Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, owing to the total rundown of the British army and the world-wide monetary instability, we disappointingly fell short by 2 per cent in our targeted 15 per cent annual economic growth rate. This prompted the Finance Minister to explain at length the cause of this shortfall, when he presented his annual Budget in Parliament at the end of last month. As a matter of fact, the Finance Minister knows much better than I that to sustain a 10 per cent economic growth rate is a tremendous goal that most countries find difficult to reach; and that a target of 15 per cent growth rate is a high ideal. During the 1960s, our average economic growth rate was 9.5 per cent. In 1971, it was 15 per cent. Our leaders hoped that we could sustain this rate for 1972, and that nothing should be less than this unusual figure. However, in spite of the fact that we had suffered a loss of earnings from the British military expenditure, which was roughly 3 per cent of the GNP, we can still manage to achieve an economic growth rate of 13 per cent. This indicates very clearly that what we Singaporeans have performed is an economic miracle. A month ago, when there was a storm of world-wide monetary crises, an English magazine pointed out that although the Singapore Government had not announced a revaluation of its currency, it was in fact revalued between 1 and 2 per cent. At this juncture, I would like to point out that, in its painless Budget which handed out several tax reliefs instead of introducing any new taxes, the Government decided to appropriate the biggest amount of money to building more housing estates for the middle and lower income groups. Prior to the l960s, there were already those who repeatedly mentioned that with no natural resources Singapore would be faced with two fundamental difficulties which no one could overcome. The first is the problem of mass unemployment; the second is the question of accommodation for half a million of the poorer people. Now, under the able leadership of our present Government over the last 14 years, coupled with the efforts made by our hard-working people, unemployment is no longer a problem today and the problem of accommodation for half a million people is also nearly solved. At present, we are well on the way to a total accommodation of our people through our "Tenants' Ownership Scheme". As far as I can see, the fact that the rate of building has been increased, from 45 minutes to 30 minutes per unit, may be commended in three ways: First, the Housing and Development Board has built and planned to build more and more one-room and three-room flats to accommodate those middle-lower class people who have not been able to find a decent house to live in since the 1950s so that thousands of hawkers, workers, trishaw-riders, taxi-drivers and low paid shopkeepers may have the opportunity to quit the slums and move into HDB flats with provision for water and electricity, and to enjoy a relatively hygienic and modern way of life. Secondly, the monthly rental for a one-room flat is $20; one only need to pay $30 for an improved type one-room flat. The rentals for two-room and three-room flats are slightly higher. This relatively low rental does not necessarily reflect the actual cost of the HDB flat. Jr, other words, the Government has to subsidise $20 for a one-room flat per month and $15 for a two-room flat. The lesser the number of rooms, the more the Government has to subsidise the cost of the building, and vice versa. Thirdly, in encouraging the people to purchase HDB flats by using their contributions, which is a very rare practice in the other countries of the world, the Government is helping the people from the middle and lower income groups to purchase a three-room, four-room, or even a five-room flat. In comparison with the expensive private houses, the HDB flats seem to appeal more to the masses. That is why there is a long queue for the purchase of HDB flats. The Finance Minister mentioned in his Budget Statement that the greater demand for accommodation from the people is being duly attended to. The Government also expresses the need to improve it further. One way of doing this is to raise the building target from 20,000 to 30,000 units per year. In point of fact, in this island Republic where the price of land is rocketing, people from the middle-lower income group would find it more difficult to buy a semi-detached bungalow from private developers. It may be compared to winning the $400,000 lottery. Nowadays, even a senior Government officer finds it difficult to own an ideal detached bungalow. I do not know about most of the Members of Parliament here! The outcome of this trend will be that only a minority of rich people are able to live in such bungalows built by private developers, while the majority of our people will have to settle for HDB fiats under the right policy of our "Tenants' Ownership Scheme". We can foresee that in the 1980s, modern HDB satellite towns will be erected everywhere. It can be anticipated that by then about 80 per cent of our total population will be housed in the HDB kits. In this connection, I would like to stress the importance of improving the environment of the HDB flats. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words about my impressions of a recent visit to some tenants of these HDB flats. I remember that as soon as I walked up the stairs of a block of one-room flats, I immediately saw groups of innocent children playing poker on the staircase, or playing hide-and-seek along the verandah, or helping their parents to look after their younger brothers and sisters, and so forth. I hardly saw any primary school students, who live in these flats, spending their time reading books or magazines. Only occasionally did I find some secondary school students reading books. There was a young man from a family of nine. He was keen in studies, and he wanted me to make a suggestion to the Government that pavilions and arbours should be built in housing estates in order to provide students with a quiet and suitable place to work. Owing to their innocence or under the influence of traditional and religious teachings, some parents have more children than they can afford to care for. As a result, the second generation suffers, despite the fact that their parents work hard during their whole life. There was a middle-aged woman with more than a dozen children, and she approached me for help. From her facial appearance and the way she tried hard to calm herself, I realised very deeply her grievances and sorrows. However, when I crossed a crowded car park and paid a visit to the three-room and four-room flats, the situation changed entirely: both the adults and children were staying indoors; all the doors were fastened as if they lived in a separate world. On one occasion, only after knocking at the door rather loudly did an old woman answer. She explained smilingly that since only she and her grand-children were at home, she would not open the door to let anybody in, unless it was someone they recognise. She then went on further asking me to persuade the Government to remove the gas meter from the house so that the whole family could have more security and comfort. She repeatedly stressed that life had been better ever since they moved out from their atap dwelling to these HDB flats. However, she said that there were too many ears and too many people, and one single act of carelessness could cause an accident and might even lead to loss of life. Moreover, should any one be careless about leaving the door open, one would certainly invite thieves. She considered it wiser to keep the door shut and to stay in and to enjoy the TV. It is just like what the old Chinese proverb says, "A scholar has no need to go outdoors to know of the world". I firmly believe that the present Government leaders, who have always devoted themselves to the nation and the people, would certainly agree with me that these busy, crowded, and noisy housing estates have to be improved upon a good deal. I quite understand that in our new Budget, the reason for the Government to appropriate the largest amount of money to build more HDB flats is to meet the demand of the people which exceeds the supply. I can anticipate further that the new housing estates would certainly have a better environment than the present ones. I am pretty sure that the Government will continue to allot money for the improvement of living conditions of the people in housing estates. On this account may I suggest at least two steps in which the Government could improve the environmental conditions of the housing estates in future? First, the creation of a caretaking system. For a housing unit of 500 to 600 families, we may appoint an elderly caretaker to deal with the general affairs of the estate. Only when this system materialises, will the elder tenants of the flats feel safe to use the lifts in their high-rise flats. Moreover, the tenants may be able to get someone to help in case of accident. Besides, the caretaker can also play the role of bringing the tenants together, promoting mutual understanding among the tenants, and encouraging them to love their way of life in the HDB flats, which will eventually help shape their social consciousness. All these point to the fact that a caretaker can play a very important role indeed. To my mind, this is not a question of money, but a question of system. In the latest issue of the HDB's organ, Our Home, there is much discussion on the problem of security guards and their salaries. It seems to imply that because there is a lack of funds, the HDB authorities could only get a limited number of men to maintain security in the housing estates. However, if we compare the job of a caretaker with that of the security guard, the duty of the former tends to be positive, while that of the latter tends to be rather negative. If, in the words of an old Chinese saying, "One cannot have both the fish and the bear-palm at the same time", I would rather choose the caretaker, because his job is more practical and more applicable to the present situation in the housing estates. I would like to know what the authorities concerned think of my opinion. Secondly, the HDB authorities should do what they can to develop the limited open grounds around the housing estates into parks or sports grounds, so as to enable the old and the young to have a bit of fresh air, or to engage in a game of basket-ball after a day's hard work. This is particularly important to the tenants of the crowded one-room flats. To tell you the truth, Sir, my constituency has not got even a full basket-ball court; it has only half a basket-ball court. That is why at the end of last month, twelve young citizens approached me on the matter of basket-ball practices, and I had to get permission from the Bukit Merah Community Centre for them to use its court. Other facilities, like sports centres, cultural centres, conference or meeting rooms, etc., are what I have in mind, and for the realisation of which we ought to make a yet greater effort. If there is some truth in the proverb which says, "A fool will be wise on a thousand thoughts", then I hope that the suggestions I have put forward will be looked into by the authorities concerned, and that they will take positive steps to implement them. Finally, I shall close my speech with two famous lines from a famous Chinese poet, from Tu Fu Selected Poems, translated by Rewi Alley: `It would be possible to build an immense house with thousands of rooms, Where all who needed could take welcome shelter.' Sir, I fully support the Motion.