Hansard, 1965-06-16

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (d) of section 30 of the Singapore (State Constitution) Order in Council, 1963, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore), Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House - from 26th November, to 31st December, 1964. Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied) - from 16th December. 1964, to 15th January, 1965; from 9th March to 15th May, 1965. Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah) - from 18th to 31st January, 1965. Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs and Government Whip - from 9th March to 15th May, 1965. Mr Lim Huan Boon (Bukit Merah) - from 20th February to 20th May, 1965. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Health - 15th March to 4th April, 1965. Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister - from 25th March to 2nd April, 1965. Mr Fong Sip Chee (Stamford), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture - from 25th to 31st March, 1965. Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park) - from 20th March to 5th April, 1965. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Upper Serangoon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health - from 10th to 25th April. 1965. Mr E. W. Barker (Tanglin), Minister for Law - from 12th to 18th April, 1965. Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi) - from 18th April to 18th May, 1965. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Culture - from 26th April to 30th May, 1965. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 13th May to 12th July, 1965. Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley) - from 14th June to 11th July, 1965.

(ASSENTS TO BILLS PASSED)

I have to report that on the days stated. His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has assented to the following Bills:- 24th November, 1964: (1) The Supply Bill. (2) The Supplementary Supply (No. 2) Bill. (3) The Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa (Amendment) Bill. (4) The Registration of Dentists (Amendment) Bill. 26th November, 1964: (1) The Cattle Bill.

I have to inform Hon. Members that Mr Loke Weng Chee, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, retired from its service on the 18th day of May, 1965, on attaining the age limit of 55 years. Mr Loke joined Government Service in early 1931 and was in April 1947 drafted into the service of the Singapore Legislature which he has served continuously from then until his retirement. Mr Loke became Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in March 1957. I first came to know Mr Loke as a Member of this House in 1959. I found him courteous and always willing to listen to and advise those seeking help. As Speaker, I found Mr Loke very knowledgeable in matters concerned with Parliamentary practice and procedure. He was completely dedicated to his work and to the fulfilment of the duties of his post as Clerk of the Assembly in the best Parliamentary traditions. I shall miss him but I console myself with the thought that he has left behind him in the service of the Assembly others similarly imbued with a sense of dedication to duty. May I take this opportunity of wishing Mr, and Mrs Loke many happy years of retirement.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government Benches, I would like to associate ourselves with the sentiments you have expressed. Mr Loke Weng Chee, as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, has led us through a period of Parliamentary and Constitutional development in the history of Singapore. In this sense, therefore, his contribution towards our Constitutional progress is considerable. As Clerk of the Assembly, Mr Loke has to be correct in his attitude, not only to Members on the Opposition Benches but also to Members on the Government Benches. And from our observation of his conduct in the affairs of the House, Mr Loke has been scrupulously fair to both sides. This, I am quite sure, the Prime Minister himself can attest to, as he has been on the Opposition Benches as well as being on the Government Benches today, and during this period Mr Loke was Clerk of the Assembly. I would like, Mr Speaker, again to associate ourselves with your sentiments that Mr, and Mrs Loke enjoy a peaceful and a happy retirement, although knowing Mr Loke as we do, that he looks far younger than his age, we believe he at some future date could put himself to more active service in some other way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, on behalf of my colleagues, congratulate Mr Loke Weng Chee, the former Clerk of this House, on the service rendered by him during the last 34 years? Sir, although most of my colleagues, including myself, are new to this House in regard to many rules and procedures of the Assembly, we did really have an interesting time with Mr Loke during the last two years of his term of service. Besides the proficiency and high efficiency in his work, he is a man of fine character, without prejudice whatsoever. He has been very friendly and fair to us, very patient with us, and especially has been very helpful to me personally whenever I, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, called for a meeting. Sir, it is therefore my sincere hope that any successor of Mr Loke will follow his example so that, through him, our opinions can be freely lodged and discussed. And it is the Government's responsibility to see that this fine tradition will flourish and be preserved. Once again, Mr Speaker, let me thank Mr Loke for his assistance and guidance given to us during his time, and we wish him to enjoy himself during the remaining years of his life.

2.37 p.m.

It is my painful duty to make this announcement to this House. Ten minutes before I came into this Chamber, the Member for Hong Lim came into my Chambers and tendered his resignation to me effective as from today. Under the Constitution and under the Standing Orders, my duty as Speaker is clear; I accepted his resignation. But while discussing the matter of his resignation, the Member for Hong Lim suggested to me that I read out the letter of resignation which he has sent to me. It is a fairly lengthy document and it contains a number of matters which do not concern me as Speaker of this Assembly. I told this to Mr Ong Eng Guan. I told him that it was no part of my function as Speaker of this House to read out or to acquaint the House of the reasons for his resignation. He has other courses open to him which, no doubt, he will avail himself of . I understand from the Clerk that under the previous Constitution, it was necessary for the Speaker to report the vacancy to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, but the present Constitution is silent on this. So no doubt the proper authorities will take the proper procedure at the proper time.

asked the Minister for Health when the ruling of the Industrial Arbitration Court, that vacancies of Junior Hospital Attendants at Woodbridge Hospital should be filled, will be implemented.

I am replying on behalf of the Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the ruling of the Industrial Arbitration Court made on 20th August, 1964, that all remaining vacancies of Hospital Attendants at Woodbridge Hospital should be filled not later than 31st October, 1964, was duly implemented by the Ministry. It should be stated, however, that whilst no difficulty was encountered in filling 19 vacancies for males, there are still 7 vacancies for female Hospital Attendants, although 40 were selected out of 237 applications to fill 14 vacancies. This situation arose either through refusal to take up offers of appointment after selection, or resignation. The Ministry has now initiated a second recruitment exercise for the filling of these 7 vacancies of female Hospital Attendants.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government has any project to demolish Malay houses in the Geylang Serai area and replace them with an expanded housing programme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I answer on behalf of my Minister. No, the Government has at the moment no plans for expanding the Geylang Serai development or any intention to demolish the Malay houses in the Geylang Serai area. However, where new unauthorised houses are found, action for demolition will be taken.

asked the Minister for National Development whether applications from the Malay community for Housing Board flats in Geylang Serai will be given preference.

The Government has already reserved one block of 83 flats for sale to the newly formed Sharikat Berkerjasama2 Perumahan Kebangsaan Singapura dengan Tanggongan Berhad. This Society will allocate the flats to eligible Malays who wish to purchase the flats for their own occupation. It is the objective of the Government in this plural society to get the people to mix as much as possible, and since one block has already been reserved exclusively for Malays, no further preference will be given to them in allocation of Geylang Serai flats.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government has any project to prevent floods in the Geylang Serai area.

Yes, there is a Geylang Drainage Scheme which is divided into four phases. Three phases have already been implemented, but the fourth phase, which is related to the alleviation of flooding in the Geylang Serai area, cannot be implemented because of the squatters and clearance problems. The project will, however, commence as soon as the squatters can be cleared from the area.

2.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recollect that in June last year we introduced two complementary Bills to amend the law relating to the acquisition of land for public purposes. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, which was taken through on a Certificate of Urgency, froze the position of appeals pending the enactment of substantial alterations to the law embodied in the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which was referred to the Select Committee for study. The main provision in the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill is to ensure that increases in land values as a result of public development should not benefit the owner, but should benefit the community at large. The Bill aimed to save the Government from having to give land-owners windfall gains and increases in value as a result of public expenditure incurred in the area. Since the Bill was introduced into the House, further consideration has been given to the problems of urban redevelopment, and, in particular, to the pressures from private developers on the old squatter settlements in the urban and semi-urban areas. Unable to evict squatters and tenants because of the freezing of certain clauses of the Control of Rent Ordinance, private developers are finding it profitable to pay compensation to squatters to move out of the areas they have been living in for many years. A social problem is created in that quite a number of these communities, after taking compensation, have moved out into the outer rural areas, adding to the Government's difficulties in providing water, electricity, roads, rails and other social amenities at high cost in remote areas. It is now proposed that where private development necessitates the removal of these old established kampongs in the urban and semi-urban areas, the Government should have the power to acquire a portion of the land sufficient for enough low-cost housing units to be put up to re-house families of Singapore citizens who have been there since 1958. In this way, when urban re-development takes place, all sections of the community will share in the advantages of re-development. In order that such schemes can be practicable and do not become prohibitive in cost to the Government, compensation rates for the acquisition of a portion of the land for re-housing should take into account what the developers would have had to pay these squatters to move out into other areas, and the fact that the Government will be undertaking the responsibility not only of low-cost housing for all citizens regardless of their race, but also in the case of Malays who are Singapore citizens and whose family incomes are less than $200 per month, or perpetual subsidy of 20 per cent of the rent. The State Advocate-General's Chambers have looked into these matters and have advised that, in order to remove any doubts on the validity of this new legislation, it will be necessary for the Malaysian Parliament to exempt such a Bill from the operation of Article 13 of the Constitution, which provides that: `no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.' Representation will be made to the Central Government for such an exemption provision to be passed in Parliament in order that these projects can be carried out in Singapore without any uncertainty about the constitutional validity of the formula for compensation. In this context, it may be relevant to note that the Indian Government, when faced with a similar problem in connection with their plans for land reform, had to effect a constitutional amendment to a corresponding provision in the Indian Constitution in order that their land reforms could be implemented. It is the Government's intention to re-introduce this Bill after the necessary additional provisions have been added for acquisition of land under private developers for re-housing of squatters who are Singapore citizens and have been there since 1958. If the Government were to carry the responsibility of re-housing squatters arising out of private development without being held to ransom by private landlords, then we must ensure that land acquired for public projects can be obtained at economic cost so that the private landlord, while he does not lose, would not gain any windfalls as a result of Government development expenditure and because the Government is undertaking the burden of public re-housing of their encumbered land. Increase in value attributable to public expenditure in laying sewers, roads and supplying community facilities in the area should not go into the pockets of a few land-owners who have done nothing to add to the value of the land, hut should accrue to the State for the benefit of the whole community. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government expects to re-introduce the Bill with necessary amendments at the appropriate time at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly. Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines) rose ---

If the Member wishes to ask any question arising out of the Ministerial statement, he may do so, but he is not entitled to make a speech.

(In Mandarin): I would like to raise a few questions in regard to the Ministerial statement, Sir. Mr Speaker, the Minister touched upon land acquisition and said that the Government would not allow landowners to get benefits out of the Government programme of development.

Order. I have said that the Member should not make a speech. If he wants to ask questions, he may do so. And he must not preface his question by making a speech. Let him go into his question direct.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law has said that the Government intend to look after the interests of the squatters and not allow their interests to be exploited by the landowners. What are the interests he was referring to?

The Minister would like to answer that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we say we are looking after the squatters' interest, we, in fact, mean that we would not allow the landowner just to turf out the squatters without any compensation. The Government itself is paying compensation. That is what is meant.

Mr Speaker, I wish to draw your attention, Mr Speaker, and the attention of the House to an article which was printed in the Barisan Express dated 12th of June, 1965. The article states briefly that they had intended to move at this sitting of the Assembly a motion which reads as follows: `That this House resolves that the Government of Singapore should urge the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur to achieve honourable peace in North Borneo and Malaya, including Singapore, on the principles as stated below:' (1), (2) and so on. And the article goes on to read as follows: `What the motion propounds is the correct way to settle the Malaysia issue in order to free the people from imperialist rule and realise a peaceful, prosperous, independent and democratic society. However, the day before yesterday, the Assemblyman of our Party [that is, the Barisan Sosialis] received a note from the Clerk of the Assembly stating that the motion was not allowed by the Speaker to be tabled for debate. The reason is, it criticises the resolution of the House on the question of Malaysia and merger, and discusses internal matters which affect other territories outside Singapore. Before receiving the letter, comrade Assemblyman Chia Thye Poh of our Party [that is, the Barisan Sosialis Party] saw the Speaker to express his views about whether or not the motion should be allowed to be debated. According to comrade Chia, as regards the question of criticising Malaysia and the bogus merger, the fact is that if any constitutional arrangement or any ordinance which is dissatisfactory to the people and has proved to be extremely disadvantageous to the people, the Legislative Assembly should suggest and review revision, repeal such as in the case of the former Rendel Constitution. As regards the motion which involves the matters of other territories, it is because Malaysia includes North Borneo territories. So it is impossible that what happens in North Borneo will not affect Singapore at all. Such measures as conscription and increased taxation are clear proofs.' The article goes on to criticise that, because of the Standing Orders, 7 days' notice being required before a motion can be moved in the Assembly, the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen complained that they did not have adequate time in which to present any revised version of the motion which they had presented to you. There are two points, Mr Speaker, arising out of this article. The first point is that it is critical of the Speaker's ruling. Whether this criticism of the Speaker's ruling should be published beforehand, before this Assembly meets, or should be discussed in this Chamber is to be judged a breach of privilege or even a reprimand of the Speaker, I leave it to you, Mr Speaker.

Order. I think the proper procedure, if that is the case, is for a Member from the Government benches or anybody who is complaining to move a motion to that effect, and leave it to me, as Speaker, to decide whether I will allow that motion to be debated without proper notice. I think the Deputy Prime Minister should not go any further than he has actually done. It is possible under our Standing Orders to do that. If the House will bear with me for a minute, I will give them the proper reference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 10 (1) (s) : `Motions, with or without notice, complaining of a breach of privilege or affecting the powers and privileges of the Assembly or relating to a report of the Committee of Privileges.' will come after business motions moved by Ministers. The Leader of the House was drawing your attention to this particular report. Meanwhile, Mr Speaker, Sir, a formal motion is being prepared to be moved immediately after business motions have been moved by Ministers in order that the matter can be properly debated in this House. I think it is important that such criticism of the ruling of the Speaker in an article published in a Barisan journal, the editor of which is a Member of this Assembly, should receive adequate publicity not just in Barisan Express, which is somewhat limited in circulation, but in the more popular channels of public communication.

May I direct the attention of the House to the Standing Orders relating to the Committee of Privileges which appear on pages 44, 45 and 46 of the Standing Orders? Now, I should imagine that the circumstances delineated by the Deputy Prime Minister would come under paragraph 92 (7) (d) (ii) : `Such a motion may be moved without notice if the Speaker is satisfied that the matter raised does, prima facie, affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly and has been raised at the earliest opportunity.' So that if the motion is moved at the appropriate time and if the mover of the motion satisfies the Speaker that there is a prima facie case and that the matter has been raised at the earliest possible opportunity, then the mover of the motion will be allowed to speak on it. No motion will be put to the House, but it will stand adjourned to the Committee of Privileges for determination by this Committee. Is the position made quite clear to Members? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Very well.

May I carry on, Mr Speaker.

Yes, Dr Toh, provided you do not now touch upon the matters of which you are complaining, you may do so. But if you are going to in any way introduce them, I think it might be somewhat premature. I suggest that we leave it till the proper time when the mover moves the motion.

I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir. One of my colleagues will move the motion relating to the breach of privilege at the proper time. But will you permit me to proceed to the second point which I have raised? The second point in the article complains that the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen do not have adequate time to put in any motion at all to the Legislative Assembly for debate because of the existing Standing Orders. Here, I would like very much to clarify to the House, and to the public in general, and to the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen in particular, that if they had any real intention to move or debate any particular motion or to ask any questions in this House, there was adequate time. They complain in this article that this Assembly has not met for the last five months. They had five months in which they could have presented to this House any motion which they thought worth while debating or could have asked any questions. How could they say in this same article, in one and the same breath, that because under Standing Orders seven days' notice at least is required before a private Member can ask questions or move a motion they did not have adequate time? I can only conclude that Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are slow-witted or they have no intention at all to bring up any serious matter for discussion. Therefore, the allegations which they have made in this article are utterly pernicious, false and incomprehensible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to speak in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister ---

Order. I have already indicated to the House that there is no right of reply and there is no right to debate on a Ministerial statement. But the Member is at liberty to ask any number of questions he likes provided they arise out of the Ministerial statement. So if the Member will frame his questions, perhaps we might get on with it.

(In Mandarin): Just now the Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial statement said that an article in the Barisan Sosialis paper made false allegations with regard to some points. Now, which particular points? Can he make any quotations? Is it not true with regard to the notice that seven days' notice is required?

Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders have been published, copies have been issued to Members of this Assembly, and the public knows what the Standing Orders are all about. If Members of the Barisan Sosialis had any real or serious intention - and if they had their wits about them or they were sufficiently intelligent enough - to move a motion for debate in this House, they had five months in which to do it! Why do they complain that they do not have adequate time to present a motion? It is true that the Standing Orders say that private Members must give a minimum of seven days' notice. But that did not prevent the Barisan Sosialis from submitting their motions a month ago. What were they doing during the last five months?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, from what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, one can see that he has not explained which particular part in the article of the Barisan Sosialis is false. He has tried to give the impression that the article in the Barisan was untrue. But he has not been able to give examples and quotations of the untruths. Is it not a fact that he is deliberately using the privilege in this House to create an impression with the public against the ---

Order. I told the Member on the Opposition side that this is a Ministerial statement from the Government Benches and that they may ask questions with no comments on the statement. Any questions relevant to the statement with a view to finding out facts or showing to the Minister that he is mistaken in the Statement are permissible. But no comments on the statement other than those questions, please. Have you finished, Mr Chia Thye Poh? Perhaps you would like to repeat the question? I did not quite follow it myself.

(In Mandarin): The Deputy Prime Minister has said that there are certain paragraphs in the Barisan article to the effect that the Assembly have not sat for a few months. Is it not a fact?

Mr Speaker, Sir, maybe I can be of some assistance to the Member on the other side. I think he may be under some misapprehension that the Standing Orders of this Assembly are like those of the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. I sympathise with the Member for Jurong, because in Kuala Lumpur if his motion does not come up for debate on a particular sitting of Parliament, it disappears from the Order Paper at the next sitting. But I can assure him that in this Assembly, if for any reasons his motion is not reached at this sitting, it will be carried forward on the Order Paper and will receive precedence and pride of place in the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly. Whatever he raises either by way of question or by way of motion, will be debated. It will never lapse into the limbo of unasked questions and unmoved motions as happened to him, with so much of our sympathy with him in Parliament.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister has not answered my question. Instead he refers to the Parliament in the Central Government. I was asking whether it is not a fact that the Assembly have not sat for half a year.

That is the point which my colleagues was trying to make. Had the Member moved a single motion or a single resolution, we would have summoned the Assembly forthwith to debate it. I will give him this offer, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is seriously given now. If he would table any resolution now, today before 4 o'clock, we will meet here this time next week to debate his motion. I give him this categorical assurance. We never run away from our opponents. Maybe in Parliament they are shy of him, but not here. We are not. Table it before four.

(In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the past ---

Order. Mr Lim Kim San, next item on the Order Paper, please.

3.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Pineapple Industry Ordinance, 1957 (No. 15 of 1957)." I have here a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

I hand in to the Clerk His Excellency's permission to proceed with the Bill under a Certificate of Urgency.

Would you take your seat for a while, Mr Minister? Mr Lim Kim San resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Kim San, you have produced a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency. It seems to be in order. But you have also to signify his recommendation that this Bill can be proceeded with under Article 43. Have you got that recommendation? If you will so signify from the Floor?

I have received His Excellency's recommendation.

Very well. You may proceed.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Pineapple Industry Ordinance 1957." Bill read the First time

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to Article 79 of the Constitution of Malaysia, which reads as follows: `(1) Where it appears to the presiding officer of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of any State that a Bill or an amendment to a Bill proposes a change in the law relating to any of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, or to any of the matters enumerated in the State List with respect to which the Federation is exercising functions in accordance with Article 94, he shall certify the Bill or amendment for the purposes of this Article. (2) A Bill or amendment certified under this Article shall not be proceeded with until four weeks have elapsed since its publication, unless the presiding officer, being satisfied that the State Governments, or as the case may be, the Federal Government, have been consulted, allows it to be proceeded with on the ground of urgency.' Now the position is this. The Bill has now been presented to this Assembly. It requires my certification as Speaker that the Bill relates to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List. The Bill deals with such a matter, and I certify that this Bill relates to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List. Having certified that, the provisions to subclause (2) now arise and as the Minister - as I understand it - wishes to proceed with the Bill on a Certificate of Urgency today, he will have to satisfy me that the Federal Government has been consulted on this matter so that I may be satisfied and allow the Bill to proceed. Before the Minister proceeds with the Second Reading, perhaps he will satisfy me that the Federal Government has been consulted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federal Government have been consulted and they have no objections to this Bill being proceeded with under a Certificate of Urgency.

Very well, please proceed. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides for amendments to be made to the Pineapple Industry Ordinance, 1957, in order to provide for the establishment of a marketing corporation which shall be responsible for the promotion, management and control of the marketing of canned pineapple. The Corporation is to be set up by regulations under the provisions of the Ordinance which will provide it with the necessary powers for carrying out the said purposes. The establishment of the Pineapple Industry Marketing Corporation was among one of the recommendations made by a Commission of Inquiry appointed in 1959 jointly by the Federal and Singapore Governments following a crisis in the Malayan pineapple industry. The Commission recommended the establishment of a marketing corporation in order to handle sales of canned pineapple on behalf of the packers so as to eliminate competition among themselves and thereby introduce stability in the pineapple industry. The Singapore Government has given careful thought and consideration to the recommendation and is satisfied that such an establishment would be of benefit to both the pineapple industry and trade. The functions of the corporation will be to promote, manage and control the marketing of canned pineapple. For this purpose, the proposed corporation will act as the sole marketing agent for registered canners in the sales of canned pineapple. All registered canners will be required to sell their canned pineapples through the corporation which will fix minimum prices. In this way, the corporation will be able to eliminate unhealthy competition and price-cutting, as has often happened in the past. It is generally believed that the establishment of an orderly market will assist in creating confidence in Malayan canned pineapple in overseas markets and enhancing the reputation of the Malaysian product. Furthermore, the proposed corporation will be able to overcome financial difficulties of some canners during the slack period of sluggish sales at the end of each year by making loans to them. Singapore's interest in such a corporation is enhanced by the fact that over 95 per cent of canned pineapples produced are exported through Singapore. In 1964, for instance, out of 2,450,000 cases valued at $38½ million produced, 2,351,000 cases valued at $37 million were exported through Singapore. Although Singapore's share of production of canned pineapple is only slightly over 20 per cent, it is the seventh most important commodity in Singapore's exports, in addition, there are two canneries in Singapore supporting employment for about 450 workers. The membership of the corporation will be confined to six existing pineapple canneries: two in Singapore and four in the States of Malaya, including the newly established Pineapple Cannery of Malaya, Limited, at Pekan Nanas, Johore. The corporation will be managed by its members and the Chairman of the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board. Government financial backing is required during the initial running-in period of the corporation so that it may be in a position to assist canners as mentioned before. For this purpose, both the Central and Singapore Governments have to underwrite an initial working capital guarantee of up to a maximum of $2 million to the corporation through the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board before the corporation can build up its own capital from members' subscriptions. The Central Government has already agreed to undertake 75 per cent of the $2 million guarantee and the Singapore Government has agreed to underwrite the balance of 25 per cent or $½ million. The corporation will make loans to canners against stock of canned pineapples. Any monies borrowed by the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board will be a debt due to the Singapore Government and shall be a first charge on the assets of the Board. The Central Government presented its amendment Bill to Parliament and it was duly passed on 15th July, 1964. As trade and industry are concurrent subjects, it is desirable, therefore, that Singapore should introduce parallel legislation so that the corporation can be established here as soon as possible. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Lim Kim San] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

3.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 92 (7) relating to the Committee of Privileges, I beg to move, That an article in the Chinese language published in the issue of the Barisan newspaper (Chen Sien Pao) of the 12th June. 1965, criticising the ruling of Mr Speaker made on or about the 10th day of June, 1965, in respect of a motion filed, in this Assembly on the 7th day of June, 1965, by the Member for Jurong and supported by the Member for Tampines, constitutes a breach of privilege of the Assembly committed by the publishers, printers and the editor of the said newspaper and the author of the said article.

May I have a copy of that motion? (Copy of motion handed in.)

Mr Deputy Prime Minister, have you also the original publication and the translation available here? (Copies of the original publication and translation handed in.)

Mr Deputy Prime Minister, I am looking for the portion which criticises the Speaker's ruling.

It is on page 3, Mr Speaker.

Page 3 of the translation, is it? Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated assent.

On the first part of the sub-clause whether there is a prima facie case, I am satisfied that there is a prima fade case casting aspersions on the ruling of the Speaker. But the second point on which I wish to be satisfied is that the matter is raised with due diligence. When did it first come to the mover's notice?

I obtained a copy of the said newspaper only this morning, Mr Speaker, and I had it translated straightaway. The translation reached my hands only a few minutes ago in the Chamber. So this was taken up at the earliest opportunity.

In view of what the mover of the motion has said, I am satisfied that, prima facie, it seems to affect a matter of privilege. This, of course, is merely a prima facie ruling, it may well turn out not to be so. The mover of the motion has satisfied me that he has raised the matter at the earliest possible opportunity, he having only read it this morning. That being the case. Mr Deputy Prime Minister, you may move your motion and speak on it, but it will not be put to the House and it will stand referred to the Committee of Privileges. The mover need not speak on it, but if he wants to, he may. I am just acquainting him with his rights under the Standing Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I want to add anything more to what has been said, but I would like to say this, for the purposes of clarifying this point. The Speaker is not above the law, and if any Member of this House is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Speaker, it is open to him to move a substantive motion to criticise and reverse such a ruling. That is the proper procedure. And it is open to the Member for Jurong. We are not trying to stifle debate or argument, Mr Speaker, Sir, which is the imputation of the whole tenor of that article. The proper procedure in any debating Chamber where the Speaker's ruling is not considered satisfactory or in accordance with the Standing Orders on Parliamentary practice is for a substantive motion to be moved against such ruling.

I take it, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, that you do not wish to speak on the motion?

No.

The motion will then, under the Standing Orders, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the need for this Bill has arisen because of a number of deficiencies in the administration of Part II of the Local Government Integration Ordinance with reference to streets, particularly with regard to the wholly unsatisfactory position with regard to the making up of private streets in housing estates. The Bill will now afford a measure of protection particularly to future purchasers of houses in that they would have properly constructed access roads. Firstly, let me deal with the question of public streets. Under existing provisions in the Local Government Integration Ordinance, the Director of Public Works may recover the cost of acquiring the land and the cost of construction when he has made up a new street. The amendment now proposed in clause 2 of the Bill will provide that, in addition to the making up of new streets, there should be powers to recover the costs in respect of the widening or improvement of a public street from frontagers. This is a necessary provision, as, in the past, the whole cost of such street works has been at public expense. It is reasonable that Government should be in a position to recover costs from owners who have obtained benefits from such works. This power will be discretionary and will be exercised only when owners have benefited, as it is not the intention that Government should recover costs of minor road widenings or improvements to public streets by the provision of footpaths, drains, and so on. The power will be exercised only in cases where road improvements have benefited frontagers as, for example, in the case of road deviations whereby tracts of land hitherto without means of approach have now proper access to a public street, arising from which an increment in land value accrues to the owners. It is therefore equitable that such owners should be called upon to bear a reasonable proportion of the costs of the road works. There are provisions in this Bill, Mr Speaker, concerning private developers making up new streets. While private developers are required to submit street plans to the Director for approval, the existing law does not empower the Director to ensure that the street works actually constructed do, in fact, conform to the approved plans and specifications. Under the amendment in clause 3 of the Bill, it will now be incumbent on the person whose plan has been approved by the Director to construct the street in accordance with the plan approved. This will ensure that any road constructed will not be sub-standard and will not be unacceptable to the Public Works Department for taking over as a public street. Cases of applications to the Public Works Department for taking over of private roads in housing estates are not infrequent, and many had to be rejected on the grounds that they were below specifications. As a result, purchasers of houses in such private housing estates have genuine grounds for complaint, having been given to understand that the roads would be constructed to proper standards and would be taken over as public streets. The new clause 5, Mr Speaker, Sir, will prohibit any person from commencing work on a new building having a frontage on a private street, until he has deposited an appropriate sum with the Director for the making up of such private street. This is to guarantee that the street works will be constructed according to approved plan. These are necessary powers to restrain unscrupulous developers who do not carry out their obligations to build the roads or will build only sub-standard roads to the detriment of the purchasers. The procedure for obtaining the deposit will be by way of a notice from the Director of Public Works determining the amount that is required for the execution of the street works and the date by which such works shall be completed. Any person who is aggrieved by such an order may, within ten days on receipt of the order, appeal to the Minister. In the event of street works not being commenced or executed satisfactorily, the Director may cause the street works to be carried out and the cost of such works shall be recovered from the deposit made. When the developer has completed the roads satisfactorily, a refund of the deposit will be made. There is also provision for a refund of deposit, when, owing to circumstances, a developer does not intend to proceed with the development and wishes to have his approval cancelled. My Ministry has constantly received complaints that private streets have been made impassable or extensively damaged because of the development of housing estates. But under present law, the repair of these public streets can only be carried out at the expense of the owners of premises fronting or abutting such private streets. This is grossly unjust, as these owners are being called upon to pay for the repair of their private roads which have been rendered defective by the actions of persons or firms who are not frontagers, such as private contractors whose lorries cause damage to the foundations of private streets. Under the amendment proposed in clause 8 of the Bill, Mr Speaker, the Director may now serve notice to compel any person, firm or company who has caused the damage to repair such private streets. The Director may also serve notice to prohibit a person from making further use of a private street for the purpose of transporting building materials until a deposit has been made. This amount of deposit will depend on the cost which would have to be incurred to bring the road back into a usable condition. The amendment proposed in clause 9 is consequential on the amendments proposed in clause 5. The Chief Building Surveyor will now be prohibited from approving the plan of a building unless the new provisions relating to access to a new street have been satisfied. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the amending Bill moved by the Minister for National Development on the grounds that with this amending Bill I am confident that the residents in kampongs, particularly in Kampong Kembangan, where there are factories and other small industries, will not be faced with difficulties due to roads and drains which have been damaged as a result of work carried out by contractors of such firms. Mr Speaker, before elaborating further on this amending Bill, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for National Development - and I would like an explanation from him - to clause 2 regarding the provision that the "Director may recover cost of new street or of widening, opening, - etc. of public street." If this is implemented, I believe that towkays, such as the M.C.A. towkays, owning brick houses, will have no financial difficulty. But what happens if this clause affects the semi-urban residents, especially those in the Kampong Kembangan area - Lorong Marican, Lorong Marzuki, Lorong Maideen, and other lorongs? In this area, the properties are owned by Malays who have inherited them and they are wage-earners whose incomes are barely enough to feed their families. And some of them are retired Government servants who have bought such properties with their gratuities. I think such frontagers, as I have referred to, will not be able to pay for the cost of widening the roads. If my memory serves me right, Mr Speaker, Sir, the roads in Lorong Marican, Lorong Marzuki, Lorong Melayu, Jalan Masjid, and other lorongs have been included in the scheme of making up of new roads in the areas referred to under the Local Government Integration (Amendment) Bill, because the residents concerned are apprehensive. I am anxious to know whether the Government will proceed with such a scheme and whether the frontagers will be exempted from having to pay the cost of making up such roads. Mr Speaker, I would like to explain my support of the amendments. I support them because this will ensure that the users of private roads will not damage the roads indiscriminately as mentioned in clause 8. In Kampong Kembangan, Mr Speaker, it can be said that all the roads have been damaged by the lorries owned by contractors and timber merchants for the transportation of sand, and so on. The heavy loads of earth have resulted in the roads in this area being extensively damaged. When these roads cannot be used further, they use the by-roads. For this reason, all the roads in and around Kampong Kembangan are in a state of disrepair. When the Government steps in and repairs the roads the process starts again. The roads begin to be damaged, as in the case of Jalan Damai. In the Malay settlement in Jalan Eunos, the roads have been built by the Government for the benefit of the residents, but lorries owned by contractors use the roads for their transport ---

We are now on the general principles of the Bill. I think the Member is going too much into details. I have allowed him to go into details in order to make his point. But having made his point, I think he should leave the details now and get back to the principles of the Bill.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am only attempting to put the Minister in the picture as to the state of disrepair of the roads in my area, which has been caused by lorries used by contractors. The residents are obliged to ask the Government to repair such roads for the use of the people. But when the roads have been repaired, they are again damaged. It means that the Government is forever incurring people's money on these roads. Also for this reason, Mr Speaker, there are many other roads which are in a similar state, like those which I have mentioned just now. Likewise, Jalan Tebu, Jalan Melayu, Jalan Ladang and other roads. Another point, Mr Speaker, is this. I hope, after the Bill is passed, that the Minister concerned will see that the damaged roads are repaired for the benefit of the local residents.

The Minister in reply?

Mr Speaker, I do not think I need spend much time in replying to this. The Member is supporting the principle of the Bill, and that is to prevent abuses by contractors who use private roads without consideration. As regards his suggestion that the Government should spend some more money in repairing roads, that will be looked into by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill -[Mr Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.52 p.m.

No notice of amendments has been received. I will direct Members' attention to clause 1, where the passing of time has necessitated some amendments which will be effected as of course. In page 1, line 5, to leave out "No. 2". In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1964" and insert "1965". As no amendments have been received, and unless Members wish to speak on any particular clause, I wish to take the Bill as a whole. Will Members indicate any particular clause they are interested in? Hon. Members indicated dissent

Very well then. I shall take the Bill as a whole. Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to re-enact the existing Wild Animals and Birds Ordinance which was enacted as far back as 1904, with amendments. This Bill consists of two parts, the first of which concerns the protection and preservation of wild life in Singapore, while the second part concerns the import, transhipment and export of wild animals and birds. It is more than half a century since the first Ordinance was enacted, and with rapid social and economic development, the decline and reduction of wild life in Singapore has been inevitable. Although wild life is no longer of significant importance in our State, we should all the same do whatever we can to protect and preserve wild animals and birds. The second part of this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, is of greater importance, as Singapore is strategically situated in the region of South-East Asia where wild life is abundant. A large number of captured wild animals and birds are being channelled through Singapore for export to distant destinations like Europe and America. Many of the wild birds and animals in this region, for example, the Orang Utan and the Bird of Paradise, are facing extinction due to indiscriminate hunting and killing. Many governments in this region as well as international bodies concerned with the preservation of wild life are agreed that steps must be taken to prevent the extinction of wild life, and the Singapore Government has from time to time been requested to assist in the prevention of this illegal traffic in wild animals and birds and to discourage indiscriminate hunting and killing of these animals in their natural habitat. Once the illegal traffic is conscribed, it would be difficult and unprofitable for those engaged in these pursuits to carry on. The Singapore Government agrees that wild life in this region should be protected and preserved. However, in the past, it has been difficult to implement any effective measures to prevent and discourage illegal traffic in wild animals and birds due to the lack of sufficient legislative powers and we have not been able to assist effectively other governments in this region and international organisations concerned with the preservation of wild life. This Bill now provides the Government with the powers to remedy this defect and will contribute significantly towards international efforts in the preservation and protection of wild life. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Lim Kim San] Bill considered in Committee.

4.00 p.m.

Perhaps, for the information of the Minister, I had better make the position quite clear. This again is a Bill affected by Article 79 of the Constitution of Malaysia. The Bill has lain in the Assembly for four weeks. It complies with the first part of the Section. Now, there are certain amendments which are proposed and those amendments appear in the Supplement, and I am satisfied that those amendments are not of a substantive nature. They are merely amendments of a minor character perhaps intended to bring out better the meaning of the clauses without in any way adding to or altering the sense of the Bill. Am I right in that assumption, Mr Minister?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I do not propose to make the amendments to this Bill now.

Oh, you are not? I beg your pardon. I am so sorry. That is the Feedstuffs Bill. The only amendment then to this Bill is one of leaving out "1964" and inserting "1965", which is a matter of course rather than of amendment. As no notice of amendment has been received to this Bill and unless Members wish to speak on any particular clause, I will take the Bill as a whole. Clauses 1 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to control the quality of feeding stuffs for animals and birds. Not many years ago when our livestock industry was in its infancy, farmers merely fed their livestock with whatever feeding materials they could lay their hands on and mixing and cooking them in the farmyard. Such methods of feeding were without regard to the nutritional value of the feeding stuffs, and the farmers did not have the benefit of scientific techniques of controlled feeding to determine the growth rate and the quality of the meat produced. But in order to achieve more efficient production, it is necessary to ensure that better animal feed rations are prepared on a scientific basis so that the optimum conversion from food to meat can be attained. Our farmers have realized this and have gone a long way in the utilization of specially prepared animal feedstuffs. A number of our enterprising citizens have set up factories to produce well balanced animal feed rations on a scientific basis for sale to our farmers. The manufacture and supply of feeding stuffs to our farmers is a flourishing business employing many people. It is estimated that the amount of animal feeds that are consumed in Singapore is well over $100 million annually. The time has now come for some form of Government control to be exercised over the quality of feedstuffs. Without any system of control there is bound to be, in such a thriving industry, unscrupulous persons who produce animal feeds which are well below the declared standards, or, what is worse, which may contain harmful materials that may cause illness and disease to the animals and birds. There is the possibility that properly compounded animal feeds may be adulterated during the process of storage, handling, and transport by distributors or agents before these feeds are sold to the farmers. There have been instances where feed-millers as a result of ignorance included materials in the manufactured feeds which have caused bad effects on livestock. It is therefore desirable that a system of control should at this stage be introduced by the Government on the manufacture of feeding stuffs in order to protect the farmer from frauds and to guarantee him the availability of good quality products. It is also necessary to protect feedstuff producers and distributors against any unscrupulous practices which may upset the normal conditions of competition. Control of the quality of the feedstuffs will give the farmer the right to know the precise quantity, the nature of the ingredients and the type of feeding stuffs suitable for particular types of livestock. The implementation of this Bill will ensure proper standards of quality to be prescribed for animal feeds. Stockfeed manufacturers will then be able to expand their sales by exporting to overseas markets with the support of official documents provided by the Singapore Government to certify the standards of their products. The Government has set up an Animal Nutritional Unit to investigate into the utilisation of locally available animal feeding materials and to formulate balanced rations for livestock. The results will be published from time to time for the benefit of farmers and stockfeed manufacturers. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Government for introducing the Feedstuffs Bill. The Government can be sure that such a move wins the all-round support of the farmer population in Singapore, and this goes to show that the Government has the interests of the farmers at heart. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister for National Development has pointed out, the purpose of this Bill is to control the manufacture of feedstuffs which are locally manufactured to ensure that, when consumed by poultry or animals, they will not bring ill-consequences to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, some time ago, when the price of animal feeds and feed concentrates for the manufacture of feedstuffs shot up for obvious reasons, some feedstuffs manufacturers attempted to increase the price of such feeds. This attempt was vigorously resisted by the farmers. Some farmer representatives from my constituency met me and pointed out that if the proposed price increase was to be instituted, many of them, if not all, would go bankrupt. They alleged that they were already suffering from the decrease in egg price on the market. The slump had brought about a sharp decrease in the local egg price. Many farmers alleged that some of our feedstuff manufacturers produced a poorer quality of feedstuffs when the proposed price increase in feedstuffs was postponed. Consequently many poultry died, and also the eggs that were specially selected for hatching purposes did not hatch. They had to be pushed on to the market. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this point, I seek the privilege of this Chamber. With the sharp increase in local egg production, plus the unhatched eggs on the market, the local egg price has decreased sharply, thereby threatening the livelihood of many farmers. Fortunately, steps have been taken by the Government Departments concerned to remedy this serious situation, and I can proudly say that it has been remedied to a certain extent. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that with the subsequent legislation of the Feedstuffs Bill, the farmer population of Singapore can be sure of being provided with feedstuffs of a suitable quality for their poultry as a whole and they can have no fear of their poultry perishing due to poor quality feedstuffs. Without proper control over the manufacture of feedstuffs, they may be driven to financial difficulties if the feedstuffs manufactured are of poorer quality. Therefore, to sum up, I say that this Bill is going to benefit each and every farmer in Singapore. 4.12 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, as this Feedstuffs Bill affects the livelihood of the farmers - and I am quite conversant with their conditions - I would like to say a few words on this Bill. According to the Minister and the Backbencher who spoke just now, it seems as if this Bill can resolve all the problems confronting the farmers and can look after the interests of the farmers. But in my view, the passage of this Bill perhaps may lead to a situation where the farmers will be burdened with more problems. In actual fact, the provisions of the Bill do not clearly provide anything to safeguard the interests of the farmers. I would like to give my views on these two points. I hope my views will help the Government to implement something that will not contribute anything adverse to the farmers. From my point of view, the P.A.P. Government has not done anything good for the farmers of Singapore. For instance, if this Bill were passed, I hope that the situation in future can be somewhat better if feedstuff manufacturers have to get licences for their business and if there are brands and labels for their products. This process can be carried out through the Primary Production Department. In this respect, perhaps the Department concerned may or may not cause delay or any inconvenience to the farmers concerned. If there is any inconvenience, then the farmers will have to incur more expenses. I hope that the passage of this Bill will remove all anomalies that have existed in the past. For instance, the Bill provides that there should be certain components to make up the feedstuffs. But if the Bill provides also for the percentage of the components of the feedstuffs and the ingredients to be of a stipulated quality and quantity, then this will be to the good. And there should also be provisions as to the labelling of such products. Now, the manufacturers concerned, I think, are well prepared. They are well aware of the situation. For instance, a few months ago the farmers of Singapore and those in the business of hatching chickens suffered greatly because of certain inferior feedstuffs These were adulterated with cotton seeds, thus leading to the deterioration of the condition of the chickens. Although there is a high protein content in cotton seeds, there are poisonous ingredients. So, as a result, when chickens feed on this, the eggs would not hatch, and the egg content ---

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The point of order being?

He is not talking on the principle of the Bill. He is telling us of what he knows.

I think the Member is, in fact, supporting the Bill. I think he is trying to make the point that this Bill must be passed!

(In Mandarin): Please press the button. Will the Member please press the button?

Order. If the Member has any point to make, he must make it to the Chair.

(In Mandarin): What I wish to say is that the Bill will not give any complaint to the farmers. As far as I know, cotton seeds are still being incorporated into the feedstuffs by some of the present manufacturers. So the adverse effect is still there. It is an open secret, because it is quite a good business. I would like to ask the Minister to provide in the Bill a formula of the components of the ingredients of the feedstuffs and a scientific table, and so on, in order to help. If the Government can tabulate all these and give the feedstuff manufacturers a certain standard to abide by, stipulating the percentages of components and ingredients in regard to the manufacture of feedstuffs, then it will eradicate the malpractices. This is also good for the chickens, because the protein content will also be maintained. If the Government is not able to do that, and there are any losses and harm done, it is only the farmers who will suffer. And if the inspectors of the department concerned are lax in their duty in investigating the situation, then the farmers will also suffer. So I hope the Minister will look well into this. Do not think that by just enumerating a few clauses in the Bill, he can resolve all the problems and help the farmers. That is my view and I hope the Minister will look well into it.

Mr Minister, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for teaching me how to carry on my work. I think, on the whole, he agrees that this legislation is to improve the feeding stuffs that are manufactured in Singapore, and that it is for the benefit of the farmers, though, as usual, he always starts with the proposition that the P.A.P. has done ---

I believe "he" is the Member for Jalan Kayu?

The hon. Member for Jalan Kayu, Mr Speaker. He starts with the proposition that the P.A.P. has done nothing for the farmers during the last five years. Since he says he is in close touch with the farmers, he should know that during these five years we have not only been breeding chickens for our own table, but we have also been breeding enough chickens for ex port. At the same time, he must know by now that we have enough stud boars of good quality to give us better quality pork. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, in general, he supports the principle that this Bill should be pushed through, and I have no other comments to make.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Lim Kim San] Bill considered in Committee.

4.28 p.m.

Mr Minister, what I have said with regard to the previous Bill really should be said in this instance. As I have indicated previously, I have studied these amendments. They do not seem materially to affect the Bill one way or the other. They seem to be purely drafting amendments and, as such, subject to what you have to say, I will allow them, considering Article 79 of the Constitution. Do you confirm my views?

Yes. Clause 1 -

I beg to move, In page 1, line 4, to leave out "Feedstuffs" and insert "Feeding Stuffs". This amendment will give clarity to the definition of "animal feed".

It is really a drafting amendment, is it not?

Yes. Amendment agreed to.

In page 1, line 5, the figure "1964" will be altered to read "1965" as a matter of course. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 10, to leave out "as animal feed" and insert "for the feeding of animals". Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment will give clarity to the definition of "animal feed". Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill Clause 4 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, (i) In page 2, line 28, to leave out "animal", and (ii) In page 2, line 37, to leave out "animal" The word "animal" here, Mr Speaker, is redundant since "simple feed" is already defined in the Bill. Amendments agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 21, to leave out "food" and insert "feed". This is to correct a typographical error. And also: In page 3, line 25 -

Perhaps I had better deal with that amendment first, Mr Minister. Amendment agreed to. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 25, to leave out "The Director" and insert "A veterinary authority". The substitution of "veterinary authority" for "Director" is in conformity with the provisions of sub-clause (1) of this clause and is considered to be more appropriate. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker. I beg to move, In page 3, lines 29 and 30, to lease out "storage compartments, animal feeds and to take samples thereof" and insert -

storage compartments; and (ii) animal feeds and to take samples thereof".

Does the Minister wish to make any statement on that?

No. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments: read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The present powers for the control and prevention of animal diseases and animal movements in the State are found in the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance which was enacted in 1939. This Ordinance is administered by two authorities, the Ministry of Health with regard to human health, and the Veterinary Division of the Ministry of National Development with regard to animal diseases. With the growth of livestock industries in the State over the last decade and the increased flow of animal traffic both in number and frequency through Singapore, the legislative powers contained in the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance are no longer adequate. Because of this inadequacy, the veterinary authorities in Singapore have to rely on other legislation such as the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance to carry out measures for the control of animal diseases and the movement of animals and animal products. However, even this remedy is found inadequate to deal with present-day problems of animal movements and animal diseases. In addition, new subjects such as improvement of livestocks, the control of livestock products and the use of veterinary drugs and biologics are matters which require new legislation and the close attention of Government. Singapore can take pride in the success and achievements in the development of poultry and pig industries over the last few years. It is common knowledge that we are not only self-sufficient in pigs, poultry and eggs, but we are also able to produce and export these items to our neighbouring territories. We must not, however, be contented with this but should continue to find ways and means to lower the cost of production of meat and meat products in Singapore by improving the efficiency of production further. Among the things which we must do in order to achieve this objective is the control and eradication of livestock diseases. Livestock diseases once introduced to Singapore, will do irreparable damage to the livestock in dustries with consequential losses to our farmers. These powers provided in the Bill now before the House are necessary to control and eradicate animal diseases. Regulations will be made and enforced to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases from overseas, to control the movements of livestock and to treat livestock diseases through the use of veterinary biologics. The control and eradication of animal diseases is also of paramount importance to public health, as many such diseases are communicable from animal to man. We are well aware of the danger of the transmission of rabies from dogs to human beings. However, it is comforting to know that Singapore has been free from rabies for more than 10 years. We must ensure that this will continue, and to do so, constant vigilance and strict enforcement of rules and regulations in respect of movements of dogs and cats is required. The provisions in the Animals and Birds Bill will provide the necessary powers for this work to be carried out effectively. Prevention of cruelty to animals is at present administered under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance which is of 1930 vintage. This subject has now been included as part of the Animals and Birds Bill, and the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance will be repealed. There is at present, Mr Speaker, Sir, an Animals Ordinance for the States of Malaya enacted in 1953. The Animals and Birds Bill follows closely the substance as well as the format of the Animals Ordinance of the States of Malaya. In the Animals Ordinance of the States of Malaya, provisions have been made for the Director of Veterinary Services to issue licences permitting such licensees to treat animals or birds, to possess live cultures or vaccines, and to inoculate animals or birds with such cultures or vaccines. Similar provisions are included in clauses 68 and 69 of the Animals and Birds Bill. These two sections provide control over the use of dangerous veterinary biologics and the registration and licensing of persons who use them for the treatment of animals and birds. There is at present no such control, and unscrupulous persons take advantage of the ignorance of the farmers and with glib sales-talks persuade these farmers to purchase veterinary biologics at exorbitant prices for the treatment of diseases in their animals. Such treatment usually does more harm than good. What is more dangerous is that some of these veterinary biologies contain live virus which may themselves cause the spread of diseases among animals. Every effort must therefore be made to prevent further exploitation of farmers and to safeguard livestocks and public health. The States of Malaya are at present contemplating the enactment of a Veterinary Surgeons Act which will provide stricter control over persons who are to engage in the treatment of animals. The position in Singapore is somewhat different from that of Malaya. We have a much smaller number of veterinary surgeons and most of them are in Government Service. The necessity for a parallel Ordinance is not apparent. Clauses 68 and 69 of the Animals and Birds Bill are adequate for the present to control persons treating animals and birds and the use of veterinary biologics until such time when separate comprehensive legislation is required. In connection with the carrying out of statutory functions under this Bill, the Government will build a new animal quarantine station costing more than $1 million to be sited next to the proposed new abattoir at Jurong. Details of this new animal quarantine station have been finalised and construction work is expected to begin soon. In addition, a veterinary diagnostic laboratory has beeen planned during the last 2 years to conduct tests and examination of animals to be imported into Singapore, as well as to carry out a systematic programme of prevention and eradication of livestock diseases in the State. The first phase of the veterinary diagnostic laboratory costing $100,000 has been completed and the second phase of development of the laboratory will be included in the next Five-year Development Plan. The present Bill is a comprehnsive Bill for the control of animals and animal diseases to meet the needs of the growing livestock industry in the State. In Committee, I will propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, an amendment to alter the title of the Animals Bill to the Animals and Birds Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.43 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in introducing this Bill, as set out by the Minister, the Government aims mainly at the prevention of animal diseases. But can the Government do so? I have great doubts indeed. In the past, the P.A.P. has been bragging about its efficiency in controlling diseases and the spread of diseases. But up to date diseases are not truly under control. Instead there is a spread of diseases in Singapore, as a result of which many farmers have gone bankrupt. I think that many farmers and poultry rearers have gone into bankruptcy mainly because of the spread of diseases among their livestock on the one hand, and, on the other hand, because of the marketing difficulties. The marketing problems are not solved, the diseases are not controlled, and so the farmers engaged in poultry farming are gravely affected and they have lost confidence in this industry. The second part of the Bill deals with the import and export and transhipment of animals. I do not see anything in the second part to make people believe that the Government is encouraging the export of pigs and poultry, our pigs, our chickens and eggs are enough for our own consumption, and there is a surplus for export as well. That being so, we should find ways and means to establish our overseas market for our livestock and eggs and give facilities to the farmers. For example, the pigs and eggs from the Federation are not enough for their own consumption, and we can export to the Federation. We understand that one-third of the production of eggs is exported to the Federation, but there are difficulties arising that confront the farmers, and they have to pay one cent on every egg exported to the Federation. There is also a provision in the Bill to say that if livestock is exported to the Federation of Malaya, then approval and consent has to be obtained from the Malayan Veterinary Authority. This again will give rise to some difficulties. There is nothing in the Bill to say how the problems relating to marketing are to be solved. With regard to the third part of the Bill, as far as I can see, the main points are in clauses 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. From the contents of this particular section, I gather that its main intention is to authorise and empower the veterinary officer to conduct an examination into any birds or animals suspected of disease. There should be no dissension to this section, but what will be the effect of the examination conducted by the veterinary officer? For example, there is one provision in this part to say that if the livestock of any farmer is suspected to have any diseases, then it is the business of the farmer to send the livestock to a place appointed by the veterinary officer for cure or treatment or any other necessary examination. On this point, my view is that this is not quite proper. For example, if a farmer has 50 pigs among all his pigs suffering from or suspected of any diseases, then you will have to carry all the 50 pigs weighing, say, about 50 pounds or 50 katties each to a place appointed by the veterinary officer. Now, if it is a matter of one or two pigs, it is not so difficult. But if it comes to 50 pigs, then what about the cost of transportation? Is it to be borne by the farmer or by the authority concerned? If there are 50 pigs to be sent, then at least two lorries will be required to convey them to the place appointed by the officer concerned and this will give rise to some difficulties, financially and physically ---

Point of clarification, Mr Speaker.

Point of clarification? The Member will not give way.

(In Mandarin): I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have time to talk later on. There is another provision in this Bill to say that exemption may be granted to a farmer living three miles beyond the limit and, by this exemption, the veterinary officer will send an officer or somebody else to examine the livestock in question. In my view, I wonder whether the Government has given thought to the setting up of a veterinary station within three miles of any farm in the State to solve the problems of transporting animals suspected of disease to a place appointed by the veterinary officer. I think more veterinary centres should be set up to help the farmers. Clauses 21, 22 and 25 of the third part of the Bill relate to the points I have raised. The main aim of those clauses is that if the veterinary officer thinks that any animals or livestock are found to have any diseases, he can not only examine such animals but also take steps to isolate or separate or even condemn them when necessary. He has even got the power to burn the chicken runs and destroy the places in which the farmer keeps the animals suspected of any disease. The tools and other appliances used in connection with the feeding of such animals may also be destroyed. So under such powers if a farmer comes to know that the veterinary officer is coming along to destroy his property, he is afraid that his own hut may be involved in the process of destruction and so he will be deterred from reporting any disease of the animals to the authorities concerned. We cannot deny that some farmers are conservative in their attitude and some have common sense, and they will take their own steps to cure the animals of their diseases instead of reporting them to the authority concerned. All this is because they want to avoid trouble and difficulties. Mr Speaker, there is also a provision in the Bill in connection with any disease of an animal, but such things are not specified in the Bill. For example, if we have 50 chickens among hundreds of them affected by any disease. I do not know whether it is necessary for the farmer to send only the 50 or all the chickens for examination. He may be worried about what will happen to them. Clause 25 of the Bill concerns the infected areas. This clause provides that animals suspected of any disease are not to leave the infected areas. There is no definition of the infected areas or boundaries defined for the infected areas. For example, in Punggol, there is a farmer rearing 3.000 chicks of which some are affected by diseases. Then the rest of the chickens that he has will not be permitted to leave his place for sale. So I wonder whether the infected areas include the whole area of Punggol or that particular area in which the farmer lives. There is no definition for the term "infected areas". If this term includes the whole area of Punggol, then if it so happens that in this particular area of Punggol there is a spread of one disease in one farmer's family, then the other farmers will be affected in that their chickens and pigs will not be allowed to leave the Punggol area for sale in another area. Perhaps this lack of definition of infected areas is an oversight. But it will give rise to difficulties and fears on the part of farmers. In fact, farmers do not know when their animals are affected by any disease. They do not know under what conditions and circumstances they are not to move their animals out of the area infected. Mr Speaker, we have already mentioned this point basically. It may give rise to some undesirable side effects and they may be termed the loopholes of this Bill. So how to eradicate and prevent the diseases of animals? Has the Government given thought to the employment of more veterinary officers or surgeons? It is clear that a few veterinary centres are not enough to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I would suggest that it should be for the farmers themselves to try and help in the eradication and prevention of animal diseases. For this purpose, we must educate the farmers. But now it is too late, as it appears to me. I can give you an illustration. In the past, some farmers found that their pigs suffered from certain diseases. They went to the veterinary centre, but the officer in charge insisted that the pigs suffering from animal disease should be sent to the centre for an operation and this operation might take two days and the farmer might not like the idea, although the veterinary officer might well be justified. Supposing in the course of two days the other animals infected died? What was to happen to them? So because of this the farmers themselves have lost some confidence in the veterinary centres and veterinary officers, and so the better way would be for the Government to educate the farmers on how to treat their own animals when they are suffering from a disease. If our veterinary officer is able to educate the farmers and give them advice before the disease is spotted, then with the knowledge of how to treat diseased animals, this will be one step forward in the prevention of animal diseases. Mr Speaker, the Minister has also mentioned just now that certain clauses in this Bill are necessary to control persons who give treatment to animals

Order. Will the Member be taking some time in developing his speech?

(In Mandarin): I shall take some time.

Very well. I think it might be a convenient time to adjourn when you are branching off to a new subject. I shall now take the tea break. I suspend the sitting of the House till 5.30 when I will take the Chair again. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. 5.31 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I was touching upon clauses 68 and 69 of the Bill. The Government has introduced this Bill with the intention that private veterinarians should be prevented from exploiting the farmers. This shows that farmers do not approach the Government veterinary officers for treatment of their livestock, but seek the services of private veterinarians. Why is this so? Why do they shy away from Government veterinary officers? What is the main cause for this phenomenon? All along the Government have been saying that they are looking after the farmers' interest very well, taking good care of them and looking into every detail concerning the livelihood of the farmers. Why then are there farmers who want to seek the services of private veterinarians instead of the services of Government veterinary officers? This shows that the Government's treatment and efforts in respect of veterinary services have not been adequate in the past, and even up to now. On another point about the eradication of diseases of livestock, the Government will have to depend on the cooperation of the farmers. The farmers should be educated and taught modern methods of veterinary science, such as inoculation and treatment of animals. They should also be given facilities to enable them to treat the diseased animals themselves. This will, I believe, go a long way towards helping the farmers and improving the situation generally. Just now the Minister also touched on the examination of animals imported from foreign countries in order to prevent animal diseases from spreading to Singapore. The Government has, on the other hand, allowed the import of dead pigs and chickens into Singapore! For instance, there have been imports of frozen chickens, pork, bacon and ham from Australia and other countries. Such imports are not livestock. Of course, the Government will say that such meat has been processed and is free from any disease. But how can we be sure of that? Have we considered the possibility of such imports affecting our local markets in respect of prices for local livestock --- [Interruption]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was never the intention of this Bill to branch off to the question of marketing. The Member for Bukit Panjang has earlier on, before the tea-break, spoken for quite a long time on marketing matters and is now coming back to marketing problems.

I think up to now the Member has been in order. Please continue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the other point of the Bill on which the Minister touched just now was the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Bill also provides that cruelty to animals includes acts of cruelty, maltreating them, and the rest of it. I feel that this sort of provision in the Bill is unnecessary. If such livestock constitutes the property of the farmers concerned, of course, the farmers will have no reason to maltreat or be cruel to it. The Government has provision to kill stray animals found on the road. So anyone who is inclined to treat animals with cruelty will not have a free hand to do so. This shows that the Government are not really genuine when they say that they wish to look after the farmers' interest by providing various facilities and benefits. I would say that the whole lot of them are really hypocrites.

Order. Did I hear the Member use the word "hypocrites"? It is for the Member to deny. If he has used the word "hypocrites", he must withdraw it. I thought the last word I heard being translated was "hypocrites".

(In Mandarin): What I meant was that they appear to be concerned with the interest of the farmers, but, in actual fact, they are not. That was what I meant.

If the Member did use the word "hypocrites", he must withdraw it unreservedly.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I did not use that specific word. What I said was a term describing that meaning, as I have said just now.

I definitely heard the word "hypocrites" come over in the translation. The Member has used it, and he must withdraw it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in that case, I withdraw that word in English.

Please withdraw it in English and in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I did not use that specific word in Chinese. But if you construe it to mean that, I withdraw the word both in Chinese and in English. 5.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, after hearing the Member for Bukit Panjang's great speech which in actual fact was all nonsense, I feel that ---

Order. Please withdraw the word "nonsense".

(In Mandarin): I do so. Sir, In actual fact, the Member's objective is to give a bad impression of us to the farmers and to create fear among the people, so that the farmers will view with much fear and suspicion all Government measures to help them, and thereby prevent them from coming forward to seek help from the Government veterinary officers. Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have all along been saying that what they can see in the kampongs and rural areas are only bankrupt farming communities. If that were so, then it would be beneficial to the Barisan Sosialis. Our Government has been implementing measures to benefit the people, particularly the farmers. They are beginning to awaken to the real truth, and they do not believe any more in the utterances of the Barisan Sosialis. The people appreciate very much the Government's facilities and services offered to improve their livelihood. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see that the whole Bill is designed to serve the interests of the farmers. I cannot see anything in it that is bad or detrimental to the farmers, as stated by the Member for Bukit Panjang. For instance, he said that when a farmer has to convey 50 pigs to a veterinary station which happens to be far away, it will cause him great difficulty. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if there is any disease among the animals, then the farmer concerned should approach the veterinary officers. If he does not do this, then, of course, the Barisan Member will be happy because the disease will spread all round and many farmers will suffer loss. The Barisan Sosialis will then have more capital for propaganda purposes to say that the Government is no good and does not look after the farmers' welfare. As to what the Member for Bukit Panjang has said about clauses in the Bill preventing private veterinarians from practising in the rural areas, I would say that most of these private veterinarians are not properly trained, and because they lack experience and knowledge, they usually do more harm than good to the farmers, in this respect, therefore, the Government will have to legislate to restrict the practice of these under-qualified veterinarians, who may also be inexperienced. The Member has also mentioned another point. He says that when there is an outbreak of animal disease or chicken disease, the Minister will then abuse his powers under this Bill. In actual fact, the Minister has no such intention at all. When the Minister wants to declare a certain area infected with a disease, there must first be many such cases of the disease prevailing in that area before he declares it to be infected. In many cases, only when the disease is spreading among the livestock will the Minister declare a certain area infected. The Member for Bukit Panjang assumes the existence of bankrupt rural farms, and he does not like to see farmers in the rural areas prosper and progress. He says that he has never been to the Bukit Panjang rural areas - that is why he is talking through his hat! The Barisan Sosialis is trying every means to make a mountain out of a molehill for their propaganda. This is what I want to say to the Member for Bukit Panjang who seems not to have been to his area at all. 5.46 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have explained this matter very well. We have also criticised the actual motive and design of this Bill. What I say is that the P.A.P. Government are not actually concerned with the interest of the farmers or are looking after the interest of the farmers. They are pretending to do good. Whether their legislation will amount to something good or not is another question, and I will have to clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary has said just now. He accuses us of wanting to spread fear among the farmers, is it a fact? He alone will know. The law and regulations provide clearly that if the Director of the Primary Production Department sees fit, then the Government will have the power to destroy all the structures, including livestock, in a certain area, without prescribing any compensation for them. Will this not cause fear in the hearts of the farmers? How would you feel if the law provides for such possibilities and power? Of course, the farmers are afraid and are living in fear and suspense. Yet the Government turn round and accuse us of wanting to see the rural farmers becoming bankrupt! When we are in a position to help the farmers, we should carry out our responsibilities to them. We should also look into every complaint from the farmers. This is our hope, that all the farmers can live a comfortable life. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary has said that certain veterinarians are not experienced and are under-qualified. This, I think, is not quite true. Sometimes, I myself treat diseased animals. Even my neighbour who lives next to me, in order to save money, also treats his own diseased animals. We also engage private veterinarians because, in our view, their practice is effective and is worth the price we pay them. But Government veterinary officers are not so experienced as private veterinarians. Just look at what we have experienced ourselves. Can you say that private veterinarians are not experienced when they produce better results? How do you explain that? Even a certain officer of the Primary Production Department is looking for private veterinarians to help in the rural areas. Certain officers in high positions and the Chairmen of certain committees in the relevant trades also have a very high regard for these private veterinarians. So I say that when once your deceit is exposed to the people, you will not have any opportunity to deceive them any more. I hope you will do something good for the farmers. That is our hope.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my views on the deceptive propaganda put forward by the Government in relation to the actual conditions in the rural areas. The Minister for National Development says that the Government has taken good care of the farmers over the past few years and that production in the farms has increased tremendously. Mr Speaker, whenever Members on this side raise certain matters of actual fact, they are prevented from doing so. The Ministers do not seem to know of such facts, and they just listen in surprise! Certain diseases are widespread among the livestock and the Government is unable to control them. As a result of Government's inability to control the diseases, many farmers have suffered losses and they have become bankrupt. Their debts are mounting and they are far from being able to pay their debts. Feedstuffs manufacturers are also unable to get their money from the farmers to whom they have supplied their feedstuff. The Government has not carried out its duty properly and adequately to look after the interest of the people and farmers by trying to solve their everyday difficulties. There are many cases of disease spreading among the livestock of some farmers, and it takes a few days before the officers of the Primary Production Department come to look into the matter. This delay results in losses. The Government, it is true, has taken steps to inoculate animals and poultry, but still the diseases are not prevented from spreading. In fact, before inoculation, some chickens were even fatter, but after inoculation, they grew thinner day by day. So it is clear that in spite of the so called medical care given by the Government, the livestock has not enjoyed any good health, or better health. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said a moment ago that the points raised by my colleague with regard to the diseases of certain pigs were of, minor importance. This is what he said. We can see that whenever there is a spread of diseases in the livestock of pigs, this spread will cause the farmers to convey their animals and chickens over a long distance for treatment, even when there is only a suspicion of a few animals or chickens among a few hundreds or thousands. Now, is this not a difficulty and inconvenience for the farmers? Will not the farmers themselves be put in fear of the troubles? If the Government intends really effectively to look after the health of livestock in the rural areas, then I suggest that it is the business of the Primary Production Department to instil common medical knowledge into the farmers so that they themselves will be able to detect diseases and treat minor cases by themselves, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of sending chickens to the veterinary centre.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen the performance of the Barisan Members in this House. They try to get even some votes over the problems of the pigs. They have been most inconsistent in their speeches. As the Minister for National Development has put it clearly, because of the inadequacy of existing Ordinances, the Government have to introduce new laws to improve the conditions of the farmers to catch up with time. This is realistic in approach, but instead of getting support, we have seen the Barisan Members criticising the Government. When we want to put aside one million dollars for the improvement of the farmers' livelihood, they want us to put in ten million dollars. They are expecting much more than realistic things from us, and they do so in order to attract the farmers to their side. Mr Speaker. Sir, we can see very clearly from our daily life that the Minister for National Development is often seen to be discussing problems with the farmers themselves to get their views, so that steps will be taken in accordance with such views and to improve the living standards of the farmers and to improve the primary production services. We have already taught the farmers the modern techniques in rearing pigs and other animals, so that their production will be increased and their income similarly increased. This has all along been our objective and we have been doing pretty well. I do not see how the Barisan Members can deny this fact, instead of talking about the actual needs of the farmers at present. they have sidetracked and talked about something else. Mr Speaker, as the Member for Bukit Panjang has said just now, when a pig falls sick, it is not necessary for the farmer to carry it to the veterinary officer. Instead the veterinary officer must go to the farmer's house and treat the pig. We agree this is a better way if there are enough pigs to justify the visit of the veterinary officer at the farm. But if it is only an individual case, that would be too much trouble and most uneconomical. Does he really mean that the National Development Ministry should not send out properly trained veterinary officers to look after the diseases of the livestock or does he want the Government to encourage the farmers to prefer untrained veterinary personnel to trained personnel, resulting in a great loss of lives of the animals? All this talk is most unrealistic and beside the point. If they really desire to help the farmers, then they should study the main points in the speech of the Minister for National Development. Then they would realise that it is the intention of the Government to look after the farmers' interest in a practical manner.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we have heard the Member for Jalan Besar saying that the Government wants to look after the interest of the farmers and that is why the Government has introduced this Bill. But this is a great humbug. The Member for Bukit Panjang has said just now, very clearly, that there are many loopholes in this Bill which might give rise to actual difficulties. But in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to give us a clearer picture in relation to the possible difficulties. Let us look at the performance of the Government over the past few years. Over the radio the Government has said that it is looking after the interests of the people very well. You must not ill-treat the dogs, you must not ill-treat the cats, ducks and chickens. And that is what they say, they are looking after the interests of the farmers. Now if you do not give them actual help to develop their farm and increase their production in poultry and in vegetable gardening, what is the actual use of such talk? In fact, there are many farmers in the State who are unable to continue farming because they cannot make ends meet. And it is difficult for them to continue farming or poultry rearing. The Government has not been able to give them practical assistance. Now, what is the form of assistance that the Government is supposed to give? The Government is not able to put into practice effective measures to control the spread of diseases or to prevent the spread of any diseases. Then there is the question of marketing land and the fluctuation of the price in poultry and other primary products. All these years has the Government been able to put forward a comprehensive plan to improve generally the rural areas? Because of the absence of any comprehensive plan, the rural economy is nearing bankruptcy. One can see that the cost of eggs is decreasing. What is the Government doing to increase the price of eggs? Instead of doing something practical, it is only trying to legislate to see that better quality feedstuff is available. Then we come to the ---

Order. I have been very patient. I think the Member must really go back to the Animals and Birds Bill. Will he come back to the Bill?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in this Bill the Government seeks to control the diseases of animals, but the responsibility should be shouldered by the farmers themselves. because if the Government thinks that there is a spread of disease in a certain area, then the animals will have to be condemned, and some chicken runs and other structures will have to be destroyed without any compensation. Do you think the farmers will report any suspicion of disease to the Government just to invite such great loss? If such a report is made, then they will run the risk of having their property destroyed; so they will not seek the assistance of the Government in trying to detect or cure any disease in their livestock. The Parliamentary Secretary has tried to say just now that the Minister would not abuse the powers of this Bill to declare any place an infected area unnecessarily in any individual cases. But the fact is that in any section of a place there may be a spread of a disease and this will give rise to great inconvenience and trouble in view of the powers given by this Bill. I think the farmers should be given the liberty to complain to the Government of any difficulties, otherwise they will not report any suspicion or actual spread of disease to the Government. Our Members on this side have already given their criticism of the loopholes in this Bill, and the conclusion one can draw is that the introduction of this Bill reflects the difficulties and the near bankruptcy of the rural areas. And if this Bill must be passed, then I urge upon the Government to give some form of compensation if any structure of the farmer is to be destroyed on the discovery of any disease. And then the Government should take practical steps to enlarge the market for poultry and eggs, otherwise eggs will be falling in price, from six cents to five cents. Then there should be a comprehensive programme for the control of diseases among the animals.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the subject of the Bill which we are debating now, the opposition from the Barisan Sosialis Members appears to show their sympathy to whom they think will give their support to them at some future time. They obviously are ignorant as to the best method to be employed to raise the living standards of poultry rearers in the rural areas. As has been said by the Opposition Members, the cost of eggs should be increased. But the Opposition, at the same time, are not aware that in order for the cost of eggs to be increased, the quality of the eggs should be improved, if the eggs produced are of a lower quality, naturally the prices are low, then the Government is responsible for ensuring that good quality eggs are produced. Thus with the increased prices for these eggs, their standard of living will be raised proportionately. Regarding transport mentioned by the Opposition, if this Bill is passed, it will cause inconvenience to the farmers to have to transport their animals and birds for the purpose of injection. That is up to the farmers. If they want to see their products improve in quality, then it is part of their duty to transport their animals or birds to the veterinary centres. If our child is sick and we want to see it treated, we have to bring it to the General Hospital even though we may have to travel a long distance. This is an example. On the subject of compensation, what is the rate of compensation paid to farmers who have diseased animals in our country? Of course, the Government is responsible for seeing that the birds or animals which may be the cause of infection be destroyed to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. That is important for us to consider. Not just by paying compensation to the poultry farmers. As I have said earlier on, what is the rate of compensation to be paid to defaulting poultry farmers who are responsible for spreading diseases so that diseases will not be spread further to the neighbours and so on? It is one of the responsibilities of the Government to see that the rate of productivity is increased, which means that it will be healthy to the State of Singapore. That is all I have to say today, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Minister, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I hear Members of the Opposition saying that in the last five years the P.A.P. Government has done nothing for the farmers and that most of the farmers are bankrupt or are going bankrupt. As to whether the farmers are going bankrupt or not, there are facts to show that during the last five years, instead of the trade in eggs, poultry and pork being reduced, it has increased. From being an importer of chickens, eggs and pigs, we are now the exporter. It what they say is true, that during the last five years we have done nothing for the farmers and that they are going bankrupt quickly, their trade would have been dead by now. This is an instance of where Members of the Opposition are trying to bluff the public. I do not know whether they really have the interest of the farmers at heart or they are just here to play politics, because if they really do have the interest of the farmers at heart, they have had more than five months since the First Reading of this Bill to send in amendments and make suggestions for improvement. On the one hand, they say, "Look, we must control diseases." On the other hand, when we bring up this Bill to control diseases they say. "This is in no way any aid to the farmers at all." They say again that our veterinary surgeons and veterinary centres are of no assistance at all to the farmers. If they are of no assistance to the farmers, how is it that suggestions come from them that we should build more veterinary centres? So all in all, Mr Speaker, Sir, they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks. Absolutely, they do not believe in what they say. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is evident that in order to improve our livestock, some sort of control must be accepted by the farmers - control of disease, control of feedstuffs. And when enforcing any regulation, of course, there will be difficulties, and it is always the policy of the Government when enforcing regulations to see that our officers carry out our policy in a very practical and common sense way. Some of the administrative difficulties which they have brought up will, of course, be looked into and I can give the farmers every assurance that this Bill is not there, as the Opposition alleges, to make things more difficult for them. This Bill is to protect the property and to improve the quality and the breed of their pigs, chickens and eggs.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Mr Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee.

6.19 p.m. Clause 1 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move under Long title, lines 3, 4, 5 and 7 ---

Mr Minister, I think we will come to that at the end. If you will just go on to clause 1 to begin with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In line 7, to leave out "Ordinance, 1964" and insert "and Birds Ordinance, 1965". This amendment will tie up the short title of the Bill.

Mr Minister, I think perhaps I had better let you have this Order Paper Supplement. (Copy of Order Paper Supplement handed to Mr Lim Kim San.)

So far as the amendment to clause 1 is concerned, Mr Minister, I think "1964" to "1965" is not an amendment really. It is merely a matter of adjustment due to passing of time. So if you will just proceed to the next amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 6, after "Animals", to insert "and Birds". Amendment agreed to.

As I have indicated previously, the figure "1964" will be amended to "1965" as a matter of course. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 4, after "animals", to insert "and birds". The purpose of this amendment is to remedy the omission of "birds" in the definition of "veterinary biologics" in this clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

There are no amendments proposed to clauses 3 to 8, 10 to 32, 34 to 49 and 51 to 71. The following amendments stand in the Order Paper: Clause 9: In page 6, marginal note, to leave out "animals" and insert "animal or bird". Clause 33: In page 14, marginal note, to leave out "animals" and insert "animal or bird". Clause 50: In page 23, marginal note, to leave out "cattle, etc.," and insert "animals and birds". These amendments will be noted. Clauses 3 to 71 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule -

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, In page 30, to leave out lines 32 and 33. The amendment will delete paragraph (m) from the Schedule to be considered, as paragraph (t) already provides the same powers as paragraph (m). The latter paragraph, paragraph (m), is therefore redundant and should be deleted from the Schedule. Amendment agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Long Title -

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, lines 3, 4, 5 and 7, after "animals", wherever it occurs, to insert "and birds". Since the Bill deals with birds and animals, it is considered to be more appropriate and correct for it to be called the Animals and Birds Ordinance. Amendment agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.3l p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to raise the standard of hygiene in slaughterhouses and meat processing factories to improve the quality and maintain a high standard in the processing of meat and meat production. The provisions of this Bill will ensure that animals are slaughtered in a hygienic manner and that the meat produced is wholesome, properly handled, and transported without contamination. Illegal slaughtering and the sale of diseased meat will be prohibited. At the same time, it is intended that meat canning and meat processing factories, of which there are at the present a number in Singapore, should also be brought within the ambit of the Bill. Some of our canners have in the past experienced considerable difficulty in exporting their products to overseas markets because hygienic standards, manufacturing procedure, and the type of meat used, do not satisfy the requirements of the importing countries. This is a stumbling block in the development of our food and meat manufacturing industries. The provisions contained in the Bill will overcome these obstacles by ensuring that the slaughtering of meat, the process of manufacture, the hygienic conditions within the factory premises, are of a standard acceptable internationally and, in particular, acceptable to those countries to which our products are exported. Certificates will be issued by the veterinary authorities to manufacturers of meat and meat products who have obtained the required standards to enable them to export their products. This step will greatly assist our producers and exporters of meat and meat products to enter foreign markets and compete on equal terms, thus encouraging the development and expansion of our food and meat manufacturing industries and thereby providing more employment opportunities for our growing population. Mr Speaker, Sir, to carry out effectively the provisions of this Bill and to encourage the development of the food and meat industries in Singapore, a new modern abattoir will be built. Tenders for its construction at Jurong at an estimated cost of more than $4 million have been accepted, and work will commence soon. This abattoir will be one of the best and provided with the most up-to-date slaughtering equipment in this part of the world. The new abattoir will also have a veterinary public health laboratory to carry out testing and examination of meat and the training of personnel in abattoir management, meat inspection and related aspects. The first Part of this Bill dealing with slaughter-houses is not new, as it is merely a re-enactment of Part V of the local Government integration Ordinance. 1963. The provisions relating to meat processing factories are, however, new. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Lim Kim San] Bill considered in Committee.

6.36 p.m.

In clause 1, the figure "1964" will be altered to "1965". No amendments have been received, and unless Members wish to speak on any particular clause, I shall take all the clauses together. Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 6.38 p.m.

A notice has been received from the Minister for National Development of an amendment to clause 28 of the Bill. The amendment is set out in the Order Paper Supplement No.11.Under Standing Orders, the Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole Assembly in respect of clause 28. Committee stage, what day, Minister?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee.

6.39 p.m. Clause 28 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A16, line 7, to leave out "State Advocate-General" and insert "Public Prosecutor". The term "Public Prosecutor", Mr Speaker, Sir, is the correct reference to the State Advocate-General in his capacity as Prosecutor in the State. Where the State Advocate-General is exercising his function as such, he is referred to as the Public Prosecutor, and this terminology is in accord with the Criminal Procedure Code. Amendment agreed to.

There will follow a consequential amendment to amend the marginal note to meet the requirements of the amendment just carried. This will be done. Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." In moving the Third Reading of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Bill, I wish to inform the House that in Select Committee we have considered a number of representations in respect of various provisions of the Bill. I would like now to touch on the main points of these representations. In the Bill presented earlier, housing development was defined to include the financing for development. It has been agreed in Select Committee that banks and insurance companies, in so far as they provide money for housing development, will be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. A suggestion has been made that the new law should be made to apply only to houses under construction and for sale, and should not apply to houses built for investment which should not be construed as housing development coming within the provisions of the Bill. To this suggestion, it must be emphasised that making provisions for such exemption would create loopholes in the Bill leading eventually to evasion and defeating the objects of the Bill. The best recourse, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, would be that in respect of the developer building for investment, he should apply for exemption from the provisions of the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is not to stifle private enterprise in the provision of housing for the middle and higher income sections of the population. If development is clearly intended for investment and an application is made to the Minister, it is unlikely that exemption will be withheld. But in providing for legislation of this nature we have to ensure that there should be no loopholes whereby speculators, on the pretext of building houses ostensibly for investment but with the real purpose of sale, can remain outside the scope of this law. Objections have been raised against the penalties imposed under the Ordinance, particularly regarding a prison sentence in addition to a fine. I must emphasise, however, that in laying down the scale of punishment under the Bill, the main objective is to serve a warning on unscrupulous developers and to deter them. Those who carry out their business in accordance with the law will have nothing to fear. Hence, where a developer attempts to carry out his business without a licence, he deserves to be punished by both a fine and imprisonment. If notwithstanding our efforts to regulate proper practice a housing developer defies the law, then he does not deserve sympathy and only a term of imprisonment will be sufficient to discourage this. Although imprisonment has been laid down in the Bill, the length of the prison term will be a matter for the court to decide, depending on the gravity of the offence. Sir, the sorry plight of so many purchasers having been cheated without any redress or remedy warrants the imposition of a prison sentence for any person who undertakes the business of a housing developer without a licence. In other cases of offences committed after a licence has been issued, the imprisonment sentence is not mandatory. One important point which was raised in the Select Committee, Mr Speaker, Sir, was the condition under the Bill requiring that the company doing housing development must have a paid-up capital of half a million dollars. It was suggested that the requirement of such a large amount of capital would stifle development. The Select Committee, after consideration of their representation, agreed to reduce this sum to $100,000. I should further like to point out, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is provision in the Bill whereby the Minister in his discretion can waive or vary the amount of the deposit in order that reputable persons or companies with smaller capital but desirous of carrying out housing development on a modest scale may still be able to contribute towards housing development in the State. Representations have also been made for appeals against the decision of the Controller to be referred to the High Court and not to the Minister as intended in the Bill. The Select Committee has agreed that appeals against the decision of the Controller in regard to the grant of a licence shall be made to the High Court. But if a housing developer is aggrieved by the decision of the Controller in regard to the varying or revocation of any existing conditions of the licence, or impose conditions or additional conditions, such appeals shall be referred to the Minister whose decision shall be final. Mr Speaker, Sir, various minor amendments have also been incorporated into the Bill. The provision requiring a housing developer to exhibit his audited accounts, balance sheet and particulars of officers managing the business in the office, is substituted by the requirement that the audited accounts shall be forwarded to the Controller and published in the Gazette within three months of the close of the financial year. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Select Committee, having considered both the oral and written representations received on this Bill, has agreed to make the amendments which I have indicated above. The Bill as now amended is a piece of legislation which at this stage of Singapore's development is clearly desirable in order to promote a class of housing developers who besides making a profit would ensure a square deal for purchasers of housing accommodation. The Bill also seeks to ensure that buyers will not be cheated or forced into one-sided agreements or saddled with sub-standard houses. This Bill is also timely because of the rapid urbanisation and the re-development of the central areas of the City whereby large areas will be re-developed to make way for well planned and properly constructed flats, housing estates, business districts complete with social and public amenities. The process of large-scale urban redevelopment is a task which the Government cannot handle adequately by itself. Private enterprise would be invited or induced to participate. Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is desirable that there should be established by licensing and control a new generation of private housing developers with sufficient financial resources and organisational ability to help the Government in urban re-development to make Singapore a better and more prosperous city. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read a Third time and passed.

6.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That, pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution of the States of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker with effect from the 2nd November, 1964, shall be $1,750 a month. Sir, may I explain to the House the procedure under which the Speaker's salary has been decided at $1,750? Under the Singapore Constitution, the salary and other emoluments of the Speaker must be determined from time to time by the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, it is necessary that today we have to move this motion to decide on the Speaker's salary. The Prime Minister first approached you, Mr Speaker, to discuss your appointment as Speaker of the Assembly, and you had indicated to him that you could only consider the appointment if you were allowed to continue your private practice as a lawyer and solicitor. The Prime Minister agreed to this and, therefore, it became necessary to consider the question of your salary as Speaker of this House. The full salary of $3,000 payable to the Speaker was fixed on the basis that the Speaker would do no other job than that of the Speaker of the Assembly. It is apparent that if the Speaker were allowed to continue his private practice, an adjustment would have to be made to the full salary of the Speaker, which had been fixed on a different basis. Therefore, it became necessary to consider under these circumstances what would constitute a fair and proper salary for a part-time Speaker. It was, therefore, agreed between Mr Speaker and the Prime Minister that $1,750 would be a compromise. In addition to this salary, the Speaker still enjoys other perquisites in order to maintain the dignity of his office; for example, a house, a gardener, a car, a chauffeur and an entertainment vote. The lowering of the salary, therefore, in no way is intended to reflect on the duty and the status of the post of the Speaker, and if a future Speaker should take on this job on a full-time basis, then, of course, the salary would have to be reconsidered and possibly the full salary paid.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, the salary of thc Speaker with effect from the 2nd November, 1964, shall be $1,750 a month.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 41 acres at South Quay as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore, and further approves the construction of a wharf deck on steel piles in that portion of sea-bed at East Lagoon which is coloured red in the same plan and containing an area of approximately 12 acres. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 28th of November, 1963, the Legislative Assembly approved the reclamation by Government of approximately 19 acres of foreshore and sea-bed at South Quay for the purpose of extending the East Lagoon to provide four additional berths together with ancillary equipment and buildings, such as godowns for the Singapore Harbour Board. The expansion programme of the Port of Singapore Authority calls for further reclamation of South Quay. The Government proposes, therefore, to reclaim another 41 acres as shown on LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/65, a copy of which is in the Assembly Library for the information of Members. The reclamation will be carried out by the Port Authority on behalf of the Government. The reclaimed land will be used for the construction of godowns, other buildings and a wharf deck. The Authority also proposes to build another wharf deck in the 12 acres of sea-bed referred to in the second half of the motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 41 acres at South Quay as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NC). 1/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore, and further approves the construction of a wharf deck on steel piles in that portion of sea-bed at East Lagoon which is coloured red in the same plan and containing an area of approximately 12 acres.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 1,000 acres from the junction of Bedok Road and East Coast Road to Tanjong Rhu as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 27th of June, 1962, this House approved the reclamation by Government of approximately 48 acres of foreshore and sea-bed along Upper East Coast Road from the junction of Bedok Road. This reclamation, which was undertaken by the Housing and Development Board as agent of the Government, has now been completed. The Government now proposes to reclaim a further 1,000 acres of foreshore and sea-bed off East Coast Road. The extent of this reclamation is shown on LAND OFFICE

Library for the information of Members. Land, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a very scarce resource in Singapore. Over the last few years, the Government has embarked on a number of swamp reclamation projects, such as Kallang Basin, Sungei Poyan and Sungei Pandan. The East Coast Road Reclamation is another major project to make available more land for future development. The reclamation will extend over a distance of approximately 6 miles from Bedok to Tanjong Rhu and will vary in width from about 900 feet to 2,000 feet, depending on soil conditions. The project will take about four years and will cost approximately $53 million. The utilisation of the reclaimed land has as yet not been decided. There is, however, no doubt that this reclamation will relieve the acute land shortage, making available sites for much needed community facilities. In addition, it is also proposed to construct a coastal road from the City to Katong, Bedok and Changi. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.01 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am rising to express my views on the motion tabled by the Minister for Law. On the 25th of last month, the Minister for Law spoke to the Press about the reclamation programme in the east coast. He said that we must plan for the future in regard to land in view of the increasing population. He also was reported to have said that the reclamation on the east coast was to build a scenic area for Singapore. It is not difficult for the people to see that the reclamation programme of the Government is not intended to resolve the difficulties of the people in their livelihood, but is intended for an unrealistic purpose, because by 1990 there will be 4 million people in Singapore and yet we still allow a lot of land to be occupied by the British bases. In Siglap and Changi the people are faced with problems arising out of land reclamation and they are rather uneasy, because by 1990 the population will reach 4 million and they are more concerned, in fact, with the question of resettlement. People who live on this land and depend on farming are not worried about whether there is any scenic spot on the island of Singapore. But they are more concerned with the realistic aspects of life. But the Minister for Law, in trying to pass this motion, will create some realistic problems for persons affected by the land reclamation programme. Now, they are occupying land and paying quit rent of two to three dollars. But when they are faced with the problem of resettlement, they are worried whether they will be able to pay the rent in Selegie House at the rate of $66.50 per month, or whether they will be asked to stay in Aljunied Road Housing Board flats at the rate of $55 per month, instead of two to three dollars per month on a bigger piece of land. These are the problems that the people are more concerned with. There are many small shopkeepers who are concerned with the possibility of being evicted out of shops at a lower rental, into shops at $500 to $600 rental per month. The Government is now asking some German architects and engineers to reclaim the land. This will cost a lot of money. We understand that the Government is spending some $53 million on the land reclamation programme. On an average, every acre will cost about $52,000 to develop. The Government only pays $2,000 per acre as compensation to those who will be evicted from the land. If the Government can allot only half of the sum used on reclamation to these people who are evicted from their own land, that will be much better than making them bankrupt otherwise. The people evicted have been concerned by the Government's unreasonable compensation. Why should the Government spend $53 million of the taxpayer's money on contractors and merchants from Germany and other places? Why should the Government not use this sum of money on the people themselves? The Minister for National Development has also said that the people should be taken care of and that the compensation terms should be adequate to meet their losses. We are concerned about the fate and condition and troubles of the evicted people who have been staying on the east coast. The Government has divided the rural areas into two classes. One is agricultural area and the other is non-agricultural area ---

Up till now the Member has been in order. He was making the point that the Government could more usefully spend its money on other projects. But I think now he is getting out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the reclamation programme conducted in the east coast area affects the people living there and the Government should look after their difficulties. The people staying in these areas are faced with bankruptcy. The price of eggs has gone down on the one hand, and the price of feedstuffs has gone up on the other hand. The people who are asked to move out from their land incur great losses. They have spent several thousand dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars to build up their present business, and yet the Government is paying compensation of a lesser amount to people and merchants who are evicted from their land. The present accommodation allotted by the Government is hired out at very high rentals. All the measures taken are not reasonable. Shop houses in Geylang Serai have been demolished and the compensation has been very inadequate. When they built up their shophouses in Geylang Serai area, they had to pay thousands of dollars of tea money ---

Order. This is not a debate on the adequacy or inadequacy of Government compensation. It is a debate on the reclamation of land at Bedok.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the reclamation programme in the Bedok area will affect the residents and small estate men in the hundreds of acres in that area. The people living there have accumulated their wealth through several generations and have built up their livelihood there and they live out of the land. They have planted fruit trees and vegetable crops to maintain their living. The land they bought in the past in this area fetches a different price from that of before. A piece of land that can fetch tens of thousands of dollars per acre can fetch only $2,000 to $3,000 of compensation from the Government. Under these circumstances, the living conditions of the rural people in that area have been adversely affected. Small merchants and hawkers are faced with bankruptcy. That is why the residents, in the face of forced eviction by the Government, are not willing to remove even when faced with fire on their site ---

Order. I understand the motion to be on reclamation of land, not eviction of squatters.

The reclamation of the sea-shore.

Unless I misunderstood the Minister, reclamation of the seashore does not carry with it eviction of squatters. Am I right in that, Mr Minister!

That is right. Only prawns are to be found there.

Well, if that is so, Mr Poh Ber Liak, please let us get back to reclamation. An hon. Member: Do not read.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on the question of the sea coast along the Bedok area, the eviction of the residents there is the first part of the reclamation work. Unless the residents can be chased out, the reclamation programme cannot be carried out. So this affects people, including those staying on hillocks and in that area. If the people staying there are affected, then the Government should look into their conditions. So I suggest as follows to the Minister concerned: 1. Government, in implementing its reclamation programme, should compensate adequately the residents in the Bedok area and people who stay in the Changi area and who are engaged in agricultural work. The Government should not use any excuse or pretext to refuse adequate compensation to the residents, especially the farmers there. It should not use the pretext that the houses built by the farmers there have not been officially approved by the Government. In fact, many of the houses there were built long ago, and therefore the Government should not group them into different classes. All the people there should he regarded as farmers engaged in agricultural work ---

Order. I cannot allow this to go on very much longer. I have been very tolerant to the Member, because I thought that during the earlier stages of the debate, he was making the point that Government could utilise its money much better by helping the squatters. He has made his point and must get on with the topic of reclamation. And reclamation does not mean eviction of squatters.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, allow me to say that the eviction of residents is connected with reclamation work - before the programme can be carried out. So we see large-scale eviction taking place when the Government implements its programme of land reclamation. I hope in carrying out the work of land reclamation, the Government will try to lessen any adverse effects on the residents concerned. For example, if your things are destroyed by the Government, surely you expect the Government to pay you compensation. Many people in Bedok are worried; particularly those living in the small hills are affected by the reclamation programme. They expect the Government to provide them with alternative pieces of land in the neighbourhood, so that they can carry on with their farming activities. They also expect a higher compensation rate from the Government. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Law has also said just now that land is very scarce in Singapore. That is why, after the Government has chased the squatters out from where they are without adequate resettlement or rehousing or without adequate compensation terms, the squatters are at a loss where to go, in view of the scarcity of land in Singapore. Mr Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Government to give a special rent subsidy to those shopkeepers affected by the reclamation programme when they are asked to do business elsewhere or in Housing Board shops. Mr Speaker, in the Tampines area, a family was asked to vacate its place, and it was given only $500 by way of compensation. This family was actually running a shop in that area and for this shop they only received $500 compensation. This family was then asked to do business in a Housing Board shop at a rent of $500 per month. How can we say that the Government is really looking after the interests of the poor people? I would suggest that, in cases where people have been affected by the Government reclamation programme, they should be given higher compensation and alternative accommodation or shops at a low rental. I suggest that in the case of shopkeepers affected, the Government should build ---

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way.

(In Mandarin): No, Sir. The Government is very interested in land reclamation and says that it is paying adequate compensation to the shopkeepers and squatters affected by the programme, but the fact is that not a single cent has been given to these people by way of compensation. In fact, some tenants ---

(In Malay): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, his speech is not relevant. Of the many shopkeepers affected, how many live near the sea, and how many live near the shore that is to be reclaimed? Could the Member give this information? There are very many houses in Pulau Brani ---

I think the Member for Bukit Panjang has indicated to the House that certain hills in the vicinity of Bedok are going to be razed. As a result of razing those hills, it could well be that certain people are going to be de-housed. If that is the point that the Member is making, then he is completely relevant and is in order. Mr Poh Ber Liak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary concerned will go to the Bedok area and see for himself that there are houses and squatters and shops on the hillock in the Bedok area affected by the land reclamation. If you want me to prove this, then the best thing is for the Minister concerned or the Parliamentary Secretary to go to the Bedok area and see for himself that there are provision shops on the small hills from which earth is removed to reclaim the shore. Of course, you do not expect to see any houses or shops on the sea-shore. This statement only shows the ignorance of the Parliamentary Secretary, and this is most annoying. It shows that he is a person with no common sense.

Order. Will the Member please get on with the debate and not go into personal controversies with other Members? Mr Poh Ber Liak, please carry on, and do not repeat yourself.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was just trying to rebut the Parliamentary Secretary when he requested me to prove my point. At any rate, allow me to come back to the question of land reclamation Mr Speaker, at present, the Government is not doing very much by way of compensation to the shopkeepers and the squatters affected by the land reclamation, particularly ---

The Member has made that point several times. He has made it quite often, and I think the House is quite aware of it. He does not make his point more effective by repeating it 20 or 30 times. If the Member has any other points to raise before the House, please do so, but not this one.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the points that I have raised are not repetitious ---

The view of the Chair is that it is repetitious.

(In Mandarin): I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker, to show my respect for the Chair. Mr Speaker, when the small hills are levelled, the Government should give thought to the question of eviction and resettlement, particularly its attitude to the small estate-holders on the small hillock in question. What is the compensation given to these people? At present, the rate of $3,000 for each family is not adequate, when compared with the actual cost of the land. Some pieces of land cost $10,000 to $20,000 per acre instead of $3,000 per acre. So the Government would do well to give adequate compensation to the small-holders in this area, particularly in view of the fact that you require some $50,000 to $60,000 to reclaim one acre of land in that area. Mr Speaker, has the Government intended to alleviate the difficulties of the persons affected? The views expressed by me should receive the Minister's attention and are a real test of the Government's sincerity in trying to improve the livelihood of the people. On the one hand, these people do not receive adequate compensation and, on the other hand, they are forced to stay in another place at a high rental which they cannot afford. The Government is treating the people as fools if it does so. If the Government cannot give adequate compensation, then the livelihood of the people affected will be gravely threatened. There are more and more cases of forced eviction happening in Singapore, and these people affected would like the Government to reconsider the effects of land reclamation on their livelihood. The people affected by the land reclamation programme should keep their eyes open. 7.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Tampines, who does not live too far away from Bedok, obviously is not fully aware of the facts and circumstances relating to land reclamation in Bedok. I do not know how he came to the conclusion that land values in Bedok are quite high and therefore he has become a protector of the capitalists and land-owning class, and requested the Government to compensate them for the real value of their land. For his information, I will say that most of the land there is what we call "open space area" and is valued at about 10 cents per square foot. Now, he has some suggestions to make with regard to our plan of reclaiming 1,000 acres from the sea, and he says that we should make use of lorries and more use of local labour in order to reclaim this land. Before we went into the reclamation of these 1,000 acres - it is quite a large project, I believe it is about the largest in South-East Asia - we undertook --- Ni put siang sin.

Order, order. Will the Minister please sit down? If the Minister speaks in English, he must confine himself to English. He cannot be bilingual. If he wants to speak in Mandarin, then he must speak in Mandarin throughout.

As I was saying, Mr Speaker, we put a lot of thought into it and we did a trial reclamation of 40 acres. During this reclamation, we found that by using the traditional methods of getting lorries and using shovels to convey the earth to the sea for reclamation, a lot of hardship was caused to people living in the surrounding area. Therefore, we came up with the present plan of using a mechanical conveyor belt, so that there would be minimum disruption to the lives of the people living in and around Bedok. Now, the other point which the Opposition is always harping on is that compensation rates are inadequate. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last five years we have made a review of the compensation rates, and for their information, I am glad to inform this House that the people of Singapore have accepted that Singapore should be redeveloped, that there should be newer and better buildings, and they have accepted our compensation plan and they are willing to move out on the compensation rates we give. In fact, I have received many letters with regard to urban renewal as well as resettlement elsewhere. These writers wrote to me and said, "We agree wholeheartedly with your attempts and with your plans for the redevelopment of Singapore. Will you just see that in moving us you give us as little inconvenience as possible?" We have done that. During the last five years we have been moving about four to five thousand people, and in place of that we have been able to rehouse about three to four hundred thousand people. So, as far as we are concerned, they will keep on harping that compensation rates are not fair. I have stated in this House before that legally these squatters are not entitled to compensation, but as a Government that looks after the welfare of the people of this country, we thought it fair that these people, when being moved out to make way for new redevelopment, should not suffer unduly, and we are doing our very best to see that in moving them out we will cause as little disruption to their livelihood and their way of living as possible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not propose to take up too much time of the House to reply to the Members opposite, but I would like to remind them of the fact that they must accept a major principle. This principle is that the wealth of the nation should be used on the development aspect of the country. I would like to ask them to face the realistic problem at present, which is that in Singapore the population is fast increasing. This increased rate of population is fantastic. Every year we have some 60,000 new babies coming into this part of the world. So the problem arising out of the increased population should be tackled well ahead by the Government. As a responsible Government we should solve this problem in advance and think of the future, quite apart from the present day. In other words, you must dig the well before you are thirsty, otherwise it may be too late. This is a practical and realistic proverb. Instead of thinking along those lines as I have suggested, the Barisan Members have failed to give constructive suggestions to help the Government in implementing its projects. Instead they go on harping on the old tune that the Government is not properly looking after the interest of the people. One cannot deny that the problems of the future should be tackled well in advance. Why should we be stingy in our energies in trying to push through this programme? This is a basic principle. Of course, Mr Speaker, no one can deny that if a house is to be built beautifully and properly, the old house on the same piece of land will be affected. Everyone can understand, even a child of three years. That being so, if you want the nation and the country to develop strongly and healthily, then a small minority of the population may suffer some losses. This is inevitable, particularly in view of the fact that the redevelopment programme is a comprehensive one. But there is one consolation in the fact that the Government is paying compensation to the people affected, and the compensation adequate for the purposes intended. Mr Speaker, the Members opposite have said that the development programme of the Government is intended to build a scenic spot in the island for the wealthier capitalists in Singapore. I would like to tell them that if they are not engaged in day-dreams then they should know that Singapore is very beautiful and wealthy, and well advanced in housing projects in the whole of Malaysia. This fact is well known to the world. In the past the people thought that Tanjong Rhu belonged to the rich. Now we have already put up a lot of fiats in this area for the poor people. They can go there and see. Whether you are a wage-earner or a labourer or a small businessman, you can go and live in Tanjong Rhu, which was formerly reserved for the very rich in the past. This is a fact which cannot be denied and nobody can bluff about this. If they do not know the way to Tanjong Rhu, the housing Board will provide free transport for them to go there. They can go and see for themselves. Mr Speaker, the Member for Tampines has also said just now that the houses built by the Government are let out at very high rentals, and this is why very few are occupied by the poor people. This is ridiculous because we cannot build enough houses to meet the needs of the people. There are more people coming to the Housing Board to get fiats, but we cannot build enough to meet the increasing demands. The Barisan Sosialis should be more realistic when they talk of the needs of the people, instead of talking something intangible and unrealistic. Mr Speaker, as the old saying goes, we can reclaim the sea into land. The world is changing all the time. Some of the Members opposite are graduates of universities. If they keep their eyes open to the facts of life, they will then realise that the scarcity of land in Singapore will give rise to great problems in future. If steps are not taken to reclaim land now, then in future they may be worried about where to stay. If you want the country to progress and to advance, then you must follow the principle of constant development for the future as well as for the present day.

Mr Barker in reply.

Mr Speaker, the hon. Member from Tampines referred to the eviction of squatters as a result of reclamation. I think he did not make himself clear. There are no squatters directly affected by this reclamation. But what I think he meant was that squatters would be indirectly affected by the reclamation, in the sense that fill for the reclamation will be obtained from about 345 acres of land which have been gazetted for compulsory acquisition. This land is south of Upper Changi Road, between the 7¼ m.s. to the 8 m.s. Upper Changi Road and the 7¼ m.s. East Coast Road. He is worried about the question of resettlement of the squatters living in that area. I can assure hon. Members that we have always dealt very nicely wth our squatters. We do not go in and throw them out. We have surveys, enquiries, and the usual procedure will be followed in this case. In fact, Collector's enquiries under the Land Acquisition Ordinance have been completed and possession of this land which has not been taken possession of will be done so shortly. The acquisition itself is estimated to cost the Government about $3½ million. No cadastral survey of the area has been undertaken, but the detailed census of families, improvements and ex-gratia payments applicable in each case, which is a prerequisite to resettlement, will be undertaken once possession of the land has been taken. However, preliminary investigations show that there are 200 buildings, not in the sea, but in the area of Changi - 200 buildings consisting of dwellings and shop-houses on this land, and the majority are Chinese. I assure the hon. Member that resettlement will be undertaken by the Housing and Development Board in accordance with the normal policy and will be paid according to the progress of the cutting of fill as and when required. No specific lay-out plans have been drawn up for the area providing the fill, but once the hills have been cut, the area will be levelled and will be made available for various projects, including schools, housing, etc. Before I close my speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just touch shortly on the resettlement policy which is worrying the Member for Tampines. Briefly, genuine farmers who are affected by any development project will be compensated in accordance with various rates, not only for the structures, but the trees and the plants on their land. In addition, they are given a rehabilitation grant of $1,000 per acre for land occupied by them. For owner-occupiers of huts, full compensation will be paid, and in addition they will be eligible for Housing Board accommodation, plus a transport grant of $100 and a disturbance allowance of $250. Even sub-tenants will be given Housing Board accommodation and a transport grant of $50. I have with me, Mr Speaker, two schedules showing the rates payable. There are two types of rates, one called "compensation rates" and the other "replacement". Replacement rates are paid to persons occupying authorised structures and compensation rates are paid to those occupying unauthorised structures. In view of the shortage of time, Mr Speaker, I cannot read all this, but as a comparison, the first item, the house with a kitchen, concrete floor and drain, compensation rate $1 per sq. ft., replacement rate $2.50 per sq, ft. If the hon. Member for Tampines is interested, I will give him copies of these two rates setting out even the rates for a durian tree which may be removed, $30 a plant, a rambutan tree $20 a plant. We have, in fact, the whole lot here.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 1,000 acres from the junction of Bedok Road and East Coast Road to Tanjong Rhu as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore at Kranji containing an area of approximately 213 acres as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. The purpose of this reclamation, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to provide a suitable site for a sawmill estate. The reclamation will be carried out by the Economic Development Board on behalf of the Government. The reclaimed land will be large enough for about 37 sawmills. In allocating the site, the Economic De velopment Board will give preference to those sawmill operators who are displaced as a result of other public projects, in case we go into a debate on the eviction of squatter families, may I say that a survey has been made in this area and that there are only three squatter families affected - two Malays and one Chinese who are engaged in prawn pond operations. All three families have been resettled elsewhere. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore at Kranji containing an area of approximately 213 acres as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Resolved, "That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned sine die."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the shortage of time I ---

Mr Ho, for your information, the Assembly can carry on till 8.30 p.m.

It is my intention to focus the attention of this House on two important aspects of the Central Government to ban strikes which perhaps might have been missed by some Members. They may not be fully aware of the repercussions of the total ban on strikes on the trade union movement in Singapore. It is my contention, Sir, that the unprecedented action of the Central Government, apart from paralysing the infant trade union movement in the Federation, might also cause grave damage to the interest of the working class in Singapore. Hence it is my intention, Sir, to analyse in detail the seriousness of the situation and also to bring to the limelight the extent to which the Emergency Power possessed by the Central Government can be misused to choke healthy trade unionism in Singapore. It is my desire to seek a solemn assurance from the State Government in general, and the Minister for Labour in particular, that they will take all necessary steps to see that our trade union movement, which was built as a result of a series of struggle commencing from the year 1946 and which of late clearly indicated maturity, solidarity and all other essential qualities of healthy trade unionism, should not be subjected to the relentless and systematic persecution by a misguided Central Government and an equally uninformed Malaysian Labour Minister. Further ---

Order. I shall not permit any debate which touches on the Central Government. The Member will only debate the question of how far the ban affects Singapore, what relationship the ban has on Singapore and nothing more can be debated in this House which touches upon the powers of the Central Government.

I shall confine myself to that, Sir. Further, can the State Government, which has responsibilities towards its citizens, permit the Central Government to scrap the solemn Malaysia Agreement which assures autonomy in labour? Since the problem of the day involves both the Centre and the State, I wish to make some general observations in regard to the strike ban as this has direct relevance to trade unionism in Singapore. The Government in Kuala Lumpur, Sir, after initiating a series of anti-labour measures which included the outright rejection of Ungku Aziz's award, the refusal to register the M.T.U.C. under the Trade Union Ordinance and the reluctance ---

Order. Mr Ho, I have already mentioned that this motion on the adjournment must confine itself to the labour ban in so far as it affects Singapore. What the Federation Government does in the Federation is the business of the Federation, and I will not permit any discussion on that aspect of it in this Assembly. The proper place to raise that is elsewhere, not here.

Yes, Mr Speaker. I will just mention it in passing to make my point clear. In any way, I shall avoid touching on Federal matters as much as possible. Here I would like to say that the Malaysian Labour Minister did mention that even though for the present they do not extend the prohibition on strikes to Singapore, nevertheless they could and might do it if the situation warranted such an action. His statement was a complete negation of the autonomy in labour which Singapore is supposed to enjoy in the new Malaysian setup. But the Labour Minister claimed that the Emergency Powers can provide the Central Government with a legal cloak to interfere with Singapore's trade union affairs. We cannot for a moment understand how the Centre can deny autonomy in labour by invoking the Emergency powers. Once it is explicitly expressed in an agreement that there will be no interference in labour matters of the State, no government which substantially subscribed to the letter and spirit of this agreement and whose Prime Minister attested his signature to the solemn agreement can afford to ignore completely, make a roundabout turn, and attempt to choke the trade union movement in this country under some pretext or other. We do sympathise with our brothers across the Causeway for their shabby treatment from the Central Government. We are also determined to resist any attempt by the Central Government to interfere in the trade union affairs of the State. In the past the colonial masters made unsuccessful attempts to throttle the trade union movement in Singapore. The imperialists did, of course, reap good dividends which finally resulted in the elimination of colonialism in this country. And if the Central Government wants to follow in the footstep of the colonialists, I can assure it, on behalf of the workers of Singapore, that they will not stand idly by. Now, we were under the impression that Malaysia is a member of the I.L.O. and subscribes to the sacred principles of that world body. But the contradictory policy followed by the Central Government, which definitely was not in line with the I.L.O. Convention, makes one wonder whether Malaysia, like some countries we know, is out to breach its international obligation. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the leaders of this nation, who have expressed the desire to see that the country does not fall prey to Communism, are now creating conditions which will provide opportunities for exploitation by anti-democratic elements. We hope, Sir, that even at this late hour the Central Government will reassess their policy in labour matters and permit the trade union movement to function efficiently and effectively, and also state in categorical terms that they have no intention whatsoever of interfering in trade union affairs in Singapore and that they will always uphold the Malaysia Agreement which guarantees full labour autonomy for Singapore. Now, turning to the State Government, we are quite eager to know what they have done so far to clarify the situation with the Central Government, and also to seek an assurance from the Centre that labour autonomy will not be discarded by extending the Emergency Powers to Singapore. The State, I am sure, is fully aware that today in Singapore there exists a mature and responsible trade union movement which definitely has the interest of Malaysians at heart. Further, strike for strike's sake has never been our motto, and every industrial action we take is essentially governed by the necessity to safeguard the interests of the workers. The establishment of the Arbitration Court has smoothed relations between the employer and the unions, and today industrial relations in Singapore can be favourably compared to those of some of the more mature democracies elsewhere. Any extension of the Emergency Powers of the Central Government to Singapore wiil only turn the clock back, frustrate labour and finally strike at the very root of healthy unionism in Singapore. Thus it is the responsibility of the State Government to see that the present trend continues in this State and that the Central Government is not allowed to extend its strong-arm tactics to create inroads into the many basic benefits enjoyed by the trade union movement in Singapore. We request the State Government not to remain indolent but to take this matter up immediately witl1 the Centre and acquire the necessary assurance, so that the workers here can continue to build constructive and responsible trade unionism in peace. Otherwise we may have to dissipate our energies and resources to the defence of the basic rights of trade unionism which, until now, have not been challenged or endangered. We hope and earnestly pray that such a situation will not arise. Nevertheless, let me give a strong warning to those who are out to destroy trade unionism in Malaysia, for ultimately it is not trade unionism but they who will get the worse of the struggle. 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. The motion for adjournment has lapsed. Mr Rajaratnam, will you move another motion for adjournment? Thereupon, we can then proceed up to 8.30.

Mr Speaker, I move, That the House do now adjourn. Question again proposed.

Everyone throughout the world knows that all those who wage war against organised labour have to retreat, mauled and beaten, simply because in all societies the workers constitute the majority of people, and in a democratic society the will and interest of the majority invariably prevails.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Bras Basah for enabling me to have this opportunity to state categorically once again that we do not allow the Central Government to infringe on our autonomous rights in Labour and Education. We have no use for emergency powers to deal with our labour problems. The Member for Bras Basah, who is also the Chairman of the National Trades Union Congress, has expressed the concern of workers over the ban on strikes most forcefully and sincerely. This ban is totally unwarranted even though the country is facing aggression from Indonesia. That we have to defend our country no one denies. But is the situation such that the fundamental democratic rights of workers to strike should be one of the first to be axed? Even in the darkest days of the Emergency, when the Communists were wrecking havoc throughout the country. the colonial government of the time did not see any reason for taking such drastic action. Any action which denies the right of workers to strike uproots the very foundation of a trade union, for without this fundamental right, a trade union might as well cease to exist. The Singapore Government wants it to be known that it will seriously uphold what the Constitution says in the field of autonomy in Labour and Education. We will therefore not permit the Central Government or anyone else to violate our constitutional rights, emergency or no emergency. The two regulations promulgated by the Central Government apply throughout Malaysia, which means that the Singapore workers will be equally affected as their counterparts elsewhere in Malaysia. If, however, these regulations are used by the Central Government to nullify what the Constitution guarantees us, then we will have no alternative but to seek the unanimous support of this House to condemn the Central Government for violation of the very Constitution to which it is a party. Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to say that we were not consulted before the essential regulations were promulgated. On the afternoon of the 13th of May, 1965, a telephone call came through from the Secretary for Labour, Kuala Lumpur, to my Permanent Secretary. He was informed that the Central Government Minister for Labour was about to announce in the next few minutes at a meeting of employers and trade unionists the promulgation of these regulations which were to be brought into force the following day. I immediately contacted the Federal Minister for Labour by telephone and asked him whether the regulations applied to Singapore. He assured me that the Central Government had no intention to interfere with labour matters in Singapore. To clarify this, I issued a Press statement the next day to the effect that the Singapore Government did not intend to resort to Emergency Powers to resolve our labour disputes. because our present laws were adequate to deal with that situation. These two regulations were received by us only on the 17th of May, 1965. We then asked our legal officers to study the implications of these regulations and their conclusions were that the regulations were applicable to Singapore. On the 21st of May, 1965, however, my counterpart in the Central Government stated publicly that though the Central Government had no intention to interfere with our labour matters, we were legally bound by the essential regulations. Here we have an apparent contradiction between the utterances of a Central Government Minister and the expressed regulations. We do not know how the intentions of a Minister and legality can be reconciled. If we are legally bound, then it is the law which must prevail and not the intention. If the intention is to prevail, then I say it must be legally spelt out. So to back up their public statement, the most sensible thing for them to do would be to amend the regulations to exclude Singapore from the operation of these regulations. In answer to the query by the Member for Brash Basah as to what we have done to clarify the situation, we can say that immediately after we obtained legal opinion on the regulations, we wrote to the Central Government requesting them to amend the regulations to exclude Singapore from the operation of these regulations. We are still awaiting a reply from them. We sincerely hope that they are wise enough to accept our request. They have already made a mess of their industrial relations and we do not want them to pull us into the mess. It serves them no benefit at all to try to interfere with labour matters in Singapore. If they persist in doing it, then they will only gain the bitterness and hatred of the workers of Singapore, as they have already done so in the Federation. I must assure the Member for Bras Basah that the Singapore Government will not shirk its responsibilities to the workers and will ensure that democratic trade unions can always function freely within the State. The Malaysia Constitution clearly states that Labour and Education are autonomous. It was on that condition that we joined Malaysia. It was on that condition that we conceded to 15 seats in the Parliament. If they violate that condition, then they cannot blame us for seeking new arrangements or for asking for more seats in Parliament. There is no need for these essential regulations to apply in Singapore and, for that matter, in the whole of the Federation, because our Industrial Relations Ordinance, a child of labour, employers and governments, has worked successfully in reducing strikes and effecting settlement of disputes without banning the right of unions to strike. This machinery exists in Singapore, and it is this type of machinery that will answer the industrial programmes of our times.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Eight o'clock p.m. sine die.

Wednesday, 16th June, 1965

Dr Goh Keng Swee, pursuant to his written answer to the following question on 18th November, 1964 (Official Report, 18th November, 1964, Vol. 23, No. 9, Column 765): "Mr Ong Eng Guan 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.", subsequently supplied the following information:- APPENDIX TO WRITTEN ANSWER(Pages 1 - 12) ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS AT SITTINGS OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SELECT COMMITTEES(Cols 0897-0904)