Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in full support on the Motion of Thanks to the President as moved by my colleague, the Member for Kim Keat. In moving the Motion, he mentioned that the President in his address at the opening of the Second Session of this Third Parliament on 21st February, 1975 stated in no uncertain terms that "there will be much to keep Honourable Members busy in 1975." In this respect, the President posed several problems to which Hon. Members "will have to tackle." As many Backbenchers will be speaking on this Motion, I shall confine myself to those areas which I am more interested in. I am particularly exuberant with happiness over the fact that the President stated that: `Government will take measures to make it more attractive for young couples to have their parents live with them. If nothing else, the grandparents help in bringing up the children whilst father and mother are at work.' Mr Speaker, Sir, about five years ago, in fact, on 15th October, 1969 [Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 85], I made a plea to the then Minister for Finance who is now the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence to consider granting "income tax reliefs to taxpayers who are maintaining their aged parents." The Minister in reply to my question stated that: 'in Asian societies, the support of aged parents is an acknowledged responsibility of all decent citizens. Indeed, Confucius has elevated this into a basic ethical principle, and Chinese classical literature is replete with examples of outstanding acts of filial piety. In these circumstances it would be unworthy of us to introduce mercenary con siderations such as relief from income tax.' Furthermore, Sir, the Minister continued: `if this approach does not appeal to the hon. Member, may I add a less traditionalist argument? An International Monetary Fund mission has recently examined our tax system and has stated that our tax reliefs are overgenerous and could with advantage be reduced.' With due respect to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, I chose not to press on persistently as economics is his homeground. Moreover, he was in charge of our country's coffers then! But deep down in my heart, I had hoped that the day would come when this matter would again be raised. However, I tried to appeal to the Finance Minister again this time by the so-called "hook" method. On 26th March, 1971 [Vol. 30, col. 1360], I sought exemption for persons earning $6,000 per annum or less. Ironically, our present Deputy Speaker, who was then the Minister of State for Finance, stated that: `the burden of income tax in Singapore is low because of the generous personal reliefs and the graduated rates of tax.' He went on to say that: `Under the Income Tax Ordinance a taxpayer is allowed personal relief of $2,000 plus an earned income relief of 1/5th of his earned income up to a maximum of $1,000. A relief of $1,000 is given in respect of his wife, $750 in respect of his first child, $500 each for the second and third child . .` etc. However, on 26th February, 1973 [Vol. 32, col. 4761, the present Finance Minister declared that: `many Members suggested that reliefs should be given for the maintenance of aged parents and handicapped children on the grounds that the Eastern concept of filial piety requires, among other things, that children should look after their parents in old age. I recognise that with greater urbanisation and more limited living space, the Asian family unit is threatened with disintegration and that aged parents may be left on their own when they most need care and attention.' As a result, the Hon. Minister was: `prepared to give some tax relief as an encouragement to taxpayers who look after their parents and grandparents when they are without work or income.' However, Sir, he said: `a taxpayer may claim a tax deduction from his income of $300 per dependent parent or grandparent. A taxpayer may claim up to a maximum of two dependent parents or grandparents who are over 55 years of age, are supported by the taxpayer and are staying in the same household.' You can imagine, Sir, that I heaved a sigh of relief at this disclosure, even though the amount allowed was small but by no means significant. At least, my colleague, the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, pleaded with the Finance Minister to increase the tax relief to $750 when he pointed out on 8th March, 1973 [Vol. 32, col. 629], that "the tax relief for a first child is $750 a year." In the 1974 Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance said [Vol. 33, col. 72, 4th March, 1974]: `Last year when I announced the relief to taxpayers for supporting parents or grandparents, many hon. Members felt that the tax deduction at $300 per dependant was inadequate. I have given this matter further consideration and I am happy to inform hon. Members that the relief will now be increased from $300 to $750 per dependant. There will be no change in the other conditions announced last year. The increase in the relief will also take effect from the year of assessment 1975, that is, based on 1974 income.' It may well be, Sir, that I have elaborated long enough on this question of tax relief granted to taxpayers who have parents living with them. But I must hasten to add that I take no credit in convincing our Government to grant such reliefs. In fact, the Government should be congratulated for this magnanimous gesture which lays stress and encourages young couples to have their aged parents or grandparents to live with them. Basically, in the Asian society, its cultural heritage differs greatly from that of the West. In a small country like ours, it would be a great benefit if our young could be instilled in their tender years with such good human values like living harmoniously with their grandparents and parents. In this respect, I have visited old folks homes at home and abroad and have come to the conclusion that filial piety must be cherished by the working parents and passed down to their children's children if we are to build a closely knit and cohesive society. As families become smaller within the next ten years or so largely due to a certain measure the successful implementation of family planning, and if the projection of population growth is accurate enough, we would still have large families occupying HDB flats in the various estates. In this respect, I wonder how many families would gather around for a reunion dinner once a year. This annual dinner has its own significance. The Government have a State Banquet each year, in which a select group will attend. At this function, the honourable Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues play host. it is refreshing for one to be invited on such an auspicious occasion in which the invitees not only meet but strengthen the relationship between them and also help to establish the esprit de corps. Similarly, every year the 65 Constituency CCCs and MCs from the 174 community centres attend a rally and dinner to celebrate National Day. Here again, the relationship between grass-root leadership and government is further strengthened. This is another example of human value worth inculcating. I would elaborate on this further when I come to the policy changes in our Education system. May I now come to the question, Sir, of crime prevention. I would like to touch on the question of growing crime rates. I fully endorse the Government's will to mete out more severe punishment to criminals and drug traffickers. In fact, I would like to call on the Government to impose both the cane and longer periods of imprisonment to such people as they do not deserve any mercy. Therefore, the introduction of full-time National Service in the police force is most timely as there is a shortage of manpower. It is my hope that there shall be police stations with the necessary manpower and up-to-date facilities as well in all the HDB estates, though the Addendum on the Ministry of Home Affairs states that four new stations will be built in Toa Payoh, Paya Lebar, Orchard Road and Jurong Town. But whilst there are so many new HDB flats being built, I would suggest that plans should be in hand to construct more police stations in these new estates. We have often read in the newspapers cases of vandalism, molest, robbery and theft, committed in the HDB estates especially in the lifts. As the President said, "we must make Singapore a safe and orderly place to live in." Thus I do not see any valid reason why we cannot overcome this problem because, with the introduction of National Service in the Police Force coupled with the Community Security Force of the Vigilante Corps, more personnel could be deployed to many of the more populated HDB estates. This, I am positive, will help to reduce crime and deter these bad elements from committing such offences as they would realise that it is painful for them when caught and found guilty of committing such an offence. Sir, the Addendum on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in line with our declared policy on foreign affairs. Since the setting up of ASEAN, member countries have come closer to each other on matters of regional and bilateral interest, and I can foresee that a stronger relationship will develop. In this respect, I welcome the formation of a permanent secretariat for ASEAN which will co-ordinate the many regional economic, social and cultural projects to be implemented. Another issue vital to Singapore is sea communications. I have on several occasions drawn the attention of the House that I have received complaints from the trawlers based at Kangkar in my constituency with regard to the harassment and piracies encountered by the fishermen who risk their lives to fish in the waters in the South China Sea in the area near Horsburg Lighthouse as well as in Southeast Asian waters. Several trawlers and crew together with their catches have been captured and held to ransom by so-called pirates. The fishermen are very unhappy over this. In this respect, I would like to urge our Government to have high-level discussions with ASEAN countries with a view to coordinating their efforts in keeping the waters in Southeast Asia free of piracy so that our fishermen can earn their bread and butter without fear of being pirated. Combined efforts and more regular naval patrols will, I think, be a step forward in reducing the number of piracies, if not totally eradicate it. I now refer to the Primary Production under the Ministry of National Development. It is heartening to note that we are self-sufficient in fresh pork, eggs and poultry meats in spite of occasional shortages and high prices of imported raw feed materials. But what is most unfortunate is the fact that "in conjunction with water resources development, pig farms will be relocated into non-catchment areas" in Punggol. As a result, more than a thousand acres of land in Punggol have been acquired for this particular purpose. I fully realise the scarcity of land in Singapore and more so the imperative need to preserve larger areas of land as catchment areas which are free of pollutants. In addition to this, the Defence Ministry also have similar needs for the training of national servicemen. Therefore, whatever vacant land, especially that which is marked for agricultural purpose, is acquired in this instance. Apart from this, lands are also acquired for other purposes. Land availability has become a problem for our Government and I believe Singapore can ill-afford to have lands not fully utilised. Optimum utilisation of land available must continue to be so, as Singapore continues to develop. Therefore, it can be adduced that land in Singapore is worth an inch of gold for every inch of it! Within the acquired lands in Punggol are many farmers, namely, pig, poultry and agricultural farmers. Most of them are poultry farmers and they number several hundred families. I am given to understand that only a few have been promised that they would not be required to leave whereas the majority of them have been served with notices to quit, and some have been promised that they would be getting a three-room Housing Board flat for free, including ex-gratia payments. Here, I would like to make a strong plea to the Hon. Minister concerned as to whether his Ministry would consider the requests of the numerous farmers who have approached me for assistance. They maintain that they are bona-fide farmers and that pig and poultry farming is their only means of livelihood, and they request that they be allowed to remain where they are. Therefore, they state that they are prepared to increase the number of pigs or poultry in their farms to the minimum requirements of the Primary Production Department for the simple reason that they have been farming in the said area since they first came to Punggol. I can hear testimony to their claim as I was born and brought up in Punggol. I feel that consideration should be given to this request which I consider reasonable, provided that these farmers continue to maintain the required number of pigs or poultry. They have also pointed out to me that they would not be able to move into a three-room HDB flat given free to them as they would have no further means of income, and in that case how are they to survive. They also state that they are in the "evening years" of their lives and that their children would like to step into their shoes to continue farming as a means of livelihood. Another reason advanced by them is that there had been several outbreaks of swine fever and poultry diseases in the past few years which almost drained them of their financial resources; but thanks to the assistance of feed retailers and suppliers, who gave them credit terms, they were able to survive. This is part of the reason why some of the bona-fide farmers reduced their stock. People seem to think that pig and poultry farming is lucrative, but I do not think so.