Hansard, 1967-11-02

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to Dr Chew Chin Han (Tampines) to be absent from the sitting of Parliament today, the 2nd November, 1967. (P.COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore.

asked the Minister for Finance whether Hong Kong industrialists who have shown interest in industrial investments in Singapore have merely made enquiries from the Economic Development Board or whether they have made any commitments to establish factories in Singapore, and if he will make a statement on developments in this connection in the last two months.

Sir, of the large number of Hong Kong industrialists who have recently approached the Economic Development Board with investment proposals, 86 have entered into a serious commitment to establish a factory in Singapore. This commitment constitutes either site acquisition or site and building acquisition. In addition, most of these have entered into partnerships with Singapore industrialists and, in a good number of instances, orders for the purchase of equipment and machinery have been placed. The total capital investment of these 86 enterprises, excluding the cost of land, comes to $49 million. Being largely labour intensive, they will provide many jobs for this sum, 8,000 in the initial phase and 13,600 when at full production. The 86 firms in terms of size of capital investment may be classified as follows: Investment of $ 1 million or more 17 Investment of $ ½ million to under $1 million 13 Investment of $200,000 to under $½ million 44 Under $200,000 12 -- Total 86 == The projects cover a wide field. To mention only a few, they include building hardware, electronics, pharmaceuticals, clocks and watches, toys, various machinery and engineering products, synthetic fibres, and printing and publishing. The figures I give represent the position at the latest count. The number will no doubt increase as the more recent arrivals firm up their investment arrangements. One feature of these new projects is that the larger part of the output is produced for the export market. Hong Kong industrialists are reputed for their fine competitive performance in world markets. They are the kind of entrepreneurs any sensible developing country would be glad to have, and Singapore extends a warm welcome to them. We shall do all we can to make their ventures in Singapore successful and profitable.

asked the Minister for Education whether all students who pass the Primary School Leaving Examination this year will be given places in secondary schools; whether he is aware of the many cases in previous years where students were posted to secondary schools far away from their homes; and what steps he will take to prevent a similar situation this year.

Mr Speaker. Sir, it is expected that, subject to adequate provision in the 1968 Budget for education, every Primary VI pupil in Singapore who is successful in the Primary School Leaving Examination this year will be given a place in a secondary academic, technical or vocational school. However, it is obviously not possible to meet the wishes of every parent in regard to the choice of a particular school. No system of allocation can please everyone. The present system of allocation for the Chinese and English streams, which has been in operation since 1965, is processed by computers. It is based on the choice exercised by the parents and the results of the Primary School Leaving Examination. Under this system the vast majority of successful candidates are posted to schools of their own choice. For example, in 1966, out of a total of 32,602 successful candidates, 21,074 were posted to schools according to their first choice, and 6,036 were posted according to their second choice. Only 5,492 or 16.8 per cent were posted to schools other than their choice, because all vacancies in the schools of their choice were taken up by other candidates with better results in the Primary School Leaving Examination. Among the 5,492 pupils who failed to secure a place under their first as well as second choice, about 5,200 applied for transfers. Of these, 4,600 were approved and only 600 could not be approved, because all vacancies in schools near their homes had already been taken up by other pupils with better examination results.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister has said that, subject to adequate provision in the 1968 Budget, it appears that all students who passed the Primary School Leaving Examination would be given places. Could the Minister be more explicit in explaining the phrase "subject to adequate provision in the 1968 Budget"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Punggol knows exactly what I mean. There is no need to explain in further detail.

Can the Minister say whether it is correct that, should there be inadequate provision in the 1968 Budget, all students may not be given places in the secondary schools?

Correct.

The Minister for Finance has already answered for me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely agree with the Minister for Education that the Government cannot, of course, accede to the request of the parents to send their children to the schools of their choice. But at the end of the year of the school term, there is a great mess in the postings of students from one school to another school. I can quote an example. For instance, if a student is staying in Jurong, he is posted to St. Anthony's School, whereas, on the other hand, a student staying somewhere in Bras Basah Road is posted to Jurong School.

Mr Ho, can we have your supplementary question, please?

What I am complaining about is the posting system. Although the Ministry of Education -

If you want to make a complaint, Mr Ho, there are other procedural methods available to you. But if you have a supplementary question, please frame it quickly.

Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that after having posted the students to a school very far away from their homes and that if the parents are able to find vacancies in another school which is very close to their homes, the Ministry of Education will rectify the wrong postings? This is the question I am asking the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is precisely what my Ministry has been doing for the past few years. For instance, early this year 5,200 students applied for transfer, and of this number, 4,600 were approved. That, I am sure, answers the point of the Member.

According to the Minister, it seems that even if adequate provision is made in 1968, there is a possibility of a certain number of children being posted to schools very far away from their homes. Under such circumstances, will the Minister give an assurance that where the poor parents cannot send their children to distant schools, the Ministry will consider giving a transport bursary to the children?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the affected pupils can always apply for a transport bursary, and if they merit such an award, it will be given.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer to my question asking him to clarify the very phrase he used in his reply just now. Is it or is it not the policy of the Government to provide secondary education to all those students who have passed the P.S.L.E.? The next question is this. Is the Minister satisfied with the system of posting successful students in the P.S.L.E. and, if not, will he take steps to change the system since, over a period of two years, more than 5,000, as he has just mentioned, have been posted elsewhere? Thirdly, -

Mr Ng, I think we had better have answers to your first two questions before we come to the third question. Mr Ong?

Mr Speaker, Sir, taking the second question first. I am quite satisfied with the present system. But if the Member for Punggol can suggest a better system, I am prepared to consider it. As for the first question, while it is the policy of the Government in the past few years to provide a place for every student who has passed the P.S.L.E., the position cannot be the same for all time. Much depends on the economy of the country and the state of its finances. I am sure if the finances of the State permit, we will provide places for all those who can pass the P.S.L.E. Otherwise, that is that.

As regards my suggestion to rectify the system -

Mr Ng, I am afraid i will not let you go into that. I called you for your third supplementary.

Yes, Sir. My third question is this. Just now the Minister has mentioned that out of 5,000-plus students, 4,000 odd were given places as a result of applications for transfer, is the Minister aware that quite a long period of study days has been lost as a result of these students applying for transfers to schools nearer to their homes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a certain amount of study time might have been lost in the process of applying for a transfer, but that cannot be helped. I do not think the time lost is in any way excessive.

asked the Minister for Education whether he will consider stopping automatic promotion in primary schools especially in promotions to Primary 2 and Primary 3.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the practice of automatic promotion was, in fact, abolished in 1959. Schools at present may retain pupils in Primaries 3, 4, 5 and 6. However, retention at Primaries 1 and 2 level is at present not possible for the following reasons. Firstly, it is the policy of the Government to ensure that every Singapore citizen who is of school-going age is given a place in school. As the number of such children is enormous, it is not possible to retain pupils in Primary 1 without depriving some of these school-going children of their places. Secondly, it is also considered unsound by educationists to retain pupils at the end of the first year in school for psychological reasons. Thirdly, the Lim Tay Boh Commission of inquiry recommended that the first three years of primary school work should be planned as a single coordinated unit and the final assessment of a child's progress should be made at the end of the third year.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister has just now given us an explanation. But I am not quite satisfied with that, because we know that pupils in Primary 1 and Primary 2 are not capable of thinking for themselves. So we should not allow them to be promoted automatically if they are not qualified. We should know that studying is like building a house. In order to build a multi-storey house, the foundations should be deeper and the piling should be stronger. The deeper the piling, the stronger will be the structure.

Mr Lee, you must have heard what I told Mr Ho and Mr Ng a few minutes ago. Can we have a supplementary question, if you have one, and not a debate, please?

(In Mandarin): Sir, thank you very much. I would like to add something more. If the foundation is not soundly laid, no tall building can be constructed thereon. So if Primary 1 and Primary 2, which should be construed as the foundation of a building, are not soundly laid, then how can any high structures be built on that basis? I would like to ask the Minister whether my explanation is correct.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have enumerated a number of reasons why retention at Primary 1 and Primary 2 is not possible at this stage. If the Member thinks that retention at Primaries 1 and 2 level is desirable, then that is his opinion. But it runs counter to the views of educationists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if a student in Primary 1 cannot make the grade and you promote him to Primary 2 and then to Primary 3, can the Minister say how he expects this student to cope with the work in Primary 3?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first year, Primary 1, and also Primary 2 to a large extent, teaching is mainly oral. I do not see why a reasonably intelligent child cannot improve in the second or third year. Perhaps the Member for Bras Basah should persuade parents of children failing in the first year, i.e., Primary 1, to pay more attention to their children's studies.

asked the Minister for Health if he will sympathetically consider any representations made or to be made to him by religious and other organisations against the proposed legalisation of abortion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am always very sympathetic to other views on any question. I would like to inform the House that representations from persons or organisations are now being received, and I can assure the House that the views of interested persons and organisations on the proposed legislation can be heard at the Select Committee stage after the principles of the Bill have been debated in Parliament at its Second Reading.

If I understood the Minister correctly, the Government is going to proceed with legalised abortion. Can the Minister clarify?

I think it is obvious, Mr Ho, that the Minister went further than that. He even said that the Bill, if it passes the Second Reading, will be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when will this Bill be introduced?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am Acting Minister for Health and I cannot definitely tell the Member when. But if he has the patience to wait for the Minister for Health to come back, I am sure the date as to when the Bill will be tabled before this House will be made known to him.

Though the Minister concerned acts for the Minister for Health, he is still responsible for the whole Ministry. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Sir, my question is this. Will the Acting Minister for Health consider withdrawing the proposed Bill if all representations, either from religious bodies or otherwise, are in opposition to legalised abortion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make it clear that I never for one deny responsibility for the Ministry of Health in any way. As regards withdrawing the proposed Bill, I have not had a look at the representations nor are all representations in, and I cannot say that they are all in opposition. I am not as certain of it as the hon. Member for Punggol is.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you see the trend against legal abortion in Singapore today is very clear. My question to the Minister is just to persuade the Government not to bring up this matter, because it might happen that when the Bill comes up and if the Government is defeated, it will put the Government in a very embarrassing position. Some hon. Members: No.

It is very likely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mr Ho is that persuasive, I suggest that he make his persuasion in Committee.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he will consider amending the Central Provident Fund Ordinance to enable contributors to withdraw monies due to them from the Fund if (a) they are disabled without being permanently incapacitated from ever continuing in employment; or, (b) they are unemployed for periods of less than two years and are unable to establish that they will never be re-employed in order to enable such persons who so desire to start their own business and thereby cease being burdens on the welfare services of the Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Central Provident Fund Ordinance was introduced for the specific purpose of making provision for employees in their old age, and it was not originally intended that they should be allowed to withdraw before they reached the age of 55. However, provision has been made to permit withdrawals on death or where it appears unlikely that an employee will contribute to the Fund again. If the request made by the hon. Member to allow withdrawals for the purpose of starting their own business in the two specific cases mentioned by him is permitted, it would completely defeat the intention behind the Ordinance. Further, it is pertinent to point out that if withdrawals are permitted for the purpose, their is no guarantee that the sums received, which are generally not substantial, will not be lost or frittered away. If this were to happen, the workers concerned would not have anything to protect them in their old age and they would, in all probability, become a burden on the welfare services of the Republic. In the circumstances, it is considered desirable that no change should be made to the law at present.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the position regarding those who intend to leave Singapore for Malaysia for good? Can they withdraw their money?

If a person leaves Singapore permanently and is not coming back, it is quite possible for him to withdraw his money from the Central Provident Fund provided that he can show proof that he is not coming back to stay in Singapore any more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if a bona fide contributor to the Central Provident Fund is in a very difficult situation where he is in need of money, will the Minister consider allowing him to withdraw not the whole sum but, say, 50 per cent or 75 per cent of it in order to meet his needs? For instance, take the case of someone who might need a few thousand dollars to buy a house. In the present circumstances, unless he reaches the age of 55, he cannot touch his Provident Fund. I think on this aspect there must be flexibility in the application of the C.P.F. Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the C.P.F., as I have said earlier, is mainly for a person's old age. It is not meant for insurance of any kind. If it is for a loan to start a business or just to tide him over some difficult periods, a bank or a finance company is apparently the answer.

This is a very unsatisfactory answer. You go to a bank -

Mr Ho, I have, in fact, been allowing more supplementary questions than is usual because we have only 13 questions on the Order Paper today. But we must have some semblance of observance of the Standing Order. Your last question, Mr Ho, I am afraid, was not a supplementary.

(In Mandarin): I have heard the Minister say that the Provident Fund is for a person's old age. But he may be unemployed at the age of 30, and financially he is in hardship. So how can you expect him to live old enough to get his C.P.F.? In my view, there should be some provision to amend the existing C.P.F. laws.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs in how many cases were payments of public assistance and T.B. Treatment Allowances stopped, because the recipients were found to be non-citizens, following the introduction of the new laminated identity cards.

As from 24th June, 1959, all new cases of recipients of public assistance have been confined only to Singapore citizens. However, between the period of 5th May, 1966, when new laminated identity cards were introduced, and 30th September, 1967, 460 cases of assistance were withdrawn from the public assistance scheme as they were non-citizens. As for T.B. Treatment Allowances, there is no case of stoppage of such an allowance to non-citizens during the period 5th May, 1966, to 30th September, 1967, as all recipients of this allowance are confined only to Singapore citizens.

Can the Minister say what amount of money has been saved during the period stated?

It is not easy to give the exact figure. But in the 460 cases, taking an average of $36 per case a month, this will work out to approximately $18,500 per month.

(In Malay): If there are people in possession of blue identity cards who were born in Singapore but who have not reported to the Registrar that they were born in Singapore, will the Minister then consider such cases?

Mr Speaker, Sir, each case will be investigated fully, and if a person can prove that he was born in Singapore, then his application will be considered.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs what is the Government's attitude to the proposed Malaysian-Indonesian common spelling system for the Malay Language.

The Government of Singapore has an open mind on the proposed Malaysian-Indonesian common spelling system for the Malay language. Singapore is not represented in the Committee set up to work out a common Malaysian-Indonesian common spelling system, but has her own Spelling Committee of 11 persons appointed on 26th January, 1966, by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs, to study and bring up to date the Malay spelling system in the Republic. The Committee consists of the Republic's prominent Malay scholars. At present, the Committee is studying the report of the Malaysian-Indonesian Spelling Committee with a view to improving its own spelling system.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs whether he is aware that many parents in Singapore are disturbed by the unhealthy influence on their children of the "James Bond" type of film and if he will consider taking steps to prohibit the viewing of such films by children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Board of Film Censors responsible for the censoring of films has informed me that, so far, no complaints have been received from any quarter in regard to the exhibition of the "James Bond" type of films. Whether such a type of films exerts an unhealthy influence is a matter of personal opinion. Therefore, if parents consider that such films do, in fact, have an unhealthy influence on their children, they should play their part in discouraging their children from seeing these films, and not prevent the exhibition of such films for the enjoyment of other sections of the public if the films are unobjectionable. Further, in our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society, Government feels that it will not be right for any one section of the community to impose its standard of morality on other sections of the community. To prevent only children from seeing such films will require films and audience to be officially classified. So far no official film classification has been made in Singapore. Although there have been prolonged discussions with exhibitors and distributors on the subject of official film classification in Singapore, this has not been adopted not only because film exhibitors and distributors are against such classification, but also because there are practical difficulties in implementing a film classification system in Singapore where the bulk of the cinema-going public consists of the younger generation. It is because of the absence of official film classification and the awareness of the fact that the majority of film goers are youths and children that the Board of Film Censors is very careful to ensure that all films passed for public exhibition are suitable for the viewing of both adults and children alike. As a matter of fact, many films which would otherwise be perfectly all right in their entirety for adults only have to be cut, because of the fact that they would be accessible to children on release. The care taken applies to all films, whether they be of the "James Bond" type or any other type.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to crave your indulgence. When the public does not make any complaint, it does not mean that the film is a good one. Apart from the "James Bond" type of films, they allow on T.V. the "Beatles" type of songs ---

May I suggest that for the sitting of the 14th of November the Member puts a Question down on censorship of T.V. films?

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether preference will be given to applications from public companies to undertake projects in the Golden Mile scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the public tender system, there is no room for preference to be given to any one group or category of tenderers. Accordingly, tenders from public companies will be considered on the same footing as tenders from private companies and individuals.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development when work will commence to clear the overgrowth of lallang and weeds on the banks of the canal (which flows into the Kalang River) along Upper Thomson Road in the Thomson Constituency and to deepen the canal to alleviate flooding in the area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I assume that the Member for Thomson refers to the stretch of canal near the 6 ½ m.s. Upper Thomson Road. If so, then I am pleased to inform him that the lallang and weeds along the banks have already been cut. To beautify the area, trees along the sides of the canal are also being planted. To alleviate flooding in the Thomson area, work on a scheme to improve the upper stretch of Sungei Kallang between Braddell Road and Thomson Road at an estimated cost of $360,000 started in 1966 from the Braddell Road end. This scheme, which is expected to be completed in 1969, includes the widening, deepening and re-alignment of Sungei Kallang for about 10,000 feet.

(In Mandarin): My question concerns the whole canal along Upper Thomson Road and not only at the point of 6 ½ m.s. Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform me whether or not work on this stretch of the canal along Upper Thomson Road has commenced?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, work on the cutting of lallang and weeds along Upper Thomson Road is now in progress.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether the present system adopted by the Public Works Department of inviting tenders and giving out contracts is satisfactory; and whether he plans to reorganise it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer this question, I will have to outline briefly the tender system adopted by the Public Works Department. Tenders for public works projects are normally invited by means of tender notifications published in the Government Gazette and in cases where the value of the project is estimated to exceed $50,000, a tender notice is also advertised in the Press. Only registered contractors are selected and may tender for public works. These contractors are selected and classified on the basis of sound finance, good experience and satisfactory performance for past work, technical knowledge and availability of plant and good organising ability. Registered contractors call personally with their registration cards to collect the various tender documents, such as forms of tenders, specifications, bills of quantities and drawings. To safeguard the secrecy of the competitive nature of the tender system, all tenders must be enclosed in a sealed envelope and deposited in the locked tender box provided for the purpose before the closing time for receipt of tenders. At the appointed time on the closing date, a Tenders Opening Committee opens the tender box, collects the tenders and opens them in the presence of all the members. It is the duty of the Tenders Opening Committee to number and initial each and every tender received and to prepare a precis of tenders containing such information as the names of the tenderers and the amounts of tenders. The precis and the tender forms are then processed and recommendations made to the appropriate Tenders Board for consideration and decision. In the case of minor works valued at less than $10,000, consideration for acceptance or rejection is undertaken by an Assistant Director of the Public Works. After approval has been given by the appropriate Tenders Board or the Assistant Director of Public Works, checks are made to ensure that the rates and the bills of quantities and schedule of rates are arithmetically correct. These approvals are then conveyed to the successful tenderers by means of letters of acceptance, and action is then taken to prepare and sign the necessary contract documents. The system, as I have outlined, has worked satisfactorily and there is no reason why it should be changed.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether the paid car-park system introduced in Queenstown housing estate is satisfactory and whether it will be introduced to all other Housing and Development Board estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the short answer to the two points raised by the Member for Jurong is `Yes'. The paid car-park system introduced in Queenstown housing estate is working satisfactorily and will be introduced to other Housing and Development Board estates. It is, however, necessary to elaborate on the policy of the Government with regard to the provision of car parks in Housing Board estates in order to dispel some wrong impressions that might have been created following the introduction of the paid-car-park system in Queenstown. Free car parks are provided in central localities and near to shopping facilities in Housing Board estates as part and parcel of the approved layout. These car parks are made up to approved standards and taken over by the P.W.D. Instead of providing one car park for each flat as required in luxury apartments, in the low-cost housing estates of the Board the ratio is one car park for each seven flats. On this basis the car parking and road network of Queenstown has been planned. Over the years the income of people living in flats in Queenstown has increased and more and more of them have bought motor-cars. There has also been a considerable increase in the number of pirate taxis. As a result, in Queenstown motor-cars overflowed from the available car parks on to the public roads, causing traffic congestion. Many complaints were received and the traffic police had difficulty in sorting out this traffic problem. Initially a one-way traffic system was introduced, but even this proved to be inadequate when cars were parked on both sides of one-way streets. To reduce congestion, it was decided to draw white lines on the roads in order that these roads would not be blocked. It was anticipated that the drawing of white lines on these one-way streets would result in motor-cars having difficulty in finding parking places. Some provision, therefore, had to be made to accommodate them. Two lots of Housing Board land which had been set aside for other purposes were, therefore, converted into car parks for those prepared to pay a small fee to park their cars in these two lots. These two lots can accommodate 185 and 250 cars respectively. On the1st of July this year, the tenants of Queenstown were invited, if they so wished, to put their cars in these parking lots for a fee of $12 per month. The fees were determined on the basis that costs will be recovered over a period of time. In the first three months, of the 435 lots provided, an average of about 200 lots were taken up. The Board expects that there will be no difficulty, once the tenants get used to the idea of parking in these lots, for the lots to be fully occupied. In other housing estates where open space or suitable land is available, similar facilities will be provided and a fee charged to recover costs. In Tiong Bahru Estate car-parking sticks are provided with parking lots and are rented out to the tenants at $5 and $10 in parking areas in Moh Guan Terrace, Guan Chuan, Eng Hoon and Eng Watt Streets. It is also planned to provide similar paid car-parking lots in MacPherson Estate and in Toa Payoh.

(In Malay): Is it the intention of the Ministry to use the meter system for car parking in Singapore?

I take it that the Member is not merely referring to Housing Board estates but to car parking in the whole of Singapore. We have no intention to replace car-park attendants with car-parking meters, but we intend to start a little experiment to test car-parking meters. I can assure the Member that it will only be an experiment. We will be trying it out in places like High Street where the meters will not be damaged or stolen. But I repeat - it will be only an experiment and we will continue to use car-parking attendants and provide some employment rather than replace these attendants with meters.

(In Mandarin): Regarding payment for car parking and the building of parking lots, of course, the tenants are very grateful. But the fees levied are a bit high because it is getting more and more difficult to earn a living nowadays, and on top of that the tenants have to pay quite a high fee for parking. Therefore, I suggest that the fee should be reduced. As regards car parking in Tiong Bahru, many tenants have complained to me that ---

Order, order. Mr Lee, could you please resume your seat? Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seat.

Mr Barker, if I may assist the hon. Member with his supplementary, his question is: will you consider reducing car-parking fees at Tiong Bahru?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought we were discussing the introduction of car parks! But, like the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru, the hon. Member for Queenstown has also been approached by his Citizens' Consultative Committee and the residents of Queenstown to try to get these car-parking fees reduced. But these are the fees that have been calculated by the Board to recover their costs of building the car park and providing for its maintenance. I can assure the Member that the Board is not making any profit out of the fees charged at Tiong Bahru or Queenstown. But representations have been made. This is the first representation I am hearing from Tiong Bahru, and I will ask the Board to consider whether or not they can reduce the parking fees. But what really surprises me, Sir, is the number of cars that are at present around Housing Board estates. The flats are meant to be for the lower income group, and yet many of them can afford to buy cars. And if they can afford to buy cars, surely they can afford to pay $12 a month.

Can the Minister inform the House whether security measures are provided in this paid car park?

By "security", I assume the Member is asking whether there are car-park attendants or guards. I assure him there are. For instance, in Queens-town we employ 12 car-park attendants and they work for 24 hours on three shifts - four attendants at a time. So if you pay your $12 in Queenstown and put your car in this car-park, you are assured of better protection than if you leave it on the main road.

Since Government charge a motorist a fee to park his car in the parking bay which is the property of Government, in the event the car is hijacked by someone, will they accept the claim from the owner of the car?

I can assure the Member for Bras Basah that Government will accept full responsibility according to the law.

Mr Speaker. Sir, if you are thinking of doing business on such terms, then it is not profitable. Here you are charging $12 a month as a parking fee and, in addition, you have to hire three-shift workers to look after the car park and also give a policy - something like an insurance policy - to meet the claim of a motorist whose car has been hijacked. I say that that policy is no good, and we had better abandon it.

Mr Barker, do you want to add anything to your previous answer?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) whether he will consider installing (a) floodlights at all pedestrian crossings; and (b) a line of studs on the approaches to each pedestrian crossing and about 100 yards short of it in order to give motorists a physical warning that they are approaching a pedestrian crossing.

(In Malay): The Public Works Department is gradually replacing as many pedestrian crossings as possible with overhead bridges or underpasses. If, for any reason, the construction of such bridges or underpasses is not possible, the P.W.D. will provide zebra crossings with floodlights of the blinker type. Studs are expensive and tend to damage the asphalt surface of the roads, and therefore it is not intended to use them extensively for pedestrian crossings.

Mr Barker, a Ministerial Statement?

3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, on the 14th December last year I informed the House that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau was conducting investigations into certain alleged malpractices in connection with building construction carried out by the Housing and Development Board. These investigations followed information received in August 1966 by the C.P.I.B. about certain piling work carried out for the Board by Gammon (Malaya) Ltd., a firm of piling contractors. The results of these investigations revealed that there had been extensive malpractices resulting in considerable over-payments by the Board to Gammon under the terms of the various contracts in question. As soon as sufficient evidence was available from the C.P.I.B., steps were taken to uncover and measure a small number of piles at Toa Payoh. The results of these physical tests confirmed the findings of the C.P.I.B. and in December 1966 Gammon were informed that they would be held responsible. Discussions were held between the Board and Gammon and between their respective legal advisers, as a result of which early this year Gammon agreed to accept full liability for all over-payments for any structural defects which might arise as a result of inadequate piling and for further incidental expenses incurred by the Board as a result of the delay in completion of certain of the contracts. Gammon also undertook to bear the full cost of any investigation necessary to establish the extent of the over-payments. In the majority of the contracts affected, the buildings concerned were all completed or substantially approaching completion at the date when these malpractices became known, it would, therefore, be impossible, without incurring enormous expense out of all proportion to the Board's claim, to make a full and accurate physical measurement of the short-piling involved for reasons which will be very obvious. The Board did, however, instruct a firm of consultant engineers, experts in this particular field, to make a survey and an analysis of the short-piling by the best and the most efficient method known, short of demolishing the buildings concerned and lifting the piles. Based on this survey and on the advice of its legal adviser, the Board has reached agreement with Gammon on terms which have already been published in the form of a statement by the Chairman of Gammon. The settlement involves the payment to the Board of an aggregate sum of $2,700,000, over $2 million of which is allocated to compensation for over-payments on short-piling. The remainder represents compensation for the cost of reinstatement, losses due to delay in completion, and the cost of investigation as to the whole of which the Board has been fully indemnified. In addition, the expenses of the consultant engineers and the Board's legal expenses are to be met by Gammon. The investigations which have been carried out have implicated a number of individuals, among them some employees of Gammon and certain of the clerks of works employed by the Board. Criminal charges have been preferred against five persons, one employed by Gammon and four by the Board, under the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960, and other charges of a similar character are contemplated. It would not be appropriate at this stage for me to say any more about these proceedings which are still pending. In addition, disciplinary proceedings have been taken by the Board, as a result of which, after due inquiry, 12 clerks of works have been dismissed, one has absconded and one resigned before an inquiry was held. Inquiries with a view to the dismissal of a further three clerks of works remain to be held. Other disciplinary proceedings are also in contemplation. The agreement reached between the Board and Gammon is subject to reopening if it is established that any director or responsible member of the managerial staff of Gammon not below the rank of chief engineer, past or present, was a party to or at that time aware of the circumstances resulting in the short-piling. Finally, the House will wish to be assured, as is in fact the case, that all proper steps have been taken to ensure that, despite the frauds which have been committed, all the Board's flats in question are structurally sound. The Board's consulting engineers have been asked to report fully on this, and I am satisfied, as a result of what they say, that the Board's flats in question are in fact structurally sound.

Sir, I have three questions to pose to the Minister. First, has the sum of $2.7 million been paid? Second, is there any guarantee or security to ensure that Gammon do not fail in their payments? Third, what safeguards have the Housing Board taken to prevent future frauds of a similar nature?

As to the first question, which refers to the sum of $2,700,000, the agreement was that $1,200,000 was to be paid on the signing of the agreement. That sum has been paid. The balance of $1 ½ million is to be paid by Gammon in three instalments. The first instalment of $½ million within six months of the date of the agreement, and the two remaining instalments at intervals of six months after that. The agreement itself was signed on the 8th day of September this year. In order to ensure that payment is made by Gammon, the Board insisted on Gammon providing a banker's guarantee that the three instalments of $½ million each will be forthcoming. I think that answers the first two questions. The Member also wants to be satisfied that steps have been taken by the Board to prevent frauds of a similar nature. Sir, the frauds were in fact committed because of lack of supervision on the piling site, lack of supervision over the clerks of works and Gammon's men on the site. In this respect, the Board has taken steps to introduce more effective means of supervision to prevent the occurrence of irregularities in future contracts. Resident engineers are now stationed on the major piling sites. In fact, the Board has created more posts for such engineers and it is now possible to have these engineers permanently stationed on a rotation basis on the piling sites. As an additional safeguard, to enable checks to be made at any time after the piles have been driven into the ground, a half-inch diameter iron pipe is inserted into the centre of a pile in a group of piles, the group of piles consisting of about two to five piles. This is to enable the length of the pile to be measured at any time after the piling has been completed by the insertion of a flexible iron rod. Thirdly, Sir, internal technical audit checks have been introduced on the piling and building sites. The Technical Audit Team makes periodic visits to do surprise checks. These are the measures the Board is taking. At the same time, Members are aware that the suspension on Gammon tendering for future work of the Board has been lifted as a result of the settlement, and Gammon have been asked by the Board what measures they themselves will take to ensure or to prevent frauds of a similar nature taking place again. And Gammon have replied to the Board stating that, firstly, no officers and other employees involved in the over-claims remain in the employ of the company or any of its associate companies and that they have been replaced by men of proven probity. Secondly, piling work by Gammon will he carried out by direct labour on an incentive pay basis under stricter supervision, and sub-contractors shall not be employed for any piling work in Singapore. Thirdly, the company's technical auditor is now under instructions to conduct an independent scrutiny of all their piling contracts and personnel employed by them unhindered in any way as a matter of policy laid down by the Board of Management.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather disturbed by the Minister's statement that the suspension of Gammon has been lifted and that there is a possibility of future work being done by them. No doubt they have been asked what measures they are taking to prevent further frauds, and it is interesting to hear their reply about "men of proved ability". But I was wondering whether they were men of proved integrity too. I wonder whether the Minister will consider not accepting tenders from Gammon any longer since, as far as I can see, there is no dearth of piling firms in the Republic. There is a further question I would like to ask the Minister, and that is whether the balance of $1½ million to be paid over three instalments attracts interest, and if so, at what per cent, and if not, why not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that a member of the Bar should ask me, after a settlement in which the Housing Board is to be paid $2,700,000, why Gammon's suspension was lifted. The answer is simple. If the Board had not agreed to lift the suspension, Gammon would not have paid $2.7 million. It is a big sum. The other alternative was to take them to court, and again here a member of the Bar should know that court proceedings take a long time and, in the final analysis, the Board may get more, maybe a little more, or they may get less. But in any settlement, there must be give and take. The fact that the suspension has been lifted means that Gammon, like other contractors, can tender. There is no guarantee that their tenders will be accepted. But there are measures taken by the Board not only in respect of work sites, on which Gammon are employed, but also of other piling contracts. As for the second question, there is no agreement for interest to be paid on the sum of $1½ million. The Member wants to know why not. The answer is this. Gammon were in no position to pay the Housing Board $2.7 million in cash. There was bargaining on the final figure, whether it was $2.5 million or $2.7 million. But the question of interest was not taken up by the Board because, in the final analysis, it was the Board's figure that was accepted by Gammon, not Gammon's figure accepted by the Board.

Does the Minister agree that $1½ million in one and a half years' time is, in fact, worth less than $1½ million now? So the settlement would, in fact, be less than $2.7 million. On the question of suspension, I realise that the word "suspension" may be a technical term. But can the Minister assure the House that future tenders by Gammon will not be accepted? It means that we can settle but it does not mean that we are required to do business again.

Sir, I think it is pure logic that $1½ million to be paid now is worth much more than $1½ million to be paid in three instalments. That is admitted. But again under the terms of settlement, Gammon were allowed to make these payments because they were in no position to pay $2.7 million cash. As for the lifting of the suspension, once the suspension is lifted, how does the hon. Member expect me to give him an assurance that Gammon's tenders will not be accepted? Is the hon. Member asking me to black-ball Gammon again? As I have pointed out, under the terms of the agreement, no company paying $2.7 million is going to pay that money without getting something in return. Mr Ng Kah Ting and Mr Tang See Chim rose -

Mr Tang, I will come back to you if we have time. Mr Ng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister inform the House of the number of contracts awarded to Gammon and the total sum of the contracts, and how was this settlement of $2.7 million arrived at?

I take it that the Member for Punggol is referring to past contracts. Since investigations started, no contracts have been awarded to Gammon as yet. I cannot tell you exactly how many piling contracts were awarded to Gammon in the past. Out of the $2.7 million, roughly $2,098,000 was in respect of short-piling. I do not think I need bother you with details, but I have the figures here showing how the sum of $2,098,000 is made up in respect of contracts all over the island. It adds up to $2,098,000 based on the calculations of the consultants. Roughly, it represents about 20 per cent of the total cost of piling work done by Gammon. The uncovering of the piles at Toa Payoh revealed that there was a shortage of roughly 20 per cent. It was physically impossible to go around Singapore pulling up piles from occupied buildings. So the estimate was 20 per cent right round the island. And 20 per cent of a little more than $10 million works out to about $2,098,000. As for the balance - a sum of roughly $350,000 - $300,000 was for compensation in respect of delay covering nine blocks in Toa Payoh; $50,000 being the amount estimated to be payable to the Board's contractor for uncovering the piles. Then you have other items like investigation costs, including professional fees and wages of the Board and P.W.D. personnel involved in the investigations into the said short-piling. And then the cost of reinstating buildings damaged or demolished. But in a settlement for a lump sum of $2.7 million, it is difficult to say how much went to each particular item. But the bigger part of the sum, i.e., nearly $2,100,000 was estimated to be in respect of short-piling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know who will be responsible to the Board in the event of possible structural damage to flats? Does the sum of $2.7 million exonerate Gammon from future liabilities?

May I assure the Member for Joo Chiat that the sum of $2.7 million does not exonerate Gammon from future claims in respect of, say, major structural defects which might appear. In fact, if I may quote clause 4 of the agreement: 'The Company hereby undertakes liability to the Board in respect of and indemnifies the Board in full in respect of all damages, costs and expenses of whatever nature suffered or incurred by the Board consequent upon any structural defects in any buildings covered by the said contracts arising within ten years from the date of completion of each particular contract as a result of inadequate piling by the Company.' Some of these contracts started in 1961. So for the earliest contracts, we can wait till 1971. For others, you calculate a period of ten years.

What happens if human lives are also damaged?

The Board is responsible and Gammon will be responsible under this clause of indemnity.

I will take one more question. Mr Ng.

With the lifting of the suspension of Gammon, can the Minister assure the House that should the piling construction company concerned be successful in any future tenders in respect of the Board's tenders, stringent steps would be taken to ensure that no future fraud or malpractices would be practised?

In answer to the hon. Member for Aljunied who originally asked this question in the House, I did set out in detail the steps already taken by the Board to try to prevent future frauds of this nature. As I have pointed out, previous frauds were due to lack of supervision. The clerks of works have to be supervised. Now you want to get engineers to supervise the clerks of works. How far do we go from there? Do you want someone else to supervise the engineers? And someone else to supervise that someone else? We can go on for ever. But I myself am satisfied that satisfactory steps have been taken by the Board to prevent future occurrences of a similar nature and I think we will have to wait and see what the future holds for us.

Can I add something for clarification for the peace of mind of Members here? Mr Speaker, Sir, normally after a lapse of an interval of, say, six months or a year, if there are no structural defects in a building, it is unlikely that there will be structural defects later on. So I think, by and large, we can assure the House that in most of the buildings where the piling has been undertaken by Gammon and in which they have been lived for two or three years by this time, there is no danger at all of any major structural defects.

Can I just add one last sentence perhaps to satisfy the Member for Choa Chu Kang who criticised the Board for not insisting on interest to be paid on the $1½ million? Let me assure the House that it was not the Housing Board and its Minister that settled this matter. This matter, in view of its wide implications and the sums of money involved, had the blessing of the members of the Cabinet of the Singapore Government.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Section 15 of the Stamp Ordinance provides for exemption from payment of stamp duty on any instrument made for the purpose of the transfer of shares in connection with the reconstruction or amalgamation of companies. This section has been held inapplicable to cases of reconstruction or amalgamation of companies incorporated outside Singapore. The proposed amendment seeks to extend to foreign companies who reconstruct or amalgamate with companies incorporated in Singapore the same exemption applicable to companies incorporated in Singapore. This would encourage foreign companies, which have their business interests or the majority of shareholders here, to reconstruct and incorporate in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.04 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Amendment made: In page 1, to leave out lines 6 to 14 inclusive and insert - "by inserting immediately after the fourth line of subsection (7) thereof the following new definition : - "the expression "company" means a company wherever registered or incorporated;" ".-[Mr Ramaswamy]. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend a few sections of the Singapore Army Act, 1965, the principal amendment being the addition of a new section 85A. Section 85 of the Act provides for the mode of enlistment of persons offering to enlist in the Singapore armed forces. Persons offering to enlist are required to sign an attestation paper and take an oath in the presence of a magistrate. The provisions of section 85 do not obviously apply to national servicemen since they do not come under the category of persons "offering to enlist". Therefore it is considered desirable to make special provision for the enlistment of national servicemen into the Army. Section 85A also makes it mandatory for a national serviceman called up for full-time service in the Army to take an oath or affirmation. National servicemen called up for part-time service in the People's Defence Force, the Special Constabulary and the Vigilante Corps also have to take a similar oath or affirmation. The other amendments to the Act are not so important. They are clause 2 of the Bill - amending "Army Council" in section 50 of the Act to "Army Board" to conform to the terminology used elsewhere in the Act. Clause 4 amends section 86 of the Act by reducing the period of three months, during which a recruit can purchase his discharge, to one month because it is felt that three months is too long a period to give to a recruit who has enlisted in the Army to decide whether or not he wishes to carry on in the Army; one month should more than suffice. Clause 5 amends subsection (1) of section 97 by deleting the requirement that to be eligible for enlistment in the Army a person must not only himself be a citizen but must have been born in Singapore of parents one of whom was born in Singapore or be the issue of a citizen. Instead, possession of Singapore citizenship in itself is substituted as a sufficient requirement. This is necessary in view of the fact that there are many citizens who would like or are liable to serve in the Army but who were not born in Singapore of parents one of whom at least was born in Singapore. Clause 6 amends section 158 of the Act by deleting the reference to the Modification of Laws (Armed Forces) (Singapore) Order, 1963, as one of the laws repealed by the Act and substituting the Federation Regiment Ordinance, 1952. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend Part VIII of the Police Force Ordinance, 1958 (No. 32 of 1958), to provide for national servicemen who will be directed for service in the Special Constabulary under the National Service Ordinance, 1952 (M. Ordinance No. 37 of 1952). The ranks of the Special Constabulary up to now had been filled by persons volunteering to be members of the Special Constabulary. The role of the Special Constabulary is one of assisting the Police Force, and members of the Special Constabulary, when on duty, have the same powers, protection and immunities as police officers. The Commissioner of Police may employ, without pay, any member of the Special Constabulary for such duty. The ranks of the Special Constabulary will certainly be strengthened with the national servicemen who will be given an opportunity to learn the strict discipline of a uniformed service. The national servicemen who are called up for service in the Special Constabulary will do 12 years' part-time service during their off-work or off-study hours. They will receive, in addition to their many duties, instruction in moral values. This will teach them the meaning of good citizenship and explain to them the nature of their social responsibilities. With the introduction of national service in Singapore, our youths are being given an opportunity to contribute to our nation-building, an opportunity to participate in the defence of our country if the need arises. It has been so often said that the youths of our country are the natural resources of the country. Being so, we have to teach them to become responsible citizens. The training and the discipline they will receive in the Special Constabulary will benefit them and the community in that they will be better citizens and better workmen. Mr Speaker, Sir, now I wish to deal with some of the clauses in the Bill. Clause 2 provides for persons who may be enrolled as members of the Special Constabulary, while paragraph (b) of clause 3 provides that no national servicemen called up for service in the Special Constabulary shall be discharged or dismissed without the prior approval of the proper authority appointed under the National Service Ordinance, 1952. An important amendment is clause 4. This provides that members of the Special Constabulary will have to take an oath in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, and any member who refuses to do so shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment. Clause 6 adds a new section which is to the effect that a national serviceman who fails without reasonable cause to attend any training or perform any duty shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Parliament in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 306 acres from the location of the Singapore Swimming Club at Tanjong Rhu to the Esplanade as delineated on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/67", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. This is the third phase of the scheme for the reclamation of the foreshore and sea-bed along East Coast Road. The first phase of the reclamation scheme of foreshore and sea-bed along Upper East Coast Road from the junction of Bedok Road was a pilot scheme completed in late 1963 and realised a surveyed area of 37 acres. Work on the second phase, the 1,000-acre reclamation of foreshore from Bedok to Tanjong Rhu approved in 1965 by the then Legislative Assembly, is progressing satisfactorily according to schedule and is expected to be completed by mid-1970. The Government now proposes to reclaim a further 306 acres of foreshore from the Singapore Swimming Club right up to the end of Tanjong Rhu and from Nicoll Highway to Elizabeth Walk, near the Singapore River mouth. A copy of the reclamation plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, this phase of the reclamation, which will also be undertaken by the Housing and Development Board acting as agents of the Government, will, it is envisaged, be undertaken in two parts. The first part will comprise the reclamation of 80 acres from the Singapore Swimming Club to the end of Tanjong Rhu. The fill will come from Bedok where there is sufficient earth for this reclamation as well and will be transported by an extension of the present conveyor belt system already in use. The second part will consist of the reclamation of 226 acres along Nicoll Highway up to the Singapore River mouth. The fill will come from excess earth from the development at Seventh Precinct No. 1, Erskine Hill, the balance of the Tiong Bahru fire site, Queenstown neighbourhood. 6 and 7, and Telok Blangah New Town. It is anticipated that the whole project will be completed by 1971. No firm decision has been made on the utilisation of this land. However, the first public project to be undertaken will be the construction of a coastal highway from Bedok to the city. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that Singapore is a very small island and that the only way to increase its size is to reclaim the fore-shore and the sea-bed. In this respect, I heartily support the motion of the Minister to reclaim the foreshore and sea-bed from the location of the Singapore Swimming Club at Tanjong Rhu to the Esplanade as delineated on the plan which is at present deposited at the Land Office. Mr Speaker, Sir, while we appreciate that using modern machinery to reclaim land is very efficient as evidenced by the present reclamation at Bedok, I was wondering whether, in view of our large pool of unemployed labour, the Minister could consider the possibility of employing more manual labour in reclamation rather than having it all done by machinery - capital-intensive - just conveyor belts, cutters and special machines for filling. Ordinarily it is no doubt more efficient and much quicker, possibly even less expensive, to do it by machinery, but there are special circumstances in Singapore and I would commend to the Minister for his attention my suggestion on using more labour.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on principle, I support the Minister in his policy to reclaim more land for development purposes. However, I am afraid that because of this massive programme of reclamation we will have to suffer a great loss in our natural sea-bed and foreshore. This will, of course, mar our reputation as a beautiful island State. This will affect indirectly our tourist trade. I would like to put forward to the Minister my suggestion that when reclamation work is undertaken in future the location should be diverted, that is to say, instead of reclaiming the sea-bed, we should level off the hills and use the earth to fill in the marsh lands and swampy areas. This will certainly go towards increasing our land area and, at the same time, preserving the beautiful view of the horizon from our seashore. This will give an impetus to tourism.

If I may deal with the Member for Choa Chu Kang who has suggested that we employ more labour. The answer, for the present contract, is a big "No". The reason is that the first part of the reclamation has been let out by tender to a Japanese firm of contractors and we are, of course, bound by that contract. And it is up to this firm to decide whether or not they want to use their machines or use more labour. But for future contracts in respect of land reclamation, perhaps consideration can be given to the suggestion of the Member for Choa Chu Kang.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Barker, are you prepared to give way? Mr Barker resumed his seat.

Will the Minister inform us whether the contract for this reclamation has already been awarded to the Japanese firm, or is it going to be awarded only after the reclamation has been approved by this House and only then a call for tender will be made?

I did not say that tenders have been called for and accepted. In fact, we cannot reclaim any part of the foreshore without first seeking permission from the House. I refer to the reclamation which is at the moment taking place, for which approval has already been given by the House, and for which the tender has been given to a firm of Japanese contractors. For that I have said it is up to the Japanese firm to decide whether or not they want more labour or they want to use German machines and Australian ---

On a point of clarification again, Sir.

Mr Barker, are you prepared to give way?

If the Member will sit down and let me finish, and then I will be prepared to clarify. But I am not prepared to make a clarification whilst I am in the middle of the first clarification. And I have said that for future reclamation, the one for which I now seek the permission of the House, consideration will be given to the Member's suggestion. I am now prepared to clarify.

Mr Tang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the contract for the reclamation that we are going to approve, if it is at all to be approved, this afternoon and not about the contract that is now being carried out by the Japanese at Bedok. Surely I realise that that contract has already been awarded and it is not up to us now to say whether they should engage more labour or use more machinery.

Mr Barker.

I have made it quite clear that for future contracts we will consider the Member's suggestion. I have said it twice. I say it once more. Mr Lee Teck Him rose -

I have not finished with Mr Teong Eng Siong.

Mr Lee, the Minister is in the course of answering questions raised by Mr Tang and by Mr Teong in their speeches. I only allowed Mr Tang's intervention on a point of clarification. I have called the Minister to reply to the motion and I will not take any new matter at this stage. Mr Barker.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the Minister say that he is prepared to make any clarification which the Members wish to ask for. Can I raise my doubt and seek clarification?

Will Mr Lee resume his seat and let Mr Barker finish?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am prepared to listen to the Member for Tiong Bahru if you will allow him to speak after I have finished with the Member for Sembawang. His grouse is that we are reclaiming land from the sea and, as a result, he says we have lost our seashore. I really do not understand how we lose the seashore. When you reclaim a coast, all you are doing is to push the seacoast back but it is still there. He suggests that we reclaim swamps and low-lying land in Singapore. I can assure him that that is being done and has been done in the past. The outstanding example is Jurong which was reclaimed from a swamp. Another bright example is the reclamation which is now taking place at Kranji. But the land along East Coast Road is a valuable strip and will provide Singapore, which is only 224 square miles of land, with another two square miles of land. I say two after 224 is well worth having.

Mr Lee, the Minister has indicated that he will deal with any points you have and I am prepared to let you address the House.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said a few moments ago that reclamation work has produced good results. But I have been given to understand that for this reclamation project we have to pay about $50 million to a Japanese firm. We do not know how much has been paid to this firm. But so far the money paid can almost be said to have been thrown into the sea. We have not seen any concrete result yet. So what are the achievements? In my view, the money should have been spent on building more houses to resolve the housing shortage, or building more factories or setting up vocational schools. What are the good results the Minister is talking about? I do not see any.

Before the Minister replies, may I find out if there are any other Members with any other queries to raise? There are none, Mr Barker.

The Member is right when he referred to the previous reclamation which cost about $50 million. But two square miles of land which will be worth probably about $5 per square foot is well worth reclaiming. We will get more than $53 million back. We are not throwing the money into the sea. We are reclaiming the sea. Otherwise we will reach a position where the price of land will reach a fantastic level in Singapore. Our buildings are already going up higher and higher and every available space of land is certainly well worth having on a small island like ours.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 306 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the acres from the location of the Singapore Swimming Club at Tanjong Rhu to the Esplanade as delineated on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/67", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

I think it will be convenient to take the suspension now. I will suspend now and take the Chair again at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.41 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Resolved, "That at its rising this day Parliament do stand adjourned to 14th November, 1967." -[Mr Barker].

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of urban and rural services is to make Singapore a nicer place to live in, especially in the rural areas where modern amenities like piped water and electricity are lacking. The administration of these services is in the hands of the Urban and Rural Services Committee which have been effective in carrying out the projects and, to a very large degree, have made life in the rural areas more tolerable by the bringing of modern amenities to the rural folks and by the building of bridges and repairing of roads. In the Development Budget for the year 1967, a total sum of $2,715,000 was approved by Parliament for urban and rural services. This sum, however, is very small compared to the total Development Budget of some $249 million, i.e., the sum appropriated for urban and rural services was only just over one per cent of the total Development Budget. Yet in spite of this, the sum approved was further cut down sometime in the middle of this year to some $1,900,000. No reason was given for the cut and no doubt hon. Members will wish to know why the sum was cut down after it was approved by Parliament. We all appreciate that there are competing needs for funds in the development of Singapore. But one per cent of the total Development -

Mr Tang, could you speak a little slower because the Interpreters are having a little difficulty.

But one per cent of the total Development Budget for urban and rural services can, by no stretch of the imagination, be called extravagant. Indeed, in the debate last year Members appeared to lament the smallness of the sum appropriated for urban and rural services. If, in spite of this and in spite of the fact that the sum was approved by Parliament, it is further cut down, there must be cogent reasons for this and we wish to know the reasons. Under the Development Budget, a total sum of $2,715,000 is allocated under 15 items. These items range from agricultural and kampong roads to roadside trees and shrubs; and to each of these particular items, a definite sum is allocated. I wish to know whether these allocations have been rigidly observed or whether the Urban and Rural Services Committee or the Projects Committee have the discretion of altering the allocations so as to take account of the requirements of the constituencies as a whole. As far as I can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the urban and rural services projects have been effectively carried out by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. It is true, no doubt, that now and again there are complaints of delay. But, in my opinion, such delays are bound to happen in view of the vast programme for which the Committee is responsible. In this respect, Sir, I wish to thank the Committee for carrying out the projects so efficiently. Recently, however, there is a change in the administrative structure of the Urban and Rural Services Committee. There is created over and above the Committee another Committee called the Projects Committee. It has never been explained why such a new Committee becomes necessary at this particular juncture, or what are its precise functions in the administration of the urban and rural services projects. All we know is that it appears to have the last say in the approving of projects. With the creation of this Projects Committee, all projects will now take a, longer time to get approved. Before the creation of the Projects Committee, the final decision rested with the Urban and Rural Services Committee. With the creation of the Projects Committee, projects approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee will now have to be approved again by the Projects Committee before they can be implemented. Is this additional level of decision really necessary? To my mind, it is not. It only wastes the time of members of both the Committees and delays the implementation of urban and, rural services projects. No doubt hon. Members of this House will also wish to know on what criterion the Projects Committee bases its decision in approving or in rejecting projects. Before the creation of the Projects Committee, when the Urban and Rural Services Committee had the final say, members of the U.R.S.C. (meaning the Urban and Rural Services Committee) made site visits to acquaint themselves with the conditions of the particular constituency in which projects were to be implemented. The Projects Committee does not make such visits. It is known to have cut down projects arbitrarily and to have approved and implemented projects against the recommendation of the Member of Parliament concerned. Let me give the House two examples from my own constituency. In Yew Tee Village in the Choa Chu Kang constituency, there is no piped water and the wells get dry during the dry season. The Water Works Department, after extensive investigations, recommended a three-phased project costing in total some $140,000. The first and second phases each cost $46,000. After due consideration, the Citizens' Consultative Committee in Choa Chu Kang, with my support, recommended the implementation of phase two which could be done independently of the other two phases at a cost of $46,000. This recommendation was rejected by the Projects Committee allegedly on the ground that it was not economical. On the other hand, there was a project for street lighting of Tengah Village, also in my constituency, costing some $16,000; this project was supported neither by the Citizens' Consultative Committee of Choa Chu Kang nor by me, but it was approved by the Projects Committee and has now been implemented. This state of affairs is causing a great deal of confusion and no small amount of dismay in the minds of Members of Parliament and members of Citizens' Consultative Committees. Members of Parliament are largely concerned with deciding on the priorities of competing needs in their constituencies, guided by the advice of their Citizens' Consultative Committees. Generally, therefore, Members of Parliament should have a large say on the priorities of projects for their constituencies and their recommendations should be respected, in this connection, perhaps the Projects Committee should consider the procedure of asking the Member of Parliament concerned to appear before it when the Committee decides on the projects affecting the particular M.P.'s constituency. I was rather surprised that the Choa Chu Kang project for bringing water to Yew Tee Village was rejected by the Projects Committee because it was not economical. Yet, at the same time, a project for street lighting not supported by me nor by the Citizens' Consultative Committee was approved. How can the Projects Committee explain its decision that the water project was not economical and yet the street lighting project was economical? And if projects are approved and rejected on economic grounds, when has this criterion come about? Can the decision for social service projects be based on economic grounds? I would like a categorical statement from the Minister concerned. Coming down to the detailed administration of the urban and rural services projects, at present Citizens' Consultative Committees are asked to help search the records at the Land Registry to ascertain the ownership where projects affect private land. I am of the opinion that this is imposing too heavy a burden on the Citizens' Consultative Committees, a burden they are not equipped to shoulder. Members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees are local community leaders. They are sensitive to the needs of the constituencies but they do not understand the workings of the Land Registry and the making of searches of the records kept there. Furthermore, the Citizens' Consultative Committees are asked to obtain the owners' permission where any projects affecting private land are considered. This again I consider to be quite inappropriate. It would be more effective if the Urban and Rural Services Committee could obtain the private landowner's permission after ascertaining that any particular project affects private land. All urban and rural services projects are for the benefit of the community and the community should not be held to ransom by private landowners. It is more likely that permission would be given when sought for by Government departments rather than by community leaders who have no official status, at least in the eyes of the private landowners. In the event of private landowners being unreasonable in holding up projects which would benefit a large number of people, I would suggest that the Government should consider exercising powers of acquisition under the existing law as a last resort. 5.29 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, let me praise the Government for their achievements in the past few years, especially in the field of rural development. This is in keeping with our policy and is inseparable from our policy of developing the rural areas. We implement rural development programmes in order to improve the livelihood of the masses of the rural people so that these people, who were neglected by the Lim Yew Hock Government and by the colonial government, can now enjoy modern standards of living. Sir, although the rural development plan, taken as a whole, has achieved much, I feel that we should go a step further and develop the rural areas and not to cut down on the expenses of or slow down the rural projects. As regards what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said, namely, that the amount of $2,700,000 allotted for rural development has been cut down to $1.9 million, I also feel that this is not proper and right. I would like to make two suggestions. Firstly, on the implementation of projects, I feel that the authorities responsible for the various projects are not doing their best. For instance, when certain projects are approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee, it usually takes about a year or more for the work to get started. Secondly, I feel that it is necessary to set up a system of supervision over the projects, because in many places the work has not been properly done. For instance, in Sembawang, one or two months after Kong Loong Road was made up, there were big holes in it. This shows clearly that there had been malpractices in the building of this road. As for the setting up of the Projects Committee on top of the Urban and Rural Services Committee, I think it may not be too important. If such a Committee can make the U.R.S.C, more effective, it is quite all right.

I fully support and subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the rural people were not only neglected during the colonial days, but they are also neglected now. I can prove this in this House on the ground that we were not able to win the support of the rural people in the last general elections.

Mr Ho, I do not think it would be appropriate for you to make party political points in the House.

Sir, I am just mentioning this in passing. We were not able to obtain their support because we had neglected them.

Mr Ho, I think it would perhaps be in order for you to say that the People's Action Party was not able to win their support. But I do not think you can use the word "we".

I would say that the P.A.P. was not able to look into the welfare of the rural people. That is why the Party was not able to win their support. So if the Party can make a breakthrough in the rural constituencies by making the rural people understand our difficulties and by providing them with more and better social amenities, then I feel sure that in the coming elections, we will be able to win -

Mr Ho, I must again call you to order. You can criticise the Government. That is one of your functions as a Member. But I do not think it is open to you, for Party purposes, to criticise the management of the Party in this House. You must keep the Government and the Party leadership entirely separate, regardless of the composition of the House at the present time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that we are only one Party represented here, there is no Opposition. So when I say "the Party", it also means "the Government" and when I say "the Government", it also means "the Party". So there is no actual distinction for me to make.

Mr Ho, there is an important distinction and you must also pay due regard to my own functions and duties in the House.

Sir, comparatively speaking, the people living in the urban areas have received much more attention and amenities than those living in the rural areas. So I hope that in future the Government will be able to provide more social amenities and give more aid to the people in the rural areas who really need the help of the Government. Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -

Mr Teong, you have already spoken. If there are no more speakers, I will call on the Minister to reply. Mr Barker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may deal first with the proposition made by the Member for Bras Basah. He said that the P.A.P, lost the elections in the rural areas because the Government had not paid much attention to development there. On the contrary, the facts are that the Government have spent and are spending much more money in all the rural areas compared to the urban areas. Whether this policy is the correct policy as far as vote-catching is concerned, I do not know. Let us wait for the next elections. But the facts are these. This year, just to give you an example, Anson, an urban area - $9,280. Let us try Choa Chu Kang - obviously a rural area - $77,952, which is. I think, more than $9,000! Kampong Glam - $9,569; Kampong Kapor - $11,425. These are urban areas. They cannot do much with the money that they are allocated. [Interruption] Let us try Changi.

It took four years to repair.

Changi - $87,969.

It should need more because of the two islands.

Jalan Kayu - $69,219. An hon. Member: What about Sembawang?

Tampines - $101,165. Nee Soon - $82,414. If you want Sembawang - $75,000. So the facts are obvious. You cannot run away from these figures. Much more money is being spent in the rural areas. Whether we win the elections in the rural areas the next time depends not so much on figures but on each and every one of you and how you work in your constituencies.

Money is very important.

It is important, and we are giving them more money. The Member for Bras Basah does not get much.

In fact, it is $8,000 - the least!

The Member for Sembawang mentioned a certain road which has big holes within a month or two of making it up or repairing it. I wish he had drawn this to my attention earlier, so that investigations can proceed into whether there have been rnalpractices, in the sense that the work had not been done according to contract, or whether some big lorries which pass there night and day broke up the road soon after it was made. I will now deal with the Member for Choa Chu Kang in whose name this motion stands. He wants a categorical statement from the Minister concerned explaining why a scheme for electricity was approved in his constituency and a suggested project for water supply was rejected. The answer is simple. Choa Chu Kang is allocated $77,952 per year. The Member for Choa Chu Kang, supported by his Citizens' Consultative Committee, wants us to spend more than half that amount on a water main which, according to investigations of the U.R.S.C., will be supplying water to 50 families: the whole project to be done in three phases - first year, $46,000; second year, $46,000. The Projects Committee had already, at the same meeting, approved a water main project for Choa. Chu Kang to the tune of $23,000. Taking $23,000 from $75,000, he is left with $52,000. If we had approved $46,000 for another water main, then work on all other projects in his constituency would have stopped. So does he want to spend all his funds on 50 families in his constituency, or does he want to divide this money proportionately and fairly in various parts of his constituency? If we had more money, we would give it to him. But finance is controlled by the Minister for Finance, and I asked him half an hour ago what I should say to the Member for Choa Chu Kang in case he raised this point again, that not enough money is being spent on urban and rural projects. The answer was a definite `No'. "The State has got no more money to give to the constituencies." In fact, under the Second Five-Year Plan, Government has made provision for $12 million for these projects. This works out at roughly $2.5 million per year. But Parliament actually approved $2.7 15 million for this year. This amount is small compared with the Development Budget. But these are necessarily small projects compared with the other projects in the Republic. It is not correct to say that this original provision of funds approved by Parliament has been cut down by the Projects Committee. The Projects Committee has no power to cut down what Parliament provides. What actually happened was a readjustment of the allocations done by the Ministry of Finance at the request of the Projects Committee. There are certain items which come under the heading "U.R.S.C." in the Development Estimates - like private streets, minor improvements and reconstruction of roads, roadside railings and fencing, footpaths and cycle tracks, roadside drains, roadside trees and shrubs. The total amount for these items is roughly $795,000. When making the original allocation for each constituency, this Committee did not consider these items. These items are usually done by the P.W.D. If they are building a cycle track, they do not build it in Tanglin and stop within the Constituency. They have got to go on to Ulu Pandan. And if they build it in Choa Chu Kang, they will probably proceed on to the next constituency. So these items, for which money was being spent by the P.W.D., had not been taken into consideration by the Finance Committee of the Economic Planning Unit. And when this was discovered, they had to calculate again and fresh figures were given for each constituency, resulting in apparently less money for each constituency. But the facts are that the monies spent in each constituency were not reduced.

For building cycle tracks!

I am prepared to give way, Mr Speaker, Sir. Get up, Mr Tang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, surely the point is that the Member of Parliament for any particular constituency is the best judge of what are the requirements of that constituency. It is not up to the P.W.D, to build, say, a cycle track along Choa Chu Kang and extend it to Jurong. Possibly both Choa Chu Kang and Jurong do not want cycle tracks. Choa Chu Kang, for example, wants water. Surely the question of social services should not be based on economic grounds. A social service is not a trade or a business. Therefore, the urgency and the importance of the requirement must be taken into account. The Projects Committee should not just be allowed to say that street lighting should be installed in Tengah Village and then proceed to spend $16,000 there, when at the same time the people in Choa Chu Kang - in Yew Tee Village - do not have drinking water. The wells there dry up during the dry season and water carts have to be used to bring water to rural folks. Surely in this case the Member of Parliament concerned must have the discretion, even if it means that half of the funds allocated to him goes to this particular project.

Mr Tang, I think you have made your point.

I am merely citing an example. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang will look at the Development Estimates, he will see that money is provided for various items. If he wants water and nothing else, I suggest he start next year. And the first item he asks for recommendation in Choa Chu Kang is this water main project. If he thinks that the Projects Committee turned down his application arbitrarily, I would invite him to think again. He speaks very well of the U.R.S.C. which is under my Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps he will be a little surprised to know that the U.R.S.C. rejected his application, and that the Projects Committee just put its rubber stamp on the application that had already been rejected. We accepted the recommendation of the U.R.S.C. for which the Member for Choa Chu Kang has the highest regard. He has again criticised the setting up of the Projects Committee and wants to know why it has been set up. The Projects Committee was set up by the Prime Minister because of many a complaint received from people like the hon. Member to the effect that Members of Parliament - his own colleagues - who are members of the U.R.S.C. only recommended projects in their own constituencies. I am not saying that that was true. But that was the impression created - that members of the U.R.S.C, only looked after their own constituencies. Because of these grouses and complaints from other Members of Parliament, the Projects Committee, headed by me as Chairman, was set up to process these applications. Let me assure the Member that 98 per cent of the recommendations of the U.R.S.C. are accepted by members of the Projects Committee. And let me also assure him that whatever happens in the U.R.S.C. meetings is also known to members of the Projects Committee, because some persons are on both Committees. Some Members of Parliament have appeared before the U.R.S.C. The Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the Projects Committee is a waste of time. I say that it is a waste of time to hear a Member of Parliament twice. If the U.R.S.C, has given him a hearing, I do not see why the Projects Committee should give him another hearing. Shortly, the Projects Committee makes its decisions on the recommendations of the U.R.S.C. on the availability of funds and whether the proposals are in conformity with the overall development plans and policies of the Government. What really astounds me is that a Member of Parliament can get up in this House and say that he wants to spend half the money allocated for his constituency on 50 families and damn the rest. It is for that reason that the Projects Committee was set up to look into recommendations made by members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees and Members of Parliament. All in all, the recommendations are good, but we have got to be careful. We have got to process them and to decide on them. But if you are allocated $80,000 and you want to spend more than half on a pipeline for 50 families, it will be very difficult for us to agree and to accept your recommendation. As for the Member for Choa Chu Kang, up till September this year a sum of $81,000 was spent in his constituency. In other words, the funds have disappeared. His constituency is not being neglected. We have overspent in Choa Chu Kang within the first nine months of the year, and he wants us to spend another $46,000. The Member has mentioned the question of land titles. There is a little history behind this and I think, Sir, I can put the facts before the House. In the past, Members of Parliament and members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees made recommendations to build roads, put up street lights, and what - have - you -- not caring on whose land the project was to be developed. This had raised complications. There had been howls of protest from landowners; and rightly too. If I own a piece of land and next morning I find a road right through it, I will write to the Prime Minister. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has passed his Bar examinations and I hope he has not forgotten the law of trespass! I am sure many a client goes to him seeking advice on what they can do and what remedies they have in the High Court -perhaps an injunction or perhaps damages for trespass. These are the actions that the Government has had to face because of the indiscretions of Members of Parliament and members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees. Some of these actions are still being considered and are still in the files of the Attorney-General. If I have a piece of land, you have got no right to put a drain right through it. And if you have a piece of land, I have got no right even to step on it. So to suggest that we ignore the rights of landowners is, under our law, an impossible proposition. I would suggest that when we rewrite our Constitution, and if the Member still believes that we should go in arbitrarily and build roads and community centres, lay pipes on somebody else's land, then let him take it up in Select Committee should the Constitution be there, and set out his arguments. But until the law has been changed, I am afraid that we cannot in any way flout it without exposing the Government to all sorts of action for trespass, interference, and damages. Mr Tang See Chim rose -

Point of order or clarification?

On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hate to interrupt the Minister. But I never suggested anything like flouting the law. In fact, if the Minister will recall, I did say perhaps in necessary cases the Government's power of acquisition under the existing law should be exercised.

I did not suggest that it was the Member for Choa Chu Kang who has made suggestions that we should trespass on other people's land. But if you remember, I said that I had to give you a little history of how these points developed. When the Projects Committee was formed, its first decision was that any projects could not and would not even be considered until the landowner's permission was forthcoming. But this led to a howl of protest and it is for this reason that I am raising it here and making it clear once and for all that we cannot flout our own land laws. As for acquisition, we are always acquiring land. And there have been allegations that my Ministry would soon become one of the biggest landowners in this town. We are very careful when we acquire other people's land. For major road widenings, yes. But if you want to build an agricultural road, surely you do not want the Government to acquire land. But we do acquire land for road widening and making of new roads. But if every time the owner refuses to give permission for us to acquire his land and we acquire it, this would cost the Government a big packet and the land would probably not be worth acquiring. To suggest that it is better for the U.R.S.C. to write to the landowner in the first instance I would say is wrong. We have done it - to quote a case in Upper Serangoon where the Member for Upper Serangoon wanted a road metalled. We advised him to write to the landowner, which he did. The landowner said no. So the Projects Committee wrote to the landowner and the reply was to this effect: "At the moment I am having a lot of trouble trying to get rid of squatters on my land. To build this road would only make the stay of the squatters more permanent. When I have got rid of all these squatters, I will build this road myself." So there are always two sides to the question and it is not for the Government to acquire a piece of land to build a road on someone else's land where squatters have been sitting for years. We would rather not interfere in civil disputes between landlord and tenant. Sometimes it is the landowner who is at fault. Sometimes it is the tenant. But the solution is not to acquire the land for the making up of a road. I have nothing further to add, Sir, except this. If any Member of Parliament is not satisfied with any decision of the Projects Committee, I suggest that he file or petition for a reconsideration of the application - perhaps asking for more pipes - and I can assure him that the Projects Committee, instead of arbitrarily rejecting the appeal, will once again give it careful consideration - and if it appears that the decision was wrong, I can assure him that the Projects Committee is big enough to withdraw its decision and approve the project.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to 14th November, 1967.