Hansard, 1966-10-26

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Tang See Chim (Choa Chu Kang) - from 2nd to 10th September, 1966. Inche A. Rahim Ishak (Siglap), Minister of State for Education - from 1st to 29th September, 1966. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 1st to 12th September, 1966. Mr Lim Kim San (Cairnhill), Minister for Finance - from 12th September to 10th October, 1966. Dr Fong Kim Heng (Joo Chiat) - from 17th September to 17th October, 1966.

I have been informed by the President that, on the days stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 30th August, 1966 (i) Supplementary Supply (No. 2) Bill; (ii) Free Trade Zones Bill; (iii) Customs (Amendment No. 2) Bill; (iv) Asian Development Bank Bill; (v) Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Limitation (Extension) Bill; (vii) Constitution (Amendment) Bill; and (viii) Road Traffic (Amendment No. 2) Bill. 31st August, 1966 (i) Punishment for Vandalism Bill; and (ii) Judicial Committee Bill.

Order. I have to inform hon. Members that at 10.30 a.m. on the 18th of October, 1966, I received to hand a letter dated the 4th October, 1966, under the hand of Dr Fong Kim Heng, who was elected to this House as Member for Joo Chiat, resigning his seat in Parliament. Members will recall that Dr Fong has been ill and has had to apply for periods of leave. In view of his continued ill-health Dr Fong states that he feels it his duty to resign his seat. Dr Fong's letter was received in my office on the 4th of October, 1966. I further have to inform hon. Members that at 10.30 a.m. on the 18th of October, 1966, I received to hand a letter dated the 8th of October, 1966, signed by Mr Chia Thye Poh who was elected to this House as Member for Jurong. This letter was delivered to my office on the 8th of October, 1966. The material part of this letter reads as follows:- "...the Party" (i.e, the Barisan Sosialis) "has decided that all Barisan 'MPs' will resign their 'Parliamentary' seats as from today. The 9 Barisan MPs are:- 1. Chia Thye Poh (Jurong) 2. Koo Young (Thomson) 3. Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang) 4. Poh Ber Liak (Tampines) 5. Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu) 6. Miss Loh Miaw Gong (Havelock) 7. Chan Sun Wing (Nee Soon) 8. Lee Tee Tong (Bukit Timah) 9. Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh)". I had to consider the effect of this letter in the light of the Constitution, in particular, of Article 30 (2) (c) which provides that - 'The seat of a Member of Parliament shall become vacant, if, by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker, he resigns his seat in Parliament;'. In view of another letter I have received from Mr Lee Tee Tong, who was elected to this House as Member for Bukit Timah, what I say hereafter on Mr Chia's letter has no reference to Mr Lee Tee Tong. I have given Mr Chia Thye Poh's letter considerable thought in view of the particular circumstances affecting certain of the Members named in the letter. To my mind, the provisions of Article 30 (2) (c) are clear and preclude resignation by an agent. Any resignation to be effective must, amongst other requirements, be by writing under the hand of the Member concerned and of no one else. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the letter signed by Mr Chia Thye Poh is ineffective for its expressed purpose in so far as the following 7 persons are concerned:-

asked the Deputy Prime Minister if he will consider permitting the entry into Singapore of non-Singapore citizens over the age of, say, 60 years whose sponsors can adequately provide for them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the existing rule is that widows of 65 years and above and widowers of 70 years and above will be considered for admission into Singapore. I am prepared to revise this rule by including widowers who are 65 years and above. However, the Government has examined the question of whether the age limit should be lowered to 60 years and has come to the conclusion that, for the moment, it would be inadvisable indeed to permit immigration of aged people below 65 years. Mr Speaker, the House is aware that as a little island State, it is very necessary indeed that we should exercise a firm immigration policy. Otherwise, faced with our own population expansion together with an influx from other territories, we might in the near future be encumbered with considerable social problems. I would like, for the information of the Member, to tell him that last year a total of 26 applications were approved and this year, from January to September, a total of 39 applications have been approved. The majority of applications which were rejected were mainly because the applications referred to those who were below 65 years old. Another major reason was that the applicant was living with other children either in China or in India, and therefore could not be considered. I may also further emphasise that this regulation concerning admission of aged parents into Singapore refers expressly to widows or widowers and that these persons should provide full evidence that they have no other means of support if they are not permitted to enter Singapore. I can assure the Member, as I have done at the last sitting, that all applications are considered on compassionate grounds but, at the same time, we have also got to be fair not only to ourselves but to the State so that we do not see that Singapore is encumbered with unnecessary social problems.

(In Mandarin): A supplementary question, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister concerned this question. In my constituency there is a resident who is a citizen of Singapore and who has a mother of over 60 years of age in China. Several years ago he made a request for her to come to Singapore but it was not approved. The reason was that he had a relative in China to support her. The complaint of this resident is that this relative of his mother in China has already been transferred to another place in China. So I would like to ask whether the Minister will reconsider this application.

I do not know whether the Minister can answer that without notice.

Yes, Mr Speaker. If the Member will give me the name of the applicant, the reference number of the letter which he received or which his constituent received from the Controller of Immigration, I will look into the matter. But I must emphasise to him that there must be absolute proof that there is nobody in China who could look after the applicant. The Member has forgotten that the ruling applies only to widows who are 65 years old and above, and if she happens to be 62 years old, then I am afraid she is not covered by this regulation and therefore cannot be granted admission.

asked the Minister of Defence, with the resumption of normal relations with Indonesia, whether steps will be taken to contact the owners of the premises of the Kebun Ubi Community Centre at Jalan Penggaga with a view to regularising the tenancy of the Centre and if improvements will be made to the premises, particularly to avoid flooding during heavy rains.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to both parts of the question is "No". No improvement to the building will avoid flooding during heavy rains. The People's Association is considering building a community centre elsewhere in the constituency.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is Government policy that women could and should also share in the task of safeguarding the security of our young Republic and whether he will take immediate steps to create more opportunities for them to serve in the Police Force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the Government's policy that women should share in the task of safeguarding the security of our young Republic. They take a rightful place in the ranks of both the Police and the Army. The number of policewomen required is, however, limited by the fact that in the field of criminal activity, particularly where violence is used, women have not yet achieved equality with men. Therefore, it is necessary to employ more policemen than policewomen. Similarly, in the Army, women cannot be used as combat troops, but they are usefully engaged in clerical, nursing and communications work.

(In Mandarin): Sir, can I supplement my question? If there are posts at present which need women to come forward to serve the country, especially posts in the Police Force, will the Minister consider providing women with these facilities? According to him, certain posts are not quite suitable for women, but I understand that in the Police Force, certain posts are quite suitable for women. Will he consider providing better facilities for women to join the Police Force?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present the number of posts in the establishment of policewomen is something like 245 - in that order of magnitude - I have not got the actual figure. Most of these posts are filled. There are only a few vacancies, possibly about half a dozen. These will be filled in the normal course of work.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government intends to set up embassies or trade representations in East European Communist Countries.

The Member for Ulu Pandan will recall my statement to this House on the 16th and 17th of December last year in which I said that it was our intention first to establish Missions in some ten countries. At that time, I also mentioned that it was our intention to set up other Missions when we can find the personnel and the money or when political and trade considerations justify their being set up earlier. It is in such context that the establishment of Embassies or trade representations in East European countries will have to be viewed. However, I would like to assure the Member for Ulu Pandan that promotion of trade with as many countries as possible regardless of ideological differences, whether they are in the East or in the West, still remains a major objective of our foreign policy. These intentions have been embodied in the trade agreements recently concluded with the U.S.S.R., Bulgaria and Poland, which provide for the establishment of Singapore trade representations in those countries in the future.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) to date, how many High Commissions and Embassies have been set up and in which countries; (b) how many personnel for diplomatic service have been recruited; and (c) what is the annual expenditure for High Commissions and Embassies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I informed this House in December last year that it was the intention of the Government to establish diplomatic missions before the end of the year in ten countries. As of now, diplomatic missions have been established in the following countries: Australia, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand and the United Kingdom. In addition, a permanent mission to the United Nations has been established in New York. It is hoped that before the end of the year, diplomatic missions will also be established in India, the United Arab Republic and possibly Japan. As regards the second part of the question, the Public Service Commission has so far recruited four new entrants, and in addition approved the secondment of eight senior officers from different branches of the home civil service for service in overseas missions. These figures do not, of course, include the heads of missions nor do they include Division II officers serving in overseas missions. As regards the third part of the question on annual expenditure, last year this House voted a sum of $� million for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This sum was spent on setting up the Ministry itself and two overseas missions - one in Kuala Lumpur and the other in New York. This year, a sum of $4 million has been voted. However, since most of the overseas missions were not fully established until the middle of this year, the expenditure for the first half of the year was below the expected average. Members will appreciate that until the missions have been fully in existence for at least a year, it will not be possible to give reliable estimates of the annual expenditure.

asked the Minister for Education whether an integrated Secondary School and a Secondary Technical School will be built in the Paya Lebar Constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no plans for the building of secondary schools in the Paya Lebar Constituency under the Second Plan. The International Airport takes up a quarter of the area covered by this constituency. Whilst the remaining areas are densely settled, it has not been possible to acquire a suitable site within this constituency for development into a secondary school, and the residents living in this constituency are being served by secondary schools in the neighbouring areas. One secondary school is being built at Lowland Road, whilst construction work on another secondary school in Mount Vernon Road will begin shortly. These two secondary schools are just outside the boundary of the Paya Lebar Constituency and within walking distance for students living in that constituency.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The point I would like to raise is that I regret that the Minister for Education does not see fit to set up the secondary schools as requested by me. There are quite a number of residents in this constituency. If there are not enough secondary schools, then -

I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the rules which require his supplementary question to be a genuine supplementary question and not a speech of complaint about the inadequacy of the Minister's answer. Could the hon. Member frame a question, please?

(In Mandarin): Thank you for your direction, Sir. It is very clear that if there is no integrated secondary school in the Paya Lebar Constituency, then it will be a great inconvenience to the residents. The point is that in the Paya Lebar Constituency, there are no means of communication, no crossroads, not even pirate taxis. Under such conditions, it is very difficult for the residents to send their children to schools outside the constituency. So I feel that it is rather inconvenient in respect of time and other -

Mr Tay, I regret I have to rule you out of order again. You may well have a genuine complaint, and should you require it, I am sure the Clerk will give you every guidance on how you can raise it on a motion for adjournment or by some other device. But at the moment, I can only permit you to ask a supplementary question and no further. Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Tay?

(In Mandarin): That is what I wanted to say - nothing more.

asked the Minister for Education what is the Government's financial contribution to the University of Singapore for 1966; and whether he will obtain and give a breakdown of how the contribution is expended.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's financial contribution to the University of Singapore for 1966 is $10 million. Of this amount, about $9 million is for Personal Emoluments, the balance for honoraria, departmental grants, new equipment and other items of recurrent expenditure. In addition, the Government has also made a provision of $450,000 for the capital development of the University of Singapore during 1966.

(In Tamil): Is the administration of the University going on properly, and will the Government appoint a Commission of Inquiry to look into it?

That question does go beyond the bounds of a supplementary question, but if the Minister for Education wants to answer it, he may. The question was whether the Government is satisfied with the administration of the University and also whether it will consider appointing a Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not received any complaint about maladministration of the University, I do not think the question of a Commission of Inquiry arises at this stage.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider the erection of a shed near the entrance of the Middleton Hospital to accommodate and give shelter to members of the public who visit patients in the Hospital.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to inform the Member for Farrer Park that my Ministry has plans to build a shed with seating accommodation next year, costing approximately $2,000, for members of the public who intend to visit patients at the Middleton Hospital.

asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is planning to establish an Outpatient Dispensary in the Paya Lebar Constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to inform the Member for Paya Lebar that there are no immediate plans to establish an Outpatient Dispensary inside Paya Lebar Constituency. The reasons are the same as those given to similar questions raised by other Members in the recent past. It is not possible to have Government Outpatient Dispensaries in every constituency, and in my opinion the present 26 Government Outpatient Dispensaries situated all over the island are adequate to serve the needs of Singapore for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, residents of Paya Lebar Constituency can go to any one of three nearby Government Outpatient Dispensaries: (a) Paya Lebar Outpatient Dispensary (with three doctors) which is situated at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road with Yio Chu Kang Road and just outside the boundaries of Paya Lebar Constituency itself; (b) Lim Ah Pin Outpatient Dispensary (with one doctor) which is just off 6th milestone, Upper Serangoon Road; and (c) MacPherson Road Outpatient Dispensary (with three doctors) at Pesiaran Keliling, off Lower Paya Lebar Road.

asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will build a market between the 4 m.s. and 7� m.s. Thomson. Road, and when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret again to inform the Member for Anson that Government has no intention of building a Government market between 4 m.s. and 7� m.s. Thomson Road for the foreseeable future. It has been the policy of Government to build markets in areas where large-scale public housing is being undertaken. In accordance with this policy, 10 Government markets with 2,171 stalls have been built since 1961 in Housing and Development Board estates at a cost of $2.3 million.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs whether he intends setting up an institute of research on problems of women, as outlined in "The Tasks Ahead, 1959", with a view to improving their social, economic and political status in society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has since 1959 introduced various measures which have considerably improved the status of women in Singapore, including the enactment of the Women's Charter, 1960, which, among other things, enforces monogamy in Singapore except for Muslims, and the institution of equal pay for women in the civil service. The problems of women therefore no longer constitute an urgent issue as it used to be in the old days. There is no reference to the setting up of an Institute of Research on the Problems of Women in The Tasks Ahead, 1959-1964 - at least in the English copies. However, the desirability of setting up a research institute to study these problems will be looked into by my Ministry.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I have some supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he knows that the setting up of an Institute of Research on Problems of Women is stated in Book III of the P.A.P.'s Policy? The second supplementary question is: if he thinks that this was the policy in 1959, whether he can tell me when this institution will be set up, because last year when discussing the Budget I asked this question and he replied that it was under consideration. But one year has already passed and the question has not been dealt with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, my Ministry will look into this question first. So before I can give the hon. Member the date when we will set up this institute, let us begin an investigation first.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he has received any requests from farmers of Kampong Potong Pasir and the surrounding areas for assistance to combat pests damaging their vegetables and what action has been taken in the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was a serious outbreak of pest infestation in vegetable farms in Kampong Potong Pasir recently, The pest was identified as Diamond-Back moth. In early 1965 this species attacked vegetable farms in Changi and Punggol, but with the assistance rendered by the officers of the Primary Production Department, these farms soon became free from infestation. In March 1966 the Diamond-Back moth appeared in large numbers in and around Kampong Potong Pasir. Teams of Primary Production officers were immediately despatched to the scene to help combat the pest. They discovered that the farmers there had been indiscriminately spraying their vegetable crops with all types of insecticides which proved to be ineffective, because the pests had developed a resistance to such insecticides. The problem was further aggravated because the Potong Pasir farmers, owing to economic considerations, were unwilling to adopt crop rotation which is one reliable method of pest control and, in fact, has proved effective in combatting the same pests in Changi and Punggol. On the advice of the Primary Production Department, many farmers in Potong Pasir have now agreed to adopt rotation of the crops. As a result, the extent of the damage caused by the insect has been considerably reduced. The Department has also recommended to farmers the use of the moth alluring lights trap at night to kill as many moths as possible. In addition, by carrying out extensive experiments and field trials, the Department has found an organo phosphorus insecticide sold under the trade name "Phospherin" which is effective against the Diamond-Back moth. Orders for this effective insecticide have been placed with overseas companies, and sufficient quantities are expected to arrive very shortly. The Primary Production Department has also carried out film shows, lectures and discussions with farmers to acquaint them with the latest information and techniques in agricultural pest controls and eradication. The Department has also helped the affected farmers to obtain social welfare aid to overcome their temporary hardship. The pest infestation at Kampong Potong Pasir, though not completely removed, has been minimised to a great extent. It is expected that with the massive use of the organo phosphorus insecticide after its arrival, the pests will be wiped out.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether the backlane behind houses Nos. 50 to 78 at Race Course Road will be made up, and when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department has prepared a list of backlanes, which include the one behind Race Course Road, for vesting under section 44 of the Local Government Integration Ordinance. It is expected that this backlane, together with others, will be made up sometime next year.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider setting up Government abattoirs in the Serangoon, Katong and Bukit Panjang Districts to facilitate the slaughter of pigs and other live-stock for the people of those areas for sale at rural markets.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are in existence three abattoirs in Singapore - a pig abattoir in French Road, a cattle abattoir in Jalan Besar, and a sheep and goat abattoir also in Jalan Besar, opposite the cattle abattoir. The numbers of animals slaughtered in these abattoirs at present are about 1,200 pigs, 200 goats or sheep, and 30 heads of cattle each day. A new modern abattoir is being built in Jurong. This new abattoir will be highly mechanised and operated on a mechanised system, so that about 200 pigs, 100 goats or sheep and 15 heads of cattle can be slaughtered per hour. The slaughtering and meat inspection in the new abattoir will be of internationally accepted standards so that we can issue veterinary certificates acceptable to most countries to enable Singapore meat products to be marketed in foreign countries. The abattoir is being constructed at the cost of about $5 million and is expected to be completed in July 1967. On completion, the new abattoir, together with the existing ones, should be sufficient or adequate to meet the needs of the whole island. However, if they prove to be insufficient or inadequate, every consideration will be given to build more abattoirs and to site them in the rural areas.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development when the Government will make public the Report of the Constitutional Commission on minority rights which was presented to the President of the Republic on 27th August, 1966.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Constitutional Commission, which was presented to the President on the 27th of August this year, is under careful study by the Government. It is intended to table the Report, together with the Government's views thereon, at the next sitting of Parliament, probably in December.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider converting the existing parking lots in front of shop-houses into reserved lots for shopkeepers who may be willing to pay the fee for such parking lots as is charged for season parking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Car Parks Division has a total of 7,076 parking lots, of which 3,493 or approximately 50 per cent are delineated in the central business districts where the demand for parking facilities is ever-increasing. The shortage of such facilities in certain areas has added to traffic congestion; hence specifically to allocate any portion of a road frontage for the exclusive use of shopkeepers will further aggravate the situation. Requests and petitions received by the Car Parks Division for implementation of parking schemes in areas where such facilities have not been provided are indications of a general awareness of the advantages of having as many car parking lots as possible to enable shoppers to have a readily available place to park their vehicles. Only recently shopkeepers in Beach Road have petitioned to the Member of Parliament for Kampong Glam for restoration of parking lots which were deleted by the Car Parks Division. Similarly, shopkeepers in Arab Street have also requested the Division to implement the pay parking scheme in this area for the convenience of their customers. The view of my Ministry is that it will be wrong to convert the existing parking lots in front of shophouses for the exclusive use of the shopkeepers, as this will only affect business transactions and drive away customers to localities where parking facilities are more readily available. I wish to point out that with the constant phenomena built up in motor traffic at the rate of 700 new cars per month, there may come a time when parking on the roads will be totally amended to prevent the city from being strangled. In anticipation of this, my Ministry is already preparing plans for more multi-storey, off-the-street and underground car parks to be constructed at which vehicles will be allowed to park without detriment to the traffic flow which is the life-blood of the city.

A supplementary question. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the answer given to me just now by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government is only catering for the needs of the motorist. Will the Government also consider catering for the needs of the shopkeeper who is doing business connected with loading and unloading if, in front of his shop, there is a parking bay which is occupied by a motorist who parks his car there, and this brings about difficulties in loading and unloading?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question raised by the hon. Member for Bras Basah is whether we can provide parking lots for loading and unloading in front of shophouses. In fact, in every busy business centre when a parking scheme is introduced, there are one or two parking lots reserved for loading and unloading. As I have just mentioned, we cannot reserve a parking lot for every shopkeeper for loading and unloading. In drawing up the lines in one street, we can only provide one or two parking lots for loading and unloading where there is a need for them.

If the Department concerned does provide a parking bay for loading and unloading, say, about 50 feet away from a shop which requires this facility, then it does not serve the purpose of the shopkeeper. What I am asking is this: if a shopkeeper has made an application to convert the parking bay in front of his shop for his real need of loading and unloading, will the Government consider his application?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is very simple. If the shopkeeper wants to make use of the existing parking lot for loading and unloading, he can occupy the vacant parking lot for that purpose provided he pays the charge.

But when the parking bay in front of the shop is being occupied by a motorist who parks his car there, how can the shopkeeper make use of it to load and unload the goods from the lorry? An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

It is not a supplementary, but the earlier question is. Do you wish to answer it, Mr Ho?

Mr Speaker, I consider this a very simple question. He can find his own answer!

asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) whether consideration will be given to establish a post office in the Delta Constituency.

(In Malay): There are already two post offices in the immediate neighbourhood, viz., Alexandra Road and Tiong Bahru Post Offices, to meet the needs of the Delta Constituency and, therefore, it is not considered necessary to establish a post office in the constituency itself.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to be answered by the Minister of State, and that is, whether he is aware that the development of Singapore is proceeding ahead in order to meet the changes, and these changes are such that they are beyond description. For example, in the past, there were only about 14,000 voters in this constituency. But at the present moment the number of voters is more than four times that in the past. This means there are about 70,000 voters in this constituency. Another question I would like to ask the Minister is whether he is aware that the changes in the Tiong Bahru area have been very considerable. In the past, there were only about 12,000 voters. But now because of the housing development in this area this figure has increased to about 60,000. In view of these changes, can the Minister say that the needs in the past have been satisfied and whether such needs have not increased in view of the changes?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, we realise that the rate of advance is rapid and that the number of voters has increased. We also realise our responsibility that there are two post offices in the immediate neighbourhood of Delta Constituency. The increase of the voters can be met by increasing the staff.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I still have a supplementary question to ask. The Minister has mentioned just now the present services of the two post offices, but in fact there is only one. That one is in Tiong Bahru. I would like to ask him whether he knows that, of the two post offices, one belongs to Queenstown and the other to Tiong Bahru, and whether he knows that the Tiong Bahru post office, which is very small, is situated in a shophouse of the Housing Board? If there are ten persons in the post office, it will be jammed up. In view of this, can he honestly say that this post office itself is enough to satisfy the local needs, and whether he is prepared to go there for an investigation?

(In Malay): At this stage, I am satisfied with the service provided by the post offices there, as I have received no complaints of inadequate service from members of the public. However, if the hon. Member is really having difficulty, I will look further into the matter.

(In Mandarin): Can I ask another supplementary question, Sir? The Minister of State has said that he has not received any complaints of the inadequacy of the postal services. But as a Member of the constituency, I have personally received complaints on this matter. If I receive many complaints, will he be prepared to consider increasing the postal services? Perhaps the Member for Tiong Bahru himself may ask a similar question?

I think the Minister of State did, in fact, say that he would make an investigation if he received complaints. So perhaps Madam Chan could forward all complaints received by her to the Minister?

asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) if applicants for driving licences have a choice in the identity of their testers; if he is aware that certain applicants for driving licences are refusing to be examined or are otherwise avoiding being tested by particular testers; whether he will inquire into the causes for such refusals; and what steps he proposes to take to remove those causes.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, applicants for driving licences cannot choose their driving tester. There are 20 driving testers and the applicant for a driving licence has to take whichever driving tester is assigned to him by the Licensing Officer. It is obviously very undesirable to allow the applicant for a driving licence to choose the driving tester who is to test him. A person who has refused a driving test by one tester cannot be assigned another driving tester. If the department is to allow this, an applicant, by refusing several driving testers, may finally get a tester of his choice. I am aware that certain applicants for driving licences have withdrawn from taking their driving test when they have been assigned a particular driving tester. I have enquired into the cause of their withdrawals. It is not the applicants who have refused to be tested by a particular tester but it is their driving instructors who have refused to allow them the use of the instructors' vehicles when applicants are assigned to a particular tester. I have also enquired into the reasons for this action by certain driving instructors. These instructors had made certain general complaints against a particular tester. In view of the generality of the complaints, the instructors concerned were requested to submit specific complaints for investigation by the Registrar of Vehicles. A few specific complaints were subsequently made and, on investigation, it was found that they had either been settled previously or were unjustified. I would like to add that the method chosen by certain driving instructors to redress their grievances is most improper. My Ministry is prepared to, and will, investigate specific complaints of misbehaviour or misconduct against any tester, but we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated or pressurised by individuals or groups of individuals who have seen fit to choose strong-arm methods for the redress of alleged grievances.

Can the Minister tell this House why is it that this is a complaint of the Driving Testers' Association and not an individual complaint? I would ask the Minister to inform this House whether he will take into consideration the complaints of this Association?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has received the complaints referred to by the hon. Member just now, but we must judge the complaints on their merits. It is because the nature of the complaints is general that my Ministry has no alternative but to turn down the allegation made by the Association.

Just now the Minister of State has stated that there are 20 driving testers. Why is it that only one particular tester is being boycotted by the driving instructors and why are the other 19 not boycotted? What is the reason for it?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the answer is simple. If a person is firm, then he becomes unpopular; but if he is flexible, then he will be liked by all.

asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) if he will consider (a) the installation of traffic lights at the junction of Geylang Road, Changi Road and Joo Chiat Road, in view of the traffic jams at that junction at peak hours; and (b) the establishment of a zebra crossing at Changi Road in front of the Geylang Serai Vocational School.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended to re-install traffic lights at the junction of Geylang Road/Changi Road/Joo Chiat Road. It is hoped the traffic lights will be installed before the end of the year. It is not proposed to place a zebra crossing at Changi Road in front of the Geylang Serai Vocational School as the continual crossing of pedestrians will affect the flow of traffic considerably, in view of the wide stretch of the road. However, the construction of a pedestrian overhead bridge across Changi Road, opposite Changi market, is under consideration. 3.29 p.m.

In view of the fact that we are just one minute short of 3.30 p.m., Members may consider deferring Government Bills and taking Supply business first, rather than interrupt Government Bills to go to Supply and then come back to Government Bills. If that course is acceptable, would the Minister for Finance like to move the Business Motion?

3.30 p.m. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee (Paper Parl. 8 of 1966) and the Statement of Excess of Expenditure for 1963 (Paper Cmd. 23 of 1964), as amended by Paper Cmd. 13 of 1966 and the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 of Singapore, be taken today." ----[Mr Lim Kim San].

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

3.31 p.m.

The Statement of Excess for 1963 is contained in Paper Cmd. 23 of 1964, as amended by the Corrigenda contained in Paper Cmd. 13 of 1966. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Statement of Excess is contained in Paper Parl. 8 of 1966. The summary of totals is on page 3 of Paper Cmd. 23 of 1964, subject to the following alterations in accordance with Paper Cmd. 13 of 1966: the provision to be voted for Head 37 - Accountant General - should read "$34,773.74" instead of "$34,958.19", and the total sum to be voted for all the heads of expenditure in the Statement of Excess should read "$36,707.05" instead of "$36,891.50". No notice of amendment has been received. Head 30 - The sum of $17.13 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Statement of Excess for 1963. Head 31 - The sum of $1,916.18 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Statement of Excess for 1963. Head 37 - The sum of $34,773.74 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Statement of Excess for 1963.

Question, "That the sum of $36,707.05 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Statement of Excess for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 23 of 1964, as amended by Paper Cmd. 13 of 1966", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. 3.34 p.m.

The First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1966. The summary of totals is on page 6 of the Paper. I shall deal first with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head D 01 - Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Tang See Chim, amendment No. (1) .

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 028. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an international trading centre. It is, therefore, logical that we should join in international communication projects, and SEACOM is such a project. We should, however, be able to know the extent of our commitments. Unfortunately, our resources are limited and we must make the best use of them. From the estimates, I see that our original commitment was some $10 million. We are now, however, asked to increase our commitment by some $2 million. The reason given is that the increase is necessary because of the re-routing and increase in the capacity of the cable. It is, therefore, relevant to ask whether Singapore was consulted on the re-routing and also on the increase in the capacity of the cable to be laid. Can the Minister assure us that this will not be an open-handed commitment in which we will be asked to increase our contribution from time to time?

Mr Speaker, to clarify the doubts of the Member for Choa Chu Kang, I would like to inform the House that the re-routing of the SEACOM cable was contingent on account of Indonesian confrontation. The original plan called for a cable which would run from Australia to New Guinea, New Guinea to Jesselton, and Jesselton to Singapore. However, when confrontation broke out in 1963, the plan had to be revised, and consequently the cable went up to Hong Kong, Hong Kong to Guam, Guam to New Guinea and New Guinea to Australia. Singapore, as a partner of SEACOM, has always been consulted on any changes in plans in cable routing, and the increase in capacity is to the advantage of all SEACOM partners. In fact, from what I gathered just now, the forecast is that even the capacity of 160 two-way channels will be very much limited in the near future, when the project itself opens. That is one of the reasons why ways and means are now being studied as to how to improve telecommunications between SEACOM neighbours - between Singapore and Australia on the one hand, and Singapore and Tokyo, and Singapore and Europe, on the other hand. I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that all plans have been considered very carefully. It is not the intention of the SEACOM partnership to waste money unnecessarily. In any case, this is an investment because telecommunications brings in revenue and the expectations are that we will be able to recover our capital expenditure within the next 6 to 7 years.

Mr Tang, do you wish to withdraw the amendment or have it put to a vote?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am satisfied with the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister and I wish to withdraw the amendment. 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 new subhead 037. Mr Speaker, Sir, telecommunication is vital to an international trading centre like Singapore. I think the Government deserves to be congratulated on its decision to acquire the assets of Cable and Wireless Limited and on its firm stand in its negotiations with the Malaysian Government in regard to the acquisition of Cable and Wireless Limited. The point I want to raise is one of detail only. I just want to know whether we are paying the right price for the Company's assets. I have been trying to do some research on my own, but, unfortunately, without much success. Through the kind help of the House Librarian, I managed to get a copy of the Company's Report and Accounts for the Year ending 31st March, 1964 -that was just before the Company was acquired by the Malaysian Government then. Unfortunately, the Report contained only consolidated accounts of the Cable and Wireless Group as a whole, with no breakdown for the Singapore operations, and without any indication of the value of the assets in Singapore. I should be pleased if the Minister would enlighten us on this point.

Mr Speaker, if the Member for Choa Chu Kang had earlier indicated to me what information he required, I myself could have done a little investigation into this enormous volume of files which began since 1962. In that year the lease of Cable and Wireless Limited was expiring and we had proposed the formation of an Overseas Telecommunications Board which would have, as partners, the Singapore Government holding 51 per cent of the shares and the Company 49 per cent. In fact, at that period we had conducted investigations into the capital assets of the Company. I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that an enormous amount of detailed work has gone into the valuation of the plant and removable and immovable property of Cable and Wireless. He need not fear that we have been cheated or over-paid on account of the take-over. I will only add that there has been justice done to both sides, to the Company and also to us.

Mr Tang, in view of that, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $19,618,358 for Head D 01 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Head D 04 -

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 013. In this subhead, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are asked to vote some quarter of a million dollars without any details being given to this House. Outpatient service in the General Hospital is notoriously bad, and unfortunately, I myself have had a very unpleasant experience of such bad treatment. The usual excuse is that the doctors in charge are over-worked. If that is the reason, the remedy is surely to engage more doctors and improve the service, and not to inflict the result of this shortage of doctors on patients. 3.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, under subhead 013 of Head D 04, it is recorded that outpatient attendances have increased five times in the last decade while operations have increased about four times. In the improvement to existing wards and the increase in the number of wards, I regret the conversions of Wards Nos. 61 and 62 into paying-class wards. The increase in the number of outpatient attendances and operations shows that the people involved are not well-to-do people and if we increase the number of wards to paying-class wards, this will not overcome the situation.

Mr Speaker. Sir, may I answer the criticism of the Member for Choa Chu Kang in the first place? I believe he indicated that there was not enough information in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1966 on the request for additional funds to provide improvements to the Orthopaedic Unit. I would like to give a little background history of this particular item - Improvements for the Orthopaedic Unit in Outram Road Hospital. The original plan was as late as 1958 - eight years ago - and it was then something like a $ 1� million proposal which in 1959 I felt was excessive, and I had it brought down to a sum of $300,000. There were therefore considerable savings for the State of more than $1 million. Of this reduced sum of $300,000, unfortunately, the Ministry of Finance provided only $50,000 for 1966. Later on, an approved transfer of $75,000 was granted, and the request in the Command Paper is for a sum of $224,400 which is really in keeping with a contract which has been let for a sum of $339,967.

80. This does not include, however, a vote for "Furniture and Equipment" which is estimated at nearly $110,000, but this sum will be entered in next year's Development Estimates. I hope that will meet the Member's request for more information on the expenditure of this sum of money. To answer his second question that the outpatient service in the hospital is bad, I am sorry to hear that he has had an unhappy experience in the hospital and I would appreciate it if he would put this matter in writing, indicating the day when he was at the hospital and where he felt he had not been fairly treated, so that I can investigate further into the matter. Because I think it is pretty dangerous sometimes just to listen to one complaint and "tar" the whole service. In my opinion - as the Member himself has admitted - the doctors might have been grossly over-worked and were therefore perhaps a little short of temper during the wee hours of the morning. However, if I can get more information, I will be in a position to investigate into the matter fully and give a firm decision on it. But I do not think that it is as simple as suggested by the Member, that to meet the situation, all we need do is to employ more doctors. It is not that we do not wish to employ more doctors. There are on the establishment 450 doctors, and at the moment we have close to 400 doctors. The vacancies are there. It is available for any doctor who wishes to apply to be considered for appointment, and it is very rarely that we turn down any application from a doctor who wishes to join Government service. As regards improvements to the conditions of service, etc., this is something which I, as a Minister, would very much like to encourage and support. But here again, there is my colleague, the Minister for Finance. In addition, there is already a Salaries Commission in existence and I do not think that we should anticipate events or to say things which would embarrass the working of this Commission. I hope I have answered the comments of the Member for Choa Chu Kang and I will now answer the Member for Kampong Kapor. He does not appear to be happy over the fact that the funds asked for are for the renovation of Wards 61 and 62 into paying-class wards, because he feels that this would not meet the situation of those less able to pay after being admitted into the hospital. It is important to remind him that the majority of cases admitted into the Orthopaedic Unit are in respect of accidents arising out of employment or motor traffic. In almost every instance, it is the employer who will be bearing the expenses for such treatment. Therefore, it will not in any way increase the burden for the less fortunate members of our public if they are admitted into paying wards, because it is the employer who will have to meet such liability under the workmen's compensation insurance which every good employer takes up to protect his liability. As for the numerous accidents which we have - something like 100 motor accidents a day - every car on the road is covered compulsorily with third-party insurance, and therefore personal injuries as a result of motor accidents are rightful claims against insurance companies. I have already indicated sometime ago that it is our intention to make it so, so that insurance companies will meet these dues. In the past, for some queer reasons, the Government hospitals have not taken the trouble to send bills to insurance companies and I think it is time that this serious loophole in the revenue of the State should be plugged. I can therefore assure the Member for Kampong Kapor that by having more paying-class wards in our Orthopaedic Units we shall not be penalising the poorer sections of the public, because we shall be able to recover most of the dues from employers or insurance companies. It is anticipated that we will be able to get at least $� million each year by this process and therefore we shall be able to recover all capital expenditure probably in a matter of years.

Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang please let me know if he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have it put to a vote?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $224,400 for Head D 04 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Head D 06 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead 028. In this new subhead, Mr Speaker, Sir, this House is asked to approve a sum of some $6� million for the improvement of Television and Broadcasting Services, again without this House being supplied with any information or a detailed breakdown of the amount required. It is appreciated that there is urgent need for the improvement of television and radio services, especially the radio services, since our independence. We are a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society professing and practising democratic socialist principles. We should therefore make our policy known to all our people at home and to project our image abroad, and the best means of doing so is through the television and radio services. But it does not mean that this House will approve some $6� million without knowing how the money is going to be spent. I understand that the sum is in addition to the sum of more than $3 million that has already been spent on the new Television House. There is one thing I would like to say about television, and that is commercial advertising. Whilst we appreciate that it may be necessary to allow commercial advertising in television to help it pay its way, commercial advertising seems to be now getting out of hand, especially during what are called the "peak hours" when the amount of advertising time is fast approaching that of the ordinary programme time. If this tendency is not checked, we may soon get into the ridiculous situation of having the "Radio Weekly" detailing only the commercial programmes and leaving us to have glimpses of cowboys shooting Indians in between the commercials. 4.00 p.m.

On the first query by the hon. Member, I wish to inform the House that the need for improving and expanding our television and radio services has become extremely urgent. Included in this expansion scheme are additional and more powerful transmitters for both radio and television and additional studio facilities for television. The sum of about $6� million is therefore required. Actually the total sum involved is $6.5 million and the breakdown is as follows - Radio Service - radio transmitters are about $2.5 million, the frequency modulated transmitter is over $300,000, and there is also some payment of customs duties which amount to $160,000. T.V. Service to increase T.V. cover amounts to about $870,000; T.V. equipment (non-engineering) is about $570,000. And the Studios - four T.V. studios - works and buildings cost about $400,000, and equipment about $1.4 million. On the second query in which the hon. Member expresses his fear of commercial advertising, I wish to state that it is necessary to get income from advertising to buy more expensive and better quality films as well as to cover part of the cost of running the T.V. station, which is, as we all know, an expensive affair. Compared with other countries, Mr Speaker, Sir, the frequency of advertisements appearing on T.V. here can be considered low. For the information of the House, Sir, the cost of running T.V. Singapura is approximately $6 million per year, and the revenue from commercial advertising is about $3� million per year. Anyway, Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that my Ministry is keeping constant watch on commercial advertising so that it will not get out of hand.

Mr Tang, do you wish to withdraw the amendment or proceed with a vote?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $6,591,677 for Head D 06 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Head D 07 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead 024. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points to be considered here. The first point is whether it is necessary to disturb the present natural environment of MacRitchie Reservoir. The second point is whether, even if it is decided that we should do so, it is not a question of wrong priorities. On the first question, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think MacRitchie Reservoir is a natural beautiful park as it is. I have visited it, and it has all the aesthetic features of a natural environment - tall shady trees, soft green grass, birds singing overhead, insects humming around. Mr Speaker, Sir, attap shelters cannot take the place of shady trees, and paved footpaths cannot take the place of soft green grass, and a floating fountain and a tea kiosk will not, I submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, improve the aesthetic features of the park. When concrete and mortar and a motorway are brought in, the natural environment of MacRitchie Reservoir will be no more. I take it that the P.W.D. will be in charge of the project. The P.W.D. is a solid, hardworking department. Unfortunately, it has so far not proved itself capable of being the author of any aesthetically beautiful project. Take the Raffles Underground Car Park and Garden, Sir. It is functional but it is ugly. It has a fountain and a flower bed, but fountains and flower beds alone do not make beautiful gardens. It is the arrangement - the overall arrangement - of these things that makes beautiful gardens. Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mount Faber is another place to judge by, I feel very apprehensive about the natural beauty of our park at MacRitchie Reservoir. I do not think we have improved Mount Faber, scenically speaking. On the other hand, I have heard a lot of complaints that the cosiness of the place, the romance of it, is being spoilt. The harsh public lighting is no substitute for the soft moonlight. But even granted that we are so insensitive as to prefer a man-made fountain to a natural running stream and decide that this project should be proceeded with, regardless, there is still the question of priority to be considered. We are a small country. Our resources, as I have said just now, are limited. We must, therefore, make the best use of them. We are here proposing to spend a quarter of a million dollars on something that needs no improvement, whilst, at the same time, in the rural areas basic amenities like electricity and piped water have not been provided for. In my constituency in Choa Chu Kang, for example, Sir, there are areas - and indeed large areas - where there is not even piped water, not to say the luxury of public lighting. And the money to be spent on these projects could be better spent, I submit, on the rural areas. If a quarter of a million dollars could be channelled into the rural areas, it would do a tremendous lot to improve the basic standard of living of the rural people. It would be little comfort to the rural folks to be told by the Minister for National Development that they could watch coloured water playing in the floating fountain in MacRitchie Reservoir, when they have not even piped water at home to drink or to use. That is the irony of this project, Sir, and I beg to move.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on this new subhead 024, I would like to know from the Minister for Law and National Development whether the purpose of this vote is to make a park for the people of Singapore with the idea of reducing the dust and filth. As I have said earlier about my suspicions regarding payments made to the Ministry of Health, I am rather worried if the use of the car park, as mentioned in this scheme, is to be paid for, as is done at the Airport at present, because it will be a burden to the people who want to make use of the car park. Normally, people who visit parks like MacRitchie Reservoir are usually poor. Although we see them going there in cars, these cars are sometimes borrowed from their friends or hired. For example, on a Saturday if someone wants to go for a ride or stroll in MacRitchie Reservoir during the day, he has to pay car park charges at High Street and then in the evening he will have to pay again. This will be a burden, Mr Speaker. There are also occasions when rich people go to the parks, but they will not make visits to MacRitchie Reservoir as they have better places to go to which are in line with their status. But there are also rich people who go to MacRitchie Reservoir. I would like to know once again from the Minister concerned whether the use of the car park proposed in this scheme will be paid for.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to speak on this item to express some of my personal views. On the question of establishing a paying car park, some Members have expressed their objection to paying car parks in certain areas. I feel that in some places it is necessary to have paying car parks. For example, on a public holiday many people go to the MacRitchie Reservoir grounds. So if there is a car park, it will be a great convenience to the holiday makers and visitors. And if the authority should impose a fee of, say, 40 cents per hour it is quite reasonable. Otherwise, without this imposition of a fee, there will be some jaga kereta boys operating in this area. They will demand payment from motorists, an act which is illegal. So the payment of 40 cents per hour or 20 cents per half hour is quite a reasonable measure. Government will in turn provide the necessary facilities and make use of the money in some other fields and the public will benefit. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst it is desirable that development should, as far as possible, be spread throughout the island so that our population living in the various constituencies are all catered for, the hard economic facts are that it is necessary to ensure that the total quantum of funds available for development projects are utilised in the best possible manner. Although it is the aim to provide as large a number of the population as possible with basic amenities, like light and water, the deterrent factor is often the heavy capital expenditure involved in bringing electricity and water supplies to remote kampongs off the beaten track. Choa Chu Kang Constituency is one such area. The authorities concerned in deciding whether to extend supplies to specific areas have to have regard for the economics involved. A sufficient rate of return on the capital invested is necessary so that the scheme is economical and the Public Utilities Board is able to meet the requirements of the World Bank in respect of the prescribed rate of returns for loans. Nevertheless, as the Member for Choa Chu Kang will be aware, during the last six years a sum of $700,160 has been expended to provide water and electric services for Choa Chu Kang alone. This figure of over $700,000 is only for water and lights, and has nothing to do with roads or other amenities. On water supplies alone a sum of $65,230 was spent. On electric supplies a sum of $595,930. Street lighting in the Member's constituency cost $39,000. So as far as Choa Chu Kang Road is concerned - this is a road - water and electrical mains have been laid right up to the end of the road, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that Choa Chu Kang is a long road. The other long road in that district is Lim Chu Kang Road. On that road electrical mains have been laid up to the 19th milestone, two miles from the end. No doubt, in due course, supplies will be extended upon request and, on the basis of determined priorities, to extend these to the end. Despite all endeavours, there will be villages in outlying areas far from the electricity and water mains where it will be exorbitantly expensive to provide the necessary amenities. In many of these areas, for example, the Southern Islands, Changi, Tampines and Sembawang, the number of consumers is relatively so small as to make the project completely uneconomical. An example of the high cost involved can be seen from the fact that to provide one mile of water mains in Lorong Buang Kok, the cost was nearly $100,000. To provide electric supplies to 290 houses at Choa Chu Kang Road from the 13� milestone to the 14� milestone, just one mile, the cost was $163,740; while to provide one mile of street lighting from Bukit Panjang Village to Yew Tee Village, the cost was $23,000. That I hope, Mr Speaker, should dispose of the Member's arguments as to priorities. The Member for Choa Chu Kang also made the suggestion that things at MacRitchie Reservoir should be left in their natural beauty. He does not want me to disturb the birds. I can assure him that the development envisaged at MacRitchie does not involve the cutting down of trees or turning the reservoir into an artificial garden. The development envisages the minimum clearance of shrubs and undergrowth only and the provision of certain facilities, leaving the trees and the landscape and the birds as far as possible in their natural state. Mr Speaker, this town is expanding fast. There is an acute shortage of lungs and open spaces as a result of our tremendous housing programmes and the idea behind the MacRitchie scheme is to enable full utilisation of one existing open space by the population. The Member for Choa Chu Kang will agree that a healthy community is a vital necessity. The provision of facilities like a tea kiosk, a bandstand and a fountain at minimal cost will attract even more people to this already popular spot. Not only will the people in the neighbouring Thomson and Sembawang areas but also those from outlying districts, including Choa Chu Kang and Kampong Kapor, will be attracted to spend a pleasant evening in the environs of this reservoir by the provision of these minimal facilities. A tea kiosk is necessary in order to keep out hawkers from the reservoir parks so as to reduce the chances of water pollution. A floating fountain in the reservoir itself should enhance the beauty of the area at little expense. In short, Mr Speaker, the project envisages the enhancement of the natural beauty of the place by the provision of additional features and not the creation of an artificial garden. I am sure that when the development is completed the Member for Choa Chu Kang will be pleased with the results. The Member for Kampong Kapor has been harping on the charges which, he says, we might introduce at the car park. He says, "Do not charge." The Member for Sembawang says, "Charge." I can assure both Members that before any fees are imposed careful consideration will have to be given. There must be a period of trial and experiment. At the moment, there are no car parking fees at MacRitchie Reservoir, though, I believe, the place is packed in the evening and at night. We will only introduce fees for parking at MacRitchie should the demand for car parking spaces exceed the amount of space available, and that, in fact, is the whole basis of car parking in Singapore. Unless we charge fees for parking, the day will come in Singapore, and it will come soon, when there is complete traffic chaos in the town. But no one has moved an amendment to the other subhead which deals with the underground car park, so I will not make any comments except to say to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that though he does not like the underground car park at Raffles Place, it serves a useful purpose and in fact a hundred per cent of the car parking places at the Raffles Car Park are now fully used. As for Mount Faber, he is entitled to his own views. But you get a lovely view from Mount Faber, and if he does not like it, I suggest he go elsewhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. While it may be quite true that a tremendous amount of money is being spent in the rural areas - and he has given me figures for the amounts spent in Choa Chu Kang in respect of water and lighting - the fact remains that in these rural areas the basic amenities of life are not satisfied. My thesis is that unless and until such amenities are satisfied, it is against socialist principles that the urban areas should be given amenities that are not the basic requirements of life. The Minister has also said that it is a matter of opinion whether Mount Faber is a better area after a tremendous amount of money has been spent on it. I do not think it improves it scenically and I am sure a lot of people do not think so. If that is the case, why should we spend money on something that is not necessary while, at the same time, leaving the basic requirements of life not satisfied? Take public lighting in Mount Faber, for example. I am sure it is not appreciated there. In fact, I think it does cause considerable annoyance to a lot of people, especially loving young couples who visit Mount Faber. Funds for such public lighting could very well be spent and would very much be appreciated in, for example, my constituency. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is my thesis: that the Minister has got his priorities wrong.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang argues that until every house in his district is supplied with light and water, my Ministry should not do anything about building parks or fountains. 4.30 p.m. This is an argument which I cannot accept. It will probably be 10 to 15 years before every householder in his district is supplied with light and water. I have given the reasons why up to date water and electricity supplies have not reached every remote farm in his district. Does it mean that I can do nothing to improve the urban areas until I have satisfied every basic requirement of his constituency? I can assure him that we are spending more money every year on the rural districts. And this goes for every rural district in Singapore. Urban areas receive much less; then come the semi-urban or semi-rural districts; then come the rural districts. If we were spending more money on the urban districts than on the rural districts, then I would say we are wrong. But we are not doing .that. We are spending more money in his district, which is rural, than, say, my district in Tanglin which is semi-urban. But if not every householder in his district of Choa Chu Kang has light and water, I can assure him that there are people in my constituency in Tanglin who do not have light and water too. There are many other constituencies which do not have these basic amenities. But does it mean that we cannot build a fountain? We have built so many flats in Singapore and we are building more. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars providing housing. If I were to accept his argument, it means that until we house everyone in Singapore, no fountain should be erected. But a fountain is a thing of beauty, and all he has to do is to visit the three fountains, the giant fountains which have been recently erected. I have not heard one word of criticism. The only words I have heard are words of praise. As for Mount Faber, he grumbles about providing lights. When we do not provide the lights, he grumbles. When we provide the lights, he grumbles too. I believe he is the only bachelor in the House. But before you pull me up for being personal, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I should not say anything further on that.

Mr Speaker, can I contribute something towards -

Most certainly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am inclined to agree with the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the provision of basic amenities for the rural areas is more urgent than that for the urban areas. I think the Minister is a little unfair when he says that even when we provide lights, the Member for Choa Chu Kang does not like it, and when we do not provide lights, he also does not like it. I think that is not the point of complaint of the Member. He simply said that the $30,000 which the Government wants to make use of to develop MacRitchie Reservoir, could be better utilised to develop the rural areas or places mostly populated by poor people who are in need of amenities. I remember at our last sitting the Member for Delta also shared the same feeling that whenever a fountain is built, it is built in the bourgeois area, say, in a place like Tanglin which is well provided. There is no necessity at all to build another fountain. That is all, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, various speakers have spoken on the question before the House. I would also like to express my views and my feelings. I feel that this amount to be voted for actually exceeds what the Government have allocated for the Urban and Rural Services Committee, and exceeds the Committee's approval to be spent on Redhill, because the total expenditure on Redhill does not exceed $30,000. Since the expenditure on building a car park, attap shelters, garden seats and other things at MacRitchie Reservoir exceeds the sum spent on Redhill to provide basic facilities for the residents there, most of the poor people there may have adverse reactions to this sort of measure. As to the car park to be provided in MacRitchie Reservoir. I myself do not have a car, so I will not be making full use of the car park. But in Redhill there are many people who are still having difficulties in their livelihood and they have not reached a decent standard in their livelihood. I think it is better to promote and raise the living standard of the people in my constituency and other constituencies than spend more money on the areas already developed. What we want is something to meet the urgent needs and not to add more to what is already there. In other words, what we want is to have coal in winter rather than add more flowers to a bloom. In Redhill and other places we need further development. If sums are allocated for such development and when the living standard of the residents in the various constituencies can be raised by the vote, then I will be glad to see the Minister allocate more sums to beautify parks and the scenery at certain places, or to place certain singing birds in certain areas, including the rural areas. I have no objection then. But, first of all, we must try to raise the living standard and provide basic living amenities to these people before we vote for something to be spent on areas already developed. I can say that this kind of action is not 100 per cent socialist. The building of a car park and the planting of flowers in a public park - I do not understand whether all this has anything to do with our socialist principles. What we should be concerned with is how to raise the living standard of the poor to match that of the rich. We should not allow the poor people to be poorer and the rich to become richer. There is a strong contrast between the poor and the rich. If we enhance this difference, then I will not be happy to see it. There are millions of birds perched on trees singing all day long, but they would not please me. I think this sort of ideology should be reconsidered. I support the amendment of the Member for Choa Chu Kang to reduce the vote by $10 and I agree with his sentiments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite understand the anxiety of certain Members of this House. Being members of a socialist party, they are a bit worried that there has been money spent on what they consider to be the richer sector of the community. But I would like to ask them to consider whether it is in the interest of the country as a whole if we are to stop developing the other sectors and keep on concentrating on bringing the poorer sectors up and letting the other sectors just -

The need is greater.

Quite agreed. The need is greater. But do we ignore entirely the other sectors and let them run derelict? Is that our idea of development? If these Members look at the Budget, they will notice that quite a large proportion of our expenditure is spent on social services and on the infrastructure of economic development - all with the purpose of uplifting the standard of living of our people. It is also our duty to see that the other sectors are not left derelict, that their standard of living, their standard of cleanliness and their standard of aesthetic beauty are not brought down to those of the poorer sectors. I think that must be kept in mind before they make up their minds about voting on this supplementary estimate.

Mr Barker, before you address and in order to avoid the necessity of your speaking again, may I inquire if there is any other Member who wishes to make a contribution to this debate? Hon. Members indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make clear one matter which seems to be disturbing several Members of this House, and this is the question of fountains and I will come to the point. There are two fountains in my district of Tanglin. One is at Farrer Road -half that fountain is in my constituency and the other half is in Ulu Pandan. There is another fountain at Tanglin Circus, half of which is in my constituency and the other half in River Valley. Putting two halves together, I have got one fountain. Now, I would like to assure all Members of this House that when the sites for those fountains were chosen, I was not the Minister for National Development. I propose to give you the history of these fountains. The question of fountains at traffic circuses was first raised by the Prime Minister in a memorandum dated the 7th of November, 1963, to the Minister for National Development. At that moment, Mr Speaker, I was happily seated in your Chair. The Public Works Department was then requested to draw up a list of likely sites where fountains could be put up. The following sites were submitted: Orchard Road Circus, Raffles Place, King George V Park, Guillemard Circus, the roundabout at Farrer and Holland Roads, Tanglin Circus, Empress Place and Finlayson Green. 4.45 p.m. That was all in 1963. Sketch plans and estimates of costs of these fountains were approved by my predecessor, the then Minister for National Development, and submitted to the Development Planning Committee for approval on the 2nd of June, 1964. The plans were to build small fountains costing about $35,000 each at these eight sites. The Minister for Finance - and I do not mean Mr Lim Kim San; that was Dr Goh Keng Swee - in his capacity as Chairman of the Development Planning Committee, disapproved of the list submitted and commented - "Better to have two or three lavish fountains than a large number of scraggy ones." As a result, the Scientific Adviser was requested to have a discussion with the Deputy Director of Public Works, the Chief Planner and the Chief Architect on the final plans regarding sites and sizes for some prestige fountains. At a meeting held on 16th October, 1964, at the Prime Minister's Office, fresh plans for bigger fountains were considered and it was decided to proceed with the three fountains at the three sites just mentioned. That was the 16th of October, 1964. I was appointed the Minister for Law on the 1st of November, 1964. I was still then Speaker of this House. I was only appointed the Minister for National Development on the 9th of August last year. So in case Members of this House think that I only build fountains in my own district, I hope that the facts I have just presented will satisfy them that I had nothing to do with the planning of the fountains and, in particular, I had nothing to do with the choosing of these sites for the fountains.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me hasten to assure the Minister for National Development that I, for one, was not thinking that he was building fountains for himself. But there is still the general principle of priorities, and on this point I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given and I wish that this amendment be put to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $97,997 for Head D 07 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966.

The remaining heads of expenditure undisposed of are Head D 03, Ministry of Education, $479,000, and Head D 08, Public Works, Non. Recurrent (General), $200,030.

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated, as they appear in the summary of totals contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1966, stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $27,211,462 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1966," 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 have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions reported - "That the sum of $36,707.05 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Statement of Excess for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 23 of 1964, as amended by Paper Cmd. 13 of 1966." "That the sum of $27,211,462 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1966."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions.

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

We now revert to the introduction of Government Bills, but in view of the time and the fact that one Bill will be proceeded through all stages, I would suggest that I suspend the sitting now and resume at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.54 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

"to make Final Provision for the Public Service for the year 1964", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the President's recommendation to introduce the Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance (Chapter 158 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of this Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed or printed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes, Sir. Copies are with the Clerk. Printed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance, as it stands now, does not provide discretionary powers to exempt any sweepstake from duty. This was appropriate when all sweepstakes were organised for the direct benefit of racing clubs or associations. But where a sweepstake is organised for the purpose of raising much needed money for approved public welfare projects of one kind or another, the old provisions are obsolete and it becomes necessary to provide discretionary powers to enable sweepstakes to be exempted from duty so that the proceeds may be applied directly to the approved objects of the Sweep. In this regard, Mr Speaker, Sir, I may say that owing to the increasing demand for funds to finance welfare and other charitable organisations in the State, the possibilities of a Public Welfare Lottery were explored as long ago as November 1965. The growing needs of voluntary welfare bodies in Singapore were stressed by the Singapore Council of Social Service in a letter to the Minister for Social Affairs dated April 6, 1966, which expressed support for any move to set up a Public Welfare Lottery. Subsequently, it was agreed that the Singapore Turf Club may run a Singapore Sweep in place of one of the Club's usual unlimited sweeps. Arrangements are under consideration to ensure that all funds will be utilised for public projects, such as a national stadium or for welfare purposes, and the exemption now provided by way of clause 2 of this Bill will enable this to be done. But powers are provided for the Minister not only to exercise discretion but also to impose such conditions as may be deemed fit to ensure that exemptions are applied in respect of the proper purposes only. In view of constitutional changes, the opportunity is also taken in clause 3 (a) to delete the reference to "the Colony" in section 3 of the Ordinance and substitute it by the word "Singapore", whilst clause 3 (b) provides for the transfer of the power to grant extensions of time for the payment of duty - an act of an administrative nature - to the Commissioner of Stamps. Finally, clause 4 of the Bill makes unpaid duty a debt due to the Government of the Republic of Singapore in conformity with the other duties collected under the provisions of other revenue laws in the Republic. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very astonished to know that the Minister for Finance intends to introduce this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. It is as if Singapore is facing an immediate invasion that such a Bill must be passed in this Parliament with such an urgency. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that any government in the world which professes and believes in socialism will promote gambling.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is not a Bill to promote gambling. It is a Bill to give me power to exempt duty on sweepstakes run by the Club with a certain objective.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree it is not a Bill

Mr Ho, the Minister's point was that you should confine yourself to the narrow ambit of the Bill.

Even if it is not a Bill but an amendment to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance, I think it still runs counter to the belief that the P.A.P. professes and believes in socialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fail to see the need for the Government to introduce this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. This method of a Government-sponsored lottery, even though it is for a praiseworthy cause, is a rather controversial topic. I am not speaking here only as the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., but also as the Member for Bras Basah Constituency. You may be aware of the view of the N.T.U.C. in relation to any form of gambling, that it does not, in principle, support the idea of the Government of Singapore sponsoring a lottery. As you may also be aware, I have recently conducted a series of house-to-house visits in my constituency. In the course of such visits, I have been given to understand by a substantial number of my constituents that they are not very happy over the question of Government sponsoring a lottery. What will happen is this. On the day of the drawing of this so-called welfare lottery, you will -

On a point of order, Sir. This is not a welfare lottery. This is a Singapore Sweep.

Never mind. It is the raising of funds by means of a lottery. We are all aware that only the poor people will contribute towards buying these lottery tickets, and you will find that 20,000 to 30,000 housewives will buy lottery tickets and they will curtail their expenditure on marketing and food. What happens is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the husband comes home, he will find that variety in the food on the table is missing, and the so-called Sweep ticket, instead of assisting the poor, I am afraid is going to bring about unhappiness in all the families. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will agree that if you take money from the rich and give it to the poor, that is a credit. But here, we are taking money from the poor and giving it to the poor. I do not see any credit. But some of you may take the cynical view that I am criticising for the sake of opposing. This is not so. Because it is the man who has interests in the Party will only criticise. A number of my constituents who are unhappy and who object to the Government sponsoring a lottery may be misunderstood that they are only voicing their apprehension in order to defend their own illegal livelihood. But before any of you come to the wrong conclusion that such persons are objecting to the idea of the Government sponsoring a lottery with an ulterior motive, I wish to impress upon you that these persons are responsible and respectable citizens who are engaged in making an honest living and are also members of civic organisations. It is for these reasons that I am of the firm opinion that this Bill relating to the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, or whatever name it may be called, should be exposed to a thorough public debate, but not on a Certificate of Urgency as if we are facing an immediate invasion from our neighbours. And one way to gauge public feeling on this matter of the Government sponsor ing a lottery is to let the Bill be dealt with by this House in the normal manner. By introducing such a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency, the Government is, in effect, preventing Members in this House from discharging their obligations to their respective constituencies. It is impossible for them to ascertain the feelings of their constituents towards the Social Welfare Lottery Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir ----

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is not a Social Welfare Lottery Bill.

I think it is purely a question of force of habit on the part of Mr Ho.

That is why I say it does not matter under what name it is called! It is raising money. A rose by any name smells just as sweet. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government of Singapore to rush the proposed Bill through this House in order to forestall the marshalling of public opinion against its passage. I say this with confidence because the Government subscribes to the practice and doctrine of socialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, the essence of democratic socialism is that there should be, as far as possible, an equal distribution of wealth, and one way of achieving such an equal distribution is by minimising the possible range of income. In this society where a person is allowed to enjoy an unearned income, that is, income from a lottery which is not given to him because of his work or occupation but because of the windfall from the lottery there is a basic contradiction between the concept of sponsoring a lottery to raise funds for social objectives and the concept of promoting any measure that would enable a person to enjoy an unearned income. In Singapore as it is, we have quite a number of lotteries and games of chance where a person is given the means to obtain such an unearned income. We have, for example, horse racing, the illegal four digits, the Chap Ji Kee. And I know that the only argument that the Minister for Finance can put is, "Oh, because we cannot stamp this out, we cannot control this illegal gambling, so we must make it legal." That would be the answer.

He is putting words in my mouth!

He will say it is because Singaporeans go to Johore to buy lottery tickets. Is that a valid argument? Are you going to tell me that because we cannot eradicate gangsters so we must legislate and give them a licence so that they can go openly to members of the public and extort money from them? Is this going to be the reply to my criticism?

Are you going to buy tickets yourself?

Oh no, no. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government wishes to legislate on the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, it would appear that its objection to the running of an illegal lottery by private individuals or syndicates is based not so much on principle as on the fact that it is deprived of certain revenues, in which case it is inconsistent for it to treat those persons who are convicted of running illegal lotteries and games of chance as criminals, because their offence is not the crime of running a lottery or games of chance but the withholding from Government of certain revenues which they have collected as profit. If the Government deems it necessary to issue a Certificate of Urgency in respect of the Bill on the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, then it should make it a matter of urgency to remove the offence of running illegal lotteries or games of chance from the Criminal Ordinance or the Revenue Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the more I think of this, the more I come to the conclusion that the Government has issued this Certificate of Urgency because it realises that the proposed Social Welfare Lottery will be a financial success. But I will say this - and I will prove it to the Minister for Finance - that there will be 20,000 to 30,000 unhappy families on the day of the drawing. I have been given to understand that the million-dollar sweepstake lottery organised by the Singapore Turf Club has met with a response exceeding the expectations of the organisers. I am quite sure that the Government has issued this Certificate of Urgency in order to cash in on the bonanza. While it is praiseworthy for it to find all means of obtaining more revenue, I think there is a limit to which a responsible government, especially one which subscribes to the principle of socialism, can afford to promote gambling in order to bring in more revenue. I am not objecting to this proposed Bill for the sake of objecting, but a lottery, while giving rise to expectations of a sudden windfall, may in the end leave the poor poorer and the rich richer, because a lottery is a game of chance, and the more tickets you buy the greater are the chances of winning the jackpot. The poor may strain their meagre resources, like the public daily-rated employees to whom the Minister for Finance has refused to give even one cent. They may be tempted to buy and you make them poorer. So the poor may strain their meagre resources to buy for themselves such chances as are possible of winning the jackpot, but they will not be able to compete with the rich who are in a position to buy many more chances of winning the jackpot and who, furthermore, are in a position to afford it. Because of all the considerations which I have mentioned, I strongly oppose the discussion of this Bill by this House on a Certificate of Urgency.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on this Bill. Just now I have listened to the Member for Bras Basah's views on it. He says that a lottery is contrary to the principle of democratic socialism, and that the introduction of this Bill will cause a lot of unhappiness to many families. But I am of the view that it will not necessarily bring about this unhappiness. If the Member's reasoning could hold water, then I will enumerate two facts to counter his arguments. Do you remember that nine years ago when Singapore was in Malaya there was the Social Welfare Lottery? Even now there is the running of a Social Welfare Lottery. Many people even go to Johore Bahru to buy lottery tickets. These people go over there to buy tickets because of economic reasons. Some buy only two or three tickets. This will not be seriously detrimental to their economic situation. If they are lucky enough, they may get some prizes which may help increase their income. It may help them economically. The other point is that we know that for several years Singapore has horse-racing. If the Member for Bras Basah argues that horse-racing causes many families to be unhappy, then, according to his calculations, there will be many hundreds and thousands of families who are very unhappy. But, on the other hand, we see Singapore developing all the time. According to a World Bank Report, the standard of living of Singapore is the third highest in the whole of Asia. Whether or not the issue of lottery tickets is contrary to the tenets of democratic socialism, I will say this that in many socialist countries there is also the practice of running lotteries. We have also heard the Minister say just now that the proceeds from this lottery will be devoted to social welfare and charitable organisations. It is meant to benefit the public as a whole. A dollar from each person will accumulate into a large sum, which will help our development and assist in the work of social welfare. It is because of this that I am not of the view that running a lottery will be detrimental to the nation, or to the economy or livelihood of the people. On the contrary, it will contribute to the social welfare work of our country.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on this Bill. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Bras Basah. At the same time, I beg to differ from what the Member for Sembawang has said, and make some criticisms of his speech. Our Government is a socialist government. We understand what is the final aim of a socialist government; that is, to give to each his due and to extract from each his ability. If you get one dollar from each man so that in the end the money comes to fifty or five million dollars, then it will be contrary to the policy of our socialist Government. It will be to misunderstand our principles. So I agree with the Member for Bras Basah that this Bill should be debated by the public before it can he introduced into this House,

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of lotteries and sweepstakes, I have some views of my own. I would also like to express my disagreement with certain statements of a certain Member here. The Minister has given reasons and explanations which are not entirely satisfactory or sufficient. Recently we have heard some Ministers saying that wages should be in accordance with the productivity of the person concerned. In other words, it should be measured according to a person's effort and performance, and this seems to be contrary to the principle of this Bill. If the Government does not clarify the situation further, then the public will be led to think that the Ministers are inconsistent, and I feel this is regrettable. So I hope some Ministers can give explanations to enlighten us all. In view of the Finance Minister's inadequate explanation, and also in view of Members' arguments just now, there has been a certain psychological reaction to this Bill. I feel that the idea of getting some benefit out of a lottery is the normal thinking of any ordinary person. If we can be more practical in the analysis of human psychology, then we can understand that the urge and desire to get a windfall through buying lottery tickets is a kind of economic as well as a psychological manifestation. A windfall can be got through various illegal or criminal methods, such as robbery or stealing or smuggling. Through such methods, one can overnight get some unjust windfall. That is practical. It is more easily put into practice than running a lottery. But if you say that it is fair and just on socialist grounds that a person can get a windfall by striking a lottery, then I do not quite understand the meaning of "windfall" because from the standpoint of socialism, we feel that there are certain contradictions and discrepancies there. We see that nowadays it is difficult to voice our thoughts on socialism, namely, from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. In the situation here in Singapore, most of our people have regular employment. The Member for Bras Basah has said that the housewives have to look after their households, and the breadwinners are the husbands or some other members of the family. If these breadwinners have no means of sustenance, or if they do not depend on their employment but on some windfall to look after their families, then it is unwise to spend too much money on lotteries and we should adopt measures appropriate to deal with these cases. But if people who are regularly employed look for an opportunity to get a windfall through some unjust or shameful or illegal or criminal methods, then I say this is contrary to the normal means of earning a living. Also it cannot be 100 per cent sound or reasonable to support the running of sweepstakes. We must urge that our socialist policies should be implemented. Singapore cannot be isolated from other countries. We cannot build a wall around it so that other countries cannot get our people's money to spend on their lotteries. But, on the other hand, if we can run our own lottery, of course, it will prevent our people's money from being drained into other territories. The Member for Bras Basah has said that the rich get the money from the poor by striking a lottery, and then they spend it on the poor again. That, I think, is difficult to understand. Is it really justifiable to get money from the poor and spend it back on the poor? I do not quite see his argument. We are used to hearing very often the name of the N.T.U.C. in his talks. I do not understand what is his purpose in saying this. Is he trying to enhance his prestige by calling on the name of the N.T.U.C.? Whether it is of any use in doing this in this House I do not quite know. It will have to depend on the Speaker to decide. If it is intended that some poor people in Singapore can overnight become millionaires -- but the chances of this happening are very remote, only one out of one million, and this is perhaps also not in keeping with socialist principles - we can perhaps increase the number of prizes by reducing the amount of the first prize to, say, $100,000. Perhaps this will provide more opportunities for more people to get rich, and therefore it may be a bit fairer. But in the past, from the point of law, if people ran illegal lotteries and they were caught, they would have to suffer the consequences. From the point of law, in the past, there was no practice to regard the winning of a lottery as a criminal act if the practice was allowable under the law. So we cannot credit or discredit the issue of lottery tickets. In principle, we may support this Bill, hut what we hope is that in practice there should be necessary arrangements to ensure that the lottery system in Singapore will not have any undesirable evil consequences or any disadvantages which will make many people change their correct concept of life or lead them to believe that we are indulging in gambling. So this is what the Government should pay attention to. This is what I hope the Government can do. Finally I would like the Minister concerned to clarify what I have asked him to clarify.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand not to support this Bill because we know that betting and sweepstakes is a social evil, no matter whether such betting is done by an organised club or association or an individual, or whether it has the blessing of Government. For a democratic government dedicated to socialist principles to have the idea of running a sweepstake or lottery for the purposes of raising funds is very much deplorable. We have a stable government and an able Minister for Finance who knows ways and means of how to squeeze money in the way of taxes from the general public. Yet the idea to have some extra measures of free betting and sweepstake to find more money will mean that he is trying to sneak through the backdoor and induce poor housewives to spend more money, and lately day-dreamers to find extra money from their already over-burdened budget and eventually making them poor. We believe in the socialist principle of making men equal to one another economically, but not in making the poor poorer and the rich richer. When our neighbouring country was running the Social Welfare Lottery, the buying and selling of these lottery tickets was banned in Singapore on the grounds that this breeds evil. I wonder how, all of a sudden, the so dedicated socialist government of Singapore found fit to introduce this free betting and sweepstake to find money for social welfare purposes. I hope we in Singapore are trying to make hard-working, law-abiding and good citizens of our people and not more gamblers and bookmakers, as I feel this amendment will eventually bring about.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has two basic objections to this Bill: (1) that it is being introduced on a Certificate of Urgency; and (2) because he says it is a betting Bill. I can assure the House that the Government is well aware that because there is no Opposition in the House - the Barisan Sosialis having resigned or attempted to resign from their seats and having been derelict in their duties - we must be very careful not to introduce Bills if we can on Certificates of Urgency. For instance, if we were to introduce the Land Acquisition Bill or any Bill on the Constitution on a Certificate of Urgency, that would be most reprehensible. But we have not done that. When important Bills come up, because there is no Opposition, we send them to Select Committee, so that members of the public will have an opportunity to present their views and the Committee an opportunity to consider them. This is what has happened to the Land Acquisition Bill which will be read a Third time today. But this Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill is not a Bill to introduce betting in Singapore. If we have no horse-racing and no sweepstakes, and this is a Bill to introduce gambling for the first time in Singapore, then we will never do it this way. But if the Members who object to this Bill read it carefully, they will note that it is a Bill to give the Minister powers to exempt any sweepstake promoted, organised, administered or operated by any racing club or association from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance. It does not give him power to start a sweepstake. We have those powers and we have had them for many a year. All this Bill does is to give him power to exempt "The Singapore Sweepstake" - if you like to call it that - from paying 30 per cent tax that should go to the Singapore Government. And I cannot see why we cannot bring it in on a Certificate of Urgency. The tickets are, at the moment, being sold in Singapore and the first draw will be held in early December. Hence the urgency for this Bill. When the People's Action Party came to power in 1959, it was a puritanical Party. It appears to me, after hearing some of our Members today, that we are still semi-puritanical. There was a day when rock-n-roll was banned in Singapore. I myself like rock-n-roll and I saw no objections to rock-n-roll. Today, our youngsters like to do the Twist. I do it once in a while, but perhaps I am getting too old for it. But I think there is a new thinking now. We have to cater for our youths and every year there are 90,000 to 100,000 more voters, and we have to cater for their taste. And if our youths like to do the Twist, I say good luck to them. The days of the pigtailed school-girls are over, and if the Barisan Sosialis depend on them, I think they have not got a hope. I only hope that members of our Party will also move with the times. 6.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel very uplifted listening to the Back-benchers and realise that they still have a lot of idealism left in them. But I would like to congratulate the Member for Bukit Merah who has idealism tinged with realism. And I would like to inform my friend, the Member for Bras Basah, who happens to be missing here, that in my trip through Bulgaria recently -it is a very socialist country - I found that they run sweepstakes every week. That is a very strong socialist country, but they have learnt that idealism must he tinged with realism. And I hear from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that in his trip to Russia and several other Central European socialist countries, they too run their own lotteries. I agree that we should not encourage betting or gambling if Members who object to it can assure me that even without allowing betting or gambling under control in Singapore, our people would not gamble at all and that the 20,000 or 30,000 housewives would not feel sorry or would not buy tickets from across the Causeway. To reply to the Member's criticism that we are afraid to have a public debate on the pros and cons of allowing lotteries to be run in Singapore, I think my colleague has answered in some measure the reasons why the amendment Bill to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance is introduced on a Certificate of Urgency. I resent very much the accusation of the Member for Farrer Park who feels that we are introducing gambling through the backdoor by bringing about an amendment Bill to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance. If it was my intention to introduce, allow or encourage gambling through the back-door, I would not have made any amendment to the Ordinance at all, because I would be able to get money simply by telling the Turf Club, "All right, you run it, pay the tax and give us the profits." That would be an easier way of doing it than by coming here and seeking approval for this amendment Bill. As I said, if I can be assured that if we do not allow the Turf Club to run this sweep and the population at large would not spend their money on gambling, then I would agree that we stop gambling here entirely. But human nature is such that even if we do not allow gambling, a large amount of money will be spent on gambling - and illegal gambling at that - which will encourage gangsterism, protection rackets and all sorts of crimes.

What are the police doing?

I see that our friend is back here! The police have not only to look out for gambling but they have also other jobs to do. But can the Member for Bras Basah tell me that it is possible to eradicate gambling? If he can say that, then we will give it a try. I think it has been found that it is not possible at all to eradicate gambling. So if we allow it to go underground, more evil consequences will follow than if we allow it in the open. I cannot understand the argument of the Member for Bras Basah and also the argument of the Member for Farrer Park that the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer because of the sale of lottery tickets. Do they mean to say that in every instance where lottery tickets are sold, it is only the rich who strike a prize? I think the Member for Bras Basah contradicts himself when he says that the chances for the poor are less for the simple reason that they cannot afford to buy more lottery tickets than the rich. If that is so, then more of the money will come from the rich than from the poor!

On a point of explanation, Sir. Mr Lim Kim San resumed his seat.

On what I said that the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer - it is a possibility. A rich man buys about 1,000 tickets in a sweepstake, whereas a poor man buys ten tickets. So the chances of a rich man winning a lottery are a hundred times more than those of a poor man. Therefore, it is a possibility that a rich man will become richer and a poor man will become poorer. An hon. Member: Then good luck to him!

That is exactly what I said. The Member for Bras Basah contradicts himself. He said that all the money will come from the poor. If that argument is right, then most of the money will come from the rich! [Interruption] And he says, "Well, look, it is so successful, from what we hear, the sale of tickets is more than what was expected by the Turf Club," it means that there is a need for this here, that the majority of the public are not of the same opinion as he. I think it is important for me to say that no one is under compulsion to buy these tickets. Therefore, if we want to eradicate gambling, it is not by shutting our eyes to it or wearing blinkers in order not to see that the evil exists, but through education. That is my reply to the Member for Bukit Merah. It is through education in the long run that we will be able to change the nature of our population. But until then, let us tinge our idealism with a little bit of realism and see that whatever money is spent by the people in gambling does not leave this country.

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.

6.30 p.m. "to provide for the regulation of insurance business in Singapore, and for other purposes relating to or connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Kim San; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to amend the Entertainments Duty Ordinance (Chapter 161 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Kim San; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to provide for the making of contracts on behalf of the Government and for matters connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Kim San; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lim Kim San; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to amend the Railways Ordinance (Chapter 110 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed) (for the Deputy Prime Minister); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to amend the Nanyang University Ordinance, 1959 (No. 27 of 1959)", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to amend the Women's Charter, 1961 (No. 18 of 1961)", presented by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to make provision for the distribution of intestate estates", presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to consolidate and amend the law relating to trustees", presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

"to amend the Public Trustee Ordinance (Chapter 32 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain briefly the necessity of this Bill. The Malaya British Borneo Currency Agreement, 1960, signed by the Governments of Singapore, Malaya and Brunei, established the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, as the sole currency issuing authority in their respective countries. Under the terms of this Currency Agreement, any of the Participating Governments can replace the Board as the sole currency issuing authority by lodging a notice of its intention to do so, 18 months prior to the date it wishes to commence its currency issue. Such a notice of replacement was lodged by the Government of Malaysia on 12th December, 1964. This notice, therefore, became effective on 12th June, 1966, that is, 18 months after it was lodged, and the Currency Board is then obliged to relinquish its right to issue currency in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. There is, however, provision in the Agreement for the Board to continue to issue currency for a further period of six months after the notice becomes effective, if it is requested to do so by the Participating Governments. Such a request was accordingly made and the Board was therefore empowered to issue currency in the territories of the three Governments concerned up to 12th December, 1966. The Participating Governments had also agreed that the life span of the Board should be extended by a further six months, that is, up to 12th June, 1967. As the Currency Agreement does not provide for such further extension, it is necessary to amend this Agreement. The purpose of the Bill is, therefore, to give legal effect to this amendment so that the Board can continue to issue currency up to 12th June, 1967. 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 Ramaswamy}. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 6.40 p.m.

Notice has been given by the Minister for Law and National Development of amendments in respect of clauses 22, 23, 31, 33 and 48 of the Bill as set out in the Order Paper Supplement. The Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses. Any other Member who wishes to propose other amendments or new clauses is required to give notice of his desire before the House resolves itself into a Committee on the recommitted matter. No other Member giving notice ---

Committee stage, what day, Mr Barker?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee.

6.44 p.m. Clause 22 - Amendment made: In page A10, line 28, at end, to insert "and".-[Mr Barker].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A10, to leave out lines 29 and 30. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Select Committee, clause 32 (1) was amended to provide that the costs of an appeal shall be in the discretion of the Board and shall either be fixed by the Board or, on the order of the Board, taxed by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar of the High Court in accordance with the scale prescribed under the rules of the Supreme Court. Accordingly it becomes necessary to delete clause 22 (1) (e) of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. 6.45 p.m.

There is a consequential amendment to be made, in page A10, line 31, to leave out "(f) " and insert "(e) " because of the deletion of paragraph (e) . This will be done. Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 -

Mr Speaker, I beg to move In page A11, line 17, after "appellant", to insert "by delivering or tendering such copy to him or sending it to him by registered letter". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment has been moved as it is considered advisable here to specify the methods whereby a copy of the grounds of an award is to be served by the Registrar upon the appellant. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A15, line 37, to leave out "act", and insert "Act". This amendment corrects a slight printing error in the Bill now before the House. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 - Amendment made: In page A17, line 21, after "not", to insert ", in the case of any such acquisition within a period of six months of such land being devastated or affected as aforesaid,"- [Mr Barker].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A17, line 24, to leave out "such devastation" and insert "the time when such land was devastated or affected as aforesaid". Sir, it was suggested to the Select Committee that there must be a definite period of time during which Government may acquire land under the provisions of the law. It is in the spirit of this suggestion that I have now moved the two aforesaid amendments so as to restrict the application of this provision to only six months from the date of the occurrence of a fire or any other act of God. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A24, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "whether before or after the enactment of this subsection,". This phrase seems redundant and it is accordingly being deleted. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please move.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House will recall that this Bill was referred to the Select Committee on 22nd June this year. Members will also recall that during the Second Reading, I expressed the hope that when the Select Committee calls for representations, persons with positive contributions will come forward with suggestions. I am, indeed, happy to report that the response to invitations for representation was good. Eleven written representations were received and the Select Committee heard oral evidence from six of them. Some of these contributions were valuable and many sug gestions have been accepted. The Committee's Report was published on 10th September, 1966, as Paper Parl. 9 of 1966. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before the House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. I do not propose to burden the Members of this House with unnecessary explanations, but there are two fundamental provisions on which there have been representations which were unacceptable and which I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate. The first of these is the compensation provision in the Bill. As has already been explained in this House previously, the principle underlining this provision is that no landowner should benefit at the public's expense, from any windfall gains resulting from enhancement of land values either through Acts of God or because of public expenditure in the neighbourhood. Members are aware of the phenomenal increases in land values which result when heavily encumbered lands are devastated by fire. This fortuitous increase in value will not now go to the landowner. Again, development by Government and public authorities in areas like Jurong, Kallang Basin and Kranji has resulted in phenomenal increases in land values in these neighbourhoods. It was ironical that under the existing legislation, when additional lands in these areas had to be acquired for public purposes, Government had to pay compensation at values which Government itself had helped to enhance. The element of enhancement attributable in these cases to public participation (as opposed to participation by the private sector), is the element which under the new Bill will be creamed off when land is acquired for public purposes. The second point I wish to make today involves the concept of the Appeals Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of representations were received by the Select Committee in which the same point was made. And the point was this: all appeals should be heard by a Court of Law presided by a Judge of the High Court instead of the Appeals Board, as proposed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the move to take appeals away from the Courts and place them in the hands of an Appeals Board or tribunal is in conformity with prevailing trends else. where in the world of entrusting matters of specialist evaluation to Administrative Tribunals where persons with the requisite expertise can deal with issues involving subjects with which they are themselves familiar. Furthermore, procedures before such tribunals are less formal, less expensive, more expeditious and, perhaps, more satisfactory. The provision of the Appeals Board envisaged in the Bill is similar to the set-up in the United Kingdom, but we have not laid down statutory limitations prescribing minimum legal or professional qualifications in order not to restrict the field of selection. It is envisaged, however, that the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, both of whom will have the status of High Court Judges, will be persons who are either legally qualified or have considerable experience in land administration and other matters. The panel of assessors will be persons with objective minds who will be able to assist the Commissioner in assessing fair compensation after listening to expert evidence on values. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by the Minister. Sir, as I see it, this is a piece of legislation which definitely favours the poor man. This is what we the P.A.P. Government stands for - for the poor man. Let me take an example to substantiate my argument. A few years ago when hell broke loose in the Bukit Ho Swee area where thousands of people were rendered homeless by fire, what did the P.A.P. Government do then? Did the Government just merely say, "Well, we will try to rehouse them." No, far from it, not just trying in that direction. But the Government took immediate steps to provide immediate relief to the homeless. Then the Bukit Ho Swee fire site was acquired and plans to put up decent flats with the necessary social amenities were drawn up and at once implemented. Now, if there had not been any fire and had not the Government acquired this site, today we will not see the beautiful symmetry of a clean and healthy location where numerous blocks of flats for the poor exist. I am sure this House will agree whole-heartedly with me on this matter. The Government, on the one hand, acquires land for community use and those who think they would suffer as a result should retune their minds and look at acquisition as a means of allowing Government to continue to provide the poor with decent homes and better social amenities. On the other hand, the Government, with the people's needs uppermost in its mind, would continue to fulfil its obligations, come whatever the obstacles. I am surprised that those affected are asking for more compensation than what is arrived at by our valuers. They should have been happy with what they are to get. In fact, I would say that the land value should be reduced to as low a rate as possible in order to allow the Government to continue to provide such amenities. May I, Sir, stress that we do not wish to favour the land speculators who jump at opportunities when Government projects or public projects are carried out in adjacent lands, thereby helping to boost up the land value! We come from the masses and our obligation is to them and them alone. If we allow these speculators free rein, then chaos and financial difficulties would over-run us all and the Government would then have to dish out enormous sums of money to pay for fantastic sums of compensation to those involved. I think those landowners who are rich must be practical. They should be the first to come forward and assist in nation-building and make some sacrifices, for, as the saying goes, Sir, "It is in the giving that we receive." Let me ask them a question. What would happen to them if the country goes down? Where would their landed properties be then? If they would care to look at certain countries not far from us, they would see my point. Sir, as our main objective is to help establish a more equal and just society, therefore, our declared aim is to acquire lands from time to time which will be developed or utilised for public purposes, say, for example, to build more schools, clinics, more blocks of housing flats, more community centres, veterinary extension centres and many others. Lastly, Sir, I would urge those likely to be affected to think well of others so that the declared aims of the Government can be achieved with as little inconvenience as possible.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. It is, on the whole, good for the lower strata of society. It is appropriate and in line with our new status and new name, the Republic of Singapore, and consonant with the concept of democratic socialism which is strongly opposed by the Alliance, the Barisan Sosialis and other Parties whose aim is to perpetuate bourgeois rule. Why I say so, Mr Speaker, is that lands which are acquired by Government will be fully developed for the purpose of public projects; clinics, dispensaries, hospitals, schools, cheap - I emphasise cheap - flats, not high rental flats, community centres and other projects which would be enjoyed by the lower class society, not parks like the MacRitchie Reservoir Park on which we have debated today. Our Government is not confiscating properties owned by landowners, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before such lands are acquired by Government, they will be assessed and adequate compensation will be paid, which is not the case in Communist countries. In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, both parties benefit. As has happened, when a fire breaks out, it is the responsibility of the government of the day to rehouse the fire victims in flats and offer relief. The landowner shakes his legs and when the land is free of squatters, he is in a position to develop it for his own selfish interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is appropriate that this Bill, which will be approved by Parliament, will satisfy all parties concerned. 7.10 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, about this Land Acquisition Bill, we all may have the impression that this is one of the important Bills to be passed by this Parliament. I would like to deal with this Bill in a wider perspective. Inevitably, a country will have certain laws and rights to the land. This is a necessary and an essential feature of the rights of a country. And in the development of a country, it is inevitable that there are certain changes. When certain countries change from an agricultural economy to an industrialised economy, it is necessary to acquire land. This is called land reform. And at times it happens that this leads to a struggle for power between the landowners and the State. In countries which are friendly with us, the Eastern European countries and Egypt - I will just enumerate one example - in Egypt there is also the problem of landownership and there has been certain harm done by the system there. So there is a policy on acquisition of land to meet the requirement of the country in its development. To our minds, the land is part and parcel of a country and it is the right of the State to acquire and manage its development. Our island is a very tiny one and with our limited land area, we have to build an ideal country. Therefore, we must put our land to the best possible use in order to meet our largest and highest demands. We should have proper arrangements and measures in our island State in order to ensure that every inch of land can be put to the best possible use in order to maintain national development and to promote the prosperity of our country, so that we can extract every benefit out of every inch of land and so that every man can be used to the limit of his ability and everything can be put to the best possible use. We should not have the practice such as is obtaining in feudalistic countries, to divide or allot lands to certain landlords. But here in Singapore, we should try to realise our own paradise. We should not allow anybody to waste too large an area of land. We do not have too many Christmas Islands to be sold. Therefore, we must make the best possible use of our land. The Members of Parliament and the general public regard the passage of this Bill as one of the important steps taken in the process of development of our country. We should concentrate all our energy and attention on the development of our country, and in this respect, the acquisition of land is very important. It is a very essential feature in the process of nation-building. We are short of land, and there is a saying that God created the world and the Dutch created land. We should also follow suit to show that we can also reclaim land from the sea in order to extend our land area, which is part of our nation- building process. This is a step forward towards a better future and the prosperity and development of our country. This is an inevitable part of our endeavours. I do not view this Bill as a piece of legislation but as a dynamic step forward in the right direction of nation-building. I believe that after the law is amended, it will already have its own proper form to meet the requirements of the time. Therefore, it is now tabled in this House for discussion and passage. It has already been considered in Select Committee and the Report has been published. Advertisements appeared in the Press on the 25th and 27th of June this year inviting representations on the Bill. This is a show of democracy, and I am very satisfied with the process of the Bill. It is also comprehensive in its structure and takes into consideration every aspect of the problem arising out of land acquisition. The acquisition of land is not always for perpetual possession by the State. In some cases, land is to be put to use and is required for a period of 3 years. Stress is put on the use of land for public requirements and needs. Because of this feature, the Bill has brought about a socialistic change in land acquisition. In a socialist country, it is fit and proper that every inch of land should be put to the best possible use to yield the best advantage for the benefit of the people and make a very effective contribution to the development of the country. This is a very essential feature of a socialistic system. Another characteristic of this Bill is that landowners will not be able to benefit from an increase in land value by receiving a windfall, so that nobody can speculate in land value. This is also a good feature. I would like this House to refer to page 18 of the Bill. There is a provision that compensation should not always be paid according to market value before acquisition, because there are so many factors which contribute to an increase of land value - some of which are illegal. So after careful consideration and deliberate study, the Bill is now in its best possible form and it will not be detrimental to the people. I have full confidence in it and I believe that when it is put into effect and practice, it will be beneficial to the people and the country. I express my support for the Bill.

There has not been a word of criticism. I have nothing much to add except to say that I am glad that our Back-benchers have realised the importance and the necessity for this piece of socialist legislation.

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

Resolved, "That this Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed."- [Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock p.m.