Hansard, 1965-12-30

I have to report that on the 28th day of December, 1965, the President of the Republic of Singapore assented to the following Bills: -

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether there is a scheme, or if he will give early consideration to one, for the laying of public sewers in the Upper Serangoon Constituency to provide sewerage facilities to the densely populated suburb of Upper Serangoon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no immediate scheme to construct public sewers in the Upper Serangoon Constituency, as other schemes have been given higher priority. In the next Five-Year Development Plan 1966-70, there is a scheme to provide for the sewer mains, which now come up only to the junction of Bartley and Braddell Roads, to be extended towards the Braddell Road and Upper Serangoon area. When extended, it will be possible for the densely populated suburb of Upper Serangoon to be served with sewerage facilities.

2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last few days after the introduction of the National Registration Bill in Parliament on the 13th of December, 1965, much public concern has been expressed by the Backbenchers and through the Press over a provision in the National Registration Act - that an unnamed birth certificate supported by a statutory declaration shall not necessarily be sufficient evidence for the purpose of establishing Singapore citizenship by birth. The Registry of Persons has been besieged with inquiries as regards the citizenship status of persons holding unnamed birth certificates. The Government wishes to make it clear that this provision in the Act is designed to debar people who were actually not born in Singapore but who claim birth here by using unnamed birth certificates not belonging to them. The Government appreciates the fact that there are many people who were born in Singapore but whose names had not been entered on their birth certificates either through the ignorance of their parents or through the tardiness of the colonial registration authorities. As far as those who were, in fact, born in Singapore and holding unnamed birth certificates are concerned, there need be no worry over this provision in the Act. I would like to announce the Government's policy which is that a person who holds an unnamed birth certificate and has a Singapore identity card issued in 1949 or earlier, stating that his place of birth is Singapore, is presumed to be a Singapore citizen by birth. There is, therefore, no cause for anxiety by persons whose identity cards issued in 1949 or earlier stated that they were born in Singapore. They need not rush to the Citizenship Registry to have their citizenship status verified. They can apply for the new plastic laminated identity cards when their turn comes. All those of 12 years of age in 1949 must have taken identity cards as required by the law then. In other words, all those now over 28 years, i.e. 12 years at 1949 plus 16 years, that is 16 years since 1949 to 1965, have their proof in their identity cards. There are persons born in Singapore who attained the age of 12 after 1949. In such cases their birth certificates, whether named or unnamed, have an endorsement on them by the Registry of Persons when they obtained their identity cards. This endorsement shows their present identity card number. When such persons produce their birth certificates together with their present identity cards for re-registration, they will be accepted as Singapore citizens by birth and will be given a Singapore citizen plastic laminated identity card. Further, any person who holds an unnamed birth certificate together with a statutory declaration made by one of his parents can always prove his Singapore citizenship by birth by other supporting documents such as:-

If Members are in any doubt, they may ask the Minister any question arising from that statement.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister in one part of his statement mentioned people without names in their birth certificates. The parents may have taken out statutory declarations regarding such persons and those will be accepted as proof. But there are instances where parents of certain children give away their children in adoption. Sometimes the adoption certificates are in order and sometimes they are not. Sometimes the natural parents of the children may unfortunately be dead. Now, these children may be about 17 or 18 years old. Therefore, their guardian ---

Order. I have indicated to the House that Members may ask questions on the statement, but not make a speech. If the Member will come to his question? Perhaps he is coming to his question!

(In Tamil): My question is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Those children who have not been given away properly in adoption, if their natural parents are deceased, can their guardians, who are looking after them now, submit statutory declarations in order to get these accepted as valid proof of birth?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained earlier that the birth certificates of those who were born after 1949 - whether named or unnamed - will be endorsed by the Registry of Persons when they apply for identity cards. These birth certificates will be accepted as proof of citizenship.

The Member's question is if the child was born before 1949.

Well, if he was born before 1949. I think the legal parent should be allowed to give a statutory declaration on that.

Resolved, "That, under Standing Order 10 (2) , the Bills as stated in the Order Paper be proceeded with before the debate in the Committee of Supply." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Order for Second Reading read. 2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance. In consequence of the independence of Singapore and its ceasing to be a part of Malaysia, the powers of the Federal Minister are transferred to the Singapore Minister under this Bill. The Bill also provides for an increase in the number of members of the Telephone Board, other than the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, from three persons to five. It is considered that the business of the Board warrants an enlarged membership and this will enable more persons to participate in the activities of statutory bodies. The limit of six per cent interest on stocks and shares issued by the Board has been removed, and the Board is now given discretion to pay such rate of interest as the state of the undertakings and the financial position of the Board warrants. Of course, it is the hope of the Government that this clause will enable the Board to pay a rate of interest higher than six per cent. The opportunity has also been taken to put back in the Ordinance the general power to the Board to acquire land. This provision was deleted from the Ordinance by the Modification of Laws Telecommunications (Extension and Modification) Order, 1964, dated 9th December, 1964, because a substantially similar provision existed in Chapter 4 of Part VI of the Federal Constitution to enable the Board to acquire land. There are a number of other consequential amendments in the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, this Bill provides that powers be taken from the Federal Minister concerning the activities of the Telephone Board. Before Malaysia, a workers' representative was a member of the Singapore Telephone Board. When Singapore became part of Malaysia and the powers transferred to the Malaysian Telecommunications Minister, the workers' representative did not sit on the Board. I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether workers' representatives or Telephone Board employees will now be allowed to be members of the Telephone Board in order to look after the welfare of the workers and to ---

Order; whether as an employee of the Board, or a member of the Board. If the latter is the question, he is in order; but if he is talking of something else, then he is not in order on this Bill on the Second Reading.

(In Malay): What I mean, Mr Speaker, its workers' representatives sit on the Telephone Board. In the past, Mr Speaker, a workers' representative was a member of the Board. When this Bill becomes law and the powers are reverted to the Deputy Prime Minister, will he appoint workers' representatives to sit on the Singapore Telephone Board, as this is necessary to look after the interests of the workers and continue the good relationship between employer and employee?

Mr Speaker, I will bear in mind what the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said about appointing a workers' representative on the Singapore Telephone Board. In fact, in the past it was my practice to see that there was a member from one of the unions, or at least somebody who was a worker who was also a member of the Board. In fact, this Bill by providing for an increase in the membership of the Board will enable me to so appoint.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." On 23rd December this year I introduced the Army Bill which provides for the establishment of a full-time armed force for the State of Singapore. I then mentioned the additional need to have a part-time fighting force which would be an essential part of our Armed Forces. This Bill provides for the establishment and maintenance of a volunteer force to be known as the "People's Defence Force". Sir, we are a small nation and our financial resources are limited. We therefore cannot afford to raise and maintain large defence forces on a permanent basis. The regular army will have to be complemented by a volunteer force. The People's Defence Force will call upon our young men and women to serve their country and undergo military training without seriously interfering with their normal lives. The training they receive will not only prepare them for the part that they will take beside our regular Army but also provide them with the necessary disciplines and skills required in the task of nation-building. Sir, to come now to the specific provisions of the Bill. Part II provides for the raising and maintenance of the People's Defence Force. The Force will be divided into corps, regiments, services and departments. Provision is also made for the disbandment or amalgamation of one or more such units. The enlistment into the Force is open to Singapore citizens of 18 years of age and above who are medically fit. Boys between the ages of 14 and 17 years may be enlisted as drummer boys and band boys in the Force. With regard to discipline, the provisions of Parts IV, VII and VIII of the Army Act will apply to members of the People's Defence Force. Provision is also made in Part II of this Bill for the President to commission officers of the Force. Part III deals with Colour Training Service of members of the Force. No member of the Force shall be required to attend at weekly parades for a total of more than 20 hours in one month or at continuous training for more than 16 days in any one year. Every member of the Force shall be required to perform Colour Training for a period of three years. The Bill also includes provision for members of the Force performing Colour Training and their dependants to be entitled to receive pensions and gratuities in respect of injury or death resulting from such Colour Training Service. A member of the Force performing Colour Training Service may be released from the Force on his giving three months' notice of his desire to do so. Certain offences are provided for in clause 25 to which a member of the Force is subject when he is not attached to any unit of the Singapore Armed Forces. Part IV of the Bill provides for a Reserve composed of Volunteers and National Servicemen. The President is empowered to recall by Proclamation all or any part of the Reserve to Colour Training Service at any time. Members of the Reserve may also be called up for mobilised service. Service in the Reserve shall be limited to a minimum period of seven years after which a person can resign on giving three months' notice. Under Part V, the President is empowered to call out all or any part of the Force for mobilised service. Members of the Force who are called up for mobilised service and their dependants are eligible for pensions and gratuities for injury or death resulting from such service. Members of the Force, when mobilised, will be subject to the provisions of the Army Act with regard to discipline. During a state of war, the President may direct that members of the Force may be attached to the Singapore Armed Forces or the armed forces of any Commonwealth country. Part VI of the Bill provides for a University Training Corps and a Cadet Corps, and any such Corps may, with the concurrence of the President, be attached to the Singapore Armed Forces. The President is empowered to commission members of the University Training Corps and of the Cadet Corps. Clause 60 provides for the establishment of the "People's Defence Force Benevolent Fund" which, as the name implies, will be administered for the benefit of members of the Force by a person appointed by the Minister. 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 House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill has been under consideration for a long time and its provisions have been considered in detail by the Muslim Advisory Board and copies of the Bill have been sent to a number of Muslim bodies in Singapore. The comments which have been received on its provisions have been considered by the Muslim Advisory Board and the present draft incorporates the suggestions which have been considered reasonable and in keeping with the scheme and purpose of the Bill. The Bill in the main follows the legislation in the States of Malaya, which have tended to follow the model set by the Administration of Muslim Law Enactment of Selangor in 1952. The Bill, however, incorporates the provisions which were designed to control the exercise of the right of divorce and the permission of polygamy which were first introduced in Singapore, and which have, I am happy to say, been followed in recent legislation in the States of Malaya, notably in Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Perlis. Part II of the Bill constitutes a Majlis Ugama Islam or a Council of Muslim Religion to advise the President in matters relating to the Muslim religion. The Majlis, unlike the present Muslim Advisory Board, will have certain executive powers in issuing rulings on Muslim law and the administration of Muslim Charities and will be a corporation, with power to hold property and to sue and be sued. Part III of the Bill in the main reenacts the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957. It is sought to give power to the Shariah Court to deal with cases where the parties were married under the Muslim law but where one or both of the parties have ceased to be Muslims (clause 35). At present there is no provision whereby a party to such a marriage can obtain a divorce, for example, as the Shariah Court has only jurisdiction in cases where all the parties are Muslims and the High Court has no jurisdiction in the case of Muslim marriages. It is expressly provided, to remove all doubts, that the Shariah Court will apply the Muslim law, as varied by Malay custom, that is, clause 35 (2) . Provision is made for representation by authorised agents (clause 38) and for reciprocal arrangements for the service of summonses in the States of Malaysia (clause 41). Clauses 47 to 49 of the Bill clarify the law relating to applications for divorce by a married woman, and clause 49 sets out the grounds on which a married woman can apply to the Court for judicial divorce on fasakh. The provisions relating to the appointments of arbitrators in marriage disputes has been strengthened by giving power to the Shariah Court, where the arbitrators originally appointed are unable to reach agreement, to appoint other arbitrators or hakam with power in appropriate cases to effect a divorce (clause 50). Power is given to the Shariah Court to order payment of maintenance beyond the period of eddah, if the Court is satisfied that it is fit and proper to do so. That is in clause 52. Part IV of the Bill deals with the financial powers of the Council of Muslim Religion and in particular it establishes a General Endowment Fund. Hitherto there was no such fund in Singapore and there was therefore no central organisation which could deal with Muslim charitable trusts. Some Muslim endowments are at present administered by the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board but the majority are administered by private trustees. Provision is made in the Bill for the vesting of Muslim religious trusts in the Majlis and the manner in which the incomes of Muslim religious endowments are to be applied. The Majlis is also empowered, with the approval of the President, to collect zakat and fitrah. Part V of the Bill deals with mosques of which the Majlis is to be the sole trustee with powers to control the erection of new mosques and with duties to keep existing mosques in good order and repair. Power is given to the Majlis to appoint committees of management for mosques and also to appoint officials. It is the hope of the Government that in this way the Imams and other officials of the mosques will have a better status and position in society and that the mosques will be able to be the focus of Muslim activities in the various districts and parts of Singapore. Provision is also made for the registration and supervision of Muslim religious schools. Part VI deals with matters relating to marriages and divorces and re-enacts with amendments the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957. It is proposed that the powers at present exercisable by the Chief Kathi should be exercised by the Kathis attached to the Shariah Court. Provision is made for the appointment of Naib Kathis who will be mainly concerned with the solemnisation and registration of marriages, to which the guardians or walis have consented. Where the woman has no wali or guardian, or where the wali or guardian refuses his consent to the marriage, the marriage may be solemnised and registered by the Kathis attached to the Shariah Court. All divorces will similarly be dealt with by the Kathis in the Shariah Court. There are at present two Kathis attached to the Shariah Court, and if the need arises, additional Kathis will be appointed. It is proposed that the imams of mosques in Singapore should be appointed Naib Kathis. The Bill seeks to lay down the age of 15 years as the minimum age of marriage for Muslims, but power is given to the Kathi to approve a marriage in special cases, where the girl has attained puberty. In view of the hardship that can be caused in cases where the man divorces the woman by three talak, it is proposed that such cases should be referred to the Shariah Court, so that the Shariah Court can be satisfied that the interests of all parties are adequately safeguarded. Part VII deals with property and in the main re-enacts the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance. 1957. One major change is the provision that the Muslim law shall apply to dispositions by will by Muslims. The effect will be that a Muslim can only freely dispose of one-third of his property by will; the balance must be distributed to the persons entitled to take an intestacy. Part VIII of the Bill deals with conversion. Power is given to make rules to provide for the procedure for conversion and the Majlis is required to maintain a register of converts. Part IX deals with offences relating to marriage and divorce. It does not go to the extent of punishing offences against the Muslim religion, as in the States of Malaya, but clause 130 provides for the punishment of persons who cohabit and live with another person outside marriage. The Bill also provides for the control of Muslim religious lectures so as to ensure that such lectures are not used for political or communal propaganda or to advocate teachings or doctrines which are repugnant to the teachings of Islam. Part X deals with miscellaneous matters and gives power to make rules. The Comparative Table attached to the Bill shows that many of the provisions of the Bill follow similar provisions in the corresponding enactments in Selangor, Pahang and Penang which are, however, merely cited as examples. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this Bill is, in your opinion, a hybrid Bill, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 64, I beg to move, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill now before Parliament envisages two major changes of substance to the existing Property Tax Ordinance. Section 2 of the Ordinance defines "annual value" and gives the Chief Assessor the option of adopting as an annual value a sum equal to five per cent of the capital value of the property in certain circumstances. But in the operation of the Ordinance, it has been found that the provision is not adequate to cover all cases. Under the existing law, the option applies where buildings are erected on land and also where the land is vacant. There has been doubt as to whether the option applies while buildings are in the course of construction and some litigation has already resulted from this doubt. The amendment will make it clear beyond doubt that the Chief Assessor may adopt an annual value of five per cent of the capital value of any property whether vacant land, land with buildings erected thereon, or land with buildings being erected thereon. The Bill also clarifies the power of the Chief Assessor in respect of land appurtenant to any house or other building in excess of the quantity fixed by the Controller so that five per cent of the capital value may be adopted as the annual value of such excess land. There is no definition of "building" in the Ordinance at the present time, and one of the amendments made by clause 2 is the inclusion of a definition. This, apart from its usefulness in regard to buildings and structures generally, specifically provides for the inclusion of items like underground and overground tanks and oil refineries. Section 16 of the existing Ordinance does not require property-owners to give notice to the Chief Assessor when rentals are increased. The amendment Bill will place the onus on the owner to inform the Chief Assessor of instances where rentals are increased. Such notice will also be required when renting vacant land. The proposed amendment to section 17 is to empower the Chief Assessor to increase the annual value of properties taking account of the increases in land value in the recent years, especially in those cases where the annual value bears little relationship to the price at which the property changes hands. As the Ordinance now stands, the Chief Assessor may amend the annual valuation list during the year in which it is operative where there is an inaccuracy in a material particular. However, the Ordinance does not define what constitutes an inaccuracy in a material particular. An amendment will clarify the circumstances under which the Chief Assessor may amend the existing valuation list and spell out in detail the circumstances in which the annual valuation list may be amended. As any vendor or transferer of property remains liable to tax until notice is given, provision is being made under section 16 that he should give notice of transfer instead of the purchaser as provided for at present. Under the existing Ordinance, the maximum limit for fines imposed for failure to give notice of transfer of property is raised from $500 to $5,000. The present limit is considered inadequate to cover certain cases; for example where the transfer of property with a low annual value is not notified over a long period and a permanent savings from additional tax may well exceed $500. Other amendments are either consequential, necessitated by separation from Malaysia, and they take account of Singapore's position as a sovereign independent Republic, or are matters of terminology or procedure to improve the administration of the law. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House 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.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Bill is to make certain amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960. As hon. Members are aware, the Industrial Relations Ordinance was enacted five years ago as one of the chief measures in the promotion of the Government's policy of industrial peace with justice. Ever since then, the Government has kept a careful watch on its operation to see whether it could be improved. Accordingly, a number of amendments were made to it in 1962, the most important of which was the setting up of the Second Industrial Arbitration Court. However, in the light of experience gained since then, it has become apparent that the Ordinance could be improved further in order to make it a more efficient instrument in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, that is to say, in the preservation of industrial peace. The amendments which are embodied in this Bill have, therefore, been made with this end in view. These amendments are the results of several months' hard work of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, the representatives of the N.T.U.C., the representatives from the Singapore Employers' Federation, and officials in my Ministry, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their contributions to this Bill. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the principal changes. Clause 5 reduces the period of the appointment of a panel member from three years to one year. Although there are ten members on each of the two panels, in practice the burden of constituting the Court has fallen on only a few of them, as employers and trade unions of employees who are parties to trade disputes have invariably restricted their choice to these few. The proposed amendments will help to remove this tendency by enabling the Minister to replace any panel members who are seldom selected to constitute the Court. Clauses 8 and 23 introduce new provisions on union recognition, because it has been found that one of the major causes of a trade dispute has been over this matter. Experience has shown that the existing provisions of the Ordinance are inadequate for dealing with this area of dispute between employers and trade unions of employees. The purpose of the amendment is to remedy this situation. It is provided inter alia, as a basic pre-condition for opening negotiations for collective agreements, that a trade union of employees must first be recognised by the employer in the prescribed manner. Clause 11 deals with the certification of collective agreements by the Court. At present, if the parties to a collective agreement do not agree to alter or amend the agreement in accordance with the suggestions of the Court, the Court has no power to alter or amend the agreement and certifies it. This state of affairs is unsatisfactory in that until the parties agree to amend the agreement as directed by the Court, there is no binding agreement. Therefore, this clause empowers the Court to amend and certify a collective agreement where the parties refuse to do so on the direction of the Court. Clauses 12 and 16 expressly stipulate inter alia that a collective agreement or an award is binding on the successor to a trade union. Under the Ordinance at present, a collective agreement or an award is binding on the successor to the business of an employer but not on the successor to a trade union. The proposed amendment remedies this anomaly. Clause 15 seeks to remove the conflict between section 16 and section 35 (4) of the Ordinance. At present, when a union serves a notice under section 16 for negotiations on a new collective agreement on the expiry of the old one, the employer is at liberty to apply to the Court under section 35 (4) for an order extending the old collective agreement. The Court in dealing with such application of an employer has no power to take cognisance of the notice served under section 16. The proposed amendment empowers the Court to take cognisance of and to deal with both the proposers for a collective agreement and the application for extension of an award under section 35 (4) if the parties do not reach agreement on their own within a specific period. To remove any ambiguity that may exist with regard to the power of the Court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee, it is expressly provided in clauses 17 and 21 that in making an award, the Court is empowered to take into consideration matters relating to the dismissal or reinstatement of an employee or class of employees and to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee or grant any suitable relief as it may consider desirable. Clause 22 provides that the Commissioner for Labour may authorise a public officer to carry out investigations of complaints in respect of offences under the Ordinance and it sets out the powers of such officer. This has been done to ensure that speedy action is taken to investigate every complaint and to prosecute any offender if the investigation shows that the complaint is well founded. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The time is getting on to 3.30 p.m. which is Supply Time, and all other business must come to an end at 3.30 p.m. I take it that the deliberations on this Bill will be pursued after the resolution of the Committee of Supply, Mr Jek?

Yes

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

3.30 p.m.

Singapore Development Estimates for the year 1966 as contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1965. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the third column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 7 of the Paper. Dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head D 01 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 001.

Before the Member goes any further, for the guidance of Members, I must inform the House that the debate on these Development Estimates will proceed not on the basis which was proceeded on the Estimates which have been previously discussed, but purely on the basis of development and principles concerning development and on no other basis. I hope the House understands that - no questions of Government policy with regard to the Main Estimates can be brought up again. I hope I have made myself quite clear.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to inform Members of this House that the hangar, for which the House is asked to approve a sum of $100,000 to convert it into a cargo complex, is not just an ordinary hangar made of steel girders and corrugated asbestos. It is a hangar which has got a history, and if it were by any chance a human being and member of the civil service, it could credit itself with reasonably long service, for it was dismantled and transferred from the old Kallang Airport in 1957 to its present site. Ever since then, officials in the Department of Civil Aviation have not made up their minds as to what is to be housed in it. They have been very fortunate in having a building up their sleeve to produce whenever someone wants some hangar space at the Airport. I think we have had badminton played in the hangar and parties held in it. There used to be cars parked in it; and the Airport Manager stole a march on the Ministry of National Development by charging each car owner $10 per month for the use of the parking space. Today the hangar is used as a garage by one airline and for varying reasons by other airlines. It would appear that the Department of Civil Aviation is now waking up to the fact that this hangar can be used for something worth while. What I cannot understand is why it has taken so long for them to realise this. What was done during the two years when we were in Malaysia? Did the D.C.A. at that time attempt to improve the facilities at the Airport for storage of cargo? Or did he think that, as there was a $50 million Airport at Subang, there was sufficient cargo space and that, as far as Singapore Airport was concerned, it could develop into a second-class Airport? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister the short-sightedness in respect of the future development of the Airport. The Deputy Prime Minister himself has said that more people come to and pass through Singapore by air than by any other means of transportation. Statistics also show that the volume of air cargo has increased year by year. I would ask him to look carefully into the question of converting this hangar into a cargo complex which, in my opinion, will be totally inadequate in a very short space of time. If we are planning for the future, then we should look into the question of building a cargo terminal instead of spending money on a project which would only serve our needs temporarily. Finally, as a matter of interest, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many airlines will be taking up space in this new cargo complex.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add a few words to this item. I think consideration should be given as to whether there is justification in spending $100,000 now, and possibly at a later stage the House would be asked to approve another $100,000 for the plan cost. I understand that at the present moment the hangar is being occupied by certain airlines as a cargo complex. Even if a conversion is made, it is not going to satisfy present and future needs as a cargo complex. With the present trend in air cargo, as I understand it, larger planes with palletised loading are due in Singapore Airport early next year. And definitely with this trend in cargo movement, there is no justification in spending this money because it will be totally inadequate for the needs of the airline operators. Therefore, I think, in the interest of long-term planning, a new cargo terminal would best be considered.

Mr Speaker, I am surprised to learn that Hangar No. 4 has a very varied history - that it has been used in the past as a badminton stadium, an arena for parties and get-togethers, and last but not least, as a car park! Nevertheless, I think we would like to leave the history of Hangar No. 4 in history. I would like to inform the House, however, that the reason why it is intended to convert this hangar into a cargo complex is simply that it has been found that the present facilities for storing air cargo elsewhere are not adequate. However, the demand for cargo space at the Airport is not as great as the Member for Serangoon Gardens or the Member for River Valley would suggest. In fact, I am told that in the first year of operation of the Airport at Paya Lebar, which was opened in 1955, a total of 5 million kilograms of air freight was handled. Barely nine years later, in 1964, this figure had increased to only 6 million kilograms. Well, an increase of one million kilograms in the space of nine years is pretty slow. So we would not anticipate that in the next five years the volume of cargo would increase so rapidly that a completely new cargo handling complex would be needed. Nevertheless, it would be necessary at this stage to put Hangar No. 4 to better use than it was in the past; hence this request that a sum of $100,000 be allocated to convert this hangar into a cargo complex. This will be quite adequate for the cargo that would be envisaged for probably the next five years. I have no knowledge how many airlines have applied for cargo space in the proposed new cargo complex, but presumably airline operators will put forward their request to the Department of Civil Aviation when they feel that there is a necessity to increase the space for air cargo.

Does the Member for Serangoon Gardens wish to proceed, in view of the explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 004. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know how many people share my views that an International Airport could be a showpiece of the country, but I feel that the Deputy Prime Minister will agree with me that Singapore Airport could be the showpiece of Singapore. However, in order that it could acquire this reputation, there has to be efficiency at the Airport. And the one place where there has to be efficiency is in the ticketing area. It does not do us any good to have people say that they have had to wait for hours before getting their baggage cleared and tickets checked. The airlines themselves are responsible for getting their passengers cleared, but they can only do this if they are offered the facilities. Extension of Ticketing Offices is one of these facilities, but I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he could let us know whether these extensions are to be made to all offices, or are they for offices of airlines which have recently started operating in Singapore? Sir, it looks as if the question of future expansion of the Airport Terminal was completely forgotten when the Airport was planned, as was the requirement for other facilities at the Airport. Why is it that we have to knock down V.I.P. car parks to provide room for extra office space, not that V.I.P. car parks are absolutely necessary? The next thing that we will have to do without would probably be the V.I.P. room itself. This House recently approved a sum of $42,500 to provide for additional office space. What we will have to spend next is a question no one can answer, except probably the architect who made such a mess at the Airport. 3.45 p.m. Sir, as more and more people use the Airport every year, there will come a time when the present terminal building will be considered inadequate. It is therefore very important that the Department of Civil Aviation should look carefully into the question and plan an expansion programme that will see us through for the next 15 years instead of the next 15 months. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister could also investigate to assure himself that the Department of Civil Aviation is capable of drawing up a programme that will serve our needs for the future.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 004." I would like to remind Members that the deadline on this is 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this item of the Extension of Ticketing Offices on which a vote of $82,500 is being sought for, I would like to draw the attention of the House and also of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Federal Development Estimates of 1965 in which a sum of $82,500 has been approved in respect of the conversion of the V.I.P. car-park into office space. And then earlier on in this Session, in Cmd. Paper 24 of 1965 a vote of $42,500 has been approved for the conversion of the V.I.P. car-park into office space. And here again in the Development Estimates, a further sum of $82,500 has been requested for the extension of Ticketing Offices. I just want to seek clarification as to whether all these are in respect of one and the same item.

I will answer the Member for River Valley first. I must inform the House that the Development Estimates for Civil Aviation were worked out when the department was under the charge of the Central Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, and they were submitted to the Treasury at the beginning of this year. So when we became independent in August, these were automatically included in the Development Estimates for next year. I have not had the opportunity to study all of them in detail. However, it would appear to me that the intention is the same, that is, to extend the Ticketing Offices into the area now occupied by the V.I.P. garage. As to why there are two separate sums asked for, I would not know, unless the sum of money asked for in the Supplementary Estimates is to be spent on work that is already in progress or has been completed and that the sum of money in the Development Estimates is to be spent next year. Nevertheless, I promise the Member that I shall look into this matter. I will only say that when the new Airport Terminal Building was designed, all commercial airline operators were consulted on their requirements and, in fact, a long series of meetings were held with them in order to draw up a plan which would satisfy their needs. In fact, if there has been any shortsightedness at all on the planning of the ticketing area, then it must also be partly the responsibility of the airline operators themselves. In fact, I would say the worst offender is Malaysian Airways. When I urged them to apply for space in the present airline ticketing area, their reply to me was that it was not necessary, they were not going to do so, they were going to use the town office which was quite adequate, and furthermore they were not going to use the new passenger terminal building and they were going to disembark their passengers and operate from the old terminal building in Paya Lebar. It was only after all available space had been allocated to other airline operators and the new terminal building was proving to be a hive of activity that Malaysian Airways finally regretted its shortsightedness and hastily applied for space in the ticketing area and also elsewhere in the new terminal building. Frankly, if there are any complaints which any airline operator wishes to raise on this matter, then I must say that they have hardly any cause to do so, because they cannot deny that they were consulted on this matter. In fact, sometimes I regret indeed that Malaysian Airways is our national carrier. If it were a foreign carrier and it does this sort of thing to the Civil Aviation Department, I would have just put it out. But preferential treatment has been given to Malaysian Airways. We have bent backwards in order to meet their needs. And I think they are sometimes unappreciative of these efforts. And if there are passengers who complain that they have to wait for a long time to get their tickets checked and collect their baggage, then I will again point my finger squarely at those members of the staff of commercial airline companies which have been slow in doing their job. I do not see how the Civil Aviation Department officials come into the picture at all. And if there is a fuss to be kicked up by the public, I would say that it be aimed at the airline company on whose tickets they are travelling. Certainly, I would advise all airline operators, including Malaysian Airways, that they should pull up their socks and see that their staff get down to work in a prim and proper way so that they will maintain a good image and their passengers will be satisfied. 3.50 p.m.

Time is up. Does the Member wish to withdraw?

I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head D 01 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the name of Mr Lim Cheng Lock, were not proceeded with: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 015. That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $100. The sum of $6,946,310 for Head D 01 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 02 -

Head D 02. I draw the Minister's attention to page 7 of the Summary of Expenditure where his Ministry is described as the Ministry of Defence and Internal Security and to page 14 where it is described as the Ministry of Interior and Defence. Which is the correct designation - Ministry of Defence and Internal Security or Ministry of Interior and Defence?

Ministry of Interior and Defence.

I thought so. So it is Ministry of Interior and Defence. Then the heading will be Ministry of Interior and Defence. Head D 02 - Ministry of Interior and Defence. Amendment (1)* standing in the name of Mr Teong Eng Siong. Mr, Teong. * Amendment (1) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 02 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 001.

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

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 02 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 002. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Development Estimates, there is provision for the building of a holiday camp for the national workers who took part in the struggle to defeat the anti-national elements led by the Barisan Sosialis whose allegiance is to a country outside the Republic of Singapore. What has happened, and what is going to happen to the workers' holiday camp which was proposed to be sited at Changi Beach and which is now being used by the Fisheries Department? If there is provision for a workers' holiday camp, it should be administered by the N.T.U.C. which can look into the question of applications for the use of the holiday camp by national workers who have dedicated themselves in the past, and who will continue to do so, in order to strengthen the workers' organisation, to the task of nation-building with disciplined workers. The use of existing and future holiday camps should be properly supervised to prevent undesirable elements from poisoning the minds of our people who desire to build a multi-racial society and live in peace and prosperity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these holiday camps are established mainly for the purpose of the have-nots, i.e., the working class. We know that the haves, i.e., the well-to-do, have their own facilities for weekends and holidays. So due to lack of amenities in the past for the working class, the Government has established holiday camps in the island for the use of the majority of the working class. There is no necessity to establish a special camp for the use of the N.T.U.C. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the records, it is observed that many unions have made use of these camps in the past. 4.00 p.m. With regard to the point that strict supervision should be exercised when applications for the use of the camps are made, I can assure the Member for Kampong Kapor that every step has been taken to see that whoever uses the holiday camp is a bona fide case.

(In Malay): I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Cheng Lock --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 02 be reduced by $100.+

Amendment No. (3)+ in the name of Mr Lim Cheng Lock.

I am not moving. The sum of $16,253,000 for Head D 02 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 03 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 03 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 001. Sir, I would like to urge that the plan to build an Adult Education Centre be speeded up, and that the Government should not be unprepared to increase the sum allocated for the Centre should the proposed $1.5 million be found to be inadequate to meet the actual requirements. Since its inception in April 1960, the Adult Education Board has developed itself to such an extent that it has been regarded as an indispensable quasi-government body that provides an invaluable service to the community. In the last five years, the Adult Education Board has developed a system of adult education that is impressive by Asian standards. This programme includes literacy and language classes, a primary and secondary educational system up to and including pre-university classes, commercial education, classes to assist adults preparing for overseas Professional Examinations, public forums, and a wide range of recreational and vocational courses arranged on an ad hoc basis according to public demand. This year, the total student enrolment is above 50,000. The Adult Education Board has managed to cope with this expansion with the assistance and co-operation of the Ministry of Education. The Board has no facilities of its own except the Cultural Centre and a bungalow, known as the Annexe, situated at No. 9, Fort Canning Road. It has relied mainly on Government and Government-aided school buildings for implementing its programme. However, on many occasions it has to make use of other premises like the community centres, Government Social Welfare and Institutional Homes, and whatever accommodation it can lay its hands on. The use of these facilities means great savings in expenditure, for it involves an intensified use of overhead social capital. For example, the school buildings are used three times a day, for morning schools, for afternoon schools, and, finally for night classes. However, the use of these buildings unavoidably imposes certain limitations on the scope of adult education. To begin with the use of school buildings, the fact that these are used for teaching in day-time, as it should be, means that the adult classes are only run at night. In fact, most of these classes are run after 6.30 p.m. But there is a demand for classes in the day-time as well. In fact, the Board has been conducting with great success language classes for office workers between 7.30 and 9.00 a.m, and between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock in the evening. Classes for housewives, and other categories of workers whose working hours are confined either only to the morning, afternoon, or at night, cannot be organised because of the lack of facilities. The size of this adult population with leisure in the day-time can be gauged by the fact that the cinemas in Singapore have found it worth while to run shows at 11.00 a.m., 1.30 p.m., and 4 p.m. The use of day-schools has also imposed a limitation on the kind of classes the Board can run. The standard type classroom facilities consist of blackboards and rows of desks and chairs.

Order. There are other Members who wish to speak on this amendment. I must impose a strict compliance with my first request to Members to talk strictly to the item under discussion. This speech could have been more usefully made on the Main Estimates. Will the Member please get on with this particular item - "Adult Education Centre", the building of it and whether there is a necessity for building it, wholly next year or partially next year? That is the point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will need about another five minutes to finish what I want to say. Would I have my five minutes, Sir?

Yes.

They have been designed to cater for the needs of an academic and literary type of education. But they cannot be used for other types of classes for which there is a popular demand, e.g, taxidermy, pottery, silkscreen painting, basket weaving and so on. These classes are of a vocational and craft character. Some of these require special equipment, e.g. workbenches, easels, potter's wheels, baking kilns, and so on. The use of school buildings has also resulted in the difficult problem of divided responsibility. The Board has hardly any teaching equipment at all. For example, in the case of science classes, for which there is a great demand, especially at the pre-university level, the Board has to make use of the school facilities and equipment. In the day-schools, the Principal or a member of the full-time staff is given the responsibility of taking care of them. In the night classes, it is harder to delegate responsibility. However, the problem has been partially solved by employing the Principals or the members of the full time staff as the supervisors of the adult classes functioning in their schools. But it has not always been found possible to employ the Principals or the members of staff responsible for the equipment in the day-schools to be the supervisors in the night classes. In any case, all the staff engaged by the Board in its classes are part-time and time-rated, and, for this reason, it is difficult to delegate responsibility for the care of the equipment. The Board has experienced great difficulty in getting the equipment available for use for its night classes. The inadequacy of it inevitably has affected the teaching in the night classes. The Board has also employed the community centres for its classes. All community centres have provision for at least one or two classrooms with furniture suitable for teaching purposes. These facilities have at various times been used for adult education, but the use of them has been limited by a number of factors. First of all, the People's Association has a prior claim on these facilities and this has posed a great deal of difficulty for the Board because of the wide range of activities of the People's Association. Furthermore, the classroom facilities are not always suited for the conduct of night-classes. The community centres have many out-door activities which are unavoidably noise-making, and therefore, are distracting and not conducive to the learning processes. In recent years, the installation of television sets has increased the volume of distraction. Finally, the use of the community centres also raises the problems of divided authority and responsibility for the facilities and equipment as encountered in certain cases in the use of the school premises. The only premises over which the Board has direct control are the Cultural Centre and the Annexe, which was previously a government bungalow, now on lease to the Board, on a year-to-year basis. The Cultural Centre was built in 1955. Its construction was completed in 1957. It was never designed to be the Headquarters of Adult Education, as it has since become. It was designed for what its name has clearly stated - namely, a centre for cultural activities. For this reason, the greater part of the building is a 330-seat theatre and a foyer which can be used for art and other exhibitions. As originally planned, adult education facilities were limited to two classrooms with a collapsible dividing partition for converting the two classrooms into a lecture hall, if necessary. Office accommodation was planned for a small staff of about ten persons. Before the present Adult Education Board was formed, adult education was the responsibility of the Singapore Council for Adult Education. The latter was essentially a co-ordinating body, and its scope of activities was limited. It was accommodated in the Cultural Centre. Even then, the Singapore Council for Adult Education had found the Cultural Centre inadequate, especially from the point of view of office accommodation. It had to convert a garage into needed office accommodation. The Adult Education Board, unlike the Council, is a planning, organising, and employing body. The latest figures I secure from the Board show that, during this year, an average of about 57,000 students attend all the Board's classes and courses in any one month. This large student population requires a far larger administration than before. In the Cultural Centre, the office space available has exceeded the saturation point. Any one who takes the trouble to visit the Cultural Centre during office hours will notice this immediately. One of the two lecture rooms has already been converted for use as the General Office, resulting in a reduction of urgently required centrally located classrooms for adult education. In fact, the General Office faces the foyer where the canteen is also located. It is a matter of daily experience that the staff is constantly assailed by the aroma of coffee and the smell of cooking in addition to being disturbed by the chatter of people in the canteen. Senior staff are crammed in the same room. They have no privacy and do not enjoy the other conditions necessary for sustained work and planning. There is no special room available for Board and Committee meetings. In brief, there is no further room for the expansion of office space. Part of the problem of accommodation has been temporarily overcome by the acquisition of the Annexe. But this building has been designed for residential purposes and not for an educational institution. Nevertheless, the Board has been forced to make use of it for some of the classes that cannot be held in the school buildings, e.g. Chinese typewriting, and dress-making classes. The Board has been forced even to make use of garages for conducting its classes. Thus, the photography classes are being run in a converted garage. For all these reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly urge that the Government should give greater priority to the construction of the Adult Education Centre and all haste should be exercised to complete it in the shortest possible time. Furthermore, our Government should be more generous in its allocation for the construction of the Centre. The Adult Education Board has done a great deal of good work in the past, and everything should be done to encourage it to serve the society in a constructive and useful way. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Member for Punggol for presenting a very good case for the establishment of a permanent Adult Education Centre in Singapore. But I would preface my remarks by saying that the case he put forward would make it appear to be that he wanted an Adult Education Centre where all the varied activities of the Adult Education Board were to be concentrated in that one centre. 4.15 p.m. Of course, that is not the intention. The intention is to retain the decentralised feature of adult education in Singapore for various reasons, one of which is transport. Incidentally the people who take part in our adult education classes are adults who want to improve their knowledge in various fields. Many of them are people belonging to the lower income group whose salaries are small and, as such, they need to spend less on transport by attending these classes. Therefore, the Adult Education Centre which Government intends to build in the near future is more of a nerve-centre for adult education in Singapore, and soon I will explain briefly the various divisions of that Centre. As I have said earlier, it is not meant to be a centre where all activities, classes, lectures, and so on, of the Adult Education Board are held. The Adult Education Board - the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa - will have its new headquarters at Armenian Street. It will be a l3-storey building, Mr Speaker, Sir, with a floor area of 81,800 sq, ft. This building will provide an administration office, 30 lecture rooms, 5 science laboratories, 2 domestic science rooms, a language laboratory - this is a new innovation in Singapore - a lecture hall, a film and reference library, and special rooms for extra-mural activities like photography, art, and so on. Workshops of woodwork, radio and television, electrical and motor repair facilities, will also be erected but at a different place. That will be at the old sewerage site in Tiong Bahru - minus the smell, of course! This vote provides $50,000 to enable work on the proposed headquarters and workshop of the Lembaga to commence in 1966. The plan cost for the whole project is $1.5 million, which is estimated to cover the cost of buildings as well as furniture and equipment. The original proposal for the Lembaga was for a building having a floor area of 91,000 square feet, costing $3.15 million. But the Economic Planning Unit, taking into consideration the real needs of the Lembaga's activities, the relative priorities in educational development, and also the availability of financial resources of the State, pruned it down to a floor area of 81,000 square feet, costing $1.5 million. In other words, the frills and finery have been made subordinate to utilitarian needs in the interests of the economy of the State. The Lembaga has appealed for an upward revision of the plan cost, but the considered view, I am told, is that this sum is adequate for the proposed building consisting of 81,800 square feet. But if it should prove inadequate, then a request for revision of the plan cost can always be considered. And being a Government which is very education-conscious, we are sure that this request will be met when the time comes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Minister of State for Education for having painted a very clear picture of what the Adult Education Centre would be. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Ng Kah Ting and Inche Mahmud Awang --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 03 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 012.

I am not moving.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 03 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 012. Mr Speaker, does this provision in the Development Estimates include provision for a primary school in Hindoo Road, which could not be built by December 1965, as contained in a letter of the Urban Rural Services Committee dated 10th August, 1964? I will read that part of the letter in English: (In English) `The Director of Education has reported that detailed plans are being prepared for the construction of a 20-classroom primary school in Hindoo Road. The school is expected to be completed in December 1965.'. (In Malay) Today is the 30th December, 1965; tomorrow is the 31st, and the day after will be the New Year - a public holiday. It is important for me to point out that this primary school should be filled with pupils of all races, wherein they could learn through various language media in one school building, so that they could learn to live together in order to build a multi-racial society. It is important that the standard be improved considerably.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D 03 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 012." I notice that Amendment (3)* standing in the names of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi and Mr Teong Eng Siong is also in respect of subhead 012. Could these two Members take their amendment (3) together with the amendment just moved? It is all in connection with Primary Schools, is it not? *Amendment (3) reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 03 to be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 012. Inche Mohd. Ariff indicated assent.

My amendment is on Secondary Schools also.

In addition to Primary Schools, can Secondary Schools be taken together? Mr Teong Eng Siong indicated assent.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Minister of State for Education, in this allocation of not less than $30.8 million for Primary and Secondary Schools, whether there are other plans to build such schools in Kampong Kembangan. In Kampong Kembangan the number of children attending school has increased and new buildings for primary and secondary schools are limited. Children staying around Kaki Bukit are sent to Opera Estate and those staying in Jalan Eunos are sent to Kaki Bukit because of lack of classrooms. Likewise, the building of secondary schools where there is only one secondary school in Kampong Kembangan Constituency; that, too, is an integrated school. Thus, a good number of children whose ages are above 13 years and who have passed primary school and who should be going to secondary school, are sent to as far as Punggol, Changi and other places. This is a matter for concern for their parents because their children are sent to faraway places. Another matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that a girl staying in Changi who has passed an examination to go to a secondary school, is sent to Jurong. Is this not a matter for concern? The girl herself is staying in the east of Singapore and is attending school in the west of Singapore. In view of the distribution of primary and secondary schools, I would urge the Minister of State for Education to tell this House how many primary and secondary schools will be built in Kampong Kembangan Constituency for next year.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification. My original motion is to reduce the sum by $100. I would like the Minister concerned to allow me to talk on general problems. If I am not allowed, then I will speak on the next amendment.

The Member can only touch on primary and secondary schools now. But if he wants to speak on something more than that, he must wait till Mr Ho See Beng gets going. Mr Teong Eng Siong indicated assent.

Inche Rahim Ishak, in reply? I think the Members want some information as to whether certain schools are to be built in the east or west.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kapor was interested in the building of a school promised for 1965 in Hindoo Road. The answer, of course, is that the Hindoo Road School is actually in the 1965 programme but it is to be built in 1966 under subhead 012. This is a special school as the area is limited and, therefore, the standard type of primary education building cannot be sited on it. Fresh plans for a multi-storeyed building have now been prepared - if that can compensate for the complaint by the Member for Kampong Kapor. And an application for a revision of plan cost has already been submitted. So what the Member will miss in a small primary school will be compensated for by a multi-storeyed one. The Member for Kampong Kembangan also queried about schools in Kampong Kembangan. There are several reasons why schools cannot be concentrated in any particular constituency. It is almost unavoidable for pupils in certain localities not to be given places in schools nearest their homes. This is actually a minor problem probably not affecting even five per cent of the population. Very rarely do we get a pupil, say, like the one mentioned by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, who lives in Kampong Kembangan and has been sent to a school in Jurong. As I have said, during the debate on the Ordinary Estimates, every case will be considered, and I personally shall be very happy to take up this case. At Kampong Kembangan, three schools have been built since 1959. The one at Kaki Bukit is an integrated primary school built in 1961. The second school, the Kampong Kembangan Integrated Primary School, was built in 1963. Then the third, the Kaki Bukit Secondary School, is one of the few secondary schools built in the rural areas in 1964. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Education comes from Telok Ayer Constituency and in the whole of his constituency, there is not a single school. In other words, all the children in his constituency [Interruption] no secondary school, Mr Speaker, Sir, In other words, all the primary school children in his constituency have to go to schools far away. 4.30 p.m. I need not go further, Mr Speaker, Sir, than to say that plans are coming not only for the building of secondary schools but, if I may mention for the record, the schools which are to be built in 1966 actually come under the same subhead, and I think it would be relevant for me to mention something about them. In 1961, we built a primary school in Wallich Street, a multi-storeyed one; in 1963, a primary school in Bedok Road; in 1965 a primary school in Broadrick Road. Primary schools in Toa Payoh, Tiong Bahru, Hindoo Road (the one I just mentioned) are for 1965 which will actually spill-over in 1966. Secondary schools - MacPherson South Secondary School now under construction; there are Parry Avenue Secondary School, Bukit Timah Village Secondary School, Rangoon Road Secondary School on the same site as the present one, Changi 10 m.s. Secondary School all under construction. Then there are Crescent Road and Dunearn Secondary Schools, Holland Village Secondary School, Chestnut Drive Secondary School, Sennet Road Secondary School in Siglap Constituency. Then there are Lowland Secondary School, Toa Payoh Secondary School, Bukit Merah Secondary School, Whitley Road Secondary School, Linden Drive, a junior college coming under the category of secondary schools, all being planned for the future. To ensure an even distribution of work and expenditure, the projects under the second Five-Year Plan have been phased so that there is no undue overloading for any one year. The large number of schools to be built next year under the spill-over project has therefore necessitated the deferment of the building of new schools under the second Five-Year Plan. Sir, if I may summarise, there are 8 primary schools shown in the Estimates to be built and 39 secondary schools shown under the same Estimates.

Does that satisfy all the Members?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, as has been explained by the Minister of State for Education, I do hope that because the day after tomorrow is New Year's Day, which is a holiday, on the 1st of January, they should not take a holiday throughout the year 1966 as in 1965. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ho See Beng --- That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 03 be reduced by $l00*.

Amendment (4)* in the name of Mr Ho See Beng. Mr Ho See Beng.

I am not moving. The sum of $28,739,050 for Head D 03 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 04- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 024+.

Head D 04 - Ministry of Health. Amendment (l)+ in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting. Mr Ng is not present. Amendment (2) , Mr Gonzales.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 025. What I would like to ask the Minister is this. How many vehicles are going to be purchased with this sum which is being budgeted for and how many of them are refuse-collecting vans? Because I have had complaints from my constituents that their refuse has not been collected sometimes for a week, or sometimes for three or four days. In fact, Sir, if you look outside this Parliament House, you will notice that there is a pile of rubbish opposite the road which has not been collected for the last three days. Sir, I hope the Minister can let us have an answer to that. I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens, the provision of $320,000 for 1966 is for the intended purchase of five refuse collectors, 6 crane wagons and one street watering wagon. As explained in the previous debate on public cleansing, we have had to face a situation in which even if we had purchased more vehicles for disposal of refuse, owing to the practice of absenteeism among the workers and sometimes of the drivers, there would have been more vehicles than there were drivers. And that was how it was going on for quite a number of years. But now that there is this new Disciplinary Code which has been put into operation for the last two months, we believe that there will be better observance of discipline from our workers and drivers. It is possible, now that we have put the matter on a proper basis, to consider the purchase of more refuse collectors and crane wagons. So I envisage that for the New Year we should be in a position to see an improvement in the public cleansing situation in Singapore. What has taken place in the past and what we see today is something which I think we will not likely see in future.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 031. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Health how many markets he proposes to build with the $900,000, where are they to be sited; and in view of the implementation of the new Hawkers' Code, can he let us know whether most of the hawkers will be accommodated in these new markets and what about those hawkers who are now in unauthorised places and on the roadside?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for River Valley, I would like to say that the provision of $900,000 for the building of markets next year, 1966, would be in respect of five markets only. Jurong Neighbourhood 1, a medium-sized market with 120 stalls costing around $167,000; and a large-sized market with 150 stalls in the Bukit Ho Swee Neighbourhood 4 area estimated at $240,000; a very small-sized market with 60 stalls in Tuas off Jurong which may come up to $123,000; and MacPherson South Estate off Pesiaran Keliling; and the fifth one is likely to be at the Toa Payoh New Town Neighbourhood 3 or the Redhill extension area which has not yet been decided. The first three markets have already been approved by the Development Planning Committee. To the Member's second question about the proposed implementation of the new Hawkers' Code which will be announced sometime in February and the licensing of hawkers from 1st of March, I have indicated that the licensing of hawkers will take a number of months to conclude, and that it is the first step towards the control of hawkers in Singapore. As indicated, the five new markets that will be built next year will probably only provide something like 500 stalls for hawkers. So it is impossible to give an answer that the licensing of 40,000 to 50,000 hawkers can therefore be solved by building five markets next year. What is intended in the long-term plan for hawkers is to get them into permanent premises to conduct their business, that is to say, either in Government-built markets or private markets or inside shop-houses. It will take some years before it can become effective, but the new Hawkers' Code will provide a temporary solution to get hawkers off the main streets. In fact, hawkers will be prohibited from plying their trade along bus routes. At the present moment, we see too many hawkers crowding themselves around bus stops, and even at pasar malams, with their wares displayed inside bus-stop shelters, which is ridiculous. 4.45 p.m. So by providing some accommodation for hawkers as a temporary solution, we will try to get them away from the main roads and bus routes and allocate places for them in side streets. Gradually we will be able to persuade them that they can do better business if they find places in permanent premises like markets, shop-houses and so on. We think that during the course of a few years we may be able to reach that ideal stage where hawkers, except for the itinerant ones, will no longer be seen doing their business in the open streets, as what is existing today.

In view of the explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $5,814,930 for Head D 04 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 05 -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 05 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 007. Mr Speaker, Sir, next year the Ministry of Finance will lend to the Economic Development Board a sum of $48 million for the purpose of financing factories. Would the Minister for Finance consider the building of sawmills in specific areas? Lorries carrying logs pass through crowded areas. This is a source of danger to the people. There are also sawmills in the vicinity of wooden houses. That also is a source of danger to the people because lorries carrying heavy logs pass through these areas. They are thus damaging the roads and causing the drains to be choked. I hope the Ministry of Finance will be able to allot specific areas for sawmills so that there will be no more sawmills located in the centre of the city and in the heavily populated areas. I wish to know whether such a plan is envisaged by this Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be ideal if we could segregate certain trades, that is, divide the island of Singapore into sections where offensive trades can be carried on on one side, and certain other trades can be carried on on the other side. But we all know that town planning is something new. It is only during the last few years that great emphasis has been placed on it. Even up till today quite a lot of the sociological problems involved in town planning have not been solved. We are all aware of the problems created by the movement of large log-carrying lorries in the city areas. But, unfortunately, this is a legacy which we have inherited since early times. An estimate has been made that there are altogether about 100 sawmills in Singapore. If we are to resettle them in one area, so that the transportation of the logs and planks would not interfere with the traffic or break up the roads, then we will require an area of 400 acres or so. Anyway, to answer the question put by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. I am glad to inform him that this problem has been considered by the Economic Development Board, and we have marked out an area in Kranji where land reclamation is taking place, so that, if possible, all the sawmills in Singapore could be resettled there. But I must warn the Member for Kampong Kembangan that this is a problem which cannot be solved in one day, or even one year or two years, because, as he knows, resettlement is quite a difficult problem. The resettlement of people ordinarily is quite a difficult problem, and the resettlement of trade and industry is more difficult than that of resettling people. Anyway, we have already marked out an area and it is our objective to see that as far as possible all offensive trades or trades which add to our traffic problem would be set aside in a different area.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $82,931,000 for Head D 05 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 06 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 002. Mr Speaker, under this subhead we are allocating $180,000 to buy a Videotape Recorder with Electronic Editor. Of course, with the acquisition of this equipment for our television, the standard of T.V. will be raised. The programmes will be better. This will enable our people to enjoy their recreation better. This is something to be commended. Since we are to have this new equipment, I hope the T.V. Section will have more programmes produced locally. The T.V. Section should shoot more local scenes and reduce, as far as possible, the number of programmes imported from abroad - the so-called "canned" foreign programmes. They are not suitable for the taste of our local people. According to what I understand, a foreign film costs about $120 to $170 to hire. This is expensive. We are thus losing no small amount of foreign exchange.

The sum of $180,000 under this subhead is for the purchase of one Videotape Recorder. Sir, as pointed out by the Member for Sembawang, the acquisition of new appliances and new techniques does not necessarily mean the improvement of the contents of the programmes as telecast over Television. The Videotape Recording technology is one of the most difficult and most complicated aspects of television. But it has its advantages. For example, this Videotape Recorder is able to record events on sight, and, secondly, it can do away with the process of developing, as in the case of conventional films by tele-recorder and sound tape. Thirdly, in view of the advantage that it is not necessary to process the film, the playback or telecast could almost be immediately done after recording. Another advantage is the fact that the films of the Videotape are clearer than the conventional films. Finally, from the economic aspect, the Videotape can be erased and used over and over again, as we see in the conventional tape recorder. So from the economical aspect, the Videotape Recorder does, to a considerable extent, cut down the expenses of the Ministry of Culture. The Member for Sembawang has touched slightly on the programmes. He has suggested that we should produce more local films rather than depend on the hiring of films from other countries. I am in full agreement with him. But there are difficulties about which I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House. The average cost for the hiring of a film, say, of half an hour's duration will cost the Ministry of Culture about $120 to $170. The average cost is about $150. If we are to produce our own films locally, with local talent and local material, it will cost us anything from $850 to $3,500. This gives us an average cost of $2,000. This is the minimum amount of expenses that any film producer must incur in producing a film of half an hour's duration. The reason for the high cost is that we have no markets for us to sell or to rent out these films. 5.00 p.m. Therefore, there is no avenue for us to rent out our films to other parts of the world so as to defray part of the expenses incurred in the production of these films. However, we cannot forever depend on films from foreign countries; and particularly on the Chinese programmes side we are, in fact, running short of supplies. The source of supply is Hong Kong and the quality and contents of some of these films from Hong Kong are not up to expectations and standard for television. In view of the concern expressed by Members yesterday afternoon about the censorship of films, we find ourselves in a very difficult position because television programming is a daily affair, unlike a normal cinema where a film like James Bond 007, for example, can perhaps be shown for a period of two months. But on a television programme, the film has to be changed every day. Therefore, in time to come, we will run out of supplies, and we must on our part take the initiative to remedy our dependence on foreign T.V. film distributors. However, this cannot be done until our new studio is completed in mid-1966, and as I said in this House yesterday afternoon, the facilities are limited. But these are technical aspects. The other difficulty that confronts us is the availability of talent. Now, the standard of talent does not necessarily satisfy the requirements of television. So the difficulty in this matter is manifold, and with the purchase of this new machine, and together with the new facilities available in the new studio, we hope in the future to be able to produce more locally orientated films, notwithstanding the fact that this may cost the Government a considerable amount of money.

(In Mandarin): I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 010. Sir, I would like to seek your permission to deal with my amendment* on subhead 011 at the same time. *The amendment reads as follows:-

Would that be convenient to the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Chan Chee Seng?

Yes.

Sir, under these two subheads, I notice that 50 children's playgrounds will be provided and there is also a provision for improvements of beaches. Now, in the Punggol constituency there are no children's playgrounds and some of the beaches round Punggol Point are not very suitable for picnicking. I would like to ask the Minister concerned whether he will consider providing at least one of the 50 children's playgrounds in my constituency and also improve the beaches at or around Ponggol Point. Sir, I beg to move.

Discussion may also range over Amendment (3) .

Perhaps you are aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, as well as most hon. Members in this House, that Long Beach in California, where international beauty contests are held, as well as beaches in other countries like Hawaii, is today the most famous beach resort in the world. That being so, it has attracted many tourists to that country besides providing its people with good social amenities. Tourism in our country, though in its infancy, is progressing steadily into a dollar earning industry. Therefore, it is my hope that our Government could turn our beaches both in the east and west of Singapore into proper seaside resorts not only for our people to spend their leisure hours but also to provide good amenities to tourists, so that tourism can further progress.

Mr Speaker, I agree whole-heartedly with the Member for Mountbatten on his point to attract tourists. Definitely this is one of our purposes - to beautify our beaches as well as to provide more amenities on our beaches and make them attractive. First of all, however, may I answer the Member for Punggol on the two separate subheads? First, he has raised the question of children's playgrounds. As far as the programme for children's playgrounds is concerned, the Ministry is to provide 50 new children's playgrounds over a period of five years, at the rate of, say, 10 playgrounds each year. Each playground will have a lawn, compound, swings and see-saws. It will be about an acre in area. As far as possible, these playgrounds will be sited in areas where the need is greatest, but, of course, the main consideration will be the availability of suitable sites. Consideration can be given to the provision of a children's playground in the Punggol area provided that the Government is satisfied that there is a need for such a playground and also if a suitable site is available. As for the other matter brought up by the Member for Punggol concerning the improvements of beaches, this project is for the improvement of beaches along Nicoll Drive, which has proved to be one of the most popular seaside resorts in Singapore. Selected sites along the beach will be developed and planted with trees and flowery shrubs and beauty added to the scenery. The beach will also be kept clear of rubbish and debris and special receptacles will be provided for the dumping of rubbish by members of the public. As available funds are limited, it is proposed in the first phase to develop the beach along Nicoll Drive. There are no plans at the moment to develop the beach at Punggol which is, in fact, not as popular as the beach at the north-eastern end, i.e. Changi and Pasir Ris.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that our Government will consider building children's playgrounds on merit. I am sure that in all or most of the rural constituencies such playgrounds will be an added means of recreation to the many under-privileged children in such constituencies. Here, I would like to raise one more question, and that is, if I were to help in locating a suitable site for the consideration of building a playground in my constituency, would the Minister concerned consider this matter seriously?

Yes, I will.

In that case, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,826,820 for Head D 06 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

I think this would be a suitable time to take the tea-break. Order. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I shall suspend now and resume the Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.12 p.m, until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head D 07 - The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd Ariff Bin Suradi --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 007.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi? He is not present.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 009. Mr Speaker, Sir, subhead 009 is in respect of the installation of Parking Places including Kiosks and Signs. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a Committee in existence which meet and approve new parking places to be installed; if so, whether due consideration can be given to the business premises in the area, because where the space in front of such premises is taken up for parking, this in a way jeopardises the business. In many constituencies, I believe that the owners or occupiers of houses find it very difficult either to carry on with their business or their private affairs, because the area in front of their houses is being used for parking places. I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether some consideration could be given to occupiers of such premises or business concerns by providing certain parking lots free for common use; that is to say, without all the parking lots being taken up. Another suggestion is that if the parking lot in front of a house is taken up, the resident can get priority to use another parking lot by paying a monthly fee, so that there is no restriction on the resident's use of the place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a bit confused by the Member for River Valley. I am just wondering whether he wants the parking lots in front of businesses or shops to be reserved free for the shops concerned, or whether he wants them to pay a certain sum of money for the sole right of using the parking place in front of their shops, or whether he wants parking lots abolished. If he can clarify this, Sir, perhaps I may be able to answer him.

I think the Member was advocating the second course, if I remember him correctly.

What I am trying to ask the Minister is that if a place has to be earmarked for a parking place, then due consideration should be given to the occupiers of houses or shops in that area first.

I think the Member for River Valley in his earlier statement did say that the marking of frontages for parking does affect the business of the shops. I do not know whether he has thought carefully over this matter, because if we were to reserve the frontages solely for the use of the shops, then the customers would have no place to park their cars and the shops would be more affected that way; whereas if it were left to the members of the public to make use of these parking places, then it would be easier for the customers or intending customers to park their cars, so that on the whole the shops would not suffer. In fact, I would like to inform the House that when the parking scheme was first introduced there was an outcry from the shopkeepers that this would result in loss of business. But after a trial for several months in certain areas, it was found that far from affecting the business, it did help them, because it meant a greater flow of cars which are parked along that area. If the area is left free for parking and no charge is made, there are quite a lot of people who will just leave their cars there, with the result that shoppers will have no chance at all to park their cars there. As regards his question whether special consideration would be given to shops whose frontages are marked for parking lots, I think there is in operation a scheme whereby consideration is given for special types of businesses. For instance, the doctors. Where some doctors' premises have their frontages marked for parking lots, then a parking lot is reserved for them, so that in cases of emergency, their patients can come to them.

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

Amendment No. (3)* standing in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi. He is not present. Madam Chan Choy Siong. * Amendment (3) also stood in the names of Mr Teong Eng Siong and Mr Lim Cheng Lock. 5.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 010.* * Amendment (3) also stood in the names of Mr Teong Eng Siong and Mr Lim Cheng Lock. Mr Speaker, my intention is not to criticise the administration of the Housing and Development Board or to criticise any errors or malpractices in relation to the Housing and Development Board. I merely want to make certain constructive criticisms to enable the Housing and Development Board to build better houses and to transform Singapore into a better city under the second Five-Year plan. I quite appreciate the efficiency and great achievements of the Board under the last Five-Year Plan, and everybody appreciates them. The Board is under the direction of our Government and I want to speak on it, not just to praise it. All the people in South-East Asia have praised the achievements of the Board. Even visitors from Eastern and Western European countries have also praised the achievements of the Board. This is a concrete fact. What I want to say in connection with this item is that simple houses were built in the past, and they were mostly six-storey or five-storey flats, usually rectangular in shape. They look like this in this picture [indicating]. Mr Speaker, you can see that this is the type of houses that were built in the past under the last Five-Year Development Plan. Under that Plan, the Government of Singapore built low-cost houses in order to accommodate people of the lower income-group, and also to enable people of the middle class to live in them. The previous Government was not able to solve the housing shortage problem. So when we came to power, we laid stress on the housing development plan and we put forward a crash programme to build a flat every 45 minutes in order to meet the needs of the people. At that time we were trying to build flats quickly to accommodate as many people as possible, and at the same time we were trying to fulfil our objectives to the people. So the plans for the houses during that period were very simple, because they were of cheaper quality. I now feel that such a period has passed. The number of houses built by the Housing and Development Board has actually exceeded what was stipulated in the previous Five-Year Plan. The target has been exceeded. In the Second Five-Year Development Plan, I feel that there should be certain changes in the designs of the flats to be built. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has also touched upon this. He has also said that Singapore today is quite different from what it was 15 years ago. I agree with him that we should progress with the times, and we should have new designs for our future houses to be built by the Housing and Development Board. The old type of flats built by the Board during the past five years should give way to modern flats designed to keep pace with our progress. In the past, the people who lived in Housing and Development Board flats might not have cars. So the roads around such flats may not be suitable today to accommodate the present volume of traffic. The streets and roads inside the estates are crowded with cars. We know that the people staying in flats in areas like Tiong Bahru and Queenstown own cars. There is insufficient space for the parking of cars. The old plans should now be corrected to meet the new requirements of today, because the situation today is quite different from that of before. Therefore, we should change the plans of the houses to make them more beautiful so that our city will be more modernised, befitting the title of the "New York of Malaysia", as it was once called by people. The type of flats at the moment is of a one-room unit, a two-room unit, or a three-room unit. As I have said, some flats are meant for sale and others are for renting out. Why cannot the Government proceed now to build units with three bedrooms and one hall, because there are many large families with more than 10 members? Therefore, the building of houses should be based on the actual needs of the people and should not follow the old trend as a matter of course. The present living standard is not quite suitable for the future needs of our people, and the common corridors perhaps could be somewhat corrected to enable people with a slightly higher standard of living to rent or buy Housing and Development Board flats, so that they can have more ideal accommodation. The second point concerns roads which should be broadened. Consideration should also be given to the question of parking spaces in order to accommodate cars. At the moment, because of the shortage of car parks, some residents have to park their cars on the roads alongside the white traffic lines. Traffic Police are unable to fine such car-owners, because, in actual fact, there is no space to park the cars. The present situation is quite a headache to the residents of the Housing and Development Board flats. So what I say is mainly on these two points. I hope the Minister concerned will consider my suggestions so that under our next Five-Year Development Plan, Singapore will be more beautiful with more modernised flats built by the Housing and Development Board.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, under this subhead, the allocation is $45 million for 1966 for 14,000 flats. This sum of money is quite a large one. I know that there are many people who need housing accommodation. Although the Government has built 60,000 flats of the two-room or three-room type for people of the lower income group, according to the actual situation now, we need to build more houses and flats in order to meet the requirements of the people. I understand that flats are mainly built in the city area - in Queenstown and Toa Payoh. In the rural areas, it seems that no flats are being built; the rural areas have been overlooked. I feel that the Minister concerned should look into this matter because ours is a developing country. The construction plans of our country should take into consideration all parts of the island - not only the city area but all the rural areas - so that there is a balance in respect of housing development. So I hope that the Minister concerned will allot part of this sum to build houses in the rural areas, including the surrounding islands. I refer to such areas as Changi, Tampines, Punggol, Nee Soon and Sembawang. The people in these areas, I understand, need housing accommodation. The houses at the moment are very small, dirty, quite untidy and mostly in a dilapidated state. Thus the people who live in them risk their lives if there is any outbreak of fire. The Fire Brigade has very poor equipment to deal with this situation. So if the Government will build more houses in the rural areas, this will be welcomed by the rural people, and this will also show that the Government is carrying out the policy of building houses both for the urban and rural people. The housing plans should be carried out equally both in the rural and city areas. Moreover, land prices in the rural areas are cheaper. So I hope that the Government will build more houses in the rural areas, and rent them out to the rural people at low rentals, because their income is somewhat less than that of the urban people. Low rentals will be more in keeping with the living standard of the rural people. 6.00 p.m. I would also like the Minister to pay attention to the building standards of the flats built. For instance, the flats in Queenstown have cracks in the walls. Some flats have been built to last for 99 years, but after a period of only two or three years, some cracks appear in the walls of certain flats in the Queenstown and Tanjong Rhu areas and elsewhere. What is the cause? I hope the Minister concerned will look into the matter and see that the building materials used for the flats are up to the standards stipulated, so that in future there will be no such flats of poor quality. There are also other shortcomings in regard to the lifts in these flats. They usually go out of order, and the lights suddenly go out. This inconveniences the residents, especially the children. When they are trapped inside the lifts, they cry aloud but they are not heard. Therefore, there should be more proper management of these lifts in the flats. Another thing is that the lifts are very unhygenic because of poor maintenance. Some children pass motion inside the lifts which usually stink. Of course, I understand that it is not the sole responsibility of the Housing and Development Board, but if the Ministry concerned will look into it and try to seek some way to improve the situation, of course, things will improve. Since the Housing and Development Board plans to have a Residents' Committee to run and manage the flats they are living in, I suggest that the authorities concerned will encourage the residents to join this Committee so that special paid staff can be engaged to look after the lifts, thus helping to solve the employment problem. I hope the Minister will look into it.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, shall I deal with the problem raised by the ---

No. My difficulty is this, Mr Ho. The Member for River Valley is also interested in moving this amendment. I think it will be more convenient if you will speak after he has spoken. Mr Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of the Housing Board for the previous five years was to build sufficient units of houses to meet the demands of the people of Singapore. I believe when the First Five-Year Plan was completed, it did satisfy the needs of our people. Now we are embarking on the Second Five-Year Plan, and in this item there is a sum of $45 million for loan to the Housing and Development Board to carry out this Second Five-Year Plan. I propose to the Minister that our policy for this Plan should be for more of our people to own their own homes. I believe with the improved standard of living and the economic position of our country today, this is a possibility. In the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Address on the policy debate, I mentioned that one of the difficulties the people who wish to own their own homes would face is the down-payment which a person would have to pay before he could own a home. I asked the Minister in charge if he could look into the possibility of whether contributors to the Central Provident Fund, who have sufficient funds standing to their credit, could use their funds as surety to buy one of these Housing Board homes. This means that if that person's money can be used as a surety, he would have to pay slightly more instalments over a period of, say, 10 to 15 years. And if this is possible, I am sure there will be more people who would be able to own their own homes and thus assist the Government financially, in that they do not have to seek more money to build homes and then rent them out to people who can afford to buy these homes on instalments. According to the latest report of the Central Provident Fund Board which has just been released, No. S 13 of 1965, there are over 14,000 contributors who have over $900 in their savings. If this plan is possible, there would be over 14,000 contributors who would be able to buy homes without a down-payment, by using their contributions in the Central Provident Fund as a surety. I hope the Minister for Law and National Development could look into this possibility.

Any other Member wishing to speak before I call upon the Minister? Mr Barker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the speeches of our Backbenchers reflect the feelings of the people of Singapore, then I would say that these people are never satisfied. I think everyone knows that our housing projects have won recognition not only in South-East Asia but in the whole world. It was only recently that my predecessor, who, in fact, is the one Minister who succeeded in solving the housing problem in Singapore, was awarded the Magsaysay Award for his community work in building houses in this city of ours and thereby helping to house about one-quarter of the population of this town. Instead of being grateful, I see that our Backbenchers are even asking for more and more. If I can deal first with the hon. Member for Delta. She says our houses are simple, they are rectangular in shape, we have passed the phase when housing was really a shortage, and therefore we should change the designs. I do not know what she wants. Probably something circular! But we have looked into this matter and given it careful consideration, and the view is that the present structure and the pattern of these rectangular blocks with the minimum space wasted is the most efficient and economic in the circumstances. And since the lowering of housing cost is of primary importance in public housing, the Government cannot at the moment change the shape of these flats just for the sake of appearance. That was her first point. The second point she referred to was about the roads within the housing flats and also the parking spaces. Here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, having regard to the fundamental fact that the Board is providing low-cost housing at subsidised rentals for people in the lower income group, it is firmly against any change in the present policy of providing one car-parking space for every six units of two- and three-room flats, and 15 units of one-room flats. Extensive road improvements have been carried out, and will be carried out in our next Five-Year Plan to facilitate the flow of traffic to and into and out of housing estates, but within the housing estates themselves, the standard 36-foot wide road will continue to be provided. The Public Works Department has many plans to improve the many road systems linking the housing estates to different parts of the city. There are many such schemes, Mr Speaker, but I will not bother you with further details on these schemes. 6.15 p.m. The third point raised by the Member for Delta was that we should build flats of three rooms with a hall. I can assure the Member that the Board has introduced several new types of flats for our Second Five-Year Plan in addition to our standard one-, two- and three-room flats. For example, a one-room improved type of flat with a floor area of 340 square feet is being introduced as another standard plan. This improved one-room flat, in fact, attracted considerable interest when a full-scale furnished model was displayed at the exhibition in July 1965 in Outram Road. This type of flat is being constructed in Toa Payoh, Kallang Basin and the Tiong Bahru fire site. The rental of these flats will be $30 as against the emergency type one-room flat at $20 per month. Further an improved three-room flat has also been introduced into our standard plan. This type of flat will have a separate bathroom and water closet and also an enlarged balcony. The floor area will be about 80 square feet bigger than the standard three-room flats of about 550 to 630 square feet. The Board has also proposed to construct a small number of four-room flats for bigger-sized families. In fact, 472 units of these four-room flats will be built at the corner of Alexandra Road and Henderson Road. The proposed rental will be in the region of about $100 a month. I think that disposes of the points raised by the Member for Delta. I come now to the Member for Sembawang. He wants us to build flats in the rural areas. I say first things first. Let us not run before we can walk. The urgent need for houses is in the urban and semi-urban districts. If we build flats in the rural areas, I doubt whether they will all be occupied. In the rural areas the folk are mostly farmers or fishermen. They need land on which to cultivate their crops or rear chickens and, at the moment anyway, we do not think we should start building flats in these areas. Besides, the population is not very dense, and if any rural farmer or fisherman desires a flat, he can always shift from the rural areas and apply for a flat in town. As far as the rural areas are concerned, Mr Speaker, we feel that we should provide the rural folks, firstly, with water and, secondly, with electricity and, lastly, with housing accommodation. Most of our efforts at the moment are concentrated on extending the water and electricity supply throughout the island, and in particular to the rural areas. The Member for Sembawang complained about some of the flats in Queenstown having cracks in the walls. I am glad he said "some"! Mr Speaker, Sir, it is practically impossible to build so many flats in Singapore without some of them having cracks. But these cracks, are remedied when complaints are sent in. As long as the houses do not topple down and kill the occupants, I think if I were in their place, I would be quite happy to have a flat. Then the Member complains about the lifts breaking down. May I remind the Member that lifts not only break down in Housing Board flats, but also in other buildings in Singapore? And as far as the flats in Queenstown are concerned, the lifts probably break down because of the residents or their children. And if the children, as the hon. Member complains, do things in the lift which they should not do, surely one cannot blame the Housing Board. The occupants of these flats should look after their children. But on this point I am glad to note that the hon. Member said that the Housing Board is not solely responsible. He has also asked us to provide staff to look after the lifts. This, I think, explains my point that they are never satisfied. You provide them with a house; you provide them with a lift; they want staff to up and down the lift and to look after it. I say that there is a limit to what we can do for the people. I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for River Valley who says that we should encourage more people to own their own homes or flats. I say that this is a good policy. We would be happy if everyone in Singapore owns his own house. That is a Utopia to which we can look forward, but I do not think we can accomplish it in the near future. But his main point is the funds or monies in the Central Provident Fund. He would like to know whether the contributors to this fund can withdraw their contributions and use the money to pay the first instalment or "surety" that is needed when one buys a flat. Mr Speaker. Sir, I am not in charge of the Central Provident Fund. I believe it is the Minister for Labour. But as far as I am aware, there is no provision in the Central Provident Fund Ordinance to allow contributors to withdraw their contribution, to use the money ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I make a point of clarification?

If the Minister will give way. Mr Barker resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say withdraw the contributors' provident fund. I said to come to an arrangement whereby their contributions can be used as a surety. That does not mean a withdrawal.

In other words, the monies will remain in the fund?

Yes.

If, as the hon. Member says, the money remains in the fund, then that is money that will not be available until the contributor reaches the age of 55 and retires from work or retires earlier; which means the money is there, but the Housing Board has to wait for the money. However, there is no provision in the Ordinance for contributors to withdraw the money or for the contributors to charge or mortgage the money which belongs to them in the Fund. However, Mr Speaker, the Government is of the view that in order to make anything worth while, it is necessary that the person who benefits must make some effort by himself to obtain this something. Free gifts are seldom appreciated, and it will be wrong to make it too easy for anyone to own his house without some effort on his part. It is for this reason that there are schemes to encourage savings so that down-payments for Housing Board flats can be made. Mr Speaker, Sir, with a little effort, I believe the intending purchaser can surely save $900 or $1,200 as a down-payment required for a two-room or a three-room flat. Besides, he will also learn to appreciate his purchase much better if it is obtained by some effort on his own part.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir,---

Madam Chan, I am afraid you cannot speak any more, except to say that you withdraw your amendment if you want to withdraw it. This is one occasion where you cannot speak!

(In Mandarin): Only a few words.

No. You withdraw or ---

(In Mandarin): If you do not permit me to speak, then I will withdraw my amendment. One sentence? Mr Speaker, just one sentence which the Minister has misunderstood me.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members: Yes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I am afraid, Mr Lim, your amendment No. (4)* cannot be moved. Time has expired. *Amendments (4) reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 07 to be reduced by $100. The sum of $101,828,000 for Head D 07 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 08 The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 008 of subhead 007.

I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Ng is not moving. Amendment No. (2) - Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi.

(In Malay): Yes, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 007. Mr Speaker, I believe the building of flood alleviation works in the Geylang area is to reduce flooding, and I believe this includes Geylang Serai and Kampong Kembangan. Before, Kampong Kembangan Constituency was an area which seldom experienced floods, but now with this flood alleviation measure in Geylang. It has experienced many floods. 6.30 p.m. Flood alleviation works in Geylang have been built, but the drains around the Kampong Kembangan area have not been repaired, and when the rain falls for a short while, the Kampong Kembangan area is flooded and animals and plants are destroyed. Now is the best time for the Minister for Law and National Development to visit Kampong Kembangan Constituency, because it is now the rainy season, and he will he able to see for himself the condition of the drains in this area. I would like to know from him whether the drains will be repaired.

Mr Speaker, the whole area of Geylang Serai is low-lying and drainage in this area is totally inadequate. The drains are too small and there is hardly any gradient for water to drain off. Therefore, it obviously inevitable that flooding will occur whenever there are heavy showers. The proper and adequate drainage for this low-lying area is entirely dependent upon the construction of the main outward drains provided in Phase 4 of the Geylang Flood Alleviation Scheme. This scheme has not been implemented all these years because of the presence of thousands of squatters. However, as a temporary flood relief measure, the Government is all the time prepared to clear the drain to relieve the present position.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has just now said the Government is all the time prepared to clear the drains as a temporary measure. I would like to ask him, has this measure been taken or will it be taken?

Mr Speaker, I can assure the hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan that my Ministry is now looking into this matter.

Not taken yet or about to be taken? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 005 of subhead 015. This scheme to convert Orchard Road into a one-way system (including New Road and Intersections) will affect my constituency and that of the Minister for Finance, and I would like to know if the Minister could give us some details of this scheme as to how they are going to convert Orchard Road into a one-wav system and where they propose to site the new road and intersections.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the existing Orchard Road with traffic flowing in either direction is getting very congested and is, in fact, hardly capable of taking any further increase in traffic. Traffic jams are particularly severe during the rush hours, and for this reason it is proposed to convert this road into a one-way system by routing the other one-way traffic along one or more of the many roads running in line or somewhat parallel to Orchard Road, for example, Somerset Road, Devonshire or Grange Road. There are, in fact, two or more alternative routes which are being investigated by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the Planning Department. It is only after these investigations have been completed that I will have more details for the hon. Member for River Valley. But it is only after the investigations have been completed to the satisfaction not only of the P.W.D. and the Planning Department but also of the Traffic Police that the one-way system will be implemented.

Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. A. Gonzales --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 009 of subhead 015.*

Amendment (4) ,* Mr Gonzales. Mr Gonzales is not present.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 016. Mr Speaker, just now I spoke about the bad drainage system of Kampong Kembangan. Now I would like to talk about the roads in Kampong Kembangan which are very bad. You can say that 90 per cent of the roads there are earth roads. When it rains, the roads become muddy, and when it is hot, the roads are full of dust. Petitions have been made several times and also during the time when the Prime Minister visited Kampong Kembangan, and requests were also made through the U.R.S.C. but up to now the kampong roads in the Kampong Kembangan area have not been repaired yet. I would like to know from the Minister concerned when they could be repaired so as to give the kampong people the use of better roads.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year's vote for this item was $490,000, and this year we have a vote of $700,000. The increase of $210,000 for the development of agricultural and kampong roads next year shows that the present Government is stepping up its efforts to give kampong people better road facilities next year. It has always been the Government's policy to provide the same facilities not only to the urban areas but also to the rural areas. Sir, I wonder whether the Minister will give priority to the making up of the following roads in my constituency. They are: Jalan Saksama, Jalan Greja, Siak Kuan Road, Main Road at Pulau Tekong Besar and Jalan Darat Nanas. Jalan Darat Nanas, I think, should be given immediate attention, because the compound of Changi Prison is now fenced and declared a protected area. There is a kampong behind the prison called Kampong Darat Nanas, and more than a hundred houses are situated there. The people make use of Jalan Awan which is in the compound of Changi Prison for getting into the kampong. They have been making use of this road for more than 25 years. Now that the prison compound is fenced, there is no other through road, and this is very inconvenient for the kampong folks, especially the school children. Sir, I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the U.R.S.C. dated 15th of July, 1965, and something was done to level up the reserve road, i.e. Jalan Darat Nanas, for which I must be thankful. Sir, two months have elapsed and this road has become inaccessible due to pot-holes caused by heavy rain. Therefore, I shall be extremely grateful if the Minister could look into this matter with great urgency. Sir, about 3,000 to 4,000 people in Pulau Tekong Besar are making use of the only road in the pulau. This road is now in a very bad condition and cannot be made use of especially during the rainy season. I hope the Minister concerned will give special consideration to the making up of this road as soon as possible. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I too have similar complaints about the poor condition of some of the roads in my constituency. I notice some roads have been metalled in my constituency but no drains have been made, i.e. roads are metalled without drains on both sides. Very often these roads do not last long. Also, such kampong and agricultural roads are made up of laterite and, when repaired, will last for only a couple of months. Heavy thunderstorms will wash away what has been put on top of these roads. Sir, I would suggest that, as far as possible, every effort should be made to metal such roads and also to provide drains so that public funds will be spent usefully. It is better than just repairing the road by dumping and levelling a few hundred lorry loads of earth because after some time, if a heavy storm comes along, it washes away all this earth. So the funds are not worthily spent. Sir, I would request the Minister concerned to look into this matter and give it due thought.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to speak on amendment (7)+ in conjunction with this amendment. Would you allow me? + Amendments (7) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 to be reduced by $10 in respect of item 006 of subhead 016. 6.45 p.m.

Would it be convenient for the Minister? The Member will be talking about improvements to bridges and culverts. I suppose they are part and parcel of roads and bridges?

Yes.

Carry on.

(In Mandarin): I wish to refer to the work of the Urban and Rural Services Committee in Singapore. The work done by it is well known. But is the Minister aware that in the rural areas the roads and bridges are not constructed in a practical manner? Their construction is a waste. In the rural areas the roads built are laterite roads. If a car were to pass over a road after a rainstorm, the whole road would be damaged. On the average a rural road will have to be repaired after only six months. If the Urban and Rural Services Committee could allocate more money for the building of better roads, these roads do not need to be repaired after only a few months. When we look at these roads during the day-time, we can see dust flying about. This is rather unhygienic to the rural people. With regard to bridges, if a heavy lorry were to pass over one of these wooden structures, it may collapse. I hope the Minister will prohibit heavy lorries from passing over these bridges and roads. This is the only way to keep them in good condition. Another matter which I would like to bring up is the request made by rural people for the building of roads and bridges. These are urgently required by them. Although these requests have been approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee - and there are cases where six months have elapsed since the approval was given - nothing was done. I hope once approval has been given, work can commence after three months. But there are some roads and bridges in my constituency which have not been built even though their construction has been approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. If Mr Speaker will approve of it, I will quote two examples to substantiate my point. This is a notice from the Urban and Rural Services Committee. The excerpt says that if within three months no work is carried out, then the Urban and Rural Services Committee can be asked to give an explanation. There is one agricultural road in Kampong Kimpong and two roads which pass over wooden bridges and which need to be repaired. The plan for their construction was approved on 22nd March this year. Although I have investigated the matter, the Urban and Rural Services Committee has not given me any satisfactory answer. The minute given to me was dated the 22nd of March, saying that plans have been approved to repair the bridges and the roads. Nine months have already elapsed and I have yet to see the roads and bridges being repaired. I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary concerned will give me a satisfactory explanation as to why such work should always be delayed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has raised the question about the kampong roads in his constituency. According to him, most of the requests which were made during our Prime Minister's visit to his constituency were submitted to my Ministry, but they were not carried out. This is not true. For example, in 1965, the Urban and Rural Services Committee has already approved an amount of $106,845 for the improvement of kampong roads, drainage, the provision of stand-pipes and other social amenities. Sir, the Urban and Rural Services Committee has to look after 51 constituencies, and not only one or two particular constituencies. As such, the vote allocated should be spread out to 51 constituencies. So you will see that for that one constituency we are spending over $100,000. This is a very special case. I also want to draw the attention of the Member for Kampong Kembangan to the fact that before the P.A.P. Government came to power, Kampong Kembangan was totally neglected. The Member for Changi has requested for repairs to Jalan Nanas. This road leads to the Changi Prison compound, and there are about one hundred houses there. I can assure the Member that the engineer in charge of the area concerned has been asked to investigate the matter and when the estimate of cost is ready, it will be submitted for the consideration of the Urban and Rural Services Committee. Regarding the road at Pulau Tekong Besar, this is a very long road, probably more than three miles long, and its repair will cost a huge sum of money. But we are now looking into the matter. An hon. Member: How long?

More than three miles long. We can do it by stages, you know! The Member for Punggol complained that there is very little improvement to the road repairs in the kampong area. Sir, he is a member of the Urban and Rural Services Committee and this type of problem can be raised and discussed at Committee level. Regarding the Member for Ulu Pandan's complaint about the project approved by the U.R.S.C. in March, and that no work has since been carried out, I have to explain here that he is referring to Kampong Kim Ho. This area has been acquired by the Housing Board and is earmarked for future development, probably in one or two years' time. There is no point at this moment in spending much money on the place when the Government is going to clear the area. The Urban and Rural Services Committee has issued a circular to all Assemblymen concerned to inform the Committee whenever any project is not carried out by the Committee after it has been approved. Any Assemblyman wishing to do so must then write in officially and not raise a verbal complaint, so that the Secretary can take up the matter with the Department concerned. The Member for Ulu Pandan also complained that most of the roads in the rural areas are of agricultural standard and not metalled. This is entirely wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the beginning of this year, the Urban and Rural Services Committee has adopted a policy to metal as many as possible of the kampong roads so that the number of agricultural roads will decrease. Most of these kampong roads that we are going to repair are of agricultural standard. After a shower of rain, the whole road is damaged. So the policy is to metal these kampong roads to avoid wasting public money on temporary repairs.

Mr Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has missed my point. I was not in any way complaining that, though I am a member of the Urban and Rural Services Committee, the question of making drains and the metalling of kampong roads should be brought up at such sittings. I must point out that, in fact, I have brought up this point that when we metal the small kampong roads, we make sure that there are drains on both sides of the road. That is the point I wish to stress.

Mr Speaker, in reply to the Member for Punggol, I want to say that in repairing roads in the rural areas, the most important thing is to repair the not so good roads first and the next stage is to consider the drainage system. To give an example, I remember that at one place - I forgot the name of the road - we provided earth drains along a road but after two or three months they disappeared. The reason is that everybody who has a frontage fills up the drain so that he can easily cross it. 7.00 p.m.

In view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development that everything will be considered - and I hope that everything will be put in hand shortly - I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment too. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 004 of subhead 016. Sir, I wish to obtain your permission to speak on the other three amendments standing in my name as well - that is, item 007*, item 009+ of subhead 016 - The amendments are as follows: *(8) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 to be reduced by $10 in respect of item 007 of subhead 016. +(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 to be reduced by $10 in respect of item 009 of subhead 016. ++(11) That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 to be reduced by $10 in respect of item 015 of subhead 016.

Item 007 is `Jetties' and item 009 is "Minor Works in Kampong Areas". And anything else?

And item 0l5++, Water.

Right. Does the Minister think he can deal with "Water" and all these other items at the same time? Mr Barker indicated assent.

Very well, please proceed.

Sir, I am glad to say that there is another $100,000 to be allocated for electrification schemes in rural constituencies in 1966. There is one little complaint I wish to make here, and that is, there is a big scheme in my area which is split up into three phases. One of the phases extends from the 7th milestone Punggol Road right up to 9� milestone Punggol Road and into Serangoon Kechil. This is where I am concerned. In a certain part of Serangoon Kechil, there are some numbered and unnumbered attap houses whose owners have applied for electricity supply. But, unfortunately, the last electrical post that carries the overhead cable stops at a certain place and, therefore, a few houses have to pay for the extra poles. So petitions were made to me and applications were sent to the Electricity Department. The petitions sent to me were forwarded, but up to now, after a lapse of well over six months, nothing has been done. I would like the Minister concerned to enlighten me on this point. Regarding the question of jetties, I would like to know the number of jetties that are to be constructed in the Islands next year. As regards water supply in Track 13 off Punggol Road, requests for water supply were made in 1963 and again this year. The residents have waited for more than two full years for their request to be acceded to, but unfortunately up to date, no water facilities have been made available to the residents in that area. Regarding minor works in kampong areas, as I have suggested just now, when roads are repaired, it is better that we spend a little more money to metal as many of them as possible and to construct some drains within the sum allocated for this purpose. When I say "construct" drains, I do not mean just earth drains which are covered up after a shower. What I mean is lining the drains with concrete slabs so that public funds are well spent. I hope the Minister concerned will enlighten me on the points that I have raised. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 004 of subhead 016." In speaking on this amendment, Members may also speak on amendments (8), (9) and (11). Amendment (11) also stands in the name of Mr Sim Boon Woo - he may speak on this.

I am not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol has asked about the applications for electricity to the kampong houses. He complains that the applications were sent in a few months ago and that no action has been taken. If he can give me more details of those people who have already submitted their applications, I can assure him that I will take up the matter. The Member has also asked how many jetties will be constructed in the Southern Islands. There is a provision for jetties, $100,000 provided for next year. The Government is considering constructing 6 jetties -5 in the Southern Islands and one in Changi. The 5 in the Southern Islands are: (1) Pulau Seraya, (2) Pulau Bukom Kechil, (3) Pulau Seking, (4) Pulau Semakau and (5) Pulau Ayer Merbau. These 5 are in the Southern Islands, and Kampong Panghang, Pulau Tekong, that is in Changi. The estimated cost of all these jetties is about $80,000. The Member has also raised the question of water supply to rural areas in Track 13. Sir, the Urban and Rural Services Committee this year has already approved $88,400 for the Punggol constituency. The sum of money is spent on the repair of roads as well as on providing for standpipes and water supply. He should be satisfied, Sir. Whenever it is repair to a major road to provide for drainage, the Committee will consider it, but not for a small track or a small lane to provide the drainage. The cost of the drainage in this case will cost more than the road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation clearly given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, I am fully satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

That refers to Amendment (6) in respect of item 004. Amendments (8), (9) and (11) - is it correct to say that the Member is not moving them?

No, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments (8) and (9) are not proceeded with. Amendment (l0)* - Mr Sim. Did I hear you say "Not moving"? *Amendments (10) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 to be reduced by $10 in respect of item 014 of subhead 016.

Not moving.

Amendment (11) is not proceeded with. Amendment (l2)*, standing in the name of Mr Sim. *Amendments (12), which also stood in the name of Mr.Lim Cheng Lock, reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 08 to be reduced by $100.

Not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I filed in this amendment, I had in mind congratulating the Public Works Department on the ---

Not again!

Yes, Mr Speaker. Apparently the Member for Changi beat me to it yesterday evening. 7.15 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a lot of praise has been sung for the Housing and Development Board. In fact, it has been over-emphasized, but there is one sector in the P.W.D., I think, which has been going on quietly developing, widening and generally improving the roads for the people of Singapore. So far it has not been acknowledged except by the Member for Changi yesterday. I think it is only proper that the good work done by the engineers and staff of the P.W.D. for the people of Singapore should go down on record. I think we should be grateful to them for the fine stretches of roads that they have laid and are laying, otherwise the movement of traffic will be impeded and we will not be able to get to our destination on time. I think this is another achieve ment we should be proud of, besides housing.

The Question is, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $100." Mr Minister, I do not think there is anything to reply to that.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $28,312,040 for Head D 08 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The remaining head of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper is Head D 09.

Question, "That the sum of $1,061,074 for Head D 09 stand part of the Development Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $276,712,224 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1965," put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported --- That the sum of $276,712,224 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1965.

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

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

Debate on Second Reading resumed. 7.20 p.m.

The debate on the Second Reading of the Bill may now proceed. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, though I am grateful to the Minister for Labour for presenting before this House a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1962, I have some comments to make, especially in relation to the proposed amendments. My first comment is in respect of clause 8 of the Bill in which it is proposed to include new section 15A in the Ordinance. I gladly welcome the move to bring the question of union recognition by an employer within the scope of the Ordinance by treating recognition as an industrial matter. But my concern is that the question of union recognition does not seem to be adequately dealt with in the proposed amendment. I refer to the fact that a union may not be granted recognition by an employer if the result of a secret ballot shows that the trade union does not represent the majority of the employees or class of employees in respect of whom the right to represent is claimed by the trade union, as stated in subsection (3) of the proposed section 15A. Sir, I am bringing up this point because, once this Bill is passed by this House and becomes law, the question of union recognition becomes very vital and crucial to any union, and until a union has been accorded recognition by an employer in accordance with the provisions of the proposed section, the union has no right to represent the employees vis-a-vis the employers. This problem of union recognition does not arise in the case of an established industry or undertaking where unionisation has taken place or has been taking place for some time. In such a case, the provision for union recognition as set out in the proposed section is adequate, because unionisation of workers will have taken place. The problem then would likely be one of whether Union A or Union B should be given the right to represent the workers. In such a situation, where two rival unions compete for the right to represent the workers - I repeat once more here - I agree that the provision of the proposed amendment deals adequately with the problem of resolving which union is to be accorded the right to represent the employees. I do not think there will be any disagreement among Members in this House that they would not consider it unfair that the union which obtains the majority of votes in a secret ballot should be given the sole right to represent the workers vis-a-vis the employer. What I have in mind is this, that in the case of a new industry or undertaking where unionisation is in the process of taking place and in such a case where a union has only started to move in and organise the workers, it is plain common sense that it will take some time before the union can enrol the majority of workers in such industry or undertaking to become members of the union. I have been given to understand by the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union that the workers in such industry or undertaking are often reluctant to become members of the union until they are convinced that the union can do something for them in relation to their benefits, terms and conditions of service. But this means, in effect, that the workers expect the union to obtain a favourable collective agreement on their behalf before they consent to become members of the union. This I can assure you, Sir, can make things rather difficult for the union, because when negotiations for a collective agreement break down - and this is highly probable in the case of a first collective agreement - the matter will be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court whose practice in the case of a first collective agreement is to make an award that follows the minimum provisions of the prevailing employment Ordinance in Singapore. It is not difficult to understand here why these workers question the purpose of a union when it is unable to obtain for them benefits over and above those laid down in the relevant employment Ordinances. To come to the point, it would be hardly conducive to industrial peace to allow a situation to develop where an employer can refuse recognition to a union solely on the ground that it does not represent the majority of the employees. So to prevent such a situation I suggest that some provision be made for the Minister to direct, at his discretion, that any union be accorded recognition by an employer, notwithstanding the fact that such a provision will have the effectiveness of the proposed section 15A. Such a provision, of course, is subject to the fact that only one union is involved in this question of union recognition. As I have stated earlier, Sir, where two or more unions are competing for recognition it is only fair that the union which obtains the majority of votes in a secret ballot is entitled to represent the workers comprised in the secret ballot. To extend this principle of majority to a situation where only one union is seeking recognition from an employer is to create unnecessary industrial unrest and injustice because, as I have said earlier, in the case of a new industry or undertaking, it may be difficult for a union to organise the majority of the workers until some time has elapsed. The last point I would like to make in respect of this question of union recognition is that some provision must be made to safeguard the interests of workers who are members of a union which has lost out in secret ballots where there are two unions competing for the right to represent the workers. Now, according to the provisions of the proposed section l5A, only a successful union will be recognised as a negotiating body for the workers. But, as it often happens, the members of the unsuccessful union are liable to be victimised by the employers. I am fully aware that sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Ordinance provide legal protection for such workers who have been victimised by the employers. The difficulty lies in enforcing or seeking the legal protection provided under the Ordinance. The difficulty lies in the fact that no employer will be so foolish as to state in writing the true reasons why he had victimised a worker. It may be that the latter is engaged in trade union activities and also the fact that the worker, being a human being, is so perfect that an employer cannot find any fault in his conduct or competence or efficiency as to warrant his justification for the dismissal of the employee. I will deal with this point more fully later. For the present, I only wish to add that the successful prosecution of an employer under the provisions of sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Ordinance must be dependent on circumstantial evidence in the absence of better evidence. An employer may tell a worker in the privacy of his office that it is detrimental to the interests of the worker if he persists in continuing his union activities. If the employer is brought to court and if he denies that he ever made such a statement, then it is the worker's word against the employer as to whether such a statement was ever made by the employer. Considering the difficulty facing a worker when he seeks to obtain redress through the ordinary law court, it is no surprise that the worker would prefer to have his legitimate grievance or complaint dealt with by the Industrial Arbitration Court. Sir, the point I want to make here is that the proposed section l5A should provide that where two or more unions compete for the right to represent the workers, those workers who have been members of the unsuccessful union up to the time of the secret ballot and still continue to be members of the unsuccessful union in spite of the fact that this union has no locus standi in the eyes of the employer, should be brought before the Arbitration Court by the unsuccessful union. As I see it, this question of union recognition should be properly treated as a question of the definition of the relationship between an employer and a union in respect of a collective agreement and other incidental matters thereof. While an employer is entitled to refuse to deal with any union other than the one to whom he has accorded recognition, in accordance with the provision of the proposed section 15A., he should not be allowed to seek refuge behind the provisions of this section when he has committed an act of injustice which is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Court to direct. At this juncture, I think I should remind Members that the Industrial Arbitration Court grants hearing only to an employer or to a union - an individual worker has no right to appear before the Industrial Arbitration Court. The Industrial Arbitration Court grants hearing only to an employer. So there is no opportunity for an individual worker, if he has grievances, to appear before the Court. Even no union can appear on his behalf, because, you see, it is not recognised by the employer. Under the provisions of this proposed section 15A, the plight of those workers who are members of the union which lost out in the secret ballot is most unenviable. Any dispute the workers may have with their employer cannot be brought before the Industrial Arbitration Court, because under the provisions of section 20 (a) of the Ordinance, a joint application by both the employer and the union is necessary for the reference of the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court. In the situation as I am describing now, the employer will not consent to make a joint application with the union which the employer is entitled not to recognise as a representative of the workers, and the union which is accorded recognition by the employer will be entitled to refuse to take up the case of these workers who are not their members. This, in effect, leaves such workers without the right of redress to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Under the provisions of the present Ordinance, the Minister may direct such a dispute as I have described to be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court in accordance with the provisions of section 28 (b) . But my only concern is whether the enactment of the proposed section 15A will have any effect on the Minister's right to intervene in the situation I have described before. If the Minister for Labour can give me an assurance that it is still possible, after the enactment of the proposed section 15A, for workers who are members of a union which lost out in a secret ballot to obtain redress through the Industrial Arbitration Court in the event of any dispute arising between them and the employer, I shall be most satisfied.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on another section of the Bill which is section 18 where it is proposed to delete the existing subsections (2) and (3) of section 39 of the Ordinance and insert in place thereof another five subsections. My interest lies with the proposed subsection (6) wherein it is stated that an appeal from the decision of a referee to the Court shall be made in the prescribed manner within 14 days from the date of the referee's decision. I am of the opinion that the 14 days' limit for the making of an appeal is inadequate. My reasons for saying so are, (a) it is nowhere stated in any of the proposed subsections of section 39 that the referee must make his award in writing or that the referee must give the grounds of his decision together with his decision. I do not see how a person can make an appeal unless he knows what he is appealing from. The present system of making available transcripts of court proceedings to the parties is highly unsatisfactory, because of apparent understaffing in the Industrial Arbitration Court. It may take a party as long as three months to obtain such transcripts. I have been given to understand that some unions had made representations to the Industrial Arbitration Court in respect of this delay in obtaining Court transcripts and had been told by the Court officer that the Court is under no obligation to supply Court transcripts to any party. While I agree that the Court officer is correct in making such a statement, the fact remains that the party to any proceedings before the Industrial Arbitration Court has to wait for months before he can lay his hands on Court transcripts for which he has to pay quite a sum of money. Another point is that no union can afford to employ a staff of stenographers at its own expense to take down Court proceedings for its own use. I am not making this criticism of the Industrial Arbitration Court for the purpose of running it down. What I want to emphasize is that the provisions of making an appeal within 14 days is impracticable in the light of the present staff situation in the Industrial Arbitration Court. I would suggest that the phrase "notice of appeal" be inserted in place of appeal in the proposed subsection (6) and that a longer time period be given for filing an appeal under the provisions of this Ordinance. Then in section 22 of the Bill wherein it is proposed to delete subsection (2) of section 79 of the Ordinance and insert in place thereof seven new subsections, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment does not add to the efficiency of section 79 and the proposed prosecution of an employer in respect of offences under section 75 or 77 is cumbersome as the existing mode of prosecution under the present provisions of this Ordinance. The crux of the matter, as far as the National Trades Union Congress is concerned, is whether the written consent of the Public Prosecutor is necessary before any prosecution can be instituted under the provisions of section 79. As I have said earlier, it is difficult enough to institute prosecution proceedings against an employer in respect of any offences under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance without making it more difficult by requiring that the Public Prosecutor must be satisfied that such a prosecution must have a chance of success before he would give his consent to the prosecution being instituted. In effect, this means that any complaint by a worker against his employer must have a double trial before he can obtain satisfaction for his complaint. First before the Public Prosecutor, and then before the trial judge. I am not speculating on the probable effect of the proposed amendment, but I am speaking from bitter experience. The National Trades Union Congress has submitted several cases to the then State Advocate-General, now the Attorney-General, for his necessary consent before instituting prosecution proceedings. In such cases as the British Eastern (Malaya) Ltd, and the Singer Sewing Machine Co., where some employees were dismissed by the employers in highly suspicious circumstances, no consent to the institution of prosecution proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance was obtained because the Attorney-General was of the opinion that there was no sufficient case. Only in one case that involved Lim Teck Lee & Co. was consent given to institute a prosecution. Even then I am given to understand that the police is not pressing forward with this prosecution. It is the contention of the National Trades Union Congress that, in view of the unsatisfactory mode of instituting prosecution proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the most suitable manner of instituting prosecution proceedings should be as provided for under the provisions of section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132). In advocating such a procedure, I have in mind that the Public Prosecutor is already overburdened with work and that it will take some time for him to examine the facts of the case before he can decide whether to give his whole consent to the institution of any prosecution proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I can see no strong objection to the adoption of the procedure laid down in Chapter 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code, except that possibly the Government of Singapore has no confidence in the incumbents on the Bench in the Magistrate's Court, for surely a magistrate will be able to put a stop to any frivolous prosecution when he comes across it. In any event, there are sufficient safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent a person from being unduly inconvenienced by any complaint laid before the magistrate. I presume from the term "public officers" referred to in the proposed subsection, the Minister has in mind any Government employee other than a police officer. He is not very concerned as to who makes an investigation. I would have thought that the police officer, by the nature of his training, should be the proper person to make any investigation in respect of an offence under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance! Under the procedure laid down in the proposed amendment, it may take a long time before consent to institute prosecution proceedings can be given. In the meantime, the worker who has been injured by an offence in respect of which consent to institute prosecution proceedings is sought, justifiably feels that his time is being wasted. Where an ordinary worker is concerned, I feel happier if he is to appear before a magistrate and told by him that he has no case against his employer. I personally think that it is not only sufficient to ensure that justice is done, but it is also important to ensure that justice is seen to be done. As far as an ordinary worker is concerned, it appears to him that justice is not done where the decision to institute prosecution proceedings for an offence under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is left solely in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. After all is over, he will still be left with the feeling that no action has ever been taken on his case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather surprised that the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Telok Blangah have still got so much to say on this Bill. In fact, the amendments contained in this Bill were based on a memorandum submitted by the N.T.U.C. at the end of 1964 and throughout the whole of 1965, we have spent much time with the representative of the N.T.U.C. to work out the amendments in this Bill. In fact, the amendments contained in this Bill were mainly proposals made by the N.T.U.C. and in many committee meetings we have already explained ---

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Will the Minister give way? Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

I can only agree with the Minister for Labour that some amendments were effected in consultation with the N.T.U.C. representative, but not all the amendments in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In our deliberations with the officials of the Ministry of Labour, we told them that we would reserve our right to comment. So we did not fully agree with all the amendments, but we did agree with some amendments. We did not make any comment on those amendments we agreed. I am only commenting on all those amendments on which we still have some area of disagreement with the Ministry of Labour.

Nevertheless, the whole of this amendment is based on the proposals made by the N.T.U.C. Of course, we cannot say that every proposal made by the N.T.U.C. must be accepted by the Government. Some of the proposals can be accepted, but some of them, we think, are demanding too much and will not be in the interest of industry as a whole. So we have rejected some of these proposals, and we have given full explanations to the representative of the N.T.U.C. I think the N.T.U.C. has developed into such a big organisation that sometimes its left hand may not know what its right hand is doing. I cannot blame it for that, because the N.T.U.C. is now representing about 75 per cent of our working population. However, let me come to the points raised by the Members. One of the points raised by the Member for Bras Basah is that he has some misgivings about clause 8 of this amendment Bill. He said that it is not adequate enough to deal with unions seeking recognition, especially the unions which are in the pioneering industries. I think he has not read the Bill as a whole. He came across this clause 8 and he found that under new section 15A there will be a provision: `No trade union of employees which has not been given recognition by an employer in the prescribed manner may serve on that employer a notice under section 16 of this Ordinance.' So he came to the conclusion that unions in the pioneering industries may not be able to seek recognition because of this clause. I would like to point out to him that there is still another clause in the Bill - clause 23 - which seeks to amend section 81 of the Ordinance and this provision empowers the Minister to make regulations governing the recognition of trade unions, and I must inform the House that the representatives of the N.T.U.C. have, in fact, worked out the regulations to be published governing the recognition of trade unions. Now in these regulations which will be published if this Bill is passed, one of the things which is provided is that a trade union of employees may serve on an employer a claim for recognition in the prescribed form and that once this claim is served on him, he must give recognition to that union within seven working days, unless he has some reason for not recognising it. In this case then, the union will have the right to notify the Commissioner for Labour who will direct that a secret ballot be taken in accordance with the directions given by him within a reasonable period, and once the secret ballot has decided that the union is representing the majority of the workers, the employer must recognise it. At present, there is no law to provide that an employer must recognise a trade union, but if this Bill is passed and the regulations which we are going to make are published, then there will be something legally binding on the employer to recognise the union. So the point raised by the Member for Bras Basah will not arise here. Then the Member also complained that there are not enough safeguards for the workers if they are victimised by employers. In other words, he is complaining that section 77 is not adequate enough to let our trade unions prosecute employers who are found to be victimising workers. Now, I would like to remind Members that in October this year the N.T.U.C. held its Second Annual Delegates Conference, and the then Secretary-General, Mr Devan Nair, made a report to the N.T.U.C. for and on behalf of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. In one of the passages in this report, he said ---

Would the Minister give the citation?

Yes. This is the Secretary-General's report for and on behalf of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. which was presented to the N.T.U.C. Conference in October 1965. In page 18 of this report, Mr Devan Nair, among other things, said: `On the proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, several discussions took place in the State Economic Consultative Committee as well as directly between the N.T.U.C. and the Government. The Government is happy to announce that as a result of these discussions, several major changes will be made to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. These changes will be contained in a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1966", which the Government has agreed to introduce at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.' Now, among the amendments envisaged by the Bill would be provisions covering the following matters. There are several matters here -

Order. Moment of, interruption. Debate to be resumed, what day, Mr Minister?

31st December.

That is tomorrow. Will you move the adjournment, Mr Minister?

Resolved, " That this House do now adjourn." - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong] Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.