Abdul Aziz Karim
Singapore
“How much opportunity and time are given to the large number of workers to improve their skills when they are limited to doing routine work? Let us create a climate where the people, like the Germans, for example, are incessantly seeking knowledge and wanting to improve their skills.”
“Sir, the Bill before the House is more modern and progressive than the existing law. However, I have some reservations in respect of certain clauses of the Bill professing to serve the interests of workers. But since it has been indicated that the Bill will go to Select Committee, I reserve my comments on the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are examples of harmful styles for our young generation to imitate. This is the society we create. How much can we blame the present generation. First, we must demotivate ourselves.”
“Sir, the Minister has been discussing the best performance of SBS. I have harassed the Minister for Communications regarding this. I am not sorry. It was my duty, and it was his duty to reply to the questions.”
“Any damage is repaired as and when necessary by the Roads Branch of the PWD or the HDB. Oil drippings from buses are inevitable unless a very high standard of maintenance of the buses is exercised by the bus owners. The PWD and HDB do take action against any misuse of the bus termini.”
“Sir, I was saying that repair and maintenance bills are given tax allowance. My question is this. Is it possible for excessive repair and maintenance bills to cause leakages in the SBS finances, when it comes to taxation?”
The complete record
Every one of 241 lines we hold for Abdul Aziz Karim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1303 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1071. Sir, you will recall that the Minister for Health told this House during Question time on the 22nd of December, 1969 [cols. 175-6], that the work of the Industrial Health Unit will be expanded to include the following: (i) to assess the occupational health problem in Singapore by selected examinations and evaluation of the working environment of our workers; (ii) to study and draw up preventive measures appropriate to local conditions; (iii) to formulate procedures for periodical medical examinations as a control on hazardous occupational groups; (iv) to undertake factory inspection of working environmental conditions and enforcement of relevant sections of the Factories Ordinance and related occupational legislation, normally administered by the Ministry of Labour, with reference to the health of the workers; (v) to advise and give information on occupational health to industries; (vi) to prepare codes of practice and modifications to present legislation and subsequent implementation; (vii) to undertake research and teaching in connection with the primary objectives of the occupational health programme in Singapore. I am sure workers at large do welcome the Minister's concern for their health and welfare, and would be grateful if all the objectives of the Industrial Health Unit could be fulfilled. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is hard to be convinced that the health of the workers can be well taken care of by the proposed Industrial Health Unit.”
“They are not so much concerned with teaching the children during the three hours as with laying emphasis on proper training in living, discipline and group co-operation. The Ministry can also, with the co-operation of the Adult Education Board, conduct certain courses for teachers. All teachers must undergo training and certificates will be awarded to them if they are qualified to teach.”
“" So the children are disgusted and they lose interest in whatever is being taught to them. This will have an adverse effect on their primary education. The Ministry of Education should take measures to train teachers of kindergartens. There are also kindergartens run by some political parties, but I do not intend to ask the Ministry to close them down. In addition to imparting certain elementary knowledge to children, these political parties also try to indoctrinate them with political ideas. I do not think it is necessary to take action against these kindergartens. But we should take responsibility not to mislead our young children. I feel that the Ministry should carry out investigations into the qualifications of the teachers in these kindergartens, and also to supervise their teaching. The Ministry should find out where these kindergartens are housed. It should also conduct training courses for the teachers. Just as the Teachers' Training College trains teachers of primary and secondary schools, so should it conduct courses for kindergarten teachers. As regards the sites of kindergartens, we cannot expect an ideal environment because they are housed in old buildings. But as regards the teachers, we should see that they are given training so that the pupils are properly taught. I have been informed that the teachers of kindergartens run by the People's Association are given training. The training is in two stages. Firstly, the teachers must attend classes run jointly by the Adult Education Board and the Ministry of Education. After that, they have to undergo a training course in the People's Association conducted by a specialist trained in Australia. As a result, the kindergartens run by the People's Association are well organised. 7.30 p.m.”
“I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $182,230 for Head 0602 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0701 - Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr N. Govindasamy and Mr Ho Kah Leong) Sir, I would like to raise a point regarding the mushrooming of kindergartens in the Republic. In the past, these kindergartens were not popular. But since 1967, they have been conducted by various community centres under the auspices of the People's Association. And ever since, many private kindergartens have sprung up. For example, missions and churches have also started kindergarten classes. This is a good sign. In other words, kindergarten education is popular and widespread and our young children are being looked after. This is a sign of progress for our country. However, after a lapse of three or four years, a problem has arisen. The fact is that the teachers of kindergarten classes have not been given training. They have not been trained in child psychology or in the method of teaching. They are not qualified teachers. They are only graduates of Secondary IV and some of them do not even have this qualification. Yet they are employed as teachers to teach children in the kindergartens. We have found that children who have completed a two-year course in the kindergartens have been taught certain lessons which, strictly speaking, should be taught in Primary I. As a result, when these children are admitted to Primary I, they have already formed certain conceptions and they are not interested in whatever the teacher teaches them. They even tell their teacher, "I can teach you to read this character or word.”
“Sir, as the Minister does not wish me to probe any further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Abdul Aziz Karim (2)That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0602 be reduced by $100.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0602 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2002. Sir, briefly, can this House get an explanation why the provision for Allowance for Panel Members and Referees has been slashed from $12,500 for a 15-month period from 1st January, 1969, to 3lst March, 1970, in the 1969-70 budget, to $3,500 for 12 months from 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971? I reckon that $3,500 is just enough for 35 full days court sittings. Is it anticipated that there will be fewer cases, fewer hearings and quicker rulings? Is it because fewer panel members are going to be appointed? From the statistics provided in the Annual Report of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court for 1968 (S. 6 of 1969), the number of cases has dwindled from 100 cases in 1966 to 78 cases in 1967 and 46 cases in 1968. Awards delivered by the two Courts were 72 in 1966, 47 in 1967 and 31 in 1968. The number of referee decisions were eight in 1966, two in 1967 and none in 1968. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am wondering if the First Court will suffer the fate of the Second Court. All that we have is a registrar of collective agreements, no presidents, no panel members and no referees. I foresaw the closure of the Second Court. Can the Minister let us know his inner thoughts in this respect?”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I have said enough just now. I am not moving. The following amendments stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong - (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect o subhead 1131. (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1151. (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1201. Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving my amendments. The following amendment stood in the names of Madam Chan Choy Siong, Mr P. Govindaswamy, Mr N. Govindasamy, Mr Cheong Yuen Chee. Mr Lim Soo Peng, Mr J. F. Conceicao, Mr P. Selvadurai, and Mr Lim Cheng Lock - (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1251.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister has admitted that his Ministry has not been paying very much attention to the problem of industrial health and safety in the past. However, I feel he has already realised that work safety is important for the workers and for the economic well-being of the country. I am going to withdraw my amendment, but before I do so, I will say to the Minister that if his Ministry does not do anything by the next budget, it will get more hammering from labour. I am sure good employers like the Member for River Valley and the Member for Jalan Kayu will be on my side. I beg to withdraw my amendment.”
“I hope the Government will do everything possible under the present circumstances by introducing measures to give maximum protection to the health and safety of workers. It should be remembered that a worker is not a digit of production. The Ministry said that a worker is a digit of production, but I say that a worker is, in every sense of the word, not a digit of production. He has life; he has a mind; he has feelings; he has sense and feels pain. I hope the Minister will give every consideration to revising and modernising the Factories Ordinance, after hearing the representation from my labour colleagues and me. 6.45 p.m.”
“In 1968, there were 3,854 factories. The owners or occupiers of 1,770 factories had committed infringements of the law ranging from the installation of electrical equipment not in accordance with the generally accepted principle of sound and safety practice, and using unsafe machinery, equipment and tools, to infringements where no fire-fighting equipment and Safety-Aid boxes were provided in the factories. In 1968 itself, $1,104,193.22 was paid out by employers in 8,147 workmen's compensation cases. Among those 8,147 accident cases, there were 109 fatal cases, five total permanent disablement cases, 690 partial permanent disablement cases, and 7,343 temporary disablement cases. The Ministry of Labour piously reported that there was no case of occupational disease, but the Ministry of Health Report, (Paper Cmd. 1 of 1970) estimated that some 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the workers in the 26 quarries in 1967 in Singapore were suffering from some form of pneumono-coniosis, which means that about 500 to 600 of these workers are victims of this dreadful and deadly disease. Asbestosis among workers dealing with asbestos work, and lead poisoning among workers in battery factories and lead smelting plants, are quite prevalent and should not be disregarded. I reckon, however, that there will be realistic changes in legislation by the Government after it has heard and studied representations by responsible representatives of labour in this Chamber, and through the National Trades Union Congress. I do recognise and accept that the proposed changes to the Factories Ordinance should be studied carefully and thoroughly by the Government and industry.”
“' Sir, may I ask why it is minimum and not maximum standards? I have said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour admitted during Question Time on 23rd December, 1969, that the Factories Ordinance is inadequate, so much so that the I.L.O. safety regulations have been referred to and, wherever possible, applied and imposed. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion the Factories Ordinance is inadequate to look after all situations in matters of industrial safety and health, although there is provision in this particular piece of legislation whereby the Minister can make special regulations to uphold higher standards of safety and the health of workers in industries where the risk of bodily injuries is abnormal. I believe that if the Minister is fully aware of the importance of the problem of industrial safety and health to productivity and the economy of the country, he will not hesitate to introduce legislative and administrative measures to bring about higher standards of industrial work safety in factories. I would strongly urge the Ministry to pay greater attention to the question of work safety. I think more could be done in this field. From the low budgetary provision for the staffing of the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit, the lack of legislative and administrative measures, and the sketchy official report, one could not but get the impression that scant attention is being paid to the safety and health of workers. I would think that with the high occurrences of infringement of the law, the high occurrences of industrial accidents and payments of workmen's compensation, some positive steps should immediately be taken to check the loss to the economy and personal losses to the workmen and their families.”
“I believe that for the Factory Inspectorate to function more effectively, many more things need to be done. The Factories Ordinance must be revised and modernised to suit the present and future situations in industries. It is inadequate in many ways, and the Chief Inspector of Factories can best testify to its inadequacies. The Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour dealing with safety, health and welfare plaintively described the pitiful situation under which the Chief Inspector of Factories and the other inspectors have to tackle their tasks. In the 1968 Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour, (Paper Cmd. 27 of 1969), the Ministry admitted that the scope of the Factories Ordinance is not broad enough, and the Factory inspectorate has to resort to the safety regulations of the International Labour Organisation for guidance. I suppose these safety regulations have discreetly been imposed upon the owners and occupiers of unsafe factories. Therefore, why not revise and modernise the Factories Ordinance? That is my point. At this stage, I would like to say that if the Inspector of Factories is to do his work with propriety, he must honestly be equipped with an adequate piece of legislation and philosophy. On the one hand, he must be honestly charged with the care of work safety and, on the other hand, he must honestly care to promote work safety to the maximum. But under the present circumstances it is not quite possible, so much so that the Factory Inspectorate admitted in the 1968 Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour, and I quote: 'The main function of the Factory Inspectorate is to ensure that the minimum standards of safety, health and welfare of persons employed in factories are upheld in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Ordinance.”
“I believe that if decisions are made to upgrade their jobs, to increase their morale, to retrain them, to reallocate their duties, to increase their numbers and to improve liaison among the various Government departments and public institutions interested in the field of industrial safety and health believe all these measures could enable the Chief Inspector of Factories and the other inspectors to carry out their duties efficiently but, however, none of these measures are to be introduced by the Ministry. Further, we have been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that two of the Inspectors of Factories have been called up for national service, leaving only four Inspectors of Factories, including a temporary inspector, as one of them who has been called up for national service will be returning to his job in April 1970, we were told, and the other one will be returning to his job in September 1970. I find, to my surprise, that reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate has resulted in the reduction of the number of Inspectors of Factories by one, and he has been transferred to the Industrial Health Unit which the Ministry of Health is forming with a small group composed of one Senior Health Officer, one Inspector of Factories with either a degree or a diploma, two qualified or trainee Public Health Inspectors, and two staff or student nurses, to promote industrial health in the Republic. At this vital and crucial juncture in the industrialisation of our Republic, I do not know how two trainee Health Inspectors and two student nurses could do anything for the industrial Health Unit. Anyway, that is not the subject under discussion. What do the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health hope to achieve by this set-up?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was thinking of not, moving my amendment to subhead 1101 as a formal protest against this House for not paying greater attention to labour problems during the debate over the chopping of the Minister's Head! However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong.) Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the issue of citizenship for non-citizens has overshadowed the problems of citizen workers in regard to employment, job security and job safety over matters which relate to the welfare and progress of labour. Although the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour has made certain clarification in regard to the matter, I wish to put on record and stress again what my labour colleagues have said on the issue of job safety. You may recall, Sir, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told this House during Question Time on 23rd December 1969, that consideration would be given by the Ministry of Labour to reorganise the Factory Inspectorate in order to increase its effectiveness in enforcing the law and in promoting industrial health and safety. I believe that the effectiveness of the Factory Inspectorate would be increased by legislative and administrative measures.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head 0403 having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with:”
“It is better to spend some time and money bringing to the attention of the people the dangers of pollution and the need to remove the potentials of pollution, than to spend huge sums of money later to eradicate pollution itself. 6.30 p.m.”
“, the Survey and Primary Production Departments to look into the sources of pollution of streams in the catchment area, The same report in page 60 says that: 'Under the Seletar Water Scheme, designed to tap water from eight catchments, a survey was carried out to ascertain the number and sites of all houses in each catchment with a view to carrying out anti-pollution measures aimed at controlling and reducing the discharge of faecal matter into the streams. Contract specifications and drawings were prepared for the construction of about 3,000 water-seal latrines in the following year.' Sir, I presume this job was completed last year. In this case, what is the real problem that a sum of $176,000 is requested by the P.U.B. to carry out anti-pollution measures at Seletar Reservoir? In the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, it is stated in the Memorandum on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Singapore (Miscellaneous I of 1970) that there is an overall increase in the provision for the Public Health Division of a sum of $3.2 million. The Environmental Health Section gets an increase of $389,250 for the proper maintenance of catchment drains and an additional increase of $51, 280 for the employment of more daily-rated staff due to the expansion of environmental health service Mr Speaker, Sir, we have spent $28 million for the construction of Seletar Reservoir, and not only do we have a maximum supply of two months' drinking water, but we also face the danger of pollution by our own foolishness and inconsideration. I do hope the Minister can impress upon his Cabinet colleagues the need to carry out an intensive and continuous anti-pollution campaign.”
“I tried to get some idea of the problem and I searched the P.U.B. reports for some lead. There was a blank. Even the latest P.U.B. report does not mention any pollution problem. However, the brochure commemorating the opening of Seletar Reservoir last August probably points partly to the cause of the problem. In the page dealing with recreational facilities in the reservoir, it is suggested that boating, canoeing and fishing will be permissible. Even the P.U.B. staff has got a canoeing group. On the same page, there is a photograph of some Board members enjoying a boat trip, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was a member of the Public Utilities Board. Besides these facilities, other facilities like sports ground, playground and parks will be provided. Can the Minister clarify if the sum of $176,000 is for clearing up the pollution caused by activities at the reservoir? I think the P.U.B. has recognised the dangers of these activities and says, I quote from the brochure: 'The Board plans to allow boating, canoeing and fishing in the Reservoir with safeguards against water pollution.' I have no doubt that the Public Utilities Board, the Ministry of Health and other departments are doing everything possible to prevent the pollution of our drinking water at Seletar Reservoir and other reservoirs. The Ministry of Health Annual Report, 1967 (Paper Cmd. 1 of 1970) records that a survey was carried out at the Seletar Reservoir catchment area between April and July 1967 by the Public Health Division of the Ministry in collaboration with the P.U.B.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0403 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2352. Sir, the Minister for Finance has proposed to this House for approval a sum of $176,000 as contribution to the Public Utilities Board in order that it can carry out anti-pollution measures at Seletar Dam. I for one wholeheartedly welcome the Government's new policy of combating the growing menace of air and water pollution and wish to express my thanks to the Government for wasting no more time in tackling this problem. With urbanisation and industrialisation taking place at a rapid pace, and with irresponsible people disposing of garbage, faecal, trade and industrial waste in open grounds and water-ways, there are all the potentials of a water pollution problem. I hope no one will be complacent about it and treat the agitation for water conservation and pollution control as a passing whim. In regard to the measures the P.U.B. are proposing to take, can the Minister concerned, if he has knowledge, inform the House whether the measures are preventive in nature or measures to remove an existing pollution problem? As I believe that it is hard to get money out of the Minister for Finance unless he knows it is going to be usefully and profitably spent, can the Minister explain in more detail why he is proposing to give away this sum of $176,000 to the PUB? Is it to be used to pay for a development project as an anti-pollution measure, or is it going to be used for repair and maintenance of some equipment, or is it for some general expenses connected with the P.U.B. anti-pollution plan? Is this sum of $176,000 the total P.U.B, expenditure for anti-pollution measures, or is it only part of the P.U.B.'s expenditure on this item?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister say whether the report in the Straits Times of 18th February that a Mr Goh Tee was buried as an unknown person is correct?”
“Sir, will the motor repairers at Serangoon Road, Boon Keng Road and Lavender Street be evicted before the completion of the complex?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if it takes two years for the complex to be completed, will motor repairers and others affected by development clearance schemes be evicted now before they can be allocated a place to carry on their trade?”
“Sir, when is the target date for the completion of the complex?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, how long has the Housing and Development Board been studying the plans to re-locate motor repairers and other divisions of the motor industry, and how long will it take to complete this study?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the complex include spray-painting, battery and spare-parts shops and other divisions of the motor industry?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate you on the occasion of your election as Speaker of Parliament. I believe hon. Members of this august House do warmly welcome a gentleman in your person as Speaker. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will be a living symbol in Parliament of our democratic society. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be permitted on this occasion to introduce a personal note in my tribute to you, because your many accomplishments and qualities have evoked a great deal of admiration. I believe many know you now as a surgeon of repute and skill. But it is interesting to note that you first obtained your Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and Master of Arts degrees at London and Cambridge Universities before obtaining your Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree at Cambridge University. I understand that you were also no mean sportsman, having excelled in cricket and tennis during your student days and represented your university in badminton. If I may say, Mr Speaker, you are a forerunner of the kind of individual we aim to build up among our young citizens, always excelling in all pursuits and endeavours. We note with the greatest sense of pride your international status and renown as a Fellow of the Colleges of Surgeons of England, Australia and America. We are grateful that in recent years you have devoted your time and skill to the training of our local surgeons. I believe you have not only devoted yourself to your profession but have actively undertaken the task of rehabilitating political detainees. Mr Speaker, Sir, you undoubtedly possess the qualities of a man of the mind, hands and spirit. I will follow you as a guiding beacon in our deliberations in this House.”
“Will the Minister give us some assurance that we will be self-sufficient in worms? Mr Barker: I cannot give the Member that assurance. The only assurance I can give is that the Primary Production Department itself, whilst not producing worms on its own, is prepared to show fish hobbyists how they can go about producing worms. FLOODS (Preventive measures) 5. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development, in view of the serious floods in early December, 1969, whether Government has any effective plans to prevent those serious floods from recurring.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, is the Minister aware that worms are now being imported from across the Causeway?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister encourage further the breeding of worms so that fish breeders and hobbyists will not find it difficult to get worms?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I underline the word "technical".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it expedient to extend the definition of "workman" to all classes and categories of workers irrespective of whether they perform manual or technical work?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree with me that a workman would get more compensation from damages by the High Court if he were to die in a road accident than in a factory or at a work site?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary not believe that the estate of a deceased person stands a better chance of being awarded more damages by the High Court than the award of $7,200 under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary value a man's life only at $7,200 or 36 months' wages?”
“Sir, what are the qualifications of Inspectors of Factories?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what assurance can the Parliamentary Secretary give to the House that persons of the highest calibre arid qualifications are engaged as Inspectors of Factories?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the present number of Inspectors of Factories deal efficiently and expeditiously with all the cases in hand?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that with rapid industrialisation and increase in the number of factories and diversity of the kinds of factories, a total of seven Inspectors of Factories is far from adequate and satisfactory to cope with the cases in hand?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the position in 1968 is far from favourable or satisfactory as compared to the position in 1959?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that a staff complement of one Chief Inspector of Factories, one Senior Inspector of Factories and five Inspectors of Factories is far from adequate to ensure that the minimum standards of safety, health and welfare of persons engaged in factories are observed? When the position in 1968 is compared to that in 1959 when industrialisation was first mooted, there was one Chief Inspector of Factories, an Industrial Training Officer --”
“Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the Factory Inspectorate believe that the Factories Ordinance is inadequate?. He can refer to the 1968 Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour under the appropriate section.”
“If the I.L.O. recommendations are referred to for guidance, does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that suitable I.L.O. recommendations be made part of the Factories Ordinance?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the appropriate authorities in his Ministry - the Factory Inspectorate - refer to the I.L.O. recommendations for guidance?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not recognise that rapid industrialisation has given rise to a lot of harm and safety problems, making it imperative to strengthen the provisions of the Factories Ordinance?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary not recognise the fact that if group medical insurance schemes become popular, it will be a great boon to the Government in the sense that members of medical insurance schemes who become hospitalised will generally get themselves warded in Class I and Class II wards instead of the virtually free Class III wards?”
“I have the case file, but anyway we will deal with it later on. Will the Minister accept it that the people affected by P.W.D. clearance action should be treated in the same manner as those affected by Housing and Development Board clearance action as both the departments are under the same Ministry?”
“Sir, why were vacant flats in the estate mentioned by me earlier not allocated to applicants who were affected by P.W.D. clearance action?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, are the flats at the Kallang Basin Estate reserved for people affected by development/clearance action of the Housing and Development Board?”
“The application was made by a father for the entry of his son, Haja Maideen. I have just given the file reference of his application. The application was made in 1966.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister consider the case under file reference IMS/ENT/536/66? Mr Speaker: What was your question, Inche Aziz? I think the Minister might like you to repeat those figures?”