Hansard, 1966-12-12

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Member to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown), Minister for Labour - from 12th to 25th December, 1966.

I have been informed by the President that, on the day stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 9th December, 1966 (i) Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Government Contracts Bill; (iii) Income Tax (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Railways (Amendment) Bill; and (v) Insurance Bill. (P. Coomaraswamy) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Ho See Beng - 1. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that three Singapore fishing boats and their crew are being detained by the Indian Government in the Andaman Islands and what steps are being taken by the Ministry concerned to secure the release of the detained crew and the boats.

Mr Ho See Beng. There being no response -

Question No. 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the three vessels referred to by the hon. Member are SMF 496, SMF 538 and SMF 500. Of them, the last - that is, SMF 500 - was detained once before by the Indian authorities at Port Blair in February 1965 and both the crew and the vessel were subsequently released in April 1965. Almost in all cases, the fishermen concerned had complained of bad weather and engine trouble for the difficulties. The Foreign Minister had discussions with the Primary Production Department to find out the facts of the case. We had discussions also with the Indian High Commission here on the same subject. I will now mention briefly the case of each of these three fishing boats. SMF 538 was apprehended by the Indian naval authorities for intrusion into their territorial waters off the Nicobar Islands. We were informed of this by the Indian High Commission on 15th June, 1966. On 27th July, 1966, a request was made to the Indian High Commission to obtain the early release of the vessel and her crew. On 8th October, 1966, this Ministry was informed by the Indian High Commission that the crew of SMF 538, who had since been sentenced to two months' imprisonment, would be released on 30th October, 1966, but the vessel was confiscated by the Indian authorities. This is in accordance with the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Fisheries Regulations. On 16th September, 1966, a letter was received from the Singapore Marine Product Workers' Union that two more Singapore fishing boats, SMF 496 and SMF 500, with a total crew of 16 persons, had been detained by the Indian authorities at Andaman Islands. On 18th November, 1966, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made representations to the Indian High Commission requesting the High Commission to use its good offices to obtain the early release of the crew and the boats. A reply is awaited from the Indian authorities.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider introducing amending legislation to bring within the ambit of the Labour Ordinance workers who are at present excluded from the provisions of the Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is fully aware that, in the light of changed economic, political and social conditions in the Republic, a comprehensive review of the three employment Ordinances, namely, the Labour Ordinance, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance, with a view to their amendment, is essential. Therefore, the Government is actively considering a number of amendments to these Ordinances. These have been discussed by a sub-committee on labour matters. One of them is to extend the scope of the Labour Ordinance as well as the other two Ordinances to bring in workers who do not come within their ambit at present.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit girls under the age of 21 from working as bar waitresses.

Under the existing law, waitresses under the age of 17 years are prohibited from being employed in bars. This age ceiling for employment to bar waitresses is considered to be adequate in the interest of such workers. Unless there are very strong and compelling reasons for the proposal made by the Member for Bras Basah, the Government does not propose to raise the age restriction to under 21 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a provision in the Labour Ordinance which prohibits female factory workers from working after 10 p.m. I wonder whether the Acting Minister for Labour will consider applying the same provision to bar waitresses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present prohibition of employment of waitresses under 17 years of age is contained in the Liquors Licensing Regulations, 1962, which were made under the Customs Ordinance, 1960. Rule 43 (1) of the Liquors Licensing Regulations reads: 'No licensee shall employ or permit to be employed in his licensed premises any waitress -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all of us are aware that when the P.A.P. first came to power in 1959, the former Minister for Labour introduced an Ordinance relating to bars. At that time, the lights in the bars were not allowed to be dimmed. But nowadays if any one of us here goes to bars, he will find that they are made to appear like the Black Hole of Calcutta. Will the Acting Minister for Labour also consider the enforcement of the Ordinance to make proprietors brighten the lights in their bars?

Mr Ho, unless you can relate the light in bars to the age of waitresses, I think your question goes beyond the bounds of a supplementary.

Mr Speaker, the Acting Minister for Labour has said that he will be looking into the question of bar waitresses under the age of 21, but I am afraid he may not be able to do anything. So I am appealing to him, if he cannot restrict girls under the age of 21 from working in bars, to prohibit the dimming of lights in bars.

Mr Speaker, this is a difficult question. Some people would prefer to have their drinks in rather dark and cool surroundings. On the other hand, the hon. Member's concern is the protection of these young girls. But I wonder what can happen even in a dimly-lighted bar? I am only the Acting Minister for Labour, and when the Minister returns from Manila, I will submit to him the Member's request.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) what is the total number of unemployed persons registered with the Labour Department as at 30th November, 1966; (b) since 1st January how many persons were successful in gaining employment through the assistance of the Employment Exchange of the Labour Department; and (c) what measures he will take to reduce the number of unemployed persons in the Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of persons registered with the Employment Exchange for employment assistance as at 30th November, 1966, was 69,556. The number of persons who have been placed in employment by the Employment Exchange since the 1st January, 1966, to the 30th November, 1966, was 2,318. It must be emphasised that the Employment Exchange is not the only labour market in Singapore, as workers are also recruited directly by employers. The Government is fully conscious of the need to find jobs for its unemployed citizens. It has, in fact, already taken a number of measures to create jobs. Under the industrialisation programme, 10,500 new jobs have already been created in the industrial sector up to the end of last year. We expect that 10,000 to about 12,000 new jobs will be created every year from 1967 onwards with the progress of industrialisation. The Regulation of Employment Act was passed to safeguard employment opportunities of Singapore citizens. The Ministry of Labour is now considering the introduction of a training scheme in the hotel and catering industry for training persons as waiters, waitresses and chamber-maids, as there will be an increased demand for these categories of employees as hotel expansion to cater for the tourist industry is expected in the near future. The scheme is expected to come into operation early next year. We also have a scheme to expand the dockyard in the Port Authority and we are at the moment inviting foreign participation in our dockyard, the main object being to get foreign know-how on dockyard expansion so that our dockyard can repair ships much more than can be done at present. If the dockyard is expanded, we expect that a few more thousand jobs will be created for those unemployed in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Acting Minister for Labour has mentioned only two or three measures that the Government will be taking to provide more job opportunities for our unemployed citizens. I would like to find out whether there are other measures to be taken, so that the number of unemployed could be reduced to a greater extent rather than introduce only some aspects of it, thereby knocking off, say, 30,000, 50,000 or 60,000 of the total unemployed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main measures by which we hope to reduce unemployment are those which I have mentioned. I can think of no other measures at the moment. But the hon. Member should be well aware that in Singapore we have three big problems. One is Education, the other Housing, and the third Unemployment. I think we can say without boasting that we have conquered the first two problems, Education and Housing. We are now tackling the third problem and we hope that in a few years we might be able to reduce the number of our unemployed.

asked the Minister for Labour if he has information of how many bar waitresses in Singapore are Singapore Citizens, and how many are non-Singapore Citizens from West Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from figures available in the Ministry of Labour, there were 964 bar waitresses employed as on the 31st March, 1966. 338 of these are non-Singapore citizens from West Malaysia. This is the number that has applied for work permits under the Regulation of Employment Act.

Sir, is the Minister aware that the proprietors of these bars have not paid the contributions to the Central Provident Fund of some of the waitresses who work in their bars?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there must be cases where contributions to the Central Provident Fund by bar waitresses are not paid. But unless the Member can give me specific cases to follow up, I am afraid I am at a loss to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself do not like to make contact with bar waitresses to find out whether or not their employers pay C.P.F. for the waitresses. But if the Acting Minister for Labour would take the trouble to send somebody to all the bars in Singapore and make inquiries, I am sure he can find out. An hon. Member: We will send you!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will certainly direct the General Manager of the Central Provident Fund to send his team of investigators right round our bars in Singapore in order to satisfy the Member for Bras Basah, in whose constituency I believe there are several bars!

asked the Minister for Labour whether persons born in Singapore, at present holding Malaysian identity cards and residing in Singapore, will be issued with new Singapore Citizen identity cards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore citizens by birth who are holding Malaysian identity cards will be issued with the new Singapore citizen identity cards if they reside in Singapore. The onus of proof that one is a Singapore citizen by birth will have to be on the applicant.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development when will the reconstruction and metalling of Wei Hua Road in the Sembawang Constituency be carried out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, plans for reconstruction and metalling of Wei Hua Road are ready. Tenders are being called and work will commence in early January 1967.

(In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question. If the work was approved in April this year, why can it only start from next year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Urban and Rural Services Committee approved the repairing and metalling of Wei Hua Road on the 4th of July, 1966, and not April as mentioned by the hon. Member for Sembawang. In my capacity as Chairman of the Committee, I issued a circular to all Government Members of Parliament on the 1st July, 1964, requesting them that if any project approved by the Committee was not carried out within three months, they must bring the matter to my attention. And the hon. Member for Sembawang has never brought this particular road to my attention, and I think he should bear part of the blame.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider issuing a directive that the use of locally-manufactured materials, such as shutterboards, etc., where such materials meet the requisite standards and specifications, be stipulated when tenders are let out for Government, Housing and Development Board and other public projects, as a measure to promote local industries.

Mr Speaker, in May 1965 the Government, with a view to encouraging local industries, issued a directive to all departments and statutory boards requiring them to use locally-manufactured goods as listed in the Economic Development Circular No. 2 of 1965 dated 7th May, 1965. Among the items covered in this list were plywood and veneer, corrugated cardboard and corrugated fibre board, and a host of other products already being manufactured in Singapore. This directive also required that in every contract a clause should be included requiring the contractor, wherever possible, to give preference to the use of locally-manufactured materials in lieu of equivalent imported materials. This policy of encouragement of local industries was further confirmed and strengthened by Economic Development Circular No. 8 of 1965 dated 4th December, 1965, which prescribed that preferential purchase of locally-made products should be carried out even though the cost of such products was 5 per cent higher than the imported equivalents. Since the issue of these two circulars, Government departments and statutory boards, including the Housing and Development Board, have been using locally-manufactured materials where such materials meet the required standards and specifications of their projects. No further directive is, therefore, considered necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that in 1965 there was an import of 19,149,896 square feet of plain plywood into Singapore, costing $2,908,072? And in January to March 1966 this year there was an import of 3,574,411 square feet of plain plywood into Singapore, costing $576,700?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member's supplementary question should be directed at the Trade Division of the Ministry of Finance under which the Economic Development Board comes. However, I am aware of the import figures of plywood quoted by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah. I understand these figures are accurate, but I would like to point out that, in addition to imports, Singapore also exports plywood. In 1963 10 million square feet of plywood was exported at a cost of about $1.7 million, and from January to June this year about 15 million square feet of plain plywood was exported, costing about $2.2 million. In order to protect local plywood industries, a quota system was introduced in April 1966 under which only 50 per cent of the total 1963 imports were allowed to be imported. Imports from Malaysia were, however, exempted. On the 29th October this year, this quota was further restricted to only 5 per cent of the 1963 figures. Malaysia was again exempted. I would like to say that we are reluctant to impose a ban or quota on plywood coming from Malaysia, as we do not want to do anything to hinder trade between Malaysia and Singapore. Plywood is, in fact, practically a Common Market item.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development what plans he has for the overall development of the Choa Chu Kang Constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a substantial part of Choa Chu Kang Constituency has been set aside for farming and resettlement. The villages in this area are also earmarked for expansion to provide such facilities as schools, community centres and clinics to serve the rural people. The sites presently occupied by the Royal Air Force and the cemetery will remain for some time, but a large portion of the swamp land lying between the proposed Woodlands New Town and Sungei Kranji is being reclaimed and developed for sawmills.

When will the area proposed to be developed for sawmills be ready for occupation?

Again, Mr Speaker, this is a question for the Economic Development Board, as it is their project. But I am given to understand that the Economic Development Board has already reclaimed, as a first phase of the development, some 40 to 50 acres of land which are now ready for allocation to timber industries. But, unfortunately, water and electric power is as yet not available, because their supply will entail the laying down of big mains. It is, however, expected that these mains will be laid in the Kranji area in about the middle of next year. In the meantime, the Economic Development Board is planning phase II of the reclamation, and the size, duration and completion of this phase will depend, of course, on the availability of earth from the nearby areas, such as Mandai.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that the resettlement policy of the Housing and Development Board as practised in the Choa Chu Kang Constituency is leading to the fragmentation of the farm lands there and is preventing farms from achieving an economic size whereby they can take advantage of modern scientific methods of farming and reduce costs of production; and what action he proposes to take to correct the situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware of the policy involving the resettlement of farmers not only in Choa Chu Kang but also in the whole of Singapore. The present practice of restricting two acres of farmland to each bona fide farmer who is resettled is the best the Government can do to distribute limited farm land equally amongst the dispossessed farmers. Under present conditions in Singapore, the question of economic size of farms does not arise, as the majority of our farmers practise mixed farming. Very few farms, in fact, occupy more than five acres of land. Modern scientific methods of farming by way of the proper use of fertilizers, the selection of good strains, crop rotation and pest control are the most sensible and economically feasible in the context of our local farming conditions. To this end the Primary Production Department has been helping farmers to achieve improved yields through the application of such scientific methods. The effect of fragmentation is, therefore, not necessarily detrimental to the farming community and may have to be accepted in a situation of acute land shortage.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that some farmers, residing at Holland Road and Ulu Pandan Road who were served with notices of removal by Government, are not satisfied with alternative accommodation of flats offered to them, and if he will consider allocating alternative farm land to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the resettlement policy of the Housing and Development Board, only bona fide farmers who are to be resettled by Government are eligible for alternative farm land up to a maximum of two acres in the resettlement areas. I understand that the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Ulu Pandan were not genuine farmers and as such were only offered alternative accommodation in flats.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister in charge how many families are affected in this area, and how many have been allocated land, and why?

Mr Speaker, Sir, of the total number of families to be cleared, it has been established that four are genuine farmers, and 25 do not depend entirely on farming for their livelihood as they have other sources of income, like driving taxis or working as labourers. Under the resettlement policy, these 25 families are not considered as genuine farming cases and do not qualify for land allocation in the resettlement areas. However, as I have stated, they have been offered alternative accommodation in Housing and Development Board flats. The four families who rely solely on farming for their livelihood have been given alternative farm land in the various resettlement areas according to their choice.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will take steps to widen or straighten the bend at Meyer Road opposite the former Sea View Hotel, in view of the many serious accidents at that point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the statement that there are many serious accidents at the bend of Meyer Road opposite the former Sea View Hotel is not strictly correct. In the past two years, there were about 10 minor accidents there, none of which resulted in any serious injury. In order to widen or straighten this bend at Meyer Road, expensive acquisition of land will have to be undertaken. Since this road only serves a residential area with a not very heavy traffic, there is, therefore, no justification to pursue such a course of action. However, to reduce the rate of accidents at this spot, steps are being taken to impose a speed limit of 20 miles per hour and it is felt that this measure, together with the existing double white line, should produce the desired effects.

asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) if he will consider the establishment of zebra crossings (i) at Anson Road in front of the Gan Eng Seng School and (ii) at Tanjong Pagar Road between Wallich Street and Tapah Street.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, Anson Road is 58 feet wide and the volume of traffic is fairly constant and heavy. However, there are sufficient breaks in the flow of traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely, provided care and caution is taken. Observation by the Traffic Police has disclosed that the number of pedestrians crossing Anson Road in front of Gan Eng Seng School is negligible. The majority of persons crossing Anson Road in front of Gan Eng Seng School are the students of this school. A zebra crossing is not recommended at this place. If the intention of requesting the zebra crossing is for the students, then a school crossing patrolman is more justified than a zebra crossing. Observation will be kept at this place when the school re-opens in January, and if it is found necessary to have a school crossing patrolman at this place, recommendations will a be submitted. To answer the second part of the question. Tanjong Pagar Road is 41 feet wide and there are several side roads. This road caters for two-way traffic, and parking is permitted on both sides of the road. In addition, hawkers have pitched their stalls on both sides of Tanjong Pagar Road from Wallich Street to Gopeng Street. This leaves only sufficient room for one-lane traffic in either direction. Vehicles will have to crawl along this portion of Tanjong Pagar Road. There are sufficient breaks in the flow of traffic to allow pedestrians to cross safely. There is no particular spot along Tanjong Pagar Road where pedestrians concentrate to cross the road. Therefore, if a zebra crossing is provided along Tanjong Pagar Road, it will not be of much practical use, since the pedestrians will not take the trouble to walk all the way to the crossing to cross the road, as they can cross the the road safely from wherever they approach Tanjong Pagar Road. In view of this, a zebra crossing is not recommended.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will suggest to the Public Utilities Board that the Board consider receiving payments of consolidated bills from residents of the Housing and Development Board MacPherson Estate at the Area Office of the Estate instead of the mobile centre as at present.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Utilities Board, in fact, consulted The Housing Board on the setting up of a sub-collection centre at the Housing Board Area Office in Aljunied. Unfortunately, however, the Housing Board Area Office is already too congested with tenants paying their dues. The present arrangement whereby the Mobile Collection Unit calls at Block 35, Persiaran Keliling Estate, on six days every month subsequent to the dispatch of bills to customers in the area was then instituted, and appears to be working satisfactorily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister consider making some special arrangements on rainy days?

In spite of the rain, the present arrangements continue. On five or six days a week, these mobile centres reach the Member's constituency. There are approximately 10,000 consumers in this estate, of whom only 20 per cent pay at the estate centre. It is difficult to find suitable office space and also it is uneconomical to open up centres in every housing estate. Payments are usually made for about five or six days after the receipt of bills by consumers in the area, and for the rest of the month there is a lull. The mobile system seems to be working fairly satisfactorily in meeting all requirements. I understand that the vans, though parked in the open, are usually stationed at most sites in the shade of trees or adjoining shop-houses with five-foot ways which provide some shelter to the public queueing up to pay their bills. So although rain is an inconvenience, it does not stop the collection. 3.15 p.m.

"to authorise a sum of one thousand million dollars to be raised by way of loan for the purposes of the Development Fund", 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.

Resolved, "That at its rising this day Parliament do stand adjourned to 14th December, 1966." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]

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

Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 28 of 1966. There is only one head of expenditure in the Supplementary Estimates and two notices of amendment in respect thereof have been received. Head 1110 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1110 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2001. Sir, this House is asked to approve a sum of $122,000 for emergency repairs to the City Hall building and urgent extensive repairs to buildings of ex-Federal departments which were left in a state of neglect when Singapore was part of Malaysia. When we were a part of Malaysia, we paid 40 per cent of our national income to the then Malaysian Central Government. Sir, until I received the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966, as contained in Paper Cmd. 28 of 1966, I was under the impression that the ex-Federal departments were well maintained by the then Malaysian Government. They had been paid 40 per cent of our national income for the purposes of maintaining all the departments under their care. Sir, you may agree with me that repairs to the buildings of ex-Federal departments could have been done by the Central Government during the Malaysian period. Some of the expenditure involved should have been taken from this 40 per cent, instead of which this House is now asked to approve an additional sum for repairs. In view of this, could the Minister concerned make an effort to claim back the cost of the repairs so that this money could be spent on other projects which could benefit our people? Sir, I beg to move.

In my view, the less said about our differences with Malaysia and what should have been done or should not have been done, the better. Of this sum of $121,419, about $20,616 was spent on the City Hall, $30,835 on the Criminal and District Courts, $19,404 on Changi Prison, $46,702 on the General Post Office, and $3,862 on the Telecommunications Station at Kim Chuan Road, making a total of $121,419. I can assure the Member for Changi that this sum is being paid by the Central Government. As a result of Malaysia, they owe us some money and we owe them some money. At the moment, negotiations are about to be completed on who owes whom and how much, and this sum of $121,000, or nearly $122,000, falls within the figure of about $3 million which we are claiming from the Malaysian Government and which they have agreed to pay under an item of this nature.

Mr Sim, in view of that, do you wish to withdraw?

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

Madam Chan, amendment No. (2) .

(In Mandarin): I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1110 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2002. Mr Speaker, everybody knows that the Istana during the colonial days was used as a place for the reception of a few privileged persons and representatives. During the Lim Yew Hock regime, it was used as the residence of a certain Minister or Ministers. But at the present moment, in the context of independent Singapore, it is a place of significance. It is symbolic of our Republic and is a very important place. Its status is such that it is used to welcome our national guests. It is also used as a place for the representatives of the people to congregate on ceremonial occasions. Therefore, its status is quite different from what it was in the past. From the building in the istana, we can see that it could be used in the past for the purposes I have mentioned. But it is not suitable for present-day purposes, because it smells too much of aristocracy. It was designed for the use of very few people only. But now it is used to welcome our national guests and as a meeting place for the representatives of the people on festive or ceremonial occasions. The capacity of the hall is very small. Only a small number of persons may be housed therein. Because of my personal experience after having attended several functions there, I have the feeling that whenever the Government wishes to welcome representatives from the people, such functions are always held in the grounds of the Istana, and on rainy days or very windy days, the people have to take shelter running with chairs and cups and saucers into the building itself. If this sight is to be presented to our foreign guests, it will be a very disappointing one indeed. This may give people the impression that we are so poor that we cannot even afford a proper place to hold such functions. From this supplementary estimate, I can see that since we have spent so much money on decorations and repairs, why not we spend some more money in altering the Istana itself, to enlarge it so that it can hold bigger functions and make it more appropriate for our purposes, instead of letting it be used by a few people only, the aristocracy? This is my view on this item and I hope that the Minister concerned will give me a satisfactory reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I came here today prepared to argue that the sum of $182,000, which we spent on repairs and extensions to the Istana and on the renovation of the old Attorney-General's bungalow, was well spent. I thought that the Member for Delta was criticising the spending of such money. But I agree with all that she has said and, if we can spend more money on the Istana, I will be the first to spend it. It is true that if there is rain on certain days when we have functions in the grounds, then it is rather congested in the small hall. The only alternative is to pull down the whole building and put up something even more substantial instead. From the repairs alone, Sir, you will see that the building itself is an extensive building. But whether or not we can afford to pull it down and put up a new one, or whether we can afford to make very extensive alterations to improve it is a question which only the Minister for Finance can answer, as he is the one who hands out the money.

Madam Chan, in view of what the Minister has said, do you wish to proceed with the amendment or withdraw it?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister says that the Finance Minister has not got enough money to renovate or repair the building, of course, I will have to withdraw my amendment. But I hope that he will consider my request.

May I treat the amendment as withdrawn and perhaps on another occasion you may deal with the Minister for Finance on this topic again? Madam Chan Choy Siong indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $610,700 for Head 1110 ordered to stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966.

Question, "That the sum of $610,700 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 28 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 a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $610,700 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 28 of 1966."

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

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

3.31 p.m. Order read for resumption of on Question [5th December, "That the Bill be now read a time." Question again proposed.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already spoken on the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill at the last sitting, but I could not finish my speech because of the time and I will now avail myself of the opportunity to continue with it. This Bill introduced by the Minister for Education to amend the original Ordinance is necessary. Anti-national elements have opposed it in their speeches for their own ulterior motives. Today it is necessary for us to understand and appreciate the analysis given by the Minister for Education when moving this Bill, and we can appreciate the necessity for it to be passed by this House. My personal opinion is that the amendments are not only necessary but that there should be more amendments to the original Ordinance to make it more water-tight. In the past, Nanyang University has been bedevilled by various problems and difficulties, such as the engagement of the Chancellor. The problem started from the time when a foreigner was recruited to be Chancellor of the University. Up to now, the post of Chancellor is still vacant. The new Ordinance on Nanyang University has not been formulated and the University is still within the purview of the original Ordinance. The post of Vice-Chancellor was not provided for in the original Ordinance. Therefore, the present amendment Bill is necessary to put right the position. One odd thing is that today we forget about the Chancellor whereas we provide for the Vice-Chancellor. In the past, people knew about the Chancellor but forgot about the Vice-Chancellor. It is not possible to go without a Chancellor, but in the Ordinance there is no provision for a Chancellor. Since there is no such provision in the Ordinance, then nobody would dare suggest or say who should be the Chancellor. That is something which should be looked into. If the Minister for Education thinks that it is necessary to provide for the post of Chancellor as well in the Ordinance, then I will welcome it very much. This is one defect in the present Ordinance which I hope the Minister will look into. I will now deal with the donations to Nanyang University. I have some queries to air also. When Nanyang University was first set up, members of' the public in all walks of life promised various sums as donations to the Nanyang University Fund. But so far not all the donations promised have been collected. Without further information, it is not possible for the public to know who have or who have not paid the sums that they have promised to give to Nantah. This is something to which the Government should pay attention. I would like to know what measures the authorities concerned will take with regard to the collection of such promised donations in order to augment the Nanyang University Fund for the maintenance of the running of the University. Another point is that whenever we talk about Nantah, it is inevitable that we also think about the question of the recognition of Nanyang University degrees. The Government has promised on many occasions that it would aid Nanyang University and it has allotted quite a great deal of money to it. Members of the public are still looking forward to the day when those who promised donations to Nanyang University will come forward to fulfil their promises. Many people are also awaiting the day when the Government will come out openly and say that Nanyang University degrees will be recognised by the Government. According to the present rate of progress of Nanyang University, the Government can draw up its plan for the recognition of Nanyang University degrees and members of the public are waiting for this question to be answered.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with Singapore becoming an independent Republic, the introduction of the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill is necessary. There are anti-national elements with ulterior motives who make use of this amendment Bill as a pretext to accuse the Government of wanting to destroy Chinese education and of trying to further control Nanyang University. All these accusations are groundless. In fact, the people of Singapore know what kind of people they are who say such things. It is very obvious from the statement of the Minister of Defence that all these accusations are made by only a minority who are anti-national elements and who have close relationship with the anti-national Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore know very well that the Government is implementing the policy of equal treatment to all the four streams of education. It is allotting large sums of money for the development and promotion of the four streams of education. It has also allotted large sums of money to aid Nanyang University, such as the building of a Library. All this goes to show that the Government does not discriminate against Nanyang University. In other words, this shows that the Government is actually promoting Chinese education by actual deeds. It is proof that the Government is looking after the highest Chinese educational institution --- Nanyang University. This is the correct attitude taken by a responsible Government. This attitude and action on the part of the Government of Singapore should be supported and praised by all conscientious people. Therefore, the accusations by the anti-national elements with ulterior motives are puerile and sheer nonsense. Mr Speaker, Sir, the present problem facing Nanyang University is how to raise its academic standard. After the passage of the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill, which is now before the House, I hope that the Ministry of Education will adopt quicker measures to implement the various recommendations of the Nanyang University Reform Committee, such as the revision of salaries and better working conditions of the teaching staff in order to enable the teachers, professors and lecturers to devote more time and energy to raising the academic standards of the students so that they will be well educated and be able to contribute to nation-building. There is a great difference between the salary scales of the teachers of Nanyang University and those of the University of Singapore. There is a saying that we want the horse to run well, but we also want it not to eat any grass. How is it possible? I hope the Minister concerned will look into the working conditions and salaries of the teaching staff whilst he is promoting Chinese education.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in full support of the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill. Nanyang University was first conceived in 1953 and it started classes in 1956. Its inception took place during the colonial days under circumstances in which many obstructions were placed by the colonial masters. Despite this, people from all walks of life in Malaya and Singapore donated generously towards the establishment of Nanyang University. Its main objective was to pave the way for further studies for graduates of secondary schools. The second objective, of course, was to provide a source of teaching staff for secondary schools. The third objective was intended to link the oriental and occidental cultures and also to develop Malayan culture. Ever since the establishment of Nanyang University, the organisation of this University was run by multi-millionaires and very rich businessmen. Although they were enthusiastic in this pursuit, which is praiseworthy, they lacked experience in running an academic institution. They managed the University as though they were doing business in a big enterprise. Because of this, and owing to various other factors which presented a lot of problems to Nanyang University, there was a lack of Chinese scholars coming forward during the initial stages to give the necessary assistance and guidance. Undoubtedly and undeniably, Mr Speaker, over the past 10 years of its existence, Nantah has indeed trained and fostered great talent in various fields, such as commerce, education, industry, etc. But in so far as the organisation and structure of Nanyang University, the economic problem, and the question of academic staff are concerned, Nanyang University lags far behind any other university. The main reason is that the University Council is improperly organised. The second reason is that there has been no expert scholar to fill the role of Vice-Chancellor of the University ever since its inception. Mr Speaker, you will agree with me that these two factors are very essential to a university. Before the reorganisation of Nanyang University, the main powers of the Nanyang University Council lay in the hands of Mr Tan Lark Sye. He was the Chairman of the University Council. Mr Tan, of course, is a very successful businessman, but I am afraid he knows next to nothing about the organisation and administration of a university and university education. Because of this, he had to rely on some useless, good-for-nothing and incompetent followers of his to run the University in so far as administration was concerned. For example, in the administrative structure of the University, although there existed an Executive Committee which was the supreme administrative organ of the University, the University authorities appointed a Secretary who was directly responsible to Mr Tan Lark Sye. The powers of the Secretary included the control of financial affairs, the academic staff, their recruitment and dismissals, the administration and policy making of the University. Because of such wide controls, he became in practice the un-crowned emperor of the University. His followers held key positions in Nanyang University, and they had no regard for the sacred mission of the University as such. Because of this, the organisation of Nanyang University was such that people who were capable and scholarly were reluctant to continue serving under the unlearned, useless and good-for-nothing leadership of the incompetent followers. And even those who were quite prepared to stay on only stayed on for a while because they could not tolerate these unreasonable circumstances. And those who had come to serve would not think of staying on for long. Of course, this affected the treatment and the pay structure of the academic staff, which accounted for the University's failure to get internationally reputed scholars to serve. Mr Speaker, as I have already said, the powers of the Secretary conflicted with the administration of the Executive Committee, and this conflict brought about the Prescott Commission Report which took away the tenure of office and the powers of the Secretary, and the Chairman of the Executive Committee had to resign. This, of course, was very, very comforting to Nanyang University and it gave a ray of light, a hopeful light indeed, to Nanyang University. So at that time when people from all walks of life were very confident and hopeful about Nanyang University, it failed again in the selection of proper personnel in the administrative and executive fields. And so Nanyang University underwent another chaotic state of affairs. Mr Speaker, the loose organisation of Nanyang University and its incompetent administration can be likened to a crumbling feudalistic structure which provides good opportunities to pro-Communist elements. Under those circumstances, pro-Communist cadres took over Nanyang University; they were well trained people. Because the Nanyang University Students' Union had all along been controlled by the pro-Communist students who knew that the University could be manipulated at their will, these pro-Communist students had complete disregard for discipline in the University campus. They took Nanyang University as a hotbed for the training of Communist cadres. Through the Nanyang University Students' Union they propagated Communist ideology and ideas. They even made use of the property of the University for illegal activities. In the University itself these pro-Communist students had no respect for law and discipline. They beat up students with different ideologies, and because of this, the situation was very, very unsatisfactory. They even went so far as to coerce the authorities to fine or dismiss those students who dared to oppose them. These students wasted their time doing other things instead of studying. They failed in their examinations as a matter of course, and because of that they threatened the lecturers and teachers, asking them to pass them in their examinations. Ever since 1961 these pro-Communist students blatantly linked themselves with the Communist organisations outside the campus and formed a united front for activities against the nation. They even held political meetings in the campus of the University and carted a lot of workers and other students to break up the peaceful atmosphere of study in the Nanyang University campus. They brought politics into the Nanyang campus. As a result, Nanyang University was drawn into the political vortex. Nanyang University suffered in its reputation. It was unable to live up to the hopes of people from all walks of life who had confidence in its future. As a result of such shattering of their confidence, the future of Nanyang University and the students was also adversely affected, and members of the public had a wrong impression of the University. So the innocent students suffered. This is a very sad situation indeed, Mr Speaker. Because of a small group of extreme elements who were pro-Communist and who had no love for Nanyang University, Nanyang University was used for the evil political purposes of certain people. Those who really love Nanyang University are the studious students and generous donors from various walks of life. Mr Speaker, it is the duty of a responsible elected Government of the people to guide the University in healthy and good development. The Government has therefore taken the initiative to help Nanyang University reorganise in this direction. This is necessary. It also helps in the realisation of the hopes of those who have contributed financially to Nanyang University so that it may not fall into the hands and continue to be in the hands of the Communist cadres. The Singapore Government has shouldered this great responsibility. It has already taken steps to reorganise Nanyang University. It has got rid of the undesirable elements. It has given Nanyang University the necessary financial support. It has made adjustments in the pay and treatment of the teaching staff and increase the facilities of Nanyang University, such as the new library and science equipment. Within a short period the Singapore Government has given $6.7 million to Nanyang University. This, of course, is a praise-worthy move. It shows that the Government is paying attention to the development of the University. I hope that it will continue to do this, and I also hope that people from various walks of life will, in the same spirit as they have helped Nanyang University, continue to donate generously from now on. Mr Speaker, the aim of the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill is to strengthen the organisation of the University Council to implement more effectively the development of the University. The membership of the Nanyang University Council includes people from various strata of society, such as representatives of the Government, the University, and the Graduates Organisation, and well-wishers, some of whom come from Malaysia. An organisation on this basis is a very reasonable and enlightened one, as the Nanyang University Graduates Fellowship had made it clear in a statement on the 26th of October as follows: 'Because of the past and the future necessity of the Nanyang University to foster more effectively high talents for the nation, it is necessary to set up as early as possible an effective central administrative organisation so that all such matters as the administration, curricula and academic standards will be well taken care of, including the matter relating to the salaries of the teaching staff. Such changes in the organisation of the Council and in certain names are also in keeping with this spirit without any harm to the University organisation.' I would like to quote one more extract to conclude my speech, Mr Speaker. From the same Fellowship, it says: 'As one of the highest educational institutions of our country, the Nanyang University will shoulder the responsibilities for the further education and studies of Chinese secondary graduates.' 4.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, as one who has been educated in Chinese, I am very concerned with the highest of Chinese academic institutions, namely, Nantah. When Singapore achieved independence, members of the public had high hopes of Nanyang University. Everybody thought that it was the highest expression in higher education. It is one of the supports of our society. It is everyone's duty to give encouragement and support to Nanyang University because this institution is a very important factor in our society. They all hope that the University will provide opportunities and facilities for students so that in future they can put what they have already learnt in the University at the service of society. In view of this, the previous University Council have requested the Minister for Education and the Nanyang University authorities to make a careful study of the Nanyang University organisation and the Nanyang University Ordinance. They have formulated and recommended amendments to the original Ordinance which are now before the House. We all remember that under the Nanyang University Ordinance, 1959, its organisation and composition are not in keeping with the present requirements and time. The section on the composition of this Council very clearly provides that 20 University members should be elected by the Council and at least one of them should be a resident of Singapore, and at least one each should be a resident in the various States of Malaya.

4.02 p.m. From this it can be seen that it is necessary to amend this provision in regard to the composition of the Council. Otherwise a few anti-national elements would be able to manipulate the organisation and to infiltrate into this Council because foreigners can come into it and manipulate it to carry out their nefarious subversive activities. On the other hand, we should also encourage those who really love Nanyang University and Chinese education to be in this Council. I therefore support the present amendment to the composition of the Council which inter alia provides for six members to be appointed by the Government, of whom three may be members resident outside Singapore. But I feel that in the composition of the Council they have neglected representatives from the working class. In other words, there is no provision for such representatives on-the Council. The Nanyang University Fund is made up of donations from people in various walks of life, including taxi-drivers, trishaw riders and workers. They have shown great enthusiasm in their support of Chinese education and Nantah. Therefore, in the new Council in the amendment Bill, I feel that clause 7 (1) (e) should be amended to include representatives from the working class, say the N.T.U.C. With such an amendment, I feel the composition of the Council will be perfect, more effective, and more representative and, as a result, will have a greater contribution to make to the future of Nanyang University. The few undisciplined students who hold their teachers in contempt, who have destroyed University property and have carried out nefarious acts of vandalism, will be wiped out, so that those students who are really sincere in their further studies in the course of the next four years may be enabled to pursue their studies in peace and in a better environment. 4.07 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill. As what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has said, ever since its inception Nanyang University has been bedeviled by defective organisation, bad administration and ignorance of the University Council. The top policy-making body, the Nanyang University Council, knew nothing about University education. Therefore, it was possible for the Communists and pro-Communist students to make Nanyang University a breeding-ground for their cadres and to exploit Nanyang University for their anti-national activities and evil purposes and to bring down the name of the University. In order to make Nanyang University a real institution of higher learning - and this is the hope of all who love Nanyang University - they will agree that it is necessary to wipe out the influence of these pro-Communist elements as soon as possible. Only thus is it possible for Nanyang University to provide peaceful surroundings for the students to pursue their knowledge. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote a speech made by the Minister for Education on the 20th December last year in this House. He said: 'Universities represent the apex of the educational system in a country. They have an essential and influential role in society, and the quality and character of the universities are bound to have important impacts on the social, economic, and political life of a country. The role and character of universities have varied from place to place and from time to time. Universities are simultaneously conservative and progressive institutions - conservative in the sense that they preserve the best in the culture of a society, and progressive in the sense that they introduce new ideas, new discoveries, and new inventions, usually for the betterment of society. As institutions of higher learning, universities throughout the world share certain common functions, but they differ also because they have to cater for the different needs of the societies for which they purport to serve. It is obvious that universities in homogeneous societies with a well-developed sense of national identity have one important difference in role to play from universities in newly independent countries faced with the problems of building national identity out of a heterogeneous population.' The speech I have just quoted refers to higher institutions of learning in general, but Nanyang University, ever since its inception, and especially since the publication of the Wang Gung-Wu Report, has again and again emphasised that the Nanyang University students should be at least bilingual, if not tri-lingual, and be able to fulfil the special needs of the society they will have to serve. Mr Speaker, Sir, all the past facts have shown that the Nanyang University students have distinguished themselves in service. Although they have come from a different stream of education, their loyalty, their patriotism and their work are no less excellent than those of the others. Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the founding of the University, people from all walks of life in Malaya and Singapore have contributed generously to the University, especially people from the middle and lower strata. But what is deplorable is that this non-Government University, ever since its inception, has passed into the hands of those evil-doers who have ulterior designs and these elements, because of the support given by certain rich business tycoons, were able to carry out their evil deeds in the University and land it in a mess. The control of the University passed into the hands of certain multi-millionaires. These people knew nothing about university education. They thought that money is everything. But they have forgotten the old maxim: "To die of hunger is a small matter, but to succumb to evil forces is a real disgrace." Many people with academic qualifications were hesitant in coming to the University. Those who did come very soon left. What is absurd is that a general meeting - they have a membership of 1,500 -had not been convened even once. Mr Speaker, the reason why I have quoted so many examples is that I wish to show that because of the incompetence of the people in charge of the University, it was possible for the pro-Communists to infiltrate into the University. By their actions, they brought down the name of the University and landed it into difficulties. Teachers, administrators and the leadership were surrounded by pro-Communist elements. They made use of the University campus as their training ground to carry out their evil deeds and nefarious designs. These people profess to love the University, but, in actual fact, they have been indulging in acts of vandalism by damaging University property and burning down University buildings, thus making it necessary for the University authorities to spend a large sum of money on repairing the building. Is this the behaviour of one who loves the University? This only worsens the financial position of the University. Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since its inception in 1953, many people have made generous contributions to the University, ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. But the actual amount collected is only $12 million. If this sum is compared to the amount contributed by the Government, it is very insignificant indeed. The Government has contributed $6.7 million in a short period. The people donated money to the University because they love it and pay a high regard to the sacred task of education. It was because the Council members did not set a good example that the collection of money was made very difficult. For example, Mr Tan Lark Sye, who promised to donate $5 million, actually paid up only $2.5 million. The Hokkien Huay Kuan promised to donate $600,000 for the erection of an auditorium, but the actual amount collected was only $200,000. The Nanyang Siang Pau Co. Ltd, promised to donate $1 million, but the actual amount collected was only $94,000. Another reason was that the University was in a topsy-turvy condition and control of it had passed into the hands of the anti-national elements, and the future of Nantah was in danger. Therefore, these people did not pay up the full amount. Nanyang University is a non-government institution. Apart from the grant by the Government, it has to receive support from the public. Ever since the wiping out of the pro-Communist anti-national elements, Nanyang University has been put on a proper footing, especially in view of this amending Bill. Therefore, I appeal to those who love education and the University to keep their word and pay up all that they have promised to donate. This will be beneficial to the development of the University and to society in general. To all people from all walks of life, I make this appeal - that they should continue their support for Nanyang University. Although the University is now receiving aid from Government, it does not mean that the people should stop giving aid to it. With ample finance it can be managed in a better way. Mr Speaker, Sir, the pro-Communist elements thought that as the University was founded by people from all parts of Malaysia, people outside Singapore should have more say and control in the running of the University. This is absurd. Because of different political situations, the citizens in Singapore should have a bigger say and control in the running of the University. This is only proper and is in keeping with our national interest. But, at the same time, we will allow Malaysian citizens to play their part within certain limits. This is provided in the amendment which allows for three Council members from Malaysian territory. We also welcome people outside Singapore giving aid and constructive suggestions to the University and their continued support. The Singapore Government and people are now subsidising about $1,300 for every outside student per year. In spite of that, the Government still welcomes genuine students from abroad to study here. At the same time, I hope the Malaysian Government will discard their narrow racialist ideology. They should absorb Nanyang graduates into their Government departments just as the Singapore Government is doing. If they can do this, then we can say that the Malaysian Government is not discriminating against Chinese education. I fully support this amendment Bill.

Sir, I think it is hardly necessary for me to argue further the case for the amendment Bill. The support given to it by Members of this House, particularly from the former graduates of Nanyang University, is most welcome. The Government realise that the present amendments to the Nanyang University Ordinance are inadequate. There are, in fact, many other sections of the Ordinance requiring suitable amendments to make Nanyang University and its Council function more efficiently. However, the present amendments are what the existing Council is prepared to accept to avoid unnecessary suspicion from certain sections of the public who might still be fearful that the character of the University might be altered. However, the Government shall always keep in touch with the future Council to ensure that, should further amendments be necessary, these will be brought up for consideration in this House at the appropriate time. The Member for Bukit Merah has made certain references to the composition of the Council and the difficulty in calling for a general meeting of members to elect from amongst themselves three members to the Council. These difficulties have been envisaged, but I am sure the Council will be able to sort them out by introducing new regulations, if necessary, to govern the conduct and procedure of such general meetings. The Member for Bukit Merah has also mentioned that we have been too concerned with the status of the Vice-Chancellor in this present amendment Bill to the neglect of the Chancellor. However, section 12 (1) of the existing Ordinance has already provided for the Chairman of the Council to be the head of the University, and as such the provision for the post of Chancellor is unnecessary at this stage. The Member has also raised the question of contributions from members of the public who have pledged various sums at various times in the course of the history of the University. If he will table a question on this subject in this House, I shall attempt to get the relevant information for him. Right at this moment I have no such information at hand. I am as anxious as the Member that the question of recognition of Nanyang University degrees should be resolved as soon as possible. In fact, last year I did mention that the Government would consider recognising Nanyang University degrees in about three years' time. I think the more important question is whether the University will be given the opportunity to reorganise without being interrupted by pro-Communist agitation, and whether the quality of the staff can also be improved. In my view, if Nanyang University could be reorganised without any interruption and both the quality of the staff and the students could be improved - and I think it could, which would lead to the raising of the academic standard - then the question of recognition could come in a matter of two years, perhaps three. The Member for Sembawang has brought up the question of salaries for the staff of Nanyang University. Perhaps he is not aware that since 1966 we have raised the salaries of the staff of Nanyang University to the same level as that obtaining in the University of Singapore.

4.28 p.m. However, since then the University of Singapore has had another revision to their salaries to bring them in line with the salary scales now obtaining in the University of Malaya. Therefore, the present salaries of the Nanyang University staff are not as attractive as those of the University of Singapore. However, these disparities can be put right as soon as the time is appropriate. What Nanyang University lacks, of course, is a gratuity scheme for its staff, and on this subject I think Government is always prepared to consider any suitable suggestions from Nanyang University. The Member for Paya Lebar has mentioned that there is no provision for representation from the workers on the University Council. Although no specific provision is made for a representative from the N.T.U.C., nevertheless, the amendment to section 19 (1) (e) does not preclude nomination of a representative of the N.T.U.C. if he is noted for his interest in higher education for workers. As I have mentioned earlier, the present amendments are not comprehensive enough for the efficient working of the University, but I can assure Members of this House that, as soon as the time is opportune and further amendments are necessary, I shall bring up the subject again in this House. 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 Ong Pang Boon] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The law of distribution on intestacy applicable in Singapore at present for non-Muslims follows the provisions of the English law as contained in the Statute of Distributions - a 17th century statute in England which has, in fact, been repealed there. The rules relating to the distribution of the estate of a deceased person on intestacy as contained in that statute are outmoded, especially in regard to the shares of the respective spouses. Under these rules, if a woman dies intestate leaving a husband, the whole of her estate goes to him. But if a man dies intestate leaving a widow and issue, the widow is entitled to one-third of the estate. And if he leaves a widow and no issue, she is entitled to one-half of the estate. The Bill seeks to amend the existing law so as to give equal rights to the spouses. When a person dies intestate, his property will be distributed in the manner set out in clause 7 of the Bill. If the intestate dies leaving a surviving spouse but no issue or parent, the spouse will be entitled to the whole of the estate. Subject to the rights of a surviving spouse and issue, the spouse will be entitled to one-half of the estate. Subject to the rights of a surviving spouse, the estate of an intestate who leaves issue will be distributed in equal portions to and amongst the children of such person dying intestate and such persons as legally represent such children, in case any of the said children be dead and buried. If there are no descendants, the parent or parents of the intestate will take the estate, in equal portions if there are two parents, subject to the rights of the surviving spouse, if any. If there are neither surviving spouse, descendants, nor parents, the brothers and sisters and children of deceased brothers or sisters of the intestate will share the estate in equal portions and the children of any deceased brother or sister shall take according to their stocks the share which he or she would have taken. If there are no surviving spouse, descendants, parents, brothers and sisters but grandparents of the intestate, the grandparents will take the whole of the estate in equal portions. If there are no surviving spouse, descendants, parents, brothers and sisters or their children or grandparents but uncles and aunts of the intestate, the uncles and aunts will take the whole of the estate in equal portions. In default of such distribution, the Government will be entitled to the whole of the estate. If a person so dying intestate is permitted by his personal law a plurality of wives and leaves more than one wife, such wives will share among them equally the share which the wife of the intestate would have been entitled to had such intestate left only one wife surviving him. For the purpose of distribution under the Bill, it is provided that there shall be no distinction between those related to the deceased person through his father and those related through his mother nor between those who are related to him by full blood and those who are related by half-blood. A "child" is defined as a legitimate child and includes any child adopted or registered as such under any written law for the time being in force. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill has been referred to the Singapore Bar Committee who have indicated that they support its provisions. It is proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that full consideration can be given to its provisions. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill makes certain consequential amendments arising out of the repeal of the Trustees Ordinance (Chapter 34) and the opportunity has also been taken to make a number of amendments considered desirable from the accounting point of view. It is proposed to delete the provisions requiring the Minister to arrange from time to time the fees chargeable by the Public Trustee so as to produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and expenses of the office of the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee administers mostly small estates. The fees chargeable by the Public Trustee are already much higher than the fees chargeable in England and New Zealand by the Public Trustees there. As it is unlikely that the Public Trustee fees will be increased, it is proposed to delete the provisions contained in subsection (4) of section 18 of the Public Trustee Ordinance. The Public Trustee Ordinance contains no provisions relating to the disposal of unclaimed funds in the hands of the Public Trustee. The Bill seeks to introduce provisions whereby unclaimed funds remaining in the hands of the Public Trustee at the conclusion of the administration of the estate of a person dying testate or intestate shall be credited to the Unclaimed Estates Account to be kept there for seven years, after which such funds, if they remain unclaimed, will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. 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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

This may be a convenient time to suspend. So I suspend the sitting of the House now, and resume at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.48 p.m. until 5.15 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Livestock Farmers' Association wrote to me on 25th November, 1966, requesting me to bring before this House the grievances of their members in respect of the resettlement of livestock farmers who were occupying State land required for development purposes. The request of the Association has been made too late for me to raise the matter during Question Time, and that is the reason for my present adjournment speech. The Association has also attached to its letter to me a copy of the letter dated 2nd November, 1966, which it has previously sent to the Director of the Primary Production Department and to the Minister for Law and National Development. Whatever may be the reason for the Association to request my service to place its grievances before this House only shortly after it has made representation to the Department and Ministry responsible for the resettlement of the farmers, I am in no position to comment. But the three points raised by the Association in its letter relate to an important and interesting aspect of any public administration, that is, the particular application or execution of a general policy of the Government by the department or statutory body charged with the administration of such policy. For this reason alone, if not for any other, I consider it most appropriate that these grievances should be aired before this House. The first point raised by the Association in the letter mentioned earlier is that many of its farmers have been adversely affected by the Government's industrial and housing projects. But before any Member of the House jumps to any hasty conclusion, let me add that the Association is not grumbling about the farmers literally standing in the way of progress. It appears that these farmers did not own the land on which they have been working. Such land was invariably State land which they have been allowed to farm under Temporary Occupation Licences. Under the terms of these Temporary Occupation Licences, or T.O.L.s, as they are popularly known, for which nominal fees are payable, the farmers have to vacate possession of the land on demand by the Government. Because of the rapid pace of Government's industrial and housing development, those farmers who have been unfortunate enough to occupy State land in certain areas which are marked out for development purposes, have to vacate possession of their respective pieces of land on which they may have worked for several years and start all over again on fresh plots of land. In this respect, I must congratulate the Government on its human gesture in providing an alternative site to the farmers so requested to vacate possession. The snag is that on the previous sites most of these farmers have been occupying areas of several acres. But on resettlement they are only allocated areas of not more than two acres. Some farmers may even be allocated pocket-sized plots of land. It may seem strange to the Members of this House that, instead of being grateful for being allocated any land at all, the farmers are now carping about the plots of land allocated to them. But it must be appreciated by this House that these farmers are mostly breeders of poultry and pigs, particularly of the foreign or cross-bred variety. Such poultry and pigs are less hardy than the pure local strain. Therefore, for the successful rearing of the foreign or cross-bred variety of poultry, a certain minimum standard of hygienic practices and precautions must be adopted. The size of the plots of land allocated to farmers on resettlement is a matter of paramount importance to the farmers, because, generally speaking, the bigger the size the easier it is to observe the standards of hygiene in respect of the poultry and pigs. The result is that, because of the rigidly enforced maximum of two acres of land to be allotted to each resettled farmer, who might have previously occupied five or six acres, the farmers on resettlement have no choice but to cram their flocks of fowls and herds of pigs into the limited space allocated to them. It does not require much imagination to realise that cramming these animals or livestock into a much more confined space than advisable would have an adverse effect on the health of the animals. This in turn would affect the volume of production of eggs and meat for the market, whether domestic or foreign. This effect of a rigid application of the policy restricting each resettled farmer to a maximum of two acres, I think, should give rise to grave and serious concern not only to the Government but also to all persons who have the interest of Singapore at heart. We at present are engaged in an all-out effort to increase the level of productivity. The local rearing of poultry and pigs should play a significant and important role in this effort to increase productivity and output. Instead of taking a flexible attitude to consider the farmers' plight, our Government policy is so rigid where it does not warrant rigidity. For example, in the Ministry of Finance, they are so very liberal in issuing bar licences - but here they are so rigid. The bigger the volume of our local production of poultry and pigs and associated products, the lesser the dependence of Singapore on other countries for such commodities. One obvious effect of such minimisation in our import of poultry and pigs would mean a saving in our foreign exchange reserves, a saving which is not to be sneezed at in the present context of Singapore's political and economic circumstances. What the Association has requested me to bring to the attention of the Members of this House is whether the Government can reconsider this policy of allocating a maximum of only two acres per farmer on the resettlement of such farmers. I am given to understand that this policy of the Government is well founded on the fact that land is a scarcity item in Singapore and that there is a limit to the amount of State land which the Government can set aside for farming purposes. On the surface, the present Government policy appears to be reasonable and logical in the circumstances. I wish to assure you Members of this House that I have no doubt in that respect. But I am inclined to wonder whether this present policy which has been rigidly applied or enforced by the department or statutory body concerned with the allocation of land to resettled farmers can be rendered more flexible in its application. This would become more evident in the course of the next point which I intend to bring to your attention. The second point of the Association's grievances is that, because some farmers on resettlement find that the land allocated to them is insufficient for their needs, they are forced to obtain an extra plot of land from other farmers who do not require all the whole pieces of land allocated to them. The complaint of the Association is that those farmers who managed to obtain additional plots of land in this manner have found to their astonishment that, after the transfer of land has been arranged and completed, they have to pay T.O.L. or Temporary Occupation Licence fees for such additional plots of land many times higher than the usual T.O.L. fees charged for those plots of land originally allocated to them. In normal circumstances, the T.O.L. fee per acre of agricultural State land is either $15 or $30 per year, depending on the situation of the land. But when the farmers acquire additional plots of land from other farmers, the T.O.L. fee for land so acquired ranges between $72 and $160 per acre in the case of land where the normal T.O.L. fee is $15 per acre per year and can be as high as $204 per acre for land which is normally $30 per acre. While the amount of increase may not appear very great to us, it represents a huge sum to the farmers. The difference of $100 in the T.O.L. fees payable by the farmers per acre may mean a difference between loss and profit to the farmers who already have other heavy expenses to shoulder. As I have already mentioned to you, I am aware of this Government policy of restricting the allocation of land to resettled farmers up to a maximum of two acres per farmer because of the sheer physical scarcity of land in Singapore. I also understand that it is also a necessary corollary of such policy for the Government to adopt deterrent measures against farmers occupying plots of land bigger than two acres by charging exorbitant premiums or high T.O.L. fees to farmers who want to acquire additional plots of land. But the fact remains that farmers who find the plots of land allocated to them insufficient for their needs are able to acquire additional land from other farmers who are allocated plots of land in excess of their actual requirements. I stand to be corrected, Sir, if I say that the present policy of allocating land to resettled farmers is on the basis of the mere fact of occupation of State land required for development purposes. The departments or authorities concerned with the resettlement of such farmers do not seem to have considered the possibility that a policy framed on such a basis may not be equitable and, worse still, may lead to a highly undesirable situation as that where resettled farmers are allocated plots of land when they had no intention at all of carrying on their former farming occupation or on so extensive a scale as previously. In this way, in the face of the much often repeated affirmation that it is the policy not to allocate more than two acres of land to resettle farmers because of the physical scarcity of land in Singapore for agricultural purposes or otherwise, a farmer could still be allocated land on resettlement when he has no wish to carry on farming. It is because of this administrative inflexibility in the application of a sensible and logical policy of the Government that a ridiculous situation has developed whereby farmers, who are genuinely interested in farming and who found that the plots of land allocated to them on resettlement are insufficient for their needs, must acquire additional plots of land from other persons who have been allocated plots of land in excess of their requirements or who have no longer any intention of carrying on farming after resettlement. By making it prohibitive for the genuine and hard-working farmers to acquire additional plots of land, the departments or authorities responsible for the administration of such Government policy are, in fact, obstructing Government policy. If land is as scarce in Singapore as it is maintained by the relevant department or statutory body, how is it possible that persons who are no longer interested in farming are allocated plots of valuable agricultural land on their resettlement? To me the remedy seems to lie in devising a proper system for the allocation of land to persons who are interested in carrying on farming, and not in the rigid and inflexible adherence to a policy of not allocating more than two acres of land to any resettled farmers, irrespective of the bona fides of their intention or requirement after resettlement. The last point which the Association has requested me to raise is a general grievance of all livestock farmers whether resettled or otherwise. But the grievance has been rendered acute in relation to the resettlement of farmers because of the rigid application of the policy of restricting resettled farmers to a maximum of two acres each. It appears that previously farmers were required to pay only $3 to $5 as planning fees for each unit of pig sty and chicken shed built according to plans submitted to and approved by the relevant Government department. Now it seems that this rate of fee for each unit has been increased to $12. The members of the Association are understandably upset by this increase in fee. Because of the limitation of land space or the irregularity of the contour and layout of the allocated land, or land acquired otherwise as a result of resettlement and rigid application of policy and for hygienic reasons, the farmers have to build many more units of pig sties and chicken sheds than necessary if they have not been so rigidly restricted in land area on resettlement. As I understand it, this fee is required for administrative purposes and not as a source of revenue for the Government. The imposition of such planning fee is to ensure that proper planning permission is obtained by farmers before they construct any pig sty or chicken shed. It is difficult to understand why there is a necessity to increase this planning fee. The increase represents an increase of more than 100 per cent on the old rate which, as I say, may not be much to you and me but it means a lot to the farmers. As farmers are playing a vital role in Singapore's struggle for survival, I think it is only reasonable to expect that the Government policy is framed or applied in such a way that livestock farmers are encouraged and induced to increase their productivity and output and not in such a way as to demoralise them or force them out of production completely. In the end, it is we the people of Singapore who have to pay the price for a policy rigidly or unimaginatively applied by the department or statutory authority responsible for the administration of such policy. 5.37 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, ours is a country which practises democratic socialism. Therefore, the Government is very concerned with the welfare of the farmers. It has set up the Primary Production Department in order to help the farmers carry out their farming activities. Just now the Member for Bras Basah has aired the grievances of those farmers who have been resettled, that they have been given only two acres of land on resettlement. This will cause some difficulties to them. I realise that our Government is faced with the problem of land scarcity. However, I am of the opinion that although the available land for farming is very limited, I still think we should give better protection and consideration to those farmers who have been affected by our development programmes, as they constitute a very great proportion of our population and have contributed a lot to the economic welfare of our State. They have contributed about $100 million worth of goods to our economy. They have produced enough vegetables, eggs and other farming products for export to other countries, thus earning a lot of foreign exchange for our country. Therefore, I believe that the Minister concerned will agree with me when I say that if the Government allots a bigger piece of land to the affected farmers so as to facilitate their farming activities in order to increase their productivity, the farmers will bring greater prosperity to our country. Mr Speaker, Sir, as to how to solve the problem of land scarcity, I am of the opinion that the departments concerned should have an overall and better plan in allocating land and developing land in the surrounding islands for farming purposes, as enunciated by our Prime Minister. The land in these surrounding islands can be used for rearing fishes, ducks and for the cultivation of vegetables. I appreciate that we will have to invest a lot of money to develop these islands, but in the long-term interest this is worth doing. Another point is the exorbitant T.O.L. fees the farmers have to pay for their land and the planning fees. In order to alleviate their burden, the department concerned should give consideration to their request. A further point is about those who are not bona fide farmers. These people have some land near their houses and they carry out poultry and other farming activities as a side-line in order to supplement their income. They are also affected by the resettlement schemes, but the Government should give only accommodation but not any land to them. Therefore, I would like the Minister concerned to carry out his policy in a more flexible way. These not bona fide farmers should be given a small piece of land in order that they can continue to earn their customary income from their side-line activities so as not to suffer any hardship when they are resettled elsewhere. 5.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of resettlement not only affects our farming population but also affects our economy as a whole. Government appears, however, not to have given sufficient thought to its farming policy. It appears to be preoccupied with industrialisation. Whilst industrialisation rightly demands our urgent attention, our farming policy should not be neglected. Unfortunately, neglected it appears to be. It is, I should say, the Cinderella in our Government policy. In acquiring the Jurong site for industrial development, for example, farmers from that area were resettled in the Choa Chu Kang Constituency.

They will vote for you!

They were each allocated a plot of land of not more than two acres irrespective of how much land they had been cultivating before, and also without considering their particular type of cultivation. To make way for the resettlement of farmers from Jurong, land in the Choa Chu Kang area was acquired and farmers who were farming on a large scale before suddenly found that they had to squeeze their operations into a much smaller plot of land. As the Member for Bras Basah has just said, most of these lands were held on T.O.L.s. All the Government did was to revoke the T.O.L.s, take back the land and re-allot to these resettled farmers a plot of not more than two acres. Let me give the House an example to illustrate my point. In my constituency, there was an old established poultry farming family rearing chickens on a very large scale on ten acres of land. The annual turnover was in the region of $1 million, and they employed a score or so of farmhands. Because of the Government's resettlement policy, the land was acquired by the Government - in this case the T.O.L. was revoked - and this family was re-allotted a two-acre plot of land. How can the Government expect this particular farming operation that was carried out on a ten-acre plot of land before to be squeezed now into a two-acre plot?

Flatted farming.

Flatted farming, is it?

It is being done in England.

Yes, that could be so, but, unfortunately, in this particular case, the result was that some farmhands had to be dismissed, adding to the unemployment problem, and the operation had to be scaled down, leading to a decline in the national output. I am not saying that every farmer must be given as much land as he can farm, but there must be a certain degree of flexibility in the administration of the present Government policy of resettlement. As we all know, farming at the present stage of development in Singapore is labour intensive. It is one of the ways which could be explored to create job opportunities. I submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that properly developed farming can give tremendous opportunities for employment. The present policy of the Government, however, of allotting a plot of two acres to farmers, irrespective of their special circumstances, is against the development of the farming industry as a whole. It would create a lot of subsistence farmers, but it would not help in the development of farming in the context of the national economy as a whole. Singapore, unfortunately, has not many acres of farm land and we must make the best use of the land available to us for farming. Unfortunately, the present Government's farming policy appears to be piecemeal, and I urge the Minister concerned to spare a few more moments of thought on this particular subject. It will do our farmers and our economy as a whole a great deal of good if he can think of a more coherent, and consistent policy. 5.51 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members of this House have spoken about the farming population and their problems. As a Member from a rural constituency, I think it is also my duty to air my views on the same problems. Although I was recently elected, I have, within a period of slightly more than one month, visited my constituency now and then in order to understand the problems affecting the livelihood of the farmers and villagers. During these visits, I have discovered that the topics dealt with by the Members are actually realistic problems facing the farming population. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has already mentioned that our Government is paying too much attention to industrialisation and neglecting the problems affecting the livelihood of farmers in Singapore. As a result of such neglect, the farmers in the rural areas are finding it difficult to earn a livelihood without the necessary care and attention. The Member for Sembawang has also pointed out that the farmers in Singapore play an important role in the economy of our nation, because they produce about $100 million worth of farm produce per year. In view of these facts, I would urge the Minister concerned to pay more attention and care to the livelihood of the farmers. On the subject of allocation of arable land to farmers affected by resettlement, I fully appreciate that our land area is very limited - it is about 225 square miles. But we can think of some other places to provide our farmers with more arable land. According to the present resettlement policy with regard to the allocation of farm land, a maximum of two acres is allowed to each farming household. Members one after another have already pointed out that the maximum of two acres is, in fact, not sufficient for the necessary farming activities. Although in relation to the total area of our island this allocation is quite reasonable, consideration must be given to deserving cases of bona fide farmers so that no land is given to undeserving cases, thereby giving rise to the situation, as mentioned by the Member for Bras Basah, where people who are not totally dependent on farming for their livelihood have been allotted land, whereas those dependent on farming for their livelihood have been allotted land which is insufficient for them, so that they have to get some land from those who do not need so much land. In this situation, the people who get land from others have to pay higher T.O.L. fees and this, of course, adds to the burden of the farmers. In my own constituency, there is a similar example. I have a farmer who has been resettled at Choa Chu Kang and his T.O.L. fees have been increased from $7 to $408 per year. This is an increase of many times the original amount, which is, of course, a great burden on the farmer concerned. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to the problem. It goes without saying that we must develop and we cannot remain in a backward state. This is a proposition which everybody must accept. I think the farmers affected by resettlement appreciate it. They agree with the Government's development policy. If they get reasonable compensation or allocation of land and if Government officers in implementing the policy are reasonable and fair, then they will not have much to complain about. But sometimes, in implementing the policy of the Government, some Government officials are too rigid and inflexible. As a result, they are unable to handle a situation without some imagination and flexibility. Some farmers in the process of removing have to attend to their farming activities at the same time, and they do not have the time to change their addresses at the police station because they are busily engaged. As a result of resettlement, it is sometimes discovered that the addresses in the identity cards of some farmers are different from those at which they are living. Because of this, they are not allotted land in the resettlement area. In some other cases, the houses of the farmers are without house numbers. They use the addresses of some provision shops in a market place and, because of this, they do not get farm land. In some other circumstances, the names of farmers appearing in identity cards do not completely tally with their names appearing in some other Government documents. In cases where the transfer of the T.O.L. has not been effected from the grandfather or the father to the farmer himself, then this person again will not be considered for allocation of farm land in the resettlement area. All these people are, in fact, dependent upon farming activities for their livelihood and they are not given the necessary land. In certain circumstances, some of these farmers have to live in Housing Board flats and they have to change their way of life completely because they have no land to carry out their agricultural activities, and they are cut off completely from a side income. So they find it difficult to make ends meet from their small income and they are faced with certain problems of earning their livelihood. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one other aspect regarding compensation. In my constituency there are some villagers who have planted rubber trees on their land. The Resettlement Department assured them originally that they would get compensation for their rubber trees. This, in fact, was the position in 1963, so that owners or farmers who had planted rubber trees got compensation. This gave people the impression that, in future, compensation would be given in other cases. So they allowed the Government to cut down the rubber trees. But later on they were notified by the Government, to their astonishment, that Government would not compensate them for cutting down their rubber trees. They were taken by surprise. It was like a bolt from the blue. They had engaged contractors to cut down the rubber trees in the hope of getting some compensation, and now they have no compensation. So they lose the trees and they have to pay the contractors. These are genuine difficulties which deserve the sympathetic consideration of Government. The Member for Bras Basah has just now mentioned, among other things, the planning fees relating to pig sties and chicken runs. I myself have received complaints on this matter from my villagers, because their income is already low enough. If they have to pay licence fees from $3 or $5 to $12 a year, that will be a burden to them, particularly as the chicken feed has increased in price and their farm produce, such as eggs and chickens, has gone down in price. So they have decreasing prices for their farm produce, higher licence fees, and more expensive chicken feed. They deserve the sympathy of the Government, and I hope that the Government or the Minister in charge will give them due consideration. 6.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to enter into the debate on the subject until my interest was aroused by certain statements made by the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Choa Chu Kang, among others. I think the ordinary citizens of Singapore do not realise that livestock farming is a considerable economic pursuit on this island, and that, far from importing poultry, eggs and pork, this City State of ours is a very substantial exporter of food - pigs, eggs and poultry - to surrounding countries. We have reached this rather unusual and surprising position because of certain advantages which we enjoy in livestock farming. Firstly, in the post-war years it was possible to control diseases and pests, particularly among poultry, by injections, especially anti-ranikhet injections. This enables large flocks of birds to be raised with small risk of substantial losses when the whole flock dies during an epidemic, which used to happen regularly before the war. In addition to this, Singapore has excellent communications and could, therefore, buy feeding stuffs like maize, fishmeal, and cod liver oil from the cheapest markets in the world. Cheap supplies combined with excellent banking and credit facilities have enabled our farmers to get feeding stuffs on very favourable terms to enable them to raise large flocks of poultry either for the table or as laying birds, as well as to raise large numbers of pigs. From the economic point of view, there is one rather ridiculous feature about the livestock industry in Singapore. This is the absurdly low prices at which farmers are able to rent or lease their land. A farmer can get, say, 5 or 10 acres of Crown land from Government on T.O.L. (Temporary Occupation Licence) for a fairly nominal payment of something like $5 or $2 a year sometimes. Of course, this is not the economic rent. It does not reflect the real value of land which the Government could get, say, from renting the land for other purposes. It is the cheapness of land which has somewhat distorted the picture and has not impressed upon farmers that land is very scarce. Supposing they have to pay something like $200 a month for an acre of land, which may be the market price for land, then I think they will be more careful about the use of land and will be able to raise very large flocks of birds or large numbers of pigs in small areas. So here we are. We are faced with a situation where land is limited by nature and, at the same time, there is a substantial demand for the use of land for raising poultry and pigs because it is a paying occupation. The Member for Bras Basah says that the solution would be to give more than two acres per farmer and asks Government not to limit the grant of resettlement land to two acres. It is all very well to say, "Let us be generous." But at whose expense? After all, the acreage on the island is limited and if you give more than two acres, then only a certain number of people will be able to get it and large numbers will have to be turned away without any land. So the idea of giving people larger grants of land may be all right in individual cases, but I think as a policy it is self-defeating. Now, I want to put forward for the consideration of the Minister one solution which was experimented with in the United Kingdom. I am not a farmer by profession or a gentleman farmer; so I do not know at all whether it will work here, but maybe his staff can work out the economics and the technical side of this idea. Some years ago in the United Kingdom an extraordinary development took place in agriculture, and that is the development of what are called "concrete farms". Some farmers of pigs - I think they were mainly concerned with pigs -decided that you could raise pigs in flats! After all, the rearing of a pig or for that matter a chicken, is really a process whereby you put into its mouth corn or what have you, and then you convert vegetable carbohydrates into animal protein. And that is what chickens and pigs are meant for! And you can do this in a building. In fact, even in Singapore, when they rear poultry by modern methods, they do not let the poultry run about the farm; they put them in cages, and pigs are kept in pig sties. [Interruption] No, no. No health hazards, because then you can arrange for automatic sprinklers and so on. You can put detergents, or whatever they are, at the right time and in the right place.

You can then do farming in Housing Board flats!

No. I am not saying it could be done in flats. It could be done in specially built structures. And since pigs and poultry are lighter than human beings, you can build a light and presumably less costly structure.

Government must then give a special loan to the farmers.

Yes, I am coming to that. When a group of enterprising farmers tried this in Britain, there was, of course, a tremendous uproar among the respectable farmers who reared pigs on land. They said, "This is unfair competition." Presumably then it must be more economical and more competitive to raise pigs in this unnatural way in concrete buildings than to raise them in the natural way, i.e, on farm land. I think the Minister might get his officials to have a look at this idea. And if it is possible to build very cheap structures, much cheaper than, say, structures needed for housing human beings, then this may be one way of encouraging the growth of the animal husbandry industry. It may mean, of course, Government forking out money. But, as against that, if it is possible to save on land, then the saving in the cost of acquiring or buying land, the price of which will go up from year to year, can go into a fund which could be used for lending money to farmers to enable them to build this kind of structure. 6.12 p.m.

(In Tamil): If we note the debate that we have just heard, Mr Speaker, Sir -

Just before you proceed, Mr Govindaswamy, could I ask Members who are now turning on their speakers to turn them off when Mr Govindaswamy finishes his speech?

(In Tamil): When I speak on this motion, I would like to refer to some of the notes which I have made. Government has a bounden duty to work for the welfare of the rural folk. Only if the rural people have a fair livelihood will city dwellers have an equally good livelihood. We put up so many buildings in the city area. We construct and widen our roads. Nevertheless, we must remember from where we derive the foodstuffs for the city dwellers. Ours is a very small country. We do not produce enough food for our own consumption, but have to import it from abroad. We have to use our land not only for the benefit of the rural dwellers, not only for better farming conditions, not only for poultry and dairy farming and pig rearing, but we have also to make the best use of it. If such improvement projects are undertaken, then the produce will be of great benefit to all the people of this country. We will be able to produce enough to export. The Minister of Defence has brought forward some facts. He says that poultry production has increased a great deal and that pig rearing has also increased, so we are able to export farm produce. From the Digest of Statistics of 1960, he will note how the cost of living has been rising. Since this is the case, and since only two acres of land are being allotted to the farmers by Government, what can they do with two acres? Can they farm on it? Can they build anything to live on? If we cannot provide such facilities for the farmers, then in what manner are we practising democratic socialism? It is only when we raise the living standard of the lower income groups that we can have a secure future for our succeeding generations. The Minister of Defence has also suggested that farming could be carried out in flatted buildings. Let us consider the tremendous amount of capital needed for such buildings. If the same capital could be provided for the farmers, it is easy to imagine the tremendous expansion in production which could be achieved. While we are carrying out many improvement projects in the city, we should keep in mind the needs of the rural dwellers as well. This Government has a duty to look after the welfare of the poorer sections of our community. It is these poorer sections who live in the villages. Therefore, if the Government is not showing sufficient interest in their problem, I feel it will be an inadvisable course. The rural folks are in a position to help us. Their productivity means a great deal for the city dwellers. In this connection, if the Government is indifferent, the people in the rural areas may one day be compelled to leave their place and come to the city to look for jobs. As the Minister for Labour has said, 69,500 people are now unemployed and this figure may easily rise up. To prevent such a situation the Government has to devise ways and means to tackle the problem right now. It should, as far as possible, assist the farmers to their satisfaction. This is my submission to the Government. May I repeat again that we should not be indifferent in this matter? 6.20 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, today I am sitting in the Opposition's place and so I shall stand up and say what is right and what is wrong without any favour, fear or ill-will. Mr Speaker, the Member for Bras Basah has made an adjournment speech on the resettlement of farmers. Formerly I was an official in the Resettlement Section of the Government and I know more than he does. Resettlement is within the jurisdiction of the Minister for National Development. There are merits and demerits in the work done by the Primary Production Department. What are the merits? The merits are that the Government is looking after the housing needs of the people. The Housing and Development Board has undertaken a massive housing programme. But in other respects there are defects. What are the defects and demerits of the Ministry concerned? Although I am in the Opposition seat, I will say what is right and what is wrong. In the case of resettlement of farmers, there was no compensation paid in the beginning. In some cases no alternative accommodation was allotted. In some cases farmers received $500 or $1,000 as compensation for resettlement, but they had no alternative accommodation. This is a defect. Later on the situation was improved. The farmers got alternative accommodation plus compensation. Still later on they got two acres for farming. This is, of course, right. But now they say they do not have enough farming land. If you do not give them the land, how could you expect them to live? This is the defect or the demerit, as I have already said. Again the Chairman, Mr Tan Kia Gan, what type ofperson was he when he was in the Ministry of National Development? He sold the flats in the Tiong Bahru area without proper valuation by the Valuation Officer. This again was a defect. How can you -

I think the Member is bordering on the irrelevant. I must ask him to come back to the debate on the adjournment. Could he please confine his remarks to the resettlement of farmers occupying State land?

(In Mandarin): Yes, I will come back, Mr Speaker. The most important thing is the administrative work. The officer in charge of administration should not do things as he pleases. The failure in certain respects is not the fault of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the fault of the administrative head, because he took a dictatorial course of action. He was stubborn in some cases. He took action without consulting the Minister in charge. He went his own way. Sometimes, of course, the Minister was to be blamed because he did not seem to know many things. Yes, it is true. Regarding the sale of the Tiong Bahru flats, no valuation was made. The Minister did not know. Did he know? No. Mr Barker rose - Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is being completely irrelevant. We are discussing resettlement and not the Tiong Bahru flats.

Mr Lee, could you please confine your remarks to resettlement?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I just mention this in passing, because we are now going into the merits and demerits of the Ministry. It is not just a flatter of the livelihood of the farmers but other matters, such as maladministration, which must be taken into account. Mr Speaker, you want me to come back to the proper issue, so I shall come back now. I feel that the means of livelihood of the farmers is of paramount importance and special attention must be paid to it. As in the past, the Government has acquired a lot of land for reallocation to farmers. This should be done here.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wish to join in the debate because I have certain suggestions to make. The first is that the Government should reconsider its policy towards the farmers. Secondly, the Minister or the department concerned, that is, the Resettlement Section, must set up a committee comprising, in particular, Members of Parliament for the rural areas and constituencies and officers of the department concerned. This committee will be in charge of resettlement as a whole. Thirdly, a policy must be formulated to assist the farmers on a comprehensive basis so that they will not suffer great hardships and will be given an opportunity to carry on their farming activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the resettlement of farmers does not affect my constituency, but since it is in the rural area, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words. Firstly, I fully support the views expressed by the mover of the motion and several of my colleagues on the resettlement of farmers occupying State land. Sir, the Government has been stressing a great deal on the need to increase productivity, but productivity in this context means increasing industrial produce only. However, in my view, the Government has not made a realistic approach towards encouraging our farmers to increase the output of agricultural produce. From what I gather in regard to the resettlement of farmers, the Government has, in fact, allotted them farm land which is much smaller than the farm land on which they had previously farmed. For example, when a farming area is to be taken over by the Government for public development, the resettlement of farmers will inevitably take place, but instead of allocating them farm land of a similar size, the Government, through the department concerned or the statutory board, has allocated to them small plots of land, thereby reducing their scope to increase their farming activities. I am sure this House will agree with me on this point. When an area is required for public development, and resettlement of farmers takes place, the farmers will have to be moved out to new areas. They will have to start all over again before they can carry on with their normal activities and to reap their harvest. Therefore, with the reduction in the size of their farming lands, they will inevitably reduce their farming activities, thereby resulting in a reduced amount of agricultural produce. Sir, I am sure it is not the Government's intention to inhibit the progress of farming activities in our Republic. Therefore, instead of decreasing the size of resettled land to be allocated, which is not more than two acres, I appeal to the Minister concerned to take a more realistic policy on the resettlement of the farmers. I am sure this House will bear with me if I stress that the farmers in the Republic play an important role in our country's struggle for survival. They toil all day to produce as much agricultural produce as possible to help feed many of our people. They produce large quantities of eggs, poultry, pigs and a good variety of vegetables. By so doing, they contribute in no small measure towards providing these essential commodities for a good part of our population. Lastly, Sir, realising the importance of the role played by the farmers, I would like to appeal again to the Minister for Law and National Development to look closely into this question of resettling farmers occupying State land with a view to increasing the size of land to be allocated, instead of reducing such plots to not more than two acres, so that the farmers will continue to help feed a good many of us not only in this House but in our Republic.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, several Members of this House have spoken about the resettlement of farmers. I sincerely hope that the department concerned, including the Minister in charge, and the officials will in due course treat this problem with some humility and in proper perspective. I would like to suggest that a committee be set up to review our farming policy and its terms of reference must include the administration of the Resettlement Department. And if the review reveals that there are certain defects in the department concerned, then the department requires "resettlement" itself! I have two other points to add. In the Resettlement Section, problems have arisen in various fields. For quite some time in the past, the rules of the Resettlement Section were such that those people who were ignorant of the rules were always told that everything was done according to law. But, in fact, a lot of things were not done according to law. They were done according to the rules. They were not actually laws which had been passed and debated in Parliament. Another point I wish to bring to the attention of Members concerns the "masterpiece" of the Resettlement Section. Some farmers are quite prepared to make way for the development of their farm land by the Government and to resettle in another place. But if a villager affected is a sole occupier, then he is not entitled to alternative accommodation in a Housing Board flat. Even if he has a child - a daughter or a son who applies jointly with him for a Housing Board flat, his application will be turned down on the ground that his child -- daughter or son - is not affected by the resettlement scheme, having been living in another place. This is ridiculous. This is a blunder - a legal blunder if we may call it - because the sole occupier affected is allowed to apply jointly with another sole occupier affected by the same scheme for a Housing Board flat. If a bachelor and a spinster are similarly affected, how can they be expected to make a joint application for a Housing Board flat? This is a defect which must be removed. This is a common sense matter. When a sole occupier is affected, he being lonely is in misery already. And if he is to be discriminated in favour of those with families, those who enjoy the bliss of family life, then he should receive special consideration to compensate him. This is a policy which the Government should consider. The present rule is against the common sense concept of humanitarianism. Although sole occupiers are not many in number, I hope we are able to handle their problems with some ease so that they will be housed in a proper place. This is a matter worthy of our consideration. Another matter is that in the Resettlement Section some work is done with no bearing on resettlement at all. This is the matter of eviction. There is no resettlement. There is eviction without resettlement. If you want to resettle, that means after eviction you must rehouse the evicted people somewhere else. But in many cases the so-called resettlement is mere eviction. The people are driven out and that is the end of it. That is what they call resettlement, which I would rather call eviction. The officers concerned must not forget that the department is set up for resettlement and not for eviction alone. So they must know their duties. I must say we regret that in certain places some temples are in existence. Because they are affected by the resettlement scheme, they have to be removed. But the administrative policy does not give resettlement to the people living in these temples. They are just evicted and are given no alternative land, either to build another temple, or accommodation to live in and to carry out their religious activities. As a result, these people have no place for religious congregations. This is against the freedom of religion advocated in our Republic. It is inconsistent with the concept of freedom of religion. So certain arrangements must be made in regard to temples and other places of worship affected by the resettlement scheme. This is a very sensitive matter and must be given some careful thought. In the case of a mosque or church affected by a resettlement scheme, alternative accommodation or land is given for the reconstruction of the mosque or the church. But in the case of temples of another religion, no provision is made in some cases. This will give rise to discontent and misunderstanding amongst the members of the public. So I would like the Minister in charge and the officers concerned to pay special attention to this aspect of the problem, because we have received many complaints from the farmers and villagers about the officers of the Resettlement Section. Perhaps not all of them are bad in their attitude in dealing with the public, but some of them are lacking in the spirit of public service. When they carry out their duties, there is no sincerity on their faces. Instead, they look fierce when they implement the policies of the Government. When you go to the Resettlement Section, it looks as though you are going to hell with all the devilish-looking officers around. Sir, some farmers who need to go to the Resettlement Section invariably go to their Members of Parliament for a letter of recommendation, as though it is an effective talisman against these devilish-looking officers! Some farmers and villagers complain that the letters given to them have been torn to pieces by the officers concerned. So I hope the Minister concerned will look into the matter and take stringent action against these officers, because in our newly-independent Republic, if we want the people to support us in national reconstruction, we must not allow a small group of public servants to create a sense of hatred among the public against Government. This is my sincere hope. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard practically all the Members of this House speak with one voice, except the Minister of Defence, and they make general allegations against the Resettlement Department of the Housing and Development Board. I, of course, have no answers to the general allegations. I remember, in particular, the Member for Bukit Merah shouting about the devils in the Resettlement Department. I would suggest that he give me the names of these devils and what the allegations are, because anyone who is resettled is dissatisfied. You give him a thousand dollars; he wants two thousand dollars. You give him one acre; he wants five acres. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Members themselves have admitted, land is a scarce commodity in Singapore. In fact, land is very scarce. We have only 225 square miles of land in Singapore. We are trying to reclaim more land. We have a reclamation scheme in Kallang. We are reclaiming land in Kranji, along the East Coast Road and in the Port Authority. But all the reclamation we do in Singapore cannot double the size of the island, and a great part of the land in Singapore is swampy land. A large part, too, forms part of the land adjacent to our reservoirs and we cannot allow farmers in. This is the catchment area and it is a wide area. If yon allow them in with their pigs and chickens, the water will be polluted.

You are driving a motor road in.

To drive in a motor road is a different thing. You have a road along MacRitchie Reservoir. To put it in short, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not got sufficient land. Everybody in Singapore expects the Government to give all the time; they themselves never give. In Singapore, we have large acres of land occupied by, say, one person. A few years ago, investigations revealed that, a woman in Singapore had a Temporary Occupation Licence from the Government and she was occupying 300 acres of State land. She was supposed to be in occupation, but all she was doing was making money out of that. All 300 acres were sublet to others who were paying her fees or rent. Of course, these 300 acres were taken away. Her Temporary Occupation Licence was revoked and licences were given to the actual occupants. This is our policy. We give land to people who want land and who occupy it. An hon. Member: What about the Singapore Island Club where they play golf?

But this is just one example. If you have any noises to make about the Golf Club, do not address them to me. I am not a golfer. To come back to our subject. If we have in Singapore land as much as the Malaysians have in Johore or the Australians in Australia or the New Zealanders in New Zealand, I would he happy to comply with their wishes. Instead of giving them two acres, I would give them two square miles. But we have not got the land. That is why our buildings go up and up. We are not building sideways; we are going up. As the Minister of Defence has pointed out, it would not be realistic to give farmers more than two acres of land. I realise that production will not be as great as if a farmer had three acres or twenty acres. That is logical. But as the Member for Choa Chu Kang puts it, it is a question of priority - land for industry, land for farms. Do we sacrifice everything for the farmers? Another wrong impression Members have is that all farmers are poor. They say, "Why do you not help the rural folk? You are doing nothing for the rural folk. They are all poor." But the Member for Choa Chu Kang has quoted one case in his constituency where someone was occupying ten acres of Government land and the turnover was $1 million a year. This person said that we took away this land and gave him two acres. I say, what is wrong with that? The land never belonged to him; the land belonged to us. It was not to cut down his production. If he had so much money, he could have bought 10, 20 or 30 acres. But as I have put it just now, they all want to take; they never give. What has the Government to give? The Government has land. So everybody gets T.O.L.s. Once the T.O.L. is given - whether it is for 10, 15 or 20 acres -they behave as if the land is theirs. Now this is where they are wrong. The land is State land and it is let out very cheaply -$15 per annum for one acre, which is well below the economic rent. It is practically a gift - a gift on a year's licence. But the land is not the farmers'. The land is State land. Subject to certain conditions, that licence is given and one of the conditions is no transfer, no subletting without the consent of the Commissioner of Lands, which makes me come to the second point raised by the Livestock Association in their letter to the Member for Bras Basah. We give Mr X two acres of land. He claims to be a genuine farmer. We go into his bona fides and we are satisfied that he is a farmer. We give him two acres of land. What does he do? He transfers his two acres, either through non-interest in farming or because his farming did not succeed, to a successful farmer. So the Land Office hears about this and says to him, "You have no business to transfer without telling us. One of the conditions is that you should not transfer." So they impose a premium which is in the region of $150 per acre. They also increase the rent. The previous licence - or rent if you like to call it was a subsidised fee. We were not making any money out of it. But when a transfer like that takes place, we charge an economic rent or a licence fee. The reason is this -- - that the land is our land. Because of the transfer, the transferor gets a few thousand dollars. Do not think that out of the goodness of his heart he transferred his licence fee. He got a big fat fee for that transfer. Normally in order to avoid stamp duty, they declare the transfer fee at $4,000 in order not to avoid but to reduce the amount of stamp fee attracted. So this is Government land let out on a T.O.L. and someone practically sells it. They sell our land. We should be making the profit, but they are making the profit. If we do not either revoke the T.O.L. or impose these new transfer fees and increases in annual fees, they will be buying and selling State land like nobody's business. This is the mistake. The land is ours; it is not theirs. We let it out on certain conditions provided they keep to the conditions. They will always have the land, but the trouble is that they do not keep to the conditions. That is the second point raised by the Member for Bras Basah. The third point raised by the Livestock Association. We come now to the building permits which have been raised to $12 per annum. There is a history behind this, and, shortly, it is this. A new set of building regulations came into effect from the 1st of August, 1966, the aim being to replace two sets of former building by-laws which consisted of City Council by-laws applicable to the city area and those of the Rural Board bylaws which were applicable to areas outside the city. In doing so, this simplified administrative procedure overcame discrepancies experienced in the past because of the two sets of building by-laws. The fee for a temporary permit for any temporary building in the city area was $12 per annum. This fee was not increased but was made applicable to the whole of Singapore island, and it affected the Rural Board so that a temporary permit fee of $3 to $5 per annum in the past was increased to $12. The Minister for Finance had a hand in this. His scale of fees in the rural areas had not been revised since 1953 and he felt that it was fair and reasonable that a fee of $12 per annum charged for a temporary permit in the city area should be made applicable in the rural area. But to come back again to the subject of "We are doing nothing for the farmers;" "you must have a new policy in farming;" "the Minister does not know what is happening in his Resettlement Department, people are grumbling." Let me tell you this. In 1965, we introduced legislation to register all farmers. This incidentally was done by way of the Animals and Birds (Amendment) Ordinance. The object of this legislation was to register the farmers. The idea of registering them was to find out how many farmers we had and what type of farmers we had. The intention was to try to see the size of the problem and, if possible, to make sure that the, services provided by the Primary Production Department should benefit those people who needed these expansion services most. The Primary Production Department was of the view that registration was essential. For some reason or other, this registration of farmers met with considerable opposition from the farming population, perhaps more through ignorance but perhaps they had their valid reasons. To cover administrative costs, we intended to charge them $5 registration fee per farmer. They did not like it. Another reason is probably this. They do not pay income tax. The moment they register, the Minister for Finance chases them. So we give away money when we do not know who the farmers are. But that $5 is incidental. We are not charging them annually. It was just this once. They did not like the idea. They did not like us to know more about them than what they told us. If they have their problems, we are prepared to help them. But how can you help any body of people unless you know who these people are, how many there are, and what their problems are? One method is registration.

Why not take a census?

And in registration you can distinguish between the genuine farmer and the bogus farmer. One of the Members has pointed out that we give land to one farmer and the next month he transfers it; so we are at fault. He says, "Sometimes you do not give land to a genuine farmer," and so we are at fault. When you give, it is wrong. When you do not give, it is wrong. When you query him about his identity card, it is wrong. The address is in Changi, but he is supposed to be farming in Choa Chu Kang. So we look at his identity card and ask, "What is this?" Oh, he does not like it; he is a genuine farmer. Or his name is different, and we query. And when we query, he does not like it. But the idea of querying is merely to find ample evidence or proof that they are genuine farmers. There must be bogus farmers; there are crooks. I am not saying that the whole lot are crooks, but we must catch the crooks.

This could be due to a change of address.

It could be; very rightly so. But we query not to down them. We query to down the crooks. But there must be grouses on this point. Perhaps I could now refer to the Member for Sembawang who is not here. I think he has made a very valuable suggestion that we start farming on the outer islands. We have about 40 islands round Singapore, and I can assure him that an intensive survey has been made by a committee who has done a lot of field work on the islands, and it has made certain recommendations. Land is scarce and we need more land and we propose to use these islands. I cannot give details at the moment as the report is still quite secret, but I can assure him that we are going to make use of these islands.

For farming or for pleasure?

For all purposes. But it is difficult to get the farmers to leave the main island for the small islands. That is the point, they will not move. The Member for Bukit Merah has made one point which, I think, I must reply to, and that is this. He says that when a church or a mosque is demolished, there is always another piece of land for another church or another mosque. When it is a temple, he says, we demolish the temple and never supply the land. Let me reassure him that we have a multi-religious policy and we do not discriminate between churches, mosques, and temples. It is not easy to find alternative land in Housing Board estates where a temple wants to be, and each particular problem or temple must be dealt with on the facts of the case. I think the Member will realise that religion is a very sensitive problem, and people are very touchy. I would be the last person in the world to break into a temple and pull the walls down. All these matters have to be handled with the utmost tact, and we do our best not to be forced into a position to demolish. In fact, we never demolish. We behave, I should say, with a lot of sincerity and we finally after a long time get them to move, but not after they have extracted from us many a concession! Another Member has referred to the question of rubber trees. He says that the Government promised to pay compensation for cutting down rubber trees, and then this poor farmer engaged a contractor to cut down the rubber trees. And when the rubber trees were cut down, no compensation was paid. We have, in fact, paid compensation for rubber trees in some cases and we have refused to pay in others. I do not know what particular case he has in mind, but where a Temporary Occupation Licence has a condition that you are to farm on the land and not to plant rubber trees, you are supposed to farm on the land. If you plant rubber trees, and we find that out later, then we cut down the trees, because you have already broken the conditions of the Temporary Occupation Licence. You are lucky we did not revoke the licence. Do not expect the Government to pay you for planting rubber trees, which is in direct breach of one of the express terms of the Temporary Occupation Licence. But if we give you a T.O.L. to plant rubber trees, we will pay you when we cut down the rubber trees, but not otherwise. The Member for Changi should know that some of the Temporary Occupation Licences were granted long before the P.A.P. came to power, even before the last war. Before I close, Mr Speaker, I should tell Members of the House about the present resettlement policy of the Government, and it is this. Farmers - Category A. Genuine farmers are provided with alternative land in developed resettlement areas plus cash compensation for their houses, improvements and cultivation. If they elect to find their own accommodation, they are paid a rehabilitation grant of $1,000 per acre of cultivated land. Transport allowance ranging from $50 for a sub-tenant to $100 for a hut owner is paid, irrespective of whether they are resettled in a resettlement area or elect to find their own accommodation. Category B - non-farmers. Non-farmers are given suitable alternative accommodation in Housing Board flats, if they want such flats, plus payment of disturbance and transport allowance ranging from $300 for a sub-tenant to $350 for a hut owner or occupier. The hut owner will be reimbursed for the house occupied by his immediate family and for other improvements in accordance with the schedule of approved rates. These benefits are also extended to families who elect to find their own accommodation. Shopkeepers - Category C - affected by clearance are given priority in the allocation of alternative shops in various Housing and Development Board estates at concessional rentals without having to go through the normal tender system. Perhaps before I close, it would not be out of order for me to give you -

A bouquet!

Not a bouquet, but to give you the figures of the amount of money paid by the Government from 1961 to 1966. In 1961 we paid about $275,000 as compensation; 1962 $924,000; 1963 $1,698,000; 1964 $3,365,000; 1965 $5,451,000; and for the first 10 months of this year, we have already paid more than $4 million in compensation. So we have spent quite a bit of money in respect of resettlement. We have not forced any person out of his house without proper care or reasonable compensation. It is accepted that to get a family to move out from a place where the members have lived for many years is not a simple operation. The Government has, therefore, made it a policy not to upset such families unless it is absolutely necessary, as in the case of land being required for a public purpose, for road widening, for reclamation, for a school, for a clinic, or for public housing. Even then it must be explained, for the benefit of those who pretend to be so indignant, that an infinite amount of patience, tolerance and sympathy has always been exercised to make resettlement as painless as possible. We would be happier if it would not be necessary to upset or uproot any family, but, hon. Gentlemen, the alternative is to have no development, no roads, no new schools, no clinics, and no housing. Surely this is not what you critics want.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 14th December, 1966.