Hansard, 1968-05-14

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) to be absent from the sitting of Parliament today, the 14th May, 1968. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th May, 1968], 'That the following Address in reply to the speech of the President be agreed to - "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'.- [The Prime Minister]. Question again proposed. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying yesterday when the House adjourned, it is time to reorganise our educational system to keep pace with our industrialisation success. Let us review our present position. Last year, of the 144,000 students in secondary schools, only 18,000 were in technical and vocational schools. The ratio is about seven to one. Last year, we produced 417 engineers and scientists as compared with 178 at the sub-professional level. We compare very poorly with other industrialised countries. Take Japan for example; for every five secondary school students, two are in the technical and vocational schools, and for every professional engineer they produce, there are about five supporting skilled technicians. At the same time, we need skilled workmen to build and repair ships and sailors and officers to man them, personnel to run our hotels, builders to meet the demands created by our plans on housing, urban renewal and development. In short, in order that our plans on industrialisation and economic development may continue to be successful, as it has been, we must have sufficient and capable human talent in the top strata, but, more important, we must also provide a much larger group of supporting personnel in the lower echelons. We need to reorganise our educational system to meet this demand. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I digress a bit? When we reorganise our secondary education system, we also keep in mind the womenfolk of this country. I can assure the Member for Delta that the only outlet for women is not in bars as waitresses or as dance hostesses. For example, at the Productivity Centre of the Economic Development Board, a course is run exclusively for girls. I now come back to the main issue. Sir, may I be permitted to go briefly into the types of personnel that we require to meet our industrial needs? We have engineers, planners, etc, at the professional level, and down the ladder, we have senior technicians, technicians, craftsmen and operatives. The senior technicians, whom we generally call technical assistants, are trained at the Singapore Polytechnic for the Technician Diploma. Already, we have the cream of the secondary school students taking these courses. Some of them even have the Higher School Certificate. Last year, for example, the Polytechnic received about 2,000 applications for about 700 vacancies. Then we have technicians and craftsmen, such as the Craft Diploma graduates of the Singapore Vocational Institute. Already two such institutes are being built and more will be constructed in the next few years. They are, in fact, the key personnel in factories, and we are very short of them. Lower down, we have the vocational schools which unfortunately are considered to be for the "drop-outs". We will rectify this. After leaving school, these students will have a period of in-plant or industrial training to qualify as operatives specialising in one type of trade. The institutional training in a vocational school provides a general background education, while the in-plant training will be so orientated as to meet the requirements of our industries from time to time. Sir, in order to attract the best brains to technical education and industry, we must ensure that there is a continuous ladder to the top for those who are capable and those who want to go into this stream. We must provide a parallel outlet to the present academic stream. There will be a new department created within the Ministry of Education to plan, co-ordinate and administer our technical education and industrial training at the sub-professional level. This department will be supervised by a Cabinet Committee, as outlined in the Addendum to the President's Speech under the head Ministry of Education. Plans are already being drawn up to launch a crash programme for the training of craft teachers to man the new vocational institutes and training centres which I have just mentioned. May I assure the Member for Serangoon Gardens that the computer does not play a very important part in the selection of applicants. In case there is a large number of applicants, it comes in only in the grading of applicants and the preliminary short-listing. All applicants will be interviewed as in the case of other teachers-in-training. The sub-professional stream of the Polytechnic, that is the technician course, will be enlarged, and there will be more vocational institutes. The present vocational schools will be reorganised, converted and their syllabuses modified. They will no longer be regarded as schools for drop-outs. Industrial Training Centres will be established to provide the in-plant training facilities to complement the institutional training. We hope that by next year we will be able to see physically the first of these changes, and by 1971, we will have some 30,000 students in the technical and vocational streams. By then, the ratio will be in the region of three and a half to one. Sir, we are embarking on a very bold and ambitious programme to develop our human resources. They are vital to our plans on industrialisation and economic development and, therefore, our very survival. We are confident that we will succeed. 2.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while perusing the memorandum presented to this House as an Addendum to the Speech by the President, I must say that it is physically impossible for me to analyse all the salient features in his policy speech. I can only touch on certain problems which I feel should be tackled with caution and understanding by the Government so that it will not fall or falter. It is my intention to speak on the proposed policies of the Ministry of Labour on matters connected with fringe benefits, employer and employee relations and labour productivity with a view to promoting a better industrial climate essential for our economic growth. As one of the 51 Members in the last Parliament and 58 Members in the present Parliament representing a cross-section of the people, I must confess my bias for labour matters in the past. But in the new context of our circumstances and the gravity of our nation's problems, I feel that one should speak without bias or prejudice on problems connected with labour in this House. Hence in the course of my speech, I hope to be able to drive home my views in meeting the call made in the President's Speech for sensible relations among employer, labour and management. Singapore is fast making a change from an entrepot economy to an industrialised State. In this process, she has to make this island State sufficiently attractive both to indigenous and foreign capital. Singapore must keep the cost of production to the minimum so that her products can be highly competitive. She also has an unemployment problem with 10 to 15 per cent of the economically active unemployed. This figure can be expected to increase with the complete withdrawal of the British Military Forces from Singapore by 1971. Sir, no one in his right senses will say that organised labour is not aware of this glaring difficulty. There is today an effective trade union organisation which is capable of comprehending fully the social and economic problems of our nation. I am sure it will hasten to respond favourably to whatever measures the Government may propose to take to solve the nation's economic ills, provided such measures are reasonable and sincere, and labour interest is not unfairly jeopardised. Under the circumstances, I am sure the organised workers in Singapore will be eager to know what new labour legislation the Government is going to introduce to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of all employees. But before more detailed information is available, it is unwise for me to comment on the merit and demerit of this proposed Bill. Nevertheless, I have certain observations to make on the aforementioned areas of fringe benefits, employer/employee relations and labour productivity. With reference to the Government's intention to eliminate fringe benefits which, they say, are likely to be abused, may I caution the Government that it must make a genuine attempt to distinguish carefully between abusive and genuine fringe benefits. Any attempt at indiscriminate slashing of fringe benefits will bring about much injustice to the workers and defeat the very purpose for which it was intended. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, as you know, in Singapore certain well-established firms whose profit margins are very high and where, as a result of labour efficiency and economies in production, they are likely to move still further towards a better position. Under such circumstances, a reduction of fringe benefits would be most unjustified and the union leadership would not be in a position to advise the workers concerned to accept the proposed terms. Further, labour productivity will definitely be adversely affected if such an arbitrary measure is enforced by legislation, especially when labour realises that there is no reward in putting additional efforts to improve the financial position of the firms and industries. This will lead only to unhappiness, a sense of social injustice and a feeling of exploitation, resulting in a deterioration or rupture of the existing good employer/employee relations. The Government must realise that there is a positive and a negative way to increase labour productivity. The negative way is to tamper with the existing fringe benefits, especially those which have been granted to the workers with the full consent of the employers and the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. This approach is bound to boomerang on the Government. On the other hand, the more desirable positive approach would be to give labour a chance to show their capability for responsibility. In this connection, I call for a more decentralised approach to solving problems, and to persuading labour to exercise restraint. In this way the Government will not be accused of interfering with freely negotiated agreements arrived at by mutual consent between the employees and the employers. In other words, instead of legislation, the working groups of management and the workers should be allowed to make on-the-spot decisions with regard to a particular firm or industry if conditions there warrant any modification in the terms and conditions of service. The Government should exhort management and labour to get together in a spirit of sincere co-operation to identify problem areas and tackle them jointly. For example, management and labour can be encouraged to co-operate in exploring ways for more efficient utilisation of work force, increasing the workers' efficiency through enlargement and improvement of job skills, elimination of unnecessary overtime and restrictive job demarcations, and reorganisation of work methods to reduce production costs. Certainly it is only through such positive measures that positive results can be achieved. Touching on the issue of labour productivity in more detail, it is also my contention that Government and management must not fall into the nasty habit of making labour the scapegoat for low productivity and business failures. Increased productivity is not something that labour alone can achieve. If in a firm or industry there is low productivity, it does not necessarily mean that labour is at fault. It might be due to inefficient management, especially when we have unqualified family management which used to employ their nieces and nephews.

And uncles!

It might be due to other bottlenecks in the industry, wrong predictions made by the entrepreneurs, excessive investments on overheads, large inventories due to lack of understanding of the markets, absence of specialised skill due to faulty training programmes of the industry and so on. These are all factors which might affect productivity, and it is rather naive to suggest that labour should be held responsible for lower productivity. But surprisingly enough, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has been less vociferous in exhorting employers to do their part. Mr Speaker, Sir, over and above all this, I concur with my other trade union colleagues in recognising the over-riding need for the Government to consult with the trade unions before passing laws affecting the interests of the workers. The best thing to do, I feel, is to set up a tripartite council of management, labour and Government representatives to discuss in detail the Government's proposed Acts. Any arbitrary legislation, or any attempt by the Government to bulldoze its way with the comprehensive Employment Bill will result in a deterioration rather than an improvement in the industrial climate now existing. The Government must not make the mistake by thinking that higher productivity can be acquired by merely passing Acts in this Parliament and choosing to ignore the opinions of labour representatives. You can lead a horse to the water. You can push its head into the water. But if you duck its head in too long -

It will die.

- it will fight for its life. Eventually it may lose in the struggle and die. Labour incentive to co-operation and higher productivity can also be similarly smothered. Therefore, in keeping with our democratic aspirations, whatever arrangements the Government has in store for the workers must be reached not by compulsion but by mutual consultation and consent. I hope the Government will understand that healthy union co-operation does not mean the latter's mute acceptance, lock, stock and barrel, of all Government's demands. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister in expressing my appreciation and thanks for the President's Speech. 2.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Ulu Pandan has raised two important issues during the current debate on the President's Speech which fall within the scope of my new portfolio, the Ministry of Communications, may I be permitted to inform the House, as well as members of the public, of my views on these subjects? I have arrived at these views in the short period of four weeks since assuming my portfolio. Is nationalisation of bus companies in Singapore the answer to our transport problem as proposed by the Member for Ulu Pandan? Is this the panacea to our transport problem? This was, in fact, one of the recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry set up by the former Labour Front Government in 1955, under the chairmanship of Mr L. C. Hawkins, a member of the London Transport Executive. Even if the former Labour Front Government had wanted to implement this proposal, it could not have done so because Singapore's reserves had been run down to such a low level, and there was no second Christmas Island to be sold to Australia to find the tens of millions of dollars which would have been needed to nationalise the bus companies then operating in Singapore. When the People's Action Party assumed the government of Singapore in 1959, nationalisation of bus companies was not one of its platforms and rightly so, even to this day! It is not just the question of money alone which deters us from opting for this solution. The whole tenor of the President's Speech gives a grim picture of the future which lies ahead of us, the great efforts and sacrifices demanded from every one of the two million people of Singapore to gird themselves to face the immense economic problems which we must overcome in order to survive. We will be hard put to it to find the hundreds of millions of dollars which will be needed to build up a credible defence force of our own by 1972, and the further hundreds of millions of dollars which will be needed for massive counter-recession public works that have been and will continue to be launched, as a set-off against the consequences of the accelerated British military pull-out by 1971. Even if we have the funds available to nationalise the bus companies in Singapore, are we sure that we can provide a more efficient public service after nationalisation? The experience of other countries has shown that bureaucracy will not only worsen the situation but, worse still, more losses will be sustained which will have to be borne by Government. The end result of nationalisation would be a worse service, employment perhaps of more bureaucrats, and the country will have to carry the burden of heavier losses. As in the case of urban renewal of Singapore, it is not the intention of Government to take on this gigantic re-development scheme all on its own. Private enterprise is and will continue to be encouraged to play its part, with Government offering adequate and attractive incentives all along the line. I concede that the public transport service of Singapore is not what it should be. It can and should be improved, and this can be done within the powers already contained in the various Acts or Ordinances at present in force. If these powers are not enough, I shall seek fresh powers through new legislation. It will be my duty, during my term of office as Minister for Communications, to make a proper study of the transport problems first, and this takes some time. And when I am ready, I will suggest ways and means for its improvement. We are aware of many public complaints regarding the inefficiency and poor service of our bus companies. The Member for Kallang has expressed to me verbally how dissatisfied he is with the inadequacy and inconvenience experienced by him as a bus traveller, and I have promised to look into the matter. The Member for Katong recently drew my attention to a complaint from his constituents regarding the curtailment of the Singapore Traction Company night bus service route 20-B, along Tanjong Rhu. The explanation given by the S.T.C, was curious, that stoppage of the night service was due to a "misunderstanding between the Managing Director and Traffic Manager"! However, the night bus service along Tanjong Rhu, which stopped on 21st April. 1968, was resumed on 12th May. 1968, after a written warning was issued to the General Manager of the S.T.C, by my Permanent Secretary, in his capacity as Chairman of the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority, drawing attention to the fact that bus companies can have their licences suspended or cancelled if they fail to provide an adequate service on an approved route. Of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, the decisions which I shall be making in the near future in an attempt to improve the public transport service in Singapore will be only short-term solutions. As for long-term solutions of our transport problems, this needs the attention of better qualified professional experts and planners. As stated in the Addendum to the President's Speech, besides the two senior officials from the London Transport Board who have been invited under the Colombo Plan Technical Co-operation Scheme "to make a preliminary study of possible new measures to improve and expand Singapore's mass transport facilities", there are at present a team of United Nations advisers attached to our State and City Planning Office "to study the long-range aspects of providing a mass rapid transit system for Singapore." The Member for Ulu Pandan next suggested that as "pirate taxis" are providing service to the public which the bus services are not able to cope with, therefore such pirate taxis should he allowed to operate legally as "express taxis" and that pirate taxi operators should, at most, be subject only to a fine when caught and that their motor vehicles should not be confiscated. In my view, the pirate-taxi problem came into being for two reasons: (1) the growing problem of unemployment in Singapore so that those who do not wish to go on the dole - that is, to seek Social Welfare assistance - turn to hawking or become pirate-taxi operators. (2) the inability of the bus companies to provide an efficient, regular and adequate service for bus travellers. Unless the above two problems are resolved, the pirate taxi problem will remain with us for some time to come, as both the problems of unemployment and a better organised bus transport system will need considerable time and effort even to prevent the situation from worsening still further before attempting to resolve the problems. What differentiates the pirate taxi operator from the properly licensed taxi operator? At the moment, the number of licensed taxis is limited to 3,800. Licensed taxi-owners pay their share of road tax to the Registrar of Vehicles. There is a limitation on the number of passengers carried, depending on the size of the motor vehicle. They are subject to a half-yearly mechanical inspection of the road-worthiness of the vehicle and they have to pay a higher insurance premium to cover liability for passengers. On the other hand, the pirate-taxi operator only pays the lower road tax applicable to private cars, but evades payment of at least $500 per annum which is the additional tax payable for a proper taxi if a diesel-driven vehicle, which is the usual type used. They evade the half-yearly mechanical inspection of the road worthiness of the vehicle and thus neglect proper maintenance of the car to the peril of passengers and road users, and there is no effective insurance cover for passengers in case of an accident. In other words, the pirate-taxi operator is an unscrupulous person who seeks to earn his income through unfair competition with licensed taxis by shirking payment of his share of taxes and expenses of more than $1,000 per annum. It is akin to the nefarious activities of smuggling, for high profits obtainable through evasion and non-payment of customs or excise duties. To suggest legalisation of pirate taxis is equivalent to suggesting legalisation of smuggling activities! If we want law and order to prevail, I am afraid we have no alternative but to take firm action against the activities of pirate taxis. Because of them, the earnings of licensed taxis and of bus companies have been affected. Pirate taxis do "cream" away business which is the legitimate due of licensed taxis and buses. Although over 1,000 pirate taxis have been confiscated by the police and disposed of, there are, unfortunately, many thousands still at large, and they must continue to be severely dealt with by the police, as they must learn to play according to the rules and abide by the law. As an example of the social-minded and patriotic attitude of licensed taxi-owners and taxi-drivers as compared with pirate taxi operators, they have recently organised themselves and donated one day's earnings to our National Defence Fund

Hear, hear!

- which I understand came close to the very respectable figure of $100,000. I would like publicly today to commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (as there are two Parliamentary Secretaries in that Ministry, may I say that I refer to the Member for Jalan Besar) and the Member for Changi for their outstanding work in organising this excellent drive for funds for our National Defence Fund. In conclusion, Sir, may I say that I shall be guided by three general principles in the discharge of my duties in the Ministry of Communications: First, to ensure dependability of transport service, i.e., to provide a regular, efficient, clean and courteous service to the public; Second, speed of service, i.e., as quickly as possible consistent with safety for passengers and goods; and Lastly, lowest cost to the paying public, subject however to both workers and management maintaining high productivity and ensuring a reasonable return for the capital invested. 3.13 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Speech in this House on 6th May has indicated to us the probabilities to be met with in the coming five years. Difficulties and problems will arise by the end of 1971 when the British finally withdraw all their armed forces. However, plans have been made and will be carried out. In fact, some of the plans have already been implemented to overcome the problems and difficulties to be faced. These are based on three main objectives. The first objective is to ensure the security o, the Republic. To achieve this, the Government has taken positive steps to build up an effective defence capability at minimum cost by mobilising our youth in the National Defence Forces. Every citizen between the ages of 18 and 21 is mobilised for part-time and full-time service in the National Defence Forces. I fully support this scheme which has already been carried out. Not only is this a practical scheme that ensures the security of the Republic, but by this means the Government is also able to cut down expenditure for economic development and progress of the nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow workers and I will surely support the second objective of the Government, which is to effect greater economic growth, higher productivity with the elimination of restrictive practices, more efficient management, and to limit fringe benefits, Indeed this objective will be of benefit to the employers if it will provide more jobs and the workers' interests can also be safeguarded; that is to say, if all three parties - the employers, the Government and the workers can benefit. However, in order to carry out the objective, it would appear that it is the workers who will suffer in consequence, and their day-to-day livelihood will be affected, for in the memorandum presented to Parliament as an Addendum to the President's Speech, it is stated that a comprehensive Employment Bill will be introduced to standardise a working week of 44 hours for all employees, to regulate overtime work and to limit certain fringe benefits. This should be carefully examined. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have stated earlier, my fellow workers and I will surely give our wholehearted support to the scheme if it will truly benefit all the three parties concerned. But what is feared is that this much awaited opportunity will be seized upon by the employers to exploit the workers by taking away all their fringe benefits. The benefits which have been enjoyed by the workers are a 39-hour week for non-industrial workers, a 44-hour week for industrial workers, annual leave of at least two weeks for workers under the Clerks Employment Ordinance, and at least one week for workers under the Labour Ordinance, 16 public holidays for clerks and 11 days for labourers, and other fringe benefits. So for every nine non-industrial workers working 44 hours a week instead of 39 hours a week, one person will be redundant. Similarly, annual leave, public holidays and other fringe benefits will be affected. This means that the scheme is not going to provide more jobs to lessen the number of those already unemployed as a result of retrenchment on account of redundancy. Another scheme of the Government, the effect of which will be keenly felt by the workers, is with regard to contributions to the Central Provident Fund for all employees to enable them to buy Housing and Development Board flats. This is an excellent scheme and I support it a hundred per cent, as employees will be able to buy Housing and Development Board flats from their contributions. However, we must also think of the pay they take home every month which will be that much less by the amount of the contribution. This means that they will have less money for their day-to-day expenses; even with their present earnings, they can hardly keep pace with the rising cost of daily necessities which can be seen in the Monthly Digest 01 Statistics. I quote from Volume VII, No. 4 of April 1968: Siam polishd rice 100 per cent - 42 cents per katty in January 1967. Siam polished rice 100 per cent - 50 cents per katty in January 1968. Siam polished rice, five per cent broken - 39 cents per katty in January 1967. Siam polished rice, five per cent broken - 47 cents per katty in January 1968. There are many other items such as -

What about wheat?

(In Malay): The price of wheat has also increased: 47 cents per katty in January 1967. 48 cents per katty in February 1968. Even ikan belis, which is the common food of the ordinary worker, has risen from 92 cents per katty in January 1967 to $1.01 per katty in January 1968 - an increase of nine Scents per katty. There are many items which have increased in price from day to day.

What about blachan?

(In Malay): The price of blachan has also increased from 51 cents per katty in January 1967 to 56 cents per katty in January 1968.

What about Indonesia and Japan?

(In Malay): The charges for hospital care for patients who have hitherto been treated and fed free, and the increase in outpatient charges will affect the livelihood of the workers. Perhaps employees will get free medical treatment as one of the fringe benefits granted by employers as a result of the hard fight put up by their trade unions. This scheme may not be enjoyed by all employees if it is withdrawn by the employers in view of the Government's scheme to limit fringe benefits! But the wife and children and other dependants of workers in need of hospital or outpatient treatment will surely be made to pay the charges according to the new scheme, and this will mean that the workers again will suffer. In my capacity as a trade union leader and representative of the residents of Kampong Kembangan, I very often receive accounts of the hardships experienced by them, for in Kampong Kembangan and the areas around, such as Kampong Ubi and others, 90 per cent of the residents are workers or wage-earners and they live in under-developed areas. The drains are choked with overgrown grass and stagnant water. The Government has not paid much attention to clearing the grass from the drains so that the water will drain off and mosquitoes will not breed. Rubbish is not properly removed, thereby causing flies to breed. These are sources of ill-health and sickness. That is why I believe that the Government Outpatient Clinic at Still Road is the best patronised of Government clinics because of the lack of health service amenities in the area! At this point, I would ask the Ministry of Health to furnish this House with the number of patients treated at every outpatient clinic throughout the Republic for the period 1st January, 1968, to 30th April, 1968, so that we will be able to study the problem and know which constituencies have many patients attending the clinics. Mr Speaker, Sir, I trust that the Government, in drawing up the new Employment Bill and planning to increase hospital and out-patient charges and to impose other taxes, will not adversely affect the livelihood of workers with small incomes. The Government should have prior consultations with the national trade union movement in Singapore and discussions with the National Trades Union Congress, and I hope that their suggestions and views will not be cold-shouldered by Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that those workers who are members of unions led by non-Communist leaders are patriotic, have a strong sense of national consciousness, can adjust themselves in the national interest and are willing to place national interest above personal or group interest. This can be seen from their response to the Government's call to build a strong and rugged society. A good number of our workers have received training at the Youth Training Centre at Buona Vista Road and many of them have given a day's pay in response to the call for contributions to the National Defence Fund. Some have sacrificed one day's pay for work done on a public holiday. My own union, the Singapore Telephone Board Employees' Union, will be donating a day's pay, and the Race Course Workers' Union will be donating a day's pay for work done on a public holiday. Lastly, I support the Address moved 'by the Prime Minister to thank the President for his speech in the House. The Minister for Communications has stated that the Member for Jalan Besar took pains to get donations from taxi-drivers to the Defence Fund. But apparently other hon. Members, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State and Ministers have not contributed. So I suggest that they contribute a day's pay to the National Defence Fund. 3.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I touch on some of the points brought up by Members of the House, let me restate the salient points on educational policy in the President's Speech to Parliament. These are (a) more secondary students are to be diverted to technical and vocational education; (b) a concerted effort to be made to produce bilingual school-leavers; (c) more attention is to be paid to quality in education at all levels; and (d) integration of schools is to be extended to aided schools. How do we propose to achieve these targets? At this stage, I can only tell the House what we have already done so far which is consonant with the declared objectives. What we propose to do specifically to attain the objectives will need careful thinking and refining before implementation. The machinery to bring about the swing towards technical and vocational education has already been set in motion. The Ministerial Committee has already held its second meeting. The beginnings of a separate administrative unit have been identified and an executive director has been appointed. Eventually the executive arm of the council will have its own offices, its own staff and its own budget. It will take over all technical and vocational schools, vocational institutes and co-ordinate technical courses at Ngee Ann College and the Polytechnic below degree or professional diploma level. It will reorganise the curricula in technical and vocational schools to lay more emphasis on practical training. It will create new types of training establishments for those who have left formal schooling and link them up with existing training schemes such as the dockyard training scheme of the Port of Singapore Authority. In short, the Council will formulate the policy, implement the decisions and co-ordinate the activities of all forms of technical education and vocational training both within and outside the formal school system at all levels below tertiary institutions. The target of making all school-leavers bilingual is not a new one. But it is in the approach towards this objective that we hope to break new ground. Way back in 1965 we announced that a second language would be made compulsory in the secondary schools. Next year the first batch of School Certificate students affected by this decision will be sitting for compulsory second language papers. These papers are compulsory in the sense that candidates must sit for them. They are not compulsory in the sense that a pass in the second language is a "must" for passing the School Certificate Examination as a whole. The rationale behind our desire for bilingualism is really quite simple. We are a small nation of only two million people but we have no less than four official languages. Obviously we cannot make everybody quadrilingual. On the other hand, if we are to remain monolingual, we shall not be able to make ourselves understood to one another, let alone build a nation together. Bilingualism is, therefore, not only a compromise but also a matter of survival. What have we done for bilingualism so far? I would say quite a lot, Mr Speaker, Sir, but much of it is unpublicised. For many years past we have been sending teachers abroad to undergo specialised training in the teaching of English as a second language. They have come back to pass on their expertise to other teachers. Together with two British experts they have been conducting in-service courses for all teachers of English in non-English schools. This exercise is now coming to an end, but fresh courses will soon be organised for other teachers who want to specialise in the teaching of English as a second language so that a relief pool of such specialist teachers can be built up. At the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Council's Regional English Language Centre, an interesting experiment is currently being conducted to test the effectiveness of a new language teaching technique involving the use of sophisticated teaching machines. Our Educational Television Service is diverting much more of its limited resources to the teaching of English both as a first and as a second language. If only the planned expansion of the E.T.V, service were allowed to proceed, much more could be done. Our syllabus for English as a second language is being over-hauled. Revision of the primary syllabus has been completed and revision of the secondary syllabus is in progress. We have also experimented with the teaching of Mathematics using English as the medium of instruction in some non-English primary schools, and the results of the experiment are encouraging. This is a new departure on which we place our hope for the future. Our belief is that fluency in the second language will improve if it is used as a language of instruction for certain subjects in addition to its being taught as a second language. But what about Chinese as a second language? Mr Speaker, Sir, the results so far have been disappointing owing to historical reasons. It must be remembered that Chinese as a second language was introduced within comparatively recent times. Moreover, the teaching of Chinese as a second language is a subject in which we have no specially trained teachers. There are experts who very successfully teach Chinese as a foreign language to people whose native tongue is not Chinese. But there are no known experts who teach Chinese to Chinese pupils whose first language is English. This is not to say that we have done nothing about it. An eminent teacher of Chinese as a foreign language was invited to Singapore last year to study the problem. Arising from his report we hope to invite other experts to make a fuller study and to tackle the problem in a systematic and scientific way. From our observations it would seem that the older generation of bilingual people have invariably started their education in their mother tongue and then switched over to English at a later stage. For example, all the Malay officers in my Ministry who are bilingual went to Malay primary schools and then switched over to English secondary schools after a conversion year of intensive English. This was because in those days there was no secondary education in the Malay medium. But now that we have established secondary education in the Malay medium, we seem to be less successful in producing Malay school leavers who are bilingual in Malay and English. Similarly, the Chinese officers in my Ministry who are bilingual went through a similar transition; in this case not for lack of secondary education in the Chinese medium but by free choice. On the other hand, those pupils who begin their education in English have found it much more difficult to learn their mother tongue as a second language even though they are taught that language from Primary I onwards. If there is any truth in this observation, the way to bilingualism would seem to lie in beginning formal education in the mother tongue for a few years, then switching to English as the medium of instruction whilst retaining the mother tongue as a second language. To achieve quality in education the first prerequisite is better teachers. Better teachers require better teacher training, and better teacher training means, amongst other things, full-time teacher training. Two years ago, we made the first tentative reversion to full-time training and the first batch of teachers so trained have just passed out from the Teachers' Training College. More and more of such teachers will be trained in the years to come while the number of part-time trainees will be reduced correspondingly. In two or three years' time, we shall not be recruiting part-time trainees at all. Next, quality in education demands better facilities. In the provision of school buildings, playing fields, sports and other equipment, we in Singapore are second to none in Asia. Unfortunately, we have still to use our schools for two shifts. A gradual reversion to single-session schools will be made, but because of the scarcity of land, only a limited number of secondary schools will in the end enjoy this privilege. Here we propose to begin at the top with the pre-university classes. The first junior college at Linden Drive catering exclusively for pre-university students will open in January next year. It will be a single-session college with many more facilities than are available at present to pre-university students in schools. Although the existing pre-university students attend school only in the morning, they have to vacate their classrooms at 1.00 p.m, for other students in the lower forms of the afternoon session, and they do not have exclusive use of the playing field and other facilities. With the opening of the first junior college, pre-university education in Singapore will enter a new phase and students will enjoy a corporate life much more akin to that of a university. Research of the right kind will also help us achieve quality mainly by eliminating waste. The Member for Katong has suggested that we should set up an independent research unit. I would have thought that the University of Singapore would have been the ideal place for education research. But apparently nothing much has been done there apart from dissertations by students for their Master's degree in Education. In the absence of leadership in educational research from the obvious quarter, my Ministry has had to set up its own modest research and statistics department. This department has been in existence for barely a year and some of its established posts have yet to be filled. Nevertheless, it has already completed three small projects: a survey of educational wastage in Singapore in the past two years, a study of the correlation of the performance of 200 pupils in the 1960 Primary School Leaving Examination and their performance in the 1964 School Certificate Examination, a survey of the teaching of Mathematics using English as the medium of instruction in Government Chinese Primary I and Primary II classes. In the Teachers' Training College too, there has been a revival of research activity. During the past year, two modest projects were completed. One is a study of the motives for choosing teaching as a career published under the title of Why Teach, and the other is a study of the trainee teacher's attitude towards supervision of classroom teaching which will be published soon. A number of other research projects are either in progress or at the planning stage in both the Teachers' Training College and the Ministry's department of research. Finally, we come to the fourth and last objective - that of extending integration to the aided schools. Here, we have formulated no hard and fast rule. The initiative for integration should come from the aided schools themselves. But clearly there is need for something to be done soon. As of last year, there were 87 integrated schools, all of them Government schools with a total enrolment of over 130,000. To date, there is not a single integrated aided school. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me next turn to some of the suggestions made by Members of this House. One Member suggested that the Primary School Leaving Examination be abolished and a new examination be instituted at Secondary II level. Another Member suggested that channelling of students into the technical, vocational and academic streams should be done at the Secondary II level rather than after Primary 6. These two suggestions which are inter-related are professionally sound. As a matter of fact, the very same proposals were incorporated in a paper on educational policy submitted by my Ministry to the Government some years ago. The difficulty in accepting such a proposition is that it would mean automatic promotion to the secondary school for all. And taking into account two chances of repeat between Primary I and Secondary II and two more years of secondary schooling after Secondary II in one form or another, we would have to provide in excess of 10 years of education for a great number of pupils. This was something we could not afford even in the days when there was no need to build up a defence capability. However, I am firmly of the view, which is backed by professional officers of my Ministry, that every child should have eight years of general education before he is channelled into technical, vocational or academic education. We are of this view, firstly, because 14 years is considered the minimum age at which a child is mature enough to begin specialisation. And, secondly, because eight years is considered the minimum period necessary for acquiring the basic language and mathematical skills with which to learn other specialised skills. With eight years of general education, a child of average intelligence will, in fact, have reached the Secondary II level. For others with less than average intelligence, they may have reached only Primary 6 or Secondary I level. There is, therefore, a fundamental difference between channelling at Secondary II and channelling after eight years of general education. That eight years of general education before specialisation is desirable is indisputable. But the question is whether we can afford even this more modest proposal as a result of the build-up in defence. The decision does not rest with my Ministry or the Ministry of Finance. It rests with the Government and it can only be made after very careful weighing of our priorities. In conclusion, let me say a few words for the benefit of those who are impatient for change. There is no advantage in change for change's sake. In education above all else, we must move with prudence and w it h caution, especially in a small multi-racial and multi-lingual nation whose economy and whose survival depends on stability. Let us not forget the trials and tribulations that we have undergone as a result of educational reform in the not too distant past. Let us look beyond our shores to nations with much older educational systems and see for ourselves the troubles that they are undergoing right now. Let us remember that with over a quarter of our entire population in school, any change that we make will affect every man, woman and child in our Republic directly or indirectly. Let us remember too that any experiment we perform in education has to use children for guinea pigs and any mistake we make now will show up only in the next generation. 3.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me join hon. Members in thanking the President for delivering his speech in which he has outlined the three objectives that the Government will seek to achieve in the crucial years ahead. The workers of Singapore recognise the need for the attainment of these objectives, namely, (1) effective defence capability; (2) greater economic growth; and (3) enhancement of national consciousness. As outlined by the President, the crucial problems are unusual in magnitude. The organised workers of Singapore, as led by the National Trades Union Congress, are not only conscious of but also concerned with the problems that our Republic has to face in the difficult years ahead. Recognising this crisis that we have to face and realising that everyone in Singapore will have to make sacrifices to achieve economic success for Singapore, the National Trades Union Congress Delegates' Conference on 7th April, 1968. passed a special resolution giving the Government its co-operation and support in the initiation and formulation of emergency measures that may be deemed necessary. The President too has indicated that sacrifice and greater effort is needed as we face an emergency situation. I wholeheartedly agree that emergency measures are necessary when we are faced with grave problems of economic adjustment of a temporary nature. We are confident that the crisis we face is of a temporary nature and that this Government is capable of solving the problems by 1971. Unfortunately, we have the bitter experience in this part of the world that sometimes emergency legislation passed somehow or other becomes permanent even after the end of the emergency. I sincerely hope that the emergency labour legislation that is to be moved in Parliament will not become permanent even after the crisis is over. As indicated in the special resolution passed by the delegates of the National Trades Union Congress, the workers of Singapore are willing to make sacrifices, but are not willing to commit suicide. The trust and the faith the people of Singapore have placed on the People's Action Party Government in electing all the 58 Members of Parliament shows that the people of Singapore expect us to solve the problems that we face by 1971. For the survival of Singapore, solve them we must. The workers of Singapore are willing to tighten up their belts by two inches or, if necessary, even three inches in order to overcome the temporary setbacks. But if we expect them to remove their belts from their waists and hang themselves, they will never do it. They recognise that the Government is pro-labour in its outlook and it is our duty to see that this recognition is maintained. Co-operation between labour and the Government has not been lacking so far, although in a number of issues disagreements have been recorded. The workers of Singapore have fully co-operated with the Government in the national and wider interests of the country. Similarly, we expect the Government's co-operation and consultation with the labour movement in Singapore when contemplating labour legislation. During this period of consultation, I hope the representations, proposals or amendments as proposed by the National Trades Union Congress to the Bill will be accepted by the Government. Let us not disillusion the workers. Disillusionment will lead to frustration and we do not want a labour situation like the one that existed in Singapore in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Let us not forget that the Communist-led trade unions are still around the corner waiting to exploit any feeling of frustration amongst the workers. Let us also remember that trained Communist cadres are watching from the sidelines. I shall comment further on various aspects of the Bill, when it is introduced in Parliament. As set out in the President's Speech, the Bill will seek to provide a standard working week of 44 hours for all employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said, that this will standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of employment for workmen, clerks and shop assistants. We now have about 137,000 workmen and industrial clerks who work 44 hours a week. We also have about 28,500 shop assistants who also work 44 hours a week. In other words, we have about 165,500 registered workers who work 44 hours a week and only about 33,500 clerks who work 39 hours a week. Therefore, what the legislation will bring about is that these 33,500 clerks will be required to do an additional 5 hours per week. As set out in the Addendum to the President's Speech, this new legislation also seeks to regulate overtime and to enable a wider spread of employment. Sir, this legislation will certainly curtail the overtime of clerks, but will it spread employment? As a result of the increased hours of work, will it result in retrenchment? Will there be safeguards for employees so that they will not lose their jobs as a result of increased working hours? These are questions that will have to be carefully considered and the drafting of the Bill can best be done with close consultation with the trade union movement in Singapore. Trade unions in Singapore look forward to the day of full employment. They realise that there is large-scale unemployment in Singapore, and unless and until everybody is employed, labour will be exploited. Will this legislation that is to be introduced be used by employers to exploit their employees? Will the increase in hours of work for clerks remove the social differences that the blue-collar workers feel exist between them and the white-collar workers? By increasing the working hours of clerks from 39 hours to 44 hours a week, we are not showing that the blue-collar workers are as good as, if not better than, the white-collar workers. We are just showing that the clerks are just as bad as the blue-collar workers. Let us remember that not all employers in Singapore are angels. There will be many who will utilise this legislation to exploit workers for their own benefit. On Friday, we heard the Member for River Valley pay a glowing tribute to the workers of Singapore. Speaking as an employer, he praised the workers of Singapore and assured that the employers will not exploit this piece of legislation. But Sir, not all employers are as enlightened as the Member for River Valley. Sir, we are also aware that there are employers in Singapore who prefer to give overtime employment rather than employ new employees. How are we going to curb them? The Minister for Labour will have to consider all these questions very carefully before the Bill is introduced in Parliament. I must also point out now that the N.T.U.C, is fully committed to increasing productivity and has done and is doing all it can to increase productivity. The National Productivity Centre at Jurong was set up by the Economic Development Board principally through the motivating power of the N.T.U.C. The N.T.U.C, propagates and advances the view amongst its members and the Government that increased productivity is something to strive for. It also seeks ways to inculcate in workers that mass productivity means progressive improvement in the conditions of labour. Increased hours of work alone will not result in increased productivity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the move by the Government to include employees of Government, statutory boards and self-employed persons as contributors to the Central Provident Fund, in addition to pensions or other provident fund benefits. This will go a long way towards compulsory savings and increasing the funds for industrial financing by the Government. The home ownership scheme to be introduced will encourage and induce more construction not only of Housing Board flats but also private building construction. However, it is noted in the Addendum to the President's Speech that the scheme being worked out between the Ministry of Labour and the Housing and Development Board will only enable balances in the present Central Provident Fund to be set off against the first instalment of Housing Board fiats. However, the Central Provident Fund contributions can be used to pay off monthly instalments for both Housing Board flats and privately built homes. The Government should also consider whether the present Central Provident Fund contributors can use their present balance as a first instalment for privately built homes as well, instead of confining them to Housing Board flats. I welcome another excellent feature that is contemplated, that is, the lowering of the assessment in the home-ownership scheme. Under the head Ministry of Education, I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by the Members for Katong, Serangoon Gardens, Paya Lebar and Bukit Panjang, notwithstanding the answer given by the Minister for Education. I am pleased to note that a few well established secondary schools will be converted to single-session schools. Now that the quantitative target has been achieved, we should also think in terms of not only converting more schools to single-session schools but also reducing the number of classrooms in each school. It is to be noted that schools in the last few years have become immense factories where, in some instances, the staff is so very large that the principal, who has to be a professional guide to the teachers, is not even able to know all the teachers by their names. In the 1950s, we had schools with not more than 13 classes in each session. They were managed by two principals, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Today, we have schools with 30 to 40 classrooms in each session. They are managed by one principal who is expected to supervise the teachers and students of both sessions, which is humanly impossible. Now that we have reached the stage of qualitative education, although we may not be able to have one session in every school, we should make a start by at least appointing one principal for one session, which will improve the situation somewhat.

I propose to suspend the House now and will take the Chair again at five o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.10 p.m, until 5.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.00 p.m.

You have a business motion, Mr Barker?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable Parliament to adjourn earlier than eight o'clock tonight, namely, at six o'clock.

I give my consent. Do I have the general assent of Members for the motion to be moved as proposed? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Parliament doth adjourn tonight at six o'clock." -[Mr Barker].

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

5.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of the Prime Minister thanking the President for his speech. The President in his speech has warned us of the serious problems that will have to be faced. All sensible people will take this warning seriously. With the British withdrawal, we will not only be losing a major source of income, but will also have to meet heavy expenditure to build up an adequate defence force within a short period. These are no small problems and it will be foolish to pretend that they are. Some of the steps to overcome these difficulties are explained in the Addendum to the President's Speech and in the Ministerial statements. These will minimise the effects of the British withdrawal, but it will be too much to hope that the normal standard of life to which we are accustomed will be unaffected. With the loss of a major source of income and the expenditure of a large portion of our resources on defence, there will be less available for consumption. We must therefore be prepared for a more Spartan life during the transitional period of the next five or ten years until our economy has stabilised under new conditions. Adapting ourselves to new conditions may not be easy. Giving up luxuries which we used to take for granted may not be pleasant, but they are small sacrifices for a better and more secure future. History has shown us that whether a nation will prosper or perish depends on its ability to change and adapt. Even great nations had floundered and gone into oblivion for clinging to old ways that no longer suited changed conditions. The Employment Bill which seeks to regulate terms of employment to meet the challenges of today is, therefore, to be welcomed. No doubt it will not be well received by those who make it their purpose of life to expend the least effort and to grab as much as possible by abusing every privilege that is available. Such people are not only unfair to their employers, but also to society at large and, finally to themselves as well. Under conditions of a colonial administration where the Government tried to exploit the country and employers tried to exploit workers to the full, attempts to get their own back on their employers were excusable. Such behaviour, however, is unpardonable in an independent country striving for survival. Here every one must pull his weight. There can be no place for passengers. I also welcome the proposal to extend the range of contributors to the Central provident Fund to mobilise savings. The need for increased funds to meet the heavy cost of measures to counter the economic effects of the British withdrawal has been explained in the statement by the Minister for Finance.. Mobilising savings by increasing the number of contributors is one of the most painless ways of doing so. Though it is not the intention, the extension of contributors to include Government servants has also the effect of remedying the situation of Government servants having inadequate savings on their retirement. As an ex-civil servant, I know how modest is the sum known as gratuity which a Government servant gets on retirement. An officer who had reached the very top found, on his retirement, that his gratuity was insufficient even to buy a modest house. The Provident Fund contributions will be a very useful addition to what an officer will get under the Pension Scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, while on this subject, I wish to correct a wrong impression which the hon. Member for Punggo1 might have created when he said that by including Government servants as contributors to the Central Provident Fund, a Government servant will then benefit three ways for his services: namely, pension, gratuity and Central Provident Fund contributions. What is commonly known as gratuity payable to a pensionable officer on his retirement is actually no more than an advance of pension, which is recovered from the retired officer by paying him a reduced pension. Therefore, it is part of pension and cannot be deemed a separate benefit.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the President for his speech at the opening session of Parliament on Monday last. The President in his speech has outlined three important objectives which the Government will strive to achieve over the next five years. The three objectives constitute fundamental issues which must be achieved by the people of Singapore if we truly want to see Singapore succeed and the country capable of standing on her own feet and capable of defending her independence and sovereignty until the end of time. What we have to do now is to utilise every second available to us to strengthen our country's defences. At the moment, we have already a strong army. We need also a powerful navy and air force. Together with Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Britain, we hope our country will have an effective defence capability which can not only ensure the security of our nation but also be able to contribute to the security of this part of the world. In fact, Singapore's security cannot be divorced from the security of the whole of Southeast Asia. The Second World War has proved that when Singapore capitulated to the enemy, the whole of Southeast Asia fell to the enemy. With modern equipment now available, we can easily imagine that if Singapore falls into enemy hands, not only will Southeast Asia fall but the entire region of Australasia will face the same catastrophe. This demonstrates the importance of our having defence co-operation with all Commonwealth countries in this part of the world. We must have an adequate defence capability to ensure political stability in this region. In the next five years, we will be confronted with a multitude of problems which will affect our lives. For us every problem has its solution. Let us say to history, "We will decide on your destiny and not vice versa." Any nation that allows history to determine its destiny will become bankrupt and decadent. Let us determine the course of history. Let us influence history. We should not allow history to influence our destiny. If we can move ahead of history we will forever be safe. We will forever prosper and forge ahead. If we do not wish history to decide on our destiny, we must have a disciplined society, a society with collective leadership such as we have today. We need to have a society which can be likened to an army. If we succeed, it will be a victory for all the people of Singapore. If we fail, it will be a defeat for them. Mr Speaker. Sir, events have shown that we are well on the road to success. I believe that the three objectives enunciated by the President in his speech will be brought to fruition. The next five years shall witness the establishment of a disciplined and rugged society, but efforts must also be made to ensure the creation of a productive society. I would like to propose that we must now start to consider the possibility of having as our future slogan the establishment of a productive society. We must be productive in economy and productive in politics. We must also be socially and mentally productive. But for God's sake, let us be less productive in human procreation. 5.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the President's Speech and the Addendum to the speech in general. But I should also ask to be allowed to say a few words on the objectives of the Government as outlined in the President's Speech. That economic growth, especially in the direction of increasing productivity, be the Government's objective is praiseworthy. That high morale, internationally or internally, be another objective is also praiseworthy. The fact is that high morale and economic growth go hand in hand. In order that the people can be spurred on to greater efforts towards the economic growth and prosperity of the nation, the people's morale must be kept high. I am referring to the high morale consequent upon the confidence which

Mr Cheong, can you speak a little slower? I think the interpreters are having some difficulty.

Yes, Sir,I am referring to the high morale consequent upon the confidence which the people will have in being able to seek a better and higher standard of living. For it must be remembered that while the Government may measure economic growth in terms of the gross national product, the ordinary citizens measure economic growth in terms of per capita income. Further, income is here seen not just in terms of dollars and cents and what that money can buy, but also in terms of what may be broadly called fringe benefits. Sad to say, it is in the proposed Employment Bill that Government policy is cock-eyed. Take the extension of the 39-hour week to a 44-hour week. We are all aware that a high percentage of the economically-active population are unemployed. Even way back in 1965 we had a labour force of 573,000 of whom 502,400 were employed. On the basis of the recent Sample Household Survey and population projections, a total of 827,775 is estimated to be the labour force in 1977. This works out to be a labour force growth rate of 3.5 per cent per annum between 1966 and 1977. This, it may interest the House, is 1.3 per cent higher than the decade from 1957 to 1966, the decade which represents the full impact of Singapore's population explosion. Incidentally, who says that Singapore's population is not productive? In short, if our labour force in 1977 is to be completely employed, something like 308,000 additional jobs will have to be created. Sir, the basic premise of the proposed Employment Bill is "to enable a wider spread of employment". This, if I may be allowed to say, is a laudable objective, bearing in mind that we have a high rate of the population dependent on the earnings of only a comparatively small income-earning group. This goal of the Government, if achieved, will go towards promoting economic growth and raising morale. How, it may be asked, does it bring about high morale? It is evident by way of an illustration that a man with five mouths to feed will surely feel greatly relieved when his son gets a job, let alone the prospect of a bigger family income. The fact that there is one dependent less to feed means that there is more to go round the rest. Therefore, the Government's objectives of economic growth and high morale cannot but gain high commendation. But does the proposed legislation of a 44-hour week help in any way towards achieving these two objectives? Further, does it in any way help towards a wider spread of employment? Sir, I respectfully submit that it does not. I am, of course, not unaware that certain categories of workers are presently engaged on a 44-hour week. Extension of the present 39-hour week involves the working of an additional five hours per week per worker. Assuming that 50 per cent of our employed labour force of 502,000 put in the additional five hours per week, this would total 1,255,000 hours per week. If these workers had continued with the existing 39-hour week, about 32,000 additional jobs could be created. Sir, I repeat 32,000 additional jobs. This is surely a figure to reckon with in terms of economic growth and high morale. On the question of regulation of over-time, I should like the House to see this in the light of the proposed 44-hour week as against the 39-hour week. The additional five hours per week that would be so affected represents a loss of five hours per week of overtime earnings. This is certainly not a situation conducive to high morale. I do not suggest for one moment that excessive over-time should be encouraged in the face of massive unemployment. But the basis upon which excessive over-time must be curbed is so that people can be employed and national income may be increased. The basis is not for the purpose of exploitation of labour. Yet this is what it will amount to if overtime work is curbed on the one hand and hours of work are extended on the other. I fear, that this so-called comprehensive Employment Bill that is to come is nothing but a cock-eyed and retrogressive policy. It is to be noted that among the measures to be implemented in order to achieve the objective of economic growth is one which seeks to "limit certain fringe benefits to lessen abuses and increase productivity". I propose to deal with the aspect of productivity first. It is agreed that the ultimate goal of increased productivity is to raise the standard of living, not the cost of living. In other words, such a drive is calculated to achieve greater economic growth and high morale. This is certainly another laudable move. The success of a productivity drive may best be evidenced in the lowering of prices of goods and services. It has been mentioned earlier that the sum total of a man's high morale constitutes, amongst other things, not merely his income, but rather what his money can buy. Is any drive to increase productivity likely to result in lower price levels? I humbly submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the chances are not too bright. At least not unless some form of price control is established. I submit the following reasons for maintaining price controls which are necessary before lower domestic prices can result: (1) Protection of infant industries, necessitating the imposition of import quotas and restrictions. This results in an immediate rise in prices of commodities, i.e., a price mark-up. (2) When these same commodities are produced in Singapore, the prices are the same, if not higher than the marked-up prices. (3) Even when productivity is increased by virtue of the smallness of the local market, the producers are not likely to demonstrate their concern for lower prices of their commodities. In short, coupled with the continued protection of industries, a take-it-or-leave-it attitude will prevail. Who then benefits from increased productivity? Not the workers who have sweated for it and not the consumers in the domestic market. For these reasons, there arises the urgent need for a system of controls which will make it imperative for producers to lower their prices. If such a system of controls is not established to give an assurance of just rewards, it is not unreasonable to say that our workers will participate in this productivity drive with suspicion. For it would be a fair question for them to ask, "Why should I sweat it out so that my employer can make more exorbitant profits at my expense?" Incidentally, it should be borne in mind that many of these ventures are either foreign-owned or joint ventures with high participation by foreign capital. The outflow of profits would, therefore, affect our balance of payments position. On the question of limiting certain fringe benefits to lessen abuses, I should like to hazard a few guesses as to what this would mean. It would mean that paid annual leave will be reduced. As to how much is another question. It would mean that a number of paid public holidays will be out. It would mean that the worker's entitlement of sick leave will be reduced whether drastically or not is to be seen. Sir, I am wondering what the Government seeks to drive at by limiting such fringe benefits. Does the Government hope, along with the proposed 44-hour week, to provide a wider spread of employment? If the answer is in the affirmative, then I beg to submit that something has gone wrong with my little head and the heads of many people who share my view. The effects of limiting fringe benefits are not inconsequential in terms of morale as well as money. When examined closely, this is tantamount to a subtle wage cut. Mr Speaker, Sir, I repeat - a subtle wage cut. I am not an economist, but the House will recall that not so long ago the necessity for expenditure was emphasised, expenditure to counter recession. The necessity for expenditure was argued on the ground that "expenditure generates income and creates employment". My argument is this. In order to spend, we need income. If income is cut, how much can we spend? Further, as presented earlier, there is the argument for non-extension of the 39-hour week on the ground that additional jobs will then be created. With the availability of jobs and income, expenditure is forthcoming. All this results again in the creation of further employment, greater economic growth and high morale. I am not unaware of the proposed second Central Provident Fund contribution which, for the purpose of collective bargaining, would count as part of the wage bill. But I have doubts whether this compulsory contribution will be able to offset the losses that arise with the proposed Employment Bill. The spate of retrenchment has grown quite alarmingly. I fear that the proposed Employment Bill will aggravate the situation, not mentioning the temptation of management to misuse their authority. In this connection, I would support the hon. Member who spoke before me and would urge the Government to consider seriously the setting up of a retrenchment and! or unemployment insurance scheme. The ranks of the unemployed are already massive without the retrenched workers swelling their ranks. The price we have to pay for such a restive, displaced and literate population is too heavy. In many developing countries, Marxist theory has won great appeal. Our task is to see that this threat does not become real. If radical changes must come, be it in the Employment Bill or elsewhere, I plead that this threat be borne in mind. Finally, the proposed additional Central Provident Fund contributions are indeed commendable. I should like to consider this in relation to the civil service employees when they resign. The present Government regulations are such that when an employee resigns, he does not get a cent by way of gratuity or accrued retirement benefits. This is the case irrespective of whether the employee has served five or 15 years. We are all agreed that such regulations are trappings of a colonial era intended to exploit the workers in a colony. We are further agreed that the Government, being the largest employer, must be a model employer in terms of fairness and justice to its employees. I maintain that if the Government is a government of the people, it must rid itself of the vestiges of colonial trappings and give its employees a fair deal. I therefore urge the Government to consider granting gratuities and such other relevant benefits when their employees resign.. Forfeitures may possibly be made where an employee resigns in order to avoid dismissal. Such entitlement then may be put into the proposed second Central Provident Fund contribution scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have stated at the outset that I have only a few words to say, but perhaps I ought to amend that by saying that I have had quite a few words to say. I should like to end here as I began, by saying that except for the views expressed by me, I support the President's Speech. 5.34 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, every head of state of a country has to make a policy statement. Perhaps in some countries, the delivering of the policy statement will be merely an official ceremony. Singapore is now an independent Republic after 150 years of existence, and the President delivered the policy statement at a time when new faces appeared in this House to instil a new spirit into the leadership of our country. This is a milestone in our social development and it also reflects the direction of the social development and changes that will come about. We do not have to wait for five years to judge the results and the worth of the policy statement delivered by the President because it is well planned. At the same time, we have a strong and dynamic leadership and, therefore, we can foresee the results of the policy statement. Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Speech has made us understand that not only is our society changing but the whole of South and South-east Asia is also changing. We must be awake to this situation. We must recognise our attitude and the work we are doing, which are factors that contribute to the changes. Although we cannot foresee future events in detail, we can make use of existing factors to create favourable conditions and guide the trend of events in a direction that is more favourable to us. In order to achieve this, we must first consolidate ourselves. The more stable our society, and the more consolidated we are, the greater will be our influence over these changes. I call this trend stabilising strength. Generally, when we talk about stabilising strength, we do not mean just economic and defence strength. The comparative strength in party politics should also be taken into account. The present phenomenon of one party in this House is also a valid reflection on the comparative political party strength. But this comparative strength comes within a constitutional scope. The existence of one party in this House and the near unanimous opinion of its Members should not be interpreted as the proportion of the comparative political strength among the people to be 100 to one without any latent or apparent opposition force. But it cannot be denied that the existence of one party in this House can adequately reflect the comparative strength between the majority party and the minority extremists. In fact, the victory of democracy is normally defined by majority support. Our democratic victory is true and reliable, because the existence of only one party in this House is the result of the general consent of the people of Singapore through democratic elections. Another reason lies in the fact that in the history of Singapore since 1946 - two decades ago - political victories could only be won through constitutional channels. Constitutional victories have been won by the democratic socialists. Such examples are not lacking. On the other hand, we do not see many such victories going to the Communists. It is very seldom that they have achieved victory through constitutional means. Today, we know that our democratic victory has been achieved in a series of waves which are not isolated from one another. Our victory has been won on a constitutional basis. But the changes in turbulent South and Southeast Asia and even in larger international confines are not entirely in keeping with constitutional development. For instance, the war in Vietnam is not a constitutional war. Not one bomb dropped in Vietnam is done constitutionally by a prior statement to that effect. Many of my colleagues and I appeared on the political scene when politics reached a decisive stage at a time when there was a struggle against the Constitution. Some of us went through the constitutional upheaval when Singapore withdrew from Malaysia. We should, in our minds, make certain preparations to meet the changes, whether our feeling is one of hardship after the trials and tribulations or one of great daring after overcoming these difficulties. The greater our achievements, the greater is our need for making these preparations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak more about these preparations. The first concept in making these preparations is to have the fullest control over the time and human factors so that we can progress as fast as possible. In this respect, we cannot remain static in our approach or adopt a wait-and-see attitude. We should try to progress as fast as possible. We should try to run a 3,000-metre race at a speed as if we are running a 100-metre race. It is only in this way that we can ensure our survival. This principle is known by many of our neighbouring countries. We are not the only people who know about this. We are endeavouring to develop aviation whereas our neighbouring country, Malaysia, is already negotiating a civil aviation agreement with Indonesia and relaxing some of the restrictions on aviation. Furthermore, Indonesia is prepared to train Malaysian pilots. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we are doing this, we cannot help thinking that we are a small country. In terms of manpower, we should equate one man to 100 men. In terms of expenditure, we should equate $1 to $100. In other words, we should try to achieve maximum results at a minimum cost. In terms of time, one year to us should be longer than 100 years to other people. Of course, this does not mean that we live in a fairy land where seven days are equated to 1,000 years. Rather we should try to strive for the highest value in every respect. Mr Speaker, Sir, I go on now to the second concept in making these preparations. Put simply, it is this. Our basic standpoint should be inflexible, but in strategy we should be flexible. If we make these preparations, even though we have won our constitutional struggle, we will not be like the Romans in history who, while they were still dreaming beautiful dreams, were invaded by the barbarians and as a result, their civilisation was destroyed. Although they preserved the Justinian Roman law or legal code, it was no use to them. One of our objectives should be to try to have the constitutional supersede the unconstitutional. When we talk about flexibility, I think we should take note that in our Parliament we have only one party. This, however, is not contrary to the spirit of democracy. It is merely an expression of democratic strength which has led to the creation of a somewhat unusual situation. The main reason is that the democratic system has a certain tradition which is based on the Westminster model. Therefore, by comparison, our democratic system is rather new. We should therefore adapt ourselves, in concept and in theory, to the democratic system. In any case, although we have only one party in Parliament, this does not mean that we have a one-party autocracy. Our constitution still provides for an Opposition party and it can enter Parliament by taking part in democratic elections. What the Communists want is a one-party autocracy. If our party were a one-party autocracy, we would have gained the praise and support of the Communist Party. However, the slanderous and derogatory remarks made by the Communists on Parliament show that we do not have a one-party autocracy. Mr Speaker, we know that in transplanting the democratic system from Western soil to Asia, there are difficulties involved. These can be likened to the difficulties that beset a heart transplant. For example, in the case of Burma - the Chairman of the Revolutionary Council of Burma, General Ne Win, came to Singapore recently - social democracy was practised at one time. But later they had to abolish the traditional election system. In fact, in some developing countries in Africa, there has emerged one school of thought which holds that the one-party system rather than a multi-party system is necessary during the transitional period between independence and stability. For example, in Kenya, there was practice of a one-party system for some time before the multi-party system was revived in the face of great stability. In Tanzania, we can see the present practice of a democratic one-party system. What is the feature of the one-party system? It is the intoleration of Opposition parties. This is quite different from the system that we have in Singapore. Here, apart from the party in power in Parliament, there are Opposition parties outside Parliament. This is a clear indication that we are not practising a one-party dictatorship. Mr Speaker, in a democratic system, we should be more concerned with the multiplicity of political parties. There should always be one or two political parties strong enough to take over the reins of government. However, the multiplicity of political parties would mean the emergence of a feeble coalition government followed by the tragedy of a coup d'etat and the abolition of the democratic system itself. For example, in trouble-stricken Congo there were at one time about 200 political parties in existence. But their existence did not bring any happiness or benefit to the people. Instead the existence of so many parties brought crises and troubles. In Singapore there are about 20 political parties, both active and dormant. In so far as the democratic system is concerned, this is not necessarily a bad sign. We are still in good health. Mr Speaker, whether a new Opposition party will emerge in Parliament in the l970s is a question for the future. At the present juncture, we need not over-emphasise the advantages of a one-party Parliament. If we do have to emphasise it, we can very well say that in a small nation like Singapore surrounded by other countries, we do require a strong and invincible party in power in Parliament. If we do have to explain why there is the emergence of a one-party Parliament in Singapore, we can very well say that it is because of the enlightened leadership in our party. It is because of the obvious achievements which we have made, and which are well known to everybody, that it is no wonder that we have been able to sweep the board of all the 58 seats. These are not matters which we should argue about. We should, however, adopt this attitude; we must accept a one-party Parliament as a fait accompli. Then under the democratic arrangements we must try to do better than a multi-party Parliament. In any case, we should try to do no less better than a multi-party Parliament. At the present moment, there is no Opposition in our Parliament, but the reform and the reorganisation that the present Government is seeking to carry out is beyond the imagination of any Opposition party, even if one were to turn up. Furthermore, we have new blood in our Parliament and we have made our Members of Parliament more representative by choosing them from all walks of life. In the President's policy speech we can see that there is determination to seek improvement and changes. We have no desire to rest on our laurels. All these are indications that even without an Opposition, we are capable of marching forward. This has been the point raised and agreed to by Members of Parliament when they support the motion of thanks. Mr Speaker, I now wish to deal with some points raised by several Members of this House. The Member for Punggol and the Member for Jurong have mentioned the difficulties of some fishermen who, when they went out for deep-sea fishing, were themselves whisked away by pirates. I remember on the 24th January last when Parliament sat, these same Members raised the same question that they are raising today. I would like them to read the report in Hansard concerning this matter. The answer given by the Minister of State concerned is still valid. There has been no change. What I would like to explain to this House is that the Ministry of Defence has now strengthened the marine patrol system which will improve the situation. There will be more patrol boats to handle this kind of situation. The Member for Ulu Pandan has mentioned the two-year military training under the national service scheme for university and college students, and he requested that the period of training should be reduced to one year. He said two years would be a waste of their knowledge. But I would say that we are still growing and the youths are still growing. So this is the best time for us to contribute our strength. What we need at the moment is not a very large army but a small army of regulars supported by a large reserve of national servicemen. We are adopting the principle of quality and not quantity. If we want quality, two years' military training may not be too long for university or college graduates to man our future army. If we look at the Hitler type of hair-do of the Member for Ulu Pandan, we can know that he is frustrated by the considerations he has in mind. But we must, first of all, consolidate our defence, so that everybody will have a sense of security, before we can put all our talents to better use. If we are faced with the problem of national security, even if we have enough graduates with a wealth of talent, we cannot make full use of that. When a country does not exist, where can its people use their talent? Their capability and knowledge cannot be used at all. The best one can do is to compile statistics to show how - 6.00 p.m.

Mr Lim, I am afraid you will have to conclude your speech tomorrow. It is six o'clock now, and pursuant to the resolution made earlier today, the House will now rise. The debate will be resumed tomorrow. Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock p.m.