas is the unsatisfactory and archaic Rural Board Building bye-laws. These impose undue hardships on rural dwellers in such matters as the repair of their homes. We shall ensure that these sources of irritation are removed and that all rural dwellers are freely given permission whenever they find it necessary to repair their modest homes.'

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

Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go on to the main issue, I feel that this question of quorum is quite important. I wish to draw attention to the Standing Order on the quorum. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present. Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to go on with my speech regarding poultry and other domestic animals. As far as I know, during the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, there were some chemicals for domestic animals which were easily available in Singapore. But during the term of the P.A.P. Government, steps have been taken to see that these chemicals for domestic animals cannot be obtained without a veterinary officer's permission. As far as I know, it is very difficult for the ordinary farmer to look for a veterinary officer. So when the animals belonging to the farmers suffer from diseases, the farmers suffer a great loss, because the chemicals and medicines are not easily available. I want to remind the Government to find a solution to this problem. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the second question of the improvement of the rural people. That is the reduction of agricultural costs. In the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, The Task Ahead, at page 1 of the Chinese version, it says: 'It is our aim to expand and improve on genetics and nutrition research with regard to our animal population, and by well planned extension services, to bring the benefits of this research to our farmers ...' There is another paragraph which states: 'It is our aim to give economic aid to the farmers in their production.' Mr Speaker, Sir, these sentences are very short. But they are of great significance, especially the second part. If this part of the programme is carried out, then the problem of the farmers will be solved to a great extent. The P.A.P. Government has made a lot of promises but has not carried them out and the people know about it. As a matter of fact, the lot of the farmers is a painful one. They are hoping that the Government will look after their welfare. During the general election in 1959, the Government came to power with an overwhelming majority with the support of the farmers. But the last two years have been very disappointing to the rural people. These people have made sacrifices, but in return they have not received any reasonable rewards. I want to quote the cost and the prices of agricultural products. The feeding stuff for animals costs $15 to $17 per picul. Based on this, it will cost the farmers $120 to produce a hundred katties of pork or fowls. If the market price is good, the farmers may be able to make some profit. But if it is bad, then they may lose some money by rearing poultry. I want to bring up the question of rearing pigs. The feeding stuff for pigs costs $13 to $15 per picul. So you must spend about $85 in order to produce $85 worth of meat. If a pig costs about $70 per picul then the pig-rearers will sell at a loss. This is the same with eggs. At present the cost of chicken feed is so high that it will cost about eight cents to produce one egg. The selling price is only about nine to ten cents. When the price is low, it comes to about seven and a half cents. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see, therefore, from their costs and their selling prices that the people in the rural areas are suffering economically. Now, I want to touch upon the third question - rural development; that is the care to be taken of the farmers' land. 'Singapore is a very small island with a great population. The arable land is limited. The farmers are very concerned with their possession of arable land. Although the farmers cannot contribute a great deal to the food of the people of Singapore, they do play a great part in the supply of vegetables, eggs and other meats. These supplies all come from the farmers of Singapore. In this respect, they play a great part in the economy of Singapore. This question of the security of arable land is very important. We know that the land owned by the people in Singapore is usually on lease. This land is usually under the control of the Land Office. Some land belong to the military forces. We know that, in general, the land does not belong to the farmers themselves. So they cannot freely develop it. Not only are, they unable to develop it freely, but they are also usually confronted with some restrictions. I can quote you one concrete example which I have personally come across. It was about half a year ago. In Yio Chu Kang between the 9� and the 11 m.s. there was a village known as Chin San Village. In this village there were originally about 300 families of farmers. Some families were asked by the military forces to quit from this land because they wanted to set up some areas there, and because of the telecommunications system they complained that the farmers made a lot of noise disturbing the telecommunication services. The wireless station is near the main Yio Chu Kang Road and there is heavy traffic along it. As far as I understand, many children attend schools in this area and they are affected by this notice to quit. The so-called disturbance to the wireless service was actually caused by the heavy traffic along Yio Chu Kang Road, but instead the complaint was made against the farmers living in the small village. The military forces just cooked up a reason to ask the farmers to quit, as a result of which, the livelihood of the farmers was affected. But the so-called popularly elected Government who were brought to power by the poor people simply neglect the people there and give them no, protection whatsoever. So the wireless station gave notice to the villagers to quit and they were forced to leave their land. As far as I understand, when the farmers were confronted with this notice to quit, their livelihood was affected to a very great extent. These families who were asked to quit from the village were paid some sort of compensation, but every family was not given enough arable land to carry on its production work. It could get only one-quarter acre of land. The second point about their difficulty is as follows. The farmers who were forced to quit were not compensated reasonably well, according to the law. According to their valuation, it was only one dollar compensation per square foot in respect of cemented floor, and in respect of uncemented floor the compensation rate was only 80 cents per square foot. As regards chicken runs and pig sties only 70 cents per square foot was paid in respect of cemented floor and 50 cents in respect of uncemented floor; and every acre of land could not get more than $1,500 compensation. Let me quote one more example. Say you have a house which occupies about 900 square feet. According to the Government's rate of compensation, you will get about $700 to $900. But we know that after these farmers have been forced to quit, it will cost them far more to put up a similar house occupying a similar area. In fact, you require double the amount of compensation to put up the same type of house occupying the same area. We will take an example of the zinc roof structure. If you want to touch it up well to give it an attractive appearance, it will cost about three times the compensation paid to the farmer. So we can see that the Government's rate of compensation is quite unfair and unreasonable, and this is a great blow to the farmers. This is a very serious matter. I would like to list the third point regarding the difficulties of the farmers. You must know that it takes a long time for the farmers to establish their business. It can only be established in at least three to five years, and in the course of three to five years, the farmers have to work very hard. They must till the land with great effort in order to establish themselves. If we compare this state of affairs with what I have just said in regard to the rate of compensation, the farmers suffer indeed great losses. Let us take the compensation paid to the villagers of Chin San Village. As I have said, the compensation was too inadequate to cover their losses, and was a great blow to them. Every family at that time could get only about $2,000 to $3,000 as compensation, and only a minority got about $5,000 to $6,000. We know if every family got only $2,000 or $3,000 as compensation, then when it came to building up their business again, this amount would be used up in just putting up a house. They would not be able to pay for other amenities out of the compensation. So the question of safeguard to the farmers' land is very important. We hope the Government will, in the Agricultural Leases Bill, take into consideration the interest of the farmers and make provisions to look after the land leased to them. In the meantime, I feel that they must be given reasonable opportunities for expansion and development. At present, I know that on some private land the landlords do not allow the lessees to put up chicken runs and pig sties. In respect of arable land, the landlord will restrict the activities of the farmers and the rent is rather unreasonable too. As far as I understand, in the case of private land if a farmer is allowed to build any structure thereon, he has to comply with certain conditions such as the giving of 'coffee money', and so it will cost a few hundred dollars to put up a simple structure. I hope this additional exploitation of the farmers will be got rid of by the Government by way of passing legislation to relieve the farmers of their difficulties. I hope the Government will also do its best, as it should. I know that in the Land Office, which is under the Prime Minister's Office, there are many, many regulations and restrictions on the construction of pig sties and chicken runs. I hope the Government will give farmers facilities in the construction of chicken runs and other agricultural structures and that the rent imposed by the Land Office would be reasonable to the farmers. In my ward at the 9th milestone, Yio Chu Kang Road, there is an organisation known as the Rural People's Association. Representatives of this Association have asked the Government to reduce the rent. I feel they have every reason to ask for the reduction of the rent, because the place is a resettlement area and the farmers only paid a very cheap rent for staying there before the area was esta blished. The assessment and the ground rent before the establishment of the resettlement area came to only a few dollars per year. Since the Government started work on resettlement, every family has been given an acre of land by the Government in this resettlement area. The rent costs about $10 per year, and all structures thereon have to be rebuilt and modified. As a result of this, the resettlement area looks very neat and attractive. But as far as I know, this resettlement has dealt a great blow to the people's livelihood, because the assessment rates have been reconsidered against their favour. They have to pay ten times more than what they used to pay. The assessment rates on Crown land have been similarly increased, and so they have to pay these increases. Therefore, every family has to pay tens of dollars more every year. In this resettlement, the Government will wait for five or six years to collect rent or assessment, and so the payment has to be made in one lump sum. Every family living in the resettlement area will then have to pay $100 to $200 in one lump sum. In my opinion, the idea of having a resettlement is to solve the problems of the farmers. It is a good idea indeed. But in actual fact it seems that the Government is concentrating them in one area in order to facilitate exploitation. I hope the Government will have a reasonable solution to the question I have raised. Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I have said, you can see that the livelihood of the farmers is indeed a very difficult problem. The economy of the rural areas is facing a crisis and is on the verge of bankruptcy. The farmers have to worry about their three meals. In the meantime, their debts are continuously rising. Generally speaking, the average farmer living in the rural area is heavily indebted. The farmers now complain that the promises made by the P.A.P. before they came to power were very attractive. They had all sorts of plans on rural development in order to improve the standard of livelihood of the farmers. But 2� years have gone by and the Government have done very little to improve the living conditions of the farmers. Their standard of livelihood has not been improved. In fact, it has deteriorated. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, a sum of money has been approved in respect of the Main Estimates, and the Development Estimates for 1962. The sum approved is the highest so far, and I hope the Government will be able to make good use of this money to look after the requirements of the people. They should not make use of this money to do superficial things or to cover up their failures and shortcomings. They should not bluff the people and bring about a phoney merger. I would like to remind the Government that they should not sacrifice the interest of the people for the sake of a minority. 6.07 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after reading the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and after listening to the speech by the Deputy Prime Minister today, who made a very unrealistic impression, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am reminded of a proverb which says that once you are faced with an experience, you will learn from it. Once you have knocked against a wall, you will never do it again. The people of Singapore are not fools. In my view, after more than two years of actual experience, I doubt the beautiful promises of the Government. In spite of the emphasis of the Government on industrialisation and a common commodity market for the two territories, after two and a half years the industrialisation plan is still a plan. I can see no improvement in the living standard of the people of Singapore. Up to now, the talks in respect of the common commodity market for the two territories are still at the discussion stage. In my view, success is very remote. Therefore, the beautiful promises and plans of the Government are just like stones being boiled, as they can never be boiled. We can only hear the bubbling noises made by the stones in the stove. These plans sound nice to the ear but, in fact, they are impractical. They are just like biscuits drawn on paper which cannot be eaten by the people. On other Government plans also, success is very remote. For example, in the Government election pamphlet concerning women's rights, many promises were made. They spoke about the protection of women's rights and raising their status in society. But after coming to power, they have forgotten all these promises. We can see no benefits to the women. The Government said that they would help to protect the rights of the workers. But today they have become anti-workers. As to the improvement of the rural areas and the raising of the standard of livelihood of the far mers, this is all forgotten. I was brought up and I have lived in the rural areas. Therefore, I understand very well the sufferings of the rural people. I have a deep concern for these sufferings. During those days, the P.A.P. made promises that they wanted to improve the lot of the farmers and of the people living in the rural areas, and these promises were very well received. I was also attracted by these promises made by the P.A.P.

Order. I suggest to the hon. Lady that the Member for Jalan Kayu has touched in great detail on the troubles of the farmers. It she wants to mention the troubles of farmers again, perhaps she can do that in passing, but I think the Member for Jalan Kayu made a very long and detailed speech about that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to talk about is the beautiful plans and promises of the Government which have not materialised. We do not see any results at all. On the other hand, the policy of the Government is not realistic. The contents or their policy are lost and there is only an empty shell left. For instance, in the policy statement of the first Session, it was stated that the Government would try its best to promote agricul ture, animal husbandry and fisheries. But in the policy statement of the second Session entitled "The Year of Construction", the Government talked about providing the farmers with fertilisers in order to reduce the cost of their agricultural produce. It was also mentioned that the Government tried to improve the strains of chickens in order to increase the stock. There was also mention that Government intended to help the fishermen to fish along the seashore of Singa pore. If all these schemes had been carried out, they would have been quite practical achievements. But in the policy statement for this session, we cannot see any proposal of this sort. Perhaps there could have been no results to announce in the policy statement. It seems that the work to he done in the rural areas cannot be carried out, or whether that was carried out was not quite up to expectations. In short, the work in respect of rural improvement and all projects to be implemented in the rural areas are in a very pitiful state. There are no results and the improvement of livelihood of farmers has not been realised. The cost of fertilisers for growing vegetables and of food for poultry has not been reduced.

Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Stamford that all this has already been said by the Member for Jalan Kayu? Let us try not to repeat what has been said. It has already been touched upon by the Member for Jalan Kayu.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now talk about the achievements of the Government this year in regard to the rural areas. The Government have not paid attention to the livelihood of the farmers and people in the rural areas, but instead they have been talking about providing amenities to the rural people. All this talk is not realistic and practical. If you do not look after the livelihood of the farmers, then they will not have the necessary money to buy fertilisers for growing vegetables, of to rear poultry. Therefore, all this talk of helping them by scientific aids and agricultural knowledge is useless, even after they have learnt all the scientific methods of raising chickens, farm keeping, land cultivation, and so on and so forth, what is the use if they have no money to apply their knowledge Therefore in order to develop the rural areas and to safeguard the livelihood of the farmers, Government should try to do something concrete. If the livelihood of the farmers is not protected and not well looked after, then I think the Government policy in this respect is doomed to failure. Anyway, Mr Speaker, Sir, in presenting its policy, Government wishes to put up a beautiful facade and disregard the true meaning of its contents. This is a very irresponsible attitude. As to the Government's industrialisation policy and plan to solve the problem of unemployment, I feel this is similar to the wrong policy adopted in regard to the farmers. Because of the past colonial economic policy, the farmers are in a very bad position today. They are in great difficulty. It is quite correct to say that there is no arable land in Singapore for the cultivation of staple food. But to say that the farmers cannot grow them is not correct. The farmers have the ability to grow them but their economy is hampered. Even then they grow food not only for their own consumption but they also supply food to neighbouring countries. If Government could look after the production of supplementary items of food, then they would be contributing much to the economy of Singapore. There are about 20,000 farmers engaged in the production of supplementary items of food for the needs of Singapore, and the livelihood of these 20,000 families are directly affected by their incomes. Moreover, the national income is in a way affected by the purchasing power of their produce of these farmers. Mr Speaker, Sir, fluctuations in the prices of agricultural produce also affect the livelihood of these farmers. The market for supplementary foodstuffs is now facing keen competition from outside producers. The market prices are fluctuating all the time and the trend is downward, because the cost of production is high and also because the Government are not properly looking after the welfare of the farmers. The farmers are not able to keep up with this competition, and therefore, the development of agriculture is hampered. If the Ministers are free, they can go to the rural areas and farms to have a look. They can see the very pitiable state of things there. Everything is in a tattered and dilapidated state. All the pig sties and chicken sheds are near collapsing, because the farmers are very poor and have no money to repair them. Many of them, with a very sorrowful heart, have come to the city to look for employment.

Order. May I remind the Member for Stamford that this again was mentioned by the Member for Jalan Kayu? Perhaps she could just say that she agrees with the Member for Jalan Kayu and get on with the debate, because we cannot have a repetition of this sort.

(In Mandarin): I was saying that to illustrate that because of the mistakes of the Government the number of unemployed in Singapore has increased, thereby hampering the economy of Singapore. Therefore, if the Government want to solve the problem of unemployment, they should look at it from all aspect, adopting various methods to deal with it. As for industrialisation, the policy of the Government depends too much on foreign capital and neglects local capital. They have neglected their own responsibility to help cottage industries. This is a very wrong attitude. From examples in Japan and Hong Kong, we can see that their industrial products are flooding our markets. Our new local and cottage industries have not been promoted and encouraged and cannot compete with them, and they are faced with the prospect of being eliminated. If Government could encourage and promote local light industries and cottage industries, then unemployment in Singa pore will be reduced. Women too will benefit from the setting up of cottage industries, because new avenues of employment will be open to them. This will help to a great extent the economy of the whole nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the question of the Singapore River, the Government have made beautiful plans but have not carried them out. I would like to take the opportunity here to quote a publication of the Ministry of Culture entitled "The Plans of the People". On page 16 of the Chinese version, the importance of the Singapore River is stressed. It states that the Singapore River will be improved. "This river is the lifeline of the entrepot trade of Singapore. On this river you have some 2,000 specially built vessels going to and fro to load and unload goods. About half the imports and exports of Singapore are handled by lighters in the Singapore River. In fact, a great deal of the imports and exports in Singapore have to go through the Singapore River. Stevedores, who number about 4,000, and workers on the lighters, who number about 2,000, are given opportunities for employment because of the Singapore River." Mr Speaker, Sir, since Government have stressed the importance of the Singapore River, how is it that they have not done anything about it? Just now the Acting Prime Minister said in his speech that if we have a plan but no money to implement it, then it is nothing more than slogan-shouting. I would ask: if you had the money but no plan to utilise the money, then how would you call this state of affairs? Mr Speaker, Sir, then they talk about the urban services. I feel that since the P.A.P. came to power, they have a very strange policy in dealing with welfare services in the urban areas. In some districts, the Government have done a great deal in respect of welfare services and urban amenities. This is because the Ministers come from these constituencies. In the Minister's constituencies, there are services like the repair of roads, the putting up of standpipes and the building of community centres. Creches have also been built. But in the other constituencies nothing seems to have been done. For example, in the Stamford constituency, the Government have set up only one standpipe. The Government will only go according to its interest and whims to carry out welfare services in the urban areas. If they do not like any particular Member, then nothing will be done in his or her own constituency. This is not what a responsible government should do. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I have touched upon the Singapore River. Stamford Ward has an area connected with the Singapore River. Many workers in this particular area belong to the Stamford Ward. I have received complaints from these workers. The complaints come from three sources. Some come from the workers, some from lighter-owners, and some from businessmen. The complaints of the workers are that the Singapore Government have not done anything to repair the Singapore River and so this has caused some inconvenience to their work. The complaints of the lighter-owners are mainly that because the river bed is not deep enough, the lighters get easily damaged. The businessmen's complaints are that because the river bed is not deep enough, it is impossible for the lighters to go near the shore when the tide is low. As a result, the lighters have to be anchored in the middle of the river at low tide. When this is discovered by the Marine Police, the businessmen or lighter-owners will receive summonses. To put it in a nutshell, the Government have done nothing about the Singapore River. Hence we have all these troubles. I feel that the Government's aim in passing a law should not mainly be to fine people so as to increase their revenue. Their aim should be to so regulate the affairs of the people that they will not go out of hand. It is not for the Government to pass a law to fine the people. If a lot of summonses and fines are being imposed on the people, then the Government have to review their policy and the law. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very regrettable for me to say that the policy speech of this session has forgotten entirely the women of Singapore who constitute about half the population. The Government seem to have neglected the role which women can play in nation building. The Government have also for gotten the policy they made regarding women in Singapore. I feel it is very strange that in the policy speech of this Session, there has been no mention of women of Singapore. It seems that all the problems of women are solved by the passage of the Women's Charter. It was stated in the manifesto of the P.A.P. during the election that it was the responsibility of the Party to liberate the women of Singapore. The Women's Charter is only a part and not the whole of the work of liberation. There are other more important work which the Government have not done during their term of office so far. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope to have your indulgence to talk about women's problems. But before I do so, we must recognise one principle. The women themselves are not a problem. In a very unreasonable society, women have to face many problems. It is only because of an unreasonable social system that these problems have arisen. Now, before any reform is made to the unreasonable social system, the sufferings of the women cannot be solved basically. Therefore, I want to touch upon the fact that this Govern ment which have come forward in the name of socialism, have in the course of their office of about two and a half years, seen the sufferings of women without doing anything about it. Great problems cannot be solved. Minor problems are not solved either. The unreasonable treatment which women experienced before the general election still exists, although the Government has been in office for two years. For example, when a woman gets married, she can only get a temporary post. The post which she held before her marriage has to be converted from a permanent basis to a temporary basis. This post on a temporary basis is not a very secure one for her. She is liable to dismissal or termination of services at any time. And so this unreasonable condition of service is not only a threat to married women, but it is also a sort of exploitation in the treatment of women. These temporary officers cannot enjoy pensions. I do not understand this talk about encouraging women to get out of the kitchen, when in the administra tion and in politics, in business as well as in industry, in education and in other aspects, the leaders are not the women. I do not understand what sort of policy the Government are adopting on socialism. I do not understand also on what logical basis the Government are going to raise the status of women in society. Mr Speaker, Sir, the problems of women have close reference to the legal, political, economic social aspects. All sorts of inequalities in those aspects which I have just mentioned should be eliminated, because it is due to these inequalities that the women have to be confronted with so many problems. The economic and political aspects are the main things. If women are able to be independent economically so that they will not have to depend on others for a living, then all the other problems will be easily solved. At present, the situation is like this. Whether you are a man or a woman, it is very difficult to get a job in Singapore. And so a woman who has got a job through her good fortune may be confronted with the danger of losing her job and her economic independence after marriage. Under such circumstances, she may have to depend on others for her livelihood. If her husband's income is insufficient, then the question of economy is very important to her family. If he happens to be irresponsible, then her burden will be increased manifold. In the Five-Year Programme, the election plan of the P.A.P., it is stated in the last paragraph of the 3rd edition in the Chinese version that it is the basic principle of socialism to have equal opportunities for all con cerned, that is to say, in respect of employment and working conditions. Equality must be given to all people irrespective of sex, and there should be no discrimination of one sex against the other. At present in the Government service and the leading commercial houses, it is quite common for married women to have their services terminated, and it is also very common to have married women considered as temporary employees. This is only a result of prejudice, that only men can be the leaders of the families and that wives are only part and parcel of the property of the husband. It is a very traditional prejudice to say that it is the duty of the wife to look after the family and the children. Now this is very unfair, because a married woman also has the responsibility of maintaining her family, especially when the husband is irresponsible and simply deserts her and the family. The responsibility of such a woman is very much greater. We cannot deny the right of the woman to! earn a living just because she is married. We cannot have unequal treatment in respect of women in their employment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. laid down many attractive policies before the election, but after it has taken office it has not carried out its policies. Then there is talk about equal pay for equal work in respect of men and women alike. This is also a basic problem of women. This can only come about when socialism is achieved, but it seems that the Party in power is not sincere in going in this direction. The solution to women's problems lies in the economic and political improvement of the status of women, and this question can only be solved gradually day by day. Now, in the interim period before the whole question is solved basically, you must make some partial improvements with sincerity. For example, in the Government service, women officers and lady teachers are doing the same kind of work as their men counterparts. So the Government must make sure that they get the same pay. If the Government are not protecting the interests of their own employees, how can they expect other employers to give equal treatment to women? If the Government deal with women from the point of view of a capitialist, whose main concern is only to make money, then maternity leave will be a loss to the women. If that is the case, then there is no use for the Government to talk about socialism and the protection of the interests of women. In social reform and social work, it is not right for the social worker, who talks about socialism, to suppress one half of the population on the one hand and, on the other hand, to talk about social reform. That is really a laughing stock. Social progress must be made in all respects, since women are part and parcel of society. They should not be discriminated against or neglected. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me give some examples from the Five-Year Plan of the Government to prove further that the Government say one thing and do another thing. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Five-Year Plan of the Government, at page 8 of the 3rd edition in Chinese, it is stated that at the time of the so-called elected government of Mr Lim Yew Hock, it was trying to please the colonial rower by all means and the Government then did nothing to improve the lot of women, and that in future, the P.A.P. Government would get rid of all such unreasonable conditions. Mr Speaker, Sir, at that time these attractive words and premises of the Government were very well received and supported by the people. But the Government have taken power for some two years and what have they done during this period? As far as the powers of the present Government are concerned, these are wider than these of the Lim Yew Hock Government, but as far as the actions of this present Government are concerned, I feel that they are just the same. In fact, this Government is even worse than the Lim Yew Hock Government, in trying to please the colonial power. The unreasonable laws and conditions are still in existence. It is not necessary for me to say more about this. I want to ask the P.A.P. Government whether or not they feel ashamed of themselves - [Interruption]

Order.

(In Mandarin):In the past, the Party used to ridicule others - [Interruption].

Battle of the sexes again!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point in line 6 on page 9 of the same pamphlet, is: "When we assume office in future, we will take all steps possible to solve the problems of women. We will in the course of five nears of our office do our best to improve the lot of women. Politically we will encourage women to step into society to take part in activities. We will help them to organise themselves in order to help build a unified women's movement. We will help them to fight for equal rights for women. We will also encourage women to step out of the kitchens to take an active part in politics and fight for improvement on an equal status with their men counterparts, so that they will he able to take part in the government as men can. Economically we will encourage light industries to attract women labour. We will also expand opportunities for women to get jobs and we will, try to do our best to have equal pay for equal work irrespective of sex. Widows and orphans will he looked after by the Government." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government have taken office for some two years and have done nothing to help the lot of women. Furthermore, no women have been encouraged to organise themselves. There is a women's section of the Party in power, but there is no celebration of Women's Day, which is recognised internationally and which falls on the 3rd of August every year. In the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, the present Minister for Home Affairs led the women in protest against the ban on the celebrations of Women's Day. But now the Party has taken office and yet there is no celebration of Women's Day. So why talk about fighting for the freedom of women? Why talk about improving the political status of women? I think this is all humbug. This humbug cannot be seen. It looks like the Minister for Home Affairs is dozing off. Mr Speaker, Sir, now I want to touch on the economic aspect. I feel that the Government have not only failed to encourage light industries, but have also neglected light industries. When we talk about the care to be given to widows and orphans as promised; I feel that the Government have not only failed to look after these people, but have also reduced the public assistance given to these poor people. So the Government say one thing and do another thing. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me raise my third point which is mentioned in page 4, line 7 of the same booklet in the Chinese version. It reads: 'The P.A.P. Government will try its best to safeguard the rights of women workers so that they will be given equal pay and favourable working conditions. In the meantime, we will try to make sure that women will get their maternity allowances.' It is also stated in the same booklet that the Government will legislate to ensure that the interests of women are protected. Mr Speaker, Sir, generally speaking, women workers can only dream of these promises. Their interest is not looked after by the Government. Let me bring up the matter of the lady teachers. As far as I know, in some Chinese aided schools, the women teachers have to pay to get people to do their work during their period of confinement. Now if they have financial difficulties -

On a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way.

(In Mandarin): No. If a woman teacher cannot afford to pay another teacher, then her work has to be shared among her colleagues, otherwise her class will have no teacher. Therefore, taking into consideration this state of affairs, how can the Government talk about giving protection to women? Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another point which is contained in page 12 of the same booklet in the Chinese version. The subtitle reads "Research Institute of Women's Problems". It is stated in this booklet that the P.A.P. Government is going to establish a Research Institute of Women's Problems to enable women of all races to study the problems of women. This Research Institute will include all the departments concerned in all aspects, such as politics, economics, health, culture, children's welfare, etc, in order to help the women to contribute to society and to the country. This Research Institute of Women's Problems is a good idea. But the Government have not carried out this promise since they took office. I do not know whether they are sincere in establishing such an Institute and I wonder when it will be established. I want to remind the Government that they have gone through more than half of their five-year term of office. If this is not done immediately, there will hardly he any time left for the Government to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the third item shown in the same pamphlet concerns culture and education. It reads: 'We want to encourage the cultures of the various races so that these cultures will be intermingled to become a united Malayan culture. In the meantime, we want to suppress undesirable and immoral cultures which come from outside. We want to stop the yellow culture promoters from poisoning the thoughts of the people. We know that yellow culture has a very direct influence on the women who are always the victims. We want to suppress yellow culture in order to ensure that women and children will be spiritually healthy. On the other hand, we want to consolidate the education of women. We want to set up adult educational classes all over Singapore to educate illiterate women. We want to make use of many Senior Middle III graduates who are unemployed so that they can go into the rural areas to educate the womenfolk. In this way, on the one hand, we can suppress the spread of yellow culture and, on the other hand, enhance the education of women so that we may be able to raise the moral standard of society.' Sir, talking about culture, I am reminded of the pathetic Ministry of Culture. It is responsible for the development and promotion of culture. But its work has now been limited to the setting up of a National Theatre and a television station. It is very regrettable that a Government which claims to pay attention to the moral conduct of society does not seem to be anti-yellow culture any more this year. Perhaps it seems that the Government have done enough to exterminate yellow culture and so there is no point for them to do anything more to suppress yellow culture. On the subject of women's problems again, it seems that the Government are quite satisfied since passing the Women's Charter. It seems they feel that all the women's problems have been solved since the Women's Charter is passed. There is another point in respect of women's education. I want to ask the Government why they have increased the school fees for girls. Is it compatible with the promise of consolidating the education of women? Does it mean that the standard of education of the girls will be raised because of an increase in the school fees for girls? The Government have promised that they will help to raise the status of women to an equal footing with that of men. But does it mean that this has been achieved because the school fees of the girls have been raised to those of the boys? I must point that if there is no improvement in the pay of women and there is an increase in the burden that they have to carry, then how can the policy of the Government be termed to be one of protecting the rights of women? Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past two years, the prestige of the Government has sunk low in the eyes of the people. If my impression is not wrong, I feel that the so-called People's Government is deteriorating year by year. At the present juncture, we can see that it is deteriorating day by day. [Interruption] It is strange that the Minister for Home Affairs seems to be dozing and interjecting at the same time.

Order. If the Member for Stamford had been looking at the Chair, she would not have noticed the Minister for Home Affairs was dozing. Obviously, she has not noticed the Speaker dozing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know you are not dozing. But I know the Minister was dozing, from the noise coming from his direction. [Interruption]. If he had not made any noise, I would not have looked at him.

Order. I think the Member for Bras Basah is now making a noise. Let us not have any more noises.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen that the Government, which claim to be socialist, have, in the course of the last two years, not done anything in the direction of socialism.

Hear, hear!

(In Mandarin): In the course of the last two years, the unreasonable regulations still exist. In fact, conditions are getting worse in respect of the freedom of the people. For example, take the Publications Ordin ance, the Registration of Societies Ordinance, and the Public Assembly Regulations, the applications for permission to stage performances, and the ugly P.P.S.O. All these things go to explain that regulations are still in existence to restrict the freedom of the people and that the Government are trying to bluff the people. Day by day the Government are going against the wishes of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Government's claim that they want to get rid of colonialism, and to improve the lot of the people of Singapore. But on hearing that the people want to fight for more freedom and for more democracy -

On a point of clarification.

No. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister wants to speak, he will be given an opportunity later on. On hearing that the people want to ask for the abolition of the Internal Security Council, that they want to have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and of publication, that they demand the relaxation of applications for citizenship, that they ask for the reunification of the trade union movement, the Government become very excited and afraid, and are jumping up and down. On hearing all these, they scold the people, brand them as Communists, and accuse them of having been bought over by the Communists. This kind of talk seems to give the people the impression that the Go vernment are treating them like children. Now, if these people are so gullible and easily influenced by the Communists, why cannot the Government easily influence them as well? The Government attempt to use these smears as a means to suppress the reasonable claims of the people. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, the people cannot be suppressed forever. They are suffering and as the unemployment problem becomes more and more acute, the difficulties of getting employment increase and the people are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. All these have led the people to make their reasonable and legitimate claims. This is but natural. How can the Government blame the people and how can the Government call these people Communists? Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally feel that originally the people did not find fault with the Government. They were not dissatisfied with the Government originally. They were really unhappy at their exploitation under colonial rule. They were dissatisfied with the Internal Security Council imposing limitations and restrictions on the present Government. The people had the impression that the Government's hands were tied because of the existence of the Internal Security Council. They thought it was the Internal Security Council that tied the hands of the Government and prevent them from serving the people of Singapore and improving their conditions. The people were in sympathy with the Government; so they tried to assist the Government to solve their difficulties. They wanted to work hand in hand with the Government to get rid of these unreasonable conditions, so that the Government would have greater powers to serve the people. But who could have known that, instead, the Government turned round and ignored the claims of the people and went against their desires. In this way, the people can see clearly that the P.A.P. is now a reactionary Party which is working in collusion with the colonialists to go against the people. Instead of accepting the claims of the people to get rid of the Internal Security Council, it seems that the Government have the intention to preserve its existence in order to cover up their shortcomings in serving the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, from all these facts -

Point of order, Sir. Could we have a translation of the funny remarks made from the Government benchers?

It is impossible. But I suppose they must be pleasant remarks because the Member for Stamford did smile.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from all these facts, you can see that in the past all the work which was not done was not because the Government could not do it but because the Government did not want to do it. 7.23 p.m.

It is not the question of the Government having no power to do it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the fact that the political detainees cannot be released is a very good example. As the saying goes, the people can shoulder all sorts of things but nobody can accept starvation. There is another saying - if we have no freedom, we will rather, die. The people are very realistic. The Prime Minister is trying to create an atmosphere about the Communist bogey, but the broad masses of the people are not afraid at all. [Interruption] But what the people are afraid is the lack of freedom and bread. Are the Government trying to satisfy the two basic demands of the people? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, bread and freedom are the demands of the people. The important point of the social problem is called politics. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the voices of dissatisfaction with the P.A.P. Government can be heard in every corner. If the Government are not deaf, they must know about it. We want to know whether the Government are res ponsible or whether they will be very pathetic. The Lim Yew Hock Government was a very good example. If the P.A.P. Government do not want to do good, then they will end up in an even worse way than that of the Lim Yew Hock Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to advise the P.A.P. Government -

Ta' payah.

(In Mandarin): - that it is better for them not to be stubborn, and go on being stubborn. If they should do so, they will have a bad name forever. The people of Singapore will not allow the P.A.P. Government to fool them. They will take revenge.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today when we are debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy statement, most of us have been concentrating on merger and the Government's services to the whole of Singapore. We are realistic people and our Government have entered the third year of their term of office. During these two years, of course, there were some defects but there were also achievements in various fields. This fact should not he ignored. We have had some achievements. We are not very boastful of what we have achieved. As for the defects, we have the courage to admit then and the courage to rectify them.

Never!

(In Mandarin): This has been our resolution. Ever since the inception of our Party, our aim has been to find a way to rectify and improve the unequal conditions of society that we have inherited from the colonial rule. Mr Deputy Speaker, to achieve a society in which there would he no exploitation of man by man is a long-term objective. It cannot be achieved in the short space of eight or ten years. We hope we will merge with the Federation of Malaya as early as possible. When our two territories are unified, a Malayan nation can materialise. There will then be a possibility for us to realise a socialist nation. By then we shall be able thoroughly to improve the livelihood of the people. Now we can only carry out work which is very much like patching up torn clothing. Whenever there is a tear, we patch it up. The Member who has just spoken complains about the realities we are faced with. But she should have complained against the colonial rulers. It is they who had brought about this situation. Therefore, I say it is important for the people of the two territories to be unified. Of course, this will not be in the interests of the British colonialists. They will try by all means to create internal confusion, chaos and trouble among us. It is a pity the Member for Cairnhill is not here. Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Right-wing Party of Lim Yew Hock saw the division in our Left-wing Party, they were very happy. I wish to tell them that they cannot benefit from this con fused situation in the Left-wing camp. They cannot stage a comeback as a result of this. I tell them that they have no hope of doing this. Mr Deputy Speaker, we and the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, who were formerly Members of the P.A.P., have had differences in regard to our political stand and our political philosophy. The former P.A.P. Members, i.e., the present Members of the Barisan Sosialis, have left the P.A.P. Some people think that our Party will become a Right-wing Party as a result of these former P.A.P. members leaving us. It seems that they are all Leftists. The Member for Choa Chu Kang should not be so very arrogant in his conception. In fact, the P.A.P. is still the same as before. The policy we are adopting to bring about a merger with the Federation of Malaya is different from the policy of the Barisan Sosialis. It is only a matter of difference in policy and standpoint. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis attack us whenever they rise to speak. I feel very disheartened and very sad indeed. They want to hit at the P.A.P. at all costs, hoping that it will collapse as early as possible. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to tell them that they have not realised the fact that our common enemy still exists. They attack us just to get a moment of pleasure for themselves, but at the cost of neglecting the existence of the common enemy. They are forgetting our common aim of eliminating our common enemy. This kind of attitude is contrary to what we should adopt in the present phase of our constitutional struggle. I hope the Members of the Barisan Sosialis will not bully the people too much. Mr Deputy Speaker, we also recognise the fact that everything is progressing and is in the process of evolution. Of course, there must be certain laws guiding this evolution and progress. For instance, the chairs, the tables and the utensils we use every day appear to be the same every day. But, in fact, there are changes every day in the contents, nature, and substance of these articles. They are, in fact, different from what they have been before. Therefore, we say that the P.A.P. has, like the carpenter, its own tasks to perform. The carpenter has his tools to do his work. If the tools are good, then the structure put up by him will be better and can last longer. If the materials which are used to build the structures are bad, then the structures put up with such materials will deteriorate and perish very soon. It is regrettable and a pity really that the Member for Anson has disappeared now. After entering this House, and whenever he stands up to speak, he expects to say something to attract the applause of the people. Sometime ago he said he wanted to place Singapore under the control of the United Nations. Mr Deputy Speaker, nobody in any part in the world should throw away the highest concept of patriotism which a human being should have. I feel the Member for Anson has given up that highest concept. Perhaps he has thrown it away. He says we are struggling and we are about to die. But I would say that he is struggling in his coffin. Mr Deputy Speaker, now I want to turn to the Member for Stamford. Just now she attacked us. She criticised us and said that we had not done anything during our two and a half years of office. It is a pity she is not here. Otherwise I could direct my remarks at her. The comprehensive plans and the policy of the P.A.P. have also been criticised by her. In dealing with the present society, it is impossible to carry out our plans in every detail. It will take some time before the present society is reformed. But we have to perform our task to realise our objectives. Just now, she has mentioned that women employees are considered as temporary employees. On this question, we have already put up our memorandum to the Minister for Finance. As to the question of women suffering for so many thousands of years, she has our full sympathy and understanding. We cannot forget the plight of our sisters who have been suffering all these years. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very regrettable that when the Member for Stamford was with us in the P.A.P., she was a great disappointment to us. If she had mentioned all the points which she mentioned in this House just now, that is, indicated the various ways to solve all these problems, then we would have been very thankful to her. She also touched on the point that we have not carried out the! policy of equal pay for equal work, irrespective of sex. But had she not left us, she would not have said so, because when she was with us, she had stressed the difficulty in resolving the problems of giving equal pay for equal work, irrespective of sex. We have said on this question that it is difficult for the Government to legislate to provide equal pay for equal work irrespective of sex, before other problems are solved. For instance, when a man is unable to get employment, a woman will find it more difficult to get employment. I hope the Member for Stamford will pay more attention to the problems of women and try to find out what is the crux of the problem facing our sisters in Singapore, and then try to put up constructive suggestions. We will be happy to consider or accept them. Here I must say to the Member for Stamford that not long ago this year, a meeting of the South-East Asian Women's Conference was convened. At that time we suggested that Assemblywomen from the Opposition side should attend this meeting, so that we could have a mutual discussion of the problems relating to women. In the end the Member for Mountbatten, in fact, attended this conference, but the Member for Stamford did not attend. When I returned to Singapore, I told her, "My good friend, Fung Yin Ching -"

Who is Fung Yin Ching? Is she a Member of this Assembly?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was telling you what I told the Member for Stamford, not that I wanted to mention her name. I said that the South-East Asian Women's Conference had written to invite her to attend, but why did she not attend? Then she replied, "Is it really so?" And I told her, "We as women should attend this Conference in order to contribute our opinion and take part in all kinds of discussion." But when the third meeting of this Conference was held, the said Member did not attend again. Then I told the Member for Delta that the Member for Stamford did not turn up for this meeting, and later on I told Mr Lim Ching Siong, the SecretaryGeneral of the Barisan Sosialis, that he should encourage her to attend this meeting. In any case, what happened ulti mately was that the meeting was not convened in Singapore, because we were not willing to accept representatives from Taiwan to come to Singapore. Had we accepted, then the Members- who are now sitting opposite would have accused us of working in collusion with the Chiang Kai-shek regime in Taiwan. That is why we were not willing to accept representatives from Taiwan to attend this special meeting of the South-East Asian Women's Conference in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the Member for Stamford will study the problems of women more and then put up constructive suggestions. She also touched on the organisation of women. She should know this question well. We have put up this problem for discussion. But the work of organising women could not be put into practice in just one day or overnight. This problem is still being studied by us. Just now the Member for Stamford said that we had not tried to carry out our duty in this respect. But she should know that she should not look at things from the outside. She should try to get at the core of the problem. She also mentioned yellow culture. Now, this is something which all the people in Singapore know very well. Since the P.A.P. came into office, it has been very strict in dealing with yellow culture. We have made some great achievements in this respect. She should not try to ignore our achievements in this work. It is to be regretted that when the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, was a member of the Film Censorship Appeal Committee, he did not oppose certain strip-tease films. Instead he said these strip-tease shows were not yellow culture. On the contrary, they were good. So I must say that the Member for Stamford should try to persuade the Member for Queenstown, her Chairman. That is only correct and proper. Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to what the Member for Stamford has said about the education of women in the rural areas. She says we have done nothing in this respect. She should not have said so. Mr Deputy Speaker, since we became the Government we have built many community centres throughout Singapore. One of the activities of these community centres is to help solve women's problems, because in the community centres we have established adult education classes, sewing classes and others. The chief purpose is to help women, particular those from families who are unable to send their children to school to receive any kind of education because of their poverty and economic situation. These classes which are conducted in the community centres are meant to help them solved their problems, irrespective of whether the students attending there are men or women. So I should point out the mistake in what the Member for Stamford has said. She also mentioned the passing of the Women's Charter. She said that once the Women's Charter had been passed, it seemed as though we took it for granted that all problems relating to women were solved at one and the same time. But we never had such a conception. We can only say that the passing of the Women's Charter is one of the steps forward to solve women's problems. It is not the final and only solution in this respect. Therefore, I hope that if she wants to review the Women's Charter and to suggest any amendments, she should consult the other Assemblymen in the Barisan Sosialis beforehand; otherwise they will be also very confused in the end and cannot come to any agreement on what they want to suggest. Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree to what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said just now, but he must admit that our laws have been good. It is only because of their opposition that there have been some loopholes now in the laws. The Member for Stamford says that the school fees of girl students have been raised by $1. Now, I should tell her that we had made a careful study before we carried that policy out. Our Party had also discussed this question, namely, the raising of the school fees by $1. We hope that in future men and women will have equal rights irrespective of sex, but the Members opposite have totally disregarded the contents of the policy statement by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. We have clearly pointed out in this policy statement that we want to carry out the policy of giving equal treatment to all, irrespective of sex. If the Member for Stamford, when she was with us, had mentioned those points which she has just mentioned in this Assembly, namely, the problems and the difficulties relating to women, then we would have paid attention to what she had suggested. But she did not do so. Instead of which she has mentioned this in the House today. Does she have any ulterior motive -

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.