Hansard, 1964-11-18

I have to report that on the 17th day of November, 1964, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara assented to the following Bill:- The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bi11.

asked the Minister for Education how many children were admitted to Primary I in 1965, giving figures separately for the four language streams and for government and aided schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no child has yet been admitted into Primary I in 1965.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to my knowledge, the enrolment for 1965 ended in July this year. The lists were presented to the Ministry of Education in August. I am sure the Ministry must have got the figures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the Member for Thomson is asking for the number of students to be admitted and not "were admitted" in 1965. If that is the case, then the total number of children to he admitted to Primary 1 in 1965 for the four language streams are: Government schools 38,048 Government-aided schools 19,683 The total number of children to be admitted to Primary I in 1965 for the four language streams is 57,731. The breakdown figures are as follows: Total Number to be admitted into Schools: Government- Total Stream Government aided Admissions Malay 4,697 - 4,697 Chinese 1,940 14,410 16,350 English 31,399 5,159 36,558 Tamil 12 114 126

asked the Minister for Education in 1965 (a) whether there will be an increase or decrease in the number of classes from Primary I to VI in the Government and Aided English schools respectively, and what will be the actual number; (b) whether there will be an increase or decrease in the number of classes from Primary I to VI in the Government and Aided Chinese schools respectively, and what will be the actual number.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1965, there will be a total increase of 285 classes in English and Chinese Primary schools. The breakdown is as follows: English stream: Government Primary schools 238 Aided Primary schools 7 Total 245 Chinese stream: Government Primary schools 31 Aided Primary schools 9 ---- Total 40 ----

asked the Minister for Education how many primary schools will the Government build or plan to build in 1965, and how many of them will be for the English stream, Chinese stream and Malay stream respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 1965 the Government proposes to commence building 10 primary schools. It is expected that another 6 primary schools will be at the planning stage in the same year and will be ready for construction in 1966. The media of instruction in each of these schools will be decided on the basis of actual demand. It is the policy of the Government to allow parents to choose the medium of instruction for their children. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

2.39 p.m.

Development Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore for the year 1965, as contained in Paper Cmd. 25 of 1964. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the third column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 7 of the Paper. Dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Perhaps for the convenience of Members, and in order that we might not have difficulties over the content of the speeches which Members will make, I have to inform Members that they must not repeat arguments which have been used on the Estimates or on matters which they had rightfully discussed on the Estimates. These are Development Estimates and the debate should proceed on a completely different line from that of yesterday. If Members will keep that in mind, we will make great progress. Head D 01 -

The first amendment is Head D 01 - Land Office. There is one amendment standing in the names of three Members, Messrs. Ong Lian Teng, Tan Cheng Tong and Ong Eng Guan. As Mr Ong Lian Teng's amendment was received first, he will move the amendment first.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $100. I would like to raise two questions under this head. I hope the Minister concerned will give a reply. First, the Government's acquisition of land from 1st January, 1961, up to 30th of June, 1964. How much land was acquired by the Government during this period? How much of it belonged to private land-owners and how much was military land? How much money was spent on them? Secondly, at what prices did the Government acquire private land? According to what standard did it acquire the land?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong. The Member need not speak now if he does not want to. He may speak afterwards.

(In Mandarin): I do not wish to speak now.

Mr Ong Eng Guan? Mr Ong Eng Guan indicated dissent.

Is the Prime Minister replying to this?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Member wishes to have the information he seeks of a detailed nature from 1961 to 1964, I suggest he table a question in that respect. Under this particular head of expenditure, I am here to explain why we have put in a vote of $10 million for acquisition of private lands for public purposes for the year 1965. As for the assessment of valuation, I think really he ought to consult his legal adviser. The law on the acquisition of land is quite clear. There is at present before a Select Committee of the Assembly a new Land Acquisition Bill some provisions of which may well have to be altered, or otherwise provisions will have to be made in the constitutional articles relating to acquisition of property, to remove any doubt as to the constitutional validity of some of these provisions. I do not wish to go into the intricacies of the law on land acquisition. The Member ought to know, from the representatives of his Party on the Select Committee, what is the present position and what we hope to do by an alteration of the law on land acquisition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make only a few comments under this heading. I feel that $10.5 million voted for the acquisition of land is an over-estimated provision. My feeling is that not so much should be spent in 1965 because of the following reasons: The first reason is that there are periodical fire sites to be compulsorily acquired, and the Government pays to the land-owners only a small fraction, perhaps 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the market price of land, and pays to each fire victim a few tens of dollars as fire relief at the most. As far as my memory goes, there are already four big fires in the past four years, say, one fire for each year. If the Government has to pay the market value for these lands, adding to it the cost of removing the squatters, the inhabitants, and perhaps spend many years in removing them, then these lands in the four fire sites will cost the Government perhaps many hundreds of millions of dollars. 2.45 p.m. The second reason is that the resettlement compensation paid by the Government to villagers and squatters of lands, through the Housing Board, is much below that paid to squatters by private developers, perhaps only one-third or half of the market price of evicting the squatters. The third reason is that since the Government intends to pass its Land Acquisition Bill which, as the Prime Minister has just indicated, is even subject to certain alterations, the Government is only required to pay land-owners a small fraction of the market price of the land it has compulsorily acquired Mr Speaker, Sir, we know, under the provisions of the Bill, that the Government can pay land-owners perhaps even $500 per acre ---

Order. The provisions of that Bill are now before the Select Committee and they should not be discussed here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is for these reasons that I suggest to reduce the amount voted in the 1965 Budget. I feel that even $2½ million or $3 million would be sufficient for 1965.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government acquires land, it does not pay attention to the welfare of the people concerned, nor does it look after their interest. In Paya Lebar, when the Government was repairing and extending the road, we saw that the residents along the road suffered much. About $300 compensation was paid to each family. In the past, these people had been renting attap houses. Every month ---

Order. I have stated to hon. Members before the debate on the amendment started that the arguments used in the Estimates should not be used here. These are merely Development Estimates. What is in order is for the Member to ask the Government questions relating to the Development Estimates and not to discuss what arises out of them, what harm it will cause the people as a result therefrom. These matters should have been discussed yesterday and not today. So if the Member will please remember that and proceed with his speech.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in discussing the Development Estimates, we are concerned about the condition in which the people find themselves as a result of the acquisition of land by the Government, which has never been mentioned in the past. These people have been forced to remove because of Government's plan, or actual implementation of the plan, to extend and build roads there. Each family has been compensated to the sum of about $300. That is not enough to resolve their difficult position. Because in the past they have paid only a few dollars for rent ---

Order. I do not want to stop the Member from making his speech. But I think he should pay some attention to the Chair's ruling. These are matters which properly should have been discussed yesterday or the day before, but not today.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter which I am raising now was not raised yesterday or at any sitting in the past. This matter concerns ---

Order. The Member should pay some attention to my ruling. These questions could have been raised yesterday and they should have been. If they were not, the Member will not raise them today on the Development Estimates.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I respect your ruling and I will not mention it any more, namely, the widening of Paya Lebar Road after acquisition of land there. I will now touch on another matter. The day before, I asked the Prime Minister certain questions. He did not give me a reply and the other Ministers were also not able to give me any satisfactory reply. This matter concerns a piece of land in Tampines 11 milestone which has been acquired by the Government. The Government have mentioned that this piece of land has been sublet to others. In fact, there is no proof and ---

Order. These are Development Estimates for the year 1965. The hon. Member is touching upon a matter which relates to some items of expenditure which have already been incurred. He will see that he is completely out of order. He is not being relevant, in the first instance, to the topic under discussion. Will he proceed to some other point relevant to the issue before the House?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will dwell on the question which I have just raised. I regret that the Prime Minister did not give me a reply point by point. Instead he touched on a certain Bill which is now before a Select Committee. The Bill is called the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill. I just want to know how much land the Government has acquired during the period I have indicated and at what prices. According to my knowledge, the land acquired by the Government is mostly private land. I would like to ask whether the Government intends also to acquire land belonging to the military authorities, such as the War Department and the Naval Base. In fact, the British military authorities can be described as one of the largest landlords in Singapore and the Government dare not touch a single hair of these authorities. Judging by the vote of $10 million, if we have sufficient power to take back all or part of the land occupied by the military authorities, I believe there will be a great saving in this vote. The saving, I think, can be put to other development purposes. The Prime Minister dare not give me a full reply to my questions. I think he is afraid.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really bewildered. On the one hand, I am urged by the Member for Hong Lim to give more money away to land-owners. He regrets the fact that Government has been able to acquire fire sites at 20 per cent the value of the land. I do not know what he really wants the Government to do. Take this public money, give it away to landlords who have fortuitously got their land cleared of tenants by fire, the burden of rehousing and resettling of whom falls upon the Government. On the other hand, I get the Barisan Sosialis Member for Bukit Panjang saying that it is a great pity that we should acquire private land. I would have thought that, being upholders of socialism, they would have been against private ownership of all land. That is one of the basic tenets. We accept the facts of life as they are. In so far as we can in our mixed economy, we try to mitigate the acquisition of fortuitous wealth by just the possession of land, particularly to prevent people from getting windfall gains as a result of public expenditure on development. But just in case people will accuse the Barisan of lack of anti-colonial fervour, back again we come to military land holdings. The Member has not read last year's proceedings of how we went to London and got back over 300 odd acres of land, and got a payment made of $10 million for use of T.O.L. land which belongs to the State and to which the Army had no title. What does he want us to do? Take back the Naval Base and close it down? Take back Changi Airfield and close it down? What are the facts of life? Do we really feel that it is wrong to have military bases and, therefore, we ought to scrap them and grow vegetables instead on them? These are dead issues, Mr Speaker, Sir. All I wish to say on the amount set aside, $10 million, is that it has been set aside for the last few years, and the expenditure over the 1960s - 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964, up to November - has ranged between $4 million and $8 million, depending upon the exigencies that arise in the course of these years. Whilst we may not spend the $10 million, I think there is no particular harm in making provision for $10 million. I do not know what will happen in 1965. The estimation is that we shall be acquiring certain parcels of land for slum clearance and improvement schemes. We shall have to meet additional payments after a final survey of acquired land. There are certain contingency awards of legal costs which will have to be met arising out of the reference to court in respect of several objections made by owners under collective awards.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Bukit Panjang, has spoken on behalf of my Party to the effect that the Prime Minister should be urged to save on public funds and acquire more land belonging to the military authorities, so that some of it may be distributed for the use of farmers facing resettlement, so that they will have more land in which to do some farming. This is a good idea in my opinion. As far as I know, Mr Speaker, in my own constituency and in Sembawang constituency, or even in the Nee Soon area, there is a great deal of land occupied by the military authorities. This land has not been properly put to use and is deserted. Although there are some squatters scattered about in these areas, one must note that the quit rents paid by the farmers are paid to the military authorities. This is unreasonable because if we are heading towards independence, then this land should be taken back by the Government, and whatever is paid by the farmer should be paid into the Government coffers instead of the military authorities. That means the British are now occupying our land and taking money from our people. 3.00 p.m. There is a great deal of land - a few hundred acres - occupied by the Naval Base, and a few hundred acres also occupied by the War Department. Some of this land is not properly used or is never used at all. So the idea put forward by my colleague is a good one. Another point arises when land is acquired for general purposes. Some farmers in Geylang Serai are faced with eviction and resettlement in Sembawang. In this respect, I notice that the land given by the Government to these farmers is insufficient for their farming, only about three-quarters of an acre. So if the farmer and his family were to depend on this bit of land, it would not be enough for farming. I hope the Government will consider this matter and give more attention to the needs of the farmers. On the average, if a farmer has to maintain his family by farming - say, a family of three or four persons - then at least the piece of land required should be more than an acre in area, otherwise the yield is not sufficient to maintain the farmer and his family. Production from a small piece of land is far too low, and we must give the farmer more land to increase his production. If you force the farmer into the jungle to cultivate a small piece of land, say, three-quarters ---

Order. We are again going back. I did inform hon. Members not to go back to what should have been discussed yesterday. I have let the hon. Member mention this - to suggest to the Government what use is the land to be put to. I think that is perfectly in order. But to go on developing the theme of the farmer, which should have been developed yesterday, is completely out of order today. Will the Member please remember that?

(In Mandarin): The other suggestion I wish to make is that there are big landowners in Singapore. I hope that the Government, when acquiring land, will not acquire it from small landowners or small holdings, unless such small holdings are actually necessary for development purposes. If it can be avoided, we should not force the small landowners out of their land. There is one company in Sembawang Estate which occupies a big piece of land. The Government has not taken action to acquire it. I suggest that in case of acquisition, the Government should pay more attention to big landowners, because it will then bring in more profit for the people and for the Government. These big landowners will not suffer badly from the acquisition because they are rich. So it is my hope that the Government will pay attention to what I have said.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has said just now that after merger he was able to take back some 300 acres of land from the British. I do not know whether he will continue to do this in future, that is to say, to get back more land from the military authorities. As a matter of fact, the Member for Jalan Kayu has said that the military authorities are occupying the land of the people of Singapore for no useful purpose at all. This is a point worthy of attention. I think the Prime Minister cannot deny this fact. Furthermore, in the areas of land occupied by the military authorities, some bombs may be stored. I do not want this to happen because they can always send their bombs back to England for safe keeping. Our land should be used for farming and other uses so that we can save more money on purchase of land. I think this is a good suggestion worthy of Government's attention. The Prime Minister has just said that we have already acquired 300 acres of land and we can forget about the rest of it. This is not proper because, as a matter of fact, there is still a vast area of land occupied by the British military.

Sir, it is a very sad commentary on the Opposition - flogging all the dead horses, these issues of large and vast tracts of land being captured by the British armed forces, greedily dog-in-the-manger squatting on them. The Member for Hong Lim used to flog this issue in every one of our sessions. We have gone through all that. In 1963 we went through it in London before the final terms on Malaysia - every scrap of land, title to it, user being put to. I welcome any further suggestions from Members of the Opposition in regard to any specific piece of land which they think the Army is not using but just squatting on with a view to denying Singapore its user. I would also like to remind Members opposite that there have been some fundamental changes in this situation. The problem that will arise for us in the next decade is what to do when these bases are gradually scrapped away, as they will be in course of time, maybe 10 years, maybe 15 years, but certainly within the next two decades. These are not the problems. The problem in Singapore will still remain - shortage of land. We are a small island of 224 square miles. We are reclaiming land on the east coast; the whole of the foreshore from Bedok to Tanjong Rhu. We are also reclaiming land in the Kallang Basin. We are reclaiming land in Jurong, all the estuaries. We will willingly scrutinise any further better ideas which the Opposition can offer. But to suggest, as the Member for Jalan Kayu did, that we should not acquire land belonging to small landlords - it is, of course, the Barisan Sosialis philosophy that small landlords should be protected and land acquired only from the big landlords. We do not want to acquire land unless we have to, and land is acquired not whether it belongs to a small or a big landlord, but whether that particular area needs certain particular facilities or amenities to be provided for, such as schools, hospitals, roads, circuses, fire brigade, fire stations, and so on. It is irrelevant whether the landlord is a big or a small one. I know the Member for Jalan Kayu considers himself reasonably safe in the definition of "small landowner". Finally, I would like to give Members this assurance: that the $10 million will be disbursed in a business-like manner, it is not our duty as the Government to pay more than we have to when we acquire land or to give largesse when removing squatters from Crown land. We understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that legally we are not bound to give anything away when we ask people to move out from Crown land. They are people who have squatted, encumbered lands. The Member for Bukit Panjang has mentioned the compensation paid as $300/$400. There are certain rules and certain scales - the area of the attap huts, fruit trees, and so on and so forth. This will be worked out. We have never been more generous in the whole of the history of squatter resettlement. We take this as a form of social welfare aid to resettle and rehouse people. But there is a limit. Otherwise we may well and justly be accused of encouraging more squatting on Government land for the purpose of extracting or extorting resettlement prices when the land has to be cleared for development. I think these issues have been gone through ad nauseam every time. The problem that still remains is one of insufficient land for the number of people in this island. I do not pretend to be able to solve the problem of agricultural land in Singapore. It is one of those problems which are basically insolvable. If we succeed as the industrial base in Malaysia, as we may well do in the next decade, then there is no place for either grazing land or agricultural land in the popularly understood sense of that term. Singapore is an industrial city, and the price of land is being determined on the basis of a developing industrial complex.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $10,500,000 for Head D 01 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 02 -

Head D 02 - Ministry of Finance. There are three amendments under this Head, the first of which stands in the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for head D 02 he reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 002. Mr Speaker, in the past when the Prime Minister negotiated on the White Paper Merger, he promised a loan of some $150 million for development purposes in North Borneo, that is to say, Singapore has to pay some $30 million per year for 5 years on condition that North Borneo must employ 50 per cent labour from Singapore. The Prime Minister has mentioned this many times in the past, but according to the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 23rd July, the Chief Minister of North Borneo, Dato Stephens, denied this. On the 25th of July a spokesman for Sarawak denied this again in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 25th July. In this House on 16th December, 1963, the Finance Minister also mentioned that we were giving some $30 million per year to North Borneo so that it would be able to get some 8,000 labourers from Singapore every year. 3.15 p.m. I ask the Minister for Finance whether the promise by North Borneo to engage workers from Singapore still holds good today. The second question is whether, at the present juncture, the Singapore Government is continuing negotiations with North Borneo with regard to the employment of labourers from Singapore and their terms of employment. The third question is this. If the North Borneo Government finally refuses to engage workers from Singapore, why do we have a provision for next year of a loan of $30 million to the North Borneo Government? On 1st November, the newspapers reported that Dato Pang Tet Tshung, the Minister for Social Welfare of Sarawak, said that he was prepared to go to Taiwan to recruit labour. That being so, I ask, why do we have a provision for next year of a loan of $30 million?

(In Mandarin): I am not speaking on the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not responsible for what the newspapers report about what Ministers say. I can only inform the Assembly what I know for a fact. The present position is this. Discussions have taken place between officials of the Singapore Government, the Central Government and the Sarawak and Sabah Governments over this matter. The Finance Ministry of the Central Government is making a study of the Development Plan of the North Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak to find out how much labour content there is in this Plan; that is to say, if their development proposals are carried out, then how many workers will be involved? On that basis, 50 per cent - it may be more or it may be less - of the workers they will employ in projects financed by the loans made from the Singapore Development Fund will be engaged from Singapore. This is quite a complicated operation. The Ministry of Labour has asked people in the Unemployment Exchange whether or not they were prepared to work in Sabah and Sarawak, and just over 8,000 persons have said that they were prepared to go there. Therefore, the Singapore Government is making plans to establish reception areas in Kuching, Jesselton, Sandakan and I think at one or two other points, so that these people who want to work there can be sent there at Government's expense and live there until the call for their employment is made. We have agreed with the Central Government and the Sabah and Sarawak Governments that the cost of sending workers from Singapore to the Borneo territories and the cost of maintaining them until they find work will be borne by the Singapore Government. If once they are found unsuitable after employment, then the cost of repatriating them back to Singapore will be borne by the Borneo Government concerned. As I have said, this is a very complicated operation. The officials of the four Governments concerned - the Central Government, the Singapore Government and the Sabah and Sarawak Governments - are working out the details and I hope that we can reach an early and satisfactory solution to this problem. If we can find jobs for 8,000 of our citizens in Sabah and Sarawak sometime next year, I think this will be a worthwhile achievement to relieve a lot of the distress and enforced idleness among our young men and women. I do not think that this is too high a price for extending a $20 million interest-free loan and a $10 million loan with interest. I am sure - whether we are in the Opposition or in the Government - that all we want to see is that young men and women who are unemployed will get an early opportunity to find useful work.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, we all hope that we can solve our unemployment problem. We are of the view that the Government should solve the unemployment problem by solving the financial problem. We are granting a loan to Sabah and Sarawak, and if they promise to give employment to our youths, then it will solve our unemployment problem to a certain extent. In the past, the Prime Minister has said that our loan is tied up with the desire of the Borneo territories to employ our people, but the Minister for Finance has repeatedly said that his officials have been carrying on negotiations. This seems to be contrary to what the Prime Minister has said and the White Paper agreement. Negotiations have taken place between the Singapore Government and the North Borneo Government, but a Government spokesman of the Borneo territories has denied such negotiations. It is reported in the newspapers that the Sarawak Minister for Social Welfare is going to Formosa to recruit labour. Therefore, we feel despondent over this question. We must understand clearly that the loan money belongs to the Singapore Government. According to the Estimates, there is a deficit of more than $20 million. We have been negotiating with the World Bank for loans to promote our industrial projects for example, the Jurong and Pasir Panjang projects - and yet we are going to lend money to other people. If the loan is granted to North Borneo and our people are not recruited for employment there, it will be detrimental to the interest of our people. After merger and Malaysia, we have to contribute $127 million to the Central Government. This is a great burden to the people of Singapore. If in addition to this we have to grant a yearly loan of $30 million to North Borneo without getting anything in return, it will be a bad deal. We have to look after ourselves first. We hope that the Minister will take a firm stand by not sacrificing the interest of the people of Singapore when making the loan to North Borneo. I would like the Government to clarify whether the North Borneo Government has agreed to recruit labour from Singapore. If not, the loan must not be granted. This issue is one of the provisions of the White Paper. For the past one year, the people of Singapore have been in the dark with regard to the actual terms of merger. The Prime Minister is duty bound to reveal all the facts. If North Borneo intends to do something detrimental to the interest of the people of Singapore, then we must point out to her the terms of the White Paper agreement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you do not know how pleased I am to say that I absolutely agree with almost every word of the Member for Paya Lebar!

Does the Member for Paya Lebar wish to have a vote taken? Mr Kow Kee Seng indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 02 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 003.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon. Mr Speaker, Sir, subhead 003 refers to "Loan to Public Utilities Board". What is the purpose of this loan? Has this something to do with the loan (with interest) that we are going to get from the World Bank for the Johore River Project and the Pasir Panjang Power Station Project?

Sir, the Public Utilities Board is divided into three main service departments: namely the Electricity Department, the Water Department and the Gas Department. As the population is growing and the standard of living is going up, there is a continuous increase in the demand for more water, more electricity and more gas. As a result, we have to build new stations, to obtain new sources of water and build new plants to make more gas. 3.30 p.m. In 1965, the Public Utilities Board has a capital development programme of $83.3 million, of which the Electricity Department has been allocated $52.2 million, the Water Department $25.4 million, and the Gas Department $5.8 million. This rather large capital expenditure will require finance from several sources. There are three main sources. The first is from the Board's own fund. It has a surplus in its operating accounts. The Board itself expects to finance its development projects to the amount of $42 million. We expect to draw on the World Bank loans for our electrical expansion as well as for our water expansion scheme to the amount of $20 million. The Government will, therefore, be called upon to provide an additional $25 million.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the actual financial position of the P.U.B. is. Recently, many citizens have complained to the P.U.B. that the rates for water, electricity and gas have been increased. Some of the rates have been increased to two or three times the original rates. In the past few months, meter-readers have not been sent to various houses. The bills are based on past estimates. Another point is this. There are some houses, especially in Geylang Serai, which are vacant. However, the P.U.B. continues to send out bills for water, light and gas. I hope that the Minister will give an explanation on these three points. Many rural people are puzzled ---

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are on the Development Estimates and yet the hon. Member is going into details about bill-collectors and meter-readers not doing their work.

I think in this case, the Member for Thomson was merely trying to persuade the Finance Minister that the Public Utilities Board is not worthy of the loan. If that is his point, I think he is in order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have finished my speech. The Minister for National Development need not have to raise a point of order.

The Minister is entitled to raise a point of order. That does not merit comment from the person against whom it is being raised. Will the Member please continue with his speech?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the P.U.B, has been receiving loans from the World Bank and from the Government. However, there has been an increase in the rates for water, electricity and gas. The Government is granting loans; hence the increase in the Estimates!

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time I have heard that there has been an increase in the rates for water, light and gas. I think what the Member probably meant is that people have to pay more; their monthly bills have gone up. Of course, it could well be that their monthly bills have gone up because they have used more water, light or gas. As for meter-readers not doing their work properly, I think, Mr Speaker, this is really not a development matter. If he feels very strongly about it, he can raise the matter at Question Time. He should have raised it at the time when the ordinary Estimates were being discussed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not moving the amendment*.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not moving the amendment*.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 02 be reduced by $100.* Mr Speaker, Sir, under this heading, $88 million has been provided in the 1965 Budget for development expenditure. Now, if this sum of $88 million can help to relieve the increasing pressure of growing unemployment in Singapore, I say that it is worth it. But if this sum of money is going to be wasted, then the Government should be made responsible to the businessmen, the clerks, the hawkers, the taxi-drivers and all the citizens of Singapore who have contributed to this big amount of money. After all, $88 million is not a small sum. There are three main items: $31½ million for industrial development; $30 million for interest free loan to Sarawak and Sabah; and a $25 million loan to the Public Utilities Board, presumably to complete the $100 million Power Station or to start with the new water project. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the Government's industrialisation programme is a flop. The Government has spent $54 million up to several months ago. I have received the written answers to my questions - and the figure given to me was $54 million - which is in addition to the Government's and businessmen's investment in the scrap plant, the Jurong shipyard and the other 17 factories. I was told by the Minister that there are 19 factories now in production in Jurong. All this expenditure has cost $100 million. I was told by the Minister for Finance that in Jurong there were 1,851 people working as at August 1964. I have worked out the figures. In other words, for every million dollar of investment in Jurong, we have only been able to create jobs for 20 persons - $1 million for 20 jobs. Mr Speaker, Sir, if this is additional employment for the working population in Singapore, it is not so bad. But in the case of the Jurong scrap plant, the jobs created for 483 people have resulted in the loss of jobs in other parts of Singapore. The ban on the export of scrap has resulted in the loss of much employment to those people engaged in scrap collection. Scrap, which used to come to Singapore from Johore, Malacca and as far as Negri Sembilan, is now directed to Port Swettenham for export to Japan as it fetches a better net price despite freight charges. Mr Speaker, there are many people involved in the scrap business. They are lorry-drivers, workers and small businessmen. All these people have now lost their jobs. Moreover, very soon, a pig-iron and scrap plant will be built in Prai. When this is completed, there is little prospect for the Singapore scrap plant. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must make clear the difference between a scrap plant and a steel mill. A scrap plant costs $10 million. We can have a small one for as little as $2 million, like the one in Bukit Timah. A pig-iron plant costs $50 million. A steel mill can cost anywhere between $500 million and $2,000 million.

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

Sir, is it permissible for a Member to repeat a speech in which precisely the same words were used, I think, about four or five days ago?

I was coming to that, Mr Minister. I think the Member for Hong Lim was merely trying to develop an argument. If he will just mention these mills in passing, he will be able to develop his argument.

That is right, Mr Speaker, Sir. With the new data in front of me given by the Minister for Finance about half an hour ago, I am going to prove to the people of Singapore that all this money has been wasted. We will get much from voting an extra $88 million for 1965. Will our people get more jobs from the $30 million interest free loan to Sabah and Sarawak? I am afriad that so far very few contracts in Sabah and Sarawak have been awarded to Singapore contractors. Very few people have gone over there for jobs. How about the new power station which has been started? This new $100 million power station, in my opinion, will be completely wasted if the Jurong Industrial Scheme cannot expand to several hundred factories within a few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that during your time when you were in the City Council, you had a grandiose plan of building a new power station in the north of the Island.

Order. The Speaker has no past. He has just the present and the future.

I am afraid, Sir, that if the Jurong Industrial Scheme is a flop, we will see a second St. James' Power Station - a plant which has never been in operation and on which tens of millions of dollars have been spent. It seems to me that the Government has been wasting public funds needlessly. The Lim Yew Hock Government used to waste small sums of money. The P.A.P. Government is one step above the Lim Yew Hock Government. It is wasting big sums of money. I will not be surprised if one day the whole Jurong Industrial Scheme will be written off. 3.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take a few minutes to deal with the scheme in Jurong for which we are asked to vote another $25 million. This is the Jurong shipyard on which more than $10 million have been spent. Can the Minister tell us how many ships have been built so far? I understand that no ships have been built except some small tugboats. This job could have been under taken by three existing shipyards, Thornycroft, United Engineers and the Singapore Harbour Board. Actually if the Government is more keen on practical results and the creation of employment and less keen on propaganda and opening ceremonies, it should have provided assistance to existing industries for expansion. The scrap plant in Bukit Timah Road can be expanded. The ship building and ship repairing industries of Thornycroft, United Engineers and the Singapore Harbour Board can be expanded to provide an equal number of employment opportunities as the Jurong shipyard, and at only a small fraction of the cost. We would not have been asked to vote for so much money. These are two of the few instances of the Government's hare-brained scheme. After six years of effort, the Prime Minister tells us in this Assembly that we are only able to produce 43 "pioneer certificate" factories with a capacity to employ 6,687 people, when they are in full production, not when they are operating now. Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the factories that are given pioneer certificates before Malaysia Day have not commenced building but are now adopting a wait-and-see policy. They want to see how the Indonesian confrontation is going to be resolved. They do not want to see their factories destroyed either by the possibility of enemy bombs or sabotage. They are also waiting to see whether they should be given Common Market protection by the Central Government if they set up factories in Jurong. If not, they will go into the Federation. Although they are given work sites by the Singapore Government, they are not eager to start work. But they must show that they are going to start, otherwise their pioneer certificates will be cancelled. The only way to keep their pioneer certificates alive is to spend a couple of hundreds of dollars performing the foundation stone laying ceremony. Mr Speaker, it does not mean that Singapore cannot be industrialised. Monies voted by this Assembly will not be lost. Singapore can be industrialised as Hong Kong has been industrialised. But such success depends on many factors. First of all, it depends on the goodwill and connivance of the Central Government because it controls and issues pioneer certificates and offers Common Market protection. As long as Lee Kuan Yew is the Prime Minister, I am afraid the relationship between the Central and the State will not improve ---

Ong Eng Guan will be better.

I believe the fight is a personal fight. You have no brains to become Prime Minister. Do not worry, it will not come to you. I believe ---

Order. "You" meaning the Speaker has no brains?

No. Mr Speaker, Sir, I always have respect for your brains.

Which particular brain was the Member referring to then?

The Minister for Culture's, Sir.

Well, then you should say the Minister for Culture's brains.

Thank you. Sir, I believe the fight is a personal fight. That is why we had all these disturbances in July and September. It seems to me the Minister for Finance has the brains. He is a more acceptable chap. He stayed clear from the Federal elections. He has always been taken along as a member on missions abroad - Bangkok, Tokyo or the United Nations. I feel that since the P.A.P. has sold us lock, stock and barrel, a change in the leadership of the P.A.P. Government will not make any difference in the quantum of power Singapore will have under the Constitution. A change at least will help to prevent further disturbances from occurring, will help to repair the relationship between Singapore and the Centre, particularly at a time when Singapore is bleeding white under Indonesian confrontation. A change in the P.M.I.P. Mentri Besar of Kelantan has done wonders and there is now more active co-operation between the Centre and Kelantan. In the meantime, the present Prime Minister can remain the Secretary-General of his Party, the Mao Tse-tung of Singapore. Industrialisation will be much easier and more jobs will be created. We only hope the Prime Minister will rise to the occasion. He has told me sometime back that if ever there was one man in the P.A.P. ---

Order. I have indications from the Interpreters that the Member for Hong Lim is going a little too fast.

He is excited!

He has told me. Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime back that if ever there was one man in the P.A.P. who would man the barracks with him should the time come when he fails, he is Keng Swee. I have no doubt, Sir, that the Prime Minister ---

Is this "Keng Swee" the Minister for Finance or some other "Keng Swee"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, he was then not the Minister for Finance. It was some years back ---

If the Minister for Finance is being referred to by name, he must he referred to by title in this House. He is the Minister for Finance and he must be referred to as the Minister for Finance.

Yes, Sir. He mentioned that if the time comes when the P.A.P. fails and he has to man the barracks, he expects all the people in the P.A.P, will run away except the Minister for Finance, who will stick with him to man the barracks.

That is better.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister can have trust in the Minister for Finance, as Mao Tse-tung has full trust in Liu Shao-chi and Chou En-lai in China, to run his Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, after solving that problem, the Government should undertake war risk insurance to calm businessmen who wish to start industrial enterprises in Jurong. This should also cover sabotage, particularly when we had reports only yesterday of Indonesian landings in Jurong. Mr Speaker, Sir, after the relationship with the Central Government has improved, it is also necessary for the Government to reorganise the Economic Development Board. A programme of industrialisation has to be drafted. Target dates for completion must be set. General outlines of the plan of action have to be laid down and published. I wish to outline briefly the reasons why the Government's industrialisation programme has failed and why therefore it is coming back here year after year for more money. It is not due to the Communists. If it were so, Government's industrialisation programme would have succeeded now because all the Communists have now been locked up by the Government. Neither was it the fault of the Indonesians. Because if it were so, before Malaysia Day, there was no Indonesian problem. The Government's industrialisation programme had not succeeded. The Government's industrialisation policy has failed because: 1. It has no set objectives. The Government works from day to day, on the basis of trial and error. There has never been a master plan of industrialisation, because none of the P.A.P. Ministers have any business or industrial experience. 2.There is no difference between the Economic Development Board and Lim Yew Hock's Industrial Promotion Board except the change of name ---

Good God!

3. The P.A.P. Government is unrealistic. It is only keen on projects which can bear results on P.A.P. propaganda, instead of establishing factories which can be run without Government subsidies and providing more jobs per dollar of investment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government should concentrate on small-size and medium-size factories which have provided Hong Kong with countless jobs. I will summarise briefly the steps which Government should take once its relationship with the Central Government has improved; that is, if the Government intends to accept some of my suggestions. 1. The Government should find a man of the calibre of Teh Chiang Wan as he is to the Housing Board -[Laughter]

Order. Time is up.

Sir, confronted by the farrago of nonsense from the Member for Hong Lim, it is difficult for me to decide where to start and where to end. He is like one of the old warriors using those mortars where you put in nails, springs and old bolts, and fire at the target hoping that some damage will be done. Let me just deal with one or two falsehoods. He says there is no difference between the Economic Development Board and the former Government's Industrial Promotion Board. The difference is so tremendous that I cannot understand how a sane man can make such a foolish and reckless statement. The Economic Development Board has got 39 professional officers, engineers, architects, chemical engineers, accountants and economists. Six of them are experts sent by the United Nations, men of international reputation. The rest are local people. Whereas the Industrial Promotion Board has not got anybody. Really, they have not got anybody. Perhaps they were just starting. Then he says our industrialisation programme is a flop. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion. One of the reasons he says is that we have not got Mr Teh Chiang Wan. Members will recollect that two and a half years ago he said that our housing programme was a flop. Now when it is a success, he says it is due to a genius, Mr Teh Chiang Wan. One does not want to detract from the excellent work done by this officer, but I think credit is also due to the Government and the Minister concerned in this effort. So perhaps in another few years' time the Member for Hong Lim will say that the success of the industrialisation programme is due to the genius of Mr Hon Sui Sen, and has got nothing to do with the effort or the policies of the Government. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in my reply in the Budget debate, I did point out the errors of these statements in regard to the steel mill. The Member for Hong Lim was not present. Perhaps I may just be permitted to give briefly what the facts are. He says that although some 480 workers are now working in the steel mill in Jurong, it has not created any additional employment because about the same number of workers has been rendered unemployed elsewhere. That is absolute nonsense, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I have said the other day, the steel mill buys all the scrap that is available here. In fact, the supply of local dealers cannot meet the demand. They are buying all the scrap that is coming from the Federation and the prices which they pay are higher, 10 per cent higher than the f.o.b. price of similar grades of iron ore in Singapore. The whole thing has been entered into the contract of agreement between the steel mill and the Economic Development Board, and in the event of differences between the steel mill and the scrap dealer, there are procedures for arbitration. The Member for Hong Lim says the Jurong shipyard is a waste of time. How many ships have they produced? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Jurong shipyard became operational sometime in July this year, about four months ago. Does he expect any shipyard to be able to produce ships in four months? They now have under construction some small craft, a water boat, which the Port Authority of Klang have ordered. They have on the order books two or three larger vessels. In the meantime, until the very large dry dock which they are building and which will be able to accommodate oil tankers of up to about 80,000 tons is completed, business will be less than the target production. It takes some time for facilities of the shipyard to be completed. The Member says it is better to help the small shipyards in Singapore and the small boat builders. He mentions Thornycroft and United Engineers, some expatriate companies. He is not aware that we have already given assistance to no less than 19 local ship builders and boat builders on the edge of Kallang Park, where it abuts on to the Geylang River. As a result of the facilities that we offer, these small operators have been able to increase their activities considerably. I do not think the Member for Hong Lim has made any other constructive comments, nor is there any substance in the other points he has raised. I think we have discussed the question of the $30 million loan to Sabah and Sarawak and have clarified the position. As regards his ratio of $l million for 20 jobs in Jurong, I think he, being an accountant, knows what the real position is. He is deliberately trying to mislead and deceive the people. 4.00 p.m. So far the capital expenditure of $54 million spent on Jurong covers general development purposes, such as roads, which will serve the whole area and not merely the 19 industries that are in production now. The wharves and other facilities will serve the whole area and these are long-term development facilities, and they should not he imputed to the 19 factories that are now in operation in Jurong. Considerable sums of money have also been spent on social services, which is part of Government's responsibility to provide the residents there. It is completely incorrect to say that this should be related to the number of people employed there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to argue with the Minister for Finance as to whether a $1 million investment creates jobs for 20, 25 or 35 persons. What we know is that vast sums of money have been voted year in and year out for the last four or five years for the Jurong industrial project. And today I have been told that there are only 1,831 people working in the 19 factories. Mr Speaker, Sir, surely this figure shows that it is a flop. Now, I am going to suggest ways and means to bring about an industrial revolution. Once relationship with the Centre is improved, the Government should find a man, as I have said just now, of the calibre of Teh Chiang Wan to master-mind the Government's industrialisation programme. We cannot eat the cake and still have it, Mr Speaker. In the case of the Housing Board, I am told it is not Mr Teh Chiang Wan or the civil servants who should get the credit. It is the Minister. If Mr Hon Sui Sen starts it, it is not he who claims credit. It is the Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you remember, several days ago we had a magnificent episode in the Victoria Theatre where the Prime Minister dramatically caught a fly and put the whole blame on the civil servants. He put the blame on the civil servants for meandering cows, stray dogs, beggars, flies, and the increase in mosquitoes. Once upon a time Singapore could claim to be the cleanest city in South-East Asia. Now everybody says this is the dirtiest city in South-East Asia, even surpassing Jakarta. The second point is this: the key staff of the Economic Development Board should not be civil servants but should be experienced industrialists, cost accountants, economists, and hankers, recruited from the business world; people who are prepared to sever all outside business connections and dedicate themselves to the country's industrialisation programme. The third point is that a general outline of Government's industrialisation plan should be worked out and published. So far we have no plans whatsoever. There should be a complete stop to experimentation of factories by trial and error, which is such a waste of public funds. At present the Government has no policy. The Government has no plans. The Government has set no targets. It does not know what it is doing. Where are we heading for? The fourth point is this: a full list of all products which can be profitably produced in Singapore should be worked out in detail and published. Last time the Government published details of three types of products, hoping to solve Singapore's acute unemployment problem - generators, fire crackers, and mosquito killers. These products are not practical. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, no factory in Singapore has taken the cue from the Government. The fifth point: Government should give liberal loans to small-scale and medium-scale enterprises. I understand that at present it is very hard for them to get loans from Government unless they have special connections. Mr Speaker, Sir, the only factory to get a liberal loan was, I understand, the ship-breaking factory which Government helped with 2½ per cent interest. There have been complaints from other factories that it is very difficult for them to get loans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all this difficulty about getting loans a string of falsehoods and stupidity. Every week the Economic Development Board considers loan applications, and, speaking from memory, subject to verification, I think the Economic Development Board is committed to lending something like $35 million. It is really tedious to listen to all these falsehoods. Now, this point about a list of products. The Member says we do not have a list of products. We have a list of products. They are called Study Papers. Dozens of Study Papers have been produced by the Economic Development Board. They are not published in the Straits Times because nobody generally is interested in them. But they are circulated to manufacturers in their respective fields. As for electrical products, he says nobody is taking the matter up. It has been taken up by two or three firms. On relationship with the Centre, his main thesis is this, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in the administration of the setting up of a common market and general industrialisation policy, the Federal Government will not observe good faith. That is the basis of his whole argument the Federal Government will go out of its way to do in Singapore. If that were to happen, it would be not only a matter of our industries not going up, but the whole of Malaysia might break up. I cannot see under what circumstances people in Singapore are going to put up with a Central Government that acts in bad faith. But until that is shown, I think it would be utterly wrong for the Member for Hong Lim to come to the conclusion that the Federal Government is acting in bad faith. We have had many discussions over concrete issues on various matters, and we have found that they acted in a business-like manner and in good faith. I have no reason at all to doubt the faith of the Federal Government in matters connected with industrialisation. Now, as for Jurong, the Member for Hong Lim says 1,800 workers employed in six years. I did make the point that the first factory went into production on 31st January this year, and that the 1,800 workers was the count made in August. In fact, the total now will have exceeded 2,000. In addition to that, there are 2,600 workers engaged in various construction works in Jurong - factories, housing, new roads, and so on. So if the Member for Hong Lim still believes this is a flop, then, of course, he is entitled to his own opinion. He cannot expect many people to agree with him on that point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really surprised that a public accountant who is a Member of this Assembly could come to the conclusion that the success of any organisation, like the Housing Board or the Economic Development Board, could depend solely on the efforts of one man. No one has claimed that the success of the Housing Board is his own solo effort, except the Member for Hong Lim, who now says that the Housing Board is a success, when the Minister for Finance has said that two years ago the Member for Hong Lim said it was a flop. During the general elections in 1963, he stood up and said, the Housing Board is a success because ---"

Point of information, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

Yes.

Please give the quotes two years ago, Mr Speaker, Sir.

An election speech. Now during the elections in 1963, he stood up and said about his lieutenant, "The Housing Board succeeds because of Mr Ng Chee Seng." Now, Mr Ng Chee Seng and Mr Teh Chiang Wan - let me nail this lie once and for all. Mr Teh Chiang Wan, Mr Ng Chee Seng, and a few other senior oflicers were brought by him into the Housing Board to help him build houses and run the S.I.T. What happened? They made a mess of it. The only one who is now left there is Mr Teh Chiang Wan. The Member had a good man there but he did not know how to make use of him. As for the others, Mr Ng Chee Seng was the manager under him. He was the chairman, Mr Ng Chee Seng was the No. 1 man, and Mr Teh Chiang Wan was No. 2 man. When the Board was reorganised, his friends and all his minions were found unsuitable. We took them out. We only retained those whom we think can work. And we work as a team. So the success of the Housing Board is not due to the efforts of his picking out people whom he cannot use, but is the result of the work of a team of young and very dedicated workers. The Member for Hong Lim says that the Government has got no long-term plans or long-term industrialisation programmes, and that what we are doing is by trial and error. He is an accountant. He is in close contact with the business world and the industrial world. He knows very well that our businessmen are not going to do anything by trial and error. They are going to make very close calculations before they embark on any scheme at all. You can be sure that when a businessman goes into Jurong, he has got everything analysed and the chances of his making a profit are there. Otherwise he will not go in at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, actually there is no need to reply to the Minister because he could just give quotes but could not prove it. Nobody in the world can trust this type of person. Now, he claims that nobody is responsible for the housing achievement; not one single person.

Point of clarification. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

I never said that nobody is responsible. What I said was that no one could claim that only one person is responsible. I never said that nobody is responsible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you remember what was in the newspapers, the Prime Minister said that the Minister for National Development is the only person who broke the backbone of housing in Singapore. Now, I claim that it is not the Minister. It is Teh Chiang Wan who broke the backbone.

Ong Eng Guan.

If he can disprove it, come and tell me in three minutes' time how he managed to break the backbone. I shall wait for him. And if he cannot, I shall tell him in three minutes how the backbone was broken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never claimed that I broke the backbone of the housing problem. Probably he did claim it a few days ago, right in this House - that he is indirectly responsible for it. I have never claimed it. I only said that the housing programme was a success because of good team work among a group of people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, tell us how the houses are being built.

Order. I think we have had about enough of the Housing Board and the housing development programme. We are now on Jurong and the industrial programme of the State of Singapore for the year 1965, and not on its past achievements. If there is any Member who can contribute something to the debate, I shall hear him.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $88,376,050 for Head D 02 ordered to stand part, of the Development Estimates. 4.15 p.m. Head D 03 - The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Kow Kee Seng --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 03 be reduced by $100.

There is an amendment standing in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Kow Kee Seng.

I do not wish to move my amendment.

Mr Lim is not moving.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving. The sum of $4,361,010 for Head D 03 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 04 -

Head D 04 - Ministry of Education. There are 12 amendments standing in the names of various Members. The first amendment stands in the name of Mr Koo Young.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 002. I would like to ask Mr Speaker whether he will allow me to range over the other amendments, i.e. those under the same Head D 04 - the Ministry of Education.

I have indicated that there are 12 amendments. The Member is now on amendment No. (1). Could he indicate the numbers of the amendments which could be conveniently discussed with the present amendments?

(In Mandarin): I am referring to subheads 002*, 003+, 004++, 005§ and 006. There are five items. The amendments are as follows:- *(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 003. +(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 004. ++(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 005. §(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 006.

Amendments (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) could be taken together. Would that suit the Minister?

Yes.

Very well. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, when the Assembly was debating the Development Estimates for the Ministry of Education last year, we had already raised these questions. Now I have to raise again the same questions because the past shortcomings in the Ministry of Education are still existing today. There are various items on page 16 of the Development Estimates from which we can see that the Government is making many plans to build primary schools and secondary schools. There are academic, vocational, technical and commercial types of schools. However, some schemes which were started in 1960 have not yet been completed up till now. We are now talking about the Development Estimates for 1965. A period of five years has elapsed since the scheme was first mooted. There are three items under subhead 002. They refer to secondary technical schools at Dunearn Road, Ngee Ann Kongsi, and Serangoon Garden; $40,000 is required for the Ngee Ann Kongsi vote to complete the school. Does this reflect on the efficiency of Ngee Ann Kongsi or the Ministry of Education? Or does it mean that the sum allotted is not enough? Where in one year the vote is not spent then in the following year the same sum will be voted again for the same project. What sort of plan is this? Many schemes of the Ministry of Education are useless. Their purpose is to serve as ornaments. They want to show others that Singapore is very progressive and that the Ministry of Education is being responsible in wanting to spend a lot of money on various projects. I would like to give a point-by-point criticism of the various items of expenditure which are asked for. For instance, under subhead 003, there is provision for building a school called Wallich Street Primary School. The idea to build such a school was started in 1961. But up till now it has not yet been completed. Last year the Assembly voted $379,000 for a secondary academic school at Jalan Eunos, Kaki Bukit. However, this vote was not used at all. In the 1965 Development Estimates a sum of $421,000 is required for this particular school. Last year, there was a plan for another school, but this year, this item has disappeared. This refers to the school in the New Market area. According to my understanding, nothing has been done about it. Work has never been started on it. I would like to refer especially to the proposed academic school under subhead 003, item 002. The sum which was allocated to build a secondary academic school at Jalan Eunos, Kaki Bukit, has not been used. Under subhead 004, there are three secondary academic schools which have not yet been completed. In the 1963 school building programme, which now appears under subhead 005, item 002, there were 3 secondary academic schools proposed to be built and which have not yet been completed according to plan. These various votes which have been approved in the past involve a big sum of money. However, they have not been used. Not very long ago, I remember the Minister for Education asked this House to approve a supplementary vote because 6,000 pupils were trying to enter academic secondary schools. There was a lack of accommodation. Other types of school buildings - technical and vocational schools - have had to be used to accommodate such students. But judging from this programme here, if the Ministry had been able to complete their building plans, there would not have been a lack of accommodation at the moment. The outcome now is that many pupils who left the primary schools were unable to find places in the secondary schools. I am referring to the 6,000 pupils who were unable to join the secondary academic schools. We remember in the past the Assembly approved a vote for the building of schools just for this purpose. However, many schools have not yet been completed. The main reason is this. The Government has never made full use of the money. I would like to know what is the factor which has contributed to this phenomenon. Provisions for various projects covering a period of five years have been allotted to the Ministry of Education. Are they being used? We have already approved a vote for the building of schools. However, the Ministry of Education is not able to complete the project. This shows that the Ministry is not able to carry it out, it has not been making full use of the money.

In debating this amend merit, Members may speak on amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5) simultaneously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are various difficulties connected with the construction of schools. The delay in the construction of schools is mainly due to the difficulties in the acquisition of suitable land and also in the clearance of squatters from the site once it is available. Once a site is acquired and cleared, then a school can be put up within 18 months. These are actually the general reasons why some of the schools planned for in 1960, 1961 and 1962 and so forth have not been completed to date. 4.30 p.m. In fact, each one of these has its good reasons. I think just now the Member for Thomson mentioned a number of schools which have not yet been completed since 1960, 1961 and 1962. He mentioned specifically subhead 002 in respect of three secondary technical schools under the 1960 school building programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, these three secondary technical schools are the Dunearn Hill Secondary Technical School, the Balestier Hill Secondary Technical School and the Serangoon Garden Secondary Technical School. The construction work of these three schools has already been completed, except an assembly hall for the Dunearn Hill Secondary Technical School. Both the Balestier Hill Secondary Technical School and the Serangoon Garden Technical School are now already functioning and the media of instruction are Chinese and English. Then the Member for Thomson also mentioned Wallich School which is included in the 1961 school building programme. The difficulty here is that the site is under-sized and therefore it requires a special non-standard size plan. Then when a special plan for a school in this particular area was prepared, work had to be stopped at the request of the Ministry of National Development which was then considering including this particular school site in the Urban Redevelopment Plan. However, the Ministry of National Development has now agreed not to raise any objections to the construction of the school and work will proceed very soon. I think the Member for Thomson also mentioned several other academic schools which were included in the 1961, 1962 and 1963 plans, but were not completed to date. There are good reasons in each one of these. In the case of the secondary academic school at Jalan Eunos, Kaki Bukit, more than 56 per cent of the construction work has so far been completed and the building is expected to be ready early 1965. Then in the case of the secondary technical school at Upper Aljunied Road, more than 70 per cent of the construction work has already been completed. Then the three academic schools provided for under subhead 004, that is, at Still Road, Queenstown 3 and Whitley Road/Dunearn Road junction. All these three schools are in various stages of construction. In the case of the Still Road and Queenstown 3 secondary academic schools, more than 70 per cent of the construction work has been completed. In the case of the Whitley Road/Dunearn Road junction secondary academic school, 65 per cent of the work has been completed. As I have said just now, the delay is due principally to the difficulty of land acquisition, difficulty of finding a suitable school site, and having found a suitable school site, the difficulty connected with clearance of squatters, and they the Barisan Sosialis are the persons who make the clearance of squatters doubly difficult. Mr Speaker, Sir, although there are difficulties and delays in work which cannot be helped, nevertheless, the important point is whether every child of school-going age can find a place in school. If no child of school-going age is denied a place in school, then I say we have succeeded. For the last five years we have been able to admit every child of school-going age. To that extent, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say our school building programme has not failed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to differ with the Minister for Education that the yardstick of success in our school building programme is whether every child gets a place in school or not. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we extend school classes to 24 hours a day, I think there is no need to build schools at all. We can still accommodate all children in schools. Now, we have two sessions. If we fail in our school expansion programme, we can stretch it to three sessions for one school. But the important point is this. Schools are built not only to accommodate children, but they are also built in order to provide training in industrialisation, which is one of our main objectives. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, we supported the Government when they voted to build more vocational schools and technical schools in the earlier Budgets - in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 - where provisions were made for the construction of vocational and technical schools. These schools will complement the Polytechnic to produce technicians, masons, carpenters, bricklayers, whom the Polytechnic does not produce. Mr Speaker, in a colonial country technicians are not required because a colonial country does not require industrialisation. But since Singapore from the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government onwards is supposed to have entered the phase of industrialisation, we must have more technical schools. It is because of this objective that the Lim Yew Hock Government has set up the Industrial Promotion Board, established the Singapore Poly technic, built industrial estates and started building technical schools. Whichever government that comes to power will have to carry on with the industrialisation of Singapore. This is the pattern of economic progress in all developing countries. Industrialisation has become the yardstick of economic progress and the expression of economic nationalism. An industrial estate is a waste of money unless there are factories. A factory has to he operated by technicians. It is the task of the Education Ministry to build technical schools to supply these technicians. Industrialisation can never be achieved if a country has to depend forever on foreign technicians. China would never have been able to produce an atomic bomb if it had to depend on foreign technicians. The Education Ministry must prepare and publish a blue print to replace all foreign technicians with local technicians in the space of five years. I do not think the Government has such a plan. If it has, it has not published it. It is very disheartening to see industrial progress in our country so slow, crawling like a snail. Mr Speaker, Sir, imagine starting to build schools in 1960 and they have not been completed yet! Hong Kong and Eastern Australia are examples of countries which have achieved their industrial breakthrough in less than six years, the time given to the P.A.P. Government. The unquestionable supply of technicians is one of the basic conditions to bring about an industrial revolution. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Polytechnic has not been expanded. The technical colleges have not been built. The Government announce gigantic plans from year to year to build technical schools. In my opinion, I do not think any has been completed so far. One was announced this morning to have been completed. It was in the Straits Times this morning, Sir, in page 4, under the caption, "The Government spending $18 million on 41 new schools." They announced that one technical school had been completed in Queenstown. I wonder whether it was completed this morning or last night. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think even the Queenstown Technical School which was announced this morning to have been completed has been completed, because there was no opening ceremony. To soften the weight of the Opposition attack on the complete failure of the P.A.P.'s school-building programme in today's Budget debate on schools, the Government announced in this morning's papers of a $40 million plan to build so many schools. Why do the Government not wait for a few hours more and tell the Assembly this plan? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is like hitting below the belt. It is an insult to this Assembly. From the 1965 Budget we see everything very clearly. A technical school started in 1961 is still not completed. Two technical schools started in 1962 have still a long way to go before they are completed. Two technical schools for which money was provided in the 1963 Budget have not even got started. Two technical schools due to he started in 1963 have not even got the plans. From 1961 to 1964, seven technical schools should have been completed. Even if we accept that the Queenstown Technical School was completed, according to today's Straits Times, there are still six behind time. Mr Speaker, it is not only in the technical schools section that the Government's school construction programme is a flop. The whole school building programme is a flop. The reason is simple. There are no plans, no organisation, no Teh Chiang Wans to carry out the school construction programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing Board also faces the same difficulties as the Minister for Education has outlined just now. Squatters' problem, availability of site. They have got 50,000 units of houses to build, not seven schools, Sir. There is no harm. Put the blame on the P.W.D.! Before the elections, I remember the Housing Board under Teh Chiang Wan built some schools for the Ministry of Education. That is why I have said that so long as Teh Chiang Wan is there, houses will be built, no matter who is appointed to be Minister in charge of Housing or whoever is appointed to be Chairman of the Housing Board, though he might be a nincompoop who does not understand the difference between a brick and a stone. Since 1961, we have primary and secondary schools the building of which has either not started or has not been completed. According to the Budget, all the primary and secondary schools in the 1962, 1963 and 1964 school-building programmes have not yet been completed. Before the elections, the Government promised free secondary education. How can we have free secondary educa tion when there are not enough secondary schools? Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another of the P.A.P.'s broken promises. I ask the Government not to make more excuses when it comes back next year for the 1966 Budget, but immediately to obtain the services of Mr Teh Chiang Wan to organise a breakthrough in the school-building programme. 4.45 p.m. These are solemn promises to the electorate which the Government must fulfil. Altogether there are 53 primary, secondary, vocational, and technical schools which the Government promised to build for the people before 1964. Unless this backlog of schools is cleared - some of them started as early as 1960 - how can the Government start planning for the 19 secondary schools which they have asked to be provided in the 1965 budget?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now the Minister for Education, in answering my questions, made some excuses to cover up his mistakes. He talked about the reasons for the delay in the school building programmes for 1961-62-63. He also said that it was because of difficulties in land acquisition, clearance of squatters, and, in particular, he mentioned that the Barisan Sosialis was trying to put difficulties in his way. I challenge him to point out the areas where we have put up difficulties to cause a delay in the school-building programme for Toa Payoh. As a matter of fact, the difficulties mentioned are not insuperable. The real reason is that the Minister for Education is not too clever. He is not realistic in drafting the school-building programme. They tried to build a ship behind closed doors. They found an unsuitable place. It is the responsibility of the Minister concerned to know where to find vacant places for school buildings. They may say that they want to build a school in the Clifford Pier or Asia Building area. If they cannot, then they will say that they are not able to get any land. So they have no time to find out where they could get available land. They are trying to bluff the people. There are no difficulties that cannot be surmounted. No excuse can be given for failure to build a school in five years. No one will ever believe this excuse. Talking about land, its acquisition and the clearance of squatters, the Minister tried to put the blame on the squatters on the land to be acquired for development. It is very unreasonable to put the blame on others. I can give you a very simple and clear example. I think I have mentioned it last night in this House. It is about the Chi Hua Chinese School in Toa Payoh. I found that the Government had no difficulties in clearing the squatters in that area. The squatters were occupying the land near the school, and under the development programme of Toa Payoh, the school had to give way to this development. The school was asked to move away from this place. This brings us to another matter, i.e., if the Government has a plan to build a school and that plan is found not realistic, if the Government is not able to build enough schools to accommodate all the students. On the other hand, the Government tries to do away with some of the existing schools apart from the Chi Hua Chinese School which has been in existence for a long time. There are some other cases. Sometime this year the Ministry of Education had to do away with a school in the Joo Chiat area. This was the Min Yee School. For no reason at all, it was done away with. The directors and governors of the school ---

Order. The hon. Member is in great danger of getting back to yesterday's debate. Will he keep that in mind and come back to the subject before the House?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was just trying to draw an analogy to show how and why the Government is unable to complete the school-building programme. On the one hand, some schools were put out of existence. On the other hand, the Government has not been able to build any new schools. This closely ties up with the development programme. Talking about Min Yee School in Joo Chiat, I think sometime in August or September, a notice was given to the school to close down.

If the Member can show that the closing down of schools will advance his arguments on the topic under discussion, then he will be in order. But if he is going into the merits and demerits of the closing clown of schools, then he will be completely out of order, and I shall stop him.

(In Mandarin): There is one other school, Mr Speaker, which was closed down last year or the year before. This was Chung Kuok School in the neighbourhood of the General Hospital. The Government promised to accommodate the students of the school in another school nearby. So it called up the governors of this school and said that the students had been occupying the Government school building for one year and if they were unable to provide alternative accommodation for the students, then the students would have to be transferred to some integrated schools. Sir, I have mentioned three cases of schools having to close down. This is to show a contrast that, on the one hand, the Government has not completed its school-building programme and, on the other hand, schools are being closed down so that students of these schools are absorbed into Government schools. The shortage of schools has therefore become acute. This is a very serious mistake made by the Minister for Education. He should not try to bring extraneous matters into the education field and should not try to give excuses.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to go further into these allegations of our failure to carry out our school-building programme. I have already said just now that the difficulties lie in land acquisition and in looking for suitable land, it is difficult to find vacant space in the city to build schools. This is well known to all. Even if you can find a suitable plot of land, it will take some time to acquire it because you will have to bargain over the price. And when the deal is concluded, it will still require some time to put up plans and to survey. Even after the land has been acquired, there may be squatters on the land. And to clear them will require more time. So it is not that we do not want to build schools according to schedule, but because of difficulties beyond our control. In spite of that, I have already said that up to date we have built enough schools to accommodate every child of school-going age. There is no child of school-going age who is denied a place in school. The Member for Hong Lim has said just now that if we wanted to find more accommodation, we could extend the time for schooling. Instead of having two sessions, we could have three sessions, or even have classes at night. He has suggested that we should have three sessions instead of two. He has also said that if this were done, then we could have more accommodation. I want him to give one instance where a school runs three sessions in Singapore. Otherwise his suggestion is far too fantastic. As a matter of fact, there is no shortage of school accommodation. In fact, we have more than enough. In some rural areas there are vacancies in primary schools, so the use of the school building is enough for the morning session. There is no need to run afternoon classes because of the vacancies in the morning session. The Member for Hong Lim then said that some technical and vocational schools were not completed according to schedule. I have already pointed out the difficulties, and I have also pointed out that the majority of technical and vocational schools were completed, some by 70 per cent and some by 50 per cent, and some have already been opened. Yet he said that none has been opened. If he is not day-dreaming, I do not know what it is. He also said that in Queenstown there was one technical school which was not completed although a newspaper reported that it was opened. In fact, if he is not day-dreaming, I can tell him that I myself opened that school. I officiated at the opening ceremony. He then referred to a news item in the Straits Times of today about Government's intention to spend so much money on building schools. He complained that this was given to the Press before the Assembly convened. Mr Speaker, this news was not released by me and I did not instruct anyone to give such information to the Press and I will not be held responsible. But whatever construction work that the Government is doing should be made known to the public. I should bring this point to your attention. So there is nothing wrong for the Government to tell the people what it is doing. Mr Speaker, the Member for Hong Lim also said just now that if Singapore wanted to succeed in its industrialisation programme, then we should train more technical personnel. No one quarrels with him on this point. This is precisely what the Government appreciates and is doing. We know that to bring industrialisation to a successful conclusion, we must have more technical personnel. That is why we are putting up so many technical and vocational schools under the first Five-Year Plan. It is all very clear, as we can see from the Estimates. We have plans to put up vocational and technical and secondary schools. 5.00 p.m. Now, without realising the importance of trained and skilled personnel, how would one expect the Government to incorporate such plans in the first Five-Year Plan? We would not have put up our programme for so many technical and vocational schools if we had not appreciated its importance. As a matter of fact, in the secondary vocational, and technical schools, there are more than enough vacancies to meet the demand of students. Not only that, we also have plans under way to expand our Vocational Training Institute. We intend to put in a vote of $2 million to expand the Vocational Institute with a view to training more technical and skilled labour to meet our industrial requirements. The Member for Thomson just now said something about Toa Payoh. He mentioned this yesterday and he is still mentioning it today. He said that we closed down Chi Hua Chinese School because the Housing and Development Board wanted to acquire the land on which the school stood, and the school was asked to move away to another school. Mr Speaker, we have built a new school in the neighbourhood of this particular school. It is known as the Balestier Hill West School. The idea is to absorb students of Chi Hua Chinese School and of other neighbouring schools into this school. If the residents of Toa Payoh, on the other hand, have to move away from this area to some other places, then some of the students may not be able to go to the neighbouring schools that we have built. In that case, we are prepared to find alternative schools for these students. We have tried as far as possible, to put them in schools nearest to their homes. There is no single school student who is forced out of school because of the Government's land acquisition programme in Toa Payoh. The Member for Thomson also mentioned the Chung Kuok School near the General Hospital. He said the Government was responsible for closing it down. He said that we forced the school out of existence with the intention of absorbing it into the Government Silat Road School. As a matter of fact, two or three months ago the directors of this school wrote me a letter - to the Ministry of Education, to put it more precisely - asking the Ministry to take over this particular school. The Ministry of Education thought it was a good idea, because there was already a school in Silat Road, which has enough accommodation to start classes in the Chinese stream. So we met the request of the board of directors of this school and we shouldered our responsibility. As a result, Silat Road School will become an integrated school catering for Tamil, Chinese and English. Mr Speaker, in planning the building of schools, all that we can do is to estimate how many schools we should build every year to meet the requirements and demands, and how many schools of what type should be built to absorb the increasing student population. It is impossible for us to look after the land of the school at the same time, in the Development Estimates we have plans to build certain schools, and once the vote is approved, we have to start looking for school sites. I have already said that in Singapore, particularly in the city area, it is difficult to find land to build schools. In spite of that we have been able to meet the demands of parents by building enough schools.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

I think it is a convenient time for the tea-break. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I shall suspend the sitting of this House and take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.08 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Hon. Members will recollect that when we were debating amendment (1), the debate ranged over amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5) . Amendment (1) has been disposed of. Does the Member for Thomson wish that a vote be taken on amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5) simpliciter?

Yes. Questions on the amendments* put, and negatived. * See footnote at cols. 709-10.

Amendment (6)+ standing in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. + Amendments (6) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 002 of subhead 007.

(In Malay): I am not moving, Mr Speaker.

The Member is not moving. Amendment (7), standing in the name of Mr Koo Young. Mr Koo Young.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 007. I beg leave at the same time to discuss amendments (8)*, (9)+ and (10)++, namely, the amendments relating to Head D 04 in respect of subheads 018, 019 and 020. *(8) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 018. +(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 019. ++(10) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 020.

Is it convenient, Mr Minister?

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the situation is very clear. Although plans have been drawn up, the schools have not been built in accordance with actual requirements. The Minister for Education has said just now that there is enough accommodation in the schools for all the pupils. From what he has said, we can also see that the building plans had not been based on actual needs. Had it been so, there would not have been pupils accommodated in other types of schools. What I want to stress is that the Minister for Education is somewhat exaggerating the sum to be voted for school buildings. Such an attitude on the Minister's part is not quite proper. Now, look at subhead 018 of Head D 04, relating to the Singapore Vocational Institute at Balestier Road. We see that the 1964 vote was $84,000 for this particular item in respect of furniture and equipment for this school. But we see that not one cent has been spent. Also, under subhead 019 and subhead 020, there are some contradictions. Subhead 019 - "Teachers' Training College" is meant to complete the building scheme, but so far not a single cent has been used from the $750,000 entered in last year's Development Estimates. And now there is a new item of expenditure under subhead 020 "Second Teachers' Training College (First Phase)". In this case, last year's vote was $1,000,000 but this money has not been used at all and the Government wants to ask for some more money! What is the actual situation? Not a single cent has been used from the past year's votes, and yet the Government has come forward to put another plan before us and ask us to approve the new sums to be voted. Last year under the Head - Ministry of Education - the Development Estimates totalled $24,358,780, but according to the figures given in the 1965 Development Estimates, only one-third of last year's provision has been utilised. There are cases where large sums of money have been voted for last year and which have not been used, and yet the Government is asking us to approve more funds for similar expenditure! Thus, every year the sums voted for the Ministry of Education appear to be very impressive. 5.45 p.m. I remember last year when I was giving my views on matters relating to the Ministry of Education, the Minister for Education said that my criticisms were merely a waste of time. At that time, I told him that the Government's plans were not in line with the actual state of affairs. Now, the same thing is happening again. Of course, he may be able to explain that the plan will ultimately be completed, that several million dollars out of the sums allocated have already been spent to prove that some work has already been done. But this sort of explanation cannot satisfy us. In principle, of course, it is right that there should not be any wastage of the vote approved, but in actual fact, what has been spent to complete the plan is a far cry from the actual vote approved. I have already said that only one-third of the vote approved for last year has actually been spent. This shows that the plan has not been realistic. During the debate last year also, when I alleged that there were not enough secondary schools, the Minister for Education said this was not a fact. I said that there existed such a situation last year. Six thousand pupils were not able to find places in the right type of schools. One can therefore see what the actual position is. The Minister's intention is just to present us with impressive figures to fool the people.

In debating amendment (7), the discussion may range over amendments* (8), (9) and (10). *See footnote at cols. 725-6.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has said just now, according to his calculations, that out of the total vote for last year's Development Estimates, only one-third has been used, and that the remaining two-thirds have been incorporated in next year's Estimates. Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, it is not true that we have only used one-third of the money voted for last year's Estimates. The majority of school buildings were completed this year and all the expenses incurred will be put before the Government early next year. Therefore, the payment of bills will only be made early next year. It is true that the actual payment is less than the original estimate, it does not mean, however, that the expenditure for last year was not used to the fullest possible extent. Furthermore, the vote approved by this House can only be used when the work has actually started. For example, we have drawn up certain plans for next year but the work cannot commence early next year. The same applied to the plans drawn up last year and work was supposed to commence this year, but it could not be carried out due to some difficulties and delays. So we have to postpone the commencement of such work to next year. The Member for Thomson has also referred to the Singapore Vocational Institute in Balestier Road, saying that the vote approved for last year has not been used at all. Mr Speaker, the Singapore Vocational Institute at Balestier Road presents some difficulties because the plans have not been drawn up according to specification. It is not an easy task to put up a proper plan for this Institute. It is an altogether different plan from that of an ordinary school. The Member for Thomson has also mentioned the Teachers' Training College. The same reasons apply in this case because the expansion of the Teachers' Training College is a new type of work, and the plans have to be considered carefully before they are approved. This takes time because of the expansion of the workshops for the teachers who will be trained to teach in vocational and technical schools. The expansion actually relates to equipment and the building of the Science Block in the Teachers' Training College workshops. In addition, there is also the construction of a hail, a library, etc. This work is rather technical, and so more time is required to complete them. Now that all the plans have been drawn up, I think work may commence sometime next year. The foundation may be laid in December this year and the actual construction may start next year. I think by 1966, the whole work will be completed. The expansion of the Teachers' Training College and the construction of a second Teachers' Training College are two different matters. We feel that according to present needs, for the next five years we will not be able to meet the requirements of schools if we train teachers in only one College in spite of the expansion of the existing Teachers' Training College. This is because at present half of the number of teachers, i.e. some 15,000, have not been trained. Some of these teachers are in the initial stages of training. If we want to meet the requirements of schools, one Teachers' Training College is not enough and so we have plans under way to put up another Teachers' Training College. We only ask for a token vote in next year's Estimates in respect of this Second Teachers' Training College because we intend to try to get financial and technical aid from other sources in the construction of the second Teachers' Training College. I think, if I remember correctly, the Member for Thomson has also referred to the 6,000 students who were unable to go to secondary academic schools. I think I have already mentioned in this House that these 6,000 students have not been kept out of school entirely. They desire to attend the secondary academic schools but because there is not sufficient accommodation for them, we have therefore to make use of school buildings for technical and vocational schools in order to accommodate them. So, although they are not schooling in secondary academic school buildings, they are nonetheless pursuing courses of an academic nature in these buildings. So, in future, when we have more academic schools built, say next year, these students will be transferred to suitable types of schools. Therefore, it is not true to say that the 6,000 students are not in school now and that they have been forced to take up courses other than those of an academic nature as alleged by the Member concerned. Questions on the amendments* put, and negatived. *See footnote at cols. 725-6. 6.00 p.m.

There is an amendment No. (11) standing in the names of Mr Chia Thye Poh and Mr Lim Huan Boon.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 023. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is at page 19. Under this item a sum of $1 million is to be voted for the Nanyang University in order to help it set up a new library building. On the face of it, it appears that the Government is really sincere in helping Nanyang University to develop. It appears also that the Government is trying its best to foster the growth of higher education in Singapore. But I feel that if one looks deep into the matter, the House must, of necessity, be very careful in dealing with this vote. It must be pointed out that there is some impropriety on the part of the Government in implementing policies against the interests of higher learning. We should give our constructive criticisms. In Government's asking for a vote of $1 million for Nanyang University to build a library, one must bear in mind that the matter is one which will attract the attention of the public at large, particularly those who have the interest of Nanyang University at heart. We remember that in the past some actions were taken against Nanyang University and this gave rise to a feeling of despair among members of the public. Furthermore the Government is making use of public funds to interfere with academic freedom and higher learning. The Government even goes to the extent of trying to make use of Government funds for its selfish political ends. All these measures ---

Order. I heard this argument yesterday and the day before. I have already indicated to the House before that arguments of that nature would be out of order on a subject matter such as this. I am not quite sure whether the Member is against the provision of this $1 million or is in favour of it. I have not quite followed him yet.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am just trying to point out that this vote of $1 million asked for by the P.A.P., the Party in power, ostensibly to help Nanyang University in the building of a Library, has some hidden motive. I want to air my views about it. I think it is necessary for the Government to let us know all the facts and circumstances surrounding this vote. In this way, we shall be able to understand better how the P.A.P. Government has made use of public funds to achieve its own party ends. We know that Nanyang University is controlled by the P.A.P. through the Government. The Government at one time refused to give a single cent to help Nanyang University. But when it decides to resort to undemocratic means and shamelessly imposes re-organisation on Nanyang University in order to assume control of it, it now wants to give $1 million to the University. Before this, the Government also promised to obtain pan-Malaysian recognition of Nanyang University degrees. When the Government tried its best to give publicity to the proposed aid to be given to Nanyang University, one finds that soon after this the P.A.P. asked the Central Government to send troops and police to arrest Nanyang University undergraduates in the middle of the night. As a result of this, many students of Nanyang University have been arrested. And following this, the P.A.P. Government, by an underhand way, got some people to coerce the ex-Vice Chancellor of Nanyang University into resigning.

Order. I really cannot relate the coercion of that gentleman to the contribution by the Government of a million dollars. If the Member can do so, then I shall hear him on it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I think these two matters are related the $1 million contribution by Government and the resignation of the ex-Vice Chancellor of Nantah took place almost at the same time, so the public will know there is some connection.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Will the Member give way? Mr Chia Thye Poh resumed his seat.

The Member seems to have assumed that because of this $1 million contribution, the Vice Chancellor resigned.

(In Mandarin): I believe that if I continue, the Minister for Education will understand. On the one hand, the Government took forceful means to reorganise Nanyang University. On the other hand, it declared that it was helping Nanyang University with $1 million. So after the publicity about this $1 million, we find that the ex-Vice Chancellor was forced to resign. That gives rise to the suspicion that Government must have tried to snake use of some people to force the Vice Chancellor to resign, otherwise the same fate of the ex-Vice Chancellor of the University of Singapore might befall him. Then there was the so-called committee to take over the place of the Vice Chancellor. And after this committee had been set up, a lot of members of the staff and some undergraduates were expelled from the University.

Order. I think the Member is really discussing the Nanyang University set-up, the way in which the Government is interfering with Nanyang University, the way Nanyang University is objecting to Government's interference. Now, those are matters which were discussed yesterday, I believe, and properly discussed. Today the question is about the provision of $1 million to Nanyang University. What the Member is entitled to say is that the Government should contribute to it or should not contribute to it, or should increase it, say, by $5 million or something like that. That might be relevant to the issue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am trying to sketch to you the circumstances behind the vote of $1 million and give my criticism, because this criticism is very important. From what I have already said, it is very clear that when the Government wanted to give the $1 million to help Nantah, this was done in order to cover up its intention to reorganise the set-up of Nanyang University, thereby creating an impression among the people that giving the $1 million was the real intention of the Government to help Nantah. This is a smoke-screen. I think I have already made myself clear on this point. The Government, following this, made use of a Government officer to sit on the Nantah Committee, thereby causing direct interference with Nanyang University, and this gave rise to some discontentment among the staff. So we see the Government wants to give $1 million to help Nanyang University build a new library and, as promised, wants to help Nantah obtain recognition of its degrees from all the States in Malaysia. I do not know to what extent the Government has succeeded in doing so, in so far as recognition of degrees is concerned. As far as I know, the Government is not taking positive steps to achieve this end. Perhaps it has forgotten about it. Or is it because it has no courage to face the Central Government? 6.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is regrettable that the Member for Jurong has taken up some time of the House without giving an indication whether he is objecting to, or agreeing with, the Government in giving $2 million as aid to Nanyang University for the building of a new library, purchase of equipment, furniture and books. Is he objecting to the Government for doing this, or otherwise? He has taken some time without being able to tell us this.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on a point of information. Mr Ong Pang Boon resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): I have already indicated very clearly that if the Government is sincere in wanting to help the growth of higher education and in helping Nantah, then nobody will object. I have already mentioned the circumstances relating to this vote to show that the Government has been using public funds to assume control of Nanyang University by interfering with academic autonomy. I have already stated my disappointment and raised objection to this behaviour of the P.A.P.

Mr Minister, the point that the Member for Jurong is making is that the Government, by providing $1 million will be interfering with the autonomy of Nanyang University. Perhaps the Minister would like to answer that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the Member for Jurong has not asked the Government not to give this sum of money to help Nanyang University. He has a suspicion that the Singapore Government's intention to help Nantah is not sincere. He is suspicious of our sincerity. If we are not sincere in wanting to help Nantah, then we will not have asked for this vote of $2 million to help it in 1965 to build a library and buy scientific equipment and books. Of course, in the past, when Nanyang University was in the hands of pro-Communist elements like the Member for Jurong, the Government had no obligation to help in the training of more pro-Communist students to undermine the democratic system in Singapore. Nobody in his right senses would do this. This applies to the Government too. We will remember to carry out our promise that, after the reorganisation, we will try to get the Central Government to recognise the degrees of Nanyang University. But the point is that Nanyang University has not completed its reorganisation work. It is only in the initial stage. At the right time, we will carry out our promise. The Member for Jurong also talked about our using public funds to interfere with the academic freedom of the University and about the ex-Vice Chancellor who was forced by us to resign. Mr Speaker, Sir, these people are not really interested in the autonomy of the University. They are not concerned with the academic freedom of the University. All they are concerned with is the question of how to turn the University into a training ground for pro-Communist elements. They are only concerned with the indoctrination of Communist ideas in the minds of the undergraduates. They are only concerned with the freedom to carry out subversive activities. All this ---

Order. I have ruled the Member for Jurong out of order on that. I have allowed the Minister to dwell on it just to reply to him, but I would not like the Minister to take it beyond the reply. So will the Minister get on to his next point?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, unfortunately I have no opportunity to say what I wish to say. But, in short, on the question of Nanyang University, the Central Government has already issued a White Paper about the activities of pro-Communist elements in Nanyang University. Mr Speaker, since you have made a ruling that I should not dwell on it any further, I shall go on to the next point. The Member for Jurong said that we tried to create an impression on the people. He himself tried to create an impression that he was very interested in Nanyang University and in its autonomy. Mr Speaker, since the reorganisation of Nanyang University and the appointment of an ad hoc Administrative Committee, we have discovered that a great deal of damage has been done to the hostels and the canteen. We have evidence to show that wires have been pulled down, chairs and tables damaged, bulbs broken. We have pictures to show the damage done by the pro-Communist elements. They are undermining the University. If the Barisan are interested, I can show them the pictures. Their so-called love for the University is really a desire to see it damaged. When they failed to turn the University into a hive of Communist elements, they tried to damage it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Minister to answer one question. He talked about the Government's effort to get the Central Government to recognise the degrees of Nanyang University, and said that the recognition should depend on the reorganisation of the University, which has not been completed. I would like to ask what he meant by the reorganisation of the University.

(In Mandarin): This is an absurd question. If he has seen the agreement signed between Nanyang University and our Government on the reorganisation of the University, he will know that if the reorganisation is in accordance with the recommendations of the Review Committee, then the reorganisation has been completed.

(In Mandarin): How many per cent of the reorganisation has been completed?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with some training in statistics, may I say that these are matters which are not quantifiable? Therefore, the question is really a nonsensical question! [Laughter].

Mr Speaker, I think the Member for Jurong, if I remember rightly, is also a Member of Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. In his speech, he has raised a number of questions regarding Nanyang University which I think should rightly be raised in the Central Parliament. Has he ever raised them, or does he propose to raise them in the forthcoming Budget sittings in Kuala Lumpur? An hon. Member: A good question.

(In Mandarin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has suggested that I should raise these questions in the Central Parliament. I was merely criticising the Government for their failure to honour their promise of asking the Central Government to recognise the degrees of Nanyang University. This promise has not been honoured, as the Government has not taken any positive step to recognise the degrees of Nantah. I was merely criticising the Government for its failure to carry out its promise.

The Member assumes that no steps have been taken to persuade the Federal Government to recognise Nantah and to give assistance to Nantah. Why should he assume that this is the case? There are certain matters, Mr Speaker, where discussions and persuasion are best done quietly and without publicity. This is the initial way in which the Central Government should be approached on this matter. Surely we have discussed this matter with the Central Government. We have put forward the merits of our case, but it is quite unnecessary to make it a political issue. If we do that, we can be sure that it will endanger the success of the policy we hope to persuade the Central Government to follow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been listening to the two Opposition Members for the last half an hour. As you have pointed out, Sir, the particular provision is quite clear - Public Library Building: $1,000,000. They have been beating about the bush, but they have still not said whether they are for voting this $1,000,000. Do they approve of it? Do they want more or do they want less? They have not answered that. It is quite clear that their so-called love for Nanyang University is to use this University purely for their political ends. In fact, it is quite clear now that the Communists are out of Nanyang University, they would like to see it destroyed. What they cannot get, they will not like others to get. As my colleague has pointed out, the Member for Jurong is a Member of Parliament. We have had about four sessions. He has a burning desire --- Mr Chia Thye Poh rose ---

On a point of information, or on a point of order?

On a point of explanation. Mr S. Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

The Minister has given way. Mr Chia.

(In Mandarin): Just now, the Minister for Culture has pointed out that I am a Member of Parliament, and that I have not raised this question in the Central Parliament. If the P.A.P. Government admit that they do not have the courage to raise it, then I will raise it in the Central Parliament.

The Member for Jurong is different from us. We talk directly with the Central Government. We do not publicise it. We are negotiating, but he does not know. He assumes that nothing is being done.

On a point of information.

Mr Chia Thye Poh, will you please resume your seat? When you rise up, please do not press the button. It not only interferes with my hearing what is being said, but it also interferes with the interpretation system of the whole House, and the record cannot be properly produced. I am glad that you have given me this opportunity, because I had wanted to mention this to the House for a considerable time. When you do rise on a point of order, just rise and stand there until you catch my eye. Now, Mr Chia.

On a point of information.

The Minister has given way. Mr Chia.

(In Mandarin): Just now the Minister for Culture has said that the Singapore Government have quietly talked with the Central Government and that they do not want to make this public for fear of endangering the negotiations and discussions. I would like him to tell this House what steps have been taken by the Government. How many official or unofficial discussions did this Government have with the Central Government on the recognition of Nantah degrees?

The Minister for Finance has indicated to the House that there are ministerial discussions going on between the Central Government and the State Government of Singapore, and that it would be premature to disclose them at this juncture. The Member should be satisfied with that answer for the time being. Mr Rajaratnam. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Chairman, he said just now that he had got information. He never gave information. All he did was give further comment --- [Interruption]

Mr Rajaratnam, please proceed.

Sir, I would still like to ask the people who love Nanyang University, to say clearly so that the people will know whether they approve of giving $1 million to improve the library facilities of Nanyang. A very simple question, Sir. Everybody would like to know.

$2 million.

Sorry, Sir. $2 million. For a library building and for scientific equipment and library books. Let them say now - do they approve of giving $2 million for this purpose to Nanyang University, or are they going to make political capital for their Communist friends outside and inside Nanyang University? Now, I understand most of them are outside. [Laughter] That is all I am asking, Sir, and I am quite sure that the public would also like to know, where do these Barisan Sosialis Members stand in regard to positive aid, not just verbal aid - which they give from time to time - "lovers of Nanyang", "supporters of Nanyang" - and may I say, Sir, that very interestingly enough, Radio Jakarta has also been saying that Government is interfering with Nanyang University. And if Radio Jakarta takes such great interest in Nanyang University, I can understand why the Members of the Barisan also follow the same line.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has once again talked about our attitude towards Nantah. We want to make ourselves clear. Towards any educational institute which can train our people to become competent people and useful citizens, we will give our support. But we object to Government's using this sum of money for their own notorious purpose, it is very easy and simple to answer this question. For example, the P.A.P. Government has asked for a provision of $2 million out of which $1 million is to help Nantah build a library and the other $1 million is to help Nantah purchase scientific equipment, and library books. But we must not just simply say that we object to or agree with this vote. What we want to know is when was this money asked for? Their purpose is to show that they are helping Nanyang University and they make use of the money to cover up their misdeed. They are giving sugar-coated poison to Nanyang University, a poison which contains $2 million, and now they are asking us whether we support or object to what they are doing. What I am pointing out is their motive behind asking for this vote. The P.A.P. are not able to answer this question. When they are not able to do so, they talk about the Communists. That is what they are in the habit of doing. After the P.A.P. have carried out the reorganisation, let us see whether it has become better. After the reorganisation, I hear that there has been no improvement. The P.A.P. have used the students in Nanyang University, it is an open secret. It is said that an assembly of some students, closely connected with the P.A.P., has carried out illegal yellow activities, has organised parties and dinners ---

Order. Let us get back to Nanyang University and the library.

(In Mandarin): There is no need for us to talk at length on this. I am merely trying to make a comparison between Nanyang University before and after reorganisation. They have made a promise that they want to get the other territories and Governments to recognise Nanyang degrees, that discussions and negotiations have been quietly carried out behind the scenes. All this is a smoke-screen. The Ministers are clear about this. There is no need to talk about the secrecy of these discussions.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with this vote amounting to $2 million, which is to help the library building and to buy scientific equipment and books for Nanyang University, the Government intends to help Nantah. It also shows that Nanyang University, in respect of academic standards and other fields, has already come to the right track. And it is a good thing. But the Opposition Members have voiced their doubts and suspicions in our providing this sum of $2 million. I say that if the vote had been asked for two years ago when the Barisan elements were doing their worst in Nanyang University, then they would have agreed. Now that they are not able any more to control Nantah, they say that the grapes are sour, and have described us as handing out sugar-coated poison to Nantah in this vote of $2 million. In fact, when the Government wants to give financial aid to Nantah, it has to ensure that the money is used in a proper way, put to proper use, and in all justification, it should not be handed out when these pro-Communist elements are in control of Nantah. Mr Chia Thye Poh rose ---

On a point of order?

On a point of information. Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

Well, the Minister has already sat down. So you may proceed, Mr Chia. On a point of information.

(In Mandarin): Just now the Minister for Labour has said that before Nanyang University came under the control of the Government, it was under the control of the Communist United Front. I want to ask the Minister whether the former Vice-Chancellor and the Chairman of the Management Committee were also members of the Communist United Front.

I will not permit the Minister to answer that question because, by that means, we will enlarge the scope of this debate. So let us get back to Nanyang University and the library. Mr Jek Yeun Thong.

(In Mandarin): Now a chance is offered me to tell the inside story. The ex-Vice Chancellor, because of his own weakness, was not able to control them, but this is another matter. But if we were to use public funds to aid a University when it is under the control of undesirable elements, that is not right. When these people were having their way in Nanyang University and carrying out illegal activities, the Government should not give public funds to aid the University. When these people were controlling the undergraduates there, people were threatened. The situation was that when the under-graduates agreed with them, they allowed them to continue. Otherwise they would be suppressed by them. Let us take the graduate assistant lecturers. If a graduate assistant lecturer were on the side of the Students Union and agreed to their political ideology, then he was quite all right. But if undergraduates dared to differ from such a controlling clique, then this lecturer would deduct marks from their examination papers in order to fail them.

Let us get back to the subject of Nanyang University and library facilities. Mr Jek Yeun Thong.

(In Mandarin): After the reorganisation we have full confidence in the future of Nanyang University, knowing that it will no longer be under the control of the previous clique. We know that the vote is in the right direction, and that Nanyang University will in future become a higher institute of learning befitting its name.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember that last year when the Assembly was having sittings in December, the Members for Thomson and Jurong were trying their best to attack the Government, especially on the question of Nantah, and accusing the Government of being undemocratic and of trying to curb academic freedom. They also said the Government did not want to aid Nantah. But now they have changed their tactics, and are shouting about academic freedom and freedom of assembly, as though they want to reject this vote for Nantah. In the past they attacked the Government for not wanting to help Nantah, hut now that the Government wants to give financial aid to it, they turn round and attack it for not giving academic freedom to Nantah. 6.45 p.m. Of course, at that time, they wanted to prevent the Nanyang University Council from carrying on negotiations with the Government in respect of the organisation of Nantah. This is because at that time they wanted to control Nantah. They accused the Government of trying to control Nantah instead. Their main purpose then was to allow the Communists to keep on controlling Nantah. Their real purpose, which is evident now, is to make use of academic freedom as a pretext and as a smokescreen to carry on with their Communist activities. The Member for Thomson has asked me what has been achieved after the reorganisation. He said, "How much has been achieved after the reorganisation?" We can tell him that the under-graduates of Nantah can now study in a peaceful environment without interference from Communist elements. This is a situation they have never dreamed of before. Before the reorganisation, Nantah was a campus for the pro-Communist activists. But after the reorganisation, it has become a suitable institute for the undergraduates to pursue their higher studies. Before the reorganisation Nantah was in a topsyturvy state. After the reorganisation, things returned to what they should be. Discipline is restored and maintained. With regard to the vote of $1 million for buying scientific equipment and library books, this sum could, of course, be put to other use. In providing this vote for Nantah, it is our hope that Nantah will be worthy of its name as an institute of higher learning. Under the ex-Vice Chancellor, Dr Chuang Chu Lin, the annual vote for this item was put to other uses. Dr Chuang built a theatre in the University. The $1 million, which comes under the annually recurrent expenditure vote, was used in building this theatre. In the end, the payment of the salaries of Nanyang University professors and lecturers became a problem. However, the theatre cannot be used now in spite of the fact that $1 million has been spent on it. According to the original plan for the theatre, it should be air-conditioned. But although $1 million has been spent on it, there is no air-conditioning in the theatre. According to reports submitted by the architects, if the auditorium were to accommodate more than 300 people, then there is the danger of suffocation. There are no ventilation facilities. That is the way they were using public money at that time. All these things happened before the reorganisation. After the reorganisation things have become better. I have already given them some photos to show that before the reorganisation, the pro-Communist under-graduates were engaged in subversive activities. I was invited by the Students' Fellowship of Nantah to speak on the occasion of Malaysia Day. When I was there. I found that the wiring and equipment were all torn up and broken. The furniture too was damaged. There were no lighting and no loudspeakers. I understand a big sum of money had been spent on such things. But this only goes to show what the pro-Communist elements did in the University campus. $3,000 musical instruments were also lost. Nanyang University was set up through donations by hawkers, trishaw riders and people from all walks of life. The purpose of setting up Nantah is to educate our youths in order that they can serve the country. The Barisan claim that they love and support Nantah. In actual fact, we can only see sabotage in Nantah. Equipment was damaged and musical instruments were lost. These are facts surrounding the situation in Nantah.

(In Mandarin): The Minister for Education has wasted a lot of the time of this House by mentioning irrelevant matters. In the short time available, I wish to reply only to the more important points. He says that after the reorganisation, Nanyang University has got academic freedom. But I wish to ask him this. How is it that the Government has to send one of its officials to participate in the work of the Administrative Committee? He receives directives from the Government and interferes with the administration of Nanyang University. Why should this be so? Does it mean that Nanyang University has no other persons to sit on the Administrative Committee so that one official from the Ministry of Education has to be a member of the Administrative Committee? This only goes to show further interference by Government and the undermining of the autonomy of Nanyang University. They also claim that the administration of Nantah is going along the right track. They say the old days have gone. The question still remains whether Nantah is in fact going along the right track. We should not waste much time. He says that the administration then was deteriorating and in a topsyturvy state. I think such remarks are an insult to the academic staff who were responsible for Nanyang University in the past. We know that there are still some members of the academic staff who were in Nantah before the reorganisation and who were responsible for its administration. Their work was appreciated by the public at large. To say that these people have brought Nantah to a chaotic state is a great humiliation to those who love Nantah. The Minister has also mentioned about the theatre in Nanyang University. He has mentioned about the damage done, and the useless condition of the theatre now. We know that when the hall was built, it was through donations coming from the Hokkien community. Of course, this theatre was to meet the urgent need of Nanyang University for a place where the undergraduates can hold their convocation and other necessary gatherings. 6.55 p.m.

Order. Time has expired. The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 023." As many as are of that opinion, say "Aye". Opposition Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say "No". Government Members: No.

The Noes have it? The Noes have it. An hon. Member: Division.

It is too late. The time allotted for Head D 04 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the names of Mr Koo Young, Mr Chia Thye Poh, and Mr Ong Eng Guan, was not proceeded with:- That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $100. The sum of $24,831,120 for Head D 04 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 05 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ong Eng Guan :- That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 05 be reduced by $100.

Head D 05 - Ministry of Health. There is an amendment standing in the name of Mr Ong Eng Guan. The Member is not here. So we will pass on to the next Question. The sum of $3,565,380 for Head D 05 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 06 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Kow Kee Seng --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 004.

There are three amendments, the first of which stands in the name of Mr Kow Kee Seng. Mr Kow Kee Seng is absent. Amendment No. (2), standing in the names of Mr Tan Cheng Tong and Mr Ong Lian Teng.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 005. 6.58 p.m.

Mr Chairman, urban development involves a great sum of money, namely, $20 million. I only want to ask the Minister concerned two questions. First, does this sum of $20 million include compensation to be paid to those who have been affected by re-development projects? The second question is this. Will those affected by resettlement schemes be given proper accommodation? Are they in a position to carry on their business as usual in their alternative accommodation? Of those affected, how much compensation is given to cover their losses? Are they given any rent subsidies in the new accommodation? A more important consideration is that in areas such as New Bridge Road, which is a business centre for the Chinese and other communities, I wonder how the Government is going to provide them with alternative places of business. 7.00 p.m. These people carry on business which has a direct bearing on the livelihood of the people in Singapore. My concern in these matters is that the Government may not be able to deal with matters carefully and satisfactorily. In fact, some people may be greatly affected by this re-development programme. I think the Minister should be able to present us with a comprehensive plan and give us some idea about it. In the North Bridge Road area, because of the Alliance and the P.A.P. shedding crocodile tears, some difficulties have arisen. I do not know whether there is going to be any change in respect of the development programme for the North Bridge Road and Minto Road areas where two major races live together. I also want to know whether the Central Government has any right to interfere with our urban development programme. I want the Minister to give me a satisfactory answer.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the first question of the Member for Jalan Kayu as to whether the $20 million earmarked includes compensation or not, I wish to say that it does not include compensation. Compensation comes under another heading. In regard to his second question, i.e. have those people who are affected been given proper accommodation, I say that in our resettlement scheme, the people affected are always given the choice of accommodation and, for his information - in spite of the fact that they will not face realities, they say that our compensation scheme is rejected by the people, it is inadequate, it is causing great suffering - I would like to inform him that, for instance, in Kallang Basin, there are 750 families living mostly in stilt houses. To date 700 odd families have been cleared. They have all accepted the compensation scheme and alternative accommodation. Similarly, in the Redhill cemetery site, 397 squatters are affected by clearance in this 60-acre plot. About 350 families have accepted accommodation offered to them and have moved away. Therefore, Sir, it can be seen that in our resettlement scheme, most of the families affected have accepted the compensation offered. It is only in the minds of Opposition Members that our compensation scheme is not a just and equitable one. Of course, in any resettlement, in any large-scale moving of people from one place to another, there usually will be some hardship. But it is a question of time before people get settled down in their new surroundings. I think, on the whole, the people of Singapore are public-spirited enough to understand that what little incon venience is caused to them now is all for the good of the community and for the future generation. The Member asks whether they are given rent subsidies. For businesses we have what we call a rent rising system. That is, if a man who is doing business in one area is moved or has accepted Housing Board shops in another area to continue with his business, he is only charged 70 per cent of what we call "assessed rent", and it will rise by 10 per cent until on the ffourth year he will be paying the full assessed rent. What alternatives are to be given to people who are to be moved out from the New Bridge Road and North Bridge Road areas for urban renewal? In the North Bridge Road area, Minto Road, Crawford Road, there is alternative accommodation given to them. The first choice is that they are given flats in Tanjong Rhu; or if they so want to, they can choose any flat which is under the control of the Housing Board anywhere in Singapore. Here, I would like to inform the Member for Jalan Kayu that quite a number of ship chandlers have been moved from Beach Road and Crawford to Tanjong Rhu. At first they protested that the rent was higher than the rent which they paid in the rent control houses. But now the majority of them are happy because in their new surroundings, with a larger population, in better shops, they are having a larger turnover than they ever had before. Therefore, in all these resettlement schemes, people will sometimes find they may have to pay higher rents, incur a bit more expenses than they used to in their old surroundings which were rent-controlled. But, on the whole, they find that because of better locality, better facilities, more people in the new surroundings, their business is better. In the New Bridge Road area, we have cleared part of Outram Gaol and there is quite a large area of land which we can work on first. Then, as we go on, we will be able to remove the people around the area that we want to redevelop into buildings which we will he putting up for them. His last question is whether the Central Government has any right to interfere in our planning programme. The plans which we put up are our own for the improvement of the standard of living of our people, and whether it is the Central Government or the Barisan boys opposite, if they have got better plans, better suggestions to make, they are welcome. If he thinks that by this it is interference, then I say yes, everyone has the right to interfere with our plans.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, the P.A.P.'s urban redevelopment plan has met with difficulties even before it is carried out, because this redevelopment project is not a comprehensive one. It cannot take into account the problems of all those people who are going to be affected. The Minister says that the people who were affected were satisfied with the Government's compensation. This is a falsehood. Those who were affected in the various areas did not want to accept the compensation. They were forced to accept it because, otherwise, their houses would be demolished. Under such circumstances, these people had no alternative but to accept such compensation and move into other alternative houses. This is the most barbaric way of doing things. It is killing a man and saying that he is asleep. I can give a very concrete example to show whether the people are willing to accept the Government compensation or not. This was stated by the former Rural Dwellers' Association. They were of the opinion that the compensation of the P.A.P. Government was not equitable and just, be it in the rural area or urban area. The question of urban redevelopment gave rise to the disturbances in July and September because there are many loopholes in this plan ---

On a point of order. I think the Speaker has ruled the topic of the July and September riots to be sub judice. The Member is making reference to it again.

I think the Member should not make any reference to the July and September civil disturbances.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I was not dwelling on these two disturbances. I was merely saying that before these two disturbances, there were people who were staying in the Crawford area who were not satisfied with the compensation rate paid by the Government, thus resulting in some extremists creating disturbances. I was merely pointing out the defects and shortcomings of this compensation rate. Before it was revised, the compensation rate was even worse. The people in Toa Payoh, Kallang, Wee Choon Village, Geylang, and Aljunied have not forgotten the treatment they got from the Government when they were asked to resettle. They got only a few hundred dollars as compensation for resettlement. But then there were two rural organisations in those days which could fight for the people affected. But in the urban area there was no such organisation, apart from some parties and civic organisations which were not in a position to fight for the people affected by urban redevelopment. In the past, the rural organisations, in fighting for the benefit of the people, were very cautious in their approach because in every affected area, there were mixed races. They did not make use of racial issues to deal with this problem. Therefore, in the past, no matter how the Government abolished the houses in the rural areas, the action did not meet with any trouble. 7.15 p.m. No matter what the Government says about the Country People's Association and the Rural Dwellers' Association, that they are Communist front organisations, they fought for the interests of the people, especially those who were affected by resettlement. The Government now says that most of the people who are affected by the resettlement scheme are willing to accept compensation. This is not true.

Mr Chairman, Sir, to the boys opposite, everything that the Government does is wrong; even giving $2 million to Nanyang University is wrong.

(In Mandarin): Point of order. Mr Chairman, Sir, the reply given by the Minister is rude. He has described us as "boys". He should withdraw his remark.

Will the Minister refer to the Opposition as "Members"?

Well, hon. Members who behave like boys. An hon. Member: That is worse than saying they are boys.

Anything that we do is wrong; even giving $2 million to help Nanyang University is wrong. It has already been explained in this House that we give compensation to these peo ple, although legally we do not have to give them compensation. It is because we want to minimise the effects of resettlement, the effects of disturbances that we give this compensation. And there must be a limit to which one can give compensation. Of course, the so-called champions of the poor - the Rural Dwellers' Association and the other organisation which they have - championed the poor and offered them everything, in any scheme that you carry out, there are a few dissenters who will not be happy with whatever you do. And here, these people promised them the moon. But we are the Government and we are responsible for expenditure of public money. We have to stand here and justify to the Opposition every cent that we spend. Therefore, we have to he very careful in how we do it and why we do it. Because of that, we set about it carefully. Some of the colleagues of the Members opposite are not here now. But we worked out a compensation scheme which we thought and still think is equitable. Here we get these chaps coming up to say, "People are only paid $300." Here are people who are really experts at distortion. We have not only been paying people $300, but some are paid $10,000 and $15,000. Do you know that? Why do you not mention that? You have just mentioned $300, which is an allowance for them to move out. From the percentage of acceptances. Mr Chairman, it can be seen that the majority of the people accept our compensation rates. And what interests us most is that it is the majority who accept, and not a few dissenters like them who try to make political capital out of political bankruptcy now. The Member says that quite a lot of people did not accept. Our record shows that the majority of them have accepted. I have just enumerated two areas where most of the people have accepted our compensation scheme and moved away, public spirited enough to know that they have got to put up with a little bit of inconvenience for the good of the future generation and for the good of the community as a whole. Now, regarding the Toa Payoh area, the Member says that the compensation rates were unfair. The first compensation scheme that we put up, I think, did not have an equal anywhere else in the world. We offered a terrace house of over 1,000 square feet in area, costing at least $7,000, for a ramshackle squatter hut. What could be fairer than that? And they are the chaps who, in spite of this good offer, went round and tried to put a stop to it. But the squatters were wise enough and realistic enough to see that it was a good offer and they accepted it straightaway, in spite of the machinations to stop our progress of development. Sir, as I have already said, if our compensation scheme is not fair, then how is it that in Kallang Basin, out of 750 families, 700 families have already accepted? He says that we are doing it by force. Can you force 700 families, consisting of about 4,000- odd people to move out? Did he see the police moving in to force these people out? He is just daydreaming and talking a lot of nonsense.

Honourable Members.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, just now the Minister for National Development has claimed that there were no forced removals. Of course, recently there have been no such incidents. But we have seen that in certain areas where the Government issued eviction notices and when the people refused to move, riot squads would turn up. Then, of course, the people feared the presence of the riot squads and dared not stay any longer. The Minister for National Development has said that some families were given compensation amounting to more than $10,000. I would like to ask why certain other families were only given $20 or $30. I can cite a case. A person was asked to move out and was offered compensation of $50, while there were families that were offered $300 compensation to move out. Is this compensation rate enough for them to rehabilitate themselves? Formerly these people stayed in attap huts at a rental of $20 or $30. And now the Government wants them to stay in flats which cost them a rental of $200 or $300. Is that the way to help the people affected by eviction? In respect of housing, the substitution of flats for attap huts will increase the rents.

On a point of order. We are discussing the Development Estimates. All these arguments about houses, rents, and so on, are completely irrelevant to the Development Estimates.

Will the Member come back to the subject of Urban Redevelopment, and not dwell too long on attap huts?

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I mention those points because the Minister for National Development has raised them. And now I am only airing different views. On Urban Redevelopment, we can also see that the people living in attap huts are suffering the same fate of incurring losses. The Minister has claimed that the people who are affected are most willing to accept compensation. In actual fact, in the past the Government met with resistance put up by representatives of rural organisations. But these organisations no longer exist, and so these people do not have a representative body to speak for them. The Minister has also claimed that such removals are in the interests of society. But I would like to ask, if that is the case, then why should the Government not look to the interests of these people who had to remove? Why should they not get their legitimate rights and protection safeguarded? Does it mean that the Government is doing things only for the interests of the people at large, and disregarding the people affected by resettlement?

Mr Chairman, Members of the Government have been rising time and time again trying to explain matters. I think it is very difficult to get our explanations to percolate through their thick skulls. The Member for Tampines says that we are not looking after the interests of the squatters. I have already explained that legally we do not have to compensate. But I repeat again: it is because we want to minimise whatever difficulty that might arise out of resettlement that we have worked out a scheme of compensation for them. He also says that the affected people belong to two organisations who fought for them, and that these organisations have now disappeared. Of course, they have disappeared. Does he know why they have disappeared? Because you are not fighting for their interests. You know you are delaying development and you are preventing them from living a better life. We are providing better houses, better roads, schools, community centres, and factories, all for the betterment of the people. But you tried to bluff them and said, "Don't move out. Don't get out, but stay in the field."

Order. Will the Minister please address the Chair?

I am sorry. Mr Chairman. Well, that is why their organisations have disappeared, because the people now know that these organisations were there not for the interests of the people but for their own political ends. Therefore, they disappeared overnight because they did not have the support of the people.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, just now the Minister for National Development has said that these two rural organisations have disappeared because they have not received the support of the people. 7.29 p.m.

Point of order, Sir.

The point of order being?

The Member is speaking on the rural organisations and not on the Development Estimates.

I shall watch him.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, just now I have mentioned those points in answer to what the Minister for National Development has said.

There is just half a minute left. Is there any Member wishing to speak?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to rebut what the Member for Tampines has said --- 7.30 p.m.

Order. Time is up.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head D 06 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng, was not proceeded with: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 008. The sum of $125,034,050 for Head D 06 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 07 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $100. On this head, I would like to put forward a suggestion. It seems that under this head nothing is allocated to help the fire fighting squads in the rural areas. I hope that the Government will allocate some funds to provide fire-fighting equipment, pails, etc. to the fire-fighting squads in all the rural areas. I feel that if such fire-fighting facilities are provided, it will be better than asking the Fire Brigade to prevent the outbreak of fires or to fight them. The reason is that whenever a fire occurs, the Fire Brigade engines and firemen have to travel a long way to reach the fire site. Sometimes due to a traffic jam, the fire engines are not able to reach the fire site in good time. For instance, the fire engines will take at least 15 minutes to travel from High Street to Lorong 1, Geylang. From my knowledge, by the time the fire engines reach the fire site, many houses will have been completely burnt down. Therefore, if the Government will allocate fire-fighting equipment for installation at various rural areas, it will be of great help in fire-fighting. In this way, I feel that the efficiency of the fire-fighting squads in the rural areas will be improved. Another matter is the vote for the Toa Payoh Fire Station on page 26 of the Development Estimates. How is it that there is no provision for the building of a Toa Payoh Fire Station? There is only a token vote of $10. This refers to subhead 004, items 001 and 002.

Mr Speaker, shall I answer the last point first? As we know, a number of areas have been developed or are developing rapidly with housing and industry, for example, Toa Payoh, Thomson, Sembawang and Nee Soon. It is proposed to erect a new fire station for Toa Payoh where 50,000 housing units are expected to house about 250,000 people. This will be a standard fire station with 4 fire engines, one ambulance and three firemen. It will be provided with staff quarters. A token vote of only $10, however, has been provided for this fire station in the 1965 Development Estimates. As for the first point raised just now by the Member for Bukit Panjang, we all know that there are five fire stations at the moment strategically placed in various parts of Singapore, such as Hill Street, Queenstown, Bukit Timah, Serangoon Road and Paya Lebar, with an operational strength of 600 men. The fire fighting capacity of these stations has been found to be adequate for present needs. The Member just now has said that we should provide some funds to equip the voluntary fire fighting squads. In fact, we have already done so, as we told them yesterday. So we need not have to answer this question again.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to refer to the speech made yesterday by the Minister for Social Affairs. I do not know whether he has promised any more aid to the fire-fighting squads. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the answer has been given, but if I remember correctly, no answer has been given. If any answer has been given, no aid has been given. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the five fire stations are manned by 600 men. I do not doubt this. But I think that in spite of their efficiency, more aid should be given to the rural fire-fighting squads. We know that in the Geylang fires at Lorongs 1, 5 and 21, a few hundred houses were burnt down causing a few thousand people to be homeless. All these facts show very clearly that if more help is given to the rural fire-fighting squads, the situation may be quite different. Such help is very necessary. We feel that if the Government wants to improve the situation, then it should give the squads more aid and equipment so that they will be more efficient in fire-fighting.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $730,920 for Head D 07 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 08 -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 009. Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards drainage at the Geylang Serai Malay Settlement, a plan to allow the free flow of water has unfortunately proved to be difficult. Sometimes a scheme which has been worked out for such a purpose cannot be implemented for various reasons. Nevertheless, if the authorities concerned could clean the drains along Chye Chee up to Geylang River, it would be a good thing. The water in these drains does not flow freely. Previously, the Work Brigade carried out the job of cleaning the drains, but at the moment this work has stopped. In order that there may be a smooth flow of water in the drains, I ask the authorities concerned to remove the rubbish and dirt which are choking the drains. Mr Speaker, during a heavy rainfall the water remains stagnant, resulting in houses being flooded and causing a lot of inconvenience to the residents there. The farmers are also affected, and they face losses during a heavy rainfall. So I ask the Ministry concerned to look after these drains so that the water in these drains can flow freely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has got the whole picture quite correctly when he says that because of several reasons we are unable to proceed with the Pelton drainage scheme in Geylang Serai. This is so because one of the reasons is that there are thousands of squatters there, and if we are to proceed with providing adequate drainage for this very low-lying area, then all these squatters have to be moved. In the meantime, while it is not possible to do this, we are providing partial relief by improving the minor drainage and also reconstructing the culverts across Jalan Kembangan, Jalan Bijaya and Lengkong Tiga, which are of adequate size to prevent back flooding. This year, Sir, it is estimated that $10,000 will be spent on all these works and another $6,000 will be spent next year. However, it is our objective to see that there is a through flow of water in every public drain and if the Member can bring to my notice or to the notice of my Ministry any specific instance of a drain being clogged, we will send men to see that it is put right. 7.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance with reference to amendment (2)*. Can I deal with both amendments (2) and (3)+ at the same time? +Amendments (3) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 006 of subhead 0l5.

It seems to me to be all right if it suits the Minister's convenience.

Yes.

Yes, the hon. Member will move amendment (2) and he may speak on amendment (3) too.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 0l5.* Mr Speaker, Sir, on this subject of the improvements to agricultural and kampong roads, in particular, Jalan Kembangan. Jalan Angteng and Jalan Ladang - roads which link up with Jalan Eunos - are in a bad state because heavy vehicles such as lorries carrying timber are using them. During the disturbances, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Police and the military authorities could not make use of these roads and the residents in these areas lived in a state of fear. Although the people at Jalan Angteng and Jalan Ladang are peace-loving people who cannot be influenced by the Indonesian Communists, they are still frightened because radio patrol cars cannot go round these kampongs due to the bad roads. These roads are in constant use by the residents living in the eastern part of Singapore. Therefore, I think it is time that these roads are repaired so that they can be used by people who normally use them. However, to my knowledge, an amount of $26,000 was spent on improvements to these roads in the early part of 1964. In view of the further expenditure allotted to the improvement of these roads, I request the authorities concerned to let me know when it is possible to repair them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, as regards agricultural roads and kampong roads, the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee has already taken steps to investigate the need to repair the roads in Kampong Kembangan, Jalan Angteng and Jalan Ladang. For this year the Committee has already approved repairs to the roads, bridges and other facilities in Kampong Kembangan. The sum approved was $110,000. This goes to show how much attention the Government is paying to the roads, drains and bridges in the rural areas. Mr Speaker, because such attention is paid to various constituencies, it is not possible to improve all the roads of one constituency within one year. The reason is very simple. The funds have to be fairly allocated so that other constituencies are covered. But I can give an assurance to the Member for Kampong Kembangan that the two roads mentioned by him have already received the attention of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee and that repairs will be carried out very soon. Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the Government's intention to repair all kampong roads in Singapore. This year we have already repaired 176 kampong roads, involving an amount of $943,000. These roads are in Aljunied, Bras Basah, Bukit Panjang, Bukit Timah, Changi, Choa Chu Kang, Crawford, Farrer Park. Geylang East, Geylang Serai, Geylang West, Jalan Besar, Jalan Kayu, Jurong, Kampong Glam, Kampong Kapor, Kampong Kembangan, Nee Soon, Pasir Panjang, Punggol, Rochore, Sembawang, Sepoy Lines, Serangoon Gardens, Siglap, Southern Islands, Stamford, Tampines, Tanglin, Telok Ayer, Telok Blangah, Thomson, Toa Payoh, Ulu Pandan and Upper Serangoon, in these 35 constituencies, 176 roads have been repaired by the Government. Some other roads are still under repair.

Is it the wish of the hon. Member that the amendments be withdrawn?

Yes. Amendments by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (4). Inche Mohd. Ariff.

I am not moving amendments (4)* and (5)+. *Amendments (4) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 014 of subhead 015. +Amendments (5) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 015 of subhead 015.

Amendment No. (6).

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, That the sum to be allocated for head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 030. Mr Speaker, I would like to take this amendment together with amendment No. (7)++. ++ Amendments (7) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 031.

Is it convenient, Mr Minister?

Yes.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the people of Singapore should congratulate the Singapore Government on being able to supply electricity and water to all the kampongs in Singapore. I believe the people of Singapore are now conscious of the social amenities they enjoy. However, Mr Speaker, I merely wish to refer to the supply of electricity to Kampong Angteng. Recently, electric poles have been put up, but until now no electricity supply is available. I do not know the reason for this. 7.55 p.m.

Order. Time is up. Does the Member wish to withdraw his amendment or does he wish to proceed?

Yes, I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for head D 08 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi, was not proceeded with: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 034. The sum of $28,333,970 for Head D 08 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper are Heads D 09 and D 10.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads which appear in the third column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 7 of Paper Cmd. 25 of 1964 stand part of the Development Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $293,741,867 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 25 of 1964," put, and agreed to. Resolution to he reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported --- That the sum of $293,741,867 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 25 of 1964.

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

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

Resolved. "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Goh Keng Swee} Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock p.m.

Wednesday, 18th November, 1964

asked the Minister for Finance to state the number of Pioneer Certificates which have been issued to date, with details of name of firm: product specified: date of issue: time limit to commence operation, if any; whether and when the firm has commenced production; paid-up capital of the firm, percentage of local capital and foreign capital in the firm; and number of workmen of the firm.

During the debate on Government's financial policy, Opposition members tried to make out that Singapore's pioneer industries were being monopolised by foreign capital. I made a point in reply that the majority of capital subscribed in these pioneer industries is local capital. I welcome this question from the Member for Hong Lim as it provides me with an opportunity for giving full details. The Schedule setting out the particulars in respect of each one of the 119 pioneer firms will be sent to you in due course. To summarize the aggregates, the total subscribed capital in all pioneer industries amounts to $221,967,000. 57 per cent of this capital is provided by local businessmen and 43 per cent come from abroad. Among the pioneer industries are a number of international oil companies. Their total subscribed capital invested comes to $49.8 million and the enterprises are wholly owned by them. If we deduct the enterprises set up by these companies - there are only five oil companies involved - the ratio of local capital to foreign capital is 73 per cent to 37 per cent. The number of workers who will be employed by these industries at the initial stage of production is estimated at 10,032. When these firms are in final production the estimated number of workers employed will increase to 18,128.

asked the Minister for Finance to state the expenditure incurred by the Government and the Economic Development Board to the latest available date on the Jurong Industrial Scheme.

The expenditure by the Government, Economic Development Board, the Housing and Development Board and the Public Utilities Board comes to $54 million at the last count. The details are as follows:- Expenditure- Administration, supervision and planning 2,525,000 Development - Land and Industrial Estate Aquisition 170,000 Resettlement (P. Merlimau) 394,000 Site development (roadworks, drains, culverts, etc.) - Earthworks and reclamation 11,663,000 Sewerage including sewage work 452,000 Drainage 384,000 Dredging 893,000 Road inclidng bridges 5,234,000 Railways 1,368,000 Wharf 7,670,000 Factory buildings 1,882,000 Water reservoir 118,000 Electric sub-station 144,000 Miscellaneous (incliding site and survey investiagation) 54,000 Deposit - Public Uitilites Board 9,139,000 Housing and Development Board - Housing 1,800,000 Resettlement 1,619,000 Housing and Development Board expendture up to 30-10-64 5,479,342 P.W.D. for Boon Lay road works, advance for other works, sewerage, etc. 2,168,064 P.U.B. for cables, etc. apportionment for cable from Woodlands to Jurong, say 900,000 ----------- (Approx.) $54,000,000 -----------

asked the Minister for Finance to state the number of factories which had commenced actual production in the Jurong industrial area by 31st October, 1964, giving name of firm; paid-up capital of the firm; number of workmen employed in the firm as at the latest available date; and percentage of local capital and foreign capital of the firm.

There are 19 firms in production in the Jurong Industrial Estate. The paid-up capital comes to $41 .3 million. Sixty seven per cent of the subscribed capital belongs to our local businessmen, 33 per cent comes from overseas. The number of workers in employment at the last count made in August this year was 1,851. The present total is likely to exceed 2,000. In addition to this, some 2,600 workers are employed in various construction works. For the sake of clarity, I should mention that not all the firms in Jurong are pioneer industries nor are all pioneer industries in production located in Jurong. In fact, the majority of pioneer industries in production are located outside Jurong. As I stated in my Budget Address, 43 pioneer firms are in production, involving a total capital investment of $132.5 million and the creation of 4,195 new jobs as at the end of August this year. I attach a Schedule* setting out the details of firms in production in Jurong. * See cols. 769-70. DETAILS OF FIRMS IN PRODUCTION IN JURONG (Cols 0769-0770)

asked the Minister for Finance to give a list of all industrial enterprises in Singapore established before 5th June, 1959, stating name of firm; products manufactured; and number of workmen employed.

I regret to say that no lists are available which set out the required details. However, the Honourable Member may be interested in the report on the Census of Industrial Production, 1959, compiled by the Chief Statistician, Singapore, printed by the Government Printing Office, published in 1963, and available to the public at the price of $2 a copy. The Government conducts a Census of Industrial Production every year since 1959. DETAILS OF FIRMS IN PRODUCTION IN JURONG (Cols 0769-0770)